The Leading Voices in Food

Now more than ever, it's important to challenge the world's food and beverage manufacturers to address nutrition issues like obesity and undernutrition. Today, we're going to discuss the 2024 Global Access to Nutrition Index, a very important ranking system that evaluates companies on their nutrition related policies, product portfolios, marketing practices, and engagement with stakeholders. The index is an accountability strategy produced by ATNI, the Access to Nutrition Initiative, a global nonprofit foundation seeking to drive market change for nutrition. Our guest today is Greg Garrett, Executive Director of ATNI.

Interview Summary

You know, I very much admire the work you and your colleagues have done on this index. It fills such an important need in the field and I'm eager to dive in and talk a little bit more about it. So, let's start with this. You know, we've all heard of the concept of social determinants of health and more recently, people have begun talking about corporate determinants of health. And your organization really is focused on corporate determinants of nutrition. Let's start with a question that kind of frames all this. What's the role of industry in nutrition, according to the way you're looking at things? And how does the Global Index shine a light on this topic?

Thanks for the question. We're working primarily quite downstream with large manufacturers and retailers. But we hope to affect change across the value chain by working with that group. Of course, when we talk about private sector in food, that's a very, very broad terminology that we're using. It could include farmers on the one hand, looking all the way upstream, all the way through to SMEs, aggregators, processors, manufacturers.

SMEs are what?

Small and medium enterprises, small and medium enterprises, local ones. All the way through to the multinational food and beverage manufacturers. But also catering organizations and restaurants. When we talk about business what we're trying to do is ensure that business cares about portability, and access to safe and nutritious food. And I think we can say pretty safely, based on the data which we'll talk about, that the health aspects of food are still not as, they're not at the forefront like they should be. Yet.

We'll dive in and talk a little bit more about what the index is and what it shows in a minute. But let's start with a kind of broader question. What is the role of diet and consumption of processed foods in influencing health?

Yes, so they say now one in five deaths are related to poor diet. It's arguably now the biggest risk factor related to global morbidity and mortality. We've seen in the last 20 years a slight slowing down of our efforts to combat malnutrition and undernutrition. Whereas we've seen over nutrition, obesity, really taking off. And that's not just in high income countries, but also low- and middle-income countries. So, you know, it might be too little good food and that can lead to at the extreme end of things wasting. It might be too little micronutrients, which can lead to all kinds of micronutrient deficiencies or hidden hunger that leads to many adverse outcomes. Including, for example, cognitive decline or reduced immune system. And then, in terms of diabetes and obesity, we're seeing that really skyrocket. Not only in countries where we have excessive food intake, but also in low- and middle-income countries where they have too much food with a lot of, say, empty calories. Not enough nutrients that are needed. In fact, the recent numbers that we've been working with, it looks like in the last 20 years, obesity rates have gone from about 7.9 percent to 15.9 percent. And by 2030, it might be that 20 percent of global population is considered obese if we don't mitigate that.

Right, and of course that number is many, many times higher in the developed countries. So, you've got a tough job. You talked about the complexity of the food industry going all the way to the farmers, to the big companies, and caterers even, and things. And a lot of different health outcomes are involved. How in the world do you construct an index from all that? Why don't you tell us what the Global Index is, and then some of what you found in the most recent report.

Yes, so the Global Index, we've been running it for 11 years since ATNI was founded. And it has gone through multiple iterations. This latest one was the biggest we've done and we tried to capture about a quarter of the world's market. So, what we did is we took the 30 largest food and beverage manufacturers by revenue. We looked at 52,000 of their products, and that's where we know the market share was about 23 percent global market share. We profiled the foods. We tried to understand their governance structures and how much nutrition features in the way they run their business. We tried to understand, for example, how they market the foods. Are they marketing them responsibly, according to the World Health Organization guidelines? Really dive deep. It's dozens and dozens of indicators where we ask lots of questions of the companies over a 10-month period. And, by doing that, we hope to understand how financially material is nutrition to these companies. We want to give something of use, not only for the companies, but to policymakers. Because we know there's a big role for policymakers to both incentivize the production and the marketing of healthy foods, but also disincentivize unhealthy foods. We want this to be useful for investors. So, we spend a lot of time, through collaborative engagements, working with the shareholders of these companies as well so that they can invest more responsibly in the food company. And then the other group that we hope to eventually work with are the consumer associations. The groups that would represent consumers so that they can put appropriate pressure on the demand side, you know. They can demand healthier food. It's not that we believe by running an index somehow companies are going to start doing everything right. No. We want to provide data and analysis to the sector so that all the stakeholders can use it to help influence change.

That makes perfect sense to have some data driven enterprise to figure out what's actually going on. Otherwise, you're just having to go on intuition. So, what did the most recent index find?

Right, so out of those 30 companies, what did we find? There's some good news. Let's start with the good news before we get into the bad news. There's maybe more bad news than good news. In aggregate, we're actually now seeing that 34 percent of the revenue derived from the products that we profiled, those 52,000 products, is based on healthier sales. Meaning 34 percent could be considered healthier foods. That doesn't sound great, maybe, but consider just 4 years ago when we ran this index, it was at 27%. So, there's some marginal increase and maybe if we can accelerate things, and that's what we're trying to do, it's our big strategic objective. We hope that by 2030, we could say that at least half of business' revenue is coming from healthier food options. There's a lot of changes that need to take place to get to that point, but some companies are doing it.

Also, we noticed a lot more companies are now starting to use a government endorsed nutrient profile model to define the healthiness of the food products, to measure and monitor the healthiness of their food portfolios, and then to disclose that. That's really good. It's the beginning. First step is measure, disclose. The second step would be put targets on that and actually start to get substantive change towards 2030.

But there was a lot of unfortunate news too. We had some backsliding from some of the major companies. For example, low- and middle-income countries actually had the lowest health score. What we think is happening, based on the data we looked at, is that if you're a low-income country, you're getting the lowest healthiness score of these products in your country. So, brand X would be slightly healthier in Europe, but less healthy in the low-income country. So there's a need for regulation there.

Can I stop and ask you a question about that? I've got a million questions just flying out of my head that I'm dying to ask. But what you reminded me of is the history of the tobacco industry. When the policies came into play, like very high taxes and banning smoking in public places in the developed countries, US specifically, the smoking rates went way down. But the companies made more money than ever because they just went outside the US. Especially the developing countries and were selling their products. So, it sounds like the food companies might be engaged in a similar enterprise. But why in these countries would they be pushing their least healthy foods so aggressively?

I'll start with the facts, because there's some speculation here. But the fact is, if you look at your own monitored data, the highest growth of the modern food retailers is in Africa. So, you've got, for example, 80 to 300 percent growth over the last 5 years in Africa of these modern food retail shops. And in Asia, that's, that's already happened. Still happening in some countries. So, you have enormous opportunity for packaged foods, right? Because that's usually what they're selling, these retailers. I think you have some aspiration going on there, too. I think there's consumers who aspire to have convenient foods. They're more affordable now as incomes increase in those settings. Now, regulation is definitely, in general, in those countries, not as mature as it might be in Europe when it comes to colorants, and taxing, say, sugar sweet beverages. So, what you've asked, I think there's some truth to it. I don't want to come out and say that that's exactly what's happening, but we ran the numbers and the healthiness score. So, we use a five-star rating system. The Health Star rating system, one to five. Anything 3.5 or above, we would consider healthier in a diet. 3.4 and below would be considered unhealthy. And the score in low-income countries was 1.8. And in middle to high income, it was 2.4. So, it's quite a, quite a big difference.

That's really very striking. You know, I guess if I'm a food company and I just want to maximize my profits, which of course companies are in business to do, then what I'm going to sell are the foods that people eat the most of. Those are the ones that are triggering the brain biology, the 'over consume'. And the ones that have the greatest shelf life and are easiest to produce and things like that. So, I'm going to make processed foods and push those into new markets as aggressively as I can. So, I'm not asking you to think through the corporate mindset about what's driving this. But it sounds like the data that you have, the end product of all these practices, would be consistent with thinking like that.

We like to think that there could be a role for healthier processed foods. But it has to be in moderation. So, what we looked at is the materiality of nutrition. Are companies actually able to have their business and have a healthier food portfolio? So, before we ran the global index, we did an assessment of this. And what we found is that if you're a mixed food company, and you decide to reformulate so that over time you have a healthier food portfolio, in fact, we found that their capital valuations and how they did on the market was slightly better. Not a lot. Than their say, less healthy counterparts. So, what we see is the beginning of a 'health is wealth' sort of narrative. And we hope that we can drive that forward. And of course, policy would help a lot. If policy would come out and say, let's tax the bad, subsidize the good. Then I think industry is going to fall in line. So, we're not sympathetic with industry because a lot of what's happening is not good. On the other hand, we're realists. And we know that these companies are not going away. And we need to make sure that what they offer is as healthy as it should be. And there's a role for everybody in that.

All right, that's such an interesting perspective. So, you talked about the global findings. What can you say about the US in particular?

What I'd like to do is actually refer to our 2022 US index. So, we did a deep dive just recently; October 2022, right after Biden's Nutrition Conference in DC. And, it wasn't really positive in the sense that we looked at 11 companies. The 11 biggest companies representing 170 billion revenues in the US. And 30 percent of all US food and beverage sales were based on healthier food options. Now, that was 4 years after we ran a 2018 US index. So, 2018, same thing, 30%. There's no change. It's still as unhealthy as ever. I think we need the US to come on board here because it is such a leader. A lot of these companies are headquartered in the US. So, we need to see that healthiness score go up in the US.

You know, it's interesting some of the things you mentioned companies might be doing outside the US would be helpful if they did take place in the US. Like front of package labeling would be one example of that. So that would be a place where American companies are behind the curve, and it would be helpful if they caught up. It'd be interesting to dissect the reasons for why they are. But it's interesting that they are. What are some of the things businesses are doing to improve nutrition outcomes? Let's talk maybe on the more positive side. Do you think there's progress overall? It sounds like it from the numbers that you're presenting. But are there signs also of backsliding? And what do you think some of the successes have been?

Yes, and I think we can get specific on a few. There's a company headquartered in Mexico, Grupo Bimbo. They rose up in the rankings six places between our 2021 Global Index and this one in 2024. They've been reformulating. They've been making their product portfolio healthier overall. It's about 50 percent now. I think some of that was their own initiative, but it was also prompted by a lot of Latin America's regulations, which is great. I think we can learn a lot from Latin America when it comes to front of pack labels and taxes. So, Group of Bimbo was a good success story. Arla, a Danish dairy company, they came out on top in the index in terms of marketing. So, they have basically said they're not going to market unhealthy foods to children under the age of 16. And they try to even go to 18, but it isn't quite being monitored across all digital platforms. And that's the next level is to take it to the digital platforms and monitor that.

And that was a bit disappointing in general, just to find that out of the 30 companies, not one is able to come out and say that they followed the WHO Guidelines on Responsible Marketing 100 percent. The latest index shows that nine out of the 30 companies now, or 30%, nine out of the 30 companies are now using a government endorsed nutrient profile model to define healthy, and then monitor that across their portfolios. And that's a lot of progress. There were only a handful doing that just four years ago. We would ask that all 30 use an NPM, a nutrient profile model, but nine is getting somewhere. So, we're seeing some progress.

Boy, if not a single company met the WHO Guidelines for Food Marketing it shows how tenacious those practices are. And how important they are to the company's bottom line to be able to protect that right to market to kids, vulnerable populations, to everybody really. So it really speaks to keeping that topic in the limelight because it's so important.

We'd like investors to come out and say they will only invest in companies that are moving towards a 2030 target of marketing response. Zeroing in on 1) responsible marketing and 2) the healthiness food product. Zero in on those two things make really clear what the metrics are to measure that.

So, you've mentioned several times, a very important, potentially very important group: shareholders. And you said that that's one of the stakeholders that you interact with. Are there signs out there of activist stakeholders? Shareholders that are putting pressure on the companies to change the way they do business.

Yes. So, institutional investors have the ability to talk directly to the board, right? And they have the power in many cases to remove the CEO. So, they're a powerful group, obviously, and we've worked with over 80 now. And had them work with us to understand what investing in a progressive food company would look like. It's making better and better decisions, continuous improvements on nutrition. We have 87, I think is the latest count, who have signed a declaration to invest like this in a food healthier business. They represent $21 trillion of assets under management. It's a very powerful group. Now are all 80 actively, like you mentioned activist shareholders, you know, pushing, say, for example, for resolution. No. Some are. And they're using our data for that. And we applaud any kind of action towards better nutrition, healthier foods, better marketing using our data. We, as ATNI, do not sign these shareholder resolutions. But we absolutely will make our data available as a public good so that they can be used by this powerful group to yeah, hold the companies to account and hopefully invest in the long term. That's what it comes down to. Because it's true that this will take time for the benefits to come to both business and to people, but it's worth it. And I think the longer-term investors get it. And that's why they're doing these shareholder resolutions and different other investor escalation strategy.

That strikes me as being pretty good news. Let's go down this road just a little bit further, talking about this, the shareholders. So, if the shareholders are starting to put, some at least, are putting pressure on the companies to go in a healthier direction, what do you think is motivating that? Do they see some big risk thing down the road that they're trying to anticipate and avoid? Is it policies that if the companies don't behave, governments might feel more emboldened to enact? Is it litigation that they see? What are they trying to avoid that's making them put pressure on the companies to move in these directions?

That's a great question. When we ran the materiality assessment on nutrition earlier this year, we interviewed many of the investors and it seemed to come down to three things. One, there is coming regulation. There's more and more evidence that when you regulate the food system and you regulate food industry, and you do it in a smart way through a two-tiered levy system, for example, on sugar sweetened beverages. You tax the company, not the consumer. It actually does work. You have a decrease in consumption of these beverages. So coming regulation. The other one is increasing consumer demand for healthier options. Now, that might not be happening yet everywhere. And I think it only really happens when people can afford to demand healthier foods, right? But it seems like it's a trend everywhere as incomes increase and people's knowledge and understanding of nutrition increases, they do want healthier options. So, I think investors see that coming. And the third one is healthcare bills. Now, the investors don't always pick that up. Although in the case of some of our insurance companies who we work with, like AXA, it does. But they see the big macroeconomic picture. And we were talking to one of the investors last week, and they said it's all about megatrends. For them it's about investing in the megatrends, and they see this as a mega trend. This, you know, growing obesity, the cost related to obesity, growing costs related to diabetes and all NCDs. And they don't want to be investing in that future. We need to be investing in a healthier future. I think those are the three things we're gathering from the investors.

So, Greg, there's sort of this jarring reality, it seems to me. And other people have written about this as well. That if the world becomes healthier with respect to its diet; let's just say you could wave a magic wand and obesity would go from its very high levels now to much lower levels or even zero. It means the world would be having to eat less food and the companies would be selling less food. And then you superimpose upon that another jarring reality that people simply buy more, eat more, of less healthy options. So, if a child sits down in front of a bowl of plain cornflakes, they're going to eat X amount. If that's sugar frosted flakes, they're going to eat, you know, 1.5 X or 2 X or whatever the number is. So, how can the companies try to make as much money as possible and be true to its shareholders and shareholders while at the same time, facing these realities.

That's a great question. It goes to the heart of what we're trying to do at ATNI. That's why we say we're transforming markets for nutrition. Because if we don't help support that underlying market change, then we won't get very far in a sustainable way. You mentioned calories and over consumption. And that, of course, is part of the problem, but I think it's equally fair to say not all calories are treated the same and we need to look at the ingredients going into these food products to begin with. You know, why is sugar or any kind of corn derivative such an attractive cheap ingredient to put into food? And so bad for people if it's not eaten with anything else, if it's just an empty carb, for example. It's because of the subsidies, the billions of dollars of subsidies going into sugar around the world. In the United States, a very large subsidy going to the corn industry. And so, corn is then turned into many types of derivatives, many different types of ingredients that go into our foods. So, that's one thing. I think the other is that there's a big role for food policy to level the playing field. We hear this all the time from our industry partners, and we tend to agree. You know if two or three of the 30 companies that we just indexed stick their neck out and do something good, it’ll work for two or three years until the other 27 start to undercut them. And if they're somehow making, you know, better money, bigger profits, more market share it's going to be very tempting for the three that made the good decisions to go back to what they were doing before. We have to change the market structure and end the perverse market incentives.

Makes sense. One final question. What can policymakers do?

I think we've touched on it a little bit. There's the fiscal policy space, which we're very excited about at ATNI. There are over 100 jurisdictions now that have put in place some kind of sugar sweetened beverage tax. But why not expand that take it to any kind of product which is too high in sugar, right? And again, make it like a proper levy on the company and not the consumer. Because that's where the evidence is that it works. Subsidies, you know, there's very few countries which are subsidizing healthier foods. Instead, you're seeing subsidies, as we just mentioned, going to the wrong kind of product. So that's one. And here's a new one: environmental, social, and governance investing metrics. As countries start to mandate the disclosure requirements for publicly listed companies, why not include two nutrition metrics? One on marketing, one on healthiness, so that every food company is mandated to disclose information on these things. That would be a real innovative way for policymakers to help regulate things. And front of pack labeling. You mentioned it yourself earlier. We would agree clear front of pack labels. So, the consumers know what's healthy and what's not.

BIO

Greg S Garrett is the Executive Director of ATNI (Access to Nutrition Initiative), a global foundation supporting market change for nutrition. Greg has held several leadership roles over the past twenty years, including serving on the Global Executive Team of the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), directing Abt Global’s health reform in Kyrgyzstan and leading strategy at ThinkWell, a global health organization. During his eight years with the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Greg served as Director of Food Fortification and Director of Policy & Financing during which time he established a multi-million-dollar financing facility and managed a portfolio that reached one billion people with fortified foods. Greg serves on the Global Nutrition Report’s Stakeholder Group and is a member of the Blended Finance TaskForce. He holds a BA and an MSc in International Development from the University of Bath, UK.

The U. S. is the largest importer of aquatic foods, which includes fresh and saltwater fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic plants served in restaurants and homes. A critical piece of this global market is the cold chain, keeping these foods chilled or frozen during storage and transport to market. With 44 percent of aquatic foods sold live or fresh globally, the percentage of fresh over frozen aquatic foods creates an extra logistical cold chain challenge. What's more, most aquatic foods become, well, fishy from cold chain disruptions, which can cause perceived food safety concerns, potentially resulting in food getting tossed into the bin. Until recently, research to understand just how much aquatic food gets wasted or lost has been spotty. However, in a recent Nature Food article, researchers argue that aquatic food loss and waste in the United States is actually half of earlier estimates. And that's good news that we'll explore today. This interview is part of an ongoing exploration of food loss and waste.

This episode is co-hosted by environmental economist, Martin Smith at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment.

Interview Summary

Martin Smith - So I'm really pleased to introduce our guests for today. First up from University of Florida, a natural resource economist, Frank Asche. Frank is a long-time collaborator of mine and a good friend. And he's also one of the world's leading experts in seafood markets and trade. And honestly, Frank has taught me just about everything I know about aquaculture.

Also today, we have Dave Love from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Dave is someone whose work I'm also very familiar with and is a leading expert in food systems and sustainability. And recently in my classes, I have often said out loud to some student questions that I don't know the answers to. I'll bet Dave Love knows the answer to that question.

Norbert Wilson - So Dave, let's begin with you. Why was it important to develop better estimates and methods of aquatic food waste in the US? Why did your team pursue this research question?

Dave Love - Great question. So, the US government has a goal of cutting food waste in half by 2030. And if you want to know how much you need to cut, you really need to go out and measure. And that's one of the areas of food waste that we really don't know a lot about for many different types of foods. We know the production data. We know how much is produced. We have a pretty good sense of what's consumed, whether that's in an economic sense of being consumed or actually eaten. But we really don't know how much is wasted. And groups come to the table with different numbers, different estimates, and they, they make their way into reports, into national guidelines. But for seafood in particular, the estimates haven't been refreshed in a while. So, it was about time to do that. And this study aimed to tackle that issue from all the stages of the supply chain, from production to consumption, looked at different forms of seafood and among the top 10 species. So, we rolled those species estimates and stage estimates into a national number. So yeah, that that's, that's why we did it. And we were really surprised at what we found.

Norbert - Well, what surprised you?

Dave - Well, earlier estimates were that about half of seafood was lost or wasted in the US and that came from UN Food and Agriculture Organization data. And when we actually crunched the numbers for the US supply, we thought it was more like 22.7 percent is wasted. So, a lot less than the FAO estimate. Which means we're doing a good job in some areas, but there's also room for improvement in others.

Martin - So, Frank, maybe you could tell us a little bit more about the key takeaways from this Nature food paper are?

Frank Asche - It's really that it's important to recognize that we are consuming a lot of different species and they have very, very different characteristics. For instance, the filler yield of a salmon is about 65 percent while for a cod it is about 40%. That makes your starting point really important. Moreover, this thing of looking at the whole supply chain is important because there are different ways to organize it, and there are a lot of potential uses for what food is sometimes wasted. And to look into what different types of producers are actually doing. What different companies that are operating these cold chains that Norbert spoke about are doing. And what they are doing when these things break apart. Kind of, there's all these people in the supply chain that may help us, and some of them do. Some of them aren't very good at it. But it's really nice to find that there are best practices that can really help us a lot of people take the trouble to figure that out and follow that up.

Martin - That's really interesting. And it makes me wonder with all this heterogeneity that you're describing, are large producers better positioned to manage or, or reduce food waste than small producers? Or is it the other way around?

Frank - Oh, I'm a good researcher. So it depends.

Martin - It depends. Of course it depends. It depends!

Frank - If we're going to say anything general then, in wealthy countries, large producers are better. In poor countries, small producers are better. In the sense that when labor cost is low, and food is relatively expensive people are much more willing to eat a fish that is not the best quality. While, if you're a small-scale producer in a wealthy country where labor is really scarce, you tend to focus on your main production process, which is the fillet. While if you become a big producer, then the quantities that potentially gets weighed that become so large that they actually are a useful raw material for new products. And we see big producers developing new products that it doesn't make sense for smaller producers to look at.

You've all eaten your hamburgers. One of the more popular products in recent years is different kinds of seafood burgers. And they are great because they are trimmings and cutoffs and slices that doesn't fit well into that fillet that you're normally thinking about when you're consuming a chunk of fish.

Martin - Yeah, and I think many seafood consumers have had that experience of being at the fish counter and saying, 'Oh, I only want this much,' and they put too much in there and like take a little off. And then you start to ask yourself the question, who's going to eat that little, little bit that gets sliced off. That's really interesting and enlightening. I had another question for Frank. Before we go back over to Norbert. So, in this paper, you describe different points along the food supply chain where the seafood might be lost or wasted. Can you talk a little bit more about that in different points in the supply chain and why there are some of these differences between species? You mentioned the sort of, yield of salmon and cod for a filet being a little different. And so, I'd like you to talk a little more about why different species might, might get different rates of loss.

Frank - I think it starts with this thing here that for most seafood species, there's a choice part that is sort of your preferred chunk of meat. Most species it's a filet, but for a mussel, you eat everything that is within the shell. But it's different. But even for all those species, kind of, there are shrimps with small heads, there are shrimps with big heads, there are fish that gives you really good fillet yield, fish that doesn't. There are fish where there's a lot of useful meat that, say, the head or in the tail, that normally doesn't make it to a store, but it's useful if somebody chooses to use it. And then you have the quality issues. If a fish, say, falls to the floor during the production process, what do you do with that? And, yeah, that's one of those things we learned that in Vietnam, they will give it to a worker, and they will eat it. And Norwegian salmon, they will typically put it into some kind of acid where they use it to make animal foods. Small scale producers will just throw it into the bin. Other producers have good systems which, within the right hygienic control systems, are using what they can and not what they cannot. In general, producers have been getting better, but producers are still one of the key points in the chain. The companies from the producer of the raw fish to the consumer is generally pretty good. And there's fairly little waste in transportation and processing and so on. Then there's a bit more waste in the store. One of the cool little episodes I learned during this project was that one of the biggest items of food loss for fish in US grocery stores were people buying shrimp for the salad, and then deciding that they didn't want the salad anyway, and they are putting it in a shelf somewhere else.

But you and I are the biggest problems. That is, what do we do with what we do not eat when we come home? What do we do with this portion that we put out of the freezer, and we didn't eat all of it. And we are pretty bad when we go to a restaurant too. And too often we don't eat our full portion. We may wrap it, but, but do we actually eat it the next day? In general, we do not.

Norbert - Dave, I have a question. I recognize you as a sustainability expert. So how does understanding the pinch points for aquatic food losses and waste help households, the food industry and, and policymakers?

Dave - Seafood is one of the most expensive proteins. If you go to the grocery store, it's going to be, you know, $9, $10 up to $15 or $20 a pound. And really, consumers don't have that amount of money to throw out. If they're going to buy it, it's in their best interest to eat it. So, we're looking at ways that the seafood industry can package and sell products that are going to help consumers, you know, stretch that dollar. One of the ways is through frozen seafood. Selling prepackaged individual units frozen. And, through this project, I've started to buy a lot more of that type of type of seafood. And you can also buy it now for other kinds of meats. And you just, whatever you want to prepare probably that, that next night you, you know, cut out the packaging, put it in the fridge and a little bowl in case from food safety standpoint in case it leaks. And then you don’t want to leave it on the counter overnight or leave it out for a couple hours.

But so, there are ways that you can package products that perceive what consumers are going to ask for. And you can still get that freshness in seafood, even if it's frozen. Because a lot of frozen seafood is frozen on board the vessel. It's frozen sooner than it actually would be if it was processed in a processing plant. So, you know, I think it's kind of a win-win. We've been exploring cook from frozen as a not just food waste, but also for other angles of sustainability. Because of course when there's waste is also the embodied energy and the embodied water and all the things that go into making that food. And when it gets to the consumer, it's got a lot more of those steps involved.

Norbert - Thanks, Dave. I will say from some of my own research looking at package size, and package configuration that smaller, more readily used products are less likely to be wasted. I can appreciate that kind of innovation in seafood products could also be beneficial. And my family, we're big users of frozen seafood, and the quality is good. So, these are really helpful ways of thinking about how we as consumers can make adjustments to our behavior that can actually mitigate some of the food waste that you all observed. And so, because of this research, what new insights do you have about loss along the supply chain for aquaculture versus wild capture fisheries?

Dave - That's a really good question. I can speak to the production stage. That's one of the areas we looked at where you see the most amount of food loss - at the production stage anyway. But we sort of split it out as the fisheries losses were either discards or bycatch. And from aquaculture, people had not really estimated what food loss looked like in aquaculture. But we looked at disease and mortality as a cause of food loss. We asked farmers, what's your typical mortality rate when you're raising shrimp or salmon or tilapia? We got back their mortality rate, we did some modeling, some estimation and found out when a certain percent of that harvest dies. Not just when they're babies, but when they die close to the harvest period, we'd count that as, as food waste. Because there are ways to control disease in aquaculture. You know, it's not going to be zero. There are always going to be some animals that die. But, if you do control disease, you can cut down on some of this kind of perceived food waste in the process. So, we counted those two things differently.

I would think a good example would be Alaska sockeye salmon. Over the last 10 or 15 years, they've instituted a lot of new methods for reducing damage to fish when they're captured. For example, now you get incentives as a fisherman to put down rubber mats. So, when the fish come off nets, they don't hit the boat hard, they'll hit a rubber mat. Their incentive is to bleed the fish, which helps with quality. And of course, to ice them when they're caught. You know, a lot of the catch of sockeye salmon in the '80s - '90s, didn't necessarily get refrigerated after it was caught. It went to a canning line. And folks eating canned salmon, they couldn't tell the difference. But as the salmon industry in Alaska transitioned to more of a value-based fishery, they increase the quality, increase the percentage of fillets compared to canned. I think a lot of these things go hand in hand with value. As you decrease food waste, increase food quality, you can sell it for more. I think that's a nice transition point for a lot of farms and producers to think about.

Martin - Since we're on salmon, I have a quick follow up on that. I noticed in the paper there is some differences in the rate of food waste for wild caught sockeye and for farmed Atlantic salmon. And in my mind, I immediately went to, well is that because most of that wild caught sockeye is ending up frozen? Maybe it's sold at the fresh counter, but it's been previously frozen. That's certainly my experience as a seafood consumer. And most of that farmed Atlantic salmon is actually sold directly as fresh and never frozen. And so, I'm wondering how much of that is a driver or how much it's really the disease thing?

Dave - It's probably a little bit of both. At the retail stage, if you're going to a grocery store and you're looking at that fresh display case, the rate of waste there is somewhere between five and 10 percent of what's in that display case. It’s going to end up in the garbage. They want to just have a nice presentation, have a lot of different products laid out there and they don't all get purchased. Some grocery stores will prepare that and sell it on a hot bar. Others, their principle is we just want to provide the freshest thing and they are okay with a little bit of waste. For canned and frozen seafood, the rate is more like 1%. And as Frank alluded to, sometimes people pick up a frozen item and they get to the checkout counter and they go, you know, I didn't really want to buy that. And they might slip it into you know, another aisle where it shouldn't be. That middle of the chain, there's not a lot of waste that we saw. You know, wholesalers and distributors, that's their job to deliver food and they really do a good job of it. And then at the upstream stage, the production stage, there's a big range in waste. And it depends on the product forms and at what point is the fish cut and frozen.

Martin - So, I have a question for both of you now, maybe changing topics a little bit. So, reducing food waste, food loss and waste, is an important element of environmental sustainability. I think we all agree on that. And that's particularly in response to climate change. We know that Greenhouse gas emissions associated with our food system are a major contributor to climate change. I'm wondering, sort of looking ahead, what role do you see seafood in general playing in a future in which we might price carbon emissions. We might actually make it costly to buy products that have a lot of that embodied greenhouse gas emissions in it.

Frank - Yeah, pretty well actually. But it depends a little bit on what's your current diet. If it has lots of red meat, seafood is going to do really well because red meat in general have significantly higher carbon emissions. If you're a vegetarian, maybe not that much. So, in the bigger scheme of things, seafood looks pretty good in the category of animal proteins, largely together with chicken. The difference between most seafoods and chicken is not too big. And of course, there's a little bit of variation within the seafood. They of course have a problem though in that nature produces a limited quantity of them. And if the amount completely takes off, there's no way you can increase the supply. So, then it must be aquaculture. And then you are more than slightly better or approximately chicken.

Dave - And I'd say you know, if you want to learn more about this topic, stay tuned. We've got a paper coming out about that. It should be out fall 2024 or early 2025. Similar to the waste piece, we've done the energy footprint, the greenhouse gas footprint, and the water footprint of all the products you see in the Nature Food paper. And we're really excited to share this finding soon.

Martin - That sounds really exciting and I can't wait to see it.

Norbert - I'm curious about your thoughts on how trade incentives or restrictions could be used to remote access to aquatic foods in addition to climate resilience of the food system? Frank, could you give us your thoughts?

Frank - Oh, there's a short answer to that or a complicated answer. So, the short is, of course, you can do like you're done with some other challenges. You also have dolphin-safe tuna and turtle-safe shrimp and so on. And you could basically make it hard to enter the market for people with bad practices. And you can make it easier to enter the market for producers with good practices. But if you go to the more complicated thingy, and particularly if you are also interacting with domestic supply chains, then we do know really well that eating beef is a real environmental challenge. But I still cannot see a world, at least within the foreseeable future, where US policy is going to sort of suggest that we're going to import more seafood so that we can produce less beef. And when you get to all those complicated interactions, yes, you can use trade policies to advance some agendas. But they are certainly going to run into some others, and it's a challenge when there's so large heterogeneity when it comes to what do you think a good food system is.

Norbert - Dave, what about you?

Dave - Well, I sort of come at this from a different angle. You're thinking about local; you know. What's the value of local food and local and regional food systems? And so, in principle, I'd like to suggest that to people to buy their food from regional markets. Because of the connection to place and that's really important. Once you have that connection to place, then you start to value the environment where it comes from. You get a little bit closer tied to the labor market and the folks who grow and produce that food. So, I like to kind of come at it from that perspective. Invariably we're going to have some internationally traded seafood. Right now, 70 percent of seafood is imported. But I think looking at opportunities to support your local and regional fisheries, and your local and regional aquaculture, I think there's a lot of merits to that. Some of them could be climate arguments. And there's lots of other good arguments for it as well.

Frank - I agree with that, but I really think that you should have the caveat that producing your seafood, or really any food under good microclimatic conditions, with good soils or water for that product, gives you food with a much smaller footprint than what you have necessarily locally. And particularly if you're producing something that doesn't really belong that well locally. And it's also really important that, except if you fly your food by air the carbon footprint of transports is tiny.

Dave - Yes, that was, that was one thing we found. With air cargo be really careful. You want to buy live seafood or fresh seafood that's air freighted, that's going to be a big piece of the carbon footprint. And really for consumers, an easy way to chip away at their environmental impact is to cut out stuff that's flown in fresh. But, you know, that flies in the face of what restaurants and grocery stores are trying to sell, which is 'the freshest.' ‘We're going to give you never frozen super fresh.’ So there's a bit of a disconnect there. And I think unlocking that is going to be getting into some of these chefs' minds and talking to them about - you know fresh is important, but how do you want to spin this in a way that you can have it fresh today, but you also can have it fresh in the future. Not just today, but a few generations down the road when it is possible to fly in food from all over the world that have that perfect plate. And you know, this is something that we need to engage with lots of different people on.

Martin - It sounds a little bit like you're suggesting a, a world in which we, we seek to consume fresh local, and frozen global. In the sense that, that you cut down all those, those transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, if you're doing frozen seafood, and you can exploit that sort of natural comparative advantages of different places to farm and different places to catch seafood with those global markets. But, but for the real fresh stuff, there might be some benefits to eating locally, including those, those greenhouse gas emissions.

Dave - When we looked at the trade from Asia, 99 percent comes by container ship. You know, almost nothing's being flown in. And then when you look at closer markets to the US. What was Europe... it was maybe closer to 50 /50 for flown versus shipped by water. And yes, I think South America was similar. I guess the closer you get to the US market, you know, there's that incentive to kind of fly it in and get the price premium. There's definitely a reason to do it, but it does come with a part of the carbon footprint, you know. It's, it's maybe a quarter, maybe a third, you know?

Frank - But as Marty alluded to, as long as there's no cost associated with the carbon footprint as is the case now, nobody will really care. It's first when you actually have a system where there's a price to it that you would expect to see any real change.

Dave - Yes. And, we did some work, sort of a spinoff to this. We looked at the US seafood industry and then they become more carbon neutral. We teased that out for a couple of different sectors: farmed catfish in Alabama and wild caught salmon. And there are steps that producers and fishers can do, but a lot of it's going to have to depend on their local utility. What's the energy mix of the utility? Because that utility energy mix is what feeds the plant. It feeds the energy going to a catfish farm. And they use a lot of electricity, but they don't have a big say in what the Mississippi Electric Cooperative or Alabama Electric Cooperative chooses as its energy mix. So, I think there's, it's really a 360 issue that when you start trying to unpack energy and climate, it goes well beyond the seafood sector really quickly. So, we can be a voice. But it's going to take a lot of people to make systematic change.

Martin - Great. So, I had one final question to ask each of you. And that's really about what's next? And I know we have this other paper that's coming out to look deeply into the life cycle of the different species featured in your food waste paper. But I'm wondering specifically what's next on seafood waste and, and what kinds of things will affect what kinds of policy changes might be on the horizon, what kinds of things will affect change, short of, I guess, what we've already talked about. Which is some, you know, sweeping carbon legislation that, that prices carbon. But short of that, what other kinds of things are going to affect change and what else do we need to know? Let's start with you, Dave, and then then we'll go to Frank.

Dave - I think we sort of laid out the big picture. The estimates for the US supply for different production stages. But I think we really need to drill down into case studies where folks, us and, and colleagues, I know Ronnie Neff is exploring this with you Norbert, but really drill down into case studies that try out some of these ideas that we have. Some of the innovations being implemented and see how they work and maybe scale up the best ones.

Frank - Right. And beyond that is like companies are doing what companies always have been done at all stages in supply chain. As long as new technology makes it profitable for them to be more sustainable, they're going to be more sustainable. So, there's going to be a lot of new packaging and new ways of chilling and so on that will help. But at the end of the day, the biggest challenge is you and I as consumers, and what we both buy. Because that determines what products is going to be on offer. And then how we treat them after we have purchased them.

This podcast is co-sponsored by the Recipes Food Waste Research Network Project, led by American University and funded by the National Science Foundation.

BIOS

Dave Love is a Research Professor at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Dave’s work focuses on aquaculture and fisheries and the environmental, social, health and food system issues related to those industries. He also engages in a wide range of food-related topics including food waste, veterinary drugs and drug residues in foods, antimicrobial resistance, and CAFO worker and community health. In 2012 he founded a research and teaching farm at the Cylburn Arboretum in Baltimore and oversaw the facility from 2012 to 2015. The farm is now called the Food System Lab and is a place where students of all ages learn about urban agriculture. The Food System Lab is a member of the Farm Alliance of Baltimore and sells produce at the Waverly Farmers Market. Prior to joining Johns Hopkins Dave was a postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Kara Nelson, working at the interface of engineering and microbiology, in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California Berkeley.

Frank Asche is a professor of natural resource economics at the University of Florida School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatic Sciences. He is a natural resource economist with a research focus on seafood markets, production of seafood from fisheries and aquaculture and the sustainability of these production processes. Frank is president of the International Association of Aquaculture Economics and Management (IAAEM), editor for Aquaculture Economics and Management and associate editor for Marine Resource Economics. He was also a member of the team that developed the Fish Price Index of the United Nation's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).​

If you feel like your grocery budget just doesn't buy you as much as it once did, you're not alone. According to U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, food prices rose 11. 4 percent last year alone - the highest annual increase in 23 years. The ongoing pinch at the grocery store has been in the news of a lot of media outlets, such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Times Magazine, Forbes, and so many others. Our guest today, food economics and policy professor David Ortega from Michigan State, is going to walk us through the food price inflation phenomenon.

Interview Summary

We've been hearing a lot about food price inflation. Can you tell us how food prices have changed over the last four to five years, and how that compares to the recent past?

Definitely. So, I think it's always really important to define what food inflation is so that we're all on the same page. We hear this word a lot and we've been hearing it for a number of years now. Inflation is the rate of increase in prices over a period of time - so how fast prices are changing or increasing in a given period. The time frame here is very, very important. Now, compared to last year, food prices are only up 2.1%. And this is for all food, which includes food at home and food away from home. Now groceries, food at home, are up 0.9% compared to last year. And menu prices at restaurants, or food away from home, are only 4.0% higher. Now if you're listening to this, you're probably thinking, ‘well, how can this be given how expensive things are at the grocery store?’ And that's because you are likely thinking about how food prices have changed since the start of the pandemic, right? So, over the past five years, food prices have increased around 26%. And so that's the cumulative effect of inflation that we're all very familiar with at the grocery store.

Wow. You talked about the recent past, and in particular, about the time since COVID. How has this looked historically if you take a longer time frame?

Yes, so if we look at a few years before COVID, food prices generally increase around 2% or so, year over year. Now in the summer of 2022, we experienced double digit increases in food prices. More than 11%, year over year. And that was the highest rate of increase in around 40 years, since the late 1970s and early '80s. So now that's a significant spike and departure from what we would consider to be normal. But the rate of increase has come down to almost pre pandemic levels, which is really great news. But remember the rate of inflation is the rate of increase, so because that rate has come down, it doesn't mean that prices are decreasing necessarily.

They're just not growing as fast as they were before.

Correct.

I have some ideas, but I really want to hear you talk about it. What has led to this significant increase in the last four and a half years or so?

It's really been a convergence of factors. It's not just one particular thing, but really all these factors coming together and sort of compounding on each other. We saw increases in labor costs, and then as we go through the timeline, we had Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022. And that really sent commodity prices surging for things like wheat, other grains, as well as vegetable oils. And it wasn't just the invasion alone, but we had countries responding with export restrictions on things like palm oil that really just exacerbated the situation. We also have the impacts of climate change. The summer of 2022, and for a few years leading up to then, there was this mega drought in the West and the plain states that affected anything from lettuce prices to the price of meat. Something that we're experiencing to this day. We also have the bird flu outbreak, now the largest outbreak in U. S. history. Egg prices have been through a bit of a roller coaster ride, and we've been hearing a lot about increases in egg prices. That's primarily due to the high path avian influenza outbreak, or the bird flu outbreak.

Now, those are all what I would consider, for the most part, to be supply side factors. But we also have demand factors at play. And that is, that when we look at consumer spending on food, especially over the past two to three years, it's been much higher compared to before the pandemic. Even when you adjust for inflation. Now, this is likely attributed to households. Some of them accumulated savings. We had the fiscal stimulus payments from the government that injected cash into the economy. For a period of time, some households, we could splurge at the grocery store. We've seen, and the data from USDA shows, that consumer spending on food both at home and away from home is much higher in recent years than prior to COVID. So again, it's a combination of both supply side and demand side factors that have contributed to the significant rise in food prices.

This is a really important point that it's not a single factor, but it's this mix of things, which also makes it really difficult to talk about how to disentangle it. And I definitely want to hit on that. But before we get there, I want to know what has the impact of these significant price increases on consumers been?

The first thing that I want to point out is that food price inflation doesn't impact everyone the same. It's really low-income households that are hurt the most by these price increases. And that's because they spend a higher share of their income on food. When we look at the poorest 20% of American households, they're spending over a third of their income on food, compared to the average American household that spends roughly 10 to 12%. Now, when we look at industry data, we see that as a result of inflationary pressures, individuals are making shorter and more frequent trips to the grocery store. They're doing more price comparisons. They're turning and buying more of the private labels, the store brands, that sell at a much more affordable price point. And they're buying fewer premium items. So less of the stocking up that we saw at the beginning of the pandemic. But this in turn can also fuel an increase in the price of those conventional or cheaper items. And that's something that I found in the research that I've done on egg and poultry prices. When prices increase, consumers switch to the cheaper, more conventional items. And that increase in relative demand can put upward pressure on prices. So, we've seen this also reflected in the way that consumers are shopping for food and the prices that they're seeing.

I think this is really critical for us to appreciate that while it is an often talked about issue, price inflation, and it does hurt lots of people, but appreciating that lower income folks are facing this at a much harder way is important. And, having spent time working with the charitable food sector and understanding the experiences of the individuals there, you're regularly hearing people talk about the high price of food and how they're trying to navigate it. And the role that these food pantries can play in helping meet that need, but it just still it's a grind. It becomes really challenging.

Yeah.

Recent economic data actually shows that food price inflation is moderating. So, it's not as hot as it once was. But consumers are still experiencing sticker shock at the grocery store. What's going on here?

So, coming back to the earlier part of the conversation, people are really feeling the cumulative effects of inflation. And again, that's why I find it very important to define inflation as the rate of increase in food prices. Well, the average consumer at the grocery store shopper, they don't really care about the rate of increase. They care about the price level, right? When you see that eggs are $3-4 a dozen that's going to catch your attention. When we look at the last 4, 4.5 years, food prices are up 25%. That's a significant increase.

Now, another reason for this disconnect in terms of what the economic data is telling us and how consumers feel about food price inflation, is the nature of food prices in our interactions with them. We see food prices on a weekly if not more frequent basis. We know when prices are going up. We encounter food prices, we go grocery shopping, much more frequently than we get a haircut or we buy a plane ticket. We see these prices rise. Now, it's also important, coming back to this discussion on the percent increase versus the price level, a 2% increase today is a higher dollar amount than it was a year ago, and certainly 5 years ago. Because the base has increased. It's not just in the consumer psychology. It's when we look at the price level and the increase. Prices are increasing more in terms of a dollar amount today than they were in the past. And so because of this, in many ways, the grocery store has really emerged as the face of inflation here in this country. And it really has impacted just about everybody over the past four or five years.

As someone who hasn't had a haircut in probably 10 years, I really do know that prices have changed fairly quickly when it comes to food. But I don't know what's happening at the haircut. But I really appreciate this. And, but I think the thing that a lot of people struggle with in this conversation is, but inflation is coming down. We've just heard these reports and why aren't food prices going down? But you've made it clear. It was almost like we've reached this high level. It is hard for it to roll back. I mean, we don't expect prices to actually fall, do we?

When we look at specific items, right, it's not uncommon to see, say, the price of eggs decrease when we have a period of low bird flu activity. But by and large, when we look at food as a category, say groceries, there have been some periods in the recent past where food prices decreased, say, 1-2% year over year. But we shouldn't expect prices to decrease to the level that they were before COVID. And that's because the nature of prices. They generally increase from year to year. And that's a good thing as long as they are moderate increases. And as the data have been telling us for a couple of months now, we're looking at food price increases in the neighborhood of what they were prior to the start of the COVID 19 Pandemic.

This is helpful. And it kind of makes me think of something we were talking about earlier. And so I want to ask you this last question. There's been some conversation in policy circles about addressing this problem of food price inflation. What are your thoughts on how policy could be used to make a difference in this situation?

That's an excellent question. We're coming up on an election and there's been proposals on both sides floating around and I appreciate the focus on an issue that is affecting consumers. But we have to look at the policies and what economic theory can tell us about what's going to happen.

The first thing I'll say before I even get to that is that the President of the United States, policymakers, have very little control over food prices, especially in the short term. We really have to look at sort of the longer time horizon. How can we make our food system more resilient to future shocks? Investing in crops that are drought tolerance, right? That climate change is one of the factors that's going to be with us from here on out into the foreseeable future. We have to make those investments now so that we have a much more resilient food system in the future.

In terms of coming back to policies, we have to look at economic theory. There's been proposals to ban, say, a price gouging at the federal level. That's something that I think we have to look at very carefully because there could be some unintended consequences. This is just straight out of Econ 101. Other candidates have proposed tariffs across the board. We've seen what happened when we had the trade war with China back in 2018. It leads to even higher increases in food prices because food producers, food manufacturers, rely on inputs oftentimes from abroad. And so now they're facing higher prices, they're going to be passed on to the consumer. As we look at policies, I think it's really important to look carefully at what some of the outcomes may be so that we don't run into some unintended consequences.

BIO

David L. Ortega is a professor and the Noel W. Stuckman Chair in Food Economics and Policy at Michigan State University. His research program focuses on understanding consumer, producer, and agribusinesses decision-making to better inform food policies and marketing strategies. Dr. Ortega provides timely analysis of forces and events affecting the agricultural and food sectors. He has been called to provide expert testimony before federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Senate and House agriculture committees. He is a frequent contributor to food price inflation reporting at The New York Times and NPR, and is regularly interviewed by prominent media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News, PBS, USA Today, CNN, Forbes, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Newsweek, and the Detroit Free Press, to name a few. Dr. Ortega earned his Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics from Purdue University.

When we talk about problems with food insecurity and the food system, we tend to reference challenges at the national or international level. And of course, work at that level really needs to be done. But increasingly, there is a unique focus on regional food system strategies and right sizing solutions to best fit those unique characteristics of a particular locale. In today's podcast, we will talk with Rachel Sabella, director of No Kid Hungry New York. She leads the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the No Kid Hungry campaigns across the state of New York.

Interview Summary

Rachel, it is such a pleasure to have you with us on the show today. We've done several podcasts with No Kid Hungry staff in the past and discussed topics like your Summer EBT Playbook for state governments. I'm really interested to learn more about your work in the state of New York.

Thank you so much for having me, Norbert. We have been so lucky to have No Kid Hungry on here to share the stories. And I'm excited to give you some updates about what we've learned with Summer EBT, and to talk about how things look in New York these days.

So, can you help our listeners understand more about No Kid Hungry New York as an organization? What is your approach to addressing childhood hunger?

No Kid Hungry is a campaign of Share Our Strength. And I have the honor and privilege of representing the organization across the state of New York as we work to create solutions, to draw more attention and awareness, and to help connect more kids and families with meals. We believe that every kid needs three meals a day to grow up healthy, happy, and strong. But too many children, and I know we'll talk more about this, are missing those meals. We really take an approach of working directly with communities. I don't know the right answer for each community. But my job and really my privilege is to work with school districts, with elected officials, with community organizations to look for challenges and work together to overcome them and really change systems.

I can appreciate that local communities look very different and appreciate if you're talking about New York City versus upstate New York. Can you tell us a little bit about how you all think differently about the cities versus the more rural areas of New York State?

I appreciate that question. I think all of my colleagues can hear me say, we almost run two different campaigns in New York. Because the approach in New York City, where there is one school district in five boroughs, but a large concentration of students, the largest school district in the nation, versus the rest of the state, is different. But ultimately, the challenges are the same. How are we communicating with families? What solutions are out there that we can implement? We really focus on listening, sharing tools, sharing toolkits, thinking about, in some communities, what they need are materials translated in different languages, so families understand that SNAP benefits are available, or summer EBT benefits. Or as in other communities, it's how can families get to a centrally located place to pick up meals? We really spend our time learning and listening and sharing these programs so that they can find the solutions that work best.

This is wonderful. I grew up in Georgia, I should just note. And I grew up in rural Georgia versus Atlanta. And we always talked about two Georgias, the Atlanta region versus the rural areas. And I can appreciate just how different some of those challenges are. But you're right, the central issue of access to food is similar and how you address those issues will look different in those regions.

I want to span out and talk about some national data that just has come out. USDA has reported food insecurity rates in the U.S. and we saw that hunger actually increased. And we see that for childhood hunger, food insecurity in general, it has risen since the 2019 pandemic. Why is this happening for children?

It's a challenging time. I think something that came out of the pandemic was right away, people said, families are struggling with hunger. What can we do? The stories on the news. We saw it no matter where you were in the country, with the lines to pick up food. And we saw government responded very quickly. There were expanded SNAP benefits. There were no cost school meals provided to every child across the country. We saw pandemic EBT implemented. We also saw the expanded child tax credit. At a time when families were facing tremendous challenges, there was that support from the government. But many of those programs have now ended. And in these economically challenged times, incomes haven't changed. Some people are still dealing with an unemployment crisis. We hear a lot from families as well that they're underemployed. There may be a job, but it's not that same income. And without these expanded government programs, families are facing challenges.

How is this looking specifically in New York State? Are there specific challenges happening in the state?

I think so, and we have specific challenges in New York, but as we talked about earlier, I think we see every state is facing that. In New York State right now, hunger rose for child food insecurity. We're looking at one in five children in New York State. If we look at New York City, it's one in four children could face food insecurity this year. I often say that hunger hides in plain sight because I hear from people, well, they have a house. Well, with a set budget, they're paying to keep that roof over their heads, they're paying for their electricity bill, and what is the number that can shift in the budget, unfortunately? It's for food. We did a survey earlier this year, and four in five families in New York State found that it became harder to afford groceries. Their incomes just were not remaining at the same levels. And in those surveys, when we dig in a little bit, it was highest in rural communities and parents of school aged children. They are fighting hard for their families, but with all these economic challenges, as a society, we have to do more to help them.

Thank you for sharing those insights. And I remember early in the pandemic, some colleagues at Tufts and I did a qualitative study talking to families who were using little free pantries. Those ‘lending library boxes’ where people were putting food and one of the stories that we heard that kept coming up was. It was about price inflation, which was interesting because this was at the early part of the pandemic, and we did worry what happened to those families as inflation increased. And this was before some of those policies came into place about summer EBT and other food assistance programs. But now that those programs have gone away and inflation is starting to let up, but it's still a challenge for families. I really appreciate the way the campaign is thinking about these issues. You've already mentioned earlier that the No Kid Hungry team has worked on the summer EBT playbook as you prepared for a national launch of that program. Could you first just give us a brief overview of what the playbook is and then how has the rollout gone in New York State?

Even to take it back a step, Summer EBT was a new program launched this year. Every state was eligible to opt into this program, which provided a grocery benefit for eligible children and families. Before this, it was available in certain states that were part of a pilot, and No Kid Hungry had been advocating for this to be nationwide. We also knew that there was going to be a short amount of time for this program to launch. So, what we did was bring all our tools and resources together, our staff members, and we said, what do states need to implement? We partnered with organizations like Code for America, like APHSA, and to really see what is this? So, is it tools to get the word out about the program? Is it about implementation? Is it connecting states that face similar challenges to learn from each other? What the state agencies did this year to implement this program in year one, in about six months, was pretty unbelievable. And we also hope that as we're learning from this, we're going to see even more exciting changes in year two.

In terms of New York and summer EBT, we have been seeing so thrilled to see the uptake of the program, the outreach and awareness for summer EBT in New York. In August, Governor Hochul convened an event to celebrate the launch. We had members of Congress, we had No Kid Hungry, we had families there talking about this program. We heard from families how challenging the summer months have been and how this made that difference to get meals to kids.

We've been working with the New York City Council on doing trainings for staff members. So many people trust their local elected official’s office to get answers. How do I get a new card? How do I check my balance? We are learning a lot, we're seeing materials in different languages, and again, what we're excited to do is recap year one, and how do we learn more and make it even easier for families to access in year two?

This is amazing work, and I, I know it's really a challenge when folks, if you will, leave money on the table. And so, helping people connect to the resources that they have legal rights to is a critical role that you all are playing. What do you hope will happen as you learn from the playbook as it was applied in New York? What do you hope to share with other states in this process?

We want to show other states our best practices, what worked really well, what's something that we would tweak a little differently. We also want to make sure that those states that weren't able to opt in this year, because there were more than 10, I think about 15, that did not opt in. We want them to see what they can do and how they can use this program to connect kids with meals. But also, this money is reinvested in local communities. Families are using it at grocery stores, at local markets. In New York, we're really excited to see how they're using it at green markets, getting those fresh fruits and vegetables, supporting agriculture. This program while it addresses hunger, it's also an economic engine. And we want to make sure everybody understands that and are using those dollars in a valuable way.

I want to ask you a last question, and it's sort of a big question about child hunger. So, what is the outlook of child hunger in New York, and what gives you hope about addressing this challenge?

One of the things that gives me tremendous hope Is when we did our survey of New Yorkers, 93 percent of New Yorkers believe that solving childhood hunger should be a bipartisan issue. They don't see the politics of this in New York. We have seen that increasing the SNAP minimum benefit is a bipartisan solution. We have seen no cost school meals for all children has bipartisan support. I think we see New Yorkers recognize they want to make a difference. We get questions all the time. How can I help? We have media outlets sharing the deadlines, putting the updates out for families. We see elected officials in New York State that are paying attention to what's happening in their backyards and their local communities. And they want to make a difference. I hope that what we are seeing in New York translates into other states, translates to the federal level. There is an excitement right now around school meals, and we're hearing a different dialogue. It's something that people like you and I, we know the difference it makes, but I'm hearing from family, from friends, 'Rachel, I read this story on School Meals," tell me about this. My hope is the excitement, the enthusiasm and the interest really changes the conversation and helps us drive forward solutions that will ensure that someday there is no kid hungry.

BIO

Rachel Sabella has been a respected advocate, strategist and leader for nonprofit organizations for more than 20 years. She has been the Director of No Kid Hungry New York, a campaign of Share Our Strength, since 2018. In this role, Ms. Sabella works closely with stakeholders across New York State to ensure children have access to the nutrition they need to grow and thrive. She oversees grant-making, awareness building, programmatic and advocacy priorities for No Kid Hungry New York and manages relationships with state and local policymakers. Since March of 2020, she developed and oversaw a strategy to distribute more than $9 million in emergency grant funding to organizations across the state of New York and Puerto Rico to connect more kids and families to meals. She has led successful advocacy campaigns at both the city and state levels on issues including expanding access to school meal programs and SNAP in order to connect more New Yorkers with meals. Ms. Sabella also serves as a member of the NYS Council on Hunger and Food Policy and was appointed to Mayor-Elect Eric Adams’ transition team. Prior to this role, Ms. Sabella served as the Director of Government Relations and Policy for the Food Bank For New York City. During this time, she led advocacy campaigns to grow and strengthen resources for anti-hunger programs, which led to unprecedented support for food pantries and soup kitchens in New York City. Her advocacy efforts also led to the creation of 25 school-based pantries that distribute food, menstrual and hygiene products, and household cleaning supplies to families in need.

In today's podcast, we're discussing Fast and Furious. But it's not the movie series starring Vin Diesel. Instead, the catchphrase describes rapidly increasing and somewhat confusing food system environmental impact reporting. Food firms, farmers, and governments all have a clear need for more quantitative environmental impact data in order to measure and understand factors such as carbon footprint, sustainable agricultural practices, and food supply chain processes. But there is no single standard for such reporting and different measurement methodologies make it difficult to assess progress. What's more, greater transparency regarding environmental impacts and food systems will affect trade and supply chains. Our guest today is Koen Deconinck from the Trade and Agricultural Directorate of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD for short.

Interview Summary

You and your colleagues at the OECD recently published a paper called Fast and Furious: The Rise of Environmental Impact Reporting in Food Systems. Can you tell me a little bit about the paper?

Sure. A while ago we were talking to one of the world's experts on sustainability in food systems. He alerted us that there was a major change happening in how people think about sustainability in food systems. He told us in the past, it was thought of almost as a checklist, right? People would say, here's a list of practices that you should or shouldn't use. And then we'll come and confirm whether that's the case on your farm. Then you either get certified or you don't. And he said, you should pay attention because there's a big change underway. We're more and more moving towards actually quantifying things like what is your carbon footprint? What is your water footprint? And so on. He convinced us that this was actually a major change that was happening. Oddly enough, outside of the role of the practitioners, not that many people have been paying attention to it. That is why we wrote this paper.

This is a really important shift because just thinking about this in terms of economics, evaluating outputs versus the methods that you get to those outputs can have really significant implications for the various actors involved. So, this seems like a good move, but it seems also kind of complicated. I would love to hear your thoughts about that particular move. Why did you think, or why did you all realize this was a challenge and opportunity at the same?

That's a great question. It actually gets to the heart of what we're describing in the paper. Starting with the good news, we do think that this has an enormous potential to improve sustainability in food systems. Because we know from the scientific evidence that there are big differences between different kinds of food products in terms of their average environmental impact.

For example, beef tends to have more greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of products relative to poultry and then definitely relative to plant based alternatives and so on. You can see these kinds of average differences. But then the data also shows that within each kind of product category, there's huge differences between different farmers.

And what you can do if you start quantifying those footprints is it actually unlocks different kinds of levers. The first lever, if you think about carbon footprints, which is maybe the most intuitive example. The first lever is people know the carbon footprint of different kinds of food products. They could shift their diets away from the products that have a higher footprint towards products that have a lower footprint. For example, less beef and more towards poultry or towards plant-based alternatives. That's one lever.

A second lever is that if you can also start to get even more precise and use data that is specific to each producer, not just an average, then also within each product category, people can start shifting towards the producers that have a lower environmental footprint. So, for example, people will still be drinking milk, but then they can shift towards milk producers that have a lower carbon footprint. And the third interesting lever that you can unlock is if you have that data at a supplier level. Suppliers could then say, well, I changed my practices. I changed my inputs. I've done things differently to reduce my impact. You actually can stimulate innovation by each individual farmer, each individual company in the supply chain to lower that impact. And that is something that you can do if you're quantifying those impacts, and that is very difficult or even impossible to do with this previous checklist-based approach. So that's one of the reasons why we're, we think that this has tremendous potential if we get it right.

That's right. Just saying that you're doing sustainable practices isn't sufficient. It's really critical to evaluate what kinds of greenhouse gas emissions or other environmentally problematic outcomes of that producer or firm is what really matters. But I have to ask you just how difficult, how realistic is it to be able to measure the environmental impact of every farm?

That's a really good question. And of course, if you think about agriculture compared to other sectors, one of the big challenges for agriculture is indeed that there's just so many producers, right? I talked to people who work in the steel industry, and they say that their industry is complicated, but there's basically only 1000 steel factories around the world. That's not that many. The latest evidence suggests that there's more than 600 million farmers worldwide. So clearly, we're talking about a completely different order of magnitude, order of complexity.

And the second difficulty is that when we talk about measurements, for a steel factory, in theory, you could put sensors in the chimney and sort of measure that. For agriculture, that's really not practical. Scientists would sometimes do that because, you know, otherwise it's hard to know what greenhouse gas emissions you have in agriculture. But it's clearly not something that you're going to do on 600 million farms.

So, what people do instead is, scientists would do the primary research. There are different ways of doing that, to try and estimate which kinds of practices have which kinds of environmental impacts. If you have a cow and it has this kind of diet, how much methane is it burping and how is it affected by differences in the kinds of feed that you give the animal and whether it's inside or outside and so on. And then based on that very detailed research, that then gets simplified into a simpler model, a simpler tool, so that the farmer can plug in some key performance indicators from their farm. I can say ‘I have these many cows, this is the feed rations that I'm giving to them. These are the kinds of manure management options that I have.’ And then that tool is a simplified tool that basically gives you an estimate of those emissions. And once you have a tool like that, of course, the challenge is already a lot easier. Because then, if your tool is user friendly and you can sort of focus on just a couple of key parameters that farmers would know, then, of course, you can scale it up. And there are actual examples like that. In Ireland, there is a scheme called Origin Green, which is an initiative by the Irish government to promote exports of Irish Agri food products. They cover something like 90 percent of all the beef and dairy farms in the country. And as part of the initiative, they do the audits anyway, but as part of that initiative, they also quantify the carbon footprint. They basically have farm level data for 90 percent of the farmers. New Zealand similarly has had a big campaign called Know Your Numbers, where they've convinced farmers to use these kinds of calculation tools to get a good insight on how much the emissions are on their farm.

So, it is definitely not straightforward. But at the same time, we do see that it is actually happening. It is actually feasible.

Thank you for sharing that. This is really impressive work that's happening in the European context and in New Zealand. I have to ask, how challenging is this for small or medium sized producers? I mean, both in a European or Northern context, but particularly when we start thinking about the fact that Agri food chains are global and, and so there can be production practices in the Southern countries that would be of concern. How do you think about this in this context?

It is a really important issue. And actually, we've been here before. If you go back something like 20 years ago, and I think you actually did some research on this yourself back in the days, Norbert. There was a big increase in food safety standards, food quality standards. And these were not necessarily public standards. It was quite often retailers who started to impose that on their suppliers. And we did have all those concerns, right? Because on the one hand, it was making food safer and higher quality for consumers. But on the other hand, there was this risk that it would actually exclude, especially the poor producers, the small and medium sized enterprises from those supply chains. There's been a lot of research about that and it turns out that in the end, it was more nuanced than what people feared initially. But of course, we definitely have the same concern now. And there's a few elements to it. One is simply the difficulty of actually quantifying those things. I mentioned a few of these calculation tools and a few of these initiatives. So far, most of the investment in these things has been in high income countries. And even if you look at the underlying science, most of the research has happened in richer countries. So, if you go to tropical agriculture, we even have less scientific evidence that you would use to build a simplified tool like that. Then there's, of course, the challenge of actually getting farmers to use that. So, governments in developing countries typically don't have the same kind of capacity that the government of New Zealand, or the government of Ireland has to help farmers do that. So, there's definitely a role there for development cooperation, technical assistance, things like that.

But there's also another concern, which is that one of the important drivers of the environmental impacts of food products is actually your productivity. There are many parts of the food system where your environmental impacts might be roughly the same, no matter whether you are actually very productive or not. So, if you have the type of variety of rice or wheat that you're using that just has relatively low yields, then, of course, you divide the total environmental impact by a smaller number. So, automatically, your relative impact is bigger. And typically, that is what we find in the Global South. So, typically, the producers there will have much lower productivity levels. And studies do find that they tend to have higher environmental impacts, all else equal. So even if they were able to quantify it, there is actually an additional risk that then they would still get excluded.

What that means is that this rise of quantified environmental impact reporting is something that we need to pay close attention to. And development corporation agencies and everybody else should be thinking hard about how we are going to make sure that producers in the Global South are not only able to quantify, but also able to improve those environmental impacts. For example, through sustainable productivity growth.

This is really helpful. And thank you for sharing that. And you're right. I did think about these issues. I was influenced rather by the experience of increasing food safety standards. I would say one of the differences that we saw with food safety standards was how safe can food be? I mean, we want our food to be extremely safe, but there are always these tradeoffs. With environmental impacts, I think it feels a little different. And I really appreciate the concern of the difference between these small and medium sized enterprises, particularly out of a developing country context. I've got to ask sort of a broader question. Why is all of this happening now? This increase of environmental sustainability measures, both in terms of the technical work and the demand. I mean, what's bringing all of this together?

It is actually a pretty interesting story because it appears that, the way we look at it, there's been some changes on the demand side and on the supply side, so to speak, right? So, there's this growing demand for more information. Consumers are increasingly conscious about these things, even though it's not clear yet if this really translates into their shopping behavior. Civil society organizations, of course, have long been asking for more information on that. Governments, in some cases, are also pushing for that. One clear example there is in the European Union. There is this new rule in the EU. It's called the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. That's quite a mouthful. And one of the things it does is it requires all large companies to report not only their own emissions and the emissions from the energy that they're purchasing, but also their emissions upstream and downstream in their supply chain. People sometimes call this Scope Three Emissions. This has huge ramifications because it means that for the supermarkets, a large part of their Scope Three Emissions are the emissions from food. They would then probably ask the food manufacturers 'well, give us more information on your carbon footprints.' And in turn, for the food manufacturers, a large part of their carbon footprint comes upstream from the agricultural sector. So, everybody would be turning around and asking their supplier and all the way up the supply chain for more information. All the way, not only to the farmer, but even further up to the fertilizer companies and so on.

So, there's definitely this push on the demand side. And, I guess governments and citizens and civil society, those are sort of the usual suspects, so to speak. There's also unexpectedly a lot of pressure from investors. We see organizations of investors pushing hard for more transparency. Their logic is that sooner or later, stricter regulations on the environmental side are going to come. For some of the companies that we're currently investing in, we have no idea how hard that would hit them. So, those companies need to disclose more information because we as investors need to know how much money is at risk if we invest in a business that is, for example, linked to deforestation and things like that.

So, that's the demand side. But what is really interesting is that at the same time on the supply side, it's also becoming easier to actually provide that information compared to five or 10 years ago. Some of this is because people have been working in obscurity for a long time, trying to develop certain methods and databases. A lot of that work has been coming to fruition in just the last few years. For example, there's been development of new reporting standards, there's been development of new databases, there's been development of new methods, people are now using satellites and so on to try and quantify things like land use change, deforestation impacts and so on. A lot of these things are now converging and blending with each other. We do think that the combination of this greater demand and greater supply that is driving what we're seeing now. And of course, some of these initiatives are still at a relatively early stage. At the same time, I think the direction of travel is clear. So, we think that demand is not going to go down. It will keep getting easier to supply that information. We think that this is what explains this fast increase that we're seeing.

This is really intriguing, and it makes me wonder how global value chains are going to be realigned. Going back to this idea of small and medium sized producers who may not be able to have the monitoring, or if you think of even larger firms who feel uncomfortable with having some outside agency evaluating the carbon emissions or other greenhouse gas emissions from their farm. I can imagine that this could realign value chains. Is this a fair assessment? Is this a concern?

I agree with you that this is something people should be looking at. At the moment, there's not yet any data on that. I don't think anybody has really researched that. We see in general that many researchers aren't really paying attention to this trend, which was actually one of the reasons we wrote this paper. But what you're describing is exactly one of the questions we have as well. There are a few ways that this could play out. You could imagine that if it's only some markets that are getting very interested in this kind of information, you might have a situation where companies in a producing country decide to just send the sustainable stuff to the countries that care about sustainability. But they keep producing the unsustainable stuff for all the other markets. In that case, the total impact for the environment might actually be limited. But there could also be other cases where companies think, well, since a large part of our customer base is asking for more sustainability, we might as well make everything sustainable just to be on the safe side. You might have other cases where companies start working backwards because they want to make sure that what they are selling is sustainable. So, you might actually have situations where a retailer starts working with suppliers or where a food manufacturer starts working with suppliers to make sure that their production is sustainable.

This is again something that we have seen in the wake of these food safety standards about 20 years ago. This was a really surprising development and there was a lot of investment from other companies in the supply chain to help farmers start meeting these stricter food safety standards. So, one possibility is that something like that might happen for environmental sustainability as well. At the moment, these are all really just hypotheses. And so I really hope people will start to investigate this more seriously, because I think it is very important also for policymakers to understand what has happened.

I'm really appreciative of you making the point that there is just a great deal of uncertainty in this space and that there is a need for researchers to explore this issue. And I agree the food safety concerns of 20 or so years ago is a good example. But I think there are going to be some differences and I'll be intrigued to see how that plays out. I am interested to understand, are there any risks besides the ones that we've kind of touched on, any other risks or downsides to this movement that we're seeing?

Yes, there are actually. Because the story I told so far was maybe a little bit on the optimistic side. I was explaining how it's becoming easier to supply the information in part because we now have better reporting standards. That is one part of the story. That's sort of the glass half full view of it.

The glass half empty view is that actually, at the same time, there's also a fragmentation. There are also many different initiatives, and this is why we call it fast and furious. So, there's lots of different initiatives that are competing for attention. And you do end up with situations where you might have different ways of calculating certain environmental impact. Different ways of reporting it. And then it's not necessarily clear when somebody is reporting something what exactly they were using as methods. And so that poses an enormous risk, because if every supermarket or every country starts coming up with its own way of doing things, its own way of reporting, then the end result is just going to be confusion and frustration and transaction costs. And then the benefits for the environment won't even be there.

So, it is really important if you want this to go well, that people get together, stakeholders, governments, researchers, to get together and try to align as much as possible on common reporting standards, common methodologies, etc. So that it's clear for everybody that the data that we're looking at is comparable. This is important, and I can imagine if we think about international accords on addressing climate change and how it takes a lot of effort to get agreement on those, you can imagine that when we're talking about these kinds of measures and getting concordance on that, there could be some real challenges.

We've already touched on this, but I'm interested to know, are there other policy implications of the work that this paper is doing? Is there something we should be paying attention to?

Well, one idea that I hope people would start taking seriously is I want people to start thinking in timelines and cycles. And let me explain what I mean by that. There's a lot of different initiatives out there. And you can even start to see a little bit of a hierarchy, how different things, some of these standards are building on other standards. Some of these databases are then in turn using some of those other standards. There's a kind of a logic that is emerging there. One of the problems that happens now is that it's not really clear when all of these elements are going to get updated. So, suddenly one of those standards might get updated and then now all of these other standards that build on that or those databases that build on that are suddenly no longer consistent with that original standard. And then there's some confusion and then it's not really clear whether the data you are using is actually still consistent with the original standard. One idea that I'm advocating for is that people should all explicitly define a certain iteration cycle where they say, look, every four years, for example, or every three years, every five years, we are going to review the standard. We'll give everybody 12 months of warning, and we'll have a stakeholder process, and we'll have a scientific process behind that so it's clear for everybody what we're changing and why. But this way, you know well in advance when each of these building blocks is going to get updated. Then that would make it a lot easier for everybody to make sure that what they're doing is aligned with those standards. And an additional benefit of doing it like that, I think, is these things are moving so fast and there's still so much new science and new technology coming in, that we have to keep the possibility open to keep improving and updating those methods and those standards as well. If you announce in advance that we'll do this on a three year cycle or a four year cycle or whatever it may be, I think that could help us strike a balance between the need for that flexibility, but at the same time that need for stability. Because of course, if things keep changing all the time, then you're never quite sure whether the numbers you're looking at make sense or can be compared. I think that idea would be very helpful. And that will probably require quite a bit of coordination between all the different stakeholders who work in that space. And I think that would be a very good thing to do.

BIO

Koen Deconinck is an economist in the Trade and Agriculture Directorate of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in Paris. He was lead author of the OECD report “Making Better Policies for Food Systems” (2021) and has worked on market concentration, seed markets, evidence gaps, resilience, and environmental impacts of food systems. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Leuven and has published research in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, the European Review of Agricultural Economics, Food Policy, and Business History, among others. He currently works on measurement of carbon footprints and other environmental impacts of food.

Today's podcast is a gastronomic treat. I'm talking with Chef William Dissen, James Beard Award-winning chef and owner of the restaurant, The Marketplace, located in Asheville, North Carolina. William is the founder of four award winning restaurants and draws inspiration from traveling the world, creating dishes that tell a story, surprising guests with inventive food preservation techniques, and bringing classic dishes with explosive flavors to life. He published a debut cookbook in 2024 titled Thoughtful Cooking - Recipes Rooted in the New South. Food and Wine Magazine recognized it as the best spring cookbook and praised how he takes readers on a culinary journey organized by the four seasons of Appalachia's most sought-after ingredients. William also enjoys the fame of being the first and only chef to beat Gordon Ramsay in a cook off on NatGeo TV’s Gordon Ramsay Uncharted Smoky Mountains.

Interview Summary

Will, you were early to the farm to table local foods concept. Some years ago, when I dined at your restaurant, the Marketplace, I liked the philosophy, not to mention the food, would you please tell us what led you down this road?

You know, I'm originally from West Virginia, from the Appalachian Mountains, and my grandparents were, were farmers that lived in very rural parts of the state. I grew up in suburbia in the capital of Charleston, West Virginia, but spent a lot of my weekends on their farm. And they very much lived the Appalachian mentality and culture of farming, of putting things up for the year. You know, they canned and pickled and preserved and fermented and dehydrated, and they foraged and they had honeybees to pollinate their garden. They irrigated with fresh spring water and things that I think now in 2024, hipster DIY trends that people are saying they're doing in bigger cities. But these are things my grandparents were doing to sustain themselves. And I'd say that those ideas and ideals imprinted upon me about not just sustainability and how to treat the earth, but also about how to make food delicious because great food starts fresh.

And from this initial exposure to food customs of your youth what led you to being a chef?

You know I think in those hot sweaty August days, as they say up in the holler of my grandparents’ farm, we'd sit in the front porch and shuck corn and string beans. I really kind of kindled a love affair with food. One of my first jobs I had, I was a newspaper delivery boy and shortly after that I was, you know, trying to hustle to make some more money. And I ended up washing dishes at a local country club. And I think a very similar story for a lot of chefs, one day the garde manger cook or the salad and sandwich cook called out. And the chef said can you make sandwiches and salads? And I thought, sure, I can do that. And haven't really looked back since.

You've been a chef at many fine restaurants in major cities. What led you to Asheville, North Carolina in particular?

After I left West Virginia, I lived all over the place. I was in New York and California and South Carolina and ended up back here where I'm now in Asheville where I have my restaurant, The Marketplace. And one of the things that really stood out to me was the really beautiful region. National Geographic has voted it time and time again as one of the most biodiverse places on the planet. It's actually a temperate rainforest. There are species of wild edible greens and medicinal greens. There are species of lizards and snakes and things that you only find here in this region. It's not just beautiful. It's also a really thriving ecosystem.

Terms like intentional, mindful, and in your case, thoughtful - it's in the title of your book - can be applied to cooking and eating. What does it mean to you?

I'd say in general, it's going back to what I mentioned about my grandparents. And really focusing on being present but also planning ahead. I feel like in this day and age, we're so connected to computers and phones and social media that we've kind of got disconnected from our food system. People say, well, you know, technology is driving the world and we need to be logged in to be able to stay relevant. And I don't disagree with that, but I feel as our society is doing that, we are losing touch with nature. And if you go back one generation, two generations and ask anyone, their grandparents, I'm sure grew a garden. Or were farmers, and they probably went through acts of preservation because there weren't Whole Foods in every corner. It wasn't Amazon delivery. They had to plan ahead, and to be in touch with the time of year enables them to sustain themselves and their families. And certainly, we're fortunate now in 2024 to not have to think that way all the time, but I do think there's a lot of value into being a little more thoughtful about the world around us.

And I think that's really what I want to try to show people with my book, Thoughtful Cooking, is that connecting yourself to the food system enables us to connect ourselves to the environment. Enables to connect ourselves to our local economy, to our community, and to be reconnected with those that make our food. And I think that's an important thing that a lot of us are missing in this day and age.

Please tell us more. What does thoughtful cooking look like in action?

I think thoughtful cooking is kind of multifaceted, right? I think it's being aware of what's in season. Here we are in August and in the Carolinas. What's in season this time of year, right? We have tomatoes and peppers and corn and okra, and we have all these different things that are uniquely delicious and in season. But it's a conversation when I talk about local food and talk about sustainability. I ask people, it's a very cliche question: when would you like to eat a tomato? July? August? Or January, February. And people say, 'Oh, well, of course, July or August. That's when the tomatoes are delicious and they're bright in color and they're ripe and they're juicy and sweet.' And I think those are the things that we're not being as thoughtful about nowadays. About where our food comes from and why things are in season.

So, I think that's one aspect of it. Another aspect of it is it's just taking the time to be mindful of the world around us. I think we're all moving so fast that I want people to be able to slow down and enjoy cooking. Cooking as a father of two, running many businesses, I joke with my kids it feels like a chopped competition in my kitchen. Some days when I open the fridge and I've got 30 minutes to make dinner for a couple hangry kids. But also taking the time to enjoy cooking. I think there's something to be said about slow food and taking the time to cook in your kitchen, open a bottle of wine, turn the music up. Actually connect with people around you rather than just staring and scrolling on your phone. I think it's a way to really bring people together.

And then the other, the other facet of it is, thoughtful cooking is that the way we choose to eat really creates an opportunity to vote with our forks. That there's a lot of advocacy and sustainability you can do just in taking the time to think about where your food comes from.

I can so relate to what you're saying. Not too far from where I live in Durham, North Carolina, there's an unbelievably wonderful farmers market. The state farmers market in Raleigh, which I imagine you've been at, been to one time or another. But what a pleasure it is to go there when the strawberries are just coming into season and then the blueberries and then the peaches and then the apples. Not to mention all the vegetables. And we just this weekend had guests and made a corn and tomato salad with all these wonderful things that were there. It just felt that there's something special about making it when you've gone to buy the ingredients from a farmer who grew them. And you're right, everything, every part of the experience is better doing that. How in the restaurant do you try to accomplish getting people closer to the food and more thoughtful about it?

At our flagship restaurant, The Marketplace in Asheville, the whole premise is local food sustainability. I really like to show that we can create a sustainable business that can last the test of time. And I think we have, as we're celebrating our 45th year this year in 2024. But for me it's taken the time to meet the makers. The artisans who are making cheeses or types of charcuterie. Dairy farmers, vegetable farmers, livestock farmers, fishermen. And taking the time to talk to them about what they do to be a little more thoughtful and inquisitive about how we're eating. Doesn't necessarily mean that we're all eating healthy food all the time, right? But understanding how they're taking care of it.

As you really dive into the food system, there's a lot of things that if you look at what's happening behind the scenes in some of these big, bigger commercial commodity farms - you may not like about people are being treated that are growing the livestock or the vegetables. About how they're treading on the environment in a non-sustainable way. And then also, what's going into the product that's going into your body? Are they putting hormones on or different types of spray or whatnot, you know, to cut the chemicals that could affect your body in the long run.

And I know I'm not a crazy health nut, but I want to make sure that, when I'm eating clean, I feel good. And I think a lot of it too I was very fortunate after I did undergraduate studies at West Virginia university, I went on to the culinary Institute of America for culinary degree. And I took a wine course there. It really imprinted on me about viticulture with how they grow grapes. They study this thing called a Brix level, which is the sugar level in a grape. They use this fancy electronic device called a mass spectrometer that measures the sugar content in a grape. And so, the vintners go around their farms, and test the grapes as they are approaching ripeness. They wait to pull them off the vine until the grapes reach that perfect ripeness because the grapes are higher in sugar. They're naturally sweeter. They're going to ferment into more delicious wine, but every fruit and vegetables has a Brix level. So if we're able to really be in touch with, with nature, with the time of year, when vegetables and fruits are ripe, they're naturally going to taste better. The vegetables are going to be bright in color heavy for their size because they're naturally ripe and sweet and they're just going to taste better. I don't know about you, but that doesn't necessarily make me feel like I'm a health nut. But it makes me feel like I'm in search of great flavor.

Well, it shows how much you appreciate good food and how important good food can be for the way we feel about ourselves. Obviously for the environment and things. You know, I've often thought it would be a wonderful experience to go to a restaurant and have a meal, but before the meal, be able to interact with the farmer. The farmer comes in and talks about whatever she or he has contributed to that particular meal and how the food was created and what their relationship is to the land and whatever practices they use. You get those things outside of a restaurant. But I've always thought it'd be really interesting in a restaurant to do that kind of thing. Maybe that's something you've already done.

We've definitely hosted a number of farm dinners. I actually have one coming up. There's a group out of Santa Cruz, California called Outstanding in the Field. This will be our eighth dinner we've done with them over the years. But we will do a white tablecloth dinner in the middle of a farm field for 200 people and cook over a wood fire. And you know, the hogs and the sheep are grazing the pasture beside it. And the vegetable garden is in other pasture over. And for a lot of people, they've never stepped foot on a farm. And it's a really transcending experience.

I think the answer to this is pretty obviously yes. But it seems like today's youth, like I think about students that I teach in college, are so much more interested in the story of their food than people were just a generation or two ago. But I think I, when I grew up, all we cared about was that we had food. And the, you know, the better it tasted, which basically meant how much it was processed and how much sugar and things it had in it. That was really about all we knew. But now people are asking a whole different level of questions about where their food came from. Do you see opportunities for working with children to help maximize that?

I do, yes. There's an organization that I've been on the board for a long time locally called the Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project. They have a subsidiary called Growing Minds Program. And it works to put healthy local food into schools and to teach children about the opportunity to healthy and eat fresh. I think it's a great thing.

I do a lot of food advocacy work as well on Capitol Hill where I go and lobby for different food policy. I've done that at Capitol Hill, you know, and internationally as well. I helped create the Chef's Manifesto for the UN's World Food Policy. And I spoke at a number of conferences around the world about it. But it starts with children, right? If we're able to teach them about eating healthy and eating local, it's going to be something that's ingrained in them forever.

And about local food, I feel like a lot of people say, 'Oh, well, shopping at the farmers market, like that's only for the 1%.' And I feel like I find a lot of great deals in the market. But a lot of farmers markets nowadays, because of different food policy and food advocacy, they have things even with SNAP benefits that they'll do two for one. So, you can really get some great deals at the market as well.

You mentioned you've done some advocacy activity in Washington arguing for certain policies, what kind of policies have you been involved with?

Given that we're in a presidential election year, I always like to tell people I don't really like politics very much, but I really like policy. Because policy is where you can take action and make change. I've done a lot of advocacy work advocating for things like the Magnuson Stevens Act, which provides federal fishery management and sustainability ratings for different species of seafood. I, also worked on the Childhood Nutrition Reauthorization Act, which was to add more funds to school lunches for children. Farm bill. Gosh, I've done so many different things. It's good to get out there. Our politicians get bombarded with different bills and lobbying groups all the time. But I think when they see somebody like myself, I’m a chef, I'm an employer, business owner, real estate owner, it's different than maybe your standard blue suit lobbyists. A lot of times take the time to listen. And many of them come in and eat at our restaurants. So, it's an opportunity to really try to direct change and hopefully when they go to vote for these various bills, they think about the opportunity that they've had to meet with constituents like myself. And hopefully they remember to do the right thing when they place their vote.

You also show how many ways there are to interact with the food system. And ways to try to make improvements, and the scope of your activity is really pretty impressive. So, let's loop back to your book. In your book, you talk about, again in the title, you talk about the New South. What is the New South?

I think a lot of people think of Southern food as shrimp and grits and gumbo and very heavy, rich country cooking. There's a lot of African American influence from the days of slavery. And recipes, ingredients that were brought over during slavery from West Africa, and traditions that arose in Southern cooking from those times. Like everywhere else in the world, the South is evolving and it's one of the most popular places for people to move to within our country, the United States. And we're starting to see this evolution of Southern food, right? It's not just this kind of typical stick to your ribs, Southern cooking anymore. We're starting to see other cultures come in. There's Indian culture, African American culture, Asian cultures that are coming in and they're taking these traditions of Southern food and local food, but then adding their flavors to it. And to me, it's a really exciting time because I’m biased, I love Southern food. I love shrimp and grits. I love these different dishes that are so wonderful. But I love when somebody comes in and they take a recipe, and they add their own touch to it and they tweak it. Because to me, that's, that's adding to our heritage as Southerners. And so, for me, recipes rooted in the New South is this evolution that we're, we're taking Southern food on.

If you wouldn't mind, give us some examples of some of the recipes that are in your book?

I have a number of dishes that I think are really exciting. One of my favorites: I have a red wine braised beef short rib. Serving that with a chili cumin sauce and then a blue cheese and green apple coleslaw. So, it's kind of taking this idea of, you know, of beef and coleslaw, but kind of adding in some other flavors from other cultures. You know, like within that there's a lot of kind of Hispanic flavors as well.

I loved looking through the recipes in your book. And I don't think there was one that I looked at where I wasn't surprised by some ingredient that I didn't expect. Or putting things together in unique ways. The book strikes me as being highly creative. I can just imagine how much work was involved in putting that book together and how long it took. It must sort of be the culmination of a lifetime of work, so congratulations for doing that.

Well, thank you. I think as I mentioned before about the other work I do outside the restaurant. I didn't just want to write a Marketplace restaurant cookbook. I wanted to write a cookbook that talks about, you know, the power of food and the philosophy behind it. But then also have some delicious and creative recipes in there that can be inspiring to folks as well.

BIO

William Stark Dissen is a renowned chef, author, culinary diplomat, restaurateur, and early pioneer of the farm-to-table movement in Asheville, North Carolina, and surrounding regions. His titles also include Seafood Watch Ambassador to The Monterey Bay Aquarium in California, and Official Ambassador for Le Creuset and Mountain Valley Spring Water. Named Fortune Magazine’s “Green Chef of the Year” two years in a row, William’s endeavors in sustainable food and dining, coupled with his passion for foraging and fly-fishing, often take him from the kitchen, into the mountain streams and peaks of the Southeastern, United States, Appalachian region, and beyond. William’s efforts to uplift the principles of food sustainability in his restaurant and network of vendors and suppliers, has not gone unnoticed. It caught the eye of Celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay, who featured Asheville on NatGeo TV’s, “Gordon Ramsay: Uncharted, Smoky Mountains.” The hour-long episode featured William touring Ramsay through the forest and rivers of Western North Carolina and concluded with the two chefs competing in a peer-reviewed cook-off. William beat Ramsay for the first and only time in the show’s three seasons. Through this experience, Gordon Ramsay named William, “The Most Sustainable Chef on the Planet!”

A career in the culinary arts led Dissen to become an advocate for food policy on Capitol Hill starting in 2010, where he’s lobbied to Congress about the importance of passing legislation, such as The Farm Bill, The Childhood Nutrition Reauthorization Act, and The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Barack Obama administration lauded William as a “White House Champion of Change for Sustainable Seafood” for his work to create healthier oceans. He also serves in the American Chefs Corps in the U.S. State Department, which sees him traveling around the world to promote American food culture and sustainability practices.

Join Kelly Brownell in a conversation with Michael Dimock, Executive Director of Roots of Change, about transforming food systems through innovative policies. Discover how Roots of Change collaborates with various stakeholders to create nutrition incentive programs and support sustainable agriculture, focusing on community-first approaches. Learn about pioneering projects, insights into policy influence, and the future of agricultural practices. This episode provides an optimistic view of the evolving food system landscape and the potential for significant positive change.

Interview Summary

Why don't we begin by you explaining what Roots of Change does. What's the mission and role of the organization?

Yes. We were originally founded by a group of philanthropic foundations that were very interested in food system change but had not seen much success in years. So we were really designed to be a catalyst to ignite the growth of what we would call the Good Food Movement. For 10 years, we were actually a philanthropic fund investing in different projects that built the power of the food movement. And then implemented projects that would catalyze change. That would show how you could scale change fairly rapidly by building collaboration. So that's really what we've been doing. And in 2013, the philanthropic fund ended, we'd spent down all the money. So we joined the Public Health Institute at that time because public health is such an incredibly important engine for food system change because the food system impacts public health so greatly. We've been since that time focused on policy change and implementing model demonstration projects.

Thanks for that explanation. You talked about catalyzing change for transforming the food system. What sort of changes have you emphasized?

We've been focused on a few key things. I would say that one of the most important for us has been healthy food access. And doing that through the creation of nutrition incentive programs. And the reason we're interested in that is, all the changes that we pursue are aimed to hit several different levers of change simultaneously. By building nutrition incentive programs, you help the small and midsize farmers who are supplying local grocery stores, the farmers markets, and at the same time, you're creating the funding for low-income families to actually purchase organic, regenerative, sustainable agriculture. From their local market. You get a lot of payoff for that kind of action.

You mentioned incentives. How do incentives fit into this?

There is a program, a federal program called the GUSNIP. Named after Gus Schumacher, who was Undersecretary at USDA during the Clinton years, and actually worked with us early on. And so that program is a pool of funding through the Farm Bill that is given as grants to either states or nonprofits that are creating these programs where a family comes in with their SNAP benefits, and their purchasing power is doubled. They're given matching dollars to buy fruits and vegetables from a farmer's market, a local store, grocery store. So it's an incentive to purchase fresh nutritious food. And so, we have worked on the original federal policy. We're one of the first demonstration projects to show how you do nutrition incentives working with folks in the upper Midwest and in the East. And then we created an analog. California also has a matching fund which helps us pull more money from the federal level. So, we can really get a big impact at the local level. And we built that California program as well. We've been really deep in nutrition incentives.

But we also work on farmer farmworker protections from heat. It's a big problem out here in the West. Increasing temperatures. We're working with different scientists, epidemiologists, and farmers to figure out best management practices or technologies that keep farmers cool. And then we also work on programs to provide incentives for ranchers to produce regenerative meat, that is grass-finished meat.

So, those are the three areas working in right now. But we're also just starting a project. I have a meeting today with the California Department of Food and Agriculture to develop a plan for mid and small-scale infrastructure for regional food systems in the state of California to be achieved by 2040.

One thing I really like about your approach is the lining up of incentives to produce food in a way that's better for both human health and the environment. Because so many incentives are lined up the other way. Obviously, the food industry wants to make as much money as they can, and that comes from highly processed foods that aren't very good for health. And then the same sort of incentives lines up for agriculture to do industrial forms of agriculture where you maximize the yield per acre. To turn that around is really going to be a major effort. One thing I like about your approach is that you're trying different things that can become models for what could be used in a very broad scale in terms of public policy. I really admire that and like what you're doing. Do you have an overall strategy for helping bring about change?

One of the things that we did in 2010-11 is we did a deep analysis of the food system and did a systems dynamic map of the entire food system. Working with leaders, Secretary of Agriculture for California, farmers - big size, small size, organic, conventional, with food justice folks. And we looked at where are the real intervention points. One of the things that we really realize is that, as you were pointing out, the current incentives are for industrialization, basically. And so, the question is, how do you actually change that? And policy is one important lever for doing that. So, we work a lot on trying to change the policy levers to create incentives for what we would call healthy and resilient agriculture.

Tell me more about how you go about doing that. I'd love to hear when you're done with that, how you go about doing that with policymakers.

Well, I'll jump right in on that. Let's look at what we did with nutrition incentives. So, working with Fair Food Network out of the upper Midwest, and Wholesome Wave out East, Roots of Change did a study. We created our own nutrition incentive programs using philanthropic dollars and some USDA kind of innovative dollars, and then we studied it for two years, what the impacts were. We wrote a report then, which went to Congress, to Debbie Stabenow in Minnesota, who was the Senator there who was on the ag committee. And she began writing a bill that would say, okay, let's provide incentives for people to buy healthy food that also helped the small farmers. So that switched the incentive from the big agricultural systems to the regional food system players. That was one way we did it.

The other thing that we did in California was we organized all the farmers markets to go to the State of California and say, look, if you provide this nutrition incentive program in California and analog, we'll pull down more dollars from the federal government. The California legislature said that's a great idea. They got on board. Which then helped the farmers markets to provide more funding because farmers markets are often stressed. Too many markets, so there's problems. Competition between markets. So, to provide a new market, which is low-income families who are using nutrition incentives and their SNAP dollars, that was really important for the farmer's market. Those farmer's markets became another big piece of our strategy. Our way of making change was just to build collaborations, large collaborations of people.

We work with many other nonprofits and farming groups in California to approach the legislature and over the last three years we've gotten $1.3 billion dollars in investments from the state of California into sustainable agriculture and food justice. Because we're able to build these large collaborations who convince the legislators who really care about votes that there's enough people out there want to see this happen. And we have just placed a billion-dollar request on the next bond, which will be in the next election, November. This November there's the climate bond. It's called a climate bond for the State of California. Ten billion dollars, one billion of that will be dedicated to nutrition, nutritional health, farm workers, and sustainable agriculture.

So, in all ways, it's about getting enough voices. So, if you look at what we're really trying to do, we're trying to build the power of what we would call the Good Food Movement.

Best of luck with that billion-dollar request. I really hope that goes through. You know, in the beginning of your response to my last question, you talked about a report that you did in concert with other organizations around the country and how that became influential in the policy process. Very often, some of the people in my orbit, scientists, wonder how they can help with this kind of thing and how they can do work that makes a difference. And I've often thought that speaking with people in the policy and advocacy world, like you, turns up some really interesting questions they could help address, if they knew what those questions were. But they often aren't having those conversations because they're mainly speaking to other scientists. That's one of the reasons why I so much like having people who approach things like you do on this podcast series. Scientists aren't our only listeners, but they're among them, and it's nice to give them ideas about how they can connect their work with what's going on out there on the ground in terms of policymaking. So, you emphasize putting people in communities first. What does that mean? And how does that play out in the work you do?

It's a great segue from what you were just saying about the need to combine community voices with nonprofits and scientists, academics, and people who are good at research and who are good at analysis. Back to this idea of nutrition incentives that really grew out of what community groups were doing. The IRC (the International Rescue Committee) works with immigrants from Africa, primarily at that time who were coming into San Diego. And they were farmers, mostly. They were escaping violence, war, in their countries. And they came to San Diego and the IRC worked with them to create a farmer's market, and a farm - a community farm. And those folks were the ones that were saying, this program works. And this is a really good way to solve many problems at once. So, we were hearing from community members and the nonprofit that had created this model. So, it was a way of us understanding what was actually working on the ground. So that's one example.

I can also say that in 2017, 2019 and 2020, we had terrible fires here in California. We also had all that followed with COVID in 2020. We were working with the University of California at Davis. Tom Tomich, who at that time was with the Ag Sustainability Institute at UC Davis. And we were doing research on how do you deal with climate change as small farmers? And what we realized is there was this moment in time when all of these things that have been piling up were impacting the ability to get meat. You'll remember that meat disappeared from shelves for a while because all the big plants that process meat in the Midwest were shut down due to COVID. So, what we did is then went out and we interviewed ranchers up and down the State of California, and we asked them, what do you need? And are you interested in finishing animals for grass-fed markets? Are you interested in building local markets? We got a lot of feedback that led to a white paper that Roots of Change published with the University of California at Davis and put out to the world. Which led to us getting a grant to actually take some of the suggestions and the recommendations we had gotten from the producers about what to do. What's that led to now? We have built a relationship with the University of California: ten campuses, five medical systems. They have committed to buy regenerative regional meat from the State of California. That grew out of a white paper, which was fed information by the ranchers on the ground, analyzed by academics and nonprofits, and delivered in a system that's now gotten the university to make a commitment. So, it's another example of just how you can mix all these great parties to get some sustainable change at a large scale?

Now that leads me pretty nicely to what my next question. And it has to do with what's needed going forward and how do these things occur in more places in a bigger way than the places they are now. Now you mentioned, for example, the regenerative agriculture pledge that got made by the University of California system. That's a big enterprise. There are a lot of people that get touched by that system. So, that's a pretty impressive example of taking an idea that might've been smaller to begin with and then became bigger. Going forward, what kind of things are going to be needed to make that kind of thing happen more often?

That's a really good question. Kelly, I think that one of it is communication. I mean, perhaps some somebody will hear this and reach out to us and say, how'd you do that? And then we'll say, well…and they'll tell us what they did and we'll learn from them. One of the things I'm really interested in, always been interested in, and one of the things that Roots of Change is focused on is trying to convene people to share information. Because you build partnerships when you share information. And those partnerships can become the engines for getting the policy makers or the corporations to change their modalities. How they're doing things. Because they realize, hey, the writing is on the wall. This has to happen. We need to figure out how to get there. And sometimes it's complex to get there because the food system is very complex.

So, I would say that one of the things I'm really looking forward to is more cross collaboration. You know, we're living in the season of elections. We're hearing it on the news all the time. And the thing that drives the policy makers is whether or not they're going to be elected or reelected. And so, the more that we can convince them that there is a large majority of the public that wants to see these fundamental changes in the food system. We will have their support. We've seen it in California. We are getting incredible support from our Secretary of Agriculture, our governor, and our Secretary of Natural Resources. They work together to create things on the ground. I would say that the Tom Vilsack and Biden did a lot for regenerative agriculture, working on two big projects that have been funded by the USDA that will touch a thousand ranchers of bison and beef to get them to learn about, adapt, adopt, and then build new markets for their products. So that's an important piece. The other is the marketplace and companies want to sell their products. So, the more that consumers become discerning and what they're purchasing, the better off we're going to be. So, we have a podcast like you do. And what we're trying to do is just educate people about the connections between what they're doing and what the farmers and ranchers out there who are trying to do good work with the land and with health and with their workers. We just try to promote this idea of making good decisions about what they purchase.

Tell us a little bit more about your podcast, which is called Flipping the Table. Tell us more about what you're trying to accomplish and the kind of people that you speak with.

Well, it's similar to yours in a certain way, I would say. Because what I'm doing is interviewing the people that are doing the kinds of projects that we think are scaling change or could scale change. Or people who have a depth of understanding. So, the regenerative meat world, we've done a lot in the last few years. Talking to Nicolette Hahn Nyman, who wrote a couple of books about the meat system, with a great rancher up in Northern California, who advises other ranchers on how to finish their animals on grass in California in a dry environment. I just, today we dropped a podcast with Cole Mannix from the Old Salt Co op in Montana about the ranchers he's pulled together. The co op he's built that has a slaughter plant, restaurants, a meat shop, and has an online thing. And then they do a big, they do a big annual event in the summer during the solstice. So, you know, we're just trying to get voices who, like you are, who are, who are modeling and educating the public around what is happening. How much is actually happening. I've been in this world for 30 years almost, and I have to say, I have never been more optimistic about the scale of change, the accelerating speed of change, and the possibilities that lay ahead.

BIO

 Michael Dimock is an organizer and thought leader on food and farming systems and heads Roots of Change (ROC) a project of the Public Health Institute. ROC develops and campaigns for smart, incentive-based food and farm policies that position agriculture and food enterprises as solutions to critical challenges of the 21st century. Since 2006, Michael has been spawning and leading education and policy campaigns, community dialogues and creative engagements with government and corporate leaders to advance regenerative food and farm policies and practices that make agriculture and food enterprises solutions to critical public health challenges of the 21st century. His leadership has helped create one new law and funding program at the federal level and three new California laws that included two new funding programs and five successful budget requests. He began his career in 1989 as a sales executive in Europe for agribusiness and in 1992 founded Ag Innovations Network to provide strategic planning for companies and governments seeking healthier food and agriculture. In 1996, he founded Slow Food Russian River and, from 2002 to 2007, he was Chairman of Slow Food USA and a member of Slow Food International’s board of directors. Michael’s love for agriculture and food systems grew from experiences on a 13,000-acre cattle ranch in Santa Clara County in his youth and a development project with Himalayan subsistence farmers in Nepal in 1979. He is the host of the podcast Flipping the Table featuring honest conversations about food, farms and the future. 

Study after study has shown that consumption of sugar sweetened beverages poses clear health risk. So how have the big soda companies, Coke and Pepsi in particular, reacted to this news and to public health policies that have aimed to restrict their business dealings like marketing, labeling, and even taxes? A fascinating and important part of this history has been told in a new book by Dr. Susan Greenhalgh called Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca Cola. Dr. Greenhalgh is the John King and Wilma Cannon Fairbank Professor of Chinese Society Emerita at Harvard University. But hold on, what in the heck does China have to do all this? Well, we're about to find out. This will be a very interesting discussion.

Interview Summary

Let's begin by setting the context for your book, again, on soda science. Back in 2015, the New York Times published a major expose, written by Anahat O'Connor, and a critique of what was called the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), that was funded by Coca Cola. Could you explain what this network was?

Sure. The GEBN was an international network of researchers that argued that the energy balance framework is the best approach for addressing the obesity epidemic. So that simple framework calls for balancing the energy in - the number of calories consumed through eating with a number of calories burned - through moving to achieve a healthy weight. While that sounds neutral in practice, in the early 2000s, Coke and the food industry at large, adopted energy balance as their motto. It had several advantages. One is under the banner of "energy balance," the industry and the scientists working with it could say that people could eat whatever they wanted and then exercise it off. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for most people. Second, in practice, the energy balance slogan was used to promote exercise as the priority solution. What the research shows about energy is that exercise helps, but the primary answer to the obesity issue is to eat fewer unhealthy foods. Now the third advantage to the energy balance framework is that talking about energy balance meant the companies and the GEBN didn't need to mention soda taxes, or other legislative and regulatory measures, that worked but that might hurt the industry.

So, in my book, I call this body of ideas adopted by the GEBN and the food industry “Soda Science.” That's short for Soda Defense Science - a science created not so much to understand obesity, as to defend the profits of the soda industry.

Okay, that all makes sense, and I totally agree with your interpretation of the science that food intake is much more important in the obesity epidemic, in particular, than physical activity. It's not that activity is unimportant, but to divert attention away from the dietary part of it is really a public health misdeed. But one can obviously see the benefit to the industry for making that diversion. So, in that 2015 article, it was highly critical of the conflicts of interest that had been created by the soda industry paying prominent scientists. What benefits did the company reap from making these payments and what happened after that article got published?

The GEBN was the product of the 15 years that came before it, of gradually building up this soda science. The GEBN itself lasted only about a year, but during that 15-year period, the industry benefited by having fewer people, fewer specialists, fewer countries talking about soda taxes. But what happened after the GEBN was outed in the New York Times in late 2015 was Coca Cola was absolutely mortified. The revelation that the company had paid for industry-friendly science was just incredibly embarrassing. So, under absolutely withering criticism from scientists and the public, Coke stopped funding the GEBN, which of course led to its collapse. The company also took a major turn in its approach to obesity. Vowing to no longer single-handedly fund scientific research, and by publishing a long so-called transparency list of all the individuals and organizations it had funded over the last 5 years.

So, those things helped, but Coke's reputation remains tarnished to this day. But meanwhile, as for the academic scientists behind the GEBN, they saw things differently. They continued to maintain that their science had not been affected by the 20 million dollars that Coke had promised to support their network. Of the four researchers who led the GEBN effort, two stepped down and found wonderful jobs elsewhere. They both have leadership positions in different universities. One retired and the fourth continues to work in his previous position. So, there was no single, discernible impact on these debates within the academy.

I know some of the individuals involved. And by the way, I know a good bit of information available to understand what this network was doing came from Freedom of Information requests that various parties made. And your book contains transcripts from emails and things like that, that these various scientists were sharing with the industry. The content of those is extremely interesting and very telling. And the result, it's sort of this good-old-boy-back-slapping-network of people who were kind of winking - let's go get the people that don't like us. It's just interesting. My impression is that some pretty negative consequences befell at least two of those academics afterwards. You know, there was a lot of embarrassment. One basically, I think, had to leave the job he had. Another, suffered some real penalties in his academic life. And so, it wasn't outcome free, or it wasn't penalty free for these scientists at the end of the day. But I do think that your basic point is well made. That lots of people take lots of money from lots of industries on lots of topics. Not just on food, but you know energy and environment and all kinds of things. And very rarely do they pay any kind of a penalty. It only took this investigative report by the New York Times to shed special light on how pernicious this particular one was. But let me ask you a question, and then I kind of have my own thoughts about it. Why don't you think anything more happened to the people that got caught? I don't know if caught is the right word. But at least that they're taking industry money and their favorable science for industry got exposed. Why don't you think more happened about that?

The scientists themselves were deeply convinced that they hadn't done anything wrong. They were convinced that their science was not affected by all the money that they had taken from Coke, and the scientific nonprofit working for the industry, over all those years. I think there's a significant fraction of folks in the public health field, or at least in the obesity research field, who think the same thing. There's just a lot of support for them. As I see it, the two people who lost their original jobs have bounced back. I haven't done a survey of the field to ask people what they feel about these researchers, but they did pretty well given what they did.

The reason I think that they're convinced that they didn't do anything wrong is they have these practices, I call them “doing ethics,” to assure the world and themselves that their scientific integrity is intact. And one of the practices that these guys used was to constantly say, "This problem of obesity epidemic, it's huge. We have to include the food industry as our partner." And then when you go there, food industry begins to have a huge voice and there's very little you can do to effectively restrain it.

You know, it's an interesting way to think about it and consistent with the way I've thought about it over the years. I've done some writing on this topic and it seems to me that scientists have, not all scientists by all means, but a few select ones, get sought out by industry. And then this blind spot ensues where if you ask these scientists sort of, in general, does research get tainted or affected by industry money? They'll say yes. But if you ask does YOUR research get tainted by it? They'll say no. ‘Oh, no, I'm above that. I can be objective We have to change from within.’ There's a whole series of rationalizations for taking the money. But do they ever stop and ask, why is industry investing this money? And industry is not stupid. They wouldn't be paying you $50,000 as a consultant, or putting you on boards, or flying you around the world, or funding your research if there was no return from it. And the research on it is absolutely clear. Industry-funded research typically finds industry favorable results. So, all that's been documented. But the scientists who want to get involved with industry and take the money don't kind of interpret it that way. Like ‘I can take money but be free of the temptations to bias the work I do.’

May I just interject something here? I think that they believe it's a win-win prospect. Of course, Coke wants to emphasize exercise to make people forget about their sugar. But I've just dug long and hard into those emails, which none of the scientists ever thought would be read and used in scholarly accounts. But in the emails, the leader of the GEBN wanted to fund a major research project that he was promoting, and he's arguing all the reasons that Soda Science was good for Coca Cola. I suspect that he thought that Coke wasn't influencing him. Instead, he was influencing Coke. And in fact he was, but it doesn't matter where the influence comes from because in the end the science is affected.

You know, I've often asked myself, if there are negative consequences from this, the question is isn't there a police force out there looking after this kind of thing? And it's hard to know who that would be, because the scientists themselves have shown that enough of them are willing to take the money. And so the scientists aren't policing themselves sufficiently. Their institutions, the universities, tend not to do it because they're taking money from industry, too, in some way, generally. And their university's response to that is you have to disclose that you're taking money from industry. But there's research on disclosure, and that seems to make things worse rather than better. The journals that people publish their work in do the same thing. They make people disclose, but that doesn't have much impact. And professional associations have been investigated every which way by one of the same people who wrote that article in 2015, showing that they take money from industry. So, how can they police their members? So, it seems to me that the police have to be the press and people that do investigative scholarly work like you've done in this book. The book is pretty new. So, it's a little early to say what its impact is going to be. But let's hope that a lot of people read this book. And get more insight into how this works, how people feel when they're involved in this money taking, and what the ultimate impact might be.

So let's turn to one particular area of expertise you have. Let's talk about China. So almost all the criticism on industry-funded efforts like the Global Energy Balance Network have been focused on the U.S. But you follow the soda trail to China. So why did you do that and what's the significance of this inquiry?

Really significant. The GEBN was part of a much larger corporate project that was absolutely global in scope. So, from the vantage point of the industry, the U.S. has long been a declining market for soda. The important markets for sugary drinks are the large rapidly developing countries in the Global South. So that's where the industry is focusing its efforts to sell product, that is junk food and drinks. And to promote a corporate science and corporate policy that stresses exercise over dietary change in soda taxes.

China has 1.4 billion people these days. One billion back in 1980 when Coke set up shop in China. China was the single biggest market for the soda companies. Coke was so keen to get into the China market that it started lobbying early. Actually the mid 1970s, when Mao Zedong was still alive. And in 1978, Coke became the very first Western company to set up shop in China as the country opened up for the first time in 30 years to the market, into the global economy.

And another advantage of the Global South, from the point of view of the food industries, is an attitude toward Western firms that's less critical than what you find in the U.S. In the U.S., huge companies are always under suspicion that they will promote corporate interests over socially valued goals. So those attitudes are much less prevalent in many countries in the Global South where big companies are often seen as agents of development, essential agents. In China, big Western companies were celebrated as sources of capital and advanced interests. So, nobody would suspect they were hurting the country. And the industry has lots of ways of dressing this up in a self-serving, positive way, by talking about developing emerging markets, investments in the developing world, and things like this. But it strikes me also as being stunningly similar to what the tobacco companies did when they got hammered in the United States. They simply moved outside the United States and tried to sell as many cigarettes as beyond our borders as they could. And a lot of these same sort of phenomenon take place. Does that seem true to you?

Absolutely. So let me ask what actually occurred in China. So, Coke sets its sights on China. It has this kind of process established that's trying to affect policy through connections with scientists. So, what actually took place in China? What was the impact on policies?

Well, to understand that, we need to know that the food industry had a magic weapon way back in the late 1970s. The food industry created an industry-funded scientific nonprofit based in DC that was global in scope. And whose job was to sponsor science that served industry needs. Its name was ILSI (International Life Sciences Institute). So, in China, the local branch of ILSI organized a series of major conferences and other activities designed to combat obesity. Over time, the proportion of these anti-obesity activities focusing on exercise rose dramatically, while the proportion focusing on diet sank.What this shows is that the food industry had tilted China's approach to obesity. ILSI China also played a major role in creating China's first and most important policies on obesity. The most important was the National Campaign for Healthy Lifestyles, ironically modeled after the patriotic health campaigns that Mao used to promote in his day. So, that healthy lifestyle campaign drew heavily on the Soda Science created by Coke, ILSI, and their academic friends. So, that ‘healthy lifestyle’ campaign prioritized exercise in a number of ways. Said nothing about sugar and soda. And it made the individual, not the government or industry, responsible for fixing the obesity problem. So, with this campaign, ILSI China had smuggled the policy favored by the food industry into China's policies.

That's an amazing history that you've documented. And it occurs to me that in the United States, we can celebrate public health victories, like the huge decline in cigarette smoking that occurred. And, the big decline that's occurred in sugared beverage consumption too. And those things are all good. But if this is like a balloon and you're just squeezing the end of it here, but it expands elsewhere in the world, the overall public health impact could be even worse than when you started, not better. And it sounds like the industry-funded front groups have been pretty responsible for making that happen.

Yes, they're incredibly effective. In my view, I really took apart ILSI, looking at it as an organizational sociologist. And I think it's just brilliantly designed to make academic-looking science that benefits industry. And to keep everything hidden from sight under that label nonprofit. It's really quite brilliant. They're not very happy with this project.

And the work that you've done, and the investigative journalists have done in the U. S., to expose these industry ties can have traction in the U. S. much more so in a country like China. So, it sounds like there's probably not much to put the brakes on this kind of thing in China. Is that right?

To tell the truth, there's a younger group of obesity experts, trained in the U.S., who now are based in China and have written major articles. There was a three-part series in The Lancet in 2021 on obesity in China. And they are on board with a critique of the food industry and working in every way they can to bring that to the attention of officials. But the government has a vested interest in the success of Coca Cola. I have to say that Coca Cola, and there's a huge state-owned enterprise called COFCo, they now have a partnership called COFCo Coca Cola, that runs the bottlers in 19 provinces, representing something like 60-70 percent of the Chinese population. So, the government has a vested interest in making sure Coca Cola remains happy.

Let's talk about that just a bit more. So, Susan, you'd think that the Chinese government would be in a conflicted position with this. On one hand, they want to financially benefit from Coca Cola prospering in their country. And I'm sure officials are benefiting individually from that kind of thing. But the country doesn't benefit because they certainly don't want high rates of diabetes and heart disease and obesity and other things that come from consumption of these products. How do you think that that plays out? Is it just that the short-term financial benefits are prevailing over the longer-term health consequences?

I think the government is highly conflicted. It has a number of policy, overarching policy themes, that it has been promoting ever since opening up in the late 70s and early 80s. One of those themes is marketization, growing the economy, advancing the technology in high end industries. And nothing can interfere with the achievement of that goal. China is known around the world for having very sophisticated environmental policies. But when push comes to shove, market goals prevail over environmental goals. I think the very same thing happens with health. It's just astonishing to see how market forces and market logics pervade the health sector. I did a separate piece of research, it's not in this book. But it shows that the major western food companies have been partnering with the Chinese government to carry out China's policies on chronic disease. And that means they're teaching the Chinese people basic notions of good nutrition. And what they're teaching them is not that soda is bad, is that, you know, it's that you can drink soda as long as you go ahead and exercise at all. I think there are major fundamental conflicts here at the level of profound party policy. I think this is going to be very hard to address.

I was going to say that's just a stunning observation. That part of the food nutrition education has been turned over to the food industry.

Absolutely. And you can, you can read about it in the Chinese media every year. They have, it's called Food Week or Nutrition Week, that's sponsored by the Chinese Nutrition Society, which is nominally independent. And they invite Western food companies to come in and sponsor a big project within that week. And of course they're very happy to do it.

Unbelievable. So, a chapter of your book is entitled Doing Ethics, the Silent Scream. What do you mean by that?

Let me start with just a little bit of background. So, in China, the head of the ILSI branch operated as a virtual health ministry official. Kind of a de facto part of the government. So, no one could question what she did, part of the government, no questioning the government. As I just mentioned, most of the scientists I interviewed believed that Coke and other food and beverage companies were positive forces in China. They loved Coke's corporate social responsibility programs and had them all in their head and regaled me with these stories of schools in the rural areas supported by Coke. They thought everything was above board. They thought that ILSI's science was objective or disinterested. They couldn't imagine that Coke was supporting policies that benefited the corporate bottom line while harming the health of the Chinese people. Now, getting to that chapter, some very senior scientists, folks who had worked in the field before money came to dominate everything in China, they knew in their hearts that the food industry was corrupting China's science and policy. But it was very dangerous for them to talk about it. They certainly didn't volunteer those feelings to me. But when I began to ask really probing questions, they quietly acknowledged that yes, of course, corporate funding shapes the science. But the whole subject caused them just incredible angst. They couldn't talk about it. They certainly couldn't talk about it in public, and they couldn't do anything about it. And so, they issued a silent scream. And this is a really important part of the story of China. There really are voices of resistance, voices that see through the official line that everything's being done correctly. The readers of this book can hear that silent scream in that last chapter.

That's a pretty, pretty amazing story. Well, you know, it's heartening in a way that in a country like China, where the government controls so much of what day to day life is like, that there is some activity. At least some pushback, some resistance. So, let's hope ultimately that the objective science prevails. That the industry influence wanes, and the public health will be protected. So, speaking of chapters in your book, the last two chapters are titled, Soda Science Lives On. And then the final chapter, So What and What Now. Tell us more.

Oh sure, I'd love to. Soda Science Lives On: that's like the conclusion to the China part. I show how, even to this day, the provisions of Soda Science continue to shape China's policies on obesity and chronic disease more generally. In the last decade, President Xi Jinping has stressed the importance of including health in all policies, which is good. But a close look suggests that his signature policy package, that's called Healthy China 2030, bears the imprint of the Coca Cola company and -promotes ILSI's trademark exercise programs that omit soda taxes. And have a strong market orientation that makes individuals, again, not companies, not even the government, fundamentally responsible for maintaining a healthy weight through their healthy lifestyle choices. This, of course, neglects the importance of China's obesogenic environment and the impact of that environment on the choices available to individuals. So, this part of the book also introduces a group of next generation Chinese scientists who understand the threat posed by big food constantly lobbying the government to introduce policies to restrict its power.

I've talked about the impact on China, but I'm also very interested in the impact on America, especially American fitness culture. In the book's conclusion, what I do is I take the short history of Soda Science. And I place that in the context of the much larger history of the post-World War II history of American fitness culture. What I suggest is that Soda Science was instrumental in creating today's Fitbit wearing, step counting, exercise and obesity-obsessed culture that assumes that exercise by itself can take off pounds. That 10,000 steps a day is going to solve all my problems. It won't, but the idea is very much part of our everyday thinking about obesity. There's a lot of work to do.

As we all know, those big food companies are some of the wealthiest and most powerful forces in the world. Way richer than any of any fields of science in America. For critical scientists and social scientists, the effort to chip away at their power through the power of expose and documenting the truth often feels quite futile, time consuming and useless. But in fact, our work can make a difference. And I document this in the book. In the last few years, Coca Cola cut its ties with ILSI. That is big because Coca Cola was the founding company behind ILSI. Two other companies have also dropped ILSI. ILSI itself has also undergone a major reorganization and this is big - ILSI China has dissolved. It is no longer.

I'd like to think that the in-depth research of the social sciences has exposed what is really going on and left these corporate science organizations little choice but to close shop, or fundamentally change how they work. That's my secret dream. So this, this is progress, yes, but the food industry is still at it, for sure. Especially in the Global South. The industry is focusing its energies on defending junk food and drinks by opposing regulatory measures that have proven successful. You know, taxes, front of package warning labels, marketing restrictions and so on. So even in countries that have developed, often with the assistance of American researchers, really impressive chronic disease prevention programs, the industry has been moving aggressively to weaken, delay, or block them. Our work has just begun. And I really hope some listeners will be, will be encouraged to join the force of all of us working to expose and change how things are happening.

BIO

Susan Greenhalgh is John King and Wilma Cannon Fairbank Professor of Chinese Society Emerita in the Anthropology Department and Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies at Harvard University. A former Guggenheim fellow, she is a specialist in the social study of science, technology, and medicine, especially as these intersect with questions of policy, governance, and the state.

Her latest book, Soda Science: Making the World Safe for Coca-Cola (2024), uncovers the secret strategies by which Big Food, working with allies in academia, created an industry-friendly, “soda-defense” science of obesity that argued that the priority solution to the obesity epidemic is exercise, not dietary restraint, and that soda taxes are not necessary – views few experts accept. For 15 years the “soda scientists” were highly successful in promoting these ideas, eventually getting them built into Chinese policy, where they remain today. An earlier study of the American obesity epidemic, Fat-Talk Nation: The Human Costs of America’s War on Fat (2015), illuminates some of the unexpected consequences of the national panic over obesity for the bodies, lives, and selves of vulnerable young people. Under the Medical Gaze: Facts and Fictions of Chronic Pain (2001) presents a case study of iatrogenic injury, illustrating medicine’s power to define disease and the self, and manage relationships and lives, and sometime induce suffering.

Join host Norbert Wilson and co-host Kerilyn Schewel in the latest episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast as they dive deep into the world of small-scale fisheries with two distinguished guests: Nicole Franz from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and John Virdin from Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment, and Sustainability. Discover the significant role small-scale fisheries play in food security, economic development, and community livelihoods. Learn about the unique challenges these fisheries face, and how community-led climate adaptation alongside top-down national policies can help build resilience. This episode also highlights collaborative efforts between academia and organizations like FAO, painting a comprehensive picture of the state and future of small-scale fisheries.

Interview Summary

Kerilyn - So, Nicole, let's begin with you. Why is your work at the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization focused on small-scale fisheries and fishing communities? And could you share with us how they are different from fisheries more broadly? What's unique about them and their role in food production?

Nicole - Yes. Let me start with the latter question. And I think the first thing is to clarify actually what are small-scale fisheries, no? Because sometimes if you think about small-scale fisheries, what most people will have in mind is probably that of a man in a small boat fishing. But in reality, it's a sector that is much more diverse. There are, for example, women in Indonesia that are collecting clams by foot. Foot fishers. Or we have examples from small-scale fisheries that are fishing boats in Norway, which are comparably small, but if you compare them, for example, with how small-scale fishing looks in a place like Mozambique, it's a very different scale. But all of that, however, is comprised in what we understand as small-scale fisheries.

It is also important to understand that when we talk about small-scale fisheries in FAO, we don't only limit it to what is happening in the water, the harvesting part, but we also include what happens once the fish is out of the water. So, once it's processed, then, and when it's traded. So, so it's a whole supply chain that is connected to that small-scale fisheries production that we understand as being small-scale fisheries. And with Duke University, with John who is present here, and other colleagues and other colleagues from World Fish, we did a global study where we tried to estimate the global contributions of small-scale fisheries to sustainable development. And what we found was that at least 40 percent of the global catch is actually coming from inland and marine small-scale fisheries. And that's, that's enormous. That's a huge, huge amount. More important almost is that, that 90 percent of all the people that are employed in capture fisheries are in small-scale fisheries. And that is the human dimension of it. And that's why the community dimension is so important for the work. Because it is that big amount of people, 61 million people, that are employed in the value chains.

And in addition to that, we estimated that there are about 53 million people that are actually engaging in small-scale fisheries for subsistence. So, if we consider those people that are employed in small-scale fisheries, plus those that are engaging for subsistence, and all their household members, we're actually talking about close to 500 million people that depend at least partially on small-scale fisheries for their livelihoods.

We also looked at the economic dimensions of small-scale fisheries, and we found that the value from the first sale of small-scale fishery products amounts to 77 billion. So, these numbers are important. They show the importance of small-scale fisheries in terms of their production, but also in terms of the livelihood [00:05:00] dimension, in terms of the economic value that they generate.

And, last but not least, we also looked at the nutritional value from small-scale fisheries. And we estimated that the catch from small-scale fisheries would be able to supply almost 1 billion women globally with 50 percent of the recommended omega 3 fatty acid intake. So, I think with all of these numbers, hopefully, I can convey why the focus on small-scale fish is, in the context of food security and poverty eradication in particular, is of fundamental importance.

Kerilyn - Thanks, Nicole. That's really helpful to get a kind of global picture. If I could follow up to ask, what regions of the world are small-scale fisheries more common, or do economies rely on them? And in what regions do you see them disappearing? Are they common in countries like the US, for example?

Well, they're certainly more common in what is often considered as a Global South. In Asia in particular, we encountered the largest total numbers, absolute numbers, in terms of people involved in terms of production. But also in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean. In the Pacific, obviously, they play a crucial role. They are more and more disappearing in the US, for example, in Europe. We see that it is a livelihood that is no longer very common. And one of the features we see there that it's an aging sector, it's a shrinking sector, for a number of reasons. But they still define the characteristic of certain areas where they really are part of the identity and of the local culture, even in the U.S. or in many, many places in Europe.

Norbert - Nicole, this is really fascinating. Thank you for sharing this broad overview of what's happening and who are small-scale fishers. What are some of the common challenges that these small-scale fishers and fisheries face? And what is FAO's response to those challenges?

Nicole - Well, where to start? There are so many challenges. I think one fundamental challenge that is common across all regions is securing access to fishing grounds. But not only to fishing grounds, but also to the coastal areas where operations, where they land the boats, where they, where the process of fish, where the fishing villages and communities are located. In many areas around the world, we see expansion of tourism, expansion of urban areas and coastal areas. The increase of other industries that are competing for the space now, and that are often stronger economically more visible than small-scale fisheries. So, the competition over space in those areas is quite an issue.

But there are also many challenges that are more outside of the fishing activity directly. For example, often small-scale fishing communities lack access to services. We had basic services such as education or health services, social protection. And in many cases, women are particularly disadvantaged in relation to access to these services. For example, women that are involved in harvesting or in processing of fish in small-scale fisheries, they often do not know where to leave their children while they are at work because there's no childcare facility in many of these villages. And there are 45 million women that are engaged in small-scale fisheries around the world.

Another set of challenges relates to the value chains and the markets. Often there's limited infrastructure to connect to markets. The processing and storage facilities are not adequate to bring the product to the market in a state that allows it to then fetch good prices and to benefit from the value chain. Often small-scale fishers and fish workers are also not well organized. So, they become more subject to power imbalances along the value chain where they have to be price takers. Now they have to accept what is offered. That also relates often to a lack of transparency in relation to market information. And of course, then we have another set of challenges that are coming from climate change that are becoming more and more important. And from other types of disasters also.

One thing that brings together all these challenges, or makes them worse, is often the lack of representative structures and also institutional structures that allow for participation in relevant decision making or management processes. So that small-scale fishers and fish workers don't even have an opportunity to flag their needs or to propose solutions. So, FAO has facilitated a process to develop Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in the Context of Food security and Poverty Eradication. Quite a mouthful of a name. In short, we call them small-scale fisheries guidelines. In which all the major challenges in a way are compiled in one document together with guidance on how to address them. And these guidelines are the result of a participatory development process. So, they are really informed by the involvement of fishing communities from around the world, but also other stakeholders. And they have been agreed on and have been endorsed by the almost 200 members of the FAO. We are now working with countries, with the small-scale fishing communities around the world, with other partners, including Duke University, to help implement these small-scale fisheries guidelines.

Norbert - Oh, this is really fascinating and it's important work. I'm intrigued with the participatory process. How are small-scale fisher organizations involved in this? Are you working with different organizations? Or is this more individuals who are just interested in this issue coming to the fore?

This is through organizations at all levels. Be it at the national level where we are, for example, facilitating the formation of new women organizations in a number of African countries. Be it at the regional level, in particular in Africa, there are existing structures in the context of the African union, which has established so called non state actor platforms for fisheries and aquaculture, which we are supporting in order to bring their voice into the processes and to facilitate peer learning. And then there's a number of global social movements and producer organizations for small-scale fisheries that we are working with and using them as a facilitator to involve as many as possible. And gather as much insight that is coming from the membership of those organizations to then bring into global, regional, national processes from our side.

Norbert - This is really important to hear how different forms of governance and at different levels are playing a part in developing these guidelines. Thank you for sharing that, Nicole. I'd like to turn to you, John. You have more than 20 years of experience in studying and advising government policies to regulate human use of the oceans. With a particular focus on marine conservation practices. How has your thinking about marine conservation changed over the last 20 years?

John - Yeah, it's changed a bit. As you mentioned, my interest in work has been on ocean conservation and how it can alleviate poverty. A lot of times that has meant managing fisheries to address poverty. And I think in the past, that meant that I was really focused on what governments could do to increase the efficiency of fisheries. The economic efficiency. How do we increase incomes, how do you increase revenues for communities? All very important, but for all the reasons that Nicole mentioned, I spend a lot more time now thinking about the process rather than the outcomes, and thinking about what institutions are in place, or can be created, to help empower small-scale fishing communities to have much more of a voice in the decisions that affect them. In how the resources are used. How the space is used. And Nicole outlined really well a lot of the challenges that are facing communities from increased industrialization of ocean use to the squeeze from climate change and the effect on resources. And even the fact that climate change may be driving people to the oceans. I mean, as farms and agricultures maybe fail or face challenges, oceans are often open access, and can even be a sink for people to make a livelihood. And so, yet more pressures coming from outside these fisheries. How can fishers have a greater voice in making the decisions that impact them and safeguarding their livelihoods?

Norbert - Thank you for that. I'm interested in understanding how do these fisher folks, who are trying to organize and are organizing, how does that interact with sort of larger markets? I mean, I would imagine a number of these folks are catching fish and other seafood that goes into global markets. What's the interaction or challenges that may happen there?

John - As Nicole mentioned, because small-scale fisheries are so diverse you have markets in many places. These may be located near an urban center where you can have easy access. You can get fresh fish in a cooler and put it on a plane and off it goes to an export market. We found that, what may be surprised us, is a significant number of small-scale fishers are exporting in some cases. So, then that can be challenging because you might get higher prices, which is a good thing. But it might drive, for example, more fishing effort. It might drive higher levels of exploitation. It might change traditional practices, traditional rules for fisheries. It might really change how fishers organize in a given place. So, the access to export markets, even say an island setting, has kind of scrambled past fisheries management in some places and can be an outside force.

Kerilyn - John and Nicole, I want to ask you both a question now about painting a picture of these communities that you're working with. You both mentioned how diverse small-scale fisheries can be. I was wondering if you could just share what one community in particular looks like that you've worked with? What are the challenges that a particular community faces, or alternatively, where do you see things actually working well? So Nicole, could I ask you to respond first?

Nicole - I'm working more with global processes and the global level. So, through that, I have the privilege of working with representatives from many, many communities. So maybe what I can share is the feedback that I'm getting through that, in terms of the change that we can observe, and that is affecting fishing communities around the world. I think one thing that is being brought up as a concern by many is what I mentioned before. It's a process of aging in fishing communities and often a lack of capacity to retain young people in the sector. And that has different reasons. Now there are all of these challenges that small-scale fisheries have to face and that are difficult to overcome. So, that often drives people, in particular young men, to leave the communities. Or within the communities, to look for other alternative livelihoods now and not to take on the skills of fishermen or getting engaged in small-scale fisheries more broadly. So, in some cases, yes, it's not only other activities within the community, but really leaving the community and leaving in some cases also the country. What we see there is that sometimes people that have the skills, maybe still as a fisher, they have tried to fish. So, they have a knowledge of fishing. They emigrate out into other countries. And in some cases they are then hired into industrial fisheries where they work on industrial boats that go out fishing for longer periods of time. But where they at times end up in situations that can be called slave labor, basically, that are subject to serious violations of human rights. And that is in a way generated by this vulnerability to the poverty that is still there in those communities. The lack of being able to make a living, a decent work in the fishing community. So, that is something that we have seen is happening. We have also seen that in some cases, there's an involvement of fishers into say more illegal activities, be it in drug trafficking, be it also into the trafficking of people.

I'm thinking even about the Mediterranean. I'm working out of Italy, Rome. We have a lot of immigration from North African countries, for example, coming through that route. And oftentimes it happens that the transport of migrants is actually carried out by fishers and their boats because they have the skill to navigate the sea. And they make a better living by transporting illegal migrants than going fishing. So, those are some of the challenges we hear.

And the other one is there in relation to what is now a concept that is getting more and more traction. It's often known as the blue economy, which is, in a way, looking at the ocean as the last frontier for economic development. And that includes on the one hand, the expansion of previously existing industries, such as tourism. But also the expansion of newer sectors such as alternative energy production. Think wind parks now in coastal areas. So, what happens here is that in many cases, this adds again, additional pressure on the available maritime space. In the water and on the land. The expansion of marine aquaculture is another example. So, that also is something that we hear is becoming an issue for small-scale fishing communities to defend the space that they need to maintain their lifestyle.

Kerilyn - John, is there anything you'd like to add on this question of how fisheries are changing?

John - Very, very briefly. Taking the example in West Africa where I've spent some time over the years, you certainly have some communities there where it actually doesn't seem as if the fisheries are changing as much in the sense it's quite static and stagnant. And this could be caused by a lot of the reasons that Nicole mentioned, but the community, the economy, the fisheries aren't growing. People, young people may be leaving for a number of reasons, but it doesn't have to be that way either. I mean, there are positive examples. I was in Liberia last week, and there, from the numbers that the government has, small-scale fishing communities are growing. The number of fishers are growing. They've actually made a conscious effort to protect a certain area of the ocean just for small-scale fisheries. And to prohibit trawling and to give the communities more space to grow and operate in the 20 years since the conflict ended there. So, again, it doesn't have to be sort of stagnant or grinding on in some of these communities as they cope with competition for resources, for example, competition for space from others. Where they were given that space, in some cases in Liberia, they've grown. That may have its own challenges but.

Kerilyn - Interesting. In the back of my mind, when thinking about these communities and aging and migration of younger generations away from these livelihoods, you know, as someone who studies the relationship between migration and development, I think it's a common trend where, you know, as countries develop, young people leave traditional economic activities. They get more educated, they move to cities, they move abroad. To what degree is this somehow just part of these countries' development? Should we expect young people to be leaving them? And to what degree might we think differently about development in a way that would enable more young people to stay? And I think, John, you mentioned a really interesting point about how protecting the space For these small-scale fisheries to operate is one thing that seems to have kept people engaged in this livelihood. I'd be curious if there's other things that come up for you. Other ways of thinking about enhancing the capability to stay in small-scale fishing livelihoods.

John - Sure, and I'd be curious what Nicole's seeing from her perspective. I think, to some extent, it's a different question if small-scale fisheries are economically viable. And so, what I think Nicole and I are referring to in many cases is where for a lot of these external pressures upon them, they may not be as viable as they once were. And that has its own push on people, whereas where fishers are empowered, they have more of a voice in what happens to the fisheries and controlling those spaces and resources, and it can be more economically viable in these fisheries. That presents a different set of choices for young people then. So that's where we've really focused is: okay, what is the process by which small-scale fishing communities have their voices heard more, have much more of a say and much more power in the use of the fisheries, the use of the coastal areas, the things that affect those fisheries and their livelihoods? And then we can see what those choices might look like. But Nicole, I'm not sure if that's consistent with what you've seen in a number of places.

Nicole - Yes, and maybe to also rebalance a bleak picture I painted before. Like John said, there are obviously good examples. I think an important condition is probably a linkage to markets. Non-economic viability in many ways does play a role. And there are examples of how that can happen in different ways. For example, in Morocco, the country has made quite a significant investment to build a whole series of ports for small-scale fisheries. Specifically, along the entire coastline of Morocco where they are providing a port that is not just a landing site for small-scale fisheries, but it provides like a system of integrated services. There's an auction hall. So, the fish comes in, it's immediately kind of weighted. They get the information, the label for what they have brought in, then it goes into an auction that has set rules and everybody is tied to. But in that same area, for example, there's also a bank or there is an office that helps with the access to social protection services, for example. So, it's a whole integrated service center, and that really makes a difference to help make the sector more efficient. But at the same time, also really keep the tradition. So, it's not only economic efficiency, but by having all these different centers, it allows to maintain many people employed and to also maintain the characteristics of each of those different lending sites. That's one example. I was in Korea last year and there, they were doing something similar. They are reviving some of their traditional fishing villages where they are also investing in those fishing communities and providing them with funding to set up, for example, restaurants that are run directly by those involved in the fishery. Those are particular places that are close to cities. In my case, I was in Busan. So, it's very closely connected to the consumers now that come out there. They are focusing on certain products in these villages that they are famous for traditionally. They have little shops and they're starting e-commerce for some of the products. So, the way they package, and the label has become much, much wider than before. So again, that has revived a bit those communities. In Italy, it's a country that's famous for its food, you know. And they are in the region that's called the Amalfi coast. There's a tiny village and it's famous for the production of a value-added product made from tiny sardines that are fished by the small-scale fisheries boats. And they are processed in a very particular way. And there is like a label of geographic origin of this product, and it can only come from that village. And it has a high price and has it's like a high-end product, so to say. And in a way these are also approaches that provide dignity to this profession. And a sense of pride which is really important and should not be underestimated in also increasing the willingness, for example, of young people to be part of that and maintain the viability of the sector.

John – I’d like to just add, I think that's a really important point on the dignity and pride and the importance of these fisheries in so many places and cultures. I mean, I'll never forget talking to a minister of finance in one country and starting to try to make the economic case for supporting small-scale fisheries. He cut me off in about 30 seconds and started talking about growing up fishing in the village and going back home for vacations, and just the importance to the entire community of fishing to him and just how much it was a part of the fabric of the culture.

Kerilyn - I love that. That does seem so important and wonderful to hear those very specific examples that do give some hope. It's not just a bleak future.

Norbert - You know, it's great to hear how government policy is helping shape and reshape these fisheries in a way that allow for economic viability and also these are opportunities to connect communities to these traditions. And so, I find that really fascinating. I want to kind of push a little bit beyond that and bring back the idea of how to deal with climate that was mentioned earlier. And also change our focus from government policy to sort of what's happening within these small-scale fisheries and fishery organizations. So Nicole, a lot of your work focuses on building more inclusive policy processes and stakeholder engagement. And so, from your perspective, how does community-led climate adaptation, rather than top down adaptation agendas, lead to different outcomes?

Nicole - Well, I think one way that seems quite obvious, how community-led adaptation can lead to different outcomes is simply that in that case, the traditional and the indigenous knowledge that is within those communities will be considered much more strongly. And this is something that can be really critical to crafting solutions for that very site-specific context. Because the impact of the climate change can be very different in every region and every locality not due to that specific environment that it's encountering there. And holding the knowledge and being able to observe the changes and then adapt to them is something that certainly a community-based approach has an advantage over something that would be a coming from a more centralized top down, a little bit more one-size-fits-all approach. And this can then imply little things like, for example, if the water temperature changes, we see a change in the fish behavior. Now we see how certain stocks start to move to different environments and others are coming in. So, the communities obviously need to adapt to that. And they do that automatically. Now, if it changes, they adapt their gear, they adapt to the new species that is there. So, in many cases, there are solutions that are already happening, and adaptations that are already happening that may not carry that label, that name. But if you look at it, it is really what is happening, no? Or you can see in some cases, that for example, there are initiatives that are coming also spontaneously from the communities to replant mangrove forests, where you can observe that there is a rising seawater level that is threatening the communities and where they have their houses, where they have their daily lives. Now, you can see that through NGOs and often there is support projects for that. But you can also see it happening more spontaneously when communities observe that change. So, the top-down approaches often they lack that more nuanced, site-specific considerations in their approaches and the consideration of that specific knowledge.

On the other hand, it needs to be said though, that the top-down approaches can also play an important role. For example, countries develop their national adaptation plans. And those plans are usually, you know, developed at a higher level, at the central level. And often fisheries and aquaculture are not necessarily included in those plans. So that is something where the top-down level can play a very important role and really make a difference for small-scale fisheries by ensuring that fisheries and aquaculture are included in a sector. So, I guess that in the end, as always, it's not black and white. No, it's something that we need to take into account both of it and have any climate change adaptation approach to small-scale fisheries being grounded in both. And have a way to bridge the top down and the bottom-up approaches.

Norbert - I really like this idea of bridging between the top down and the bottom-up approaches, understanding the local knowledge that's there. I would imagine that's also knowledge that when used to make decisions makes it easier for people to stick with those decisions, because it's a part of their voice. It's who they are. And then the other side, it's critical to make sure that those plans are a part of a larger national move, because if the government is not involved, if those higher-level decision makers are not involved, they can easily overlook the needs of those communities. I really appreciate hearing that. I think sometimes we hear this tension. It needs to be one or the other. And you're making a really compelling point about how it has to be integrated. John, I'm really intrigued to see from your perspective. How do you see this top down versus bottom-up approach working in the work you've done?

John - I'll do what I typically do is echo and agree with Nicole, but just to give an example that I love. I teach this one in my classes. There's an old paper by Bob Johannes, a marine ecologist. And the standard practice in managing fisheries as government scientists is you count the fish, you then set limits for them, often from the top down. And his point was in the case of Indonesia, if you look at the reef fisheries that go through most of the communities, one tool to assess the fish stocks is to do a visual census. You swim transects along the reefs and you count the fish. So, he did a back of the envelope estimate and he said, well, if you're going to do that through all the reefs throughout Indonesia, it would probably be finished in about 400 years. And that would give you one snapshot. So, he's saying you can't do this. You have to rely on the local knowledge in these communities. I don't want to romanticize traditional knowledge too much, but I just can't imagine how policies would effectively support adaptation in these communities without building upon this traditional ecological knowledge.

Kerilyn - John, since coming to Duke from the World Bank, you've regularly collaborated with non-academic partners like the FAO as well as the UN environmental program. Can you tell us more about how your partnership with the FAO and your work with Nicole more specifically began?

John - Sure. I think more than anything, I got really lucky. But when I first came to Duke, I started working with a colleague, Professor Xavier Basurto at the Marine Lab, who I think is one of the world's leading scholars on how communities come together to manage common resources like fish stocks. We organized a workshop at Duke on small-scale fisheries. We got talking to Nicole, invited her and some of her colleagues at FAO to that workshop, together with others, to think about a way forward for small-scale fisheries for philanthropy. And I think from those conversations started to see the need to build a global evidence base on how important these fisheries are in society. And Nicole could probably say it better, but from there, she and colleagues said, you know, maybe you all could work with us. We're planning to do this study to build this evidence base and maybe we could collaborate. And I think we're very fortunate that Duke gives the space for that kind of engaged research and allows us to do it. I don't think we knew how long it would be when we started, Nicole. But over five years and 800 researchers later, we - Javier, Nicole, myself, and so many others - concluded with this global study that we hope does have a little bit clearer picture on the role of these fisheries in society.

Kerilyn - Nicole, from your side, what does an academic partner bring to the table? What's your motivation for partnering with someone like John or Duke University more specifically.

Well, I think as FAO, we like to call ourselves a knowledge organization, but we're not an academic institution. We don't conduct research ourselves, no? So, we need to partner around that. We work with the policy makers though. So, one of our roles, in a way, is to build that. To broker and improve the science policy interface. So, this is why collaboration with academia research for us is very important. And what we experienced in this particular collaboration with Duke University to produce this study called Illuminating Hidden Harvest, the Contributions of Small-scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development was really that first we realized we have a shared vision, shared objectives. And I think that's fundamental. Now, you need to make sure that you have the same values, how you approach these things. And in this case, it aligned very well that we really wanted to take in a way, a human-centered and multidimensional approach to look at small-scale fisheries. And then it was also very important to understand what every partner brings to the table, no? The different strengths that we have. And then based on that, define the roles and what everybody's doing in a project. And the added value for us was certainly the capacity from the Duke University side to help develop the method that we develop for the country case studies that we conducted in 58 countries. And not only to develop that method, but then we had a postdoc at Duke University for this project, who was actually then engaging with all of the people. People in these 58 countries. And, and she was. coaching them in that methodology, actually in three languages, which was quite amazing. It was very, very thorough. We could not have done that. And we had a lot of other students from Duke University that helped us once we had the data gathered. To then screen that data, harmonize that data, clean that data, obviously under the leadership of John, Xavier and other colleagues, no? So that was really something that was adding a lot of value and actually also helped us to get to know a lot of the students from Duke. And some of those then ended up also becoming consultants working with us more broadly on small-scale fisheries. So that was certainly great, great value for FAO as collaboration.

BIOS

Nicole Franz, Equitable Livelihoods Team Leader, Fisheries and Aquaculture Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN. Nicole is a development economist with 18 years of experience in intergovernmental organizations. She holds a Master in International Cooperation and Project Design from University La Sapienza, Rome and a Master in Economic and Cultural Cooperation and Human Rights in the Mediterranean Region. From 2003 to 2008 she was a consultant for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). In 2009-10 she was Fishery Planning Analyst at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris, focusing on fisheries certification. Since 2011 she works for the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Division where she coordinates the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication (SSF Guidelines) with a focus on inclusive policy processes and stakeholder empowerment. Since 2021 she leads the Equitable Livelihoods team. 

John Virdin is director of the Oceans Program at the Duke University Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability. He has a total of over twenty years’ experience in studying and advising government policies to regulate human use of the oceans, particularly marine conservation policies to reduce poverty throughout the tropics. His focus has been largely on managing fisheries for food and livelihoods, expanding to broader ocean-based economic development policies, coastal adaptation and more recently reducing ocean plastic pollution. He directs the Oceans Program at the Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, aiming to connect Duke University’s science and ideas to help policymakers solve ocean sustainability problems. He has collaborated in this effort with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, as well as regional organizations such as the Abidjan Convention secretariat, the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission of West Africa and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement for tuna fisheries management in the Western Pacific. He co-created and teaches an introductory course for undergraduate students to understand the role of ocean policy in helping solve many of society’s most pressing development challenges on land. His work has been published in books, edited volumes and a number of professional journals, including Nature Ecology and Evolution, Ecosystem Services, Environment International, Fish and Fisheries and Marine Policy, as well as contributing to China Dialogue, The Conversation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, and The Hill.

With food insecurity rising the world over, we cannot escape the reality that climate change is changing our food supply. This means people's livelihoods and lifestyles are changing too, particularly in developing countries. Join us on the Leading Voices in Food podcast as we discuss the rising impact of climate change on food security and livelihoods in Central America, specifically Honduras. Host Norbert Wilson, Director of the World Food Policy Center, along with co-host Sarah Bermeo, delve into the challenges and solutions with experts Marie-Soleil Turmel from Catholic Relief Services and Ana Andino from Duke University. Learn about the Dry Corridor, the effects of climate shocks, land restoration practices, and the role of international support in building community resilience.

Interview Summary

Sarah - Marie, some of your work with Catholic Relief Services engages with smallholder farmers in an area known as the Dry Corridor of Central America. Can you explain what the Dry Corridor is and provide some context about the food security situation in that area, and how much do residents depend on their own crops to provide food for their families?

Marie - So, the Dry Corridor of Central America refers to a region that stretches across the Pacific side of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua. The region has a long dry season and a rainy season when the crops are produced. In the last 10 years, this region has been characterized as one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Mainly due to prolonged dry spells in the growing season and more unpredictable rainfall patterns. This region is made up of many small holder farmers in the rural population. These are small hillside farms growing staple crops, maize or corn, and beans with relatively low yields. And most of the household consumption is coming from these farms, and they're selling any surplus that is produced in a good year. These are rain-fed production systems. So, the amount of food that the farms produced is directly tied to the amount of rainfall, making them extremely vulnerable to droughts and climate shocks. And also the region has a very high degree of soil degradation. It's estimated 70 percent of agricultural soil is in a state of severe degradation. This makes farms even more susceptible to climate shocks. So, this is a region that's already struggling with poverty. Close to 8 million people are living in a situation of food insecurity. And now with increasing climate shocks that are affecting crop yields, it's sending more people into a situation of food emergency and requiring food aid.

Norbert - Thank you, Marie, for providing that context. Ana, let's now turn to you. I understand that you've worked with the Honduran Ministry of Finance and the Inter American Development Bank on issues relating to economic development in Honduras. What do you view as some of the key development challenges facing the country?

Ana - So Honduras faces several challenges which have been dragged out for many years. And now some of them have even worsened, particularly since 2020 when we were hit by the pandemic and the storms Eta and Iota. It's tough to pinpoint just one or a few of them since it's a convergence of complex scenarios, but if I had to mention one - and going along with the conversation we're having today - I would mention intersection between climate change and economic vulnerability. As we heard Marie talking about the Dry Corridor, there are many rural communities that rely heavily on agriculture. But climate variability has made it even more difficult to maintain stable food production, affecting income and food insecurity. So, by mid-2023, about 25 percent of the population was suffering from food insecurity. Nationally, agriculture provides employment for approximately 30 percent of the country's workforce. And there's verification agriculture is also limited, which, this dependency constrains sustainable growth and resilience. Also, I cannot leave behind the access to basic services such as water and electricity. Of course, I'll include in this education, right? It is important, and it's not only a matter of access to them, but also the quality of their services.

Many households lack access to clean water. This impacts their daily life, but also their agricultural productivity. And even in the main cities, there is an inconsistent access to water and electricity, which affects livelihoods, but also small businesses to larger industries. Education is a no-brainer, since both access and quality remain a serious challenge. In this list, I would also like to add crime and violence, which remain high. And even though there has been an improvement in the last years, particularly reducing homicide rates, it still remains as one of the highest in Latin America. The situation is even worse when we look at femicide. Because Honduras is still one of the highest or has one of the highest rates of femicide in the region. That often goes along with high levels of impunity. And finally, we're almost getting there to my list of challenges, I would say that there is a lack of infrastructure, particularly in rural areas.

There is no reliable access to roads or markets, which affects a lot of smallholder farmers. This also affects connectivity for roads. It limits access to health care and education. And these all are challenges that compound together. And yeah, to finally wrap it up, it's that without institutions that can effectively implement policies and manage resources, it'll be hard to, to have development efforts and to see growth in the country.

Norbert - This sounds like a daunting set of challenges. And I realized that obviously in this conversation and the work that's going to happen later this week, we're not able to address all of those. But I would like to pull back and ask you both about issues around climate. And so, for the both of you, I'd be intrigued to understand this. Central America is believed to be highly susceptible to climate change, and Marie, you've already mentioned this. What are some of the key effects that climate change is having on the region? And I've heard you already talk about issues around availability of water. But how do these affect the livelihoods and particularly, how does this affect food security? So, Ana, let's begin with you.

Ana – So, as Marie mentioned, there are a lot of extreme weather events going around, such as prolonged droughts, intense rainfall, tropical storms. And these weather patterns have a direct and severe impact on agricultural productivity. Especially in regions where families rely a lot on subsistence farming. It becomes a challenge to plant, to harvest crops. This leads to a reduction in yields. Also, people have less income, referring to income losses, which in the end has a cascading effect on food insecurity and poverty. So basically, what happens is that families have less to sell, but also have less to eat.

If we transition to urban areas, climate change could cause floodings and damage to infrastructure, affecting severely industrial activity as well. This will disrupt the livelihoods of the people. In urban and rural areas, it exacerbates difficulties in accessing food, in accessing clean water, in accessing electricity. And just to give you an example, this happened back in 2020, right after Eta and Iota. We had long lasting effects, causing damage to agriculture, to livestock, to infrastructure. The effect on GDP was approximately eight to nine percent of GDP. And unsurprisingly, poverty rose 14 percentage points, which is a big increase. If you see national surveys going around, they have shown that people are having issues with getting access to food. And many people have also had to change their diet, leaving behind some proteins and introducing more carbohydrates or, or foods that are less expensive than proteins, right? And I would leave it there. Yeah.

Norbert - This is really important. Thank you for sharing that. Marie, what about you?

Marie - Ana really summed it up well, but I would add that it's really important to understand that that these farmers don't have crop insurance to fall back on like farmers in the U.S. So, we're seeing more frequent climate shocks, sometimes years in a row. Droughts and hurricanes. And farmers might be able to borrow seed or money, or to buy inputs to replant the next year, but after consecutive bad harvests, they run out of options and resources and really can't recover. And also keeping in mind that about 60 percent of the food in the region is coming from smallholder farms. And these climate shocks resulting in yield damage have implications for food prices and food security at the regional level, not just at the farm level, right?

Sarah - So, Ana and Marie, you do a very nice job laying out the multiple challenges that are facing in urban areas. Turning from that to thinking about adaptations or policy changes that could be successful, can you think of some that might help in decreasing the negative impacts of climate change on farmers, particularly in the Dry Corridor? And, have you seen evidence? Can you bring evidence from your previous work for this to think about pathways forward and whether or not those would be scalable to additional farmers.

Marie - So, a focus on land restoration and soil restoration is really key to building climate resilience. As I mentioned, these are areas with really highly degraded soils that are even more susceptible to these climate shocks. So, we're talking about managing the soil to manage water. And I just want to take a moment to explain why soil is so important for climate resilience. A healthy soil will capture and infiltrate more rainwater. These are rain fed systems, depending on every drop that falls. They store more water for plant production and also percolate more water down to recharge groundwater, which has an implication for water availability in the whole area.

In a degraded soil, like much of the agricultural land in the Dry Corridor and other parts of the world, soils have lost this function, and the rainwater runs off, it's not captured, it's not stored, and the resulting, the crops grown in that soil are much more susceptible to periods without rain, and there's overall less water availability. When soil and water resources are degraded, agricultural productivity is low, the families are susceptible to climate shocks, and this keeps them in a cycle of emergency and recovery and poverty. The good news is that the ability of soils to capture and store rainwater can be restored with good agricultural practices that build soil organic matter, protect, and protect the soils from erosion.

In Catholic Relief Services and in our programs, we call this Water Smart Agriculture Practices. In one of our programs from 2016 to 2020, we monitored a network of farms where we tested these practices with farmers on their farms and side by side plots comparing the water smart agriculture practices with conventional practices. Within that period, a very severe drought in 2018 hit. It affected the whole region and we found that these soils during a very severe drought could store up to 26 percent more moisture during this drought period. And on average yields were 39 percent higher. In a drought year, this can make the difference between a family producing enough food to still meet their household needs or being in an emergency situation and having to rely on food aid. And also, we found it in good years, yields were also much higher because of these good management practices. Meaning that farmers could produce and sell more surplus and improve their income savings. And this also contributes to greater overall resilience. And just to note also that these practices also sequester more carbon in agricultural systems, which also has climate mitigation impacts.

Now this alone, soil management alone, is not going to bring farmers out of poverty. We need to build on this foundation of good natural resource management with market access, diversification with more lucrative crops access to financing and, of course, increasing opportunities for women and youth. But all this needs to be built on this foundation of restoring soil and water resources so that we can be successful with these other types of development interventions. We're working to scale these practices in the Dry Corridor by working with a network of partners, including other local NGOs, government agencies. And one of the main limitations is that farmers have is gaining access to any type of agricultural extension services. So, we're really working to strengthen local extension. We're using a hybrid model that combines field training with digital extension tools and radio for mass communication to reach more people. And we know from some of our work and some of the work I'm doing with Sarah and Ana to look at the adoption of these practices, that when farmers do have access to extension services and training, they are in fact applying and adopting the practices.

Sarah - Thank you, Marie, for providing the detail about some of the programs that you're seeing and that the evidence, these are evidence-based practices that are actually making a difference for the farmers that you are working with. I want to turn to Ana now and shift the conversation just a little bit. You know, Marie was laying out potential ways to turn things around and ways that life could become better for farmers. But what do you see as some of the consequences of inaction if we don't keep on with these programs and if programs are not scaled up to help smallholder farmers and others in the region. What do you think will be the consequences of that for poverty and food security in Central America?

Ana - Sarah, that's a great question. Again, it's hard to give an exact answer on what would be the exact results of this. But there was this one thing that popped into my mind immediately, which is an accelerated flow of people migrating both within the region and towards the U.S. as well. Because people are seeking to escape these harsh living conditions, right? So, food insecurity will get worse, particularly in susceptible areas like the Dry Corridor where farmers are already struggling with this climate unpredictability. Rural families will also face greater challenges in meeting their basic nutritional needs. potentially leading to malnutrition and health crises. And even in urban areas, high prices and food shortage will disproportionately impact the most vulnerable communities, exacerbating inequality. Now, in addition to that, failing to act now will result in a greater cost in the future. And I believe another concerning consequence of inaction is the displacement of young people. And here I must add that right now Honduras has a demographic difference and we're not taking advantage of it. Many young individuals migrate in search of better opportunities, leading to the so-called brain drain. Or they even leave the country without any further motivation to help the country while they’re abroad. So, with insufficient opportunities for education, for employment, we are risking youth becoming trapped in cycles of poverty. We're losing people that are capable of helping the country, and this will undermine long term community development and stability.

Norbert - Ana, thanks so much for providing that context for the need for action and what consequences of inaction might be. You know, this has been a challenging conversation. We've talked about a number of things that are going wrong or where some of the challenges are. I actually want to turn the conversation to see some ways forward. And so, what are some of the positive changes that can take place? And, you know, Catholic Relief Services is doing some really important work. And I want to hear more about that. But I also want to hear about it in the context of what could happen if policy makers, government officials or decision makers in the international development institutions, if they changed policy or created new opportunities. What would you say are still some really pressing needs and where would you focus money and efforts to get the biggest impact or hope for the most people? Marie? Let's start with you.

Marie - I want to emphasize again just the importance of investing in land and soil restoration as a foundation, as a strategy to build climate resilience. Now, we really need programs that are also creating economic opportunities and developing markets for farmers, but this needs to be linked with land restoration initiatives in order to ensure resilience and the sustainability of these activities. You know, when land and soil is restored, these practices aren't just implemented, and they're not just implemented at the farm level, but like over whole landscapes. This improves productivity, but also water availability for households, urban areas, and other activities. So even programs that promote irrigation technologies as a solution for the Dry Corridor, which is really like a way forward also. These need to be linked with the land restoration activities because this water needs to come from somewhere. So, we need to ensure that we're protecting our water resources and ensuring the availability for these other activities, or else we won't be successful. And they also won't be sustainable.

We also really need to invest more in capacity-building aspects of our development programming. Not just focusing on asset replacement, which is necessary, but we need a good balance of investing in capacity building. This means farmers, agronomists, agricultural institutes to strengthen the extension systems and improving access to information around soil and climate, for improved decision making and management of these resources in order to also take action to reduce overall risk and climate risk in the area. So really building the capacity in the management practices that can in the long term reduce dependencies on external aid.

Norbert - Ana, what about you?

Ana- I think Marie summed up everything very well. But if I had to rephrase what she said in my own words, I would focus a lot on infrastructure development. Both physical and digital. This is essential. Investing in better roads, market access, but also digital connectivity would enable the population of farmers and entrepreneurs to reach bigger markets, fostering economic growth and development. And I'll also include improvements to infrastructure to be climate resilient and friendly to the environment. And going along to what she said about capacity development, I would also give focus on improving productive skills. Many companies in the region and especially in Honduras highlight the limited ability of the workforce to generate high value opportunities as a major constraint. So, concrete advances in competitiveness and innovation are needed in this sense. And I would wrap this wish list saying that for any policy to be considered if you want to talk to them to any government official or international organization, there has to be more focus and importance on inclusive policies. They have to engage local communities, they have to engage women, they have to engage youth in decision making processes. Basically, we want to ensure that these groups have voice in policy development.

Sarah - Great. Thanks Ana. I want to, you know, turn this attention now to thinking about research. So, Duke is an institution where research is one of our primary functions. And thinking broadly about the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security, where do you see the biggest need for additional research? And maybe to think about in another way which research questions if they were answered could be transformative? And how might academic research and researchers partner with organizations like Catholic Relief Services and others doing work in the field in order to answer some of these questions about practical applications that could help on the ground? And Ana, let's begin with you.

Ana - Thank you for your question, Sarah. I would say our work with Catholic Relief Services has given us a lot of ideas on how we can improve in this sense. For instance, we need to understand how different technologies and practices performed in diverse kinds of conditions are crucial. What factors influence farmers’ adoption of one technology more than another, considering the heterogeneity of each farmer and each living condition. But I would also be interested in exploring how climate change impacts household dynamics and whether there is a shift in roles. Men and women, right? If there is an increase in women empowerment within the agricultural context once they're exposed to these new technologies. How they make the decision on what to eat, how much to eat, what to produce, what not to produce. And I would say also, and this is my Santa wish list of the things I want to research about as well is understanding their desire to migrate even under these improved conditions. Like even though we're giving them this technology, it's like what is actually keeping these farmers that we are helping stay and keep doing or producing what they're doing in involving improving with time.

Sarah - Marie, what about you?

Marie - Yes, so from the development organization perspective, collaborations with academic institutes can really provide an opportunity for us to go beyond the scope of the kind of monitoring and learning that we build into our development projects. And bring in different levels of expertise, and research methods. So definitely something that can be beneficial for our programming. I see two main areas that require more research and where, you know, collaborating with academic organizations or institutes could be, could be a benefit. The first is really around the whole biophysical type research on agricultural systems. Practices to accelerate land restoration, drought tolerant crops and varieties to improve resilience to climate and market shocks. And calibrating and applying different tools for decision making around soils and water resources. And then the other area is really research in development. So, what's the effectiveness of our different delivery methods of our programs, our extension models, and strategies for reaching and including women and youth. Understanding the scaling strategy and how we can reach more farmers. And also, translating these results and program impacts into policy recommendations. So really, research that informs our development strategy to ensure that programs are really leading to transformative, sustainable change and improvements in livelihoods and food security and resilience.

Norbert - I really do appreciate hearing this. As a researcher, it's, it's so easy to get, sort of, how do I get the next paper in a journal. But what you're talking about are research questions that really move the development efforts forward. That are, sort of, informed by what's happening on the ground to make sure that the work that you all are doing is the work that leads to the best outcomes for the largest number of people.

BIOS

Marie-Soleil Turmel is the Scientific Advisor for the Catholic Relief Services Water Smart Agriculture Platform in the Latin America and Caribbean Region. She is an Agronomist/Soil Scientist with 15 years of experience conducting research and extension to promote soil health, productivity, and climate resilience of smallholder farming systems in Latin America. Before joining CRS, she worked as a Research Scientist for the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and Bioversity International. Marie holds a Ph.D. in Soil Science from McGill University and an M.Sc. in Agronomy from the University of Manitoba.  

Ana Andino is a PhD student in Public Policy with a concentration in Economics at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. Prior to joining Duke, Ana worked on development issues in Honduras with the Inter-American Development Bank and Honduran Ministry of Finance. She is now an integral part of the Duke team collaborating with Catholic Relief Services. Her research interests are in political economy, climate migration, food insecurity, and international development. She holds a Master of Science in local economic development from the London School of Economics.