المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

My thought on the above matter:

Current food system is not addressing the need of general people as well as the vulnerable one. Six dimensions of food security are getting weak during these days in urban and peri urban areas. Agencies (players within food system) are more attracted to handsome profit so they are attracted toward ready to eat factory food. Available, accessible and stability is mostly dependent on easy factory product foods however sustainability, stability and utilization are matters of concern as these factors are depend upon the production, price and health of the consumers. Major challenges for strengthening urban and peri urban food system are:

1. More attraction to ready to eat food due to easy availability, low cost/cheep, low time consuming on preparation and strong advertisements of the products.
2. Busy urban life
3. Increasing rate of urban poor
4. Presence of multinational companies with aggressive marketing strategies.
5. People have less attraction on labor intensive farm activities so are reluctant about nutritious food they used to produce.

6. Food system is yet to be inclusive and gender friendly

Input made by the Food Security team in the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development. 

Introduction: Urbanisation is an inevitable trend seen across the world, and it could be lessened by providing adequate livelihood opportunities and public services for rural populations, and by collectively building resilient agricultural sector in the face of climate change.

Urban and peri urban food systems could be improved by:

• Coordinating the role of different actors involved in governing urban food systems, this could be achieved by establishing the Food and Nutrition Security Councils that will stakeholders accountable.
• Peri-urban agriculture plays a role in generating food system conditions that can enhance food security thus the economy. However, this land is under considerable development pressure. It is therefore important for local government to pro-actively include food production and the food system in land-use decision making in order to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems.
• Provision of adequate climate smart support and training to (peri-)urban farmers is also important in improving their production and they must be empowered with resources across the entire food systems’ value chains.

• Facilitating rural transformation, inclusive, sustainable and competitive value chains can be achieved through improving the following:

• Food and agricultural hubs in or near rural and peri-urban markets must be established to absorb the produce of household, smallholder and micro farmers and agribusinesses and agro-processors; and
• Market stimulation for smallholder producers to participate in local value chains
• Improved policy environment to enhance participation of small holder producers in local food value-chains.

• Community land and water food administration systems must be established to facilitate equitable access to quality water, energy, infrastructure, food safety for rural and urban communities.
• Balance should be maintained between domestic production and food exports to strengthen the food system and its resilience; and
• Food system aggregators must be established in the villages, rural towns and townships to ensure sufficient throughput of the products and services from schools in the villages, community production centres, household and smallholder producers at the desired quality on a sustainable basis.

In conclusion:

• Transformation of the rural economy is essential for growth, poverty reduction, employment creation and overcoming inequalities.
• Greater focus should on raising the productivity of smallholder producers as a way of increasing local access to nutritious foods.
• Focusing on local value food chains increases employment opportunities and reduces dependence on imports and migration to urban areas for job opportunities.

Congratulations for this first draft.  It is very rich and insightful !

This topic is so complex that when reading this first draft, To this topical theme of general interest, you will find attached some summarized proposals for How to Strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems to ensure food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation ?

The Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to ensure food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation, case of Cameroon, involves:                                       

- Satisfying urban and peri-urban demand, which requires not only an increase in agricultural production, but also an increase in agricultural products sold per farmer, as well as the effectiveness of the transformation of all local products taken from the soil Cameroonians in rural and urban areas.

- The continuation of agricultural and financial assistance to vulnerable communities in Cameroon, while supporting livelihoods in order to increase food production and then strengthen their resilience in rural and urban areas.

- The establishment of a national file of players in the said sector available at the level of each district.

-The professionalization of the agricultural and poultry sector with the establishment of professional agricultural or poultry cards for players in this sector, issued by the competent authorities of each district, thus allowing them access to credit, subsidies, equipment and then to agricultural and poultry inputs and any other benefit linked to their function.

- The multiplication of training centers specializing in the production, processing and conservation of agricultural and livestock products into local finished products in each rural and urban area.

- The creation of specialized post-harvest centers and storage of finished products resulting from the processing of raw materials in the form of a national granary in each district.

- Redistribution and access to arable agricultural land to nearly 15 million Cameroonians individually or in groups, in each rural and urban area.

- Access to agricultural and poultry credits for nearly 15 million Cameroonians in the said sector from the national list of actors in this sector at the rural and urban level in order to make up for the economic losses linked to COVID-19.

- Access to agricultural and poultry inputs in each rural and urban area at 50% in the form of a subsidy and 50% in the form of credit.

- The creation and domiciliation of a bank or agricultural micro-finance specialized in each rural and urban area.

- The industrialization (conservation and/or transformation) of 90% of products from agriculture in each rural then urban area and 80% reserved directly for national urban consumption.

- The export of 10% of finished products from the 90% previously processed and the remaining 80% will be intended for the national urban market.

- The creation of subsidized urban supermarkets for the marketing of 80% of national agricultural and poultry products.

- The creation and increase of mixed operational monitoring and training teams including advisors in agriculture and/or livestock, marketing-commerce-sales, post-harvest, food technology, financial resources management, then in taxation with a view to assisting rural farmers and then increasing the production and marketing of agricultural and poultry products in urban areas.

Comments of James Kuhns, and Dr. Fiona Wallace

Thank you for a very comprehensive draft on an important and fast-changing subject.

The proposed framework gives policymakers a good overview of the intersection of FSN and urban food systems. The report could have given more examples of how policymakers can operationalize the framework. Some of the visuals are a bit messy (differing font sizes, odd layout). Figure 1.4 comes across clearly but the area with the arrows is not well explained. Some more detail should be added to the report to explain this part of the framework.

Figure 1.1 is quite useful in illustrating how critical policy elements impact various dimensions of food security. The discussion on the implications of this definition is very brief. A clear explanation of the differences between Sustainability (regenerative) and Stability (diverse & resilient) would be helpful. Is not resiliency also a critical element of sustainability?

If sustainability is being included in a broader definition- it needs to be clearly defined as to what is in scope. Does it mean sustainability of the food supply or sustainability of the environment- a formal definition could be added to indicate what ‘sustainability’ means. On page 68- sustainability is glossed over compared to the other attributes – more detail is required.

Some issues I believe warrant more coverage in the report. Although gender is mentioned in a few places in the report, I think it could be given more prominence. Especially, if you link it with social justice, which is largely missing in the draft report.

Section 3.1 which covers land inequality makes a few mentions of Indigenous views on land. There are many different Indigenous views concerning land. Some revision would be helpful.   Also, the section on disabilities seems glossed over. In many parts of Canada, those that are on fixed incomes because of a disability are among the most food insecure. There is plentiful data from developed countries available on this issue.

The social protection section (6.5.3) needs more emphasis. In parts of the Global North, it is a core driver of food security, and it is under emphasized compared to other sections. The statements on the right to food section is well done! Overall, data and knowledge seem underrepresented, as without that you cannot get governments to do anything! The need for formal research, and funding for formal research needs more emphasizing.

Case studies to strengthen urban and peri-urban food systems

In 2021 Toronto (Canada), city council passed the Black Food Sovereignty Plan. The plan uses a human rights approach that recognizes the right to food, understands hunger as a problem of food governance, unequal distribution, and injustice. 

The plan focuses on systems and is centred on the decision-making power of people to define how to access their culturally appropriate foods. Further, it puts local farmers and other food providers at the centre of the food system and highlights relationships between communities, nature, and sustainability. The plan can be seen as advancing The City of Toronto’s strategies and commitments, for example, Prosperity TO: Toronto Poverty, and the Resilience Strategy, among many others.

The report is structured with 5 thematic pillars:

• Sustainable funding & community capacity
• Access to growing space
• Accessible infrastructure
• Black food hubs and cultural markets
• Culturally rooted community health & nutrition programs 

The pillars are accompanied by 45 recommendations, many of which specifically address enhancing agency.

Best wishes,

James Kuhns MSc, Lecturer, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada

Fiona Wallace PhD, Nutrition Opportunities Worldwide, Toronto, Canada

Dear authors and moderators,

First of all, congratulations on a fantastic and comprehensive report that sets out a compelling conceptual framework and strong key principles. Attached you will find Rikolto's contribution to the consultation on the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19.

Our comments focus on several points which are detailed in the document attached:

• Language: we are concerned that the jargon and academic language used in the report may deter what we imagine to be its intended users (government representatives, practitioners, etc.) from engaging with it.
• Operationalisation of the framework: the report is very theory-heavy and we feel that it would be significantly more accessible if it included practical illustrations and examples of the concepts described. This is done in some sections but not everywhere. Chapter 6 on institutional & policy pathways is weaker compared to the rest of the report. We would like to see more recommendations on how to translate the theoretical suggestions into concrete actions on the ground.
• Food systems approach and trade-offs: we find that there is insufficient reference to the potential trade-offs and co-benefits with other food system outcome areas namely livelihoods, environmental sustainability and resilience (which was nevertheless addressed to some extent). This is particularly evident in the section on institutional and policy pathways, where several examples of policy instruments were considered only through the lens of food security and nutrition.
• Foodsheds vs. territories: the concept of foodshed encourages the reader to view production areas solely through the lens of their role in feeding cities which is limitative and carries an extractive connotation. The concepts of city-region food systems and food territories seem more appropriate.
• Youth: Youth-led movements, CSO initiatives, and SMEs play an important role in putting emerging issues at the forefront and innovating new ways to produce, distribute, process, and consume food in cities. We encourage the authors to acknowledge youth’s leadership in urban food system transformation and to highlight ways in which (local) governments can support them and harness their efforts.
• The role of private sector, particularly SMEs: the report doesn't clearly articulate how governments can harness the financial and innovative potential of the private sector while protecting themselves from undue influence by corporate actors. As it stands, the private sector is largely absent from most of the report. We would like to see more examples of how governments can work with SMEs to increase the sustainability, efficiency, and resilience of urban and peri-urban food systems, for example through school feeding programmes, local food distribution platforms or the provision of services to smallholder producers and small-scale processors.
• Interplay with export markets: we believe that it would also be relevant to explore the interplay between export dynamics and urban food system dynamics, where export markets can provide incentives for the adoption of good and safe agricultural practices, while at the same time providing investments in infrastructure, service provision and capacity that could be used in support of better access to nutritious and safe food in urban food markets in a context of market segmentation by farmer organisations.
• Case studies: finally, we suggest two case studies for your consideration: one on the Good Food parliament in Mbale, Uganda, and one on the Superlist initiative in Belgium which aims to make healthy and sustainable food consumption an easier choice for citizens.

We wish you all the best in finalising the report and look forward to reading the final version!

Charlotte Flechet on behalf of Rikolto's Good Food for Cities' team (https://www.rikolto.org/programmes/good-food-for-cities) 

The FAO may want to consider promoting policies that improve the heirloom garden seed industry in most African countries.  Only South Africa has a robust garden seed industry in Africa (see Livingseeds Heirloom Seed Co, for example).  Other African countries have limited the production of open pollinated, .non-hybrid non-GMO seeds. African countries have limited the use of heirloom garden seeds so that their use will not interfere with the commercial production of vegetables for the European market.

I suggest that the FAO recommend the use of Victory Gardens (over poverty) so that people in poverty can increase their food security.  In particular, I suggest that the FAO recommend the use of the Three Sisters garden technique to increase food availability in African urban and peri-urban environments. Many African countries do not have the heirloom garden seeds typically used for a Three Sisters garden in the US (Kentucky Wonder and Lazy Housewife green pole bean seeds as well as Country Gentleman, Golden Bantam and Bloody Butcher sweet corn),

Dear Moderator & Editors

Thank you for the opportunity to engage on this important topic. We have attached our comments alongside the relevant subsection. 

I represent Incredible Edible Lambeth, a grassroots food growing network in London. We are currently working to strengthen the policy environment for food growing in Lambeth, London, as part of a Right To Grow network and also as part of our local food partnership (Lambeth Food Partnership). Your report was very useful to help me understand the wider context and drivers for creating sustainable urban food environments.

Your analysis of urban and peri-urban food growing is accurate in identifying the factors that inhibit food growing in London - lack of policy support for food growing at local authority level, lack of joined up working between communities and statutory authorities and a lack of joined up working across council departments. In London there is also a lack of financial resources - people are managing projects on a shoestring with short term funding if any, and food growers are in competition with developers for secure access to land. 

The factor that is missing from your report is the need to build community and human capacity for food growing. IEL supports 120 community groups that grow food on housing estates, streets, meanwhile spaces, schools etc. Community food growing relies on access to land and physical resources but it also relies on people as a key resource. Projects are led by residents, many of whom are people managing physical and mental health challenges, and who are non-traditional learners. They are often working alone or in a small group in a difficult environment where there are multiple challenges eg high levels of conflict, and they often face institutional barriers to food growing.  They urgently need the following support: upskilling (including organisational skills such as fundraising, community engagement and governance), and they want a stronger connection to other growers and decision makers.

Thanks again for giving the opportunity to contribute to this work.

As an urban food systems researcher, and policy advisor, the opening chapter of CFS HLPE Report #19 offers what I believe to be critical insights and positions as these pertain to the work of the HLPE and the wider food and nutrition security challenges, notably that:

• The future of the world is urban; more than half of humanity now lives in cities. Much of the projected urban population growth is happening in the poorest parts of the world.
• This ‘urbanization of poverty’ becomes food insecurity as the urban poor spend a large amount of their income on food and bear the cost of urban living.
• The urban and peri-urban need to be understood as active agents in shaping food systems and FSN conditions.

These framing statements directly reflect evidence, and gaps in the current approaches to the wider FNS challenges, gaps that for the most part have not been adequately engaged and addressed within urban food governance, national food and nutrition policy responses, or despite emerging work, in global governance domains.  These framing statements are further supported by the points that:

• As much as there are challenges, urbanization also provides opportunities for livelihoods, improved diets and increased agency.
• Urban and peri-urban food governance can be transformative of the wider food systems.

Seeing urbanization as an area of solution and a key site of “struggle” through which global, regional, and local FNS challenges can be addressed is profound, and again, a position that has been largely absent in global discourses. Incorporating the role that governance at the urban scale can play in FNS transformation also requires significant acknowledgement.

The importance of these framing positions is re-enforced by the very real challenge detailed in the report that “many future urban residents, predominantly in Africa and Asia, will be living in cities and peri-urban areas as yet unbuilt”. For researchers and policymakers working in Africa and Asia, this view resonates strongly and reflects the current position. The  statement further highlights the critical need to avoid path dependencies that will result from the current infrastructure investment focus (and development) in these regions. The intersection between cities that are yet to be built, and the stated FNS challenges detailed in the Draft Report further highlights the need for active FNS engagement at the urban scale, specifically how concepts such as Food Environments, Food Deserts, Food Retail (formal and informal), are governed for urban and peri-urban food system outcomes. Other infrastructure factors, such as energy supply, energy use, WASH, transport, all being built now, will dominate how the food system of these emerging urban areas function. These factors present an interesting challenge for the wider urban framing.

There are arguably three urban contexts that impact, influence and dictate food system outcomes. The developed city, cities largely formed during the first urbanisation transition;   cities at various scales of urbanisation, effectively cities that largely reflect the first urban transition, but also reflect elements of the second urban transition; and then the sites of significant change and rapid, and very different urbanisation, cities and regions experiencing the second urban transition.

Given these differences and the need that these variations in urbanisation present, it is suggested that more attention is given to the second urban transition taking place in the Global South. I do need to acknowledge my own bias as a researcher from this context.

Chapter 2 – Urbanisation.

While I appreciate the need for brevity and that the work engaging the urban transitions are too vast and detailed for inclusion here, I do feel that there are four overarching urban considerations that are needed to ground this report in a specific urban context. Many of these have been named or inferred in Chapter 1. However, the different scales of urbanisation across regions and in countries, needs recognition and detail.

1) A key challenge in framing a global position is to avoid the instinct to generalise. This point is highlighted by the point noted in Ch1 on the pace and scale of urbanisation in two specific regions, SSA and South Asia.

2) Importantly, the work of Pieterse, Parnell, Oldfield, Siame, Watson, Simone, Revi, Bhan and many other Southern authors have made it plain that the urbanisation in the Global South differs significantly from that of the earlier urbanisation transition in the Global North.  The current, largely Southern, urban transition has been referred to as the “second urban transition”. The “first” transition included a number of factors engaged in this chapter, specifically increased income, employment, and wellbeing. The first urban transition occurred at the same time as industrialisation, enabling significant infrastructure investment, employment and wealth generation. While the inequities associated with the first transition did exist, the general trend was one of industrial opportunity, economic benefit and the realisation of the so-called urban dividend.  The second urban transition is taking place in in the context of a largely absent industrial transition, a global economy that is largely service (and thus highly skilled) oriented, and a globalised economy. Governance and developmental assets, specifically infrastructure, social services and income, came with the first urban transition, the benefit from an "urban advantage". The urbanisation that is currently taking place is taking place in much of the global South it taking lace in the context of an absent economy, a largely absent state, limited employment, reduced public services, and virtually no infrastructure investment. Southern urban residents able to counter these trends are often ensconced in elite estates, splintered from the urban majority. As a result, the second urban transition is symptomatic of  high levels of informality, in terms of physical infrastructure and housing, economy and governance, and significantly limited fiscal resources to enable development and policy action.

It is felt that this fundamental component of the state of urbanisation need inclusion in this section for a number of reasons. However three are paramount: First, concepts and approaches adopted in the Global North, and aligned to contextual needs of the Global North, are fundamentally out of alignment with the contextual realities of the Southern urban transitions, demanding very different approaches and perspectives. Second references to slum urbanism and informality are often framed in negative terms, as an urban pathology, where urbanisation is seen as the issue. This fails to acknowledge the specific difference of the transition, and often then defers to development strategies that are ill suited. Given the fact that urbanisation globally is now largely driven by internal growth (as correctly detailed in this chapter), rural re-investment, agricultural development, new green revolutions, etc. that dominate food systems development discourses of the South, will not generate the developmental and FNS benefits imagined by development practitioners and the political class in these urbanising countries. Finally, given that development will take place, and that despite high levels of informality, formality, specifically in terms of physical infrastructure will take place and it is this infrastructure that will determine the nature of future urban and global food systems. Countering negative path dependencies is essential.  

Ch1 references UN-Habitat NUA but Chapter 2 pays no attention to this.

3) The intersections between the impacts of urbanisation and the food system are having a profound impact determining global challenges, specifically climate change. Do these two factors not need linking here, or at least acknowledgement that these are interconnected, and if urbanisation and food are considered differently, these could generate multiple global benefits.?

4) While addressed in the governance section, is there not utility in describing some of the different governance opportunities as these relate to FNS systems and how these differ in rural and urban areas. My question is embedded in the comment in Ch1 that very different approaches are needed. As an example, the food safety discussion in this chapter reads as a drop in. However, would the point be better made if the differences in Food Safety governance in rural and urban are details, rather than simply saying food safety in urban areas presents challenges?

In addition to this:

2.2 Peri-urbanization and urbanization:   Secondary cities face unique challenges. The relationship that cities have with other levels of government depends on their size such that primate cities, which comprise a large percentage of a country’s urban population, tend to receive a larger share of public investment from central governments than their smaller counterparts (Henderson, 2002). While mentioned below it is suggested that greater emphasis is given to the contextual aspects associated with secondary (or intermediary cities) and the importance of not seeing all secondary cities as similar. These contextual, and typology differences result in very different UP FS challenges.

Figure 2.2: A simplified visualization of links between urbanization and food systems, with a focus on urbanization processes impacting consumption of food away from home  - figure is confusing (and masks the complexity of the described interactions. It also categorises aspects in silo-ed ways. Further, it fails to capture the socio-material infrastructure intersections. Arguably it appears to undermine, or over-simplify the critical foundational point, that “The urban and peri-urban need to be understood as active agents in shaping food systems and FSN conditions.”

2.3 Links between urbanization processes and food systems: - Notably, while increasing dietary convergence across the urban-rural spectrum has been observed, household income remains an important determinant of diet and consumer behaviour, including higher animal source foods and fruit and vegetable consumption for higher income consumers (FAO et al., 2023; Warr, 2020). Indeed, links between food value chain transformations and dietary outcomes (i.e., undernourishment, micronutrient deficiencies, and excess consumption) are moderated by income, such that lower-income households suffer from poorer dietary outcomes across types of food value chains and across the rural-urban continuum relative to wealthier households (Gómez and Ricketts, 2013) (Page 17) – I question this, other research shows that infrastructure is a more important determining factor (Crush and McCordic, 2015; etc.), income is less important.

3.4.1 Food environment factors – impact of second urban transition on food environments, specifically how in many LMIC informal areas infrastructure is limited, or costly. This has two implications: 1) infrastructure is costly, and as a result, plays a far greater role in food choice than market or proximity to healthy foods might. Despite availability, preparing pulses and traditional foods might be made more costly overall given the infrastructure (water, energy, transport, time) cost. 2) given the state of informality, many urbanites do not have kitchens, fridges, stoves, etc. As such the street is the larder, the kitchen, the dining table. This plays a significant but unrecognised role in FAFH factors.

As such a clear FE differentiation between current generalisations of the FE (informed largely by Northern positions) and Southern second urban transition factors need inclusion.

4.5.1 Urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) – while this section offers a useful and balanced conversation on UPA, it is felt that given the other detail documented in the report, a reflection on the presentation UPA as a solution in LMIC regions requires discussion, or mention at least? Given the extent of marginalisation in LMIC urban areas, the negative impacts and inequities associated with globalisation, etc. is it fitting to present UPA as the development solution to the FNS challenges. Many in the South have been and are still subjected to significant marginalisation, inequities and exclusion in the global agenda. Now, these same marginalised Southern urban residents are being asked to self-help, to solve systemic challenges that are not of their making. They are expected to be innovative, problem solve and become UPA experts in contexts that are far from opportune. The historical marginalisation is brushed aside, disregarded and trivialised. Problematically, when these Southern actors seek to find some solution to FNS issues through UPA, and fail, for the same historical, systemic and other contextual issues, they are then blamed, labelled as feckless, and lacking of initiative. Caution is required in such a report, specifically as the reasons that drive such FNS issues have previously been detailed, specifically in HLPE Report #18, and as discussed therein, simply attempting to grow oneself out of poverty and hunger, and wider inequities, is not possible.

Engagement with food safety – In Chapter 3 food safety is discussed but in a very general manner. In Chapter 4 it is again engaged, as a cross cutting issue. In Chapter 5, the deployment of food safety as a means of control and repression is effectively highlighted. These different engagements are at times contradictory, or can create confusion with readers, and policy makers, selecting the framing that suits their needs. Is a more active engagement in the positives, negatives, use for other reasons, etc. is necessary.

Figure 6.1: In ongoing work in African, Asian and some Caribbean cities, historical path dependencies were found to be a significant “contextual dimension” that needed detailed understanding, engagement and reflection as these factors played a significant role in the nature of the other contextual dimensions – does some recognition of this not need inclusion in the theory of change? This is asked given the point that “this radical transformation also means developing policy initiatives that reshape the underlying principles that guide current food systems activities” – these current underlying principles have a distinct genealogy and as such, impact both current and potential future actions.

Dear Moderator,

Regarding the e-Consultation on the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report #19 „Strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems to achieve food security and nutrition in the context of urbanization and rural transformation” we would like to provide the Hungarian comments in this e-mail, since we had troubles to register to the website:

 Hungarian comments on the V0 draft of the HLPE-FSN report on strengthening urban and peri-urban food systems

1. Comment of the Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary:

The discussion of the topic is relevant, but it has very diverse aspects. In global terms, although we are talking about large cities, the economic, social and political arrangements are very different, and the settlements and their consumers have to be placed under different climatic conditions.

A greener, more livable urban environment can be suitable for the production of small amounts of vegetables or fruit in some places in cities, for example by creating community gardens and community squares (orchards with native species). These opportunities bring urban people closer to food production, whether for educational or recreational purposes. Regarding this, it is important to highlight that educational institutions with green areas, such as gardens in the courtyards of schools and kindergartens can take care for the training of future generations in this direction, in rising interest, which contributes to the increase of urban biodiversity and the reduction of surfaces covered with asphalt.

It is important to carry out appropriate impact studies and research to see if recent innovations (e.g. the vertical farming, production of microgreens in larger facilities and the production of laboratory meat as animal feed or for human consumption) truly help to improve the malnutrition of the poorer communities, if mass production reduces the price to a lower price category, increase the employment of people living in the city, and fully ensure food safety. It should be considered that these investigations should examine as many locations as possible, and plans should be prepared to maintain, establish and guarantee food supply and food safety throughout the entire food chain.

2. Comment of the research lead of the Hungarian Research Institute of Organic Agriculture:

It would be useful to include the definition of processed-ultra processed-fresh food or even a list of which food and food groups belong to the given categories. I did not find a related section in the report and I think it would be useful.

I recommend to have a reference to NOVA food classification system.

·         Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac JC, Levy RB, Louzada MLC, Jaime PC. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):5-17. doi: 10.1017/S1368980017000234. Epub 2017 Mar 21. PMID: 28322183; PMCID: PMC10261019

·         Monteiro, Carlos A. (2009-05-01). "Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so much as processing". Public Health Nutrition. 12 (5): 729–731. doi:10.1017/S1368980009005291. ISSN 1475-2727. PMID 19366466. S2CID 42136316.

The NOVA criteria involve classifying food products into four groups based on the amount of processed ingredients: (1) unprocessed or minimally processed foods, (2) processed culinary ingredients, (3) processed foods, and (4) ultra-processed foods (UPFs) [9]. See Fig. 1 for the complete definitions of all food categories.

 Best regards,

Liliána Kaszás

Fao coordinator

Department of EU and FAO Affairs

Ministry of Agriculture