Strongly agree with Lawrence (below) and other commentators. This is a very useful statement of the need for the food system to become more nutrition-sensitive, highlighting several general actions that need to be taken. This is all important. But this is the International Conference on NUTRITION. The Accord is too food-biased....there needs to be a better balance between the different drivers of malnutrition. We know so much more now than we did 22 years ago -- both about what drives poor nutrition outcomes, and what can be done to turn things around. In both cases (problems and solutions) the evidence is clear that a multisectoral approach that "presses all the buttons" of food, health and care-relevant actions is needed. The non-food sectors and actions are mentioned in this statement, but it comes across as lip service. If this conference is to continue the trend of more harmonized action on nutrition that we have begun to witness in recent years, this imbalance needs to be corrected. There are many examples of this bias scattered throughout the statement.....the pivotal para 21 "Committing to Action" mentions the word "food" 9 times compared to once for "nutrition" and once for "health". Other drivers such as poor sanitation, caring capacity/practice are not mentioned.
A few other comments:
Para 6: urges to "renew commitments" made in 1992. Why? Why were these commitments not fulfilled when they were made in 1992, why are they to be renewed? Shouldn't they be changed, if they were not fulfulled, 22 years later?
Para 7" "renew commitment to reduce number of children who are stunted"....etc. This is weak. No targets? Why have a statement that speaks in generalities, and at the same time call for better accountability?
Final para: I assume the meaning of the "Decade of Action on Nutrition" will be clear to all signatories....again, interesting to know more about accountability and how it will be given teeth.
Dr. Stuart Gillespie