Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

General Comments:

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process and begin by expressing gratitude for the contributions of those, including FIAN International, calling for the Accord to be grounded in the right to food.

1.      Do you have any general comments on the draft political declaration and its vision (paragraphs 1-3 of the zero draft)?  

Paragraph 2:

Concerning prevalence of undernourishment. Please note that the “prevalence of undernourishment,” referred to here, captures only severe caloric deficiency lasting longer than a year. Thus this measure – which is the only hunger number the public typically receives -- does not capture the extent of undernourishment. I encourage the ICN2 to challenge and clear up this confusing use of terms and the definitions. One solution is to call this measurement “prevalence of long-term caloric deficiency.”  (PLCD)

Moreover, another advantage of such a change is that it could clear up significant confusion:  To most people, “nourishment” and “nutrition” are interchangeable. So the public may be bewildered by the two terms having very different meanings in FAO terminology – with “undernourishment” meaning calorie deficiency, from which recovery is often possible, and “undernutrition” meaning stunting, carrying life-long harm.

Concerning stunting.  The Zero Draft notes that stunting “has declined but still affected 162 million children under 5 in 2012.”  This presentation is of concern for a number of reasons. First, noting children that are affected by stunting, without clarifying that it is a lifelong burden contributing to disease and developmental challenges, could lead some reading this document to assume one can outgrow stunting.  Second, the absolute number of children fails to communicate the vast extent of stunting: The UNICEF estimate is that one in four of the world’s children is stunted. However, since stunting is not a condition that one outgrows, and assuming that stunting has not suddenly increased significantly, the portion affected should effectively be considered as that of an entire population. In other words, we should be talking about a quarter of the world’s entire population harmed by stunting. Third, I suggest that the ICN2 highlight the fact that the extent of stunting does not correlate with the prevalence of undernourishment, which should raise questions about the usefulness of continuing to use caloric deficiency as the almost exclusive measure of “hunger.”  Additionally, because stunting estimates include actual measurements of children (unlike the prevalence of undernourishment arrived at primarily from estimates of accessibility) it could be a more accurate reflection of the crisis of hunger.

Paragraph 3:

Concerning dietary diversity. The draft notes that: “The evolution of food (including agricultural) systems  --  with innovations in production, manufacturing, storage and distribution – has led to enhanced dietary diversity, greater consumption of vegetables and fruit, as well as meat and dairy, in developing countries, although benefits have been uneven.” However, given worsening NCD statistics throughout the world, including the developing world, this statement seems confusing. Earlier the draft notes that micronutrient deficiencies “have not improved,” which seems to contradict this increased diversity, presented here as positive. My observation is that the human diet is becoming less and less diverse, with severe negative consequences. An example: The increase in diabetes and other NCD in southern India are linked to reduced diversity: more polished white rice (lacking nutrition and with high glycemic index) and processed foods replacing nutritious diverse millets and family gardens.

Concerning reference to food system as “unable.” The statement that the “food system is still unable to provide safe and nutritious food for all” is troubling. “Unable” implies lack of capacity. Yet there is vast proof of our capacity to achieve this goal. My understanding is that our problem is not capacity. It is that the food system is still organized by anti-democratic economic rules that exclude vast numbers of us, and thus deny safe and nutritious food for all.

2.      Do you have any comments on the background and analysis provided in the political declaration (paragraphs 4-20 of the zero draft)?   

Paragraph 8:

Concerning food as a human right. The draft calls on signers to “recall” the International Covenant to “support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food…” I am surprised that, given growing world attention to the food-as-a-human-right framework, this draft does not continue to build this understanding and premise and use it as the touchstone throughout the document. This point seems especially important now that we have evidence of the usefulness of the right to food framework as an organizing principle for both government and civil society actions (and collaborations), as in the case of Brazil. I am puzzled by the use of the term “recall” to open the paragraph when other paragraphs begin with relatively strong verbs such as “reaffirm.”

Paragraph 11:

Concerning food waste. Here is the only mention of food waste, and it appears at the very bottom of a paragraph about sustainable (“ecologically sensitive farming practices”) food production and processing. Thus, it could easily be lost. However, reducing vast food waste (one-third of all food) is a pathway to greater supply, potentially addressing hunger without increasing food production that necessarily carries environmental and climate change costs. I strongly encourage the ICN2 to highlight that such waste must be addressed at its deeper roots: the poverty of farmers lacking means to prevent loss, along with food distribution and processing systems that are allowed to exacerbate the problem.

  The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) thanks the FAO and WHO for the opportunity to comment on this draft. We would like to see greater recognition of the cross-cutting nature of nutrition in this accord. The food system is vital, however given that ICN2 looks beyond FAO’s  mandate, this accord should recognise the importance of making family planning, social protection, health systems, water and sanitation provision, education, poverty reduction, trade, finance and governance more nutrition-sensitive.

1. Do you have any general comments on the draft political declaration and its vision (paragraphs 1-3 of the zero draft)?  

The first half of paragraphs 12 and 13 outline the importance of safe food and water, income, education and healthcare. The introduction would be stronger if it reflected this from the outset:

Paragraph 1. As well as recognising malnutrition as one of the greatest threats to people’s health and well-being, the paragraph should recognise that malnutrition is a threat to livelihoods, health, education and, as a consequence of this, a nation’s future. 

Paragraph 3. This paragraph focuses on food systems as a critical cause of malnutrition. The Accord would be stronger if it went beyond food systems and recognised the multiple causes of malnutrition. Alternatively, the drafting committee could include a fourth paragraph highlighting the importance of health, education, income, access to markets.

2.      Do you have any comments on the background and analysis provided in the political declaration (paragraphs 4-20 of the zero draft)?   

Overall, we would like to see this section focus both on nutrition within the food system and nutrition outside of the food system. The acknowledgement of nutrition as a cross-cutting issue is cursory at present.

Paragraph 5. If a child’s nutritional status is to be given every possible chance, it is also imperative that the nutrition of adolescent girls is also targeted in order to break the intergenerational cycle of malnutrition. As such, we recommend adding the following text to the end of the paragraph 5:  “such as the first 1,000 days of life or during girls’ adolescence”.

Paragraph 7. This paragraph should recognise the 6 WHA goals to improve maternal, infant and young child nutrition.

Paragraph 8. This should recall WHA65/6 : Comprehensive implementation plan on maternal, infant and young child nutrition.

Paragraph 12. The first half of the paragraph recognises that nutrition cuts across every sector in government. However the second half of the paragraph focuses again on food systems, stating that “Public policies should deal with both food supply and demand”. We suggest that the second half of the paragraph should state that “public policies should deal with malnutrition across all sectors, focusing on both prevention and treatment”.   We suggest the second half of this paragraph is moved into a separate paragraph as it currently weakens the message that malnutrition is a cross-cutting issue.

Paragraph 13. The first sentence in this paragraph, which recognises that “increased public investment to improve nutrition is needed, including more equitable access to safe food and water, income, education and healthcare – all necessary to ensure universal access to healthy diets.” We suggest amending the last part of this sentence to “all necessary to reduce malnutrition”. In the same vein, we suggest making the second half of this paragraph a separate para (from “continued efforts are needed”) in order not avoid dilution of the impact of all sectors on malnutrition.

Paragraph 18. We welcome the focus on government leadership and responsibility on nutrition. We also welcome the focus on institutional capacity. However, we believe that the sentence, “Governments’ investment plans should target food systems with the aim of improving the availability, accessibility and acceptability of healthy food” should not just focus on food systems, but should recognise the importance of nutrition-sensitive family planning[i], social protection, health systems, water and sanitation provision, education, poverty reduction, trade, finance and governance.

Paragraph 19. This paragraph is focused on the food system; again, we’d like to see it broadened out to recognise the factors beyond the food system which would contribute to eradicating malnutrition, as per the first halves of paras 12 and 13.

Paragraph 20. We strongly support the emphasis on data systems and accountability, and would welcome more reference to this as a factor that would contribute to better nutrition outcomes throughout the document.

3.      Do you have any comments on the commitments proposed in the political declaration? In this connection, do you have any suggestions to contribute to a more technical elaboration to guide action and implementation on these commitments (paragraphs 21-23 of the zero draft)?

Although the food system is critical, this section – including the commitments - should recognise nutrition outside of the food system more. This should include reference to all countries establishing a multi-sectoral coordination mechanism for nutrition to ensure that policy decisions are owned by all relevant ministries, and emphasise the need for nutrition-sensitive plans across government sectors.

22. Commit to launch a Decade of Action on Nutrition guided by a Framework for Action and to report biennially on its implementation to FAO, WHO and ECOSOC.     

Paragraph 22. We would like to see this reference the WHA 2025 targets on nutrition specifically. It’s also vital that this decade of action focuses on nutrition as a cross-cutting issue, not just within the food system.

23. Commit to integrate the objectives and directions of the Ten Year Framework for Action into the post-2015 global development efforts.   

Paragraph 23. Again, reference to the WHA targets, which are widely accepted, should be included here.

Dear Forum administrators and facilitators,

In this contribution on a 'zero' draft of the political outcome document I call the attention of the FAO-WHO joint working group to paragraphs that in my view require rewriting or deletion altogether.

Para 3 - "Recognise that the causes of malnutrition are complex and multidimensional, while food availability, affordability and accessibility remain key determinants."

If you reverse the construction - "recognise that low or inadequate availability of food, unaffordable food and lack of access to food are the results of complex and multi-dimensional factors, and that malnutrition arises from these results combining" - that is in my view closer to the conditions experienced by families and households that are food insecure. Framed in the original way, where they are 'determinants', allows the idea that these determinants can be rectified to find credence, and that by doing so malnutrition will subside. Not so.

Para 3 - "The evolution of food (including agricultural) systems -- with innovations in production, manufacturing, storage and distribution -- has led to enhanced dietary diversity, greater consumption of vegetables and fruit, as well as meat and dairy, in developing countries, although benefits have been uneven."

It is not food systems that have evolved (the balanced and equitable ones required no evolution) but that industrial processes to convert primary crop into packaged and processed food have exchanged foodways (a more culturally apposite term) for the industrialised provision of commodity calories according to the dictates of economies of scale.

Para 3 - "The consumption of processed foods, sugars and fats, particularly saturated and trans-fats, as well as salt, have also increased globally, fuelling the global epidemic of NCDs."

This is so, and this clause is a direct descendant of the previous one and needs to be stated as such.

Para 3 - "The food system is still unable to provide safe and nutritious food for all and is increasingly challenged to do so, in view of the constraints posed to food production by resource and ecological sustainability concerns, especially climate change."

Not so. Food systems (foodways or the localised cultivation and provision of food) does provide safe and nutritious food as a thriving myriad of smallholder associations, community-supported agriculture and organic movements prove every day. To claim otherwise is folly. And furthermore to ascribe an inability of these localised and community-centric cultivation and food provisioning systems to address matters of resource use, ecological and environmental sustainability and adaptation to climate change is sophistry that must be deleted for it is wholly untrue.

Para 4 - "Reaffirm that the elimination of malnutrition in all its forms is an imperative for ethical, political and economic reasons."

Be simple and true. The continued existence of malnutrition will no longer be countenanced. Economic reasons are not the ones that govern human relationships nor their potential when nurtured, for that lies far beyond current macro-economics.

Para 6 - "Renew the commitments made at the first International Conference on Nutrition and at the World Food Summit, and pledge to increase efforts to support initiatives such as the UN Secretary General's Zero Hunger Challenge."

Only insofar as they do not hinder or obstruct diverse articulations of food sovereignty, and respect such diversity.

The 'Reshaping the food system to improve people's nutrition' requires in my view an almost complete re-casting.

Para 9 - "Recognise that good nutrition requires ..." is as we saw with Para 3 a reversing of local wisdom and agro-ecological practice. It is smallholder agriculture free from synthetic fertiliser and inputs, free from the entrapments of the commercial seed industry and genetically modified technology, and in persisting with culturally traditional methods of cultivation that is sustainable, the practice of which assures good nutrition. We do not start from a perception that nutrition is poor in all cases in order to claim that all food systems require techno-capital repair.

Food supply as the output of a mechanistic approach has nothing whatsoever to do with farmers and community institutions - which is implied here, and therefore these connected perceptions of "nutritional content, diversity and safety" are not tenable.

Para 10 - "Acknowledge that food systems should produce more ..." seeks a 'guarantee' of supply. This is repugnant. It is this guarantee of the globalised food distribution channel that has almost fatally distorted local supply and convinced food buyers that access to all possible foods (foreign and exotic) is a minimum default they can aspire to. Just as egregious is "year-round access to macro and micronutrients", for the same reasons, but these reasons can rapidly become more threatening when in the form of biofortification.

Para 11 - "Reaffirm that all systems for food production ... " evades the definitions that should be demanded for "sustainably managed" and for "ecologically sensitive". By applying whose yardstick? A local point of view that has the benefit of traditional knowledge and practice, or the view of a technocrat in a central and influential planning position who has the interests of the food industry in the foreground? The remainder of the para is based on tenuous connections between climate change, food security, adaptation and food waste, and then conflates these into 'Climate Smart' which has become something of an odious trademark to be affixed to a techno-capital vehicle that packages these aspects together as an agri-nutrition solution from which the local, the organic, the agro-ecological and the culturally appropriate have been excised. This para must go.

Para 12 - "Recognise that appropriate policy packages ... " is a clumsy effort to find common ground between 'policy' and 'nutrition', and in its clumsiness conceals the danger that it can be interpreted in ways hostile to food sovereignty. What sort of "appropriate policy packages", for whom and at what cost and preferred over which alternatives? Who will decide the adequacy of any measures? Why should nutrition be diced up amongst sectors only to be turned into a rubber stamp for the further commercialisation of those sectors? Investments, subsidies and nutrition goals cannot in any national and international formulation of rights, state duties and obligations, citizenship and justice, be combined without definition and without public regulation. This para has no place here.

Para 13 - "Recognise that increased public investment to improve nutrition is needed ... " no indeed. Support by the state for smallholder farmers in ways they have, the world over, demanded is what is needed. In this para again an attempt is made to present increased agricultural productivity with more nutritious foods. This is unacceptable when we have evidence enough to show that for at least the last decade, the quantities of primary crops produced are sufficient to meet current needs, and evidence enough to show that agricultural biodiversity when not extinguished by corporate monocultures is enough to supply the many nutrients human society needs.

Para 14 - "Recognise that empowering the consumer to make ... " the consumer is deliberately kept from both knowledge and from exercising the rights to demand information by corporate interference with the directive principles of governance concerning the obligations of a government to protecting the rights of citizens. The onus here cannot be on the consumer to find out, nor on the government to enforce, but on industry and its sponsors to be curtailed, fully and completely, from influencing choice and from filtering knowledge and information.

Paras 15 and 16 - find ways to ensure that "programmes, interventions and partnerships" are written into an actionable agenda and will be helped along by development assistance "including climate mitigation and adaptation finance, philanthropic transfers and other foreign assistance" which altogether widens the scope of the financialised food industry to determine every conceivable facet that can shape the provision of food to consumers.

There are, in these paragraphs and four others that I have not dealt with in detail for lack of time, the clear intention that the food industry - from seed to inputs, from delivery to retail, and including the financial and banking sponsors of the modern industrial food system - be in no way burdened by any expectations raised during ICN2, and that the responsibilities concerning safety, choice, information, regulation (if at all), liabilities and consequences be borne by government and using public monies. This gross bias must be corrected.

Good job on the discussion forum to all involved and to our dear moderators.

A line-by-line document is attached to my final contribution and I hope that it provides governments, FAO and WHO with some useful food for thought, as well as some strong direction on what we have to offer in the fight against hunger and malnutrition.

1. Do you have any general comments on the draft political declaration and its vision (paragraphs 1-3 of the zero draft)?            

Non. Ce sujet est évidemment très important mais l'IIF, qui est une organisation intergouvernementale à vocation scientifique et technique, n'a pas pour mission de se prononcer sur des sujets de portée politique ni sur leur importance relative.

D'un autre côté, la chaîne du froid étant un élément majeur de la qualité sanitaire et nutritionnelle des aliments, l'IIF s'intéresse aux travaux et évolutions en cours et à venir dans ce domaine et c'est à ce titre que des remarques sont formulées dans ce qui suit. Ces remarques ne portent que sur des aspects qui concernent le champ d'action de l'IIF, à savoir, dans le cas présent, l'amélioration de l'efficacité de la chaîne du froid pour le développement agricole et l'alimentation. Elles sont motivées par le fait que le développement de la chaîne du froid est une condition nécessaire mais ne peut être conduit efficacement que s'il est partie intégrante d'une stratégie plus vaste d'amélioration de la production agricole et de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle, et de réduction des pertes.

1. Do you have any comments on the background and analysis provided in the political declaration (paragraphs 4-20 of the zero draft)?   

Le texte mentionne en différents endroits des sujets tels que la gouvernance et le respect des règles, la sécurité sanitaire, la réduction des pertes, l'action interministérielle et intersectoriels, l'association des différentes catégories d'acteurs et la prise en compte de l'ensemble de la chaîne de l'alimentation, sujets que l'IIF a aussi identifiés comme importants pour l'amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle.

Dans un souci de cohérence, l'IIF propose donc que la rédaction de l'article 13 relatif à l'investissement public soit complété, de façon à mentionner non seulement l'amélioration de la productivité agricole mais aussi :

• l'amélioration de la logistique de la ferme au consommateur final
• la formation
• la  mise en place de systèmes de contrôles efficaces qui sont nécessaires non seulement à la santé des consommateurs et à la loyauté de la concurrence mais aussi à la confiance des consommateurs
•  

1. Do you have any comments on the commitments proposed in the political declaration? In this connection, do you have any suggestions to contribute to a more technical elaboration to guide action and implementation on these commitments (paragraphs 21-23 of the zero draft)?

Please provide your comments in the appropriate fields relating to these commitments:         

21.

Commitment I: aligning our food systems (systems for food production, storage and distribution)to people’s health needs;  

Commitment II: making our food systems equitable, enabling all to access nutritious foods.   

Commitment III: making our food systems provide safe and nutritious food in a sustainable and resilient way;            

A ce sujet, l'IIF rappelle ce qui a été dit plus haut sur l'importance de la gouvernance et notamment de l'organisation et de la mise en œuvre des systèmes de contrôle (qualité, respect des températures le long de la chaîne du froid).

Commitment IV: ensuring that nutritious food is accessible, affordable and acceptable through the coherent implementation of public policies throughout food value chains.          

Commitment V: establishing governments’ leadership for shaping food systems.          

Les gouvernements ont un rôle d'acteur (gouvernance, investissement public matériel -infrastructures...- et immatériel – formation...). Ils peuvent aussi avoir un rôle de facilitateur pour les discussions qui doivent avoir lieu entre les différentes parties prenantes.

Commitment VI: encouraging contributions from all actors in society;              

Une première étape serait de favoriser les échanges de vues pour améliorer la « visibilité » sur les perspectives de développement des marchés et sur les conditions dans lesquelles le développement est possible, par exemple les organismes de formation ne peuvent pas monter des programmes de formation d'ingénieurs ou de techniciens dans le domaine du froid s'ils ont une idée trop imprécise du marché du travail dans ce domaine.   

Commitment VII: implementing a framework through which our progress with achieving the targets and implementing these commitments can be monitored, and through which we will be held accountable.           

22. Commit to launch a Decade of Action on Nutrition guided by a Framework for Action and to report biennially on its implementation to FAO, WHO and ECOSOC.     

23. Commit to integrate the objectives and directions of the Ten Year Framework for Action into the post-2015 global development efforts.

Based on our long experience working with farmers and agricultural communities around the world, and with our governments at national and international levels, EAA welcome this opportunity to submit the following points for consideration to the Zero Draft Political Outcome document.

1. Do you have any general comments on the draft political declaration and its vision (paragraphs 1-3 of the zero draft)?

1. EAA’s overall assumption is that the text was drafted with inputs received from the food and agriculture sector. It seems, however, there was little involvement from the health sector.
2. The tone is not sufficiently action-oriented.
3. Malnutrition in itself is an indicator of the violation (or non-realization) of the Right to Food.
4. Due to the global increase in obesity (and the consequent burden of disease), EAA would like to see stronger emphasis on this issue, including in Para 1.

 2. Do you have any comments on the background and analysis provided in the political declaration (paragraphs 4-20 of the zero draft)?

1. Para 7: EAA would like to see the statement on breastfeeding go beyond just the exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months, to include the recommendation of continued breastfeeding for 24 months and beyond as part of good infant and young child feeding practices.
2. Para 9: EAA would include the specific reference that more sustainable food systems also work to realize the right to food. We would also include that the people involved in our food system, both as consumers and producers, are central and should have ownership and decision making power.
3. Para 10: EAA appreciates the emphasis on the quality of the food produced rather than simply the quantity. We have made great strides to increase food production in the last several decades; however, we have not been successful in solving global nutrition security challenges. Simply increasing production alone will not address the root causes of hunger and malnutrition. More systematic emphasis on nutrition is needed; apart from better food systems (that deliver good quality food in sufficient quantity), health systems that provide adequate care and health services (especially to young children, their care takers and women/mothers) as well as proper sanitation and hygiene.
4. Para 11: EAA would like the drafters to reconsider the use of the reference to “Climate Smart Agriculture” in this Accord. The definition of “Climate Smart Agriculture” itself is not problematic, but how it is used and its political context makes it highly problematic. "Climate Smart Agriculture" has been criticized and resisted by many social and farming movements around the world, as it can also refer to highly contentious technologies such as GMOs or other technologies that have controversial social, environmental and nutritional impacts. It is also linked to carbon credit generation, which does not work for small-scale farmers and for which there is an enormous upfront transaction cost and questionable climate benefits.  The FAO report even acknowledges that.  It basically says that “climate smart agriculture” is any approach that results in lower emissions and will also help farmers adapt to climate change.  But by conflating these terms, the text ignores all the other aspects of adaption that are not covered under this notion.
5. Para 11: We are grateful that the text acknowledges the devastating impact that climate change is having and will continue to have on the global food and agriculture system. These impacts are set to intensify in the coming years, both through extreme climatic events such as droughts, floods, fires, tornadoes and hurricanes, but also the slow-onset effects of global temperature rise, rainfall variability and changes in soil moisture. To increase community resilience in the face of climate change, we need to strengthen local food systems using an ecosystem-based model of agriculture. For example, agroecological methods of food production considers aspects such as soil health and wider use of crop varieties and local breeds, and combines traditional knowledge with modern technologies that are well adapted to the needs of smallholder farmers and respect the local context. This includes ensuring that farmers have access to and control over the natural resources that they need (land, water, and a diversity of locally-adapted seeds that can respond to a range of difference climate challenges); enabling farmers to diversify their diets throughout the year by planting crops that ripen at different times; and replenishing the soil with nitrogen and organic matter to improve production of nutritious food.
6. Para 11: It would be good if we could further emphasize the potential of reducing food waste, maybe by moving it up in the same paragraph to the second sentence. This paragraph should state that food systems should not be just “sustainably managed" but rather sustainable in themselves, which would then follow nicely into the issue about food waste and climate change.
7. Para 12: EAA agrees that having good policies in place is one step. However translating policy into action, particularly for the most vulnerable, is often non-existent.  We recommend a national multi-sectoral mechanism that would hold various sectors accountable to policies, connected to a local level accountability mechanism.
8. Para 14: EAA supports the mention of the specific role of government to protect consumers from misleading commercial messages. However it would also be wise to clearly state who should be responsible for educating people about what good nutrition is. Awareness of what is good food and what is good nutrition for people of different ages is essential in a situation where some 40% of children in East and South Asia and Eastern Africa are suffering from malnutrition when food in fact is available.
9. Para 17: EAA highlights the need to emphasize the importance of using evidence to inform decision making in the development of nutrition policy and program implementation.
10. Para 19: EAA appreciates the specific mention of ‘faith organizations’ however one does not find mention of the implications of society, culture and religion affecting nutrition. There are many examples where culture or religion inhibits the consumption of certain foods, sometimes with positive health effects, sometimes with negative health effects, such as the exclusion of certain nutritious foods during pregnancy.
11. Para 20: EAA recommends the inclusion of the need for competency development in nutrition to fulfill this point.
12. Finally, it would be good to include an extra paragraph to emphasize the importance of health services and care and a clean environment, such as drinking water, sanitation.

3. Do you have any comments on the commitments proposed in the political declaration? In this connection, do you have any suggestions to contribute to a more technical elaboration to guide action and implementation on these commitments (paragraphs 21-23 of the zero draft)?

Commitment I: Aligning our food systems (systems for food production, storage and distribution) to people’s health needs

EAA recommends the addition ‘and people’s right to adequate food and nutrition’ at the end.

Commitment V: establishing governments’ leadership for shaping food systems.

 EAA would like the consideration of adding:

1. Governance mechanisms that ensures accountability for implementation of policy to reach the most vulnerable.
2. Allocation of resources to ensure the policy is turned into action.
3. Commitment to launch a Decade of Action on Nutrition guided by a Framework for Action and to report biennially on its implementation to FAO, WHO and ECOSOC.
4. Clear targets and timeframe for the above commitments.

In addition, EAA lends its support to the key recommendations on nutrition available in the annex of the final report - The transformative potential of the right to food - by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. (A/HRC/25/57)

States should:

1. Adopt statutory regulations on the marketing of food products, as the most effective way to reduce marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, sodium and sugar (HFSS foods) to children, and restrict marketing of these foods to other groups;
2. Impose taxes on soft drinks (sodas), and on HFSS foods, in order to subsidize access to fruits and vegetables and educational campaigns on healthy diets;
3. Adopt a plan for the complete replacement of trans-fatty acids with polyunsaturated fats;
4. Review the existing systems of agricultural subsidies, in order to take into account the public health impacts of current allocations, and use public procurement schemes for school-feeding programmes and for other public institutions to support the provision of locally sources, nutritious foods; and
5. Transpose into domestic legislation the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and the WHO recommendations on the marketing of breast-milk substitutes and of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children, and ensure their effective enforcement.

The private sector should:

1. Comply fully with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, [and subsequent relevant WHA resolutions] and comply with the WHO recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children, even where local enforcement is weak or non-existent;
2. Abstain from imposing nutrition-based interventions where local ecosystems and resources are able to support sustainable diets, and systematically ensure that such interventions prioritize local solutions;
3. Shift away from the supply of HFSS foods and towards healthier foods and phase out the use of trans-fatty acids in food processing.

In closing, EAA supports the comment by Prof. Ted Greiner that “there needs to be explicit mention of the need to switch from product-based nutrition programming (provision of vitamin A capsules and RUSF) to programming aimed at improving diets based on local foods.”

We look forward to learning more from the organizers about how they plan to ensure the meaningful participation of civil society organizations during the on-going and further preparations of ICN2, during the meeting itself, as well as during its follow-up. We have not commented on this issue in this submission but would be happy to do so when an appropriate framework is in place.

--

Background and Introduction

Inspired by Christian ethics and human rights principles, members and partners of the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance (EAA) advocate for justice and dignity for all, and especially for the poorest and most marginalized who are typically overlooked in policy-making and implementation. Our international alliances represent tens of millions of Christians around the world who support smallholder farmers, whose production capacity is the foundation of food security in much of the developing world, but whose interests are routinely ignored in relevant policy and practice.

EAA members and partners have been involved in the food and nutrition security discussions for more than a decade and will continue to follow developments within this context with high interest to ensure that global food security and the protection of basic human rights, including the right to food. We will strive to ensure that decisions taken during the ICN2 are consistent with what has been agreed within Committee on World Food Security.