Dear committee:
Fully agree with Mr. Sommers, from California, for more than 40 years still the same questions and guidelines, more discussion. Here are my points.
Introduction page 9: lines 17-22 the paragraph is like a question-answer dilemma to justify the lack of an adequate answer.
Introduction page 9: lines 31-34, the simple statement that industrial scale production is a threat for environment, and with the exact amount of money on environmental damage of US$ 3 trillion, is ridiculous, if you simply do the math’s with the WB actual population of 7.5 billion (2016 e), means that the cost of living, we owe US$ 400/year/human, to Mr. Environment, and this bring me to a simple question: Does it worth to feed the hunger at any cost? Or you prefer to let the most needed die? Because the FAO´s expert panel argued that the environment in the long term will suffer. This full paragraph looks like a environmentalist or a vegetarian type individual was in charge of it.
The Title is a Wikipedia like study case, and it avoids crucial facts, like the promotion at governmental levels of proven tools like the use of GMO´s to close the gap. This year example is Brazilian the severe drought, living the government to use fast track 10 million TN “permit” of GMO maize from USA, or the Mexican case, where authorities deny breeding GMO maize for poor farmers do to “cultural” reasons argued by NGO´s and they have to buy Transgenic maize flour imported from USA.
The argument that obesity comes solely for industrial foodstuffs can be a misleading opinion, the fact is: “the energy balance”, you can be eating the same, for instance in low income rural areas, but reduction of energy output do to a change in labor habits can be a trigger in obesity, and my point is clear, rural farmers energy in labor works reduction (agricultural, water supply, firewood collection, etc.) due to a beneficial factors such as electricity, water pumps, etc. and this Framework do not address it, is not knowing the “whole Picture” of the matter.
The Chapter 4.2.4 should make the point of promoting alternative energy output, mainly some type of organized exercise to balance the energy income, that´s the most important point in rural as in urban areas, rather than blame the use of industrialized food.
It has no sense, to be writing the same over and over and not making any important point that can leave to any government to make a clever choice.
JAVIER CARRERA