1. The purpose of this report is to analyse the ways in which food systems influence dietary patterns and hence nutritional outcomes. The objective is to focus on consumers and consider sustainability issues. The report aims to be solution oriented and to highlight efficient policies and programs. Are those major objective(s) clearly reflected in the V0 draft?
The draft offered some potentially very useful definitions (well done!) including one for food system. However, the authors did not stick to the definitions consistently in the later part of the report. Otherwise, food system and value chains can be sensibly linked together and the discussion can continue through to the end outcomes of interest of this report, which are dietary patterns and then nutritional outcomes. This deviation appears a bit strange as almost the entire discussion of foods system focused on the 5 sets of drivers in the bulk of the report. This separation between food system and value chain is unfortunate in a way that the diagram, labeled as Figure 1, did not seem to clarify the relationship between the two.
The report appears to be rather conceptual and heavy on literature review. The solution orientation should be strengthened. The 39 boxes from page 71 to page 91 are good attempts but only some offered effective and practical solutions.
2. Do you think that the overall structure of the draft is comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the draft strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing? Does the report correctly focus on the links between nutrition and food systems without straying beyond that?
The V0 draft is too long. Chapter 2 needs to be shortened and refocused on how nutrition burdens vary according to the different food system typologies – which have yet to be developed apparently. This is such a critical missing piece in the V0, which almost made it too early to share the report for public comment.
3. Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified? Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework?
The introduction of food environment was confusing. One reason could be that in the bulk of report the discussions about food environment deviated from its original definition. In addition, there is a lack of clear explanations on how food environment is different from food system and value chain yet also closely linked to both of them. The authors may want to re-evaluate how to articulate these constructs, and redraw the conceptual framework.
4. Are production systems and their role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes adequately addressed?
Not very obvious – should be included in the discussion of the food systems if the report sticks to the original definition of food system.
5. Does this draft cover adequately the main controversies in the field of Nutrition and food systems? Are there any remaining gaps?
??
6. The project team is working on a categorization of food systems. Are you aware of specific approaches of use in that perspective, and particularly of quantitative indicators that could be used?
7. Does this draft adequately show the multiplicity and complexity of diets and nutrition issues across different food systems and specific contexts with a good regional balance?
This is where things got tangled, since the typologies of the food system have not been developed. For the next version, there needs to be a clear delineation of how food systems could vary based on likely a country’s economic status. It could greatly help the authors to elaborate on the solutions to address the dietary and nutrition challenges in the different contexts and the readers to find solutions useful to their contexts – assuming the target audience is policy makers and program designers in country?
8. What areas of the document are in need of strengthening or shortening?
9. Chapter 4, Section 4.1 contains case studies/examples of effective policies and actions in different contexts/countries across the food system for diets and nutrition. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned, including the trade-offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of diets for FSN?
10. Section 4.2.2 on “Institutional Changes and Governance Across the Food System Movements for Nutrition” requires more work, and more inclusion of evidence and of the various players. Any inputs on this section are most welcome.
11. Is the report too technical or too simplistic? Are all the concepts clearly defined?
I enjoyed the technical richness, but I think the report should be packaged into different versions to tailor to the needs of different audiences. Most of the HLPE reports were technically sound yet pleasantly succinct. A summary of the full report – if the end report remained long regardless – is what perhaps most readers would need. Then there could be annexes, one of which should be the case studies and examples. The key is that they also need to be grouped consistently with how the other parts of the report are going to be labeled.
12. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance?
Lidan Du