Dear Panel,
Please find my personal comments (not from my institute) below. I will be happy to clarify these if needed. And if needed, I will also be willing to contribute more to a next draft.
General
This is a very important and timely report. It is very relevant to assess present (and past and future) consumption patterns in the light of ‘food systems’ and the food environment. This having said, the report could gain strength by providing more evidence, be more conclusive, while avoiding to be biased. Please find below some quick comments, as unfortunately I did have time for a full review.
The report could even stress more that there are large differences in types of food systems, with huge implications for nutrition. While the notion of ‘food environment’ is important, it should be noted that there is a large difference between the implications of what a food environment means certain rural areas in developing countries where food production sometimes is largely based on subsistence farming, compared to an urban environment. And within an urban environment, there is a large difference between richer and poorer countries, and also between richer and poorer neighborhoods. In case of regions with are still largely based on traditional food systems, the notion and large body of work around ‘farming systems’ might be of larger relevance.
While the report at one hand would need to take into account this notion of large differences, on the other hand the report cannot give ready answers for all situations. It is therefore more important to provide the readers/users of the report with some kind of relevant framework how to analyze their own situation (local or national food system), and identify potential points of intervention, than to try to cover everything. See for example the draft framework in the UNEP IRP report on Food systems and natural resources (Chapter 8).
1. Are those major objective(s) clearly reflected in the V0 draft?
I do not see yet a clean line of (evidence based) argument yet how food systems (and actors within food systems) influence dietary patterns. I would say that two lines of thought are important in doing so:
1) to acknowledge that food systems vary widely globally, implying that the analysis should also be specific per type of food system / region and 2) assess the business logic of actors within food systems (taking into account the diversity of food systems).
The sustainability issues are treated only quite briefly. For the sustainability / resource aspect, I would suggest to use the UNEP-IRP report Food systems and natural resources (2016).
I would be careful to explore to the question “what an ideal food system would look like” (p. 21, l. 15). The type of food system is largely determined by societal developments, and is hard to change. I would suggest to look within current food systems how nutritional (and environmental) outcomes can be improved.
I would suggest to put much more emphasis on food processors, retailers and food service. What is their business logic? A very important aspect is the processing of food: in general, the industry earns more many with more processed foods, which has led to a vast increase in the consumption of ultra-processed foods, starting in richer countries, now also in middle-income countries and more and more in LIC. The high consumption rates of processed and ultra-processed foods has an enormous impact on both human health as well as on the environment. In many cases (oil crops, cereals, etc) the best parts of the crop (minerals, proteins, fibers) are fed to animals, and human only consume the carbohydrates (oil, white bread and rice, beer, sugar, refined juices etc.).
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?
Chapter 2 (The Burden) is framed quite negatively. Maybe this could be framed more neutral, without of course understating this burden. But for many people the nutritional status has improved over the last 20-40 years. While large famines were more a less normal in the previous centuries, there are now many regions in the world were food security is not really an issue anymore.
3.
Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified? Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework?
No, I would suggest to put the idea of ‘food systems’ central in the report, with food environment being an important aspect. Maybe the conceptual framework of the UNEP IRP could be combined with the present framework.
Some other points:
- In chapter 2 other food related NCDs seem to be largely missing, as CVDs but also colon cancer and other diseases (for example alcohol related).
- Alcoholic beverages are largely missing: what is their effect on health, family incomes etc? Take for example the aggressive marketing of beer, and high pressure in some groups to drink beer in many countries.
- Paragraph 3.2 needs more elaboration
- Future developments seem to be a bit scattered over the report.
- The food service sector is largely missing (restaurants (from large chains to street vendors), caterers, food in institutions as schools, hospitals, work, prisons etc.). In many countries, the out-of-home consumption is more than 50%.
- Typologies of food systems: see the UNEP IRP report. On Food systems. It is also important to note that food systems are interlinked, by trade, cultural exchange etc.
- The trade section seems to be a bit biased. Trade is important for countries with limited production potential, it can help to mitigate production shocks, it can help to diversify diets etc.
- The food system is depicted (see for example page 69) as a linear one-way system, while in reality it is a two-way system, with many feedback loops.
With kind regards,
Henk Westhoek
Program manager Agriculture and Food
Henk Westhoek