Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

Three groups discussed how to achieve this vision: “A future where U.S. agricultural production is more resilient and supports clean water, land conservation, climate mitigation and adaptation, and protects biodiversity.” Participants cited significant concern about methane emissions and its impact on global warming, alongside the pressing issue of food loss and waste. Dairy farmers referenced the extensive environmental gains made throughout the dairy supply chain and felt there is a lack of awareness of these efforts among decisionmakers and the public. Educating consumers and other food... Read more systems stakeholders around dairy farmer initiatives could help build greater awareness among the public and stronger partnerships between rural and urban communities. They saw an opportunity to elevate understanding around the U.S. dairy sector’s work on ensuring high animal care standards through the implementation of the FARM Program (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) and establishing ambitious environmental commitments via the U.S. Dairy Environmental Stewardship goals, the industry’s commitment to be “carbon neutral or better,” optimize water use and improve water quality by 2050. Farmers noted that dairy community members pioneered and continue to be receptive to adopting new sustainability technologies and practices, but they must be economically and ecologically feasible. Anerobic digesters are one example of a proven technology that could be scaled. Unfortunately, many innovative practices are cost prohibitive. Public sector investment in research or pre-competitive research were considered key to identify and scale, but that information must be available publicly so that all farmers can benefit. Sharing best practices among farmers globally could be another opportunity to support farms of all sizes, but participants recognized that regional and local differences must be considered. Other recommendations discussed to support farmers in understanding and implementing ecological practices include Ecosystem Services Market and Field to Market. Participants also discussed the need for more engagement with consumers and younger generations, noting their understanding of cow’s milk production and the unique nutrient profile dairy foods provide (compared to non-dairy, plant-based alternatives). Targeted nutrition education efforts, focused on helping consumers understand date labels (e.g., differentiating between “use by” and “best if used by”), were referenced as ways to help reduce food waste. Like the child nutrition-focused groups, these breakout discussions also emphasized the importance of farm tours, including virtual farm tours, to build awareness and appreciation for on-farm practices and connect with young people to give them a voice in the future of sustainable food production. Finally, this group also touched on food production and food insecurity. While millions of people across the United States go hungry each day, there are times when farmers are forced to dispose of surplus food. Participants cited the need for a cohesive system (vs. present ad hoc models) that connects farmers with hunger coalitions to identify mutually beneficial options that get surplus food into the hands of those that need it most. Dairy farmers expressed their strong and historical support for participating in such systems and referenced the work undertaken by the U.S. dairy community to support address food insecurity when COVID-19 disrupted the food system. Read less

The stakeholder dialogue was designed to both inform and solicit inputs from a wide diversity of actors, in particular international organisations, Members States and other policy makers, scientists and research organisations, knowledge providers, the private sector, civil society organisations/NGO and media.

In Science Policy Interface(s) (SPIs), it is essential to consider different sources of knowledge. Knowledge should not be seen only as scientific publications, but also other sources of knowledge (grey literature, local knowledge, etc.) should be considered. Food should not be seen only as nutrition and energy; the cultural aspects of food also need to be considered in the future SPIs. Importance of transparency and inclusion in relation to SPIs, need to avoid polarisation of debate around technology (by taking into account also the role of social innovation), importance of two- way communica... Read moretion and citizen participation (as evidenced by the audience’s interest in Living Labs and Food Policy Councils emerged during the Slido exercise). Legitimacy and mandate are precursors to impact. Legitimacy can come through different ways, like: independent science, the UN as a structure, or through representation and participation. Though should we want a mandate to act in food systems, then it must extend beyond nation states. Read less

Importance of synthesising different positions (maintaining the evidence-based approach), the need to reflect on the difference between multi-stakeholderism vs. multilateralism (and how to organise the dialogue with civil society), the importance of learning from more localised experiences (where participation seems to be more effective and it is often easier to connect food system actors). Looking forward and stressing the need to improve (not replace) existing structures is a priority. UN Food Systems Summit is a great tool for having a more structured dialogue and ask for specific engagemen... Read moret with different stakeholder (e.g., private sector guiding group and leadership teams of each of the action tracks). Considering the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that offers some key guidelines in that it has similarities to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) but different way of operating. In particular, the IPCC has done a lot of work on assessing quality of evidence and confidence of quality of evidence. Read less

Four areas of divergence: 1) Role of High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) (many important learnings, strengths and weaknesses). Also: need to distinguish between HLPE/ UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS, which is a political body, while HLPE is a small scientific panel). Importantly, HLPE has a 15-person steering committee and also has a mandate to explore disagreements. Cons of CFS/HLPE: Small high-level group is fine but cannot have the level of representation needed; silos between HLPE, civil society, private sector. Pros of CFS/HLPE: It is the only legiti... Read moremate-UN embedded body. However, there are different interpretations of “legitimacy” as some argue that this comes through local participation. 2) Nature of evidence and role of science (Values versus evidence). One camp suggests that food is different from country to country as there are many more cultural/value–based elements in food systems so roll of a Science Policy Interface(s) for food systems must balance the need to create a space for debate and make clear recommendations. One camp suggests science needs to be “objective” and value-free. Relevance of science is the scientific evidence used to drive/inform change? If not, then it’s likely not fit for purpose. 3) Scale. Need for local Science Policy Interface(s) (SPIs) and not just global ones. 4) Existing vs. new SPIs: some argue the use of existing entities, others argue the need for something new. Read less

A continuación, se señalan los principales cinco conceptos y recomendaciones emergentes del trabajo en grupos (muchos de ellos mencionados por la mayoría de los grupos; ver detalles abajo): 1) Asegurar el acceso a las tecnologías: Es indispensable asegurar el acceso a las tecnologías y, en especial, conectividad con cobertura amplia y alta calidad para el desarrollo de la agricultura digital. La conectividad constituye un aspecto central de la agricultura digital y se convirtió en un elemento esencial para la vida rural en el marco de la pandemia. 2) Visibilizar las tecnologías: Difundi... Read morer las soluciones tecnológicas digitales disponibles, dado que muchos agricultores no conocen la oferta existente. Evaluar, documentar y comunicar los impactos y beneficios de las mismas como elemento clave para su incorporación y aprovechamiento. 3) Ajustar las tecnologías para que sean relevantes: Asegurar que las soluciones tecnológicas se enfoquen en las necesidades de los agricultores y se adapten a sus contextos (ej. que aborden problemáticas concretas, que sean simples e intuitivas, que puedan funcionar sin conexión, etc.). Para este fin, es importante el trabajo con los agricultores y las organizaciones en los procesos de desarrollo. 4) Fortalecer la capacitación y acompañamiento técnico: Es indispensable la alfabetización digital para formar las destrezas y capacidades que requiere el uso de las tecnologías digitales. En este contexto es necesario adaptar los servicios de extensión para que puedan encabezar instancias de formación de capacidades y de acompañamiento en procesos de desarrollo e incorporación de las tecnologías. 5) Sensibilizar a los decisores políticos: Instalar los beneficios potenciales de la agricultura digital y la urgencia de trabajar en su impulso en decisores políticos a distintas escalas territoriales. El sector público debe generar las condiciones para que los privados desarrollen y utilicen las tecnologías. Por su parte, el sector público debe simplificar y digitalizar servicios (ej. trámites) como parte del proceso de digitalización y su impulso. De manera transversal a los cinco puntos, se mencionó la necesidad de poner especial énfasis (en el marco del proceso de impulso a la digitalización) en grupos o actores más relegados (ej. comunidades indígenas, jóvenes y mujeres) Read less

Se detallan a continuación las notas sobre los conceptos y recomendaciones compartidos por cada grupo a través de su vocero, en la sesión plenaria posterior al trabajo en grupos. Todos los grupos trabajaron en la misma consigna (ver arriba): Grupo 1: Acceso a las TICs en cobertura y calidad como básico para desarrollar agricultura digital. Acento en trabajar con agricultores en cooperativas, mejorando sus conocimientos tecnológicos. Conocimiento desarrollado a través de organizaciones. Énfasis en comercio internacional electrónico, venta de desperdicios para transformación. Agricultur... Read morea digital llevada a familias rurales y a grupos excluidos como comunidades indígenas. Territorios rurales más dinámicos económicamente para poder hacer desarrollo digital. Grupo 2: Gran cantidad de productores no conoce la oferta de soluciones digitales disponibles. Dar a conocer estas soluciones y comenzar a analizar los contextos en los que se aplican las mismas, habiendo tecnologías que se enfocan en contextos específicos que no aplican en otros. Importante evaluar objetivamente y documentar el impacto específico que genera cada una de estas soluciones tecnológicas. Foco en capacitación de usuarios/as de la tecnología, y ver cómo incluir a los jóvenes como protagonistas para conducir estos procesos, así como a las mujeres. Rol de tecnologías digitales para rescatar conocimientos ancestrales que corren riesgo de perderse y cuentan tienen gran valor. Mostrar impactos que generan las tecnologías y difundirlos. Hay que ser inteligentes para montar sistemas de incentivos para la adopción de la tecnología. Grupo 3: Aspectos importantes como tener en cuenta facilidad de uso de la herramienta; que sean intuitivas y puedan usarse con poca capacitación. De todos modos, enseñar el uso e implicancias de las herramientas. Que las herramientas se adapten al agricultor y no al revés. Deben ser adaptadas considerando a quién van dirigidas (jóvenes, mujeres…). Herramientas orientadas a problemas reales y soluciones reales, y ver vinculación entre problemas y soluciones. Es clave la necesidad de que participen diferentes actores en el idear y diseñar las herramientas. Necesidad de herramientas que sean accesibles, que puedan trabajar fuera de línea para su mejor aprovechamiento. Las acciones para impulsar deben ser parte de la política pública, incluyendo la mejora de procesos de tramitación, y que el sector público genere las condiciones para que el privado pueda utilizar las herramientas. Grupo 4: Prioridades: la conectividad, que se convirtió en derecho humano fundamental; la alfabetización para superar las brechas digitales, la digitalización como forma de alfabetización; la extensión agrícola como mecanismo de promoción de la digitalización agrícola; definición de diferentes tipos de aplicaciones tecnológicas en función del contexto y condiciones específicas. Acciones específicas: Fortalecimiento de los sistemas de extensión agrícola, entendiendo que la pandemia ha propiciado una mayor apropiación de las tecnologías; Que los gobiernos entiendan los beneficios de la digitalización; La formación de extensionistas agrícolas digitales, bajo el supuesto de que se requieren destrezas y capacidades especiales para transmitir estos procesos; Definición de medidas macro y micro de las necesidades que se tengan para cada caso y para cada país; Incidir en los gobiernos, en la sociedad, organismos internacionales, sobre los beneficios que la digitalización trae, no solo al sector agropecuario. Read less

No surgieron ni se detectaron áreas de divergencia. Como se observa arriba, hubo muchas similitudes y complementariedad en los conceptos y recomendaciones elaboradas por los diferentes grupos.

El tema principal del diálogo fue la Agricultura Digital. El diálogo propuso analizar y proponer acciones y colaboraciones que contribuyan a asegurar los aportes que la agricultura digital puede hacer a la transformación de los sistemas agrícolas. El diálogo tuvo una presentación de encuadre en la cual se plantearon los siguientes conceptos: - La digitalización de la agricultura es necesaria (aunque no suficiente) para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. La agricultura digital puede contribuir de múltiples maneras a las 5 vías de acción que propone la cumbre, y con ello ... Read morea cumplir varios Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. - La digitalización de la agricultura supone múltiples impactos positivos o beneficios, pero también conlleva riesgos de impactos negativos, en especial asociados a la dimensión social (acentuar desigualdades, acelerar exclusión y desplazamiento, generar conflictos). - La digitalización de la agricultura es inevitable, pero aún es incipiente y desigual por la existencia de múltiples barreras y brechas: Infraestructura, Correspondencia entre la oferta tecnológica y las necesidades de agricultores, Acceso a las tecnologías, Capacidades para el uso de las tecnologías, Agendas de promoción y regulación. - La digitalización de la agricultura está en marcha y se acelera (influencia importante de COVID-19): Es urgente concertar agendas público-privadas de impulso a la digitalización de la agricultura, de modo de asegurar que se expresan sus beneficios por sobre sus amenazas. Hacia el final de la presentación se mencionaron acciones sugeridas para agendas de impulso a la digitalización de la agricultura. Las consignas para el diálogo (en grupos y luego intercambio plenario) se plantearon de acuerdo a los conceptos propuestos en la presentación disparadora: - ¿Qué aspectos de la digitalización de la agricultura debieran priorizarse para asegurar su contribución a la transformación positiva de sistemas alimentarios? - ¿Qué acciones concretas podrían realizar distintos actores para un avance dinámico e inclusivo de la digitalización de la agricultura? Read less

Based on Action Track 1 - Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all the theme for the first dialogue of our series was 'Migration and Nutrition - Female leadership for innovation in nutritional food security: Colombia and Venezuela'. It addressed the reality and complexity of Migration on the Colombian-Venezuelan border. In this dialogue, we learned about the work of two members of the Social Gastronomy Movement Comparte Por Una Vida Colombia and Alimenta la Solidaridad, the multisectoral approach of the World Food Program, and we listened to the voices of migrant mothers, heads of hou... Read moreseholds, and community leaders. Venezuelan civil society, for approximately 6 years, has been articulating in favor of those most affected by the Complex Humanitarian Crisis, together we could understand the situation, and propose solutions to malnutrition and uninformed migration. The main points of discussion were: 1. Unexpected challenges, realities, and testimonies of irregular migration experienced by more than 1.7 million Venezuelans in Colombia. 2. The pilot project to support migrant enterprises by the World Food Program, expanding the action of food systems to accelerate integration socioeconomic status of Venezuelans in the city of Barranquilla, Colombia. 3. Prevention programs implemented by Alimenta la Solidaridad serve more than 14,000 meals in 15 states and 239 communities a day in Venezuela. 4. CPUV has performed around 53,518 nutritional treatments and delivered more than 42,000 school snacks in Colombia. Read less

Participants agreed on several solutions to mitigate this regional challenge, including the following: 1. Educational programs that demystify migration, spreading the information of the reality of those who migrate in search of food. 2. Implementation of co-responsibility models that offer worthy opportunities, eg. The new Colombian policies for the regularization of Venezuelan migrants. 3. Comprehensive analysis of food systems in Venezuela within the current context of the country. 4. Strengthening logistics to prevent food waste. 5. Creation of donation networks, necessary for the implement... Read moreation of food banks. Read less

How are programs in Venezuela strengthened to prevent and regulate unsystematic migration? The lack of information about organizations such as Alimenta la Solidaridad for some Venezuelans is a reality. If not the most pressing, food security is one reason people decide to leave their country, and yet, they are unaware of the solutions they can find if they decide to stay. Despite technological challenges in the country, it is important to find ways to strengthen communications between organizations, vulnerable communities, and potential allies. If different organizations joined forces, they wo... Read moreuld create a ripple effect that reaches most of the population. These alliances and partnerships could determine the success of eventual food banks in Venezuelan territory and even food sovereignty, with the creation of seed networks that could potentially awaken agriculture again in a country where most of its food is imported and sold at terribly high prices. Do you think Venezuela is in condition to set up food banks? What ideas do you have? - Difficult passage from the border, transportation capacity does not currently exist - Combustible crisis - They work with Macro as a distributor, only through orders - Persecution of activists or organizations - Production on the floor, production can be at 30% - Agricultural production - Colombia has ANDI, Venezuela has the Venezuelan Food Chamber: actor key code - Polar Companies - How to do an analysis of food systems today? - How is it currently articulated? - Civil society is not articulated - Opportunities identification Conclusions: - Food banks are born worldwide in order to avoid losses and food waste to contribute to the food and nutrition security of the vulnerable population. - A logistical infrastructure is required for the rescue of food and a network of donors. - Both agricultural production and industry are currently limited - It is important to do an analysis of food systems, with the current context in Venezuela in order to identify opportunities. Read less

One of the outcomes of our dialogue was the need for education of people concerning the reality of migrants, spreading the word of what is the reality of those who already migrated in search of better conditions to live is the best way to guarantee those people are well informed when making that kind of decision. The big problem here is that the ones that need the information are the ones with little to no access to the internet and general communication means, based on CPUV research, 35% of the migrant families in Colombia only have 1 smartphone with internet access when they have it.

The Dialogue convened at the University of Virginia was an interdisciplinary examination of food systems involving several schools and departments from across the university having special relevance to this subject. This approach was to bring diverse perspectives to the “decision” table and to avoid problems of multiple policy and programmatic silos. This Dialogue accepts that there is value to all people having access to a sustainable, healthy, and sufficient diet, including individuals directly engaged in the food value chain at all levels. While this Dialogue includes a determined domes... Read moretic focus, it is intended that U.S. policies should contribute to international stability food security and the goals described above. The design of this Dialogue was the work product of students at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. The Dialogue’s discussion on the topic of sustainable consumption was framed around three workstreams of food environments, food demand, and food waste. The discussion was based on topics of food availability, accessibility, and inequity; food affordability and insecurity; and the consumption and production of unhealthy food and its effects on public health and the environment. The first major theme that emerged from the discussion was the socioeconomic and geographic inequities that exacerbate barriers to healthy food consumption and sustainability. The second major theme was the multidisciplinary scope of the problem, where food consumption policies must be addressed from the lens of public health, urban planning, and social welfare. Finally, bottom-up, community-led approaches in food consumption program implementation will be crucial to increase food security, affordability, and food autonomy in the long run. The discussion surrounding nature positive production focused on practices that promote reduced impact of agriculture on the environment while ensuring sufficient food production. While more research is needed, our preliminary discussion found a need to provide farmers with financial incentives (such as tax breaks or payment for ecosystem services) to change their unsustainable monoculture agriculture practices. A move towards more nature positive production will involve multiple objectives. To promote equitable livelihoods, it was necessary to explore communities’ ability to create local access to a varied diet. It was recognized there are many complex and intersecting challenges to advance equitable livelihoods. However, the Dialogue chose to focus on domestic issues, particularly the living wage and low access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Ensuring healthy and nutritious food is available to all in times of crisis requires preemptively building resilience and efficiently responding to shocks when they occur. Enhanced resilience requires advancement in consumption, production, and livelihoods. This requires a focus on environmental, economic, health, and equity to build food system resiliency against shocks. The discussion included how methods used to improve resilience can be transferred to other countries and how U.S. foreign policy can improve international food stability. Though focused domestically, the findings and actions presented below will contribute to international stability and food security by representing key root causes of global food instability. By focusing on economic factors through the living wage and cultural factors through community engaged gardens, we home in on intervening at critical points that impact the multiple parts of the food system. Read less

The forces that shape food systems are interconnected. Sustainable consumption is complicated by wealth inequities and healthier options vary along socioeconomic lines. Similarly, food deserts (an issue of distance, access, and affordability) contribute to rampant American malnutrition and obesity, and are most often found in areas serving minority, low-income, and rural households. Healthy food is underproduced and is not cost-effective in the short term as compared to unhealthy options. The affordability disparity is highlighted by highly processed food diets versus those with more fruits, v... Read moreegetables, and healthier proteins. The Dialogue highlighted the need for bottom-up approaches and by affording those affected a say in necessary changes. This includes discussing how food should be incorporated in urban planning, such as considering the primary modes of transportation a locality uses, geographic barriers, and zoning plans. Improved quality in food pantries and incentives for cheaper pricing and wider selection of healthy options in grocery stores (and improved profitability) can improve consumption patterns in America. Finally, food justice should be deliberately incorporated into sustainable consumption and urban planning as it relates to food policy. The Lancet Commission's six planetary boundaries best describe nature-positive production. The boundaries are climate change, biodiversity loss, land system change, freshwater use, and nitrogen and phosphorus flows. It is significantly difficult to consider these boundaries separately, as they often affect or are dependent on one another. Promoting soil health and carbons sequestration through regenerative practices can address these boundaries. Unfortunately, economic, and political lock-ins incentivize chemical-dependent, high-yield, monoculture agricultural practices, further complicate these issues. Therefore, major reform must include additional research on agricultural methods that balance both the financial and environmental goals of farmers and a general deconstruction of the economic and political lock-ins that continue to promote current American agricultural. Factors to consider include: • Planetary boundaries as interconnected elements. • Promotion of soil health and stability through regenerative practices. • Intensive rather than extensive agricultural growth. • Incorporation of indigenous knowledge in farm policy. • Inclusive policymaking. • Incentives for farmer investment in nature-positive methods through tax credits and payment for ecosystem services. • Concentration within agricultural and small farm operations access to finance. • Public buy-in and involvement of multiple stakeholders. • Data collection and education. • Reduced food waste and loss at all levels of the food supply chain. • Regional and local initiatives as incubators for national-level change. Equitable livelihoods require a broad systemic change to increase food access to all individuals. This change will take time and immediate ameliorating action is needed. A raised minimum wage will combat food insecurity among low-income individuals and families and recognize the value of workers within our food system. Empowering local creativity through community gardens will reduce food inequities. Communities that take ownership of their access to fresh fruits and vegetables will provide those with low access to nutritious food the agency to produce their own food and meet their needs. Sharing ideas for interventions in equitable food access and reduce challenges to innovation and creativity posed by siloization. Climate change, environmental, conflict, and economic shocks threaten to disrupt the food system resulting in a lack of affordable, nutritious food which is exacerbated by racial and socioeconomic inequality. The lack of healthy food impacts community resilience to shocks, such as pandemics, through nutrition-related non-communicable diseases, such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, for which Americans of color are impacted at disproportionate rates. Poor health harms resilience to face future shocks, as does climate change through rising global temperature and environmental shocks which disrupt the food system. There is a lack of preventative systems of early warning to environmental shocks or sufficient planning and prudent response when they occur. Gaps also exist in responding to shocks due to breakdowns in social networks, as illustrated by school closures due to COVID-19 and the aftermath of major hurricanes, such as Katrina. Furthermore, the current lack of racial and ethnic diversity within the agricultural system translates to a lack of new ideas, perspectives, and experiences, which holds back progress and innovation in resilience building. Read less

Food social safety nets should aim to address persistent inequities in food access for low-income, minority, and rural households, as well as improve consumption patterns. Programs should serve people living in food deserts and other nutrition-deficit localities. Two improvements include providing food with a higher nutritional value in food pantries and lowering the qualification threshold to food pantries to improve access. Means-tested food programs such as SNAP and WIC do not provide sufficient money for people to consume a healthy, adequate diet. SNAP and WIC need increased federal fundin... Read moreg. Additionally, these two programs should increase participant benefits to match the costs of a healthy, adequate diet and can incentivize participants to spend their money on healthier food. This would help households eat in a healthier, more sustainable manner. For instance, providing people with an extra thirty cents on every dollar that they spend on specifically designated healthier food items has been shown to improve healthy consumption patterns. Other program improvements could include lowering the barriers to access the program itself, such as decreasing the volume of application paperwork, simplifying the language used on the application, and conducting widespread program outreach to help enroll eligible households. We suggest that, in addition to improving existing programs, new non-means-tested nutrition programs be created to address the access gap for healthy food. Regardless of income level, most Americans are malnourished. An example of such a program is a food bank (with healthy food) in schools. This food bank would not be means-tested, which would help reduce malnutrition among students of various socioeconomic backgrounds. States should also increase the budget for school lunch and breakfast programs. These should be offered and accessible even when school is not in-session, such as over summer and winter breaks, and students should be allowed to take food away from the programs to be consumed (at home or at school or to share with their family members). Finally, school food programs can be more effective in their implementation by engaging in a bottom-up approach, such as by including students and parents in the food selection process, bringing students to farms, allowing students to “try out” various new food, and generally making the nutritional standards more appetizing and appealing to children. One element of building resilience to shocks would include a legislative response, namely merging the SNAP and WIC programs in the United States to improve nutrition and health. A concerted focus on nutrition outcomes will help build resilience to future shocks through improved health. Congress would need to enact this legislative change. Policymakers would measure progress by tracking rates of food insecurity and childhood obesity, and other nutrition-related health outcomes. Potential challenges to this outcome include political buy-in and funding constraints. It should be noted that food-related social safety nets also apply to the production of food, as have been a central theme in U.S. farm legislation for nearly a century. But consistent with the objective of this recommendation, modifications should include: • Incentives that encourage farmers to produce food with nature positive methods to help reduce the cost of these changing practices on the consumer. • Farmers markets participation (especially for small-scale farmers) incentives to improve access to nutritious food for all consumers. Read less

This issue approaches healthy consumption from an equity lens, highlighting social determinants across socioeconomic lines. Establishing a living wage and increasing worker dignity can increase food affordability and autonomy of workers. Local governments should ensure that individuals who work in community gardens/other agricultural spaces that produce fruits and vegetables are compensated through a higher, living minimum wage and allow them to purchase the food they help to produce at a highly subsidized rate. Because these individuals are often low-income, this can help increase the afforda... Read morebility of healthier food across socioeconomic lines. In a market-based economy, insufficient income will reduce consumption. When it comes to food, that can lead to food insecurity and/or malnutrition. To reduce food insecurity due to affordability barriers, we recommend increasing the minimum wage to a living wage rate. Increased income will improve food access by bringing the minimum standard of living to a sustainable level. This will help all low-income, food insecure individuals and families obtain sufficient, healthy nutrition and demonstrate that we value the food systems employees. There are many paths to securing a living wage for low-income Americans and workers along the food value chain. In the ideal case, this would be implemented through a federal legislative mandate to raise the national minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. The key stakeholders here are clearly the members of Congress, the President, and the political actors likely to want to influence the congressional debate, including constituents and the business lobbies. However, given the current political landscape, efforts should also be made to promote state and local minimum wage mandates, which would require input from the corresponding governmental stakeholders. Government at all levels could provide incentives (especially those involved in the food system) to increase their minimum wages through tax breaks, subsidies, and other programs. These efforts could be supported by public campaigns (including local community organizers) and unionization efforts. Our Dialogue found that implementing a living wage should be just one part in overall efforts to increase food worker dignity. Others include updating worker safety regulations, increasing enforcement, and public campaigns that acknowledge the value and importance of this work. A living wage’s impact could be evaluated by wage rates and employment of the bottom of the income distribution, and particularly for those who work in the food value chain. Demand for benefits like SNAP and WIC would assess how food insecurity has changed as a result. We recognize the significant implementation challenges. Definition of a living wage is perhaps the most fundamental of these challenges. Others include how to address regional differences in the cost of living and impacts of inflation. Efforts to increase the minimum wage through legislation will face strong political resistance due to claims of harm to businesses and increased unemployment. However, the work of addressing these concerns has already occurred in many localities and the lessons learned in these contexts should inform future action and advocacy. A living wage will break down economic barriers to food insecurity. It is important to enact more targeted changes in the food system, however, this is a starting point to ensure that low-income households are not food insecure simply because they do not have the money to purchase nutritious food. Read less

Shifting to healthy consumption patterns has vast environmental benefits. Flexitarian and vegetarian diets reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the environmental footprint of food is heavily dependent on how the food is produced. Using increased agricultural land toward fruits and vegetables rather than commodity crops would help the environment and improve agricultural sustainability. This recommendation is divided into three significant parts: short-term goals, long-term goals, and the importance of inclusive policymaking. The first short-term goal is increased research on nature-positive me... Read morethods of agricultural production. Data collection among farmers (perhaps through federal policies) including information on soil health, carbon, and pesticide levels should be expanded. Data on measures of farmland health is crucial in crafting federal policies to aid farmer transition to nature positive production. Another short-term goal is creation of economic incentives for farmers transition to nature-positive practices. These could include carbon sequestration tax credits or other financial incentives. Restrictive tax policy or mandates may only further impair low-income farmers’ abilities. Additional research on financially feasible sustainable agricultural practices is needed. A long-term goal is to dismantle current economic lock-ins for American agriculture practices. One method involves restructuring farm subsidy policies, specifically crop insurance, to be more environmentally friendly and could involve insurance that is not crop-specific but applies to all crops. Another policy approach involves reforming antitrust policies for the nation's largest industrial farms. Thirdly, a more inclusive process for policies to enhance sustainable and nature-positive food production is needed. All stakeholders, including small farmers, citizens, businesses, scientists, and legislators, must be included to ensure positive and equitable outcomes. In addition, consideration must be given to indigenous practices. Similarly, Congress should improve finance opportunities and risk management, especially for farmers of color. This could include debt relief, grants, training, education, and other forms of assistance to secure land tenure. This could build resilience through education and training to support farm stability and diversification of food production and consumption through sustainably healthy diets. Improved minority access to credit could be measured by a quantifiable increase in the number of farmers of color in the U.S. These actions need to recognize budgetary challenges. Additional nature positive specific measures include: • Increased funding to agricultural extensions and research programs. o Increased research on soil health o More research on ability farmland to sequester carbon, carbon sequestration tax credits, and their applicability to farming systems o “Farming of carbon capture” • Economic incentives for ecosystem services, to promote nature-positive methods of farming that produce co-benefits of food production, soil regeneration, carbon storage, and biodiversity. o Cost share programs for investments in new practices o Payment for ecosystem services through tax credits o Restructure crop insurance program practices o Competitive prices for farmers; make the profit from taking land out of production higher than what would have been produced with poor practices o Antitrust approaches Read less

Food is at the source of human life. While it sustains us and connects us, our food systems are severely distant resulting in a disconnect and reduction in the value we place on food within our value-chain. In the US, people do not engage in food production and preparation as in countries with lower rates of obesity and diabetes. As in those other countries, Americans should be more involved with food production through community gardens to reduce distance from production to consumption. This includes participation by schools and universities to engage students, since significant lifetime cons... Read moreequences of poor nutrition emerge at a young age, and local governments/organizations should find ways to compensate individuals for working in these gardens. Involving schools and afterschool programs would have the added benefit of teaching children about nutrition. Community gardens place food agency for improved nutrition in the hands of those who are food insecure or cannot access preferred foods like fresh fruits and vegetables. These efforts draw on existing community and nonprofit institutions and promote ownership and pride in work through cultivation. Funding sources may be local and state government and it is important to emphasize the need to adequately compensate community members for their efforts and labor in the community garden. At the local level, each community garden can be tailored to the local community in terms of food types, type of engagement, funding mechanisms and access. The community garden will be completely run by community members themselves. An example of success is Cultivate Charlottesville, a local food justice organization in Virginia working towards food equity through community-engaged gardens. Implementing this approach at a large-scale will take time and a benchmark of quality common to all is needed to ensure gardens meet community needs. A mechanism (such as an annual assessment needed for funding) would ensure that each community garden is performing to a set standard. This intervention may employ metrics quantifying both food available locally to community members from these community gardens as well as the level of engagement community members exhibit towards those places. The latter will be more challenging to measure but qualitative case studies and focus groups can illuminate any cultural shift that may occur because of the community gardens. Building up relationships between food system stakeholders is essential in building resilience and inspiring coordinated action to shocks. Community-based programs including community gardens improve access to affordable nutritious food. Organizations and community leaders should cooperate to put gardens in locations that target those most in need of fresh fruits and vegetables. There are also opportunities for nonprofits to partner with local schools to create community gardens. Response networks that supply and transport available food in times of crisis would also help strengthen resilience. These outcomes could be measured by Resilience indicators, such as Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities index (BRIC). Challenges associated with executing this outcome includes potential logistical and coordination difficulties. Monocultures are more profitable and easier to scale than producing a diverse array of food. Government subsidy or tax incentives for community garden/local grocery stores in food deserts that promote more nutritious vegetables/fruits would decrease our reliance on monocultures and help reduce micronutrient deficiencies. Read less

Building resilience and responding to shocks will require local, state, and federal governments to work with businesses to successfully continue providing nutritious food to those in need during shocks. One way that governments can care for vulnerable populations during a shock is through establishing early warning systems in cooperation with businesses to know in what regions shocks are most likely to occur based on history. Governments can provide incentives to businesses (such as tax incentives and subsidies) to increase food supply and decrease food costs in certain regions at certain time... Read mores of the year to create an ease of access equitably. Additionally, if supply starts to quickly fall during a shock, both government and business can coordinate to rapidly increase supply to that region so that shortages are prevented. There are several challenges that can be associated with cooperation, though. First, businesses are not required to uphold certain measures that they may claim to support in cooperation with governments. Businesses can choose to backout at any time unless they are held accountable for their actions in some sort of manner. Early warning systems may also not be adequately prepared, depending on the severity of the shock. Success can be measured using Resilience indicators, such as the BRIC index. Success can also be viewed by observing the impact of how much food was distributed that may not have been otherwise distributed via the partnership. While this issue is largely focused on the resilience of a food system, consumption of affordable and nutritious food is heavily influenced by food supply chains. The ability to purchase healthy food options is fragmented across socioeconomic lines, but misaligned incentives within the market structure of food suppliers render healthy consumption a difficult problem to solve without public/private cooperation. Given the overreliance on a lack of diversity in the food supply market and the culture of fast-food dominance in the US food system, public/private partnerships to shift incentives will be a focal point of increasing healthy consumption in the US. Government interventions such as sugar taxes or subsidizing healthy produce could potentially improve incentives to purchase and consume healthy foods but do not address the larger barriers to nutritious consumption. Read less