Explore Official Dialogue Feedback

a) There are opportunities and a desire across the network of organisations and institutions to collaborate on action towards strengthening acute emergency/response to need b) There are opportunities and a desire across the network of organisations and institutions to collaborate on a shared vision and action plan, towards what can be done locally to increase community resilience and tackle the drivers of food insecurity in the longer-term. c) There are shared experiences and challenges, within the organisations on the ground assisting the food insecure, as well as areas of divergence. d) Ther... Read moree are gaps in practical support and areas of challenge with regard to who holds the funding and who makes the decisions in the area of food insecurity. e) A considerable amount of collaboration already exists across organisations, created organically between them according to need, but there is space for more according to a wider vision, and by extending the network of connections across the town. f) There is a shift happening within organisations from dealing with the emergency response, to a more holistic approach which aims to consider the drivers and looking on an individual basis at how to bring people into a state of food security. g)There is a need for shared action on uniform signposting across the town h) There is a desire to create equivalent intermediate provision across every ward in the town, for example a community fridge, community cafe offering affordable meals, and a community garden so that every resident has comparable access. i) There is a lack of collated local data on provision across the town and the detail of hours, volunteer hours, residents helped, funding allocated k) It was agreed that the network will collaborate on a list of goals and refine that to provide a set of smart goals with top priorities, from which a set of objectives can be drawn up. Read less

The main focus of the dialogue was the issue of food security in the town of Eastbourne and the surrounding areas, in the context of other food partnership initiatives, like health and education. Exploring current provision of support from different organisations across the town, their areas of collaboration and shared experiences. Discussion of challenges and barriers. Looking at ways in which the town can build resilience in the response to food insecurity, what longer-term solutions might be, and how to approach longer-term solutions as a network rather than in silo.

While this entire group firmly believes in the power of organic as the best option, there are points of divergence in the spectrum of organic. Some push for more pure, strict standards for animal, social, environmental impacts while others are more focused on making organic bigger, broader, and more accessible across the globe. The purity of organic vs large scale accessibility and economic viability/growth is a friction within the organic community. The organic community is a passionate group and highly accountable to ourselves in aiming to be the best, most transparent and trustworthy we can... Read more be. Points of divergence within the organic community really just point to the fact that we are all trying to remain highly accountable to our goals and we are critical of ourselves while striving for continuous improvement. The organic sector acknowledges there is a need to grow and improve the public/private partnership that defines the U.S. organic system. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program has been continuously evolving since 1997 when the first proposed rules to establish national organic standards were published. The organic sector in the United States has expanded greatly in the last two decades, and that expansion has made it critical that the government fulfill its role in its partnership. Recognizing that need, the Organic Trade Association has been the chief advocate for the recently introduced Continuous Improvement and Accountability in Organic Standards legislation which lays out a path forward for the USDA to advance organic. With that background on this area of divergence in the organic community at large, it is noted that there were no stark debates or harshly opposing viewpoints present in our dialogue, likely because our stakeholders were mostly likeminded organic advocates. We recognize the need to bring more viewpoints into the conversation, and will now aim to identify what the barriers are to bringing others into these conversations. Our participants recognized that this conversation needs to bring new people into the conversation, especially farmers and BIPOC, so that points of divergence can be identified and compromises and solutions can be achieved. Participants agreed that we need to move past conversations of agreeance with our peers and purposefully give opposing stakeholders a seat at the same table in order to get to the next level of growth and development towards the UN sustainable development goals. The question is – how does the organic community achieve this so we can start to push barriers and extend our reach and impact? How does the global agricultural community get to a point where we can articulate the fundamental divergences holding us back and identify a collective path forward? Conversations need to include diverse stakeholder perspectives, but although this fact is recognized it is not achieved in reality. This conversation, the organic industry, and organic consumers need to be more diverse but identifying immediate actions and long-term solutions are both challenging. Lending practices and land access have been designed to be intentionally discriminatory, but tangible solutions towards reconciling that are debated. Identity politics and income inequality results in deeply polarized communities. Organic needs to be an affordable and accessible option for farmers and consumers and a complex and comprehensive approach is needed to create and sustain systematic change. Read less

Innovation: Years and years of advancements shaped innovations to create what is now the baseline for organic. Continuous improvement is about learning from the past and initiating new developments. Issues include hurdles to obtain improved seeds and genetic ownership as well access to land and more markets. The organic sector must collaborate and adhere to the three pillars of innovation: fairness, soil health, and biodiversity. “Are you meeting people where they are?” this group advised stakeholders to ask themselves.

Climate Action: Organic is already proven as a climate solution. We are past the stage of exploring the viability of organic as a solution; we are ready to scale it up to achieve greater impact across the globe. Participants discussed the successes of organic to provide substantial benefits for food systems and textiles contributing to biodiversity, soil health, water quality and benefits for farmers. Organic farms sequester 26% more carbon than conventional farms; emit 18% less global warming potential and use around 50% less new reactive nitrogen; they also reduce human exposure to toxic che... Read moremicals, provide more income in rural areas, and more resilience because of diversity and soil health. Misinformation about organic has been a barrier, showing the need for more consumer education and transparency. Organic farmers in general have not been leading voices on climate change so they need to play catch-up to bring attention to organic’s important role. There is a need for more data collection, as well as technical support to help continuously improve standards. Read less

International Trade: International trade of organic products is growing. Initially, trade primarily consisted of finished products. Now, mostly ingredients are crossing borders to fuel the processing industry. Some companies are experiencing growth but there are not enough organic ingredients in the supply chain to meet demand. With the right government support and incentives, this could change. Concerns center on transparency and fraud. Agronomic scientists encourage small farmers to lead the conversation on what would help them thrive using organic practices. We need to be more emphatic, lis... Read moreten, and learn from farmers, not burden them with being the solution. Farmers often export their organic agriculture for the economic incentive, and they are left with little or no access to the products for themselves. We need to help farmers support themselves and allow them access to the same organic products they are working so hard to provide to others outside of their own communities. Read less

Feeding the World Participants noted that while it is easy to define what the organic sector is doing well right now, it may not be good enough for the future. More education is needed on what organic is, and what it means in grocery stores and on labels. Would it be possible to communicate nutrition in terms of food per acre? It is important to address the overall inconsistency of supplies of organic food and organic growing conditions for people of color. Organic is proven to work and be scalable, but governments needs to support that development. If all farmers adopt organic practices, we c... Read morean increase food production and lower yield gap (organic yields are just 8-9% lower than conventional). More policies and investment are needed to support this goal. Read less

Socially Responsible Economic Growth: This group recognized that it came up with more questions than answers. Participants were predominantly white and lacked diversity. There are limitations on land access and inclusion for diverse farmers. “Broken food systems are a broken capital system,” they pointed out. Representation needs to be diverse and inclusive. Farmers face barriers to transitioning, and some conventional farmers are still skeptical of organic. The more we can understand and account for social and economic externalities the more obvious it is that organic is the most valuable... Read more way to scale our global food systems Read less

Human Health and Wellbeing: This group defined human health and wellbeing as providing access to nutritious food that can be trusted and contribute to mental health, job security, living wages, and decreases chemical exposure. Organic helps eliminate direct exposure to over 700 toxic chemicals and pesticides while also providing nourishment. Accessibility is a challenge. Accountability and transparency need to be maintained in the standards. Inclusivity should allow growers, farmers, and knowledge-based cultures to have a voice and equal access to the organic marketplace in order to be fully e... Read morengaged in progressive solutions. Read less

Organic offers a host of benefits for the environment and for overall human wellbeing and longevity. Organic farms sequester 26% more carbon than conventional farms and increase biodiversity by some 30%. Organic agricultural practices also build and foster healthy soil, mitigate climate change, conserve water use, reduce pesticide consumption/exposure, boost pollinator populations, allow for long-term self-sustaining farming viability to meet the growing needs of our planet and are ultimately more resilient to extreme weather conditions. Our Dialogue participants identified a handful of key st... Read morerategies necessary to take advantage of the host of benefits that organic offers, to expand on this model and make organic part of the solution to achieving a global sustainable food system. Federal policies: There are many federal policies that could be improved to promote the development of equitable organic food systems. Subsidy reform is needed; there should be long-term incentives for sustainable farming, rather than subsidies for conventional farmers not using sustainable practices. Crop insurance reform is needed to provide an adequate safety net for organic farmers. Increased support and funding to help farmers through the organic transition process is needed. Increased capital and technical assistance is needed, and more research on organic agriculture needs to be underway. Extension support will help us understand on-farm challenges and solutions, and science-based information and tools need to be more accessible. Innovative solutions to biodiversity, seed development, and decentralized ways of measuring soil carbon should be explored. We need to better manage externalities, and create a fair playing field so that organic can grow and create a larger impact. Inclusion and empowerment: Organic agriculture has been shown to improve rural and local economies by offering a profitable farming option and by creating more farming community jobs. The hotspots study by the Organic Trade Association shows that organic agriculture boosts household incomes and reduces poverty levels. Being an organic hotspot increases median household income by over $2,000, and lowers a county’s poverty rate by as much as 1.35%. It offers a way for farmers to work in safe conditions and be paid a living wage. But the opportunity of organic farming is still out of reach for many farmers, especially marginalized farmers, and too often people of color and marginalized communities are left out of the conversation entirely. It is important to include support of organizations that represent people of color, and support the growth and development of underrepresented communities. Farmers, farmworkers, indigenous cultures, and non-white people are missing from these conversations, and need to be included to identify viable solutions. Financial and technical assistance is especially critical in communities of color and indigenous communities. Technology advancements can help with affordability and accessibility. Investment in the development of local food hubs, enabling schools to have better access to organic options, and empowering communities with the tools they need to feed and nourish themselves is critical. Consumer education: Consumers around the world have significant leverage in influencing the direction of agricultural and food policy. If consumers demand a clean, environmentally-friendly and sustainable food system through their purchasing decisions, businesses and governments will take heed and adopt policies to encourage such a system. But consumers need to be educated on the benefits of organic. Education to consumers should focus on the benefits of organic to environmental health and human health. The more we can connect organic as a climate solution, the more compelling it is for the younger generation. We need to elevate the multi-spectrum story of organic regulation and oversight, and use that story to educate consumers about the trust and integrity behind the organic seal. While there is confusion over competing label claims, this is an opportunity to educate consumers on all the benefits of supporting organic. Consumers want accountability and transparency in their food, and being honest and accountable are the main objectives of everyone under the organic umbrella. Global accountability and connectiveness: It is important to be engaged with international communities and trade partners. We need to create an environment that can help ensure the viability of organic farming practices and sustain growth and expansion; that involves getting our global partners to sign onto organic practices. It is important to make decisions on transportation, packaging, and water use that continuously move towards the sustainable development goals. There is a need for a national and international organic integrity database which can encourage transparency and fair trade, and an international distribution system that can ensure integrity and transparency throughout supply chains and among organic certifiers. We need global information sharing so all farmers around the word may have consistent sufficient yields without the use of GMO seeds. Organic can be used to empower and create better outcomes in disadvantaged parts of the world as well as help keep local traditional farming systems viable. Leaning into global organic is about helping to create accessibility to small scale disadvantaged farmers. Focusing on the UN Sustainable Development Goals begins to move us globally in the right direction for global agriculture and production Read less

Organic agriculture is a pathway to a sustainable food system. It needs to be a part of the solution in finding ways to meet increasing demands from consumers and global markets, address environmental pressures, and achieve the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals. This dialogue explored ways policy makers can use organic to help address global challenges. How does organic achieve Sustainable Development Goal #2 of zero hunger and Goal #3 of ensuring good health and wellbeing? Twenty-six percent of the world is food insecure, and a staggering 21% of children under 5 have stunted growth due ... Read moreto malnutrition. In the US, 35 million are food insecure. Organic agriculture practices can help to turn that around. Studies of 60 different crops across 6 continents have shown that organic and conventional yields are almost equal (organic yields are just 8-9% lower than conventional) when organic is done well and certain organic practices like crop diversification and crop rotations are applied. Using organic practices can be a significant part of the solution in achieving zero hunger, and because it doesn’t use synthetic chemicals and other inputs that conventional does, it also achieves the goal of ensuring good health and wellbeing. In addition to yield returns, organic also provides financial and ecological returns. How does organic meet Sustainable Development Goal #8 of decent work and economic growth, Goal #1 of eliminating poverty, and Goal #10 of reducing inequalities? We know farming and rural communities struggle more than most with half of farms in the US losing money in 2019. Family farms are often being hit the hardest. Organic can address these challenges. A National Academy of Sciences study in 2020 found 50% higher profitability for organic agriculture, and research by the Organic Trade Association has shown that counties with a large organic agriculture presence (organic “hotspots”) have a median income that is $2,000 higher than in non-organic counties. How does organic make meaningful steps towards Goal #13 of climate action? Science has shown that organic farms sequester 26% more carbon than conventional farms; emit 18% less global warming potential, and use around 50% less new reactive nitrogen. How does organic achieve Goals #14 and #15 of protecting life below water and life on land? Organic farming has a proven ability to increase biodiversity by some 30%. Organic farms have been shown to have higher levels of beneficial insects such as pollinators, lady bugs, and parasitoid wasps, and worms. Organic also avoids over 700 toxic chemicals and pesticides because regulations require farmers to use non-chemical techniques such as crop rotation, selecting resistant varieties, using nutrient and water management, and providing habitats for the natural enemies of pests. This is a stark difference from highly toxic conventional practices and inputs. Three guiding questions were explored in our dialogue: In what ways is organic today meeting our needs for sustainable growth and development? What are the tensions getting in the way of progress? What solutions can be pursued and who needs to be included in the conversation so that we can continue to grow in an equitable, healthy and sustainable way? The virtual event was attended by 60 people. The Dialogue included six break-out sessions for stakeholders to consider: (1) Human health and wellbeing, (2) Socially responsible economic growth, (3) Feeding the world, (4) International trade, (5) Climate action, and (6) Innovation. Each breakout group was facilitated by a member of the SFTAC, and roughly 10 diverse stakeholders participated in each discussion group. Paul Schiefer of Amy’s Kitchen, an Organic Trade Association Board member who chairs the SFTAC, was the Curator of this Independent Dialogue. He encouraged participants to talk about the role of agroecology--in the form of organic agriculture--as a paradigm for transforming the food system to safeguard human rights, equity and food sovereignty so that no one is hungry, poor, or left behind. He and others pointed out that basically, the health of our food affects the health of people and our planet. Read less

The areas of divergence usually originated from cultural differences. For example, there was a question about “ethical purchasing” and how people should be taught to be aware of it in the Food Education group—however, most people that had a solely Chinese background were not aware of the term “ethical purchasing”. They also discussed the differences between food education in China and food education in America. One of the major points that came up was that in China, there’s no formal food education; since food is so ingrained into Chinese culture, there’s no formal way that citiz... Read moreens are taught about food. A lot of the education they get comes from their family or their peers, and there isn’t much attention focused on the corporations or government when it comes to food. The Agrodiversity group was not convinced about the possibility of erasing meat completely from our diet. They were uncertain about the environmental impact of a vegan diet, citing the social-economic hurdle to be a vegan for the poor. The Consumer group disagreed on how people make food choices based on their economic and cultural background. They noted the discrepancies in some scientific research supported by large corporations to sell certain products, such as organic food, sugar, etc. The conflicting but shared responsibility between consumers and corporations was also observed by the Food Waster group. Though most of the group members blamed the food producers for food waste, some participants reminded that consumers, such as college students in a buffet-style dining hall, contribute to food waste. The Fake Meat group disagreed on whether the government should subsidize the fake meat industry. Currently, fake meats just take 1% of the world market share, without help from the government, and it cannot be the mainstream of the food system only if accepting help from the government. Read less

A lot of interesting views and solutions were brought up during the Dialogue. The Agrodiversity group agreed on the importance of shifting to more of a "plant-focused" diet, instead of changing completely to a plant-based diet, to win wider acceptance from society. Their previous research also suggested that new innovations, such as vertical farming, could be a solution to the increasing population and food demand. The Food Education group agreed that science and cultural norms need to work together and not against each other to properly educate others about food and create a community that st... Read morerives for a better system. The group was able to highlight an action that should be taken in order to benefit our future, and that was to establish an effective food education system such that society would be able to make the best-informed decisions about their food. This would include ethical purchasing, and taking into account how the production of our food affects others and the environment; does the production allow for mistreatment of workers, or does it harm the environment in any way? Food education is a responsibility that everyone should take because ultimately it affects everyone in the future. The Consumer group agreed on the importance to ensure the access and affordability of healthy and sustainable food that is good for the planet to all of the public. Actions should be taken by governmental and non-governmental organizations so that taxes and/or subsidies can be implemented to help increase access to good food for all of the public, and decrease availability/access to food that is not as beneficial to us, our communities, and our world. Read less

The major findings from the different discussion groups were all complex in nature but also had similar themes of cultural acceptance and ethical food systems throughout the discussions. The Agrobiodiversity and Food Systems group found that current food systems are not sustainable for the environment, and are mainly decreasing the agrodiversity due to the widespread use of mono-crops, which also depletes the soil of its nutrients and genetic diversity. The group also found how our eating habits have affected what we plant and vice versa, the effect industrialization and globalization (global ... Read moretrade) have on food systems. The Food Waste group discovered that while consumers should be aware of their personal contribution to food waste, those major corporations also needed to take responsibility for their share of the problem. The Fake Meat group determined that most individuals in our age demographic would be curious to try fake meat and that limiting our meat consumption would have a considerable impact on global health. The Food Education group concluded that food education is vital in order to allow people to make “good choices” about their food, and it’s also important to our health as a society to ensure that everyone gets a good food education. Food education not only affects our physical health, but it also affects the health of our environment (our water, our land, the air) and our future generations as well. Furthermore, it is the media’s and government’s responsibility to also inspire society to care more about food and how our choices affect not only us, but also one another. Finally, the Consumers group found that food equity is a challenge in eating and purchasing ethically and more options and choices would substantially increase healthy eating and sustainable practices. Read less

The 90-minute dialogue focused on the following five themes: 1. Agrobiodiversity and Food System: The effects of agrobiodiversity (agriculture biodiversity) on food systems and vice versa. Specifically: 1) Mono crops (soybeans/corn etc in the US) 2) Crops in Brazil and how that affects the environment, specifically the Amazon, or other countries 3) Effects of industrialized farming on mono-culture crops. 2. Food Waste: What kind of food waste occurs on the dining table, in the kitchen, or on the production line (can be discussed in specific aspects such as the school cafeteria, the kitchen in ... Read morethe family, etc.); if you want to improve the problems related to food waste, what can the young people do? Any concrete action plans? 3. Fake Meat: As vegetarianism, health consciousness, and environmental consciousness have increased in recent years, fake meat has become more popular, though it still does not approach real meat in terms of popularity, even though they are significantly better for the environment. How can fake meat be marketed, produced, and sold in a way that will make it competitive to real meat? 4. Food Education: When discussing food choices, how do we balance the freedom to choose with the consequences of our choices? What methods should we adopt to promote and educate on food topics? How to keep the public's attention to sustainable food and take action? How do we combat food inequity relative to educational tactics? How do we educate people not in school about food systems and ethical purchasing? How do we inspire interest and for people to take action? 5. Consumers: To find out the challenges of how our food choices and the concept of sustainable food consumption relate to consumers in the aspects of different cultures, geographic environments, and the gap between the rich and the poor. And moreover, what we should do to help resolve them. Read less

There was a slight divergence in discussing how the food system measures the environmental impact of producing food. Some points of divergence occurred around: ● Carbon sequestration and the greenwashing of regenerative agriculture ● Need for further scientific evidence of the impacts of animal welfare and regeneratively raised beef ● Carbon credit systems and carbon farming

Discussion topic: Ways Forward Moving forward, participants focused on the need to shift core values not only for food business but the consumers purchasing from them. With simultaneous and interconnected planetary crises, it’s not enough for companies to be less harmful; sustainability and equitability must be inherent in their core products or services -- not just side product lines -- and companies should find a way to include advocacy in their work. Participants also spoke about marrying conversations surrounding sustainability more broadly. Often, food-specific discussions and climate-s... Read morepecific discussions focus on the same issues in separate forums. The food and agriculture system needs to be brought fully into the global conservation surrounding the climate crisis at forums like UNFCCC’s COP. The industry should acknowledge its role in the global environmental, human health, and social justice crises, and also recognize its potential as a powerful solution for those same crises. There remains a disconnect between the reporting on food and agriculture’s impact on the environment and the action taken at a policy level. For example, there is global scientific consensus on the environmental impact of industrialized, commoditized agriculture. The U.N. and other global bodies have reported widely on that consensus but neither international bodies nor country-specific administrations widely include it in policy, either in regulating harmful systems or in promotion of positive alternative ones. Moving forward, policies can help make the good choice the easy choice for consumers, as well as incentivize growers to produce more sustainably. Participants spoke about the need to push current administrations to pass policies that better support both human and environmental health. Participants also pointed to the importance of recognizing the extractive nature of many food supply chains. A more restorative system would invest in women and the BIPOC communities that are on the front lines of many of the issues that sustainable food businesses are striving to solve. Participants agreed that we must bring in the people and communities that are closest in proximity to these issues. Moving forward, different voices including historically forgotten and underrepresented communities need to be in conversation with food business. These conversations should focus on local and culturally appropriate solutions that serve all eaters. Finally, participants emphasized the need to move forward with solutions, even if they may not be perfect. Being more vocal about the barriers facing the solutions already at work can help push the dial. Often, we learn more from failures rather than successes. Pushing forward with what’s working right now, not what might work 50 years from now, should be the focus of the discussions. Read less

Discussion topic: Opportunities Participants highlighted that sustainable food businesses have an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Multi-stakeholder business models that value the planet, community, workers, eaters, and natural resources can help move the focus from a singular devotion to profit. Large companies have the scale, resources, and ability to influence change that smaller businesses don’t have. But as these smaller businesses demonstrate financial and cultural success and find ways to engage with larger multi-national food companies, they can influence how large companies ... Read moreoperate, helping to create greater impact. Participants also identified an opportunity for small and medium size enterprises to leverage shorter, more agile supply chains. A key component of sustainable food business is paying farmers a better-than-fair wage while also providing accessibility to consumers. Small and medium-sized businesses are at a disadvantage in terms of economies of scale, but they can reduce intermediaries in the supply chain to maximize return to farmers, allowing farmers to invest in sustainable initiatives such as reforestation efforts or pollinators habitats. In this way, small businesses can chart the path forward for larger, more established companies and supply chains. While it was also noted as a challenge, the theme of interdependence was seen by participants as an opportunity. Participants continually pointed to the power of collaboration and coalition. This means not seeing other businesses as competitors, but rather partners in solving the complex issues of the global food system. Each sustainable food business’s own success is positively correlated to the success of its competitors. Democratizing access to the tools necessary for radical food systems change will benefit all. The Dialogue emphasized an all-hands-on-deck approach to tackling the changes that are urgently needed. Participants saw an enormous opportunity for government and policies to better support sustainable and regenerative practices. Many companies are investing in farmers, but a system-level shift is needed. Farmers can be given the freedom to be brave, take risks, and make mistakes in the transition towards a better system. Better policies can properly compensate farmers and farm workers while keeping the cost of sustainably and ethically grown food affordable to all. Participants also note the opportunity for food business to involve more producers in key decisions, integrating them into the entire product development process. Well-intentioned initiatives and community projects, often based on public dialogue or the competition’s projects, aren’t always the best solution for farmers. Throughout the discussion, participants shared their own solutions to the food system’s challenges while noting that there isn’t just one solution needed. Participants agreed that many of the necessary solutions do already exist, but investors are needed. There is an opportunity to bring more investors that value the planet as highly as profit into this space. Read less

Discussion topic: Challenges Participants agreed that infrastructure is a major challenge across sustainable food businesses. While businesses have the initiative to make change, supply often isn’t sufficient. For example, there is a disconnect between material innovation and the supply chains to support sustainable packaging. The waste industry doesn’t have consistent or centralized infrastructure to keep up with private innovation aimed at reducing waste. Meanwhile, incapabilities across recycling systems produce confusion at the consumer level, threatening their faith in available steps... Read more towards positive impact like packaging recycling. Participants noted that focusing on scaling-up the circular economy plays an important role in helping the system catch up to the private sector’s ambitions. Regenerative farming needs support so businesses can access healthier and more sustainable ingredients at scale. Making sure everyone has access to these foods can also ensure that there is an equitable and fair playing field for all companies developing these products. Participants also agreed that policy has not provided enough support for those working to build sustainable and regenerative systems. Big dairy, meat, and seafood are pushing back against policies to support plant-based business, while current subsidies incentivize farmers to grow commodity crops using unsustainable methods. Without government and policy support, the onus falls on responsible food businesses to support these more sustainable food systems—and often, that higher cost of business reaches the consumer, making more sustainable food options less accessible to all. The Dialogue also identified the challenge of communicating the interdependence of all food system players in a way that is easy to understand. At the consumer level, sustainable food businesses need to make it convenient and easy for eaters to think about eating not only for human health but planetary health. New labels, for example, can frame carbon footprints similar to calories on food packaging. Companies must find simple ways to show that their products are part of many solutions to a large, interconnected problem. Read less

Participants emphasized cooperation throughout the Dialogue. There is an inherent interdependency in the food system, and each player impacts others’ capacities to act. There is a need for more coalitions and collaborations not only between food businesses but across the entire food and agriculture system. Together, these individual players can have a much larger positive impact. This interconnected nature should also be reflected within each food business model. Participants identified the need to move from a single stakeholder to multi-stakeholder approach to business, in which leaders val... Read moreue the planet, community, workers, and natural resources in the decision-making process. Leaders can further push the dial by building people-centered businesses that focus on advocacy. Participants also spoke about the need to invest in women-led, Asian-led, and BIPOC-led businesses and organizations that are working towards sustainable solutions. Those that are closest to the issues facing our food systems must receive support to build culturally and locally appropriate solutions. Participants recognized that many food systems, particularly commodity-based, are legacy systems built around colonialism and deep-rooted unfairness, and that it’s important to bring historically invisible and forgotten members of the value chain into decision-making. Participants agreed that policy needs to catch up to forward-thinking companies’ ambitions and the scientific consensus as to the impact of the current global food system on planetary and human health. The government has a big role to play in making necessary changes. Because policies support industrialized agriculture, affordability remains a main concern in scaling sustainable production practices, as well. Participants spoke about how better policies can support sustainable and regenerative systems by incentivizing farmers to experiment with different ways of farming. By supporting and scaling regenerative supply chains, farmers can make a living wage while companies gain better access to healthy ingredients and these products are accessible to all consumers. Policy may also reimagine how consumers interact with food labels and expand what those labels look like to include factors like carbon footprint and animal welfare. Finally, the Dialogue centered on the theme that there is no one-size-fits-all for the food system. Rather than searching for a silver bullet, it’s imperative that all players focus on supporting family farmers, sustainable agricultural practices, education, and other investments to help incentivize making a radical change towards a healthier future. Moving forward, sustainable food businesses must maintain this open conversation and continue to challenge each other. Read less