Independent Dialogue
Geographical focus:
United States of America
Area of divergence
There were relatively few areas of divergence between participants in this Dialogue. In many instances, these resolved themselves as participants evolved their opinions over the course of the discussion. However, specific and unresolved areas of divergence are listed below. • School meals: While participants agreed on the important role of schools for mitigating food insecurity and supporting growth and development, there were differing opinions and perspectives on the nutritional value and quality of the meals. • Digestors: It was also suggested by some participants that the use of digest
... Read moreors as a potential opportunity for food waste reduction has been done before and isn’t always successful, so greater research and experimentation was needed to make this a more effectively scaled solution. • Domains of sustainable food systems: Additional questions were raised by participants around the inherent tensions that exist amongst the four domains of sustainable food systems. While consumers may want more environmentally friendly foods, they may not be willing to pay more for those foods. Wages for those working on the farm must be balanced against investments in farm infrastructure and trainings. The discussions around culturally relevant meals for school children need to be considered alongside the desire for more localized food systems which – considering regionality and seasonality – may not be able to support diversity and selection of foods. Further, the necessary financial investments into equipment and training for schools to act on the Dialogue suggestions must not compete with funding used to offer free and reduced priced meals to students. • Funding: As more consumers and governments demand a more sustainable food system, funding for research and conservation efforts must be employed in addition to policy and regulations. As monetary resources are limited, recommendations must be prioritized which will inevitably mean lower priority recommendations remain unfunded and unrealized. A particular discussion was around whether the focus should be on legislation and policymakers to mandate changes, or for the farmers, researchers and school meal programs to receive more funding and investment ahead of legislation. Additionally, there was significant discussion around the role of compensation and incentive structures for ecosystem services; participants deemed this essential to increase the sustainability practices, improve farm economics and support livelihoods. But, there is tension with this goal and limited monetary resources. • Education: While there was much agreement on the topic of education, there was less agreement regarding who should be the target of the education efforts. As discussed above, audiences may need to be prioritized due to limited funding and resources as consumers, policymakers, children and health care professionals cannot all be top priority. • Animal welfare: While animal welfare is a priority for farmers, it was noted that actual legislation or mandates around welfare can be challenging and prevent farmers from responding quickly to changing science that would allow them to provide better care for their animals. Read less
Action Track(s): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Keywords: Data & Evidence, Environment and Climate, Finance, Governance, Innovation, Policy, Trade-offs, Women & Youth Empowerment