Официальная обратная связь диалогов

Solutions Cluster #2 (Inequalities): Bolster participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers Participants identified increasing the participation of socially disadvantaged groups in the food system as one of the most promising solutions to address inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries. Some participants noted that innovation does not only happen with machines and methods of production, there can be innovations in power structure. As ... Подробнееsuch, some participants noted that creating the conditions for socially disadvantaged groups to have voice and thrive in the food system is a critical part of any solution. Some participants considered that barriers to local and regional food system solutions constitute discrimination, leaving underserved populations without access to healthy and culturally appropriate foods. Primary avenues to increase participation of socially disadvantaged groups in the food system mentioned by some participants included community engagement, agricultural land preservation and resource access, focus on land tenure, public support for community-led and regional approaches, and research and extension. Community engagement was a central focus of discussion, with some participants noting the importance of asking the people who are impacted rather than prescribing solutions using a top down approach. Some participants also noted that programs should center the needs of farmers and producers. Some participants agreed that land tenure and ownership are important to address historical inequities regarding land access. Some participants noted that expanding land access opportunities and succession planning options to ensure longevity are important to assisting with a land transition to next generation and minority farmers. Some participants noted the importance of re-examining and re-aligning public support for agriculture and food systems through regional, community-led approaches that focus on enabling land use and food sovereignty (this term was used but not defined in group discussion) for disadvantaged communities and youth. Some participants mentioned the importance of supporting Indigenous-led systems in Indigenous communities. One form this public support could take, mentioned by some participants, is providing resources to next generation and minority farmers, and leveraging existing programs to enable climate change mitigation. Some participants posited that the impact of public support could be maximized through a regional food systems approach with an emphasis on regional food sovereignty, and a systematic approach to strategic land conservation and tenure policies in generational turnover. Some participants noted the importance of proven, evidence-based practices to address local food system challenges, along with research and extension focused on hard-to-reach small producers and low-income populations. For example, some participants mentioned the model of churches providing land for communities to grow and produce foods to address the problem of food deserts. Specific ideas mentioned by some participants included investment to ensure equitable access to food and technology, support for small and medium sized businesses, regional networks, and urban agriculture, and extension services to produce higher-value products and supply chains that support a diversified workforce. The extension capability of research institutions and land grant universities to support small and medium-sized enterprises, young farmers, and Indigenous farmers was highlighted by some participants. The need to raise wages for food production workers and innovate policies to empower workers, as well as incentivize food worker protection through unions to improve the safety of workers in the entire food chain, was also mentioned by some participants. Скрыть

Solutions Cluster #1 (Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food): Technology (including rural broadband), clear definitions and standards, and dietary and food production choice Participants identified increasing the application of technology (including rural broadband), clear definitions and standards, and dietary and food production choice as the most promising solutions to address information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food. Some participants highlighted that broader access to technology could eliminate information gaps and help consumers and ... Подробнееfarmers make healthy food choices and produce food in a sustainable manner. There was consensus amongst participants on the importance of rural broadband. Some participants noted that increased access to rural broadband and smartphones could improve information flows as well as increase adoption of novel digital technologies and data management systems. Some participants also noted that rural broadband would serve food system stakeholders ranging from rural communities to the seafood industry who could better monitor environmental conditions on cargo ships. Some participants highlighted that technology should be accessible to diverse users and appropriate for linguistic and cultural differences. Access to technology could address issues such as climate change, some participants noted, along with improving food security. Some participants noted that sustainable, resilient food systems are both a food security and national security issue. The absence of clear and shared definitions of nutrition and sustainability generated concern amongst some participants. Some participants suggested that while nutrition or traceability labels exist, such as in the seafood industry, consistency in labeling would improve public knowledge and information gaps. Some participants noted that components of sustainability including recycling and food waste lacked a common definition. Some participants recommended standardization of nutrition and sustainability definitions and clarity around expectations, goals, measurement, and best practices. Some participants elaborated that information gaps exist because distinct regulatory structures oversee different food products, resulting in a “silo-ing” that produces information gaps. Some participants suggested the creation of an interdepartmental U.S. government task force on food systems to alleviate the gaps in information flows. Some participants noted the importance of food choice. Some participants posited that public outreach is needed to educate consumers about food labels, nutrition, and the environmental impacts of food production so they can make informed choices. Some participants noted the goal of providing consumers and producers with more autonomy to choose what, where, and how their food is grown. Some participants noted the importance of building nutrition literacy, teaching not only the “what” but the “how” and additional awareness around nutritious foods and healthy choices that are tasty. The nutritional needs of different populations were noted by some participants, and as was the need to communicate information to help people better understand the importance of fruits and vegetables and whole grains and share cooking methods and recipes. Some participants noted that culture and tastes should be included in discussions of nutrition and dietary guidelines, and that food choice could be broadened through increased focus on nutrient dense culturally appropriate foods. Regarding health and nutrition, some participants mentioned that we need new partnerships catalyzed by many groups including state, local, and federal government to promote healthy eating to prevent disease. Some participants mentioned that prevention and discussion of nutrition is not currently mainstreamed in the health field, which could potentially generate savings in healthcare costs. Скрыть

The focus of the second Dialogue was to identify solutions to improving the sustainability of food systems. While the discussion topics were organized around the three overarching challenges outlined above, some solutions addressed a single challenge while others were cross-cutting to holistically consider challenges and tradeoffs across food systems. Conversations aggregated and analyzed individual solutions to arrive at different clusters with greater consensus, or topics for further exploration. The solutions clusters that emerged in response to the challenges were: 1) Technology (including... Подробнее rural broadband) and dietary and food production choice, 2) Bolster the participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers, 3) Voluntary incentives and technical support for sustainable production, and 4) Food systems policy and planning and youth involvement. • Solutions Cluster #1 (Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food): Technology (including rural broadband) and dietary and food production choice Dialogue participants identified increasing the application of technology (including rural broadband), clear definitions and standards, and dietary and food production choice as the most promising solutions to address information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food. Some participants expressed that broader access to technology could eliminate information gaps and help consumers and farmers make healthy food choices and produce food in a sustainable manner. Some participants discussed information silos and noted that standardization of nutrition and sustainability definitions could assist in meeting shared goals, particularly with respect to climate and equity. Some participants noted the importance of broadening food choice through public outreach to consumers on nutrition and producers on environmental impacts. • Solutions Cluster #2 (Inequalities): Bolster the participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers Dialogue participants identified bolstering the participation of socially disadvantaged groups, infrastructure for nutritious foods sustainably produced, and competitive markets that serve all size producers as the most promising solutions to address inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries. Some participants emphasized that centering the voices of socially disadvantaged groups is vital to the success of any food system. Primary avenues identified by some participants to create the conditions for the participation of socially disadvantaged groups in the food system included community engagement, agricultural land preservation and resource access, focus on land tenure laws, public support for community-led and regional approaches, and research and extension. Some participants highlighted that better infrastructure and resilient and equitable supply chains can increase access to nutritious food. Some participants noted that competitive markets that serve all size producers are key to addressing inequalities. • Solutions Cluster #3 (Environmental Degradation and Climate Change): Voluntary incentives and technical support for sustainable production Dialogue participants identified voluntary incentives for sustainable production and technical support for sustainable production as the most promising solutions to address environmental degradation and climate change. There was consensus amongst participants that the provision of incentives for producers of all sizes is a key solution to more sustainable consumption and production. Incentives mentioned by some participants included keeping land in reserve (e.g. easements) to protect the environment, rewarding and recognizing on farm stewardship practices, recognizing the role of retailers and restaurants in reducing food/packaging waste and repurposing food, and supporting sustainable practices that may not be economically feasible in the short-term. Some participants shared support for aligning incentives with national conservation goals. In setting environmental goals, some participants noted the importance of addressing environmental impacts beyond carbon footprints by including issues such as nitrogen, water quality, and waste reduction. • Solutions Cluster #4 (Cross-Cutting): Food systems policy and planning and youth involvement Dialogue participants agreed that cross-cutting solutions require participatory and adaptive food systems policy and planning and the involvement of youth across food systems. Participants agreed that food systems policy and planning should be science and evidence-based, and support inclusive, diverse, and integrated approaches that address all three challenges identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue. Some participants elaborated on the approaches needed to achieve sustainable food systems, highlighting voluntary, adaptive, and participatory approaches. Participants agreed that involvement of youth in food systems was a cross-cutting requirement for solutions in all three challenges. One group reached agreement that through additional training on healthy foods, youth will fill information gaps and solve problems affecting food systems. Скрыть

This report represents the views of U.S. stakeholders invited to the Dialogue; it does not represent the official views of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the United States Government. In following with the guidelines of the UN Dialogues Toolkit and to ensure a systematic, comprehensive approach to assessing food systems, the second U.S. National Dialogue focused on identifying solutions to building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. The discussions focused on building on the results of the first U.S. National F... Подробнееood Systems Dialogue, breaking away from the five “action tracks” framework used in the first dialogue. The event agenda consisted of opening remarks, followed by two one-hour breakout sessions with small groups (where each breakout session had a different composition of participants) led by U.S. government experts and researchers, and concluding with read-outs of the breakout session discussions by facilitators. The participants noted in Section 1. Participation of this report are only those who participated in breakout rooms, not including U.S. government facilitators and notetakers. To motivate the breakout discussions, participants were requested to come to the Dialogue with 2-3 solutions addressing one or more of the three overarching challenges identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue: 1) information gaps with respect to nutrition and sustainability, 2) inequalities in access to healthy diets and opportunities in farming and food industries, and 3) environmental degradation and climate change. The solutions could be crosscutting and provide benefits to more than one of the overarching challenges or targeted to one specific challenge. Participants were asked to share their solutions in both breakout sessions and to narrow down the top solutions as a group. In the second session, participants were asked to refine their solutions based on something new learned in the first session. This iterative process aimed to build consensus to arrive at a core set of solutions across distinct stakeholder groups. Discussion Questions: To encourage a systematic assessment of solutions, breakouts considered the following questions: • Breakout Session One: o What are two-three top solutions that address the major challenge areas identified in the first U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue and advance sustainable food systems in the United States? o Identify the top three solutions for further discussion to address the three challenges identified in the first Dialogue. Is there any overlap or divergence in the solutions? What is the most promising bucket of solutions to prioritize for discussion? o For each of the three challenge areas:  Does the group note any evidence gaps or tradeoffs related to this solution?  Does the solution respond to the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic, environmental)?  How urgent is implementation of this solution?  Is this solution applicable at a local/regional/national/international scale?  Is there consensus from the group on who would need to implement/finance the solution? What are the costs for implementation?  What are the unintended consequences that could result from this solution? • Breakout Session Two: Same questions as session one, but these solutions should reflect something new learned in the first discussion group, so please highlight what has changed/what is different about your solutions now. Скрыть

There were no specific areas of divergence, but several points of attention can be formulated. The message on the speed of change needs to be realistic. Radical changes may result, for example, in a loss of consumer involvement. Furthermore, it is necessary to adapt legislation, such as on the reuse of residual flows, without compromising food safety. To maintain a satisfactory rate of progress, good examples and frontrunners may help to show the way with small steps. With regard to formulating goals in order to boost the development of key performance indicators, it is important to consider i... Подробнееnternational arrangements and keep an eye on trade-offs. Key performance indicators need to be complemented with arrangements that link them to rewards, including from consumers. Скрыть

Food-feed competition To reduce CO2 emissions, cope with drought and variable precipitation, and reduce nitrogen deposition, livestock production in the Netherlands needs to change. The energy transition and increasing demand for housing put yet more pressure on farmland. Coupled with a growing population and increasing demand for food, we need new solutions to the food-feed competition. Currently, crops that would also be fit for human consumption are often used as feed, or feed is grown on lands suitable for growing food. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can arrive at a su... Подробнееstainable distribution of land use, and what we would have to change. The main findings of this session are as follows: - It is envisioned that agricultural land will in the future be used as much as possible to produce food for human consumption. - Another top priority is preventing food waste and food loss, as well as high-value reuse of residual flows, for which European Union regulations now offer more scope. - Strict requirements for food safety and animal health will be upheld. Change can be stimulated by frontrunners and leading by example. - Finally, greater transparency for consumers, for instance by using quality marks, will improve their awareness about production methods. Скрыть

True price The social benefits and environmental costs of production and consumption are to a limited extent reflected in food prices. Including these benefits and costs in prices can act as an incentive for more sustainable and healthier production and consumption. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can arrive at a ‘true price’. The Netherlands has a Community of Practice on True Pricing that is experimenting with this. Recent studies were carried out into the potential of several methods of true pricing. The discussion built on these experiences. Key question was to iden... Подробнееtify the most suitable methods, in terms of reaching both consumers and producers, to reflect the cost of sustainable production. The main findings of this session are as follows: - Key performance indicators (KPIs) can be used as a proxy for true cost/true price. Recognised indicators can be linked to rewards for more sustainable and healthier production methods, like water storage and carbon capture and eco-arrangements in the Common Agricultural Policy. - Quality label initiatives already exist in the market, but these are usually focused on more visible aspects (like animal welfare, hours of pasturing for cattle) or consumer health (such as calories). The steps taken are generally small, as consumers’ willingness to pay for more sustainable or healthier food is limited. - If acceleration is desired, the government can set minimum requirements for sustainability and quality, especially for less tangible ecological outcomes such as soil fertility and CO2 emissions. - In addition, both the Netherlands and other importing and exporting countries will have to embrace more established sustainability standards (key performance indicators) and include them in pricing and (bilateral) trade agreements. Progress with the transition can and must then be assessed on the basis of these international agreements and ambitions at European level. - Additionally, local empowerment and local amenities will help foster social change and social innovation. Скрыть

The food environment Our food environment, the way in which food is presented and the proximity of places where food can be bought, has a strong influence on consumers’ food choices. Aspects include, but are not limited to, product range, promotions and advertisements, and the visibility of food. The current food environment regularly seduces consumers into making unhealthy and unsustainable choices, even though many people are open to making the better choice. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can make it easier for consumers to make healthy and sustainable choices, and ho... Подробнееw we can adjust the food environment. The main findings of this session are as follows: - Food providers can change the food environment to encourage more sustainable and healthy options, for instance, by adjusting their product range, store design and setup, and nudging. In this way supermarkets seek to inform, inspire and activate consumers to make healthier and more sustainable choices. - The process is not easy as food buyers are guided by their routines and habits. To accelerate change, some stakeholders suggest introducing marketing and pricing measures. The healthy and sustainable choice must be the easier choice, and must also be affordable. In City Deals local governments are working on pilots to shape the local food environment. Скрыть

The Dutch food system in an international context The food system in the Netherlands is entwined with the global system of agriculture and food supply in many ways. An extensive global trade network supplies our daily food. The Netherlands is considered a frontrunner in food production, as well as in innovation and technological development in the area of agri-food. As a major food importer and exporter, the Netherlands is also a key player in international trade. The Dutch food system is strongly dependent on the imports of raw materials while the global system faces considerable challenges r... Подробнееelated to social, economic and ecological sustainability. We therefore have a national and international obligation to make our food systems more sustainable. In this sub-dialogue, various stakeholders discussed what the role of the Netherlands could be in an increasingly global food system, specifically with regard to sustainability. The main findings of this session are as follows: - For the transition towards a sustainable food system, three routes can be taken: establishing international agreements, stimulating international codes of conduct with regard to sustainability and/or price incentives. International agreements and European ambitions can both foster transition pathways towards a more sustainable food system. Examples include the Sustainable Development Agenda, Paris Agreement and the Farm-to-Fork initiative. - If sustainable production requirements are to be integrated into international trade agreements, the Netherlands as well as other importing and exporting countries will need to start a dialogue on more established sustainability standards and incorporate them into bilateral or multilateral trade agreements. - Changing agreements will be time-consuming but the emphasis on dialogue is important: listening to each other in order to understand each other. - In the process of making development more sustainable, cooperation is needed between all stakeholders, from consumers, producers, CSOs and banks to local and national governments. Скрыть

Finance Until now, the main focus in the Netherlands was on making production more sustainable with the help of defined measures. To leave more scope for entrepreneurship and long-term investment, a shift to a goal-driven approach is desirable. The main findings of this session are as follows: - To make the desired shift towards a goal-driven approach, farmers, the banking sector, CSOs and the government are working on a coherent set of key performance indicators (KPIs). A number of KPIs are already being used, e.g. the biodiversity monitor. Such indicators can be helpful in setting a pathway ... Подробнееfor progress. - KPIs offer clarity for farmers and financiers considering longer term joint investments, as they enable benchmarking and monitoring of progress. - For further progress, KPIs must be integrated into the whole food production and supply chain, including supermarkets, where they can serve as a tool for informing consumers. Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance to reach agreement at European level on a coherent set of KPIs in order to ensure a level playing field. - Finally, a reliable measurement system is required to verify performance. Скрыть

Sustainable and healthy diets For many Dutch consumers, shifting to a more sustainable and healthy diet requires an adjustment in their diet. However, daily food choices are not necessarily individual and conscious choices, as they tend to be determined by the food environment (see below), habits and culture, as well as by food-related skills, including knowledge about buying, preparing and conserving food. The Netherlands Nutrition Centre provides public information on healthy eating, and there are also several national and regional food education programmes for children as well as regional i... Подробнееnitiatives involving citizen participation. Furthermore, a number of CSOs provide information and transparency on nutritional values and production methods and provide examples of attractive, sustainable and healthy meals. In 2022, the Nutri-Score front-of-pack nutrition label is to be introduced to make the nutritional value of food more easily available. Nevertheless, a growing number of people in the Netherlands are overweight and make little use of information about the footprint of their meal, which often consists of ingredients from all over the world. In this sub-dialogue, participants discussed how we can help and encourage consumers to make more healthy and sustainable food choices. The main findings of this session are as follows: - Research shows that social norms greatly influence the choices people make. Existing programmes can be supplemented with further education and information activities, including giving examples, aimed at changing the social norm. - Role models who lead by example could be very effective. - Companies with a mainstream outreach can play an important role by setting attractive examples. - - Changes to the promotion of and advertisements for products that do not fit well in a sustainable and healthy diet can also have an effect, by changing the social norm while leaving consumers freedom of choice. - The effectiveness of communication can be increased by focusing on providing information at times of major life events, such as when a young person leaves the parental home. These are times when people are open to adopting new norms. To avoid the risk of losing the connection with consumers, it is important to use a positive message instead of emphasising what should not be done. - Companies themselves can also change the social norm by making healthy and sustainable options the default option. - Finally it is important to realise that changing a social norm takes time and requires a step-by-step approach. Скрыть

The main findings of the dialogue are as follows: Policy gaps between the international, agricultural and health agendas need to be identified and bridged. This was underpinned by the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality; the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport; and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as joint convenors. Together, they advocated bringing together actions from different domains to help ensure coherence. Participants expressed the hope that combining the results from the Global Food Systems Dialogues will led to agreement on common goals and a way forward a... Подробнееt the Food Systems Summit. The climate agenda and the Paris Agreement were mentioned as examples of such goals and action agendas. To raise awareness and increase involvement, the wide gap between food producers and food consumers must be closed. A growing number of initiatives aimed at improving mutual understanding already exist in the Netherlands, ranging from joint investment in and management of farmland to primary production. The involvement of young people and frontrunners is also necessary in order to break established patterns and help set inspiring examples. Collaboration between science and policy is crucial for impact. The science-policy interface needs to be strengthened to raise awareness and reach agreement on the impact of policies and technologies on food system outcomes at national and international levels, and to arrive at scalable solutions and performance indicators for sustainability. Technology should be designed to work with nature, to improve environmental outcomes. The close cooperation between knowledge institutions, companies and governments in the Netherlands offers a good basis for jointly developing and testing new social and technological models for the food system. The Netherlands can serve as a living lab, with its wide-ranging influence on food systems worldwide (e.g. 40% of all plant seeds worldwide come from the Netherlands). The Netherlands’ experience and global connections can be used to help other countries develop their own independent food production system. The importance of exporting knowledge is expected to grow, relative to exporting products. Скрыть

The focus of this dialogue was on bringing the different aspects and stakeholders together in a comprehensive approach based on systems thinking. This approach included a broad range of stakeholders with direct and indirect involvement in the food system in order to address the interlinkages in the system. The key questions discussed in the dialogue were: which further steps are desirable and conceivable in order to achieve a more sustainable and healthy food system that produces affordable food, is more nature-inclusive and has fair production conditions; and what do stakeholders need from ea... Подробнееch other in order to take the necessary steps towards this goal. The dialogue was broken down into thematic discussions on sustainable and healthy diets, the food environment, finance, true pricing, food-feed competition, the Dutch food system in an international context, and new scientific developments. Скрыть

All groups diverged on the question of consumption of animal- sourced food. Stakeholders from the fields of welfare, nutrition, and environmental protection mostly supported reducing consumption levels, whereas stakeholders from the field of agriculture- farmers, industry leaders, and members of the dairy and poultry associations- supported maintaining current consumption levels or even increasing consumption. There was divergence on the issue of animal welfare on live livestock transfers by sea. On the topic of poultry and eggs, some stakeholders held that the intensive production of poultry ... Подробнееand eggs does not harm the environment, while others disagreed. On the topic of dairy, the participants diverged on whether consumption levels should be reduced or maintained/increased. Some participants held that due to the environmental impact (pollution of water sources, greenhouse gas emissions) and health concerns, dairy consumption should be reduced, while others claimed that these concerns can be mitigated through proper management and practices, and that dairy has nutritional importance. On the topic of Livestock, some participants did not share a common ground on the need to take measures in terms of policy and regulation, as well certain data and evidence. Though it was agreed that there is a need for to further develop the discussion on the major issues and advance the ability to provide healthy and sustainable food to the growing population in Israel, considering different challenges and limitations: geographic (agricultural land), environmental, nutritional, social and financial aspects, animal welfare and consumer choices. Food security and ability to adapt to changes (climate, financial, etc.) were also mentioned in the specific local conditions Areas that need further exploration: 1) Lack of professional knowledge in Israel regarding animal welfare 2) Lack of regulation and public knowledge regarding fish welfare and suffering. Скрыть

Poultry and eggs are the most hazardous and unsustainable food sources in Israel today and require urgent intervention. The most crucial and necessary intervention regards laying hens and egg distribution. Infrastructure upgrades in the field of animal welfare are vital and will contribute to biological safety, poultry welfare, and the reduction of environmental and health hazards. Regulatory supervision, traceability, and labeling of eggs must be implemented with all haste to maintain food safety and security. The majority of the dialogue participants thought that making the animal based food... Подробнее industry sustainable and more environment and welfare oriented will be beneficial, but it is necessary to kick start the process. All stakeholders in the field of animal-based food production should be motivated towards sustainability through education and funding, especially direct funding.. Designated training is required on a wide range of topics in all fields, There is no organized body and / or mechanism designed to regulate the training of workers with animals in the food industry, and such a body or mechanism must be instituted. In order to become sustainable, it is necessary to promote local production over imports. Even with significant improvements in livestock production, meat and dairy will likely remain the most greenhouse gas (GHG) intensive foods on our plates. Emerging technologies to produce cultivated and plant-based meat, fish, eggs and dairy are advancing rapidly. The Biotech and food-tech industry in Israel is well known around the world. Some of the most innovative technologies came out of Israel. Israel’s recognition as a hub for academic research and innovation in the alternative protein arena should be leveraged through these dialogs and capitalized for the local and global food systems. Embracing the importance of innovation and technology as part of the inclusive solution towards the SDG goals, with an emphasis on alternative proteins as part of an inclusive solution towards a transition to a resilient and sustainable food system Creative and sustainable solution should be explored together to food waste and the reduction of economic and environmental cost of religious requirements. Скрыть

The primary conclusion that emerged, in all groups, was that there is a lack of necessary and appropriate regulation. In certain fields, a lack of regulation is detrimental to food safety and security and in others; inadequate regulation hinders sustainability by damaging small-scale producers (the new food safety law from 2015) or local production (by benefiting mostly large importers). In addition, it was agreed that a lack of transparency is detrimental to food safety and security. The information regarding zoonotic diseases, livestock and poultry feed and housing conditions, antimicrobial ... Подробнееuse, and animal welfare is not relayed to the consumers or even to the relevant health officials and regulators. It was also agreed that there is a need to establish new connections between all relevant stakeholders, especially government bodies (the ministries of agriculture, health, and environmental protection) and professionals in the health, agriculture, and environmental protection fields – in order to fulfill the One Health approach. An important aspect of adapting animal-based food systems is the economic challenge and the need for funding and infrastructures. The need for health education and promotion, based on relevant and sound research, was established. Several groups found that some stakeholders in agriculture, including regulators, veterinarians, inspectors, and more, face a conflict of interest between their productivity demands and the need to ensure sustainable, safe food and animal welfare. Food waste is a major problem in animal based food systems. Animal sourced food is a sensitive commodity and the risk of food safety hazards is high. Extermination of animals and destruction of food products, as a means of curbing the spread of diseases, are widespread. For example, in 2020, 10 million eggs were destroyed in Israel, causing economic and environmental damage. Two issues unique to Israel are: 1) Religious dietary (kashrut) requirements and supervision, which often conflict with sustainable development goals in economic, welfare, environmental, and health terms 2) The regulatory neglect and lack of supervision of livestock issues pertaining to the Arab minority. At least 80% of the small cattle in Israel is slaughtered in a non-regulated manner in the Arab sector, with grave environmental and health impacts, and this sector also suffers from several zoonotic diseases not found elsewhere in Israel (Brucella, E. granulosus, and more). Many breeding farms lack basic welfare conditions such as clean recumbency areas, prevention of odor nuisances, natural ventilation, etc. These may cause serious environmental hazards, such as land degradation, and may also contribute to disease spread and to further use of antibiotics, which raise economic costs for the farmers. Скрыть

The major focus of this dialogue was the challenges that Israel faces in adapting its animal-based food systems to meet the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. This focus was examined through eight topic-based groups. Four of the groups focused on specific types of animal-based food sources: 1) Livestock raised for meat 2) Poultry and eggs 3) Dairy 4) Fish and other kinds of seafood Three groups discussed general topics relevant to all animal based foods: 1) Zoonotic diseases 2) Antimicrobial use 3) Animal welfare The last topic was alternative proteins, which is unique in the topic-based grou... Подробнееps involved and focused on the challenges in the entry of the alternative protein sector into the Israeli and global market and food systems by 2030. The participants of the round table were asked to share the following points: 1) The 3-5 most important challenges facing the alternative protein entry into the global food system in 2030 2) The unique challenges of the Israeli ecosystem (research, business sector, government, consumer, other) Скрыть

Please view answer under question 4C

How to develop how social sustainability is handled/discussed • Food can be seen as a commodity, but you can also look at food as a right. That discussion is large internationally but is not discussed in the same way in Sweden. • It is important to recognize that there are different prerequisites and possibilities in different parts of the country due to geography, climate, population density and more. • Many rules and regulations dealing with social sustainability exist, it is rather the compliance that is lacking. • There is a lack of designated goals in e.g. the national (Swedish) f... Подробнееood strategy on social sustainability. Will social issues with relevance to the food system be treated as less important because of that? • The discussion on food production in Sweden often has profitability (economic) as a starting point: “The farmers must get better revenues for their products”, “Consumers must be prepared to pay more for good and nutritious food”: But, how to produce good and nutritious food that does not exclude people/increase social injustice because of higher food prices? • Symbolic questions Скрыть

Transparency in research communication good for policy makers • As commented by one of the politicians that were participating in the dialogue: “X’s transparency in her presentation on difficulties and trade-offs in a difficult field of research was very refreshing. It is very important for us politicians, but very toned down in the public debate.”