You can’t make this stuff up.

The latest in gene editing is to get tomatoes to  produce a precursor to vitamin D.

Why do this?

Gene-edited tomato plants that produce a precursor to vitamin D could one day provide an animal-free source of the crucial nutrient…When the gene-edited tomatoes, described in Nature Plants on 23 May, are exposed to ultraviolet light in the laboratory, some of the precursor, called provitamin D₃, is converted to vitamin D₃. But the plants have not yet been developed for commercial use, and it is not known how they will fare when grown outside.

So far, this is totally theoretical.

Even if it turns out to be possible, why bother?

If you want an animal-free source of vitamin D, just go outside and get some sunlight on your skin.

Gene editors must need ideas for projects.

Urvashi Rangan of the Funders for Regenerative Agriculture (FORA) sent me the press release from this group’s report. 

From the press release:

We are very proudtodayto be publishing our first brief,RegenerativeAgriculture and Climate, which outlines how regenerative agricultureand livestock production can restore degraded land, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and store carbon while producing nutritious food. The brief is clear that regenerative agriculture – including sustainable meat production – is a “shovel ready” climate solution that if scaled quickly could rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to remove carbon dioxide from the air. 

The report pulls together the arguments for the benefits of regenerative agriculture as a solution to climate change, deals with misconceptions about regenerative practices, and provides useful figures and references. 

The escalating climate crisis requires rapid action on two critical fronts: (1) a steep reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; and (2) the removal of carbon dioxide from the air and its safe, long-term storage.  Regenerative agriculture can do both. ..Using
photosynthesis and biology, it can restore and maintain the carbon cycle on land. Any amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) absorbed by trees, plants, and soils and subsequently stored has been removed directly from the atmosphere and will help alleviate climate change.  It can also reduce methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from livestock production.  

If you want to know more about regenerative agriculture—and why it matters—this is a great place to start.

I got a press release from the Global Network Against Food Crises (GNAFC) , an international alliance of the United Nations, the European Union, governmental and non-governmental agencies, announcing its latest annual report on Global Food Crises.

Its main findings:

About 193 million people in 53 countries or territories experienced acute food insecurity at crisis or worse levels than in 2021.

The countries in worst trouble are Ethiopia, southern Madagascar, South Sudan and Yemen; these require urgent action to head off widespread collapse of livelihoods, starvation and death.

Why is this happening?  The key drivers:

• Conflict: the Ukraine war
• Weather extremes: climate change
• Economic shocks: the COVID-19 pandemic

What needs to be done?

• Address root causes: structural rural poverty, marginalization, population growth and fragile food systems
• Prioritize smallholder agriculture
• Promote structural changes to the way external financing is distributed,
• Promote more efficient and sustainable ways of providing humanitarian assistance
• Avoid further conflicts

Good luck with that.  These are the political challenges of our time.

Nostalgia: I can still remember 6-ounce glasses of freshly squeezed orange juice.

Never mind, it’s a new world.

My former student and now colleague, Lisa Young, did not want me to miss this one: Tropicana’s campaign to pour orange juice over cereal.

Tropicana has invented a special cereal for this purpose (I wonder how it tastes?).

But I’m sure Tropicana would be pleased if you poured OJ on any other cereal.

OJ is fine, but watch out for the 22 grams of sugar in 8 ounces (one orange has about 12).

Fabio Parasecoli.  Gastronativism: Food, Politics and Globalization.  Columbia University Press, 2021.  (226 pages)

My NYU colleague, Fabio Parasecoli, has just published this one.  I blurbed it:

Fabio Parasecoli draws on his deep international experience in this thoughtful analysis of how food gets ensnared in political ideology to separate “us” from “them.”  Gastronativism argues convincingly that food systems are indeed global, and the sooner we get those systems to bring people together, the better.

A few excerpts:

On the connection between gastronativism and populism:

Not by chance, some of most infamous manifestations of gastronativism have appeared in countries where these leaders operate.  Food is able to activate emotions and does not require much mediation; it is shared by everybody, everybody experiences it, everybody is an expert.  Gastronativism interprets people’s tangible experiences and frustrations as consequences of all-powerful, stealthy, and ruthless global dynamics, and it often does it through the language of victimization and suffrance.  Gastronativism provides a sense of rootedness, comfort, and security against the globalization. (p. 15)

On how gastronativism fosters a sense of community:

Instability has made the desire for community and rootedness more urgent, for good and for bad.  Food, as an expression of individual and shared identities, constitutes the perfect vehicle to make such aspirations tangible.  As such, the passions it elicits are ripe to be channeled ideologically.  Ideas of locality, nation, tradition, heritage, and authenticity have been activated in political projects operating at movements that range from anarchic anti-globalism to various forms of populism, nationalism, and sovranism, tainted at times with racism and xenophobia.

On gastronativism as a representation of “us” vs. “them”:

A deeper awareness of the political, non-neutral quality of all processes defining food traditions and the quest for authenticity can provide a better grasp of the dynamics that allow dishes, products, or customs to be experienced as “local” or “ours.” Understanding their emergence and changes over time and space would not diminish their emotional power, but it could blunt their exploitation by belligerent political actors. Appreciation and pride in one’s culinary world should not necessary imply debasing the food of the others… By chipping away at ideas of an ageless, essential “us,” greater awareness of the possible destructive impulses of gastronativist motivations and strategies could generate more openness toward “them,” whoever they may be.

The Environmental Integrity Project reports on The Clean Water Act at 50.  

The EIP was established by former EPA Attorneys to advocate for stronger environmental laws.

Here’s what this report found:

The bottom line: half of US waterways are badly polluted and “impaired.”

The report recommends that EPA do its job and enforce compliance with existing laws, and Congress pass stronger laws.

Advocates: get to work!

The departments of health and human services and of agriculture have issued a call for nominations to the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Candidates should have an advanced degree in a nutrition- or health-related field, with at least 10 years of experience in academia, research, or as a practitioner or other health professional in a field related to 1 or more of the scientific topics to be examined.

A nomination package must include a cover letter, contact information for the individual being nominated and the nominator (if applicable), and a copy of the nominee’s curriculum vitae or resume. Nominations may be submitted by email or mail. Learn more about how to submit a nomination. 

Why not give this a try?

I served on one of these committees in 1995.  Then, the committee:

• Determined which topics to research
• Did the research
• Wote the research report
• Wrote the actual Dietary Guidelines based on the research report

That process no longer exists.  All you will get to do is write the research report.

One other difference.  My committee was instructed to do the best job we could interpreting the research for the public.

Committes are now told that all recommendations must be research-based—tricky given the complexities of human nutrition research.

But never mind: reaearch committees have one advantage.  You can stick to the research and call it like it is.

So apply.  Nominate yourself.  Nominate your friends and colleagues.  You too can be part of history.

The UK government has just published its long-awaited food strategy to almost universal disappointment.

But first, some background. Nearly a year ago, I wrote about the UK’s strategy proposals.  These had been commissioned from Henry Dimbleby, a restaurateur with a deep interest in food policy (the British version of Jose Andres?).

To summarize what I said in July 2021.

Henry Dimbleby described the UK’s National Food Strategy as  a “bit of a labour of love.”  It came a slide deck of 175 items.

A separate document. summarizes the report’s 14 recommendations.  Most of the recommendations dealt with school feeding and feeding programs for the poor.  Others:

Recommendation 1. Introduce a sugar and salt reformulation tax.  This came with a separate report on the impact of such a tax; it recommended using revenues to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low income families.

Recommendation 11. Invest £1 billion in innovation to create a better food system.

Recommendation 13. Strengthen government procurement rules to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on healthy and sustainable food.

So, does the strategy do any of these things?  I have to confess finding the report unreadable.  It is extremely wordy and imprecise, talks a lot about objectives, but says almost nothing specific.  Here is just one example:

The strategy comes at a time of significant increases in food prices, largely because of energy prices and exacerbated by events in Ukraine, which is very challenging for people across the country. We are engaging closely with the food industry to understand price impacts and any mitigating measures, including through our Food Industry Resilience Forum and UK Agricultural Market Monitoring Group. We are also working closely with third sector organisations to understand challenges related to food access.

One section gives action items (I have edited these for clarity):

• Keep producing domestic food at current levels
• Promote job training for the agri-food industry.
• Reduce childhood obesity by half by 2030; reduce diet-related disease; increase healthier food
• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the environmental impacts of the food system
• Export £1 trillion of food annually by 2030
• Maintain high standards for food consumed in the UK

How?  It doesn’t really say.  The one action item I could locate is to create a Food Data Transparency Partnership.

The partnership will champion consumer interests, providing people with the information they need to make more sustainable, ethical, and healthier food choices, and incentivise industry to produce healthier and more ethical and sustainable food….This partnership will join up with existing work across government to promote healthier food choices, so that government can speak with one voice to industry. It will also support further measures to strengthen incentives to reformulate food, promote healthier food and turn the trend on the overconsumption of calories to tackle obesity.

Unsurprisingly, reactions have been fierce: not a strategy, disappointing, nothing concrete about obesity , health, or reducing meat as a means to address climate change.  If those things are there, I couldn’t find them.

I also couldn’t find The Guardian’s most amusing criticism of the report:

Among its few policy proposals are the suggestion there could be more fish farming, which is environmentally controversial, and an increase in the use of “responsibly sourced wild venison”.

Is that in the report?  I can’t find any reference to venison or deer, however sourced.

Other critiques in The Guardian are here and here.

This is a lost opportunity, and a big one.  Disappointing, indeed.