The global food and agriculture landscape looks very different than it did this time last year.

In January, the Trump-Vance Administration acted quickly to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, cancelling life-saving food aid and health programs around the world.

In the following months, I have spent time during my travels to meet with farmers, researchers, and community leaders, beginning to understand what this all means for agricultural communities. What I’m hearing is alarming.

In Ethiopia, I spoke with an NGO leader called the impact “immediate and disastrous.” Their organization laid off nearly two dozen staff, canceled two major projects focused on women’s nutrition and healthy behaviors, and lost about US$1 million in funding.

In Guatemala, the organization CARE has had to lay off more than 20 staff and cut programs that helped women impacted by domestic violence. CARE staff members have also had to reduce the number of women’s farmers groups they were working with—and staff told me that the news hit the farmers very hard and they had a difficult time understanding why the U.S. would pull funding so abruptly.

The disruptions like these will cost human lives—they already are. Modeling from Boston University shows that funding cuts are already contributing to the deaths of close to 700,000 people, including more than 450,000 children, due to malnutrition and infectious diseases. By 2030, we may see as many as 14 million people die whose lives could have otherwise been saved, a study published in The Lancet reveals.

The cruelty doesn’t stop when you get to the U.S. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an estimated 15 million will lose health coverage by 2034 following the passage of the tax and spending bill this summer. And more than 3 million people are at risk of losing some or all of their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Crystal FitzSimons, President of the Food Research & Action Center calls these cuts “bad for families, bad for businesses, and bad for the economy as a whole.”

The ripple effects are likely to be as significant as FitzSimons suggests. One study from the George Washington University estimates that we may see 1 million jobs lost and a reduction totaling US$113 billion in states’ GDPs next year.

What’s happening now is only the beginning. We will not know the full consequences of these changes for years, even generations, to come.

What I do know is that we need new solutions, new ways of thinking and doing. Some friends and allies in this space have called this moment an opportunity. But I don’t see it that way. I want to be clear that we are adapting because we’re forced to.

Food Tank and the Global Food Institute at GW launched our “Growing Forward” series at the start of the year to spotlight the innovative solutions that will help us tackle the most pressing challenges in our food and agriculture systems. I always understood that they would be needed—I just couldn’t have predicted how urgent they would become.

The World Bank is demonstrating the power of new tools that will help us monitor and better respond to global hunger crises. The University of the District of Columbia is showing us how we can equip community leaders with the knowledge they need to scale urban agroecology to feed cities and build climate resilience. And medical professionals like Kofi Essel are illuminating the benefits we can unlock if we fully integrate food into our healthcare systems.

I’m also excited by organizations like the Food Security Leadership Council, launched this year to align American policy, science, and action to solve global hunger. “I don’t want this government to lose the partnerships that we’ve developed with other countries,” Fowler told me during a recent conversation. Protecting those relationships will be essential. 

And just last month at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Brazil, we saw several new initiatives announced, like the Food Waste Breakthrough. Led by the U.N. Environment Programme, new funds are being invested to unite governments, cities, and civil society to halve food waste by 2030. 

The uncertainty we have faced in the last 12 months is not going away, and if we’re going to be prepared for the future, these are the types of solutions we need. If we can lean into them, we can collectively forge a future that is built on care, solidarity, and shared responsibility. Now we need the will to act. 

Photo courtesy of German Fon Brox, Unsplash

The post The Path Forward for Food and Farming Is Clear. Now Is the Time to Act! appeared first on Food Tank.

In a small tilapia farm in Honduras, fish mortality once reached nearly 100 percent during the warm season due to a bacterial outbreak. That changed when Jeffry Palma, an aquaculture specialist from Cargill, worked with CARE and local farmers to introduce a targeted vaccine, along with instruction in disease prevention and pond management. Jeffry helped secure the vaccine from a trusted supplier and led hands-on training with farmers on how to administer it safely and effectively.

The result? Mortality rates dropped to just 2 percent, and communities began to see a path toward greater food security and resilience.

This kind of quiet transformation—powered by cross-sector collaboration and technical innovation—is taking place in food and agriculture systems around the world. And in a year like 2025, that progress matters more than ever.

We’re just five years from the target date of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals. The world is behind where it needs to be—but progress is happening in places where collaboration unlocks new potential.

At Cargill, we believe that innovation at scale drives lasting impact. It’s not about disruption for disruption’s sake. It’s about advancing practical solutions that work for farmers, improve social and environmental outcomes, and move the entire system forward.

Cargill’s crop innovation scientists are working every day to improve plant genetics, defend crops from disease, and pioneer new functional traits—helping farmers grow more resilient plants to feed a growing global population. They are among the many research and development experts at Cargill helping create a stronger food system. This includes, for example, producing stevia through fermentation in a way that reduces land-use-related impacts by 96 percent, water use by 97 percent, and the carbon footprint by 81 percent compared to conventional sugar.

We’re also eliminating industrially produced trans-fatty acids (iTFAs) from all our edible oils—including in markets without regulation—and earned the #1 global ranking from the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNi) for doing so.

Finally, we see a lot of potential by working with TREES Consulting to create and publish the first Gold Standard-approved methodology for using feed supplements to reduce methane emissions in beef production.

In all of these ventures, it’s collaboration—especially with farmers and partners—that turns scientific advances into real-world progress. Importantly, we recognize that farmers are some of the most innovative and knowledgeable stakeholders in food and agriculture systems. Whether adopting new technologies, integrating regenerative practices from cover crops to agroforestry, or navigating supply chain pressures, their ingenuity is critical to building a more resilient agricultural future.

In Honduras and Guatemala, our partnership with CARE has helped smallholder producers adopt biodigesters that generate biogas and organic fertilizer—reducing emissions and helping participating households transition away from firewood and synthetic fertilizers. As Maria Pereira, a farmer from the community of El Bejuco, shared: “I no longer think about going for firewood, I just turn on the gas and the fire is already working.” This shift has freed up time that Maria now uses to run a food business in her community, improving her family’s income and independence.

In the United States, our Success from the Ground Up program supports state and local organizations that bring regenerative agriculture education directly to farmers. The program provides small and mid-sized grants to farmer networks, soil health coalitions, universities, and conservation groups—enabling on-the-ground innovation through regional roadshows, mobile apps, peer learning cohorts, and multimedia tools. These efforts are designed to meet farmers where they are, helping them build confidence and capacity to implement regenerative practices that work for their operations.

This farmer-first approach extends across our global partnerships. In early 2025, Bathiar Dollah, a farmer and community leader in Malaysia, was invited to join Solidaridad’s Smallholder Support Programme, an initiative supported by Cargill. Reflecting on the experience, he shared: “We learned about farm management, techniques for fertilization, prevention of Ganoderma [a harmful fungus], and much more. I think the programme is really good for us.”

Through this initiative, more than 800 smallholders have been trained in sustainable practices like better pruning, harvesting, and nutrient management—resulting in a 13.7 percent average yield increase among closely monitored participants. Bathiar is now applying these learnings on his own farm and sharing them with others in his community, demonstrating how farmer-focused partnerships can scale impact across regions.

We know the private sector alone can’t transform the food system. But we also know that this transformation cannot happen without business at the table. The future of our food system depends on more of us coming together to test, scale, and invest in solutions that nourish people and the planet.

It’s time to reinvent, redefine, and reimagine what’s possible—together.

The post Reimagining Food Systems With Private Sector Innovation appeared first on Food Tank.

At Instacart, our mission is simple: to create a world where everyone has access to the food they love and more time to enjoy it together. For too many families, though, nutritious food remains out of reach. As U.S. food insecurity rises and chronic diet-related diseases become more prevalent, the connection between nutrition and health has never been clearer.

Since launching Instacart Health, we’ve worked to bridge the gap between food access and health outcomes by leveraging our technology, partnerships, research, and advocacy. Along the way, we’ve seen two powerful opportunities for the private sector to partner with governments: first, through direct, innovative collaborations that deliver tangible results — and second, by leveraging our learnings to help inform public policy.

On the former, for example, we were proud to work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help bring Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) online and become the first online grocery marketplace to expand it to all 50 states and Washington, D.C., making it easier for millions of families to access nutritious food. We’ve since expanded to offer EBT SNAP payments across nearly 180 retail banners and more than 30,000 stores nationwide. And last year, we introduced a SNAP eligibility screener directly on our platform, allowing anyone to easily check if they could qualify for SNAP and find relevant state resources to enroll. 

At the local level, programs like our Grocery Access Program Pilot in Columbia, South Carolina, and the Montgomery County Groceries Program in Maryland—both of which leverage Instacart Health technology to unlock grocery delivery for families facing food insecurity — are delivering measurable impact, including evidence of improved food access and healthier food choices. In DC, our latest and largest government partnership with the city’s Department of Health is helping families put more fruits and vegetables on their tables by giving 1,000 D.C. households access to monthly online grocery stipends through Fresh Funds, a program that allows providers to fund category-specific stipends, like fresh and frozen produce. Together, these initiatives show how public-private partnerships can expand food access and give every family the dignity and convenience of choice through online grocery.

The insights we’ve gleaned from these and other programs can be powerful in shaping public policies to combat hunger and nutrition insecurity. That’s why we recently released our new Instacart Health Policy Agenda, outlining our top policy recommendations and advocacy commitments in two focus areas: strengthening and modernizing food assistance programs and integrating nutrition into healthcare. This new agenda serves as a roadmap for how policymakers, private companies, and nonprofits can work together to expand access to nutritious food for all and improve health outcomes in communities across the country. 

Among the nation’s first large-scale food access and nutrition programs, SNAP and Women, Infant, and Children programs (WIC) laid the foundation for nationwide food as medicine initiatives, ensuring millions of families could put healthy food on the table. That’s exactly why we’re advocating for their modernization. These programs remain as vital today as ever, and they deserve the tools and infrastructure needed to maximize their impact.

During the pandemic, online grocery shopping became a lifeline—saving time, reducing stress and perceived stigma, and even encouraging healthier purchases. Research from No Kid Hungry and the University of Kentucky found that families shopping online with SNAP bought an average of $5.24 more in fruits and vegetables without increasing their total grocery bill. By bringing programs like WIC online, we can help more families shop with dignity and flexibility while improving health outcomes. It’s also why our agenda calls for making the online SNAP pilot program permanent. 

We’ve also seen firsthand how that food access can serve as a powerful form of preventive care. Across the country, states are incorporating food as medicine interventions into Medicaid and Medicare, with promising early results. Medically-tailored groceries and produce prescriptions are helping patients manage chronic conditions and improve key markers of health while reducing overall healthcare costs. To scale these solutions, we’re calling on legislators to enact clear policy guidance, streamlined waivers, and efficient billing systems that make nutrition-based care easier to implement at scale.

Finally, no conversation about nutrition security is complete without the consideration of children’s needs. We’re calling for expanded universal school meal programs and encouraging states to opt into the Summer EBT program, ensuring every child has access to healthy food year-round.

We’re proud to play our part in improving health outcomes. Our new Instacart Health Policy Agenda and growing network of public-private partnerships reflect our belief that expanding access to nutritious food is one of the most powerful ways to strengthen communities and advance public health. That’s because everyone deserves access not only to the food they love, but to the nutrition they need to live a healthy life.

Photo courtesy of Annie Spratt, Unsplash

The post From Checkout to Checkup: Reimagining the Role of the Grocery Aisle in Public Health appeared first on Food Tank.

The burden of chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease is rising across the United States and especially harming the most vulnerable communities. 

This national challenge is becoming increasingly acute, driving up health care costs and undermining our nation’s economic strength by diminishing workforce productivity and resilience. Adult obesity rates have nearly tripled since the 1970s, while the number of Americans with diabetes has more than doubled since 2000. The Pentagon has even identified obesity as a national security threat as it reduces the pool of eligible recruits.

The challenge, then, is not just about caring for and treating these diseases today. More importantly, it’s about finding ways to prevent and slow the tide of disease progression.

Recognizing the urgency of the moment, Novo Nordisk shifted our social impact strategy in 2022 to focus on elevating community health outcomes by broadening access to nutritious food. Previously, our philanthropic efforts were primarily directed toward disease management, with an emphasis on diabetes education and self-care. We believed that improving nutrition would lead directly to better health, and we provided short-term, modest grants to support these initiatives. 

In contrast, our new strategy prioritizes multi-year, place-based programs designed to have long-term impact in communities facing the highest burdens of chronic disease. By shifting to larger, long-term interventions, we are now able to drive deeper impact and lay the groundwork for sustained improvements in public health.

This approach also demands collaborative thinking across the range of the social determinants of health—access to safe housing, good jobs, quality care, and physical activity—as well as to good food and nutrition. To do this, we quickly realized that we could neither go at it alone nor had the expertise in areas like housing, transportation, and care.

That’s why we launched The Interrupt—a place for like-minded organizations across the private and nonprofit sectors to bring about an integrated, whole health approach. By combining the expertise and resources of leading brands and organizations, partners of The Interrupt work together to deliver community-focused programs, events, and initiatives that address the everyday factors influencing health—such as access to nutritious food, opportunities for physical activity, and health education. 

The Interrupt and our partners are focused on real, practical action in communities. We are supporting urban farms that increase access to fresh food, health screenings for preventative care and job training programs that open up new opportunities. By teaming up with local organizations and national partners, The Interrupt is working side-by-side with communities to tackle the everyday challenges that shape health—making a difference where it matters most.

In early 2025, we started our work in Washington, D.C.’s Ward 8. The need for food and nutrition access in this area is high: the area has only one grocery store that serves 75,000 residents. Centering our efforts on a housing complex home to over 3,000 people—Washington View—we’ve invested in launching a community farm, a food pantry with healthy options, cooking classes, physical activity and job training for residents. To date, the pantry has seen nearly 400 visits, serving approximately 600 individuals with the marketplace distributing over 6,000 pounds of food. A 3-on-3 basketball program has been established for young residents.

Critically, we’ve done this in partnership with Bank of America, leveraging its expertise in increasing access to safe and affordable housing and health screenings. To date, Bank of America alongside the American Diabetes Association and Black Nurses Rock has seen about 20 residents each month for workshops and screenings. Together, we’re seeing how we can achieve more together than we can on our own. We are also working to bring in new partners to help address health care access, mental health, and so much more. 

We’re seeing a similar payoff through The Interrupt’s The University of Alabama at Birmingham’s (UAB) Live HealthSmart Alabama initiative. Novo Nordisk has been a long-standing supporter of work in Selma and Birmingham to improve health conditions through food and nutrition, built environment and health care access, but we brought Uber Health to the table when we saw many residents struggling to get themselves to medical appointments or the grocery store. 

Through the program, residents can get free Uber rides for any health-related need, including medical appointments, picking up prescriptions, and grocery store trips. Removing barriers to transportation alongside widening access to healthy food has allowed residents in Selma and Birmingham to gain access to resources that were previously difficult to acquire.

As we established programs in Washington and Alabama, a challenge we’ve grappled with is building trust—particularly in communities that may be more skeptical of outside interventions. Recognizing our limits, we work hand-in-hand with established community groups, local nonprofits, and trusted partners, integrating their input in designing initiatives.

Using the consistent brand name, The Interrupt, has also helped build awareness of, and familiarity with, different programs in the same community. It means there is one delivery point and residents recognize The Interrupt is when they see it on signs and posters, building recognition, and ultimately trust, behind community programs.

In partnering together, companies let go of a natural desire for their brands to be front-and-center and concerns they might over-step each other—because the platform lets individual brands showcase their initiatives while breaking down silos. 

In doing so, brands with strong local roots and presence have played a key role, whether its Alabama Power and Light or Cadell Construction helping make recreation spaces feel more welcoming through better lighting and easy access, JW and AS Marriott Foundation with their deep roots in the DMV supporting the program at Washington View through financial support of our physical and mental health efforts. 

As we continue our programs in Washington, D.C. and Alabama, we know measurement matters. While changing health outcomes takes time, quick wins build momentum. That’s why we’re delighted to have GW’s Global Food Institute alongside us as an evaluation partner in Washington, D.C., helping us understand how multi-interventional programs can create lasting impact. We hope to apply the learnings from D.C. to help establish a multi-SDOH measurement approach tied to community health that can be applied across programs under The Interrupt.

We’re at the foothills of what’s possible here and want to replicate what we’ve started to build in Washington, D.C. and Alabama in other cities and communities around the U.S. The scale of the challenge of chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes can feel overwhelming, but an integrated, whole health partnership can begin to turn the tide.

Photo courtesy of Daderot, Wikimedia Commons

The post Interrupting the Burden of Chronic Disease appeared first on Food Tank.

For years, medicine and food existed in parallel worlds: one focused on disease, the other on culture and flavor. Dr. Timothy Harlan—a chef turned physician, Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University, and Global Food Institute affiliate faculty member—has spent his career bridging that divide. A pioneer of culinary medicine, he has worked to integrate hands-on nutrition and cooking education into medical training, showing that what we eat is as essential to health as any prescription.

In this Q&A with GFI’s Priya Fielding-Singh, Harlan reflects on how he became involved in culinary medicine, the evidence behind its impact, and what it could mean for the future of healthcare. From teaching medical students to cook nutritious meals to shaping community programs, he explains why food is indeed medicine—and why doctors, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, and chefs alike must speak the same language of healthful eating.

You are a national leader in bringing culinary medicine into medical education. How did you get interested in this work, and what has changed since you first started in this space?

The original spark came from my Dean at Tulane, Dr. Benjamin Sachs. In November 2009, he convened a group of physicians, chefs, medical students, and business leaders to envision opening a culinary medicine kitchen for medical students to learn how to cook. At the time, I wasn’t a medical educator; I was a clinician and physician executive, though I had a background as a chef and had spent decades writing, doing television, and developing culinary programs.

What really drew me in was when Dr. Sachs said he wanted not only to build a kitchen for students but also to teach the broader community how to cook. It took about two years to organize funding and staff, but by 2013 we opened the world’s first purpose-built culinary medicine kitchen at a medical school.

Fast forward to today: dozens of medical schools—including GW—have kitchens, most tracing their roots to the Tulane model. Culinary medicine has grown from a niche idea into a full specialty across medical, nursing, dietetics, and culinary programs.

Why do you think culinary medicine has gone from a niche idea to a widely adopted specialty?

Part of it comes from the reality of today’s greatest health challenges. Forty years ago, patients with congestive heart failure had a high risk of death; today, outcomes are dramatically better. The challenge is that during the same period of incredible medical advance there has been a concomitant rise in calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods. This has led to significant food related illness driving a dramatic rise in metabolic syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Food related conditions now drive the majority of what clinicians see, and physicians need tools to help patients navigate and enjoy high-quality food—not just prescribe medications. The rise of culinary medicine reflects that urgent need.

You’ve argued that medical students need hands-on culinary training, not just nutrition coursework. Why isn’t traditional nutrition education enough?

Knowledge alone isn’t enough; people need deliberate practice. A physician can tell a patient to “eat more fiber,” but without practical guidance—like how to choose whole grains, nuts, or vegetables in ways that fit into daily life—that advice often falls flat.

Research shows that patients generally take their doctors’ advice seriously. But when healthcare professionals walk the walk, not just talk the talk, patients listen even more closely. Doctors knowing how to prepare great food that just happens to be great for you is as critical to patient care as understanding pharmacology or pathophysiology. Without that practical grounding, even the best dietary recommendations can feel abstract or unattainable. Culinary medicine bridges that gap.

What evidence have you seen that culinary medicine changes how physicians approach patient care, or even improves patient outcomes?

The research, while still growing, is promising. Observational and cross-sectional studies show that healthcare students who participate in culinary medicine programs feel more prepared to counsel patients. They’re also healthier themselves—they report higher Mediterranean diet scores, they cook more, and they are more confident in the kitchen.

Community-based research supports similar outcomes. At Tulane, we conducted randomized trials showing participants were three to four times as likely to cook most days of the week compared to control groups. One study even collected people’s grocery receipts and found families saved an average of US$5,800 per year by cooking more and relying less on pre-prepared meals. Research such as the investigation by Dr. Nicole Farmer at the NIH Clinical Center, DC Cooks, that the GW team collaborates on is looking at culinary medicine interventions in underserved communities. These types of research show patients’ diet quality improves, which directly relates to reduced morbidity and mortality. Beyond these clinical outcomes, participants gain skills, confidence, and autonomy in the kitchen. It empowers them to take control of their health.

As the Health Meets Food curriculum expanded to new schools and communities, what’s helped it take root and succeed?

The biggest lesson we have learned is that every medical school—and every community—is unique. As Dr. Sachs often said: “If you’ve seen one medical school, you’ve seen one medical school.” Curricula, faculty skill sets, and institutional priorities differ, so programming needs to be flexible and adaptable.

Early on, interest came mainly from students and faculty enthusiasts. Today, requests typically come from Deans’ offices or university leadership. This reflects a sea change: medical school leaders increasingly recognize culinary medicine as essential for training all healthcare professionals, not just physicians. The interdisciplinary aspect is critical: nurses, PAs, dietitians, pharmacists, chefs, and food service professionals all need a shared foundation.

Another key factor is including the community, like chefs and food service staff, alongside students and professionals. The American College of Culinary Medicine now certifies chefs and foodservice professionals in culinary medicine, fostering collaboration and shared standards across healthcare and food sectors. This 360-degree view ensures that education, practice, and community engagement reinforce each other.

Looking ahead, if culinary medicine became standard in medical education, how could it reshape healthcare and public health—and what would it take to make that vision real?

As culinary medicine becomes the standard of care, it will fundamentally change how we deliver healthcare. Imagine every medical school and hospital system with a fully equipped culinary medicine kitchen—training not just physicians, but nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, chefs, and community members. That can transform clinical care, public health, and even how people think about food.

Ten or fifteen years ago, if you’d told me that might happen, I would’ve laughed. Back then, it felt impossible. But now, I actually believe it’s likely that having a culinary medicine kitchen will become the standard of care. We’re already seeing the momentum.

It will take investment, collaboration, and commitment across disciplines, but the benefits are clear: better patient outcomes, empowered communities, lower healthcare costs, and a more food-literate population. Ultimately, culinary medicine is about equipping healthcare professionals and communities with the knowledge and skills to make healthful, delicious food accessible and approachable. It’s a practical, hands-on tool for improving lives—and I think we’re finally starting to treat it that way.

Photo courtesy of Mariana Medvedeva, Unsplash

The post How Culinary Medicine Could Transform Healthcare: Q&A with Dr. Timothy Harlan on Bringing the Kitchen into Medical Education appeared first on Food Tank.

When African leaders gathered this year at the Africa Food Systems Forum, in Dakar, they faced critical opportunities. They are charting sustainable financing pathways to help transform food and nutrition futures while confronting geopolitical shifts and budget cuts across the G7 countries. Those cuts, including the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development earlier this year, have left Africa’s food and agriculture systems dangerously exposed.

While the exact size and depth of the cuts and their impact are still unclear, ONE’s engagement with African agribusiness leaders indicate early signs of reversals of progress on farmer productivity, gender and youth engagement, climate resilience, nutrition security, and market access. Already burdened by climate shocks and strained by international trade wars and the burgeoning debt crises, African governments are struggling to fill the gaps. Sadly, the most vulnerable—children, women, the displaced and the elderly—will bear the brunt of the cuts unless urgent action is taken to develop sustainable financing pathways. This will require African-led solutions, leveraging data and innovation, investing in policy alignment, and private and public solutions to ensure food security for millions and safeguard nutrition for future generations.

Given the diversity and complexity of the food ecosystem on the Continent, approaches to filling the gaps and truly propelling a pathway to self-sufficiency in financing the transformation of the agrifood landscape will need to be tailored to the unique country context. But there are at least six opportunities that leaders in the ecosystem should consider, adopt, and implement:

First, each country must develop a robust understanding of the public and private funds that are currently available at the federal, state and local levels to drive food systems’ transformation. This will require considerable engagement beyond formal budgets from the ministries of agriculture. But it will require an ecosystem approach to capture the funds available for other key components including research, humanitarian food aid interventions, manufacturing, and climate-smart infrastructure to drive value addition and logistics to enhance regional trade.

There must also be a commitment to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the use of these funds, instituting robust systems and structures, leveraging AI to ensure transparency, accountability and reporting on the use of the funds. This data will also enable stakeholders to re-allocate funds from where they are being underutilized to the highest areas of need and impact.

Second, African countries must design cohesive and robust national agrifood research infrastructure supported by the private sector to drive demand-driven research and sustainability. The Continent invests under 1 percent of its agricultural GDP in research—with allocated budgets often under-disbursed—resulting in underfunded, understaffed, and ineffective institutions.

In a much-needed shift, governments could prioritize modernizing research infrastructure, improve internal management, and strengthen coordination across universities, research institutes, and farmer extension services. Critically, they can try establishing accountability frameworks, including volunteer advisory boards, complete with farmer engagement to set the annual research agendas, track demand-driven impact, and attract private-sector funding.

Nigeria alone, for example, has over 60 research institutes, six dedicated agricultural universities and over 75 universities that offer degrees in agriculture. However, this research landscape is not funded or shaped by the private sector; this results in a disconnect between these institutions’ activities and their impact on sector transformation. In contrast, Côte d’Ivoire provides an exemplary model: its National Center for Agricultural Research (CNRA) is largely funded by private producers through the Inter-Professional Fund for Agricultural Research and Extension (FIRCA) which directs 75 percent of subscription fees into commodity-specific research.

Third, the public sector could create enabling policy frameworks and support national de-risking instruments that attract private sector financing. The recent 16th Malabo Montpellier Panel report, MONEYWISE: Policy Innovations to Finance Agrifood Systems, estimates that the private and public sectors on the Continent will need US$77 billion annually until 2030 to propel food systems in Africa. Case studies from Malawi, Morocco, and Rwanda demonstrate the promise and potential impact of innovative financing models including funds, coupled with policy and institutional engagement from development banks and capital market authorities.

Specifically, in the case of Morocco, robust national plans–Plan Maroc Vert and Strategie Génération Green–provided the ecosystem policy framework, and propelled de–risking and incentive interventions which attracted private sector investment, doubling agricultural GDP. Similar ecosystem solutions are required across the Continent and demand a bold commitment to private, public and civil society partnerships that invest in robust roadmaps and accountability frameworks, similar to the Moroccan example.

Fourth, African nations could generate new tax revenue directly linked to the exportation of unprocessed food commodities. For example, Africa produces over 75 percent of the world’s cocoa, yet receives barely 2 percent of the global profit. Export taxes that favor domestic processing, like Côte d’Ivoire’s 14.6 percent levy on raw cocoa beans, can generate revenue while incentivizing value addition.

Beyond exports, “sin taxes” on unhealthy foods and sugary drinks both reduce the health burdens and costs associated with treating the linked diseases but also generate revenue which could be allocated to drive food systems transformation without placing further strain on public budgets. South Africa generated over US$400 million in revenue within two years of introducing its sugary drinks tax in 2018.

In addition, civil society organizations must play a critical role in educating the public about the benefits of these additional taxes and hold governments accountable for how they are utilized to promote value addition and reduce the cost of locally sourced nutritious food.

Fifth, African countries can create credible and innovative mechanisms for diasporic investment in the agrifood industry. The African Diaspora sends home over US$100 billion in remittances annually, which can be systematically channeled toward driving agrifood transformation. Partnering with nonprofit organizations such as African Food Changemakers, an online community of entrepreneurs from 50 African countries, would provide access to the credible business opportunities for interested investors from the Diaspora. 

In addition, the Africa Food System Forum and other convening platforms could create virtual and in person deal rooms for the Diaspora to connect with credible venture and private equity fund managers operating on the Continent, allowing for pooling of resources to drive investment and scaling.

Finally, global food and agriculture infrastructure must prioritize the transfer of data, logistics, production, delivery mechanisms and the associated funding mechanisms to trusted African institutions. More specifically, global institutions like the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the World Food Programme, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, and the CGIAR system should focus on strengthening local organizations and transition planning for research systems, seed banks, and other forms of intellectual property, procurement and the management of humanitarian and school feeding programs, critical to the growth and self-sufficiency of the African food ecosystem. This will require clear signals from the major G7 government and philanthropic funders, with the necessary incentives and timelines for country ownership. 

It is time for African leaders to recognize the opportunity to develop robust pathways to finance the food systems transformation required to truly drive growth and nutrition security. What is needed now is the political will and accountability from governments to develop robust financing policies, the mechanisms to channel domestic resources to strengthen the capacity and efficacy of the public sector, the engagement of the private sector to drive sustainable and inclusive growth, and the full participation of civil society to ensure that no one is left behind.

Photo courtesy of CIMMYT/ Peter Lowe

The post Financing Africa’s Food Systems Transformation: Challenges and Pathways to Drive Growth and Nutrition Security Across the Continent appeared first on Food Tank.

Over the next two weeks, more than more than 50,000 policymakers, government negotiators, scientists, farmers, advocates, journalists, and business leaders are expected in Belém, Brazil for the 30th U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP30). This year’s Conference, according to the COP30 Presidency, will prioritize implementation over declarations, promising to address the climate crisis with the urgency it warrants. And central to this work are the world’s food and agriculture systems, framed as one of the six pillars foundational to the COP30 Action Agenda.

For this agenda to be truly successful, “we need to ensure that those who are most impacted by the climate crisis have a voice and a seat at the table,” says Anna Lappé, the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

Lappé, an award-winning author and internationally recognized expert on food systems, is the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working for food system transformation around the world. Prior to joining the Global Alliance, Lappé had published three books on food, farming, and sustainability, including Diet for a Hot Planet: The Climate Crisis at the End of Your Fork and What You Can Do About It, and contributed to nearly two dozen more. Lappé is also the founder or co-founder of three U.S.-based organizations, including Real Food Media. In this conversation with Food Tank’s Jessica Levy, Lappé discusses the encouraging progress that has been made to bring food and agriculture systems into climate negotiations, the ties between farming and the fossil fuel industry, and the organizations proving that a regenerative food future is possible. 

You have long said that hunger is not caused by a scarcity of food but a scarcity of democracy. Can you explain that distinction and its ongoing significance?

As some of your Food Tank readers may know, I stand on the shoulders of so many incredible food leaders, including my own mother! For decades now, she and many, many others around the world have been beating the drum that the ongoing scourge of hunger in the world—on a planet where more than enough calories are produced to feed every single person—is caused not by a productivity crisis, but a democracy crisis. 

We know that wherever people’s rights are not fulfilled, there is hunger. We know that where there is conflict, there is hunger, and that, despite the Geneva Conventions, denying access to food is still used as a weapon of war—as we’re seeing in Gaza today. We know that war and conflict are the single largest drivers of hunger worldwide. 

But we also know it’s not just the extremes of war and conflict-induced famine driving the crisis of hunger, it’s the everyday food insecurity we see in countries all around the world. In the United States, despite being one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, tens of millions of U.S.-Americans go hungry and nearly 42 million, about one in eight households, rely on government food assistance.

Do you think food and agriculture systems are overlooked in climate negotiations and policymaking? What factors continue to keep them on the sidelines?

You’re right that food and agriculture systems are still largely overlooked in climate negotiations, even though food systems contribute to about one-third of the emissions driving the crisis. And, even though, I would argue, reducing those emissions, if we had the political will, is one of the lowest hanging fruit for action on climate—with some of the greatest benefits: More climate-friendly food systems are better, not just for climate, but for health, biodiversity, animal welfare, community well-being, and for fishers and farmers, too. Whether it is climate adaptation, loss and damage, or just transition—integrating food systems into climate solutions is critical to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. 

With that said, I am pleased that food and agriculture systems are increasingly on climate negotiators’ and policy makers’ radar—thanks to years of organizing among social movements and civil society organizations, philanthropy, and visionary political leaders. Close to 90 percent of Nationally Determined Contributions plans have referenced food systems and agriculture, showing its inextricable link to addressing the climate crisis. But we have a lot of work to do to turn this awareness into action: When we analyzed the amount of public climate finance dollars going to food system transformation, the percentage is still staggeringly low. We need to take this awareness, and bold declarations, and move into tangible outcomes that address hunger, food and nutrition insecurity, and emissions from food systems.   

You challenge the myth that fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is necessary to feed the world. How has that conversation evolved over the past decade? How do you think we can shift the story more effectively at the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP30)?

Yes, many of us have been working to challenge this myth for a long time. It’s a stubborn one! It’s becoming increasingly clear that the impact of fossil-fuel intensive agriculture is not only a barrier to our climate ambitions, it is also causing so many other harms, from ecosystem pollution to public health crises related to petrochemicals used in agriculture like pesticides—to name just a few. 

I like to remind folks that the mythology of industrial agriculture’s productivity comes from a narrow focus on yields. To poke some holes in that myopic focus, consider the crop that has seen one of the largest yield gains in the past century: corn. Yes, corn yields have gone from 40 bushels per acre in the 1950s to a staggering 180 per acre in recent years, but at what cost and what benefit? Most of that corn raised in the U.S. is not food—it’s either headed to the bellies of cows or cars. And consider the cost: the agrochemical pollution, the topsoil loss, the dead zones from fertilizer runoff, and much more. 

What’s become clear through research by many around the world is the incredible abundance of agroecological and regenerative practices that don’t rely on fossil fuels to produce diverse, healthy food, yielding incredibly high nutrition-per-acre. There is so much evidence around the world about this, sharing just one example from India. 

I’m hopeful that the story is starting to shift, with more and more understanding that we need to phase out fossil fuels across our entire economy, not just in transportation and the built environment, but food systems, too. Our colleagues at IPES-Food have done so much to connect these dots, and make this point, most recently in their new report on fossil fuels and food systems. My organization also produced a report to lift up the message for shifting away from fossil field dependency in food systems and we co-produced a podcast on these themes with TABLE-Debates. We’ve been pleased by the feedback we’re receiving.

Can you share an example of an on-the-ground partner demonstrating that a food system rooted in agroecology and community resilience can deliver real results?

There are so many great examples around the world, but since COP30 is in Brazil, I thought it would be appropriate to lift up an example from Brazil: One of the largest and most successful social movements in the world, the Landless Workers Movement known by its Portuguese acronym MST, has been at the forefront of building agroecological knowledge across the country, creating agroecological schools for teaching these kinds of practices, building up cooperatives to help distribute products coming from regenerative farms, and working to advocate for the kind of policy reforms that have put Brazil on the forefront of addressing the roots of hunger and promoting ecological farming practices. 

What are some of the most promising policy approaches you’ve seen governments take—or that you’d like to see them take—to support a transition to low-input, fossil-free food systems?

Sticking with Brazil, the country has been a global leader in using public procurement as a tool to support a transition to more ecological food systems. In Brazil, for example, the national school food program (PNAE) has clear mandates for supporting local, small-scale farms, requiring that at least 45 percent of school food funds by 2026 support family farms, prioritizing organic producers. 

I was just at the Stockholm Food Forum and I got to hear the Deputy Mayor of Paris share what the city is doing to promote similar goals: Since 2015, Paris has been working to increase the production of organic and local food in its municipal catering services like schools, with a target of at least 50 percent local and sustainable. 

I could go on! We’re seeing so much political leadership—from local to national governments—to help create the enabling environments to support this transition to regenerative enological food systems. It is so inspiring.

The Brazilian COP30 Presidency has framed this year’s summit as an “implementation COP.” What would it take to make sure this COP moves beyond declarations and delivers real action?

We need to ensure that those who are most impacted by the climate crisis have a voice and a seat at the table, including Indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, and traditional fishers. We’ve been part of an effort to bring frontline food leaders to the U.N. Climate Summits over the past several years, supporting 22 frontline leaders in Belém. 

And, we need to ensure that the largest corporations in the world that are driving this crisis—the big polluters from oil and gas corporations to petrochemical giants—are rightfully called to account for their deception and lack of action. We have no time for what I think of as the “dreadful d’s” of the climate crisis: industry’s disinformation, deflection, and delay. We need real action, and that includes supporting the agroecological and regenerative practices at the heart of food systems that are good for people and the planet. 

Photo courtesy of Fernando Rebêlo, Wikimedia Commons

The post Putting Food and Farming at the Center of Climate Action: Q&A with Anna Lappé appeared first on Food Tank.

Businesses can be profitable without compromising their values or mission. That belief drives Nishant Roy’s work as Chief Impact Officer at Chobani, one of the world’s fastest-growing food companies. Creating a more sustainable and equitable food system is “not separate from our business—it is our business,” he says. 

Roy joined Chobani in 2017 as Chief of Staff to CEO and Founder Hamdi Ulukaya, later serving as Chief of Strategic Operations before stepping into his current role. Before Chobani, he built a career spanning multiple sectors, beginning in the U.S. Air Force, then holding positions at the Clinton Foundation and Goldman Sachs. In 2009, he joined the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where he served as a special adviser during President Obama’s administration and contributed significantly to President Obama’s “Feed the Future” and “Power Africa” initiatives.

In this conversation with Food Tank’s Jessica Levy, Roy discusses Chobani’s work to alleviate hunger, the trust that is needed to build long-lasting community partnerships, and the business case for doing the right thing. 

Chobani has invested in hunger relief and expanding access to nutritious foods. What has driven that focus?

Our founder, Hamdi Ulukaya, has often said “A cup of yogurt isn’t going to change the world, but how you make it can.”

Chobani’s commitment to making natural, nutritious, and delicious foods more accessible has been at the heart of our organization from the very beginning.

When Hamdi came across a shuttered yogurt plant in South Edmeston, New York twenty years ago, he didn’t just see a factory. He saw a chance to create something special, to breathe new life into a community, and to reimagine what food could be.

Back then, the average cup of yogurt in the United States had about 43 grams of sugar, but Hamdi knew there was a better way. He perfected a recipe with 40 percent less sugar, twice the protein, and only natural ingredients. And when the first cups hit shelves in 2007, Chobani didn’t just launch a brand—it transformed an entire food category. It raised expectations for what Americans should demand of their food: healthier, cleaner, and more accessible.

But Chobani’s aspirations have never been just about yogurt—it was always about something bigger. It was about proving that wholesome food can be accessible. Food has the power to uplift communities, set new standards, and serve a higher purpose. That’s why we believe it’s our responsibility to use our resources to better the communities around us, especially when it comes to helping those who are facing food insecurity.

Hunger is not a distant problem–it is here, in our towns and cities. In a world of plenty, hunger is an insult to our common humanity. It’s our burden to share, and we need everyone—government, business, and society—working together to solve this crisis. That’s why we partner widely, advocate boldly, and act locally. We strive to be both a catalyst and convener, bringing together all those who share the vision of a nation where no family goes hungry.

Can you highlight a few projects that you think have made the greatest impact in Chobani’s work to eliminate hunger?

We know that a single meal can make a world of difference. That’s why we approach every effort to combat hunger with immense care and reverence for what it means to nourish our communities.

Much of our work is grounded in our hometown communities in New York, Idaho, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Because we’ve established longstanding, trusted partnerships with local leaders, businesses, and food pantries, we’ve been able to launch a range of programs designed to bridge food access gaps and support those most vulnerable to food insecurity. This includes our year-round efforts to stock pantries and bring more fresh foods to communities, and more customized initiatives like our Summer Program, which just wrapped in Southern Idaho.

Thousands of children in the region face food and nutrition insecurity. This is an issue that becomes even more urgent during the summer months, especially as Idaho has opted out of federally funded programs that would have provided additional SNAP benefits to families. In response, we’ve stepped up to help bridge the gap by distributing weekend meal kits to families across Twin Falls, Jerome, and Buhl counties. Our weekly distribution events became more than just meal drops—they were joyful community gatherings, complete with games and activities for the families.

Over 13-weeks, we distributed 12,000 plus meal kits to local families this summer. That’s over 48,000 meals in total—meaning 48,000 moments of relief for a parent and 48,000 times a child goes to bed with a full belly.

Another initiative that’s given us more national reach—and the ability to respond to the hunger emergencies we’re seeing as a direct result of the increasing rate of natural disasters—is Chobani Super Milk, a nutritious, shelf-stable milk designed specifically for disaster relief. Access to vital nutrients is critical in times of crisis, and this product helps meet those needs. Since the launch of Chobani Super Milk in July 2024, we’ve distributed more than 1.1 million cartons of this high-protein, lower-sugar milk to food pantries and directly to communities impacted by disasters.

These are just a few steps we’re taking to fight hunger, but victory depends on everyone joining in. Hunger is not unsolvable—lasting change is possible if communities, businesses, nonprofits, and policymakers stand together to ensure every person has enough to eat.

What strategies are key to designing hyper-local hunger initiatives that are scalable across different communities?

We place a strong emphasis on working hand-in-hand with our communities to develop programs that reflect their unique needs—because we know there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to eliminating hunger. Every community faces different barriers, and by building trusted relationships, we’re better equipped to understand those challenges and respond with solutions that are effective and lasting.

A powerful example of this in action is the origin of our mobile food pantries. Through our work with our local partners, we learned that while many pantries wanted to provide fresh food, they lacked the refrigeration and infrastructure to store or transport it. That gap led us to launch our very first mobile food pantry back in March of 2024, making more fresh foods available throughout Oneonta and Chenango counties in partnership with the Community Cupboard of Edmeston in New York.

The model worked—and we successfully expanded this effort in Idaho a few months later by partnering with the Idaho Food Bank on a second mobile food pantry that serves the Magic Valley community.

Since their inception, our mobile food pantries have distributed hundreds of thousands of pounds of nutritious food to communities where it’s needed most in New York and Idaho. It’s just one example of the impact that can be achieved through careful listening and close collaboration—an approach that, if embraced broadly, could fuel a movement of lasting, transformative change.

What advice would you give to companies that want to build effective community partnerships but don’t know where to start?

It starts with showing up. A lot of companies donate money or products and call it a day. But what truly strengthens community partnerships is having boots on the ground—and that begins with your people.

At Chobani, we’ve built a culture where employees at every level step out of the office, roll up their sleeves, and lend a hand. We have ongoing impact events and activations across our offices and plants, involve employees in on-the-ground efforts, and put community engagement at the forefront of everything we do.

When your people experience firsthand what it means to provide a meal or support a neighbor in need, the work becomes personal. And that builds trust—not just within your team, but with the community itself. Whether it’s packing meal kits, helping with distribution, or simply sharing a smile—that human connection on the ground matters. That’s where real change begins.

At the end of the day, we aim to be the support our neighbors can count on when other societal pillars fall short, and hope more businesses adopt the same approach: standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their communities to confront these challenges together.

What lessons can you share with other businesses trying to balance long-term impact with financial performance?

At Chobani, we’ve learned that long-term impact and financial performance aren’t at odds—they’re actually connected. Through our impact efforts, we’ve shown that it’s possible to grow a strong, profitable business without compromising on our values or losing sight of our mission.

We treat the positive outcomes we create for our communities and employees as essential measures of business health. Today’s consumers are increasingly values-driven—they want to see brands taking real action and moving the needle on the issues that matter. In that sense, doing the right thing isn’t just a moral imperative—it’s a business advantage. People want to support brands that reflect their beliefs and take real action.

Our impact is a key driver of trust. It’s what’s enabled us to build deep, lasting relationships with our consumers and communities. Because when people believe in your mission, they’re more than customers—they become advocates. And that kind of connection has the power to create a movement.

At the end of the day, we all have a stake in creating a more sustainable and equitable food system. That’s not separate from our business—it is our business. We measure our success not only in what we sell today, but in the future we leave behind. A future where food is natural, accessible, and abundant—for our children and for theirs.

Photo courtesy of Chobani

The post Doing the Right Thing Is Good Business: Q&A with Nishant Roy appeared first on Food Tank.

Mari Hunt Wassink is a young, BIPOC farmer who operates Black Earth Gardens on a half-acre property in Cedar Rapids. Using organic and regenerative practices, she grows vegetables, herbs, and fruits that are culturally relevant to the Black and African diaspora communities of eastern Iowa. 

Mari is passionate about growing food for her community. But as a first-generation, beginning farmer, challenges like a lack of capital to secure quality, long-term farmland and purchase needed infrastructure suitable for specialty crop farming have held her back from growing her business and customer base. In her area, there aren’t many properties available that are conducive to farming and that have the necessarily existing infrastructure, like water access, electricity, storage facilities or roadways. Or if they have these assets, they are prohibitively expensive for a new farmer. 

Unfortunately, Mari’s story is not an uncommon one. According to the National Young Farmers Coalition’s most recent survey of over 10,000 young and beginning farmers, access to affordable, quality farmland is the top challenge the new generation faces in building careers in agriculture. The average U.S. farmer is 58 years old, and farmers under 35 years old comprise only 8.8 percent of all farmers in this country. In addition, the price of farmland across the country is soaring–the average value of an acre of farm real estate has risen from $750 in 1950 (adjusted for inflation) to US$4,170 in 2024. If we are going to keep farmland in farming, and transition this precious commodity to the new generation of growers, we need meaningful federal policy to address this hurdle.   

Supporting equitable farmland access for beginning farmers and ranchers and underserved producers has always been the North Star for the National Young Farmers Coalition (Young Farmers). Young Farmers is a national grassroots network fighting to advance policy and shift power to equitably resource the new generation of working farmers. We have been telling the same story, about the same problem, for as long as we have existed: lack of secure access to farmland is the number one barrier preventing a generation of growers from entering the field. 

Based on Young Farmer Surveys we have completed over the past decade, young farmers in our network have been clear about the need for equitable land access for the new generation of working farmers, farmworkers, and ranchers. Young farmers of color have been vocal and explicit about how land access (among other barriers to entry) disproportionately impact farm communities led by young people of color. Young Farmers published a Land Report in 2020 that outlines the historical context of land loss in agriculture in the United States and the pathways for policymakers to create easier access to land for young farmers. Our land report was written five years ago, and our community has offered actionable legislative proposals that together would have historic impacts. Yet policymakers have not yet followed through on their commitment to crafting a comprehensive Farm Bill, and their actions have failed to address the land access needs of young farmers.

When we launched the One Million Acres for the Future Campaign in 2021, we set a bold target of US$2.5 billion in historic investment in equitable land access for this new generation. We believed that the 2023 Farm Bill was the last, best opportunity to change conditions meaningfully for this new generation. However, we still do not have a new Farm Bill and are likely witnessing the destruction of the Farm Bill process as we know it. 

Despite the fractured process in Congress, USDA took major strides to adjust the land access challenges with the establishment of the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access Program (LCM) in 2022—a US$300 million dollar USDA grant program designed to support community-led land access solutions. In 2023, trying to secure the future of the program by writing it into the Farm Bill, we won bipartisan introduction of the Increasing Land Access, Security, and Opportunities (LASO) Act. Our House and Senate champions of this shared cause recently reintroduced a refined version, the New Producer Economic Security Act. The biggest obstacle to legislative success has been the lack of will to match investment to need. The total assistance requested in all LCM program applications received in the program’s first and perhaps only round, totaled US$2.5 billion.

The LCM program follows a decade of advocacy and policy momentum, but the current Administration is doing serious harm by putting the fifty geographically diverse and community-led projects at risk. Program funding was frozen for months and remains uncertain, particularly in light of a recent press release from USDA announcing the termination of nearly US$150 million worth of federal contracts, including LCM contracts.

Young Farmers remains steadfast in our implementation of the following strategies for equitable land access for young farmers and farmers of color:

1. First, protecting the past: we must defend the progress our movement has made on land access, climate, and racial justice from legal, administrative, and legislative attacks. 

2. We are also looking towards the future. Pursue policy changes with the potential to be won in our current political climate that tangibly improve access to land, capital, and credit for the next generation of farmers and ranchers and secure racial equity outcomes.

3. Continue building momentum. Work in partnership with the many organizations in our ecosystem dedicated to land access for young farmers and ranchers. 

What can you do to help? Support should always be based on the needs of the communities you strive to serve, and your power and privilege. Do you have access to resources (decision-makers, financial capital, consultants, etc.), or skills that could be helpful to a grassroots movement? If so, you can use them in the following ways to make a big impact when we need support more than ever.

Donate to a land trust, an organization advancing land policy, or a farm operation directly. Funding farmers directly is a great opportunity to support a better, more sustainable food system. Take a look at local farms website, social media pages, farmers market booths, or CSAs and find options to donate directly to farms. 

Join newsletters and action networks for organizations that support land policy work. Young Farmers, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Rural Coalition, the National Family Farm Coalition, and the HEAL Food Alliance and use them as a resource to take action. 

While the current political climate is challenging, it’s also temporary. We can’t win bold policies when the tides change if we throw in the towel now. The future of agriculture deserves better stewardship than what this Administration and this Congress are delivering. It is time for farmer-led policy development and careful planning. It is time to build momentum. We will be ready at the next opportunity for meaningful national level progress when opportunities are revealed.

Photo courtesy of Sarah Cheung, Unsplash

The post Sowing Tomorrow: Land Access and the New Generation of Farmers appeared first on Food Tank.

The global food and beverage industry today faces unprecedented challenges. Geopolitical unrest, shifting tariffs, regulatory change, and rapid technological advances are reshaping markets and threatening stability. Compounding these pressures is a workforce model under significant strain and challenged by immigration restrictions, demographic changes, and economic uncertainty.

Yet within this disruption there is an extraordinary opportunity. Employee ownership, a proven and resilient business structure, is gaining fresh momentum just as thousands of business owners worldwide approach retirement. Guy Raz, award-winning host of the popular “How I Built This” podcast, described employee owners as “architects of ownership—of purpose, of responsibility, of a shared mission and shared rewards.” When implemented effectively, and at scale, employee ownership has the potential to transform the food and beverage sector into an industry where people can build meaningful livelihoods, strengthen their communities, and share equitably in the rewards of business success.

When Bob Moore transferred ownership of Bob’s Red Mill to his 700 employees in 2010, he demonstrated how employee ownership could transform both workers and businesses in the food industry. By the time he passed away in February 2024, he left behind more than just a successful whole-grain foods brand; he left a legacy for how businesses can create lasting value for both employees and communities.

Under employee ownership, the company has continued to grow and maintain a strong reputation. Bob’s Red Mill uses an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), the most common structure for employee ownership in the United States. An ESOP is a trust set up by the company to hold shares on behalf of employees, functioning as a retirement account that provides financial benefits when they leave or retire. According to public reports, the average ESOP account value for employees at Bob’s Red Mill has exceeded US$300,000, reflecting the tangible benefits of shared ownership.

Employee ownership is best described as a legal business structure in which workers gain a financial stake in their company’s success, typically through profit-sharing, equity-based retirement plans, or stock ownership programs. These broad-based ownership models can be implemented by businesses of all sizes, using experienced advisors and established frameworks to navigate different regulatory environments. While standout examples of employee ownership, like Bob’s Red Mill, have existed for decades, they remain the exception.

In the next 10 years, approximately 51 percent of businesses in the U.S. owned by Baby Boomers will be transferring billions in assets as they retire and look to exit their business. For the food and beverage industry, this “silver tsunami” carries especially high stakes. The industry employs 10 percent of the U.S. workforce and sustains intricate supply chains that connect communities across the country and beyond. But fewer than 1 in 4 business owners have formal succession plans, putting workers, suppliers, and entire regional food systems at risk. Without thoughtful planning, these transitions could destabilize the communities and supply chains that rely on these businesses for jobs and economic resilience.

Private equity firms and strategic buyers routinely approach business owners with attractive offers, presenting a convenient but often less-than-ideal exit strategy. Employee ownership provides a compelling alternative, enabling owners to transition out on their own terms while safeguarding the company’s legacy and protecting employees’ livelihoods. Unlike sales to outside buyers, which can result in relocation or closure of certain business lines, employee ownership keeps businesses anchored in their communities and focused on long-term stability.

The business case for employee ownership is compelling. Extensive studies consistently show that employee-owned companies enjoy stronger performance, including higher productivity, revenue growth, job security, and firm longevity. For instance, employee-owned firms see productivity rise by around 5 percent in the first year and outpace peers with roughly 2.3–2.4 percent greater sales growth. Despite these benefits, employee ownership transitions remain rare. In 2024, private equity completed the purchase of over 7,000 small and medium-sized businesses in the U.S. while only 200 companies of similar size became employee-owned; this represents a massive missed opportunity for business owners and workers alike.

No industry is better positioned to lead the employee ownership movement than food and beverage. These companies depend on skilled workers, foster deep connections within their communities, and are guided by long-term perspectives. With core values rooted in sustainability, quality, and local stewardship, the sector is a natural fit for broad-based ownership. Other notable examples include Waitrose, a major UK grocery chain, and Publix, a leading U.S. supermarket. Both are among the largest employee-owned businesses in their respective countries and have built trusted brands while delivering strong financial performance by empowering employees with a meaningful stake in the company’s success.

Karen Colberg, CEO of King Arthur Baking, another employee-owned food company, echoes this sentiment: “Being an ESOP is very much part of our culture…When [the owners] decided to retire, they wanted to transition the ownership to the employees. It was a wonderful opportunity to preserve the company and what it means to the community.”

Employee ownership isn’t a silver bullet. But it is a strategic, tested, and people-centered approach to today’s challenges. For retiring owners, it safeguards the legacy they’ve built. For employees, it creates opportunities for wealth-building and meaningful participation. And for companies in the global food industry, it fosters enduring, values-driven relationships with both workers and communities.

But if employee ownership is to become more than a niche solution, we must raise awareness of its potential and work together to build the infrastructure that makes it as accessible and straightforward as selling to traditional buyers. 

Leaders in the food and beverage industry can drive this transformation by taking concrete steps: championing employee ownership at industry events and throughout their supply chains, backing policies that make these transitions more accessible, and developing new sources of capital and investment to help businesses become employee-owned and thrive for the long term. Additionally, companies can use their procurement power to support employee-owned businesses and proactively include employee ownership as a key option in their own succession planning.

This movement is already underway. Leaders across the food and beverage sector cannot afford to miss this moment to reshape their industry for the better. The question isn’t whether employee ownership will grow, but whether food industry leaders will help drive that growth or watch from the sidelines as others capture its benefits.

Photo courtesy of Unsplash

The post Want a Stronger Food System? Start With Who Owns It appeared first on Food Tank.

Conflict is the largest driver of hunger and starvation, and food has become one of the cheapest weapons of war. More than 120 million people are currently displaced by violence or persecution, and 60 percent of the world’s hungriest live in conflict-affected countries. At last count, the Center for Preventive Action found 27 active conflicts around the world. From Gaza to Sudan and from Ukraine to Yemen, withholding food is now a deliberate strategy of war. 

The ongoing war in Ukraine illustrates this reality. Once Europe’s breadbasket, Ukraine’s farmland has been mined and blockaded, cutting off global grain supplies. Similar tactics appear elsewhere: in Gaza, famine now compounds the humanitarian crisis as food access is restricted as a part of Israel’s war against Hamas. Whether defined as genocide or not, the reality is that food deprivation is being weaponized to achieve military and political ends.

A Historical Pattern

Weaponizing food is nothing new. The Siege of Leningrad (1941–1944) starved over a million civilians. The Bengal famine of 1943, exacerbated by British policies, left millions of dead. During Nigeria’s Biafran War (1967–1970), famine was used to weaken separatists. In the 1990s Balkans war, Sarajevo was cut off from food supplies. More recently, Syrian forces bombed bakeries to terrorize populations, while Russian forces destroyed Ukrainian grain.

History makes clear: starvation is not collateral damage—it is a tactic. Yet international law still struggles to hold perpetrators accountable.

International Law and Limited Action

Since its founding in 1946, the United Nations has repeatedly confronted ongoing crises marked by manmade famine and starvation. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols prohibit withholding food from civilians, but these are considered broadly as crimes against humanity. It was not until 2018 that the U.N.’s Security Council adopted Resolution 2417 condemning famine as a weapon. 

While sanctions are intended to enforce international law by penalizing those who obstruct humanitarian assistance, accountability remains elusive. The International Criminal Court (ICC) established in 1998 includes intentional starvation of civilians as a crime. Yet, as a recent review by Chase Sova highlighted, prosecutions remain rare, the legal framework is weak, and U.N. investigations often stall as powerful states block enforcement.

Meanwhile, millions continue to suffer. Today, Sudan, Yemen, Haiti, northern Nigeria, and South Sudan are on the verge of famine. These crises share a common thread: deliberate obstruction of food.

Why Food is a Powerful Weapon

Food’s power lies in its universality. It is also the cheapest weapon of war. Starvation kills slowly, demoralizes populations, and erodes cultures. Women—often primary farmers—are disproportionately targeted and their livelihoods destroyed. 

Modern communications now expose these crimes in real time. As global famine expert Alex de Waal notes, in the age of social media, perpetrators can no longer hide famine. Anyone with a cell phone or a laptop can see what is happening in real time. Instead, countries resort to “statistical denialism,” contesting or suppressing data to obscure accountability. But suppressing the news to deny what one can see is no longer an option. 

Still, visibility alone does not translate into action. Global outrage rarely leads to intervention. The U.N. has limited tools to enforce accountability, and political divisions prevent coordinated responses.

Today’s Urgent Challenge

The U.N. Sustainable Development Goals pledged in 2015 to get to Zero Hunger by 2030. Yet progress is faltering. It will get worse since the United States withdrew its support for the SDGs in September.

According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture’s State of Food Insecurity 2025 report, 673 million people–or 8.2 percent of the global population–remain hungry. Hunger has declined slightly since 2022, but ending hunger by 2030 is now unlikely. Unless we address the connection between conflict and food, the cycle of manmade famine will continue.

The moral urgency is clear: starvation should be treated not as an inevitable byproduct of war, but as a deliberate crime. Sanctions, international monitoring, and accountability mechanisms must target those who use food as a weapon. Governments and civil society alike must insist that the global community move beyond condemnation to action.

Ending the Weaponization of Food 

From Leningrad to Gaza and Biafra to Ukraine, the lesson is the same: food is not only sustenance, but also a cheap weapon. Conflict-driven hunger is man-made, preventable, and one of the gravest injustices of our time. The world must recognize withholding food as an inhumane act of warfare, strengthen mechanisms to prosecute perpetrators, and mobilize political will to protect civilians.

Striving to end global hunger by reducing the number of people on this planet who are hungry is a means of conflict prevention. What we do know is that since the U.N.’s founding global hunger has been reduced because of great advances in agriculture such as the Green Revolution, the increased coordination of humanitarian assistance, and economic development in places like India and China. Working to get to Zero Hunger by 2030, however, may not happen as other factors such as climate change, epidemics, and ongoing conflicts create insurmountable barriers, headwinds that destroy the progress made in the last eighty years. 

Unless the global architecture is refreshed so that access to food no longer becomes the main driver of global conflict, we are likely to see more suffering and death going forward. That means we must focus on democratic governance and giving voice to people remains essential to the fight against global hunger. At the end of the Cold War we saw a window to expand the benefits of more open societies across the globe and there was documented progress in many parts of Africa and Asia. Linking this message to the discussions about food weaponization is essential.

Ending hunger will not be possible without ending the weaponization of food. Until nations commit to resolving conflicts and holding aggressors accountable, we will continue to witness famine not as a natural disaster, but as a deliberate tool of destruction.

Photo courtesy of Jaber Jehad Badwan, Wikimedia Commons

The post Food, Conflict, and the Weaponization of Food appeared first on Food Tank.

In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic forced schools to embrace remote learning models, we had to decide what to do with the food hubs and farms at the University of the District of Columbia (UDC). We couldn’t tend to the produce from our homes, but we realized what we were doing was too important to stop. Lines at food banks were getting longer and the need from the community was only growing. We chose to keep the farms rolling. Each week, we loaded up UDC’s food truck with our produce and delivered it to our partners at the nonprofit Martha’s Table and local D.C. churches, who then distributed it to keep our neighbors—and our city—fed. 

Today, 55 percent of the world’s population lives in an urban environment, and this is projected to increase to almost 70 percent by 2050, according to the United Nations. But limited food access and nutrition security, rising food costs, limited space for local food production, and—from my personal standpoint—low or nonexistent urban farming literacy are pushing the urban environment to its limits.

To nourish a growing urban population, we need the same social values—dignity, equity, political awareness—that we upheld in our D.C. community during the pandemic. The good news is that urban agroecology (UA+) offers an ecologically sound and socially just framework to reshape food systems in cities in this way. 

Both Urban Agriculture (UA) and UA+ can increase food production in urban areas by enhancing food and nutrition security. But UA—like agriculture—is a broad term that can include subsistence, organic, and industrialized ways of growing food. In contrast, agroecology is a movement and practice that prioritizes diversity, knowledge co-creation, economic and social well-being, and food culture. When applied in cities, UA+ addresses the need for equitable food systems in which people can exercise choice over what they eat and how and where it is produced. 

Put simply: UA+ makes the urban environment more resilient because it is run for and by the people who reside there.

There are many challenges to scaling UA+, including limited land access, a lack of economic resources, and bureaucratic barriers. Urban land remains limited and expensive, and cities tend to prioritize housing, retail and commercial development due to their ability to generate immediate tax revenue. This means that urban food producers are priced out, even if their work contributes to better living standards.

In Washington, D.C., the Urban Farming and Food Security Amendment Act of 2016 was enacted to enable qualified residents to lease vacant, District- and privately-owned land for urban farms.The owners of the property could then pay reduced property taxes. But the number of vacant plots is limited and access to them is inequitable. Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) farmers are less likely to receive loans, grants, capital, and investments to start their farms. And most importantly, they are often left out of the urban planning processes, which means their food needs are not centered in policy decisions.

But we need UA+ more than ever. One reason why: in the US, science is increasingly mistrusted and under threat, which can lead to weakened food systems and poor public health outcomes. UA+ offers an antidote to this, as it creates hands-on and personal relationships with science. Composting, crop rotation, soil testing, pest control, and crop biodiversity are all examples of science in action.

This year, UDC’s Center for Urban Agriculture and Gardening Education implemented a new program called the Citizen Science and Food Systems Project. This project recruits people from the community, who may not have the time or space to tend to an urban garden, to participate in the science of UA+. In June, the program kicked off at our food hub sites, where we are looking at container crop production. Participants are able to collect yield data, monitor pests, manage nutrients, and select crops specific to this way of growing food. 

We may start talking about a bambino eggplant and other crops that grow well in small spaces, but it’s a domino effect. UA+ helps to build ecological literacy, which helps humans mitigate climate instability such as urban heat, flooding, fire, and water shortages. We are educating people for sustainability in the 21st century. 

Fortunately, this is also a model that can be replicated. When we teach communities to embrace the values and practices of UA+ and apply these in their own cities, it can help them create independent, sustainable cooperatives. And this, in turn, can support community-controlled food systems, foster economic self-reliance, and promote collective ownership and decision-making. 

Urban agroecology is not a cure-all. But it is a crucial piece of the food systems puzzle. If embraced equitably and ecologically, it offers the urban environment a path toward greater resilience, justice, and sustainability.

Photo courtesy of Che Axum

The post The Promise of Urban Agroecology to Enhance Food and Nutrition Security in the 21st Century appeared first on Food Tank.

Jonathan Kung is a chef, cookbook author, and influential content creator known for his vibrant “third culture” cooking—blending cultural traditions, flavors, and ingredients that hold personal meaning. After working in some of Detroit’s top kitchens, he launched the successful pop-up Kung Food Market Studio. When the COVID-19 pandemic forced its closure, Kung pivoted to social media. Since then, he has amassed a following of more than 2 million. Through short-form videos, he not only shares inventive recipes but also delivers accessible, reliable messaging on food, nutrition, and climate.

Food Tank President Danielle Nierenberg spoke with Kung about what it means to be a third culture cook, how to combat misinformation around nutrition and health, and the local, grassroots communities that he hopes to see more young people plug into to drive change. 

You identify as a third culture cook. Can you explain what that means to you?

Being a person of third culture is a specific lived experience. It’s where you grew up on the precipice of two very distinct cultures: the one that inhabited the home where you lived, and a completely separate one that operates directly outside of that home. In my case, I grew up in a very Chinese household and that household was in North America. 

From my early  childhood through to  adulthood, I have crossed a cultural threshold and had to dance, communicate, laugh, eat, and drink the differences between the two on a daily basis. It’s not a good or a bad thing. I was able to use it as a creative outlet, and I express that through my food. We have some wonderful nuances and the ability to combine our experiences in both worlds into something completely distinct.

And it’s not unique to my Chinese experience. In the United States, there are third culture Mexicans, third culture Nigerians, third culture French. And though the cultures we came from are completely different, a lot of us have found that we have things in common including how we see the world, how we understand humor, how we communicate, and how we have an increased level of empathy.  

 Crossing a cultural threshold every day can be traumatizing for some people, right?

It is difficult. But I’ve always found that few things that are worth it are ever easy. Yes, growing up is hard, and growing up in this way can be isolating. Eventually you realize there is a whole world of people out there. And as you grow up, you will find these people like I did. I found these people through TikTok. And as your world gets bigger, you will meet other people who are like you, and you will bounce ideas off each other, and hopefully you will create some delicious and beautiful things as a result. 

You’ve been able to use your life experiences to raise awareness around the epidemic of loneliness in this country and the need for more empathy. How do you look at these two ideas right now? 

Loneliness seems to be inflicted on us through so many different sources.

I think a lot of it has to do with this younger generation growing up isolated through COVID. That’s what they knew. We communicate with each other through screens now more than we do in person, unless we have to go to work. And there’s nowhere for us to hang out anymore. The third places are gone. 

Loneliness can also come from an inability to be uncomfortable around people who don’t think exactly in the way you do. That includes people who are morally opposed to you. But it also includes people within our own political or moral camps. We’re not as used to being as uncomfortable as we once were. That makes us a lot less tolerant. One person can say the wrong thing or not know the right thing at the right time, and that’s so easily used as the cause for that person to get shunned. And it’s not even about intent; it just happens in the moment because of what they did or didn’t know at the time. I think in that way, a lot of that loneliness can be self-inflicted.

You care deeply about the world of sustainability in our food and agriculture systems. What are you seeing and hearing about the way that others are thinking about this? 

Up until this current administration, there seemed to be a positive trend towards a desire to live sustainably. Now a lot of people are just trying to survive. You can’t blame anyone for that, but climate change is still very real. It’s a train we cannot stop. We had the luxury of worrying about that. A lot of us still do, but not enough of us.

I can still try to lead by example in my content. One thing I love to do is hide sustainable practices under the veil of economic responsibility. Saving money by reusing things as much as possible is something that I learned working in restaurants, just trying to turn a profit. All of these things are in step with each other and are very easily passed through videos as little tidbits of knowledge.

This is a generation that seems less focused on consumerism. At the same time, young folks lack representation when it comes to decision-making or policy-making. I wonder how that is shaping what we’re seeing around food and agriculture decision-making?

I think young people, in general, do care about policy, especially from the basis of health and wellbeing. Where our food comes from, what is used on our food–that’s more likely to incite willingness to vote and shape policymaking. Unfortunately, especially in the short form media space, there is so much information that drives passion. It can get them engaged, but a lot of their actions are not informed by science.

With climate, it seems like we are very well educated. We know what is good and bad for the planet. But when it comes to our own health and wellness, a lot of people are willing to believe anything. And we can see it’s not only young people who believe these things. It’s people in positions of power too. And it does inform their desire to take action but unfortunately, the messaging isn’t always accurate.

Is there a particular strategy you have found useful in getting that messaging across?  

In short form media, people have realized that retention of attention is much more successful when you are bringing rage as opposed to joy. I don’t like to get people angry in my content too much. I like to exude as much peace as much as I can in my videos. 

But there are still things that are worth getting angry over. And when it comes to climate, when it comes to misinformation, I’m very passionate about these topics. I can get pretty heated up. My passion shows through, and I think people respond to that.

The misinformation that’s coming from many political leaders about food and health can be misleading, and a lot of people believe it. How do we counteract that?

I haven’t yet figured out whether people believe him because they actually believe him, or whether they believe him because he is on their side politically.

People act against their own interests all the time and people tend to see politics almost like a sports team. No matter what, no matter what they do to us, no matter how much they disappoint us, we will always vote this way. I wonder what would happen if someone like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, were spewing these messages from the other side of the aisle, would they still think the same things? Would they still so readily believe him? I haven’t figured that out.

I can debunk and re-share videos from other scientists, other actual doctors and researchers in the field of vaccine studies. But I don’t know where that disbelief in vaccines is coming from or where the seed was planted that eventually grew into this fanatical belief. 

There are a lot of people I love and admire in the food, nutrition, health, and agriculture space who are excited about the Make America Healthy Again movement. Are you seeing the same thing happening?

RFK starts off with quite mild things that are relatable, understandable, and generally accepted. There is this idea people believe that the food we consume, by and large, is unhealthy and that pesticides are not food for us. This seems to be where things begin and then it spirals out of control from there.

And it isn’t to say we have a perfect food system. We have a very consumer-driven, pleasure-driven diet, because we are a country of plenty. We have a lot of hedonistic snacks that are very easy and very cheap. Then we also have a lot of processed foods, which also is a word that people are terrified by, but really has no actual meaning in these conversations. Everybody thinks ultra-processed only means potato chips and french fries. But that also means your protein powders and your vitamins.

When people focus on these buzzwords, which they often do, and then correlate those buzzwords with things that they know are not good for them, they completely ignore the fact that we know what to do. We know we’re supposed to eat more fruits and vegetables and more whole foods. The right thing to do is often in front of us, but is so easily overshadowed by what is fun and easy.

And we need to take issues of access into account, because not everyone has access to fresh fruit, vegetables, and nutritious meals. That’s another issue because those folks often don’t have the same choices available.

I’m pretty no-nonsense in the advice that I give. I don’t really know enough to be complicated. I pay attention to tracking macronutrients, vitamins, and making sure that I get everything that I need. And I always make sure that I have the okay from the doctors and nutritionists that I follow. 

What advice do you have for young people who want to get involved but don’t always understand the connections between food, nutrition and climate? 

The best thing that you can do is look for a physical community in your area. Farmers markets are still a good spot. Not only do you have the opportunity to get politically involved, but you can meet your farmers and do community supported agriculture, see what they’re doing, find out the message boards that they’re a part of. Those grassroots communities are still very active and very passionate, and it is very easy to fall into them. Now, you may have to live in a city to do that, but they are out there.

For people in smaller communities, the internet is still a very good resource. There are a lot of content creators who are farmers, and they’re spread all over. Farmer Nick is one example. And Alexis Nikole, the Black Forager, is another very good person. There are many people who are entertaining to watch and extremely educational and will happily hand out resources.

Do you have a call to action?

Get involved. Please, please don’t lose hope. Let’s not fall into a pit of nihilism with everything that’s happening. Stay active. Stay positive.

Photo courtesy of Meagan Stone, Unsplash

The post Cutting Through the Noise on Food and Climate: Q&A with Jonathan Kung appeared first on Food Tank.

Recent events in Gaza, Sudan, and South Sudan remind us that famine and starvation remain harsh realities, not just distant threats, even in our modern world. In 2025, more than 295 million people across 53 countries faced crisis levels of acute food and nutrition insecurity—the highest number since global tracking began in 2017*. And the threats are only growing: conflict, climate change, and economic instability are all projected to increase the frequency and severity of these crises.

For those of us in high-income countries, it can be difficult to fully grasp the toll these crises take. When food becomes scarce or inaccessible, families often sell their few remaining assets to survive. The poorest—those with little or nothing to sell—are hit the hardest. In the worst scenarios, malnutrition and mortality rates surge, particularly among children.

Despite the complexity of these crises—and the constraints that conflict imposes on humanitarian and development assistance—there is still much we can do to prevent the worst from happening. Acting early saves lives and livelihoods and is far more effective than responding once a crisis is well underway.

In recent years, there’s been a growing recognition of the need for more proactive responses. But early action depends on early warning—and that’s where data becomes critical. Food security crises have many moving parts and drivers. Tracking them requires timely, reliable information and the ability to detect real signals amidst the noise. When data is missing, mistrusted, or disconnected from decision-making, we lose valuable time—and opportunities to prevent suffering.

Efforts to build comprehensive early warning systems began in earnest in the mid-1980s with the creation of the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS NET). Since then, the standard approach for food security analysis has involved conducting field surveys, analyzing the results, projecting future trends, and circulating published reports to guide decisions about aid.

This approach has been invaluable, but not without challenges. Conducting household surveys in person is expensive and slow. By the time results come in, the situation may have changed—like driving while looking in the rearview mirror. Projections can also be inconsistent, inaccurate, and difficult to replicate–undermining their reliability for decision-making. And despite all these efforts to collect data and project scenarios, warnings are not always acted upon in time.

Since 2018, I’ve had the privilege of leading a team at the World Bank Group working to close critical gaps in the availability, quality, and frequency of food and nutrition security data–and to better connect this information to timely, evidence-based decision-making. One area we’ve focused on is building data-driven models to help identify early signs of food crises. The idea itself isn’t new—but making it work at scale has always seemed out of reach, largely due to the multiple, interacting drivers of these crises and the limited historical data available on them. 

Still, the appeal of a modeled approach has been too enticing to ignore. With a good model, we can generate more frequent updates quickly and at much lower cost than traditional methods. We also gain transparency—so anyone running the model gets the same results—and we open the door to more reliable, longer-range projections. Of course, a model does not replace our traditional toolkit, but it significantly enhances it.

With support from United Nations agencies like the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, World Food Programme, UNICEF, and World Health Organization, international NGOs, and major tech companies including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, we launched an ambitious agenda. We tested everything from basic econometric models to machine learning and deep neural networks.

I’m proud to say that we’ve now successfully deployed this first-of-its-kind model in Somalia and Yemen. It’s able to capture past crisis conditions with about 80 percent accuracy, and recent improvements—developed in collaboration with the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification—are improving accuracy even further. We’re preparing to expand deployment to five countries this year with the goal to reach 15 by 2026. You can follow this work in real time through the Global Food and Nutrition Security Dashboard.

What excites me most is not just that this effort enhances how we detect crisis risks—it’s changing how decisions are made. From the outset, we’ve emphasized transparency, technical rigor, and practical relevance by ensuring our data  connects directly to decisions about funding and programming. This work is now helping shape the development of national preparedness plans with governments and their partners to systematize earlier, more impactful, and better coordinated responses to these crises.

We’re only beginning to scratch the surface of what’s technically possible in this space. Looking ahead, advances in higher-frequency indicators–combined with rapid innovations in AI–will provide earlier warnings and greater lead time to respond to emerging crises. The World Bank Group is also deepening its commitment to this agenda through the launch of the new Global Challenge Program on Food and Nutrition Security, which seeks to sharpen our focus on high-impact, high-return interventions that integrate social protection, food, and health measures. We are moving away from siloed approaches toward more integrated solutions—ensuring that the private sector also plays a central role in our engagements. But especially now—at a time when the value of international aid is being questioned—innovations like these feel especially critical. They have the potential to drive smarter, more cost-effective, and more accountable responses—marking a critical step forward in our broader effort to prevent, and ultimately end, food crises for good.

*The international community relies on a range of indicators to assess the severity and duration of food insecurity, based on the widely accepted framework of access, availability, utilization, and stability. While these measures form the foundation of food security analysis, they can be confusing—even for practitioners. The FAO offers a useful overview of the main indicators and their purposes, along with a short quiz to help test your understanding of the differences.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Agency for International Development

The post Seeing the Signs: Pioneering New Tools to Get Ahead of Future Food Crises appeared first on Food Tank.

Farmer and activist Karen Washington knows that food is more than sustenance—it’s the foundation of strong, healthy, and connected communities. In 1985, she worked with Bronx neighborhoods to turn empty lots into community gardens, advocated for garden protection and preservation, and launched a City Farms Market to bring fresh produce to her neighbors. In 2010, she co-founded Black Urban Growers (BUGS), an organization supporting growers in both urban and rural settings. In 2014, she helped found Rise & Root Farm in Chester, New York, a QT+BIPOC centered farm rooted in social justice. And in 2019 she co-founded Black Farmer Fund to encourage economic wealth. For her achievements, Washington has received numerous awards and accolades, including the James Beard Leadership Award and James Beard Humanitarian Award. In 2024, Washington was named an Emerson Collective Fellow. 

In this conversation with Food Tank’s Content Director Elena Seeley, Washington discusses why she’s precise in her language when naming the problem, how she’s working to strengthen regional food and farming systems, and the power of community in times of instability.

The term food apartheid—which you coined and use in place of food desert or food swamp—asks us to examine the systems of oppression in our food and agriculture systems. Can you talk about what it has been like watching the term gain popularity? 

I feel great that it’s really being used in more urban areas where people have been fighting for food and social justice. And I’m humbled to see people using food apartheid in workshops, in conversation, and on social media. It’s a term the community can own and it gets people talking about why they’re using it. It’s not a food desert, which is more politicized and academic. People are using the term food apartheid in the hood. For me, it’s validation. We own it, this is ours. We’re using it instead of a term someone else forced us to use—something that was not for us or by us, and did not really hone in on exactly what was happening at the community level.

You have said that the food system doesn’t need to be fixed; it needs to change. Why do you make that distinction? 

There are a lot of people who believe that the food system is broken, that it needs to be fixed. This victimizes people. You’re telling people to change the way they eat, to start a community garden, or exercise more. People from the outside come into the community thinking that we are the problem, and they’re going to fix us. But this doesn’t account for the social determinants that reinforce racism in today’s society.

And then there are the ones who say wait a second, it doesn’t need to be fixed, it needs to change. And that change goes back to putting power in the hands of people so they can create their own solutions. We can collectively bring this country down to its knees. Just think about what collective power can look like. Collective power can make change.

In a time of such social and political uncertainty, what is your advice for people who want to make change? 

Because we have this new administration, we’re not trying to focus on the big national and global things that are happening. We have to start making change locally in our community.

When food and medical assistance is taken away from people, you can’t expect them to sit back and rely on food pantries and soup kitchens while they watch the elite shopping in grocery stores. People are going to organize. They’ll raid grocery stores or food delivery trucks if they have to. Policymakers are not looking at the consequences of putting millions and millions of people out of work, with no access to food or medication. 

Now is the time to think about the strategic things we can do in our community to offset the hardship. Do we have people who are willing to offer childcare or transportation or feed people? We need to look at what is available in our community and make a plan because it’s going to get bad. I’m looking at it this way because I know what hunger looks like in the faces of people. I know what people do when they can’t get food. 

Rise & Root Farm, which you helped found, leverages partnerships across New York state to fight hunger and poverty. Can you talk about what this community building looks like? 

Time and time again, while working in low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color, we’ve heard people ask: Where are the Black farmers, the farmers of color, the queer farmers who look like us and can supply our community with fresh food? As BIPOC and as queer farmers—we call ourselves the BQE—we wanted to fill this need. 

Through my fellowship with Emerson Collective, I was able to look at what food distribution—how to get food to people that need it the most—could look like. I started connecting people in New York City with farmers upstate. 

The idea is that we’re not coming in and using the neighboring community to extract their money before leaving. Instead, we’re coming in, getting money, but then that money is going back to the community. And that is so important.

The project from my fellowship started last year and it has taken on a life of its own. It has expanded, bringing in not only the farms that make up the Chester Agricultural Center, a farming community comprising 11 farm businesses, including Rise & Root Farm. Now we’re trying to set up a whole distribution system from Syracuse to the Hudson Valley to New York City. We’re also thinking about how this can be regional to reach people in Philly, Jersey, Connecticut. 

Rise & Root also invites visitors to the farm. Why is this so important to your work? 

People can come to the farm and say “Wow, you look just like me. I never saw a Black, woman, queer farmer.” You start a conversation. And that’s about more than growing food. It’s about culture and storytelling. So much has come out of this when the community is part of your project and business. It’s about building this community where there’s reciprocity. 

Even though we’re a for-profit farm, we also have a nonprofit entity so we can do the educational work that’s so important. It’s easy to give people food. But the educational component is so important for people to understand where food comes from and why soil and climate are important. 

Federal funding cuts are making conditions even harder for farmers. As resources become scarcer, where can producers find support? 

I think it’s time for people to step up. I’m just one person and I do what I can, but there are people with power and privilege running scared. They’re watching on the sidelines and I don’t know what they’re waiting for. Is it Armageddon? 

I’m not asking them to support the large nonprofits. I’m talking about the little farmer who needs US$20,000 to buy supplies. We’re starting to see people, companies, and seed saving organizations doing their best. People are exchanging seeds, there have been offers to farmers to help them purchase land. 

The thing is, you’ve got to be very, very careful with obtaining land. It’s great, but if you’re thinking about farming, there are needs you have to consider. Even if you get the land, you need a place to harvest and store your food. You need refrigeration and a greenhouse. You need to think about electricity, running water, and most importantly, a place to live. And I always say you can’t farm by yourself. It’s not happening. And then there’s the question of managing money and credit. Money may be coming in but you have to pay your taxes and bills. There are a lot of conversations we don’t have around finances.

How can we make those conversations easier to have?

Bring it into the open. It’s scary, but you can get help. Instead, it’s closeted. People are ashamed to talk about their debt. But if they don’t talk about it, how can they be helped? I’m seeing so many young people caught in student loan and credit card debt. I know people in their 20s who have US$30,000-40,000 in debt. They can’t get an apartment, a car, nothing. But they want to farm. And people ignore the debt collectors because they’re afraid. There’s guilt behind that. It’s so sad, and no one is talking about it. This is why Black Farmer Fund started. I think it needs to be out in the open. You want to farm but you got debt, let’s talk about it. How do we take away the guilt? By telling people we’re here to help and not those debt relief companies that want to make money off of you.

This goes back to what you were saying about community building.

Yes, because everybody brings something different. Every single day people are asking me for help, whether it’s about seeds, land, transportation, greenhouses, or funding. And I build community. I can connect them to this person or that person. That’s why I go to conferences. I meet people and stay in touch with them. 

This is a moment when we need to help each other. If you hate what is happening, then you’ve got to take down your shield and go into communities, roll up your sleeves, and say: I can help, I know how to repair credit, I know how to get infrastructures, I have vans I don’t use, I can work with you. Y’all got power and privilege. You know what is happening. Stop hiding. 

Photo courtesy of Ethan Harrison and Michaela Hayes Hodge

The post Putting Power in the Hands of the People: Q&A with Karen Washington appeared first on Food Tank.

Food Recovery Network (FRN) is the largest student-led movement recovering surplus food and ending hunger. We unite 8,000+ college students, food suppliers, farmers, and local businesses across the U.S. in the fight against climate change and hunger by recovering surplus food from across the supply chain and donating it to local nonprofit organizations that feed people experiencing hunger. Over the past decade, as I have led FRN, I have witnessed the incredible power of young people’s voices. Their message is clear: 

We can no longer throw away good food when there are plenty of ways to distribute it to people who need it. We are all on a global island, and we are collectively responsible for caring for this place we call home.

With over 200 chapters across the U.S., including George Washington University (est. 2013), FRN harnesses the existing capacities of college and university students who have the ability to recover and move food to where it is needed in their local communities—feeding more people faster. FRN equips our student leaders with the support, tools, mentorship, and training they need to establish food recovery operations in their local communities and keep those recoveries ongoing year after year.

There is room for all of us to join the revolution to restore the value of our food, especially our surplus food, and effectively end the cycle of food waste. Our efforts, together, will make our tomorrow brighter, more connected, and thriving. 

After 10 years of activism and listening, there are five lessons to keep moving forward I would like to offer:

1. Small changes make radical and fundamental impacts.

2. Community engagement is essential.

3. Advocacy is a consistent action we must take to achieve freedom.

4. It’s important to celebrate our successes.

5. And even though the work is hard, there is hope ahead.

Small Changes Make Radical And Fundamental Impacts

It can be overwhelming to consider the enormity of food waste statistics. What do 63 million tons of food waste look like? What does it mean that 27 percent of all the food that’s produced annually in the U.S. goes into landfills? How do you visualize the 47 million people who are hungry? When the problems of our society get overwhelming, focusing on one small concept at a time helps keep us anchored and moving forward.

Food Recovery Network was started to help feed people experiencing hunger in College Park, Maryland. And then Berkeley, California, and Providence, Rhode Island, one food recovery at a time.

The simple act of asking at your next event or meeting, “What is your plan for the leftover food?” can lead to action. That’s how FRN started. Student leaders saw good food being thrown away and people who needed food in their local community. They started asking simple questions and took action. Instead of throwing that really good food away, they started bringing it to a local church close to campus. 

And consider that FRN, in a partnership with Medium Rare and Bullseye Entertainment Group during this year’s Super Bowl tailgates, recovered 12,348 pounds of high-quality food. It was just two events and fifteen volunteers and staff. However, those pounds provided over 10,000 meals to the New Orleans community and prevented 7.95 metric tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere—the equivalent of the amount needed to power a home for an entire year. 

A few years ago, those events didn’t have anyone recovering the food. Imagine the impact if every event had a food recovery plan in place. It’s exponential potential.

Community Engagement Is Essential 

Genuine community involvement drives change in ways community members desire—sustainable and substantial. But it’s hard work and takes time. People come with different ideas, agendas, and egos. Our job is to bring together various visions and experiences and ensure we are rowing in the same direction.

FRN’s Elementary School Produce Market initiative began with a straightforward pilot program: paying farmers for their surplus food to conveniently provide elementary school families with nutritious produce—right at student pickup. We focused on local partnership and actively listening to communities’ needs and adjusted along the way based on community feedback. We increased opportunities for our students and alumni to participate.

After three years, that first produce market in Atlanta is now fully executed by local community partners and flourishing. Markets have expanded into other cities like St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. We are using the same model, with a heavy emphasis on community feedback loops, and seeing the same success.

Freedom through Advocacy

Over the years, I have learned that building relationships with legislators is an effective push for necessary change. Advocacy validates our work and expedites sustainable solutions that benefit entire communities. Our policies reflect our decorum on how we want to treat one another.

Through advocacy efforts, we improved the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Law. With the passage of the bipartisan Food Donation Improvement Act (FDIA), to include farmers who were previously excluded, allowing them to receive tax incentives for donating food. We can now donate to individuals and not just nonprofit organizations, which has facilitated the growth of community refrigerators, making food access easier for many communities. The FDIA has spurred food policy councils to emerge across the U.S. to address food waste systematically at the municipal level. The list of what still must be achieved through policy change is long. But it must be celebrated: advocacy led to advancement and change!

Celebrate Successes, No Matter How Small. H*ck, Just Celebrate 

Celebrating recognizes the hard work that goes into every aspect of our food system—the water invested, the labor growing and gathering food on the land of ancestors, the care of preparation, and the joy of celebrating the harvest. Taking time to celebrate achievements, both big and small, maintains morale, motivates continued action, and fosters abundance thinking. And, it’s fun! 

I’ve been on recovery missions with music playing in the foreground, enjoying a flurry of high-fives. It’s jaw-dropping to see crate after crate of avocados that were once destined for the trash get moved to feed people. I love hearing from the staff of these locations about the delicious recipes the chefs will create for the clients at the church or workforce program for the unhoused. It’s all a celebration and a tribute to our nourishing food and our connection to one another.

It’s Hard Work. Still, There Is Hope Ahead

The fight against food waste is about fostering a culture of compassion, respect, and responsibility towards one another, our food systems, and our planet. I’ve had the experience of continuous hard times and never lost hope. Collective care involves intentionally looking to helpers and spending time in places that fuel you to keep going. We cannot shy away from that or sugarcoat that for anybody.

The work is hard. 

If our society and elected officials wanted to eradicate hunger, it would have been done well before any of us were born. Structures, like nonprofits, are often underfunded to permanently address the issues at hand, and are asked to be more creative with their US$0.15 when they need a dollar instead of creating policy structures that ensure we all thrive. The availability of food affects the level of work. We must think of food recovery as a connected system that requires different attention based on what’s happening.

According to the EPA, better food procurement is the number one way to prevent food waste, and food recovery is number two. FRN’s goal is simple: to recover enough surplus food to feed everyone who is hungry.

But we have to work together, collectively, to chart the path forward. Here are 3 steps I recommend:

1. Stay in touch with your legislators to advocate for better policy.

The Food Date Labeling Act has recently been reintroduced with bipartisan support. Its goal is to eliminate consumer confusion regarding expiration dates and “best by” labels that leads to hundreds of thousands of pounds of food being unnecessarily discarded every year by standardizing date labels on specific products. This initiative also aims to significantly reduce food waste across the country and help consumers make the most of their dollars. Call your legislators and ask them to support this bill. Save their contact information to make calling them again even easier. 

2. Join local coalitions to ensure food recovery is included in local climate action plans.

Conduct an internet search to see if your county or town in which you live has a food recovery strategy as part of its strategic plan or part of its climate action initiatives. If your area lacks a plan, contact your local municipal leaders to inquire about the timeline for incorporating a food recovery plan into their strategy. If the person does not know, or they will not make changes to the strategy until the sunset of the current strategic plan, ask them to make a note that you would like a food recovery to be considered, and follow up.

3. And make a personal commitment. Ask at each event you attend what the plan is for leftover food. 

For small private gatherings and parties, consider providing to-go containers for guests and event staff. Enlist the help of FRN. FRN’s Food Recovery Verified program assists large-scale events and businesses in planning to donate high-quality food after events or as a part of their regular operations.

Get involved with the movement to end food waste. Follow our work at FRN for inspiration. By continuing to engage our communities, celebrating our successes, and maintaining our tenacity, we can make a lasting impact, making food recovery the norm. Each action we take, together, brings us closer to that goal.

Photo courtesy of Food Recovery Network

The post Act Now: Join Young People in the Fight to End Food Waste appeared first on Food Tank.

Full Plates Full Potential is the leading organization in Maine working to end childhood food insecurity through advocacy for pragmatic policy solutions and support for under-resourced federal child nutrition programs. At Full Plates, we believe federal nutrition assistance programs are the most powerful tools we have to end childhood food insecurity. When these programs are protected, funded, and implemented via best practices, they can transform not only individual lives but entire systems. In Maine, a rural state with the highest rate of child hunger in New England, we’re seeing just how effective that transformation is for communities.

Even as federal nutrition programs face renewed threats in Washington, D.C., Maine has emerged as a model of what’s possible. In 2022, Maine became one of the first states in the country to pass universal school meals, ensuring that every public school student has access to breakfast and lunch—no paperwork, no stigma, no questions asked. Participation has soared. With it, so has the flow of federal dollars back into Maine’s school nutrition departments. Reducing administrative burdens frees up capacity, and higher participation increases economies of scale. This change has also allowed us to transform our food offerings to students and to use the power of school meal procurement to energize the Maine food economy.

Maine is proving that fed is not the same as nourished. Through close partnerships with school nutrition teams and local food producers, Full Plates Full Potential is helping to shift what’s on the tray—and what it represents. Gone are the days of cardboard pizza; crusts are now made with whole wheat pizza dough from The Good Crust, a Maine company using local grains, and topped with sauce from The Maine Marinara Collective, crafted from regionally grown produce. Sloppy Joes haven’t disappeared—they’ve evolved. Working hard to make sure Portland’s African diaspora immigrant community has access to Halal meals at school, Portland’s school nutrition program became the first school district in the nation to offer daily Halal-certified meals to all grades. Ground beef now graces the menu as a Central African-inspired spiced beef served with smashed kidney beans and cabbage slaw—flavorful, comforting, and culturally relevant.

This work matters because what we feed kids today shapes the adults and the economy of tomorrow. When kids are fed meals that meet their nutritional and cultural needs, they are set up for success. Hungry kids are more likely to struggle academically, miss school, and experience long-term health problems. The effects of childhood food insecurity don’t end there. These outcomes follow them into adulthood, reducing lifetime earnings and increasing reliance on public health and social safety net programs. Ending childhood hunger is not just a moral imperative—it’s a smart investment in our shared future.

Schools are a powerful place to start. Public schools are often the largest restaurant in town—serving hundreds or even thousands of meals each day. That kind of purchasing power can be a force for economic growth. When school nutrition programs source food locally, they create stable, large-scale markets for farmers, food entrepreneurs, and processors. That’s what’s happening in Maine, where universal school meals are fueling a local food economy and ensuring public dollars stay in the community.

None of this happens overnight. These wins are the product of steady, pragmatic advocacy, supported by hands-on implementation work. For more than a decade, Full Plates Full Potential has worked to pass incremental, achievable policy changes—like School Meals for All—and paired that work with funding, training, and technical assistance for the people making change happen on the ground.

We believe every child has the right to nutritious, appealing food. But we also know that values alone aren’t always enough to move lawmakers. Sometimes, the most effective argument is an economic one–hungry kids can’t learn, and that has costs for families, schools, and our economy as a whole. This is the argument that helped us build a strong bipartisan coalition to pass School Meals for All.

Although we are currently faced with defending this critical progress, we continue to push forward on our quest to transform the school food system by strengthening the local producers in our state. Creating a locally based school food ecosystem will not only bring higher-quality meals to our children but also develop our economic resilience. The work in Maine is still unfolding, but the impact is clear. When federal nutrition programs are strengthened—not weakened—and when advocacy is matched with local support and implementation, we make real progress toward ending childhood food insecurity. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of  the U.S. Department of Agriculture

The post Steady Work, Lasting Change: How Maine is Leveraging Federal Nutrition Programs to End Childhood Food Insecurity appeared first on Food Tank.

When my daughter was diagnosed with food allergies as a baby, everyday experiences suddenly came with real danger. One bite of a familiar food could trigger anaphylaxis. 

My fear is shared by so many others: every three minutes, someone is rushed to the emergency room for a severe allergic reaction. Food allergies now affect 10 percent of the population, impacting both children and adults equally.

That’s why when we invest in food allergy solutions, we invest in a future where food heals, not harms. And that’s also why I started the Food Allergy Fund (FAF). 

As a parent who could not sit still while science lagged behind the need, I created FAF to address the glaring disconnect between the widespread prevalence of allergic disease and its limited investment. Today, we help bridge the funding gap for new science to prevent, treat, and cure food allergies—and we elevate the national conversation to foster collaboration and identify solutions.

This work is critical because food allergies are no longer a rare disease. They are a full-blown public health crisis: one study estimated that they have an annual economic burden of US$25 billion. Yet, they are often framed narrowly as dietary inconveniences. That perspective misses their broader significance: food allergies intersect with our food, agriculture, nutrition, and microbiome health. They serve as a warning sign of how our modern food system interacts with our evolved human biology, revealing system failures and the urgent need to integrate food allergies into the broader food-as-medicine dialogue. 

This breakdown has vital and everyday consequences, starting with the very first food we consume. One in five infants reacts to traditional, milk-based formulas. In a study of infants with failure to thrive, up to 31 percent had a cow’s milk allergy, underscoring how food allergies can disrupt essential nutrition during a critical window of development.

The impact extends far beyond nutrition. Emerging science indicates that disruptions in gut health during infancy, a critical window for microbiome development, may contribute to the onset of allergic disease and related immune conditions. And food allergies are rarely isolated. Nearly half of adults and 40 percent of children with food allergies live with multiple allergies and are significantly more likely to experience related immune conditions like asthma, eczema, and allergic rhinitis.

This growing body of evidence challenges us to see food allergies not as isolated conditions, but as early warning signs of deeper immune system disruption. At their core, food allergies are a severe immune system disorder where the body identifies a food protein as a threat, triggering reactions that can become life-threatening within minutes. They serve as the canary in the coal mine, pointing to systemic problems in how we grow, process, and consume food. They make us ask: Are we reacting to food itself or to the additives, processing methods, and agricultural chemicals we have introduced over time? Unlike many chronic conditions, food allergies provoke immediate, visible responses, forcing us to confront how modern food can harm rather than heal. And they may also foreshadow how food affects our health in slower, less visible ways.

Heightened awareness is only the beginning. To turn awareness into lasting change, we must unite scientists across disciplines, invest in cutting-edge research, support health innovation, amplify patient perspectives, and enforce transparent food production and labeling.

Meeting this challenge requires collective action from scientists, policymakers, food producers, healthcare providers, and everyday consumers. Each of us has a role to play in examining the link between food allergies and our food system, uncovering the root causes of disease to ensure that our food not only nourishes us but also helps us thrive.

We need greater transparency in how our food is grown, processed, and labeled, so that individuals with food allergies can make informed, safe choices. For people with food allergies, even trace amounts of an unlabeled ingredient or cross-contact during preparation can trigger life-threatening reactions. This is not only about avoiding specific allergens; it’s about understanding the entire journey of our food. Increased transparency benefits everyone by shedding light on what we eat, how it was made, and how it might affect our health.

My goal through FAF is simple: to help find a cure for all food allergies by the time my daughter begins college—a tight but achievable ten-year timeline. By a cure, I mean identifying the causes of food allergies and developing preventative and disease-reversing solutions. That means investing in science that uncovers the root causes, not just treatments for symptoms, and also rethinking how we grow, process, and label the food we eat to sustain functional lifelong health. We must prioritize safety and transparency, ensuring that people with food allergies can sit and nourish themselves at the same table as everyone else.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Jack Sparrow, Pexels

The post Food for All: Addressing the Allergy Crisis to Build a Better Food System appeared first on Food Tank.

Zitouni Ould-Dada has spent his career confronting the interconnected challenges of climate, energy, agriculture, and hunger. His diplomatic leadership and achievements in climate negotiations contributed to the landmark 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. And in his most recent role as Deputy Director with the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), he was instrumental in crafting the agency’s first part of a roadmap for transforming food and agriculture systems—one designed to end hunger and malnutrition while keeping global warming below 1.5°C.

In a conversation with Food Tank President Danielle Nierenberg, Ould-Dada discusses the guidance investors are seeking from policymakers to scale their impact, why the era of empty declarations and negotiations without impact must end, and what the transition of the energy sector can teach us about transforming our global food and agriculture systems.

I was recently at the U.N. Food Systems Summit +4 Stocktake in Ethiopia, where financing for food systems transformation—with dignity for farmers and for those facing food and nutrition insecurity—was a major theme. Are you hopeful these discussions are moving us toward climate resilience and ending hunger? 

It’s good to have these discussions, and we’ve been having these discussions for a while, particularly since the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP26) in 2021 in Glasgow. That’s very encouraging because the world is really aware of the problem we have with food and the opportunities that we need to take on to make sure that the whole system is fit for purpose–that it feeds and nourishes people. 

But we reach a stage where we have to do more of the implementation and delivery rather than continuing with dialogue and discussions. We know what the problems are. We have enough evidence about hunger, malnutrition, the linkages between climate change and agriculture, and the problems with agri-food systems. Sadly, we are not on track to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, or to end hunger and malnutrition by 2030. 

We also face so many new challenges around the world—not just climate change, but also changes in the geopolitical landscape. We have to match our dialogues, our actions, and our policies with this new reality.

We need finance and capital to do that. Can you talk about the finance that’s necessary and available to complete this food systems transformation?

We cannot transition toward more sustainable and inclusive agri-food systems that serve everyone and respect the environment without investment, without finance. Sadly, the vast majority of the current climate finance is spent on other sectors, particularly the energy and transport sectors. At the same time, food systems receive a really small amount—around 3 percent of this global climate finance — despite the fact that food systems are responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Investment is absolutely key in scaling up the solutions that we need.

But investors realize that they cannot drive this transition by themselves. Government has to enable policies that help de-risk the whole system and bring in investors. Agri-food systems are complex, and they vary from one region to another, from one country to another, or even within a country. Investors aren’t going to come just like that without the policies that give them the confidence for the long term. 

We’re seeing this in other sectors, like energy and transport. You need to give those political signals that tell the investors what we intend to do in the next few years. Here are the targets, here are the goals, here is how much investment we need now. When you have that in place, things are clearer to investors.

We’re trying to tell investors that the payoff is way down the road. It’s not as immediate as energy or transport. How do we convince them that they should wait for that long-term payoff to create more resilience to the climate crisis, help farmers, and reduce food insecurity?

Set policies that are attractive. There are lessons to take away from the energy sector, which went through the whole experience we want food systems to go through a few years ago. After we had enough evidence for both renewable energy and energy efficiency, governments set targets. They said that by 2030 or 2025, we would like our country to reach some level of renewable energy. That statement made it clear to investors that long-term policies will allow them to safely invest in technology and innovation. Now, we have investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency, electric vehicles, and energy-efficient home appliances.

In the case of agriculture, we have various levers to pull, such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—countries’ climate action plans—which are a vehicle for investment. At the moment, though, they’re very weak. They don’t say enough about agri food systems and how governments intend to transform them to meet not just the climate goals, but also biodiversity, hunger, malnutrition, and sustainable development goals. The NDCs need to be more specific about food and agriculture to speak to the language of investors so that investors can understand the targets about alternative proteins, food loss and waste, reducing pesticide use, or antimicrobial resistance.

The other thing that’s really critical—because that’s what we saw in the energy sector—is the right framing of the case. The case for energy was framed around jobs and energy security. We can do the same for food systems transition. We can frame the transition around job creation, affordable food prices, greater consumer choice, and reduced impacts on climate, biodiversity, and nature. We need to get these things right. Food systems are much more complex than the energy sector, but it’s not impossible. 

On the African continent, countries are establishing investment hubs and multi-stakeholder platforms such as inter-donor coordination groups and investor matchmaking platforms. Can you talk about why these approaches are important and why that collaboration is so needed?

We need collaboration more than ever. We have a lot of evidence and information, but we’re still addressing problems in silos despite the fact that these challenges are interconnected. 

Collaboration also has to be built on a good understanding of what needs to be achieved at the local level because food systems aren’t homogenous. Are solutions going to apply across the board? No. And that’s why we need this collaboration to see what would work in that particular context. And it’s really encouraging to see African stakeholders in particular getting together and trying to address the problem. 

The other thing we need is some kind of timetable. When you finish the dialogue and consultations, the next thing is to talk about goals, targets, and timetables that will be embedded in some kind of roadmap.

You were instrumental in helping the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization come out with the first part of its roadmap for food systems transformation. Why is it so important, particularly for smallholder farmers?

Clarity of direction is what we’re lacking. A roadmap or some set of pathways tells all those key players—such as the smallholder farmers, investors, policymakers, and researchers—the way to achieve that transition. When I was involved in the development of the roadmap, the vision was clear. We knew the key pathways, and we needed to make them understandable to everyone. 

The energy sector developed various roadmaps in relation to renewable energy, transport, and more that worked and provided clarity. In food, we have the evidence and know what needs to be done. But the longer we wait, the more problematic it becomes. Food is a big problem because it affects so many other aspects of our lives. Having the roadmap will help us turn the pledges, declarations, commitments into enabling policies and solutions. 

You said the evidence is there, but when science-based evidence is being dismissed or put down, how do we ensure political leaders worldwide still recognize its importance in decision-making? 

These geopolitical changes affect political priorities. But we really have to listen to and respect science because policy relies on hard evidence. And we have to respect the work of researchers to help us, and policymakers in particular, make informed decisions. These issues affect everyone.

I think we have to continue being optimistic. We have no choice. We have to continue pressing. And the FAIRR initiative and other partnerships are showing that they want change, that they’re ready to invest. They’re just waiting for the political will and clarity to go forward.

And we have to hold politicians accountable because we vote for them. We have to voice those concerns. We have to make sure that we all work together as a team because food, water, energy are critical to everything we do in our lives. But there are currently so many contradictions in how we grow, consume, and distribute food. That can’t continue because it’s doing so much damage to the environment and to our health. 

Are you hopeful about the upcoming climate negotiations at COP30 in Brazil later this year? 

To be honest, I’m not very hopeful. I’ve been to 15 or 16 COPs, and sometimes we go in circles. We’re not on track to achieve the Paris Agreement. We’re supposed to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They’re going up. We’re supposed to be reducing hunger. Hunger is going up. We’re not achieving many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The reality doesn’t look very encouraging.

The last exciting moment was the Paris Agreement in 2015 where it seemed we had made a great step and there was real political commitment. Since then, we should have been implementing real change that actually improves people’s lives. We can continue drafting and having dialogues, but it has to be for a purpose that actually shows results. There are some encouraging signals but in terms of impact, we’re still very slow. Climate change, hunger and these other challenges we’re facing are advancing much faster than the way we’ve been negotiating.

We also shouldn’t wait from COP to COP. There’s this thinking that everything is going to happen at the COP. What happens between COPs? There are events happening, but they have to converge into meeting those global commitments so that when we go to the next COP, we can say that we achieved X, Y, and Z. That would be extremely encouraging. 

And we have to be brave by putting aside the individual interest and replacing that with the common interest. The Paris Agreement is for everyone. The SDGs are for everyone. And if we work together to achieve things that will benefit everyone, putting differences aside, that’s the only way we can achieve the goal to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees. 

What can be done by the investment community in the several months before COP30? And what can be done after? 

They need to be proactive. The policymaking and investment communities often talk about how important it is to work with each other, but they don’t talk to each other most of the time. Investors should ask for the guidance they need and not wait until policymakers come and say we need this or that. 

That’s happening, but we need to come up with solutions and knock on doors, identify what needs to happen. We can’t wait until everything is perfect, we have negotiated every text, and we have every declaration. How long are we going to wait for that? We have to start somewhere. 

Watch the full conversation with Zitouni Ould-Dada below.

Photo courtesy of Tenzin Wangchuk, Unsplash

The post Lessons from Renewable Energy for an Agri-food Systems Overhaul: Q&A with Zitouni Ould-Dada appeared first on Food Tank.

Dan Glickman has spent his career at the intersection of food, policy, and public service. As U.S. Secretary of Agriculture during the Clinton administration, a long-serving member of Congress, and later the head of the Motion Picture Association and a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, Glickman has seen firsthand how the food system has evolved—and where it still falls short. 

In this conversation with the Global Food Institute’s Priya Fielding-Singh, Glickman reflected on the shifting politics of food and agriculture, the critical role of science, and the urgent need to align food policy in the United States with public health and climate realities.

Looking back on your time as Secretary of Agriculture, what do you see as the biggest shifts in the food system since then?

The biggest change is that food issues and food policy have become much bigger topics of conversation among policymakers. Historically, agriculture and food weren’t part of everyday discussions the way the military and education were. That’s completely changed. Now we’re talking about things like dietary health, supply chain issues, fertilizer—things that used to hardly get any widespread attention at all.

What do you think is responsible for this change?

The focus on individual health has been a big factor. People really understand now that old expression—you are what you eat. And young people are growing up interested in these issues. They’re asking important questions, like, where is this food grown? Is it good for us? What are the additives? 

It’s a great thing that these issues have taken on a life beyond the traditional agriculture community. Napoleon once said, war is too important to be left to the generals. The same is true for food and agriculture policy: it’s too important to be left solely to people in the food and agriculture industry.

If you were Secretary of Agriculture today—in a moment when the climate crisis, nutrition security, and food safety are top concerns—what would your priorities be?

One priority would be making sure we don’t fall behind on doing the kind of good, thoughtful science we need to address key issues like agricultural productivity, nutrition, and the threats we’re seeing to modern agriculture. We don’t want to fall behind as leaders on these key issues, nor do we want to lose an important talent base of researchers.

I would also work to avoid turning food and agriculture issues into a political battle between left and right. Agriculture research is still very bipartisan, and land-grant schools get a lot of bipartisan support in both Congress and from industry. But we want a research portfolio that is broad enough to deal with the modern issues of our times—and I worry that issues like climate and weather variability have become increasingly political. 

The fact is that agriculture is more vulnerable to climate and weather variability than pretty much any other segment of the economy. Whether we’re talking about drought, heat, excessive rainfall, or related pests and diseases, the agriculture industry needs to deal head-on with where the threats are.

I’d also focus on continuing to improve school meals, which are—for the record—much better than they once were. When I was in school, we had roast beef for lunch, and it was sliced so thin and greasy you could see the colors of the rainbow in it. That’s changed—school meals now meet nutrition standards that exceed what many of us eat at home. And people are recognizing the importance of school meals as a nutritional foundation for a lot of kids in this country. 

In a world where you could remake the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), what would its charge be with respect to the food system?

There’s always a lot of discussion about whether the USDA should have jurisdiction over food safety versus the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I won’t comment on that, but I will say that we need to pay attention to food safety, whether it’s fresh produce, processed foods, or meat and poultry. The USDA does a good job, but they’re not focused enough on what happens to food between processing and when it reaches the consumer. 

The USDA is also not particularly involved in education, marketing, and advertising, but they should be. I’m not saying we should regulate what people eat—but getting good information to consumers is important, and that requires cooperation between the government, private sector, nonprofits, and universities.

Finally, the USDA needs to be an active environmental agency. Today, anything that smells of climate creates an enemy. But climate impacts agriculture. The fact is that we need to grow different crops and livestock—and we need good science to understand how best to do it. 

There’s a lot of fear around GMOs (genetically modified organisms), CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), etc. But I’ve never been afraid of those kinds of innovations. People take genetically modified drugs every day. We can’t be afraid of science in food and agriculture while embracing it in medicine.

When you think ahead to the next decade, what innovations do you think will matter most for the food system?

The first thing is precision nutrition. We’ll develop foods that can prevent or treat disease. There’s work being done to enhance nutritional value—not only in fruits and vegetables, but also in row crops and livestock. 

The second thing is water. In some parts of the world, we have more water than we need; in others, far less. Technology can help solve the problem of water utilization in crops and variability from year to year. We’ve got to figure out how to manage that variation better without depleting aquifers and groundwater everywhere.

Desalination is the final issue. We’ve never quite figured out how to desalinate water at scale because it’s very expensive and requires high energy use. In some places you can do it in small quantities, but scaling it up has been hard. The oceans offer all the water in the world—if we could figure out how to do it well!

Do you think our current food policies are aligned with our nutrition goals? What needs to change?

I’d give us a C-plus right now. We haven’t flunked, but we’re doing just okay. As a matter of national policy, the relationship between food, nutrition, and health has long been a low priority.

I give credit to Secretary Kennedy and his group for at least raising these issues. I don’t like a lot of their solutions, but they’ve recognized that there’s a problem. One issue is that our federal feeding programs have not historically been directed toward nutrition, though things have moved since my time at the USDA. Both WIC and School Meals have requirements to be updated to reflect the latest nutrition guidelines. But we can do more. For instance, nutrition may be the second letter of SNAP, but that’s not its main focus. 

It’s also worth noting that nutrition simply hasn’t gotten the national attention other public health issues have. The Advertising Council of America has covered high-priority public health issues—like seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and smoking—and that’s helped move the needle. But in the food area, there’s been nothing like that. 

What have you learned over the course of your career—working across politics, policy, and the private sector—about what it really takes to improve food and agriculture systems?

My mother used to say, you have two ears and one mouth for a reason. Listening is a very good trait—and one I’ve used as much as possible throughout my career to get things done.

The second thing is that consumers have great power. They may need help, but they can significantly influence the policy debate. So when it comes to fixing the food system, it’s important to never underestimate what public demand can achieve.

Photo courtesy of David Trinks, Unsplash

The post From Capitol Hill to the School Cafeteria: Q&A with Dan Glickman on Fixing Our Food System appeared first on Food Tank.