Dan Banik and Gunhild Stordalen discuss the implications of climate change and a growing world population on global food security and the work of The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health, which brought together 37 world-leading scientists from across the globe to answer the question: Can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries?
Over 2 billion people in our world lack access to adequate food, and over 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. Between 2014 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people going hungry and suffering from food insecurity had been gradually rising. The pandemic only made things worse. And the Ukraine war has further disrupted global supply chains. In 2021, 702-828 million people faced hunger. The gender gap in food insecurity has widened under the shadow of the COVID-19 pandemic and women are more food insecure than men in every region of the world.
Food is linked to almost all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). And it is difficult if not virtually impossible to meet these global goals and the Paris Climate Agreement, without a radical transformation of the global food system.
Gunhild A. Stordalen is the founder and executive chair of EAT: the science-based global platform for food system transformation. She is a medical doctor and the recipient of the UN Foundation’s “Global Leadership Award”. Instagram: @gunhild_stordalen Twitter: @G_stordalen
Host:
Professor Dan Banik, University of Oslo
Twitter: @danbanik @GlobalDevPod
Instagram: @inpursuitofdevelopment
https://in-pursuit-of-development.simplecast.com/
Banik Gunhild, I can’t believe that you are actually here. Finally! In my basement studio. Welcome to the show and welcome to the basement.
Stordalen Thank you so much Dan. I’m thrilled to be here.
Banik Well, I’ve been looking forward to speaking with you for a long time now and I’m glad that our schedules finally matched. There’s so much that I’d like to talk to you about. Let me start by asking you to reflect a bit on world food security or insecurity because I was looking at some of the numbers and it is pretty depressing. There was a time that food security peaked, we were actually producing a lot of food and there was less hunger and then food prices increased, hunger was increasing and all of this was happening before the pandemic, before the war in the Ukraine. Even though we tend to blame these two things for all the bad things that are happening. So, I was, for a while, very optimistic about food security improving but the latest figures are depressing, between 700 and 800 million people are hungry every day and over a billion or 2 billion people actually don’t have access to enough food. A lot of people don’t have money to buy food. Can we start at that depressing kind of note? How do you see this having evolved and what are your thoughts on this worsening global food insecurity problem?
Stordalen That’s a big question, but I think it’s important to say that it’s not a lack of calories in the world, we are producing more than enough to feed the current population of close to 8 billion. But it’s about inequitable distribution and we are producing the wrong kind of calories. We have been focusing on quantities for a long time and ignoring dietary quality and as you were alluding to, basically half the world population is now malnourished. If we are taking into account all the people going hungry, more than 800 million as you said, and then we have another 2 billion roughly, that is suffering from some sort of micronutrient deficiencies, whether that is lack of vitamin A or other macro nutrients. Then you have on top of that you have another 2 billion plus people who are now overweight or have obesity. So, the current way we are producing, and consuming food is basically causing half the world’s population to be malnourished, which is a massive failure of the whole system, which is some of the things that we in EAT are very focused on. Then obviously before the pandemic hunger numbers were on the rise, mainly because of conflict and climate change and the irony here is that although food systems account for 1/3 of the global emissions, food systems are also first and hardest affected by climate change. We know that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere is reducing the nutrient contents in certain crops, etc. Then it’s obviously about the vulnerability of the whole system that we have now seen with the war in Ukraine, where we have made ourselves overly dependent upon a few global bread baskets and that has allowed Putin to weaponize food in a way that we haven’t seen before. The fact that we are producing so few crops, 75% of the world’s food is coming from 12 plants and 5 animal species, that makes us incredibly vulnerable, not only against conflict and war, but also in terms of accelerating climate change, more extreme weather events like we have seen in Pakistan, I mean 1/3 of the country is underwater. So, this is absolutely not possible to continue as we have done with this incredibly globalised food system.
Banik In the old days you could say that hunger was about lack of food, lack of adequate food. But now the situation is much more complex, right? It is about not just how much food is accessible, it is also about the types of food, and that’s where I think your main interest lies too. One of the things I read recently actually has to do with this aspect that we are not just eating the right kinds of food, and we can get back to what is a healthy diet later, but it turns out it’s not just a problem in low-income countries, it’s also a big problem in Norway, in the US in the UK. What really puzzles me is this linkage, I wouldn’t say puzzles, but I’m fascinated by the linkage between food and the environment and as you were saying, the kind of emissions that are generated by producing certain types of food that we like, but perhaps we shouldn’t be cultivating that I think that is important. So, the figure that I recently read which actually shocked me, because here we’ve been talking so much about emissions from flying and all of that, just food waste alone is, I think 1/3 of the food produced is wasted, I mean how can you explain this, Gunhild? Why do we do this? Why is it that 20 million slices of bread apparently are thrown away in the UK every day? Norway too is wasting a lot of food. So, before we talk about diets, production, whatever, what should we be doing to combat food waste?
Stordalen Well, I think we need to go back to, I mean the Green Revolution in the 70s, which was obviously a massive success. It lifted more than a billion people out of hunger or starvation and obviously it’s a fundament for how we are producing food today. There’s this really intensive extractive industrial agriculture, whether it’s plants or crops or animals, it’s destroying our planet and it’s also making the population sick and dying prematurely, which is obviously absolutely not the intentions Borlaug had when he started the whole Green Revolution.
Banik That was about solving world hunger.
Stordalen It was and the food system has been incredibly successful on the one thing that it was designed to do, and that is all about producing, I mean vast amounts of cheap calories. The food waste question is directly due to that because we have been pumping out so many cheap calories and we are not appreciating food as something precious anymore. So, food goes to waste in rich countries in low- and middle-income countries it’s more about post-harvest losses, lack of transportation, storage infrastructure, etc, that is causing the problem. But it’s literally a moral disgrace that in a world where almost a billion people are going hungry, we are wasting 1/3, or 1/3 of everything we produce is not ending up in anyone’s stomach. So, the food system is ripped with inefficiencies and there are massive opportunities, obviously in reducing food waste, that is one of the four major shifts that we need to see happening, starting this decade in order for us to stand a chance to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and on the Paris Climate Agreements. If food waste was a country we know that it would be the third biggest emitter after China and the US, which is shocking again right? But I think also to the opening topic one of the paradigm shifts, so to say, is to go from talking about food security or food insecurity to start talking about nutrition, security and insecurity because that’s really what we what we need, we need a shift from quantity to quality. We really need to start talking about what we eat, how we produce that food and how to do that with better quality for human health, for animal health and welfare, for workers’ rights obviously for the climate and the environment and really staying within these nine planetary boundaries that have been defined by the scientists.
Banik But Gunhild in many parts of the world, there’s still the problem of food scarcity. There’s not enough production, and much of this is now because of climate change, droughts, floods, and weather patterns. So, in those parts of the world should we be thinking differently about those countries because are we talking about a division of labour that in our richer parts of the world we should be thinking about eating different types of food. Whereas in parts of the world where there isn’t much food production, it is more about just getting the calories, is that one way of thinking?
Stordalen Yes and no, I mean there is no one-size-fits-all. There is no one global diet that should be imposed on people everywhere. It has to be translated down to the local realities and depending on natural resources and climatic conditions etc. But the approach has to be the same because unless we take a systems approach and actually look into how we are producing what we are producing, what we are eating, how much are we wasting or losing along the value chain, and the workers, from the farmers to food workers. Unless we are taking this holistic approach.
Banik The food systems approach.
Stordalen The food systems approach exactly. We will never get this right and that is kind of the biggest lessons learned since I started EAT in 2013. So, nine years down the road now, but this is also an awareness that is spreading and that was reflected by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres hosting the first ever UN foods system summit last year, and that basically was an acknowledgement that unless we take this food systems approach and start looking across, seeing the big picture and seeing that the food system has to deliver on multiple outcomes, multiple objectives that are equally important, we cannot pick and choose, we have to take one for all, all for one unless all countries, whether there are low- and middle-income countries or high income countries, that approach has to be the same. Then it’s another important aspect here, which is we need more local production for local consumption everywhere in the world. Yes, of course trade will and have to be an important part the solution and we need to continue doing that also for stability, political stability. But we need higher self-sufficiency rates in basically all countries, and we need to be better prepared because resilience is one of the biggest buzzwords at the moment. Building resilience in the system so it can withstand shocks, whether it’s from climate change, whether its war conflicts, whatever it would be, pandemics, and we really need more resilient supply chains and that also means that we need shorter supply chains, it has to be a mix. But the more local production for local consumption, even here in Norway, we have the lowest self-sufficiency rates in Europe, so we are basically below 40% and that is not sustainable in a world with more shocks as the new normal. So, being able to produce substantial amounts of food within the country will be really, really important and then it’s obviously about the quality. That goes for low- and middle-income countries as well because now we see that on the African continent as an example, we now see the obesity epidemic is exploding as well, so you still have undernourished people and people that go hungry, or have micronutrient deficiency but you even have then obesity and diet related diseases that are now coexisting even within the same household. We know also from the science that if you had been stunted and had too little food during childhood, you are more prone and more exposed and at a higher risk for developing metabolic syndrome or other diet related diseases when you become an adult. So, it’s really, really important to start talking about dietary quality and what are the foods that we should be eating.
Banik So, I think this is where it gets really interesting.
Stordalen Everything is interesting when we are talking about food.
Banik Exactly. I’ll tell you what I made for dinner last night.
Stordalen I’m very keen to know what you and Vibeke cooked for dinner last night.
Banik The thing about nutrition or hunger is that there’s the undernutrition aspect, but there’s also the over nutrition and the micronutrient deficiency. So it’s all of this as you were saying, coexisting, and you’re absolutely right that it can be in the same household, and I’ve seen this in India, I’ve seen this in some parts of Africa of late. But one thing I wanted to ask you, is that the world today, I think we’ve hit 8 billion.
Stordalen Yeah, have we hit it? I think we were approaching but you’ve probably looked up the number.
Banik I was tweeting about it, I think we are almost there.
Stordalen I am not sure if we should celebrate that.
Banik No, but the discussion on population is, as you’re aware, very polarised because I read a statement from the UNFPA and the head of the UNFPA yesterday, she was saying that we shouldn’t really be worried, because in many parts of the world where population is rising, the emission levels in those parts of the world are minimal. Just thinking about the African continent, because often population is seen in relation to climate change and natural scientists say, you know too many people, we don’t have the carrying capacity, so there’s a lot more consumption, this is going to be bad, so we should be looking at population control. But I’d like to hear your thoughts on how you see this growing population, I know that your organisation has been thinking about is it 9 billion in 2050 or something?
Stordalen 9.7 billion so we are saying 10 billion now.
Banik Right, So what are your thoughts on this population food linkage?
Stordalen So, that’s a really good question but the interesting thing about population growth is that it’s the child per woman rates, fertility rates are stabilising as countries are being lifted out of poverty and obviously child mortality goes down, people are living longer, but not necessarily healthier. The modest projections from the UN show that we will reach close to 10 billion people by 2050. If you have looked into these modelling assumptions there is not really much that we can do to reduce population growth as I understand it so I think we just need to deal with the fact that most likely we will be close to 10 billion people. But the good news is that in theory, science shows that it is possible to feed 10 billion people enough healthy, safe food within safe planetary boundaries. So, without wrecking the planet along the way, if we radically change how we produce, what we produce, what we eat and stop wasting and losing food like we are doing today, that’s kind of the good news. But the message here is that it will require a great food systems transformation and the irony is that although we now have that science, and I’m referring now to the report EAT put out, or the commission that we set up, the EAT Lancet Commission on food planet health that was published in The Lancet Medical Journal in 2019, that was basically the first ever effort to ask that question, is it possible at all to feed 10 billion people enough healthy food within safe planetary boundaries or without overshooting these essential boundaries that defines this safe operating space for humanity? The scientists concluded that yes, it is possible, but it will require this radical and great transformation of the current food system. So, how we do that is more complicated, but we basically know that there are four big buckets that we must see happening and or four big shifts. The first is about how we produce food. We are currently doing extractive, mostly intensive industrial agriculture, whether it’s plants or animals, but we need to shift that to a way that is preserving half the earth, that’s the scientists estimate, protecting the remaining ecosystems that are absolutely essential life support systems for humanity, and we need to start producing in a way that absorb carbon in the soil and restores and maintains biodiversity. Because agriculture is not only 1/3 of the global emissions, but it’s also the single biggest driver of biodiversity loss on land and in oceans and we need to change that, and this is not an easy shift at all. But we are now talking about regenerative agriculture and regeneration, restoring biodiversity, absorbing carbon. The estimate is that we need to, or food systems need to absorb and store around 5 to 10 giga tonne of carbon by 2050 and onwards if we are to stand even a tiny chance of avoiding climate catastrophe. So, that is kind of the regenerative nature, positive way of producing food and the second is about dietary shifts. It’s not about the world going vegan or vegetarian even, but it’s really about shifting to healthy diets with much greater variety of different food types. Today 12 plants and 5 animal species are the fundaments in our diets, but we need to utilise hidden forgotten foods, indigenous foods, etc and really embrace that variety. It has to be much more plant rich so I’m not talking about plant based or vegan at all, but really about more of the good stuff, more of the protective foods in our diets and obviously more whole foods. The third shift is about livelihoods because today food systems are a massive driver of social inequalities and the poorest and the most vulnerable are those who end up eating the worst diets and hence become sicker and are dying prematurely, are less capable of work or taking a job, etc. So, this is a really a vicious cycle. It’s the farmers who are losing out in India, in Norway, they’re protesting in the Netherlands, in the US, they are quitting and the current system is driving inefficiencies, industrialization, but we really need to turn it around and decent livelihoods in the whole value chains is absolutely essential for us to succeed with this great transformation. The fourth is really about shifting to a circular food economy we cannot afford to waste on this planet anymore. We really need to turn to limit the waste to the minimum, and then we need to turn waste into new resources going back into the cycle.
Banik Since you mentioned the EAT Lancet report that came out a few years ago, I enjoyed reading that and it got a lot of attention.
Stordalen Thank you, that’s an understatement. It is the most cited and most famous of all the Lancet’s commissions and they have put out hundreds.
Banik So, the understatement was meant more in terms of the media attention in this country, Norway. What I enjoyed reading about, I remember there was a focus on healthy diets, but also the sustainable food systems, right? I think it was one goal, two targets, and five strategies.
Stordalen Wow, you have done your homework.
Banik We do the homework, I have a great team. So, I want to start with this as you were mentioning a bit earlier about what is a healthy diet and for a long time as I was saying earlier, it was about what we eat, how much we eat and then in Norway, and I’ve been here for 31 years the advice shifted to physical activity. So, it’s not just what we put in our diets, but also how much we move. That’s why you see the treadmill here, which actually has been a lifesaver, especially when it gets cold. So, so there’s activity, but then there’s an added dimension Gunhild, about the climate. So, one issue I wanted to talk to you about is what makes sense in terms of nutrition, what makes sense in terms of what is health may not always be good for the environment, right?
Stordalen The overarching message here is that what is good for people tends to be good for the planet and the other way around, that’s kind of the big message. There are so many synergies between human and planetary health thankfully, otherwise we would have been deep in deep shits. There are some trade-offs for sure, but basically back to the EAT Lancet Commission, and just let me spend a few minutes explaining how that was done because that was something, there are massive misunderstandings around the Commission still, and it’s still one of the few reports that keeps living. It’s being intensely debated today, three years after it came out right, which is quite striking when it comes to our scientific publication.
Banik Could you say what are those misunderstandings about?
Stordalen Well, there are many. Some are completely ridiculous, others are absolutely relevant and hence why we are now setting up a new Commission, EAT Lancet 2.0 which will come in late 2024 or early 2025 and we are basically doing that as the IPCC, de facto IPCC for food since the UN is not doing it and we really need to build consensus around what are we talking about, what is healthy and sustainable or regenerative diets that can sustain the planet as the population grows. But basically the Commission was set up with three big working groups and the first working group of scientists who are looking into what is an optimal healthy reference diet and I will get back to the misunderstandings a bit a bit more. But the first working group looked into what is an optimal healthy reference diet and I mean in calories per day and in grams per day of different food groups. Based on the best available nutritional science they came up with recommendations and basically ranges that they don’t know. For example, take red meat, they don’t know whether it’s zero, you don’t strictly need red meat, you can easily get the proteins from somewhere else, or it’s up to 28 grams per day, that’s in the range. Then to be able to model this, which I will get back to, they use the middle value of 14 grams per day. But basically, in terms of what this optimal healthy reference diet is, it’s something very, very close to the classic or traditional Mediterranean diet. So it’s a plant rich, not vegetarian or vegan, you can do that as well, with a little planning, but it’s basically a flexitarian plant rich diet, so room for animal proteins and even meat, but in much more moderations and very low if any ultra-processed food. So, truly whole food plant rich with modest amounts of meat and dairy and seafood etc. But really a lot of legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains.
Banik But again, is that applicable for all parts of the world?
Stordalen This is also one of the misunderstandings that was simply unfair because the perception was that this is 1 global diet that 8 billion people have to switch to, which is absolutely not the case. It was very clearly laid out in the Commission that this reference diet is a reference diet for living long, healthy lives, but it has to be translated down to the national level and the local realities, cultural preferences, and even individual preferences.
Banik Weather preferences.
Stordalen Absolutely right. In a country like Norway, we have 3% arable land, the rest is pasture and woods basically so it’s a different story. The planetary health diets as the term is, will look very different in Colombia or in Ethiopia or India or Norway. It has to be translated to and based on the local realities. This healthy reference diet was the first working group, the second working group was, what is the maximum amount of environmental impact that can come from food systems if we are to stay within safe planetary boundaries for the first time being quantified. The third working group was doing the modelling, asking, can 10 billion people eat this healthy reference diet with 2500 calories a day and do so without transgressing these planetary boundaries related to food systems. Again, the good news is that yes, it is possible, but then we will radically have to rethink what we produce and what we eat because as you also alluded to earlier on, even in low- and middle-income countries, people are now shifting away from their traditional, much healthier and mainly plant rich diets minimally processed, to much more western diets that are meat heavy that are loaded with ultra-processed junk and that is what is making us sick and also that is incredibly unsustainable for the planet. So it’s really about preventing these or the shift to Western diets in in many countries. In other countries it is about shifting away and introducing better quality, more variety, more plant rich again, not vegan or vegetarian necessarily, and then it’s doable, so this is really a win-win. That was a big happy news from the Commission, that it is possible. We are actually talking about a world of more choices or more variety and it can be done in any cuisine, any culture you have your own, I mean the Indian planetary health diet will look very different again from what it will in Norway. But we need these national level scientific assessments, which is something that we are pushing hard for now to happen as part of the EAT Lancet 2 Commission.
Banik This very aspect reminds me of a conversation I recently had, a few months ago, with Rujuta Diwekar, she’s a celebrity nutritionist in India and she became a celebrity.
Stordalen On your podcast
Banik She will be, she gave advice to some Bollywood actresses. Rujuta, she has a huge following on social media, she’s been talking about this kind of indigenous diet. There are perfectly good local solutions, why are you eating something that is not local? It’s a Western diet junk food, etc. So, I’ve been pretty impressed with some of the posts on social media handles, just very basic stuff that generations have been doing at home. But because modernity requires you to adopt something else, it makes you feel good, it makes you feel modern so you begin to do that. By the way, I love the name EAT, I mean how did you actually come up with that name? Is there a story behind that?
Stordalen Oh well, there’s a story behind everything isn’t there? But it was basically, we were brainstorming over many days and even weeks what to name the baby. This new initiative that would was all about fixing food for people on the planet and then one of our colleagues just like put it on the table and we were like looking into acronyms and all of that and so why don’t we just call it EAT? It’s really about unlocking the power of the plate, isn’t it? So then EAT it was and EAT it will it will remain.
Banik And every time we eat, we’ll think about EAT.
Stordalen Exactly, and it’s really what I love about food. I mean I love eating, although I still struggle to find my way around the kitchen, I must say I’ve never been a foodie. If you told me 15 years ago that I would end up spending my whole career and my all my professional and private time thinking about food I would just laugh at you and say no way because I have not been a foodie by any means. But food is really the one common denominator that connects all of us, it connects 8 billion people. We all have to eat, and it’s also something that connects the biggest global challenges like global agendas down to individual action and the choices that we are making every day on our plates for those who have choices, not everyone has. But it’s really also something that is so tangible and something that creates a lot of excitement, so I’m always saying that food unites, it excites, and the magic that happens when people gather around the table to break bread, I mean, it’s unprecedented.
Banik I really think that is a great name. You know I have a different kind of story in terms of food and this goes back to my British boarding school upbringing because we were always hungry. It was never about, and this goes back to our discussion about the definition of hunger or malnutrition, it was never about the quantity, it was always the quality because you could eat as much as possible, there was enough on the table, but it just didn’t taste good. I don’t know if you’ve had this tradition in your family, but at least in boarding school, Sunday evening dinners. Oh my God, we would look forward to that because there will always be something nice at the end, like a dessert or whatever you know, and I learned to look forward to Sunday evening to eat as much as I could of the rubbish stuff that didn’t taste good but then you just saved the best for last, because that would be something that you would think about for a long time. So much of my upbringing, I was always sort of interested in being in a situation where I wouldn’t have to wait for Sunday, you know?
Stordalen Are you saying you wanted to be in a situation where you could have dessert every day?
Banik Sunday every day, yeah that would be nice. But actually, Wasim Zahid who you may know.
Stordalen Yeah I know him.
Banik Wasim a friend of mine. He recently I think a few days ago tweeted something which I thought was fascinating. He says, you know, there’s this popular saying that you should listen to your body, and he says, well, that’s not always true because my body is telling me to have two chocolates every hour. So sometimes you have to go against it. But getting back to the report there were two issues I remember where there was a bit of a push back and you may call them misunderstandings. One had to do at least in Norway, about meat, right? And I’ve discussed this on the show with Jess Fanzo.
Stordalen She was on the Commission.
Banik Exactly. About cultural preferences, nobody really likes it in this country, or perhaps in many parts of the world to be told what to eat. This is our culture. This is our tradition. We eat meat and who are you to tell us? I think if I remember correctly, much of the initial response that was somewhat critical was related to the meat aspect. I’ll get back to the other one, but can you reflect a bit on how that was for you? Because maybe you felt that the report was misunderstood in a Norwegian context?
Stordalen No, I mean this is partly a misunderstanding and partly a lack of nuances in the first report. I can’t decide whether this was the biggest mistake or the best and most brilliant marketing strategy ever.
Banik You got a lot of attention.
Stordalen We got a lot of attention and again the report has had unprecedented impacts, I mean it has been now the basis for the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, 15 major cities, including London, Lima, Tokyo, Barcelona, New York have now committed to implement the targets from the first report and working on doing that towards 2030 etc. It has informed the business strategies and curriculums and it has really changed the narrative around food and for the first time really bringing health and human or planetary health together for the first time. But to the meat issue, what we didn’t really specify in the report, and I shouldn’t say we because I was not on the Commission, important disclaimer. But what wasn’t really elaborated on, which the second iteration will go much more in depth on is what meat. We now know that the problem is not the cow, it’s the how and how many. Which is really important to understand because the problem today is that we are racing and slaughtering 75 billion animals to feed a population of 8 billion people today, which is absolutely insane. It’s madness when you know the methane emission, the land and water requirements, etc. We know that 83% of arable land in the world is occupied by the livestock industry, we are feeding 1/3 of the grains in the world to livestock or industrial or intensive livestock operations to produce cheap meat. So basically, the problem is overproduction and overconsumption, or cheap grain fed meats. The solution, however, is really free ranged grass-fed livestock that are able to utilise and transform grass into protein for human consumption. That’s part of the solution and it can also help sequester carbon in the soil and is part of healthy regenerative food systems. But that means fewer animals in total and less but better quality in high income countries, and this is also important because in low- and middle-income countries meat and dairy might be the only quality protein sources they have available. We also in the Western world, who are currently over consuming and over producing industrial meats, we need to also have a steeper reduction in our consumption to allow for certain regions and countries to increase their intake. So, the equity dimension that was also one of the missing pieces is now being integrated as a known working group in the second committee.
Banik But tell me, I mean, you’re a celebrity in this country, you’re well known all over the world. You have all of these positions. Is this a question that you’re often asked? The meat consumption? Is that like the staple question?
Stordalen Yeah yeah yeah, it was very interesting to walk around as a celebrity in Italy for all the wrong reasons. Because EAT and I were leading one of the five action tracks of this UN Food System Summit. We were building the action track over 18 months with many partners and organisations around the table on the work stream or action track that was called shifting to sustainable, and of course, healthy consumption patterns which was the most controversial, back to your statement about don’t tell us what to eat and dietary shift is so polarising. But when I was attending the pre submits July 1 and a half years ago in Rome people came up to me and started nagging about the meat issue and one of the big meat processor CEOs came over and said OK, I see you are not a monster, but I still hate you. So, this is very interesting, but we hit a nerve for sure and we created a debate which was absolutely essential and report after report, I mean from IPCC to the IPBES report on biodiversity are basically reinforcing and echoing the conclusions from the EAT Lancet report that there is no way that we can continue business as usual on the meat and livestock industry in the world Again, it’s about stopping feeding food that could be consumed by people feeding that to animals. Now also we started out talking about food and nutrition security, but just reducing the amount of grains for animal feed would free up so much grain for human consumption. So, this is an inevitable transition, and it’s not easy because there are so many vested interests that are benefiting and profiting in the status quo, so we really need to work on policies on private sector solutions, on innovation and technology. I mean the plant-based segments, cellular meat, whatever it is, alternative proteins such as LG and insights, micro proteins so the protein post puzzle is one big piece of this.
Banik So I was telling you about two things, two responses I remember, so one that we’ve just discussed, the meat. The other one, which was a bit more academic, and I think there were a couple of articles published in the Lancet that were questioning the methodology, the health impacts, and perhaps the modelling aspect. I don’t know what the conclusion was, I don’t think those reports were that much cited as the original report, but it was basically saying some people, some authors were claiming that maybe there was an overestimation or underestimation that we don’t really know the health impacts or even the ones on the environment from certain types of food.
Stordalen But the most criticism was around what is a healthy reference diet. Much much much less focus and attention and criticism of the environmental impacts and quantifying these food boundaries, which was interesting, and again back to don’t tell us what to eat or to shift our behaviour. But we are now in EAT Lancet 2, it’s basically about updating, expanding and scrutinising the existing targets based on the new science that has come out because the Commission also triggered or initiated an avalanche of new food system science. So, it’s really the one of the upgrades of 2.0, will be to build the first ever food comparison model. What that means is basically applying an IPCC type of modelling. So, the first Commission had only one model, but this time it will be with the best modelling groups and scientific groups in the world that are now working, this is led by the Potsdam Institute in Germany, they are now working to really upgrade and build IPCC type of modelling into the next Commission report.
Banik Johan Rockstrom is there now right?
Stordalen Yeah, so he’s still one of three co-chairs, Walter Willett at Harvard School of Public Health is still leading on the nutrition side of the Commission and then we have Shakuntala Thilstedwho was the World Food Prize winner in 2021 or 2020 I can’t remember, she has vast experience in blue food, so she will bring in that dimension and also the global south perspective. So, we believe that we have now a significant upgrade with and we have invited a lot of new Commissioners as well. Some are staying over, so to say from the first Commission. But the idea is really to address the criticisms that were that were fair, and again, it didn’t shed enough nuances on certain things, and in this iteration there will be also a much stronger focus on the national translation, because, again, the accusation that this was one global diet that is imposed and that would destroy local food cultures around the world, etc this was absolutely ridiculous, a ridiculous claim. Now the Commission will look much more into what will plant health diets play out like in different parts of the world, what is sustainable and healthy in Norway? We know there is a lot of nuances also in terms of different population groups etc, but really bringing more nuances into that.
Banik I told you that I will tell you what I made for dinner last night.
Stordalen You have to.
Banik OK I made okra it’s one of my favourites and sort of an Indian recipe, okra and potatoes but I also, for the benefit of my two boys, made butter chicken and what I noticed when I do this, I often have like a meat dish and also vegetarian dish and then Vibeke and I end up only having the vegetarian one because we’re full. I think many of us, many of these households are changing their food patterns. Vibekeinsists on making sure that we make dinner based on what we have in the fridge, we don’t have to always go out, and yesterday I was going to make this food I realised I wanted to go to the shop to buy chicken and I realise maybe we have it at home. You know, it’s this kind of subtle shift that is happening in terms of consumption. Two issues I wanted to talk to you about. One has to do with all of these positions you have in UN agencies, and you get all these awards you are mingling with all of these important people, you are taking part in all of these high-level summits and conferences. You’re organising your own EAT forums in Stockholm, you’re constantly hanging out with all of these powerful, influential actors. Do you feel that there are certain things you do, or you say that has more impact? What are your experiences about influencing policy? Is it that personal rapport that you establish, or is it science, is it a combination? What do you think actually works in changing people’s perceptions, but also the perceptions of some of these very influential people.
Stordalen You know, I think it’s basically how obvious this is when you get it explained. I hardly sit with anyone depending on where they are, whether they are Prime Minister or minister or executive in a massive company or a farmer. As long as you get half an hour to explain, then everybody is just like, oh shit, it’s an enlightenment moment and Eureka moment, that okay we are actually in a system that is creating so many losers from the farmers to public health and nature and pandemic risks and food security, whatever it is. If we are taking the big picture approach and look at food as what it is, a very complex interconnected system, we can actually turn this around and create a system that is delivering multiple co benefits and multiple winners, and we can make this better and more well-functioning.
Banik But what works for you Gunhild, is that you actually have access to these people who give you 30 minutes of their time?
Stordalen Yeah and I guess my only real competitive advantage or strength in terms of my personal capacity, I’m never the smartest person in the room, if I am, then I’m in the wrong room. But it’s really to connect with people, and I mean EAT is all about collaboration, it’s all about acknowledging that this is so complex, but is also our greatest opportunity arena for improving health and well-being and sustainability on planet Earth for everyone everywhere and we have to do this together and it’s such a bold, aspirational goal, it’s to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. It’s something that connects us all and I think that message is so powerful, and people feel there’s a place for me around the table and I want to be part of this journey because I believe in people, and I believe that most people would really like to make a difference if they can. But the current system has so many deadlocks and no sector, no government, no of industry, no company of course, can really change this alone. So, it’s all about embarking on that collective action journey and we all need to do our part.
Banik This brings me to the final issue I wanted to talk to you about and it has to do with the relationship between consumption at an individual level and what we can undertake at a societal level. I notice this of the last few years, there’s a lot of focus on individual consumptions, especially in wealthy countries, and perhaps rightly so in terms of, say, flying what kind of food we eat, how we cultivate all of this, and what kind of clothes we buy. I read somewhere in the media that you have said that you’re not going to buy all of this expensive clothing.
Stordalen I have committed to permanent shop stop forever.
Banik Shop stop, it’s a bit like Vibeke, after the summer she said I’m not going to buy these small things that I do because the clothing and the garment industry is also a very important contributor to harmful gases. So, I wanted to ask you about this relationship between what we do at an individual level, because sometimes people feel there’s too much pressure on the individual, you know, because we are struggling as it is, raising children, working and going about life, and health, all of these issues. Then there’s always this burden, there’s the environmental thing, and we’re not always sure because eating the avocado is really good, but it is not good for the environment, there are all of these dilemmas. Are we putting too much emphasis on the individual, or do you think, it is important that we start looking in the mirror first at our own practises before we strive for societal change?
Stordalen I mean, I think the answer is mostly yes, because right now we have this massive system failure, which makes basically anyone, unless you are filthy rich and don’t need to think about the choices you make in terms of what is it costs you, unless you are one of them, they’re very privileged, you have basically a very limited set of choices of what’s available and what’s affordable to you, what is convenient is basically what we shouldn’t eat, or what the planet cannot afford. This goes back to what’s really underpinning the system failure, it’s the economy, stupid. It’s really a massive economic failure, and the food is currently not priced correctly and that is basically one of the absolutely essential things that must be happening and is basically to start integrating or internalising the externalities that economists will say. But it basically means that you need to start measuring what matters, and it’s not only about quantities and volumes, we really need to start talking about the true value and the true costs of food. Farmers need to be paid for the whole, what they are contributing with to society, which goes way beyond putting calories on our dinner tables and we need to correct that pricing, because there’s nothing inherent in healthy food that makes it more expensive than unsustainable unhealthy junk, but today 3 billion people, 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet, and this is a market failure and it based on that. No government in the world has a holistic, cohesive, comprehensive food system strategy and policies. So currently we have like 700 billion of public support in agricultural subsidies around the world and 90%, more than 90% of these subsidies are currently going into supporting production of what is killing people and harming the planet. We need policies that are collecting agricultural subsidies through public procurement, fiscal policies, supporting national dietary guidelines, and it all has to work together towards these multiple common goals that food systems need to deliver on and then it will be more affordable, more available and more convenient for people everywhere to make the right choices. Having said that, there is also something that won’t happen unless we as consumers and citizens start to demand action. We need to demand policymakers to really start acting and helping to change the system. We need to demand private sector action, but we also can obviously do what we can if we have choices, we can do small changes on our plates every time we sit down to eat which is better for us and better for the local community, better for the workers' rights, animals and the planet as a whole, and it’s not a sacrifice compared to energy. I mean we should we stop flying, should we stop buying clothes etc. There’s a lot of things we have to stop doing, with food it’s different and it’s not a sacrifice, it’s actually a better, more diverse and tastier food future and chefs around the world are already now putting forward menus for tomorrow and showing how delicious this can be because no one really eats because of health and sustainability and workers' rights or animals alone it’s really about the taste and joy and all the experiences around food that is so important. So, we are what we eat, and we know that the planet also is what we eat by now, and it can taste delicious, and it can be about win, win, win, wins.
Banik Gunhild, so, in case you’ve been freezing in the basement.
Stordalen I have I must admit, you’re saving energy.
Banik I was but I did turn on the heat and so that was my sort of contribution to energy, just resolving the energy crisis. I did warm it up for you. Gunhild it was such a pleasure to have you on the programme today. Thank you so much for coming to the basement studio, and if you’re hungry, I could offer you some of that okra I made yesterday, but again, thank you very much.
Stordalen Thank you so much for having me on the show, Dan.