{"id":324783,"date":"2021-09-24T17:39:07","date_gmt":"2021-09-24T17:39:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/grist.org\/?p=547510"},"modified":"2021-09-24T17:39:07","modified_gmt":"2021-09-24T17:39:07","slug":"why-many-food-experts-dont-want-a-new-international-body-for-food-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/09\/24\/why-many-food-experts-dont-want-a-new-international-body-for-food-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Why many food experts don\u2019t want a new international body for food science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Two years of discussions and negotiations culminated on Thursday and Friday, as stakeholders from around the world convened for the first-ever United Nations Food Systems Summit. The event had been branded<\/a> as a \u201chistoric opportunity to empower all people to leverage the power of food systems,\u201d both to drive the global recovery from COVID-19 and to help the U.N. achieve its 17 Sustainable Development Goals<\/a> by 2030. But the leadup to the summit was laden with controversy, ranging from disagreements over the summit\u2019s special envoy<\/a> to concerns over the private sector\u2019s influence<\/a> on the summit\u2019s agenda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most contentious debates involved calls for the creation of a new \u201cscience-policy interface,\u201d or SPI, that could better coordinate the procurement of food-related scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea had been floating around for years \u2014 at least since 2015, when scientists from the University of Bonn in Germany proposed<\/a> the creation of an International Panel on Food and Nutrition. They drew inspiration from existing SPIs like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/a>, or IPCC, which aggregates research on global warming so it can make recommendations to policymakers. This new SPI, the researchers suggested, would be food-focused: It would coordinate scientific research and make policy recommendations on the food system\u2019s role in global crises like climate change, undernourishment, food security, and biodiversity loss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To many researchers, the proposal seemed to make sense: Food lies at the intersection of many of these crises, with each issue impacting the other in complex ways. The production of food is already responsible for more than one-third of humans\u2019 annual greenhouse gas emissions<\/a>, for example, but a booming global population<\/a> could cause that number to rise even higher by midcentury. And food insecurity is widespread even though roughly one-third of the food humans produce is scrapped or left to rot on the field<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFood interacts with so many elements of our lives,\u201d said Fabrice DeClerck, director of science at the international nonprofit EAT<\/a>. \u201cWe will not achieve the Paris climate goals without changes in food systems, we won\u2019t achieve the biodiversity targets without changes in food systems, and we\u2019re completely off track in terms of food meeting people\u2019s health needs.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be foolish to tackle these issues \u201cone by one, domain by domain,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
Food insecurity is widespread even though roughly one-third of the food humans produce is scrapped or left to rot on the field.\n Eva Marie Uzcategui \/ Getty Images<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But opponents of the idea said that there are already organizations that are well-equipped to deal with the confusing nexus of food-related issues \u2014 groups like the 15-person High Level Panel of Experts<\/a>, or HLPE, a U.N. body that was created in 2009. Jennifer Clapp, a professor in the School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability at Canada\u2019s University of Waterloo, sits on the panel, and, following guidance from the U.N.\u2019s Committee on World Food Security<\/a>, or CFS, she helps write reports on specific issues \u2014 things like sustainable forestry, smallholder agriculture, and food waste.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The HLPE \u201cmeets the necessary criteria for scientific integrity, policy relevance, and legitimacy,\u201d Clapp said. According to her, the HLPE and CFS \u201calready serve as a strong SPI at the global level,\u201d and they do so in a way that makes space for input<\/a> and dialogue, especially from civil society and Indigenous people. This is particularly important, Clapp stressed, as it allows the HLPE and CFS to consider nonscientific forms of knowledge \u2014 Native agroeceological knowledge, for example, or anecdotal knowledge from smallholders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposals for a new SPI tended to gloss over those bodies. \u201cMost of the time the High Level Panel of Experts is not even recognized that it exists,\u201d Clapp said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Esther Turnhout, chair of the University of Twente\u2019s science, technology and society department, worried that the creation of a new SPI could be an attempt to subvert these vital forms of knowledge \u2014 perhaps replacing the CFS and HLPE altogether \u2014 by elevating \u201cscience with a capital S.\u201d Drawing from her experience in another SPI for biodiversity<\/a>, she said that proponents of the new SPI should be wary of allowing politicians and corporations to use science as a shield from political difficulties, leveraging its ostensible neutrality to justify technology- and market-oriented solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey see politics as an obstacle, and they think an \u201cIPCC for food\u201d would be able to sidestep that,\u201d Turnhout said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
A woman works on her farmland in Kathmandu, Nepal, where access to water is a growing problem for food producers.\n Jonas Gratzer \/ LightRocket via Getty Images<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Calls for an SPI for food gained steam ahead of the U.N. Food Systems Summit. In the months of discussion preceding the event, some called it a \u201cunique and timely opportunity<\/a>\u201d to design new decision-making structures. Joachim von Braun, one of the Swiss authors who proposed a food-centered SPI back in 2015 and chair of theFood Systems Summit\u2019s Scientific Group<\/a>, said that globalization and the increasing complexity of food chains urgently required a new approach<\/a> for collecting, analyzing, and assessing food-related data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The HLPE and CFS do good work, von Braun told Grist, but their focus on food security and nutrition is too narrow. \u201cWe need broader coverage that reaches farther into the fields of health, environment, climate science, and economics,\u201d he said. He stressed the importance of continuing to value knowledge from stakeholders up and down the food system \u2014 including Indigenous people \u2014 but didn\u2019t share concerns that a new SPI for food would jeopardize inclusivity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t see the risk,\u201d he said. \u201cWe have strong watchdogs in the food system.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hundreds of environmental and human rights organizations, plus groups representing Indigenous people, farmworkers, and scientists, have disagreed. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, which announced in July that it would withdraw from the Food Systems Summit<\/a> over \u201cfundamental issues\u201d of inclusion and corporate influence, has called the fight over an SPI for food \u201ca high-stakes battle over different visions of what constitutes legitimate science and relevant knowledge for food systems.\u201d According to a brief the organization published in July<\/a>, many of those who have recently espoused an SPI for food maintain connections to \u201cpowerful public and private actors\u201d like the World Economic Forum, and have promoted a \u201cbusiness-oriented agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a letter sent to the U.N.\u2019s secretary-general<\/a> less than two weeks before the summit, two U.N. special rapporteurs and the chairs of the CFS and HLPE warned that a new SPI for food would fragment the governance of food systems \u2014 a \u201cdangerous path\u201d that could erode public confidence in the U.N. The letter called for \u201ca clear commitment to support and strengthen the HLPE and the CFS,\u201d which Clapp said could include giving the HLPE greater autonomy to investigate topics of its own choosing, as well as expanding its purview beyond food security and nutrition to encompass more elements of the global food system. Better funding, she noted, would also be welcomed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Amina
Amina Mohammed, the U.N.\u2019s deputy secretary-general, addresses attendees of the U.N. Food Systems Summit.\n Lev Radin \/ Pacific Press \/ LightRocket via Getty Images<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

At Thursday and Friday\u2019s summit, countries and organizations announced commitments to tackle food waste, support family farming, and promote \u201cnature-positive\u201d production, but there was no big announcement about a new SPI for food. Amina Mohammed, the U.N. Deputy Secretary-General, said during a segment on future pathways that the CFS would remain an \u201cessential platform\u201d for providing advice on food and nutrition, but she didn\u2019t mention the controversy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Von Braun had warned this might happen. \u201cThe summit is not a launch event,\u201d he said, instead calling it \u201cthe beginning of the follow-up\u201d from the past 18 months of negotiations. Conference leaders said on Thursday that this follow-up would be facilitated in part by a \u201ccoordination hub<\/a>\u201d composed of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the World Food Programme. Statements from several U.N. leaders suggested support for strengthening the CFS and HLPE, but it\u2019s unclear exactly what will pan out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Human rights advocates like Michael Fakhri, the U.N.\u2019s special rapporteur on the right to food, have called for the CFS to be the forum for ongoing policy conversations. They hope that the \u201cIPCC for food\u201d debate will eventually come to a resolution that keeps existing mechanisms intact and strengthens their authority.
The CFS is one of the only food and policy bodies that prioritizes a \u201chuman rights-based approach,\u201d Fakhri wrote in an op-ed published on the day of the summit<\/a>. \u201cHopefully, it will be there that the world\u2019s governments will decide to cooperate and devise a multilateral plan on how to overcome the food crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n

This story was originally published by Grist<\/a> with the headline Why many food experts don\u2019t want a new international body for food science<\/a> on Sep 24, 2021.<\/p>\n

This post was originally published on Grist<\/a>. <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An \u201cIPCC for food\u201d is more controversial than it sounds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7539,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13813,401,14],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324783"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7539"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324783"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324783\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":324859,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324783\/revisions\/324859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}