Scientists “stand ready to play their part in catalysing the necessary action for food systems in transition”, according to a report on transforming food systems in Europe.
However, the EU can also teach “a cautionary lesson on the obstacles created by inflexible regulation delaying or impeding the translation of research outputs into innovation and practice”.
Today (Wednesday, July 7) the InterAcademy Partnership (IAP) with its regional academy networks, including the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), presented an evaluation from Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas comparing scientific opportunities for delivering sustainable, healthy diets.
Dr. Claudia Canales Holzeis of the IAP Project on Food and Nutrition Security and Agriculture discussed her recent assessment of the role of science, technology and innovation in transforming food systems in Europe that was prepared for the UN Food Systems Summit this year.
Speaking at today’s event, she said the IAP’s project “moves away from an emphasis on food production to take a food systems approach”.
“This considers the interrelationship between production and consumption; the environment and sustainability of all the steps in the value chain; food safety; and, of course, implications of diets on health,” she explained.
“The premise of the project is that innovation is central in the transformation of food systems. And this innovation not just being scientific disciplines, but also the development of new financing and business models and policy tools.”
Need to define and measure ‘sustainable’ diets
Her report notes the need for a better definition of what a ‘sustainable diet’ is and how it can be measured – so that these metrics can inform policies.
There is also a need to assess the relative contribution of different production models to sustainably deliver healthy and nutritious diets, and provide important ecosystems services is an important research priority, the report states.
“For example, using lifecycle assessments it was estimated that a complete switch to organic cultivation in England and Wales lowers production emissions but also decreases yields, and the increased reliance on land use elsewhere to make up for the shortfall would result in higher emissions overall,” the report explains.
“However, organic agriculture can decrease the reliance on chemical inputs, improve soil carbon sequestration and soil quality, reduce the contamination of water bodies and increase biodiversity.
“Lifecycle assessments do not accurately reflect these benefits because of their focus on the product, whereas ecosystem services from agricultural systems are not duly considered.
“Deploying an integrated approach requires research to quantify the economic value of ecosystems as part of the improvement and standardisation of methodologies to assess and compare the sustainability of food systems.”
New breeding techniques
Improved breeding of plants and animals for agricultural production is “a key component of an integrated transformation of food systems to deliver healthy and nutritious diets sustainably in the face of climate change”, according to the report.
“Animal breeding priorities comprise animal health [disease resistance and stress tolerance, in particular heat]; and nutrition, including strategies to mitigate enteric gut methane emissions.
“Achieving these objectives will require the use of the full toolbox of breeding technologies available, from conventional breeding assisted by advances in genetics and genomics, through to the use of a set of technologies collectively referred to as new breeding techniques and, in particular, genome editing.
“Looking ahead, research priorities include the [re]domestication of high-nutrient, stress-tolerant crops by targeting known domestication genes in established crops, and for the development of perennial grain crops to maximise sustained crop yields.
“Crops produced by genome editing techniques, including those with no foreign DNA, are regulated differently in different countries, with Europe holding the most restrictive regulatory regime.”
In 2018, the EU Court of Justice ruled that crops produced by gene editing technologies are to be subjected to the same regulations as GM crops.
“The legislation has far-reaching consequences, including the stifling of innovation, since the cost of pre-market evaluations will deter investment in the technology, in particular in the public sector and by small and medium enterprises.”
Necessary actions for food systems in transition
EASAC advises that “it is the products of new technologies and their use, rather than the technology itself, that should be evaluated according to the scientific evidence base, and that the legal framework should be revised”.
“The potential costs of not using a new technology, or being slow in adoption, must be acknowledged – as there is no time to lose in resolving the problems for food and nutrition security.
“The EU can also teach a cautionary lesson on the obstacles created by inflexible regulation delaying or impeding the translation of research outputs into innovation and practice.”
The authors conclude that the use of science and technology to transform food systems “depends on progress across a transdisciplinary research agenda but also on facilitating the use of science by stakeholders, such as farmers, manufacturers, regulators and consumers, as well as policymakers”.
“It is time to be more ambitious for identifying, investing in and using the scientific opportunities. Academies of science stand ready to play their part in catalysing the necessary actions for food systems in transition.”