Reflecting on 30 Years of the National Academy of Science’s Food Forum: Extending the Goal towards Equity
Image credit: Parent Map
I had the honor of participating on the closing panel at the National Academy of Science’s Symposium to celebrate the 30 Year Anniversary of the Food Forum. I was excited that the organizers felt that Praxis’ would be a good addition to the closing panel charged with reviewing the day’s presentations on food safety, systems and sustainability, and nutrition and health and to share a vision of what the next 30 years might look like.
However, at the end of the panel, after I added my perspectives on where the current state of food science, and identified needs for the future of this diverse field, I felt like I cast a shadow on a parade intended to celebrate good work by many people. Yet I couldn’t let conversations about progress in AI, CRISPR, genetic modification, blockchain, big data, and global food systems continue without injecting what I have learned from our community partners when it comes to food and nutrition security. While the United States is a global leader in food technologies, many communities continue to experience food and nutrition insecurity and higher rates of preventable chronic disease directly related to the consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages.
The discussion on food safety narrowly focused on successes in improvements that have reduced salmonella, norovirus, toxoplasmosis, E. coli, and other food-borne health threats. I deeply appreciate all the work going into keeping the food supply processing and packing systems safe. However, it seemed that concern for food safety ended at the point of purchase. Food safety did not include curbing the availability of cheap, high-calorie, low-nutritional-value foods and beverages that have direct links to preventable chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, and cancers linked to particular foods.
Conversations on improving food systems mostly center on plant-based alternatives to meats, precision agriculture, new farming techniques including vertical and indoor agriculture, blockchain technology for better supply chains, reducing food waste, circular economies in food production, climate-smart agriculture practices, and global collaboration to improve sustainability. While there was a good discussion about the need to reduce food waste and increase the efficiencies of the business-to-business elements of food production, especially as the industry continues to become more global, the discussion about food systems did not extend into how to get food into communities experiencing food and nutrition insecurity. The systems conversations rarely included end consumers, especially those who live in places advocates and organizers call Food Apartheid Zones, areas where, due to business or economic (in)efficiencies, residents struggle to access and afford healthy foods, including fresh fruits or vegetables.
The conversations on nutrition and health did bring in the concept of food and nutrition insecurity. Angela Odoms-Young, a professor of maternal and child nutrition at Cornell University, gave a compelling talk that laid out how not all communities' nutrition needs were being served equitably. Other presentations focused on personalizing food and nutrition based on individual body chemistry. This seemed pretty exciting, but as the researcher presented their information, I couldn’t shake the thought that the idea of personalized nutrition to help individuals make better food choices missed the point that industry behavior seeking to maximize profit often contradicts individual behaviors to consume healthier foods and beverages. Industry practices, from the way they engineer processed foods and sugary drinks to be addictive and cheap, how foods are marketed where the consumer is bombarded by highly polished ads, and also much of the digital marketing that comes across in our social media—especially to kids—often overwhelm individual intentions of living healthy. Also, in communities where individuals live under a lot of stress, the industry’s marketing is even more effective. During a conversation about individual vs corporate responsibility, I also reflected on how hard it is to pass policies that protect the consumer when industry actors use their economic/lobbying power to counter public health’s research and data. One of the most egregious examples is how the beverage industry engaged in what The Sacramento Bee editorial board called a “shakedown” when they strong-armed the California legislature into passing a 12-year preemption on local soda distributor taxes.
So, on the closing panel, I felt a deep responsibility to make sure that, yes, we celebrated the past 30 years of dedication by regulators and researchers to improve our nation’s food systems, but that we also need to acknowledge that not all communities in the United States are benefitting equitably. When the conversation turned to help individuals make better nutritional choices, I felt I needed to chime in about the role of industry and their efforts to block health-focused initiatives that perpetuate the availability of cheap, calorie-dense food and beverages with little nutritional value and proven links to preventable chronic disease.
It’s not often we get to celebrate progress in the face of such contentious problems as creating an equitable food system. We should celebrate, and we should also do better. If we’ve gone this far, can’t we also stand up to industries that insist on ignoring the consequences of their actions? Can we invite those living in food apartheid zones to tell us what they need to be food secure?
One thing is very clear, the science-based system that is in place to stimulate food security, food systems, and nutrition will be stronger with additional voices at the table—beyond industry, academics, and government agencies— that can help expand the conversation to authentically include the needs of our nation’s communities that experience the highest levels of disinvestment, food and nutrition insecurity, and targeting by industries whose products exacerbate rates of preventable chronic disease.
Let’s expand the algorithm of scientific progress in food security, food systems, and nutrition and health to include the health outcomes of all our communities and let’s use this data to guide new research and resource investments. This is my long-term hope for this work.
Author’s Note: My comments are deeply informed by Praxis’ community base building and power building organizing partners as gathered in Praxis’ brief From Food Justice to Liberation: Building Community Power through Community Gardens and Urban Farms, interviews for our podcast series’ entitled Community-Driven Strategies for Food Justice (Season 3), SSB Industry Taxes (Season 2), and Communities Building Power for Health (Season 1). I also relied on learnings from food and nutrition security projects Praxis engaged with national partners and a very intimate knowledge of what it looks like when a local jurisdiction tries to engage in community-led norms change around food, beverages, and physical activity in the face of very aggressive industry opposition.
Xavier Morales, Ph.D., MRP, is the executive director of The Praxis Project, a national nonprofit that partners with base building and power building community organizers working to transform policies, practices, structures, systems and environments to improve health, equity, and racial justice.