Dr Sian Astley, Secrétaire Générale – EuroFIR AISBL

Food2030 Network conference (5-7^th March 2024, Brussels) brought together representatives from the 2030 projects including Data4Food and WASTELESS. The aim was to promote more collaborative approaches towards food transformation, under the auspices of the Belgian EU Presidency, which started this month. The issue underlying this event, but also many 2030 projects, is that our current food system is not sustainable and threatens our health, ecosystems, and climate. Further, that incremental innovation is neither faster enough nor sufficient broad to solve the multitude of challenges. Instead, transformative innovation is needed, radically overhauling every aspect to achieve a just, fair, and inclusive system.

The event was well organised and interactive, with interesting speakers, solid examples of progress, and sufficient networking time. Day 1 focused on the challenges and drivers, day 2 on financing and investment, and day 3 on policies. End-of-day wrap-ups were useful to know what had gone on in the parallel sessions on days 1 and 2. However, I wonder about any food-related event in this day-and-age that has a propensity for carbohydrates: sliced oranges did make an appearance on days 2 and 3, but otherwise those plant-based food that we should all be eating more of were conspicuously absent. What-is-more, coffee (no tea offered) was solely of the pod variety, meaning a conservative 1000 per day that might or might not be recycled.

In ‘innovation, data, digital tools, and sustainability’, it was agreed that data sharing remains a challenge, and that there ought to be a platform for tools arising from EU-funded projects. That was frustrating, given there are already many domain-specific platforms/databases/communities of interest, including FNS-Cloud and the much more mature Blue-Cloud, as well as the European Open Science Cloud. Similarly, there was some appreciation that data interoperability is problematic. Indeed, it is but the discussion demonstrated a lack of understanding about the scale of such ambitions. EuroFIR NoE (2005-2010) arose from more than 20 years of prior work and, nearly 20 years on, whilst considerable progress has been made, national food composition datasets are not fully interoperable as published. Also, these datasets do not include significant numbers of branded foods, let alone directly applicable agricultural, environmental, consumption, or health data. Of course, one of the reasons for slow and incremental progress is cost and funding.

Despite the inherent value of data, research lags behind in exploiting knowledge contained therein, compared with large international tech companies. Resources, human and financial, are at the heart of this inertia. Just as five-year governments cannot solve societal issues, even assuming that the multitude are on their agenda, three-, four- and five-year 10M Euro projects cannot hope to achieve more than incremental change in specific but limited examples. It is not that public transport and better design of cities are not important, patently they are, as funding for larger longer-term projects demonstrate. Equally, one in two or three will develop cancer or cardiovascular disease, impacting lives down the generations as well as healthcare costs, meaning health research funding is wholly justified. However, risks of these diseases at the population level are impacted by diet, and diet by the food system and our situations. If you live in poverty, in poor housing with inadequate public transportation, your dietary choices are dictated by accessible affordable food, which might include that which can be prepared without cooking facilities. If we want to change the food system, we must also invest in other systems and underlying barriers. For example, in the food domain, researcher assessment does not encourage sharing of data or knowledge to the same extent as say computing or physics; more encouragement is needed around exploitation of results, including but not limited to commercialisation, and there needs to be greater recognition and acceptance that most good ideas fail, which does not mean they were not a good idea or worthy of investment in the first place. Ask any successful entrepreneur and they will likely admit what they are known for was not their first attempt. We also need more coherent policies.

Considerable effort is being extended to shift European diets to more plant-based, but there are related considerations that are not being discussed sufficiently. One suggestion at the Food2030 Network conference was that livestock farms might be allowed to transition gradually, but many such farms are not suitable for growing arable crops and, if these are allowed to fail, this will impact what many citizens think of as the countryside since many so-called natural landscapes are in fact managed farmland. Arguably, this process might eventually lead to greater biodiversity, a return to nature, but there are other considerations, such as rural employment, affordable housing, schools, and healthcare provision, which are already under pressure.

Whilst eating more plant-based foods is without doubt a good thing, there seems to be some reluctance to explore two opposing issues. Firstly, that some products are not as healthy as consumer might think in terms of processing and formulation, especially if these products are forming the greater part of the diet and, secondly, the absence or reduced bioavailability of some micronutrients. Many Europeans are already living with micronutrient deficiencies, impacting their health, whether they know it or not. B12 can only be sourced from animal-based foods, unless plant-based products are fortified, but consumers want products to be less processed, so does that mean supplements instead? Similarly, the form of iron in plant-based foods is not as bioavailable as that found in meat, and plant-based foods contain more anti-nutrients that inhibit uptake certain nutrients including iron. Most women of childbearing age in Europe have low iron or are anaemic. Do they need to be told to take supplements, or will products be fortified regardless of need across the wider population? More plant-based eating is a good thing, but rural communities are important too, and health issues do not begin with cancer and cardiovascular disease, even if that is where they end prematurely.