Towards Healthy Planet Diets—A Transdisciplinary Approach to Food Sustainability Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have responded to each of my comments in a thoughtful and detailed manner. I understand this was no small task; their willingness and openness to taking into consideration the feedback is much appreciated.

I believe the paper is much-improved, and ready for publication minus a few minor corrections outlined below:

Line 206: “Ample (pre)clinical studies point out to a role for obesity in low-grade inflammation” – should read “point out a role for” or “point to a role”

Line 302: “traditional food cultures that have [their] own definitions of healthy food”

Line 494 “Our research agenda hereby will follow the definition of Johnston et al. (2014) on sustainable diet[s] promoting environmental and economic stability, with afforadable [affordable] and accesible [accessible] food and public health.”  Should "diet" be plural?

Author Response

Dear Editor

 

Thank you for sending this so quickly to the reviewers and reviewers, thank you for your fast response.

 

Reviewer 1: 

The authors have responded to each of my comments in a thoughtful and detailed manner. I understand this was no small task; their willingness and openness to taking into consideration the feedback is much appreciated.

I believe the paper is much-improved, and ready for publication minus a few minor corrections outlined below:

 

Thank you

 

Line 206: “Ample (pre)clinical studies point out to a role for obesity in low-grade inflammation” – should read “point out a role for” or “point to a role”

 

I think that the reviewer means L235 (in version with track changes). We deleted to

 

Line 302: “traditional food cultures that have [their] own definitions of healthy food”

 

L 415: we added their

 

Line 494 “Our research agenda hereby will follow the definition of Johnston et al. (2014) on sustainable diet[s] promoting environmental and economic stability, with afforadable [affordable] and accesible [accessible] food and public health.”  Should "diet" be plural?

 

L724: yes indeed, we have changed it to plural (diets)

 

 

Reviewer 2:

I think the comments ave been replied in an appropriate manner.  Thank you.

 

Finally we realize we forgot an acknowledgement:

 

Acknowledgement:

All authors participate in Future Food Utrecht, Pathways to Sustainability, one of the strategic themes of the Utrecht University. Future Food offers a platform for scientists and external stakeholders on which they contribute to the transition of the food chain for a sustainable world, by means of unique transdisciplinary research and education, see https://www.uu.nl/en/research/future-food-utrecht

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the comments ave been replied in an appropriate manner.  Thank you. 

Author Response

Dear Editor

 

Thank you for sending this so quickly to the reviewers and reviewers, thank you for your fast response.

 

Reviewer 1: 

The authors have responded to each of my comments in a thoughtful and detailed manner. I understand this was no small task; their willingness and openness to taking into consideration the feedback is much appreciated.

I believe the paper is much-improved, and ready for publication minus a few minor corrections outlined below:

 

Thank you

 

Line 206: “Ample (pre)clinical studies point out to a role for obesity in low-grade inflammation” – should read “point out a role for” or “point to a role”

 

I think that the reviewer means L235 (in version with track changes). We deleted to

 

Line 302: “traditional food cultures that have [their] own definitions of healthy food”

 

L 415: we added their

 

Line 494 “Our research agenda hereby will follow the definition of Johnston et al. (2014) on sustainable diet[s] promoting environmental and economic stability, with afforadable [affordable] and accesible [accessible] food and public health.”  Should "diet" be plural?

 

L724: yes indeed, we have changed it to plural (diets)

 

 

Reviewer 2:

I think the comments ave been replied in an appropriate manner.  Thank you.

 

Finally we realize we forgot an acknowledgement:

 

Acknowledgement:

All authors participate in Future Food Utrecht, Pathways to Sustainability, one of the strategic themes of the Utrecht University. Future Food offers a platform for scientists and external stakeholders on which they contribute to the transition of the food chain for a sustainable world, by means of unique transdisciplinary research and education, see https://www.uu.nl/en/research/future-food-utrecht

 

 

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall this paper provides a timely intervention on the importance of integrated and systems-based approaches to challenges facing our food system, and propose an interesting approach for engaging in transdisciplinary research in collaboration with diverse stakeholders. The authors’ desire to incorporate both social science and natural science perspectives is laudable, as this is not an easy feat. 

There are two main issues that I believe need to be addressed before this paper can proceed to publication:

1) A stronger engagement with the existing literature on integrated food systems and food policy, as well as literature to support claims made within each identified research area.

While the authors provide a few examples of approaches they find limiting, there is a whole literature on food systems approaches which seeks to incorporate and integrate various elements and considerations of food provisioning. A stronger framing and foundation in the existing literature, particular those which articulate integrated approaches to food systems and food policy, would enable the authors to more clearly articulate how their approach differs from others. For instance, the IPES-FOOD reports, literature on “wicked problems” requiring a systems-based approach (Battie 2008, Candel et al 2015), integrated food policy (Candel and Pereira 2017, more recent work from Lang, McRae’s work on joined-up food policy, MacRae and Winfield 2016).

In addition to the literature relevant to integrated or systems-based approach to food, there are numerous instances within the body of the paper where claims are made, in passing, without reference to supporting research or literature. Taken as a whole, this does not give the reader confidence that the authors are speaking from a place of authority on these issues. I understand that this is a challenge given the wide scope of the framework presented, and the piece as a whole, but I found there were just too many instances where references were needed, but missing. Several suggestions of where the authors could bolster claims are below:

-the two claims in the two first sentences in 2.1 should have references to support them
-the claim at the end of paragraph 2 and claims made in paragraph 3 on page 4 also require supporting references from the literatures.
-line 9 of first paragraph of page 8 – this claim requires a supporting reference.
-first line of 2^nd paragraph of page 8 – claim requires supporting references.
-bottom of page 8 – definition of food security should be referenced. 
-line 6-7 of first paragraph of page 9 – claim requires supporting reference
-2^nd paragraph of page 9 – multiple claims without supporting references.

A more substantial instance is in Section 3- where the authors outline an interest in research that engages with non-academic stakeholders (community, industry, NGOs, governments etc). These points would be stronger if the authors engaged with the considerable literature within this area- such as public science, citizen science, community-academic collaboration, community-based research etc. (in particular, as food studies and food systems research have a strong history of community-academic collaboration).

The challenge in outlining an integrated food systems approach is that you are attempting to cover several broad areas of study – each of which have their own nuanced debates and analysis. The vast scope makes it incredibly difficult to engage in any depth on any of the issues and areas discussed. For instance, the section on nature-inspired or nature-based production systems speaks to a diverse set of literatures and issues. For instance, the framing of organic, economic and agroecology are not synonymous. Greater precision within each of the research areas, or acknowledgement of the nuances with them, would strengthen the overall arguments.

2) Stronger narrative and overall framing to the article

The paper could benefit to a stronger framing at the outset, which would provide a clearer narrative to connect each of the 4 research areas under discussion, and provide greater precision as to its contribution to the literature. If the proposal is, broadly, that we need an integrative approach to food systems that incorporates sustainability, health, justice and culture – then I’m not clear what the contribution is, as this is something that is already well articulated in the food systems literature. However, if the authors were more explicit in their framing, for instance, that their approach is focused on ‘developing innovative transdisciplinary solutions to the many challenges facing future food systems, in collaboration and co-creation with diverse stakeholders’; then this becomes more interesting. Some of this framing comes out in the conclusion – I would suggest introducing this more clearly in the beginning, and then returning to it in the conclusion.  For instance on page 10, the authors explain their intention to provide a “platform for scientists and external stakeholders where they can contribute to the transition in the food chain.” This would be useful to explain at the outset of the paper, and provide additional details on what is meant here – is this a virtual platform, an online community, a way in which they are approaching research projects? If this has already been created, how has this vision and platform been operationalized? What have the impacts or benefits been? This type of information would help to contextualize and further frame the content of the article. 

Related to this, in the beginning of section 3 (pg. 10) the authors write that “our vision is to merge fundamental research related to innovations for future food in terms of production, behavior, and health.” However, the framework, as presented, does not illustrate how the considerations of production, behaviour and health could and should be merged – rather they are represented as discreet areas of investigation. It’s not clear is how the four areas identified can, or should, interact with another. Much of the literature on food systems highlights the importance of not just naming various considerations, but actually identifying how they can, and should work together and inform one another. For instance, there is interesting work around the concept of sustainable diets – bridging conversations around health and sustainability in food (see for instance FAO 2016, Food Climate Research Network 2014, Johnston et al 2014).

Additional Comments:

Section 2.1

-part of the discussion is premised on the need to increase yields per unit – a claim that needs to be first articulated and referenced.  As the authors note, problems in food distribution and food waste considerably distort our understandings of the required food supply.  Based on the arguments and evidence provided in the article, I’m not convinced that increasing yields is a necessary pre-condition for agro-ecologic systems. 

 

Section 2.2

- I would advise the authors to use a different term than “overweight” to describe dietary-related health issues – in response to critiques within the literature (see for instance Monaghan et al 2013 and the entire Critical Public Health Journal Issue 23, No. 3 2013, or Rich and Evans (2005) – in Social Theory and Health); or at the very least acknowledge the complexities and limitations of medically-based concepts such as overweight or obesity.

-It is unclear what is meant by “innovative food and feed concepts” – is innovation understood here in purely technical terms, or also as a social and political process?

-the reference to a “Sustainable Immune Fitness Lab” in the middle of page 7 is confusing – what is meant by this? Is this an existing project the authors are planning to undertake, or something in existence?

 

Section 2.3

-culture and food traditions is presented as something to be overcome, rather than an acknowledgement of the cultural importance held by food, particularly for many marginalized and/or Indigenous communities.  I would encourage the authors to consider a more nuanced approach that explores how culture shapes, and is shaped by, notions of health and sustainability. 

 

Section 2.4

-I’m curious as to why the authors selected the concept of food security in reference to food fairness – as opposed to food justice or food sovereignty – both of which provide more of a systems-based or integrated approach (food security is most often operationalized in relation to consumption).  The last sentence on page 8 – referring to the unequal distribution of risks and benefits of food systems is precisely what food justice speaks to (See Gottlieb and Joshi 2010). Similarly, in the discussion of the disproportionate distribution of the negative environmental impacts of our food system, here again, food justice would provide a useful framing.

-the authors claim near the end of the 1^st paragraph of page 9 – that “the core of the problem tends to be poor people's access to available food” – much of the food security literature is critical of the framing of “access” emphasizing that it is not a question of accessibility or availability, but a lack of resources (income or social assistance etc). If this is what the authors mean to reference, I would encourage a qualification of the use of “access” here. 

 

Organization/Structure

-If the intention is to use the SDGs as an important reference for achieving sustainable food systems, it would be useful to integrate them into the four research areas and questions articulated, rather than speak to them briefly at the end of the paper. How will the selected SDGs be addressed through this research agenda? I would then suggest that the authors include the SDGs in their overall framing at the outset, which again, would help to contextualize and position their contribution to the literature. 

-the discussion of Willet et al (2019)/EAT Lancet in the second paragraph of the Conclusions (pg 11) would be better placed near the beginning, where the authors reference other approaches and their limitations. 

-I’m not convinced of the utility of the series of questions posed at the end of each research area. They read off as a laundry list of areas of inquiry – it’s not clear what should be prioritized, nor what work has already occurred in these areas (which in many cases is substantial); or what precisely will be achieved by answering these questions. I would also encourage the authors to review the questions to achieve greater consistently in scope (some are rather specific, while others question broad).  Section 2.3 does not really have a list of questions, just a list of areas of research within cultural studies of food.

 

Comments on terminology

-it would be useful for the authors to define how they understand sustainability

-greater consistency in terminology – in section 2.1 use terminology of nature-inspired and nature-inclusive, as well as agro-ecological.

 

Minor grammar/copyediting points:

-in the abstract – “truly sustainability” – this should either be “truly sustainable” or “true sustainability”

-line 8 of the first paragraph of the introduction, there is a comma missing between “sustainable” and “illustrated”

-middle of page 2, 2^nd last paragraph (line 20), there should be comms before and after “for instance”

-the last paragraph on page two (beginning with “Universities and research institute) might fit better as the opening paragraph of the paper (or parts of it)? Just a suggestion.

-first bullet point at the bottom of page 7, should be “How do we assess THE health-promoting effects of nutritional concepts on immune resilience in humans and livestock usING standardized controlled protocols, with kinetic read out?”

-line 3 of the last paragraph of page 7, the word “also” should come after “patterns of food consumption”

-last sentence of first paragraph on page 8, “also” should come before, not after, “create”

-line 5 of 2^nd paragraph on page 8 is missing a closing parenthesis.

-line 7 of the 1^st paragraph on page 9 – should be “market” not “marker” and there is a period missing after “market”

-line 12 of first paragraph of page 9 – should be increaseD production

-last line of section 3, should be “non-commercial communities SUCH as Immunowell”

-second line in Section 4, “often” should be after, not before the world “are”

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

We are very pleased with the reviewer comments and your positive response for potential publication in the journal Challenges. Below you find our responses to the reviewer comments:

 

 

Referee 2

1. Overall this paper provides a timely intervention on the importance of integrated and systems-based approaches to challenges facing our food system, and propose an interesting approach for engaging in transdisciplinary research in collaboration with diverse stakeholders. The authors’ desire to incorporate both social science and natural science perspectives is laudable, as this is not an easy feat. 

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed it is our belief that solutions for future food can only be found by integrating the social and natural science perspectives. Co-authors are affiliated with totally different faculties, with own disciplines, which indeed makes it challenging but highly urgent.

 

2. There are two main issues that I believe need to be addressed before this paper can proceed to publication:

 

A stronger engagement with the existing literature on integrated food systems and food policy, as well as literature to support claims made within each identified research area. While the authors provide a few examples of approaches they find limiting, there is a whole literature on food systems approaches which seeks to incorporate and integrate various elements and considerations of food provisioning. A stronger framing and foundation in the existing literature, particular those which articulate integrated approaches to food systems and food policy, would enable the authors to more clearly articulate how their approach differs from others. For instance, the IPES-FOOD reports, literature on “wicked problems” requiring a systems-based approach (Battie 2008, Candel et al 2015), integrated food policy (Candel and Pereira 2017, more recent work from Lang, McRae’s work on joined-up food policy, MacRae and Winfield 2016).

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed the grand challenge of future food is already been analysed by many other research groups with different visions. We therefore included the following paragraph in the introduction:

We realize that the grand challenge of future food is a wicked problem (Batie, 2008), due to interrelations with other economic or social problems, the limiting availability of natural resources and the rapidly changing economic, social and environmental conditions (Candel et al., 2016). Further, an integrated food policy is often lacking as it calls for integration of health promotion and environmental sustainability (MacRae and Winfield, 2016).

In chapter 4, how future food will impact SDGs, we have included the work from IPES-FOOD:

A fundamental change of direction is required to put the food system to a sustainable course (IPES Food, 2017). Until now current responses from public policy to private sector are all failing (IPES Food, 2017). We believe that integrated future food research can contribute to the wicked-problems by using the SDG framework and focusing on a truly transdisciplinary approach.

 

In addition to the literature relevant to integrated or systems-based approach to food, there are numerous instances within the body of the paper where claims are made, in passing, without reference to supporting research or literature. Taken as a whole, this does not give the reader confidence that the authors are speaking from a place of authority on these issues. I understand that this is a challenge given the wide scope of the framework presented, and the piece as a whole, but I found there were just too many instances where references were needed, but missing. Several suggestions of where the authors could bolster claims are below:

 

3. the two claims in the two first sentences in 2.1 should have references to support them

Author response

We agree and added to both sentences the following references:

FAO 2018 reflecting on the increased food security for the global North and Anderson 2010 showing the increased globalization in food and trade.

 

4. the claim at the end of paragraph 2 and claims made in paragraph 3 on page 4 also require supporting references from the literatures.

 

Author response

Instead, agricultural policy embraced the productivist model, and incentivized incremental greening measures within that model, rather than considering alternative models. We’ve added 3 references to support this claim (Duru et al. 2015; Willet et al. 2019; Pe’er et al. 2019)

 

Currently, however, there is renewed interest in considering alternative and more nature-based approaches to food production This is apparent from several local policy documents, as well as the EAT Lancet report and the recently published EU Farm to Fork strategy. We’ve added references to the latter.

 

Although we know that this statement is acknowledged in confidential corporate strategy documents of several large value chain parties and financial institutions, we were unable to support the statement with publicly accessible references. On a broader level, however, the lack of sustainability as a core value of the current agricultural system (including fairness principles), however, is acknowledged to form a risk to continuity by several world leading food companies. We have therefore changed this sentence to:

 

 “by the observation that the lack of sustainability as a core value in the current agricultural system  poses a risk to the continuity of the vested interests in the current food system, both in terms of access to raw materials as well as financial return on investment”

 

and supported this with references to two corporate documents on this issue (Dalberg & Wageningen UR 2018; OP2B 2019).

 

 

5. line 9 of first paragraph of page 8 – this claim requires a supporting reference

Author response

We added the following references:

Branca et al. 2007 and Vandevijvere et al. 2019

 

6. first line of 2^ndparagraph of page 8 – claim requires supporting references.

Author response

We added the following references:

Mazzocchi et al. 2008; Popkin 2004

 

 

 

7. bottom of page 8 – definition of food security should be referenced. 

Author response

We define food security as the ability to access sufficient, safe, healthy and nutritious food (FAO, 2018)

Now the sentence reads:

Starting with the material dimension, we posit that achieving food security, referred to as the ability to access sufficient, safe, healthy and nutritious food (FAO, 2018) is the primary material concern (see also Kalfagianni, 2014)

 

 

 

8. line 6-7 of first paragraph of page 9 – claim requires supporting

Author response

We added the following references:

Fuchs et al. 2011

 

 

 

9. 2^ndparagraph of page 9 – multiple claims without supporting references.

DONE but other contributing authors to this section should also add their references.

 

 

Author response

We added the following references:

Actionaid 2005;

Alkon and Agyeman 2011

Kalfagianni and Skordili, 2018

 

 

• A more substantial instance is in Section 3- where the authors outline an interest in research that engages with non-academic stakeholders (community, industry, NGOs, governments etc). These points would be stronger if the authors engaged with the considerable literature within this area- such as public science, citizen science, community-academic collaboration, community-based research etc. (in particular, as food studies and food systems research have a strong history of community-academic collaboration).

 

Author response

Thank you and indeed we agree fully on this and added the following paragraphs to section 3, with new literature citations linking it to the transdisciplinary research theme in a variety of possible ways of engagements. The new paragraphs in section 3 now read:

 

Such transdisciplinary community-academia collaborations, and community-based research initiatives are increasingly recognized as significant societal movements shaping sustainable transition pathways in food studies. Examples of such localised, citizens- or community-based research are local food communities (Grasseni, 2014; Kirwan et al., 2013), makerspaces (Smith, 2017) and community-supported agriculture (Van Oers et al., 2018). These community-based research activities share specific intrinsic and diffusion challenges regarding social needs and ideological commitment, scaling up, risk aversion and institutional challenges (Seyfang and Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2014). Rooted in a discontent with, or disbelief in conventional systems of food provision, grassroots organisations typically provide protected spaces that shelter alternative forms of social and economic life (Hargreaves et al., 2013; Seyfang and Longhurst, 2016). In their position outside the market-based economy of food provision, grassroots communities offer “visions of radical transition pathways and mobilise marginalised values, organisational forms and institutional logics” (Martin et al., 2015). The network of interactions in terms of sustainability, food production, food behavior and fairness and health is complex, involving multi-stakeholder interactions between researchers, policy makers and societal stakeholders. Previous sources published interesting work around the concept of ‘sustainable healthy diets’ as a briding devise, an inclusive approach around health and sustainability discussions  in food (e.g. FAO and WHO, 2019; Foley et al., 2011; Garnett, 2014).

To address emerging opportunities and challenges of future food and to merge fundamental research related to innovation for future food in terms of production, behavior and health, stakeholders in academia, public policy, civil society and private sector from all fields, especially in climate change, environment, nutrition and food research, economics, psychology, behavioral change, anthropology, and health and agriculture should interact and co-create.

Co-creation is defined as the cooperation of multiple actors in a creative process, working together in networks and aligning a variety of ideas, expertise and interests (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).  In co-creating platforms for interaction and sharing information and practices, the preferences and trade-offs of the different transdisciplinary stakeholders involved could be taken into account, reflecting their values, tradition, history, politics and culture (Johnston et al., 2014). In order to promote such transdisciplinary multi-stakeholder interactions to make healthy planet diets available, accessible, affordable, safe and desirable (culturally acceptable), the current food system changes could be guided by the following (inter)actions:

1. Co-creating an enabling environment through government mechanisms and (dis)incentives, legal frameworks and regulatory instruments to promote production and consumption of healthy planet diets (based on FAO and WHO, 2019);
2. Ensuring policy coherence by aligning policies across all sectors (from agriculture to health, education, environment, water, trade etc), from local to regional, national to international level, and discussing with all societal stakeholders (FAO and WHO, 2019);
3. Developing context-specific healthy planet diets taking into account social, cultural, economic and ecological circumstances (FAO and WHO, 2019);
4. Engaging in transdisciplinary participatory design processes to develop systemic instruments, that is, a set of aligned interventions that collectively aim to tackle food sustainability challenges and that are likely to accelerate the transition to sustainable healthy diets. These instruments are based on co-creation of multiple stakeholders involved in healthy planet diets developments beyond the level of individual organisations, as a source of experiential knowledge and as co-developers of food innovations, developing new functions for technologies, solving unforeseen problems, and proposing or even developing innovative solutions (Boon et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2016; von Hippel, 2005).

 

 

 

• The challenge in outlining an integrated food systems approach is that you are attempting to cover several broad areas of study – each of which have their own nuanced debates and analysis. The vast scope makes it incredibly difficult to engage in any depth on any of the issues and areas discussed. For instance, the section on nature-inspired or nature-based production systems speaks to a diverse set of literatures and issues. For instance, the framing of organic, economic and agroecology are not synonymous. Greater precision within each of the research areas, or acknowledgement of the nuances with them, would strengthen the overall arguments.

 

Author response

We agree that it is important to be as precise as possible in framing different terminologies from the different disciplines. In all sections we have included references to support the definitions.

 

 

• 2) Stronger narrative and overall framing to the article

The paper could benefit to a stronger framing at the outset, which would provide a clearer narrative to connect each of the 4 research areas under discussion, and provide greater precision as to its contribution to the literature. If the proposal is, broadly, that we need an integrative approach to food systems that incorporates sustainability, health, justice and culture – then I’m not clear what the contribution is, as this is something that is already well articulated in the food systems literature. However, if the authors were more explicit in their framing, for instance, that their approach is focused on ‘developing innovative transdisciplinary solutions to the many challenges facing future food systems, in collaboration and co-creation with diverse stakeholders’; then this becomes more interesting.

 

 

Author response

We agree that the framing and uniqueness of this approach compared to other approaches need to be highlighted better and therefore we focused and adapted the introduction chapter by integrating our approach better to other existing frameworks and focusing more on the uniqueness of the approach which is transdisciplinary research and co-creation and focusing on integrated approaches in the context of SDGs.

 

New paragraphs in the introduction are:

 

Further a sustainable diet promote environmental and economic stability through low-impact and affordable, accessible foods, while supporting public health through adequate nutrition.  Importantly, sustainable diets help promote sovereignty and preserve tradition involving culturally sensitive and acceptable foods (Johnston et al., 2014).

 

We realize that the grand challenge of future food is a wicked problem (Batie, 2008), due to interrelations with other economic or social problems, the limiting availability of natural resources and the rapidly changing economic, social and environmental conditions (Candel et al., 2016). Further, an integrated food policy is often lacking as it calls for integration of health promotion and environmental sustainability (MacRae and Winfield, 2016). Future projections often are for a horizon of 50 years or more, as current trends can evolve unexpectedly. Therefore, a large variety of different solutions should be analysed (Raskin et al., 2005). A common approach is to use scenarios, in which multiple futures can be analysed. Currently a wide-set of model-based scenarios has been provided as basis for decision-making on climate change (van Vuuren et al., 2011) and on sustainable resource use including food and water (Van Vuuren et al., 2019). However, there is an urgent need for new scenarios that provide a basis to ensure decent living conditions for all, which are reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 aiming for such a balance in 2030.

 

In this position paper, we will discuss our ideas regarding food sustainability and healthy planet diets specifically aiming to transdisciplinary-oriented approaches by connecting scientists to industry, government and society by using co-creation and finally evaluate the solutions in the context of the Sustainable Development goals.

 

Further we have changed section 3 (besides a better explaining on co-creation), by adding a better narrative on how transdisciplinary and co-creation can work for future food and added a new table on Transdisciplinary Research.

 

Finally we have added new paragraphs in section 4 how future food can impact SDGs and give an example how this co-creation works and how it links to SDGs.

 

 

 

• Some of this framing comes out in the conclusion – I would suggest introducing this more clearly in the beginning, and then returning to it in the conclusion.  For instance on page 10, the authors explain their intention to provide a “platform for scientists and external stakeholders where they can contribute to the transition in the food chain.” This would be useful to explain at the outset of the paper, and provide additional details on what is meant here – is this a virtual platform, an online community, a way in which they are approaching research projects? If this has already been created, how has this vision and platform been operationalized? What have the impacts or benefits been? This type of information would help to contextualize and further frame the content of the article. 

 

 

 

Author response

Thank you. As you can see we have changed the structure of the paper (see points 10-12).

 

 

14. Related to this, in the beginning of section 3 (pg. 10) the authors write that “our vision is to merge fundamental research related to innovations for future food in terms of production, behavior, and health.” However, the framework, as presented, does not illustrate how the considerations of production, behaviour and health could and should be merged – rather they are represented as discreet areas of investigation.

 

Author response

Thank you. We now have clearly formulated the approaches in section 3, and added the following paragraph:

The network of interactions in terms of sustainability, food production, food behavior and fairness and health is complex, involving multi-stakeholder interactions between researchers, policy makers and societal stakeholders. Previous sources published interesting work around the concept of ‘sustainable healthy diets’ as a briding devise, an inclusive approach around health and sustainability discussions  in food (e.g. FAO and WHO, 2019; Foley et al., 2011; Garnett, 2014).

 

• It’s not clear is how the four areas identified can, or should, interact with another. Much of the literature on food systems highlights the importance of not just naming various considerations, but actually identifying how they can, and should work together and inform one another. For instance, there is interesting work around the concept of sustainable diets – bridging conversations around health and sustainability in food (see for instance FAO 2016, Food Climate Research Network 2014, Johnston et al 2014).

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed we have now make the connections of co-creation with existing frameworks in order to promote transdisciplinary interactions in section 4. The new paragraph now reads:

 

To address emerging opportunities and challenges of future food and to merge fundamental research related to innovation for future food in terms of production, behavior and health, stakeholders in academia, public policy, civil society and private sector from all fields, especially in climate change, environment, nutrition and food research, economics, psychology, behavioral change, anthropology, and health and agriculture should interact and co-create.

Co-creation is defined as the cooperation of multiple actors in a creative process, working together in networks and aligning a variety of ideas, expertise and interests (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).  In co-creating platforms for interaction and sharing information and practices, the preferences and trade-offs of the different transdisciplinary stakeholders involved could be taken into account, reflecting their values, tradition, history, politics and culture (Johnston et al., 2014). In order to promote such transdisciplinary multi-stakeholder interactions to make healthy planet diets available, accessible, affordable, safe and desirable (culturally acceptable), the current food system changes could be guided by the following (inter)actions:

1. Co-creating an enabling environment through government mechanisms and (dis)incentives, legal frameworks and regulatory instruments to promote production and consumption of healthy planet diets (based on FAO and WHO, 2019);
2. Ensuring policy coherence by aligning policies across all sectors (from agriculture to health, education, environment, water, trade etc), from local to regional, national to international level, and discussing with all societal stakeholders (FAO and WHO, 2019);
3. Developing context-specific healthy planet diets taking into account social, cultural, economic and ecological circumstances (FAO and WHO, 2019);
   1. Engaging in transdisciplinary participatory design processes to develop systemic instruments, that is, a set of aligned interventions that collectively aim to tackle food sustainability challenges and that are likely to accelerate the transition to sustainable healthy diets. These instruments are based on co-creation of multiple stakeholders involved in healthy planet diets developments beyond the level of individual organisations, as a source of experiential knowledge and as co-developers of food innovations, developing new functions for technologies, solving unforeseen problems, and proposing or even developing innovative solutions (Boon et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2016; von Hippel, 2005).

 

Additional Comments

 

• part of the discussion is premised on the need to increase yields per unit – a claim that needs to be first articulated and referenced.

 

We have added 2 references that offer reviews of yield gap studies and the articulation (and critical discussion) of the yield gap issue (Ponisio and Ehrlich 2016 and Wilbois & Schmidt 2019).

 

 

And

 

As the authors note, problems in food distribution and food waste considerably distort our understandings of the required food supply.  Based on the arguments and evidence provided in the article, I’m not convinced that increasing yields is a necessary pre-condition for agro-ecologic systems. 

 

  

Author response

We agree that indeed it is not a given that yield gaps exist between agro-ecological and conventional approaches, as we argue in the manuscript. We note, however, that the discussion about food security and directions for (sustainable) intensification is still ongoing, and is indeed convoluted by arguments about fair distribution and reducing waste, confusion about the global food production versus local needs, contrasting observations on the presence or absence of yield gaps between agro-ecological approaches as well as a neglect of interdependency between sharing and sparing approaches. Reviewing this discussion and the value of the various arguments, however, would constitute a whole paper in itself. For the sake of clarity and brevity, we have left the arguments for and against as they were in the original manuscript, have added critical reviews of these claims (see above), and now note that new nature inspired production methods are being developed either to improve yields where yield gaps occur and have added that these new techniques also aim to prevent losses due to pests and global change impacts. Specifically, we now state:

In any case, new, nature-inspired enhancements to food production are being developed that could further increase yields per unit area in agro-ecological systems, thereby closing yield gaps between agro-ecological and conventional approaches where necessary and that can increase the resilience of agro-ecosystems to prevent losses to pests and increased environmental variability due to global change.

 

 

• Section 2.2: - I would advise the authors to use a different term than “overweight” to describe dietary-related health issues – in response to critiques within the literature (see for instance Monaghan et al 2013 and the entire Critical Public Health Journal Issue 23, No. 3 2013, or Rich and Evans (2005) – in Social Theory and Health); or at the very least acknowledge the complexities and limitations of medically-based concepts such as overweight or obesity.

 

Author response

Thank you. We disagree with the common research and policy emphasis on body size/weight/fatness as a proxy for health as well as the assumption that diet and/or physical activity unequivocally explain trends in obesity regardless of other possible contributors (e.g. endocrine disruptors, sleep debt, smoking cessation and side effects from medicines) (see Keith et al. 2006), as discussed in Monaghan et al. 2013. Specifically, we question the assertion of a causal link within dominant obesity discourse, often made on the basis of correlations rather than causal pathways, and we acknowledge that measures such as the Body Mass Index (BMI) are notoriously unreliable. We have removed the word obesity and changed the paragraph accordingly

We have changed the paragraph accordingly

The relation between food and health is visible in societies around the world. In developed countries the occurrence of obesity (defined by WHO as abnormnal and excessive fat accumulation) that may impair health and possible related incidence of non-communicable diseases is increasing. Ample (pre)clinical studies point out to a role for obesity in low-grade inflammation, derailed immune response and the development of non-communicable diseases (for recent reviews see: (Frasca and Blomberg, 2020; Keane et al., 2017)). Though unhealthy food  consumption  and overconsumption-induced obesity, even normal weight obesity, are suggested to be the major contributor to the increased prevalence of  non-communicable diseases other more complex societal factors might also be involved (Maejima et al., 2020; Monaghan et al., 2013).

 

 

• It is unclear what is meant by “innovative food and feed concepts” – is innovation understood here in purely technical terms, or also as a social and political process?

Author response

We have changed the wording in ‘health-improving food and feed concepts’ and explained that these concepts consist of healthy and sustainable ingredients

 

 

 

• the reference to a “Sustainable Immune Fitness Lab” in the middle of page 7 is confusing – what is meant by this? Is this an existing project the authors are planning to undertake, or something in existence?

 

Author response

We have made a new box (Box 1: Sustainable Immune Fitness Lab”) in which we added the most important future challenges to study the effects of sustainable and healthy food concepts on human immune resilence. Here improve immune resilience means and improved immune fitness

 

 

 

20. Section 2.3: culture and food traditions is presented as something to be overcome, rather than an acknowledgement of the cultural importance held by food, particularly for many marginalized and/or Indigenous communities.  I would encourage the authors to consider a more nuanced approach that explores how culture shapes, and is shaped by, notions of health and sustainability

 

Author response

We agree and added a few new references. We also changed the following text and added:

 

To most traditional food cultures that have own definitions of healthy food.

 

Diets in the industrialized world have (been) changed fundamentally, neoliberal governments are reluctant to regulate the industry and to restrict consumers' choices. We need to realize that diets are rooted in long-standing cultural or religious traditions and therefore are 'very personal' (Mazzocchi et al., 2008; Popkin, 2004).

 

• Section 2.4” -I’m curious as to why the authors selected the concept of food security in reference to food fairness – as opposed to food justice or food sovereignty – both of which provide more of a systems-based or integrated approach (food security is most often operationalized in relation to consumption). 

Author response

We are using a multidimensional concept of food fairness: material, political, social and environmental. In our view, the material dimension is first and foremost about being able to have access to safe and nutritious food, i.e. food security. We don’t see food security as something that refers only to consumers. Rather it is important for all human beings. Food sovereignty may be a precondition for food security for some producers but the goal itself is food security. We are now clarifying this in this section and now reads:

 

There is an extensive literature on questions of fairness and justice in the food system today (e.g. Alkon and Agyeman, 2011; Gottlieb and Joshi, 2010; Guthman, 2011; Nicholls, 2010). Focusing on questions of access, distribution as well as recognition of identity and culture this literature offers a compelling articulation of fairness particularly as this is expressed by the experiences of the most vulnerable and marginalized (see also Schlosberg, 2004). Instead of focusing on a single dimension, here we understand food fairness as a multidimensional concept that covers the material as well as political, social and environmental dimensions of life (Kalfagianni, 2014). This multidimensional understanding of fairness is also supported by the broader environmental justice literature, which argues that both the theory and practice of fairness and justice need to embrace the diverse notions that are associated with it (Schlosberg, 2007).

 

 

 

• The last sentence on page 8 – referring to the unequal distribution of risks and benefits of food systems is precisely what food justice speaks to (See Gottlieb and Joshi 2010). Similarly, in the discussion of the disproportionate distribution of the negative environmental impacts of our food system, here again, food justice would provide a useful framing.

 

Author response

We agree but we are using a broader concept of food justice to which we refer as food fairness. However, we add the Gottlieb and Joshi reference here.

 

 

• the authors claim near the end of the 1^stparagraph of page 9 – that “the core of the problem tends to be poor people's access to available food” – much of the food security literature is critical of the framing of “access” emphasizing that it is not a question of accessibility or availability, but a lack of resources (income or social assistance etc). If this is what the authors mean to reference, I would encourage a qualification of the use of “access” here.

 

Author response

We agree and now it reads:

 

Starting with the material dimension, we posit that achieving food security, referred to as the ability to access sufficient, safe, healthy and nutritious food (FAO, 2018) is the primary material concern (see also Kalfagianni, 2014). Indeed everyone needs food in order to survive before undertaking any other functions in life. However, a key focus of public policy in many countries on food security together with market forces has led to large scale farming, global food chains, and a powerful food industry in the developed countries. In turn, the detrimental environmental and social consequences of large scale farming, the adoption of controversial technologies, and food safety scares have triggered an increasing interest of consumers and policy makers in how food is produced, and who benefits from food purchase (Briggeman and Lusk, 2011). Overall, it becomes increasingly obvious in the material dimension of food fairness that the benefits and disadvantages are not equally distributed among all participants in the global food chain (Gottlieb and Joshi, 2010). In this context, food sovereignty is also emphasized by peasant movements and broader civil society as an important condition to claim ownership of food for food security especially among vulnerable members of the human population (La Via Campesina).

 

Organization/Structure

 

 

• If the intention is to use the SDGs as an important reference for achieving sustainable food systems, it would be useful to integrate them into the four research areas and questions articulated, rather than speak to them briefly at the end of the paper. How will the selected SDGs be addressed through this research agenda? I would then suggest that the authors include the SDGs in their overall framing at the outset, which again, would help to contextualize and position their contribution to the literature. I’m not convinced of the utility of the series of questions posed at the end of each research area. They read off as a laundry list of areas of inquiry – it’s not clear what should be prioritized, nor what work has already occurred in these areas (which in many cases is substantial); or what precisely will be achieved by answering these questions. I would also encourage the authors to review the questions to achieve greater consistently in scope (some are rather specific, while others question broad).  Section 2.3 does not really have a list of questions, just a list of areas of research within cultural studies of food.

 

Author response

We agree and now have changed the structure of the paper (see earlier points) and put our research agenda in the context of the SDG framework. Here we combine the questions from the four different domains and link it to the 12 SDGs

 

 

 

• -the discussion of Willet et al (2019)/EAT Lancet in the second paragraph of the Conclusions (pg 11) would be better placed near the beginning, where the authors reference other approaches and their limitations. 

Author response

By changing the whole structure of the paper, and already introducing Willet et al. in the introduction, we think it is now more clear

 

 

 

 

• it would be useful for the authors to define how they understand sustainability

 

Author response

We now have added the SDGs in the introduction section, so we interpret sustainability in the broader context, not only based on the resource part but also on the social part. See also the paragraph based on the definition by Johnston et al. 2014

 

 

• -greater consistency in terminology – in section 2.1 use terminology of nature-inspired and nature-inclusive, as well as agro-ecological.

Author response

 

We have removed the term ‘nature-inclusive’, because it is not a widely recognized concept internationally. However, we did maintain the term nature-inspired next to agro-ecology, to distinguish between current agro-ecological practices, and new and innovative techniques based on natural processes that are currently being developed to further enhance agro-ecological food production systems.

 

Minor grammar/copyediting points:

 

28. in the abstract – “truly sustainability” – this should either be “truly sustainable” or “true sustainability”  Changed

• line 8 of the first paragraph of the introduction, there is a comma missing between “sustainable” and “illustrated”  Changed

30. middle of page 2, 2^ndlast paragraph (line 20), there should be comms before and after “for instance”  Changed

• the last paragraph on page two (beginning with “Universities and research institute) might fit better as the opening paragraph of the paper (or parts of it)? Just a suggestion.  Thank you, didn’t change it in the new introduction

32. first bullet point at the bottom of page 7, should be “How do we assess THE health-promoting effects of nutritional concepts on immune resilience in humans and livestock usING standardized controlled protocols, with kinetic read out?”  changed

• line 3 of the last paragraph of page 7, the word “also” should come after “patterns of food consumption”  changed
• last sentence of first paragraph on page 8, “also” should come before, not after, “create”  changed
• line 5 of 2^ndparagraph on page 8 is missing a closing parenthesis.
• line 7 of the 1^stparagraph on page 9 – should be “market” not “marker” and there is a period missing after “market”  changed
• line 12 of first paragraph of page 9 – should be increaseD production  changed
• last line of section 3, should be “non-commercial communities SUCH as Immunowell”  changed
• second line in Section 4, “often” should be after, not before the world “are”  changed

 

Reviewer 2:

1. The paper is interdisciplinary and proposes innovative approach to food system transformation. The four key areas are remarkably well defined and elaborated. But the elaboration of the actual platform made by the key areas and potential actions between the them remain indefinite and vague.

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed we agree and have tried to do this within the new box of questions from the four keay areas and how they relate to SDGs. We further have improved the connection from the four themes to the co-creation framework.

 

2. I would propose the authors to take the actual challenge of the presentation (the activity of the proposed platform) more seriously. The value of the paper would improve a lot with the authors' further processing the ideas of the co-creation and transdisciplinary research. A jump directly to FFU scenarios to be developed for assessing impact to SDG:s remain unclear, when connection between key areas and the scenario process has not been described. Now, just some self-evident issues are mentioned under the title co-creation and transdisciplinary research. As such the manuscript is not balanced in terms of science

 

Author response

Thank you. Based on the detailed suggestions from the other reviewer, we think that this is highly improved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interdisciplinary and proposes innovative approach to food system transformation. The four key areas are remarkably well defined and elaborated. But the elaboration of the actual platform made by the key areas and potential actions between the them remain indefinite and vague. I would propose the authors to take the actual challenge of the presentation (the activity of the proposed platform) more seriously. The value of the paper would improve a lot with the authors' further processing the ideas of the co-creation and transdisciplinary research. A jump directly to FFU scenarios to be developed for assessing impact to SDG:s remain unclear, when connection between key areas and the scenario process has not been described. Now, just some self-evident issues are mentioned under the title co-creation and transdisciplinary research. As such the manuscript is not balanced in terms of science. 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

 

We are very pleased with the reviewer comments and your positive response for potential publication in the journal Challenges. Below you find our responses to the reviewer comments:

 

 

Referee 2

1. Overall this paper provides a timely intervention on the importance of integrated and systems-based approaches to challenges facing our food system, and propose an interesting approach for engaging in transdisciplinary research in collaboration with diverse stakeholders. The authors’ desire to incorporate both social science and natural science perspectives is laudable, as this is not an easy feat. 

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed it is our belief that solutions for future food can only be found by integrating the social and natural science perspectives. Co-authors are affiliated with totally different faculties, with own disciplines, which indeed makes it challenging but highly urgent.

 

2. There are two main issues that I believe need to be addressed before this paper can proceed to publication:

 

A stronger engagement with the existing literature on integrated food systems and food policy, as well as literature to support claims made within each identified research area. While the authors provide a few examples of approaches they find limiting, there is a whole literature on food systems approaches which seeks to incorporate and integrate various elements and considerations of food provisioning. A stronger framing and foundation in the existing literature, particular those which articulate integrated approaches to food systems and food policy, would enable the authors to more clearly articulate how their approach differs from others. For instance, the IPES-FOOD reports, literature on “wicked problems” requiring a systems-based approach (Battie 2008, Candel et al 2015), integrated food policy (Candel and Pereira 2017, more recent work from Lang, McRae’s work on joined-up food policy, MacRae and Winfield 2016).

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed the grand challenge of future food is already been analysed by many other research groups with different visions. We therefore included the following paragraph in the introduction:

We realize that the grand challenge of future food is a wicked problem (Batie, 2008), due to interrelations with other economic or social problems, the limiting availability of natural resources and the rapidly changing economic, social and environmental conditions (Candel et al., 2016). Further, an integrated food policy is often lacking as it calls for integration of health promotion and environmental sustainability (MacRae and Winfield, 2016).

In chapter 4, how future food will impact SDGs, we have included the work from IPES-FOOD:

A fundamental change of direction is required to put the food system to a sustainable course (IPES Food, 2017). Until now current responses from public policy to private sector are all failing (IPES Food, 2017). We believe that integrated future food research can contribute to the wicked-problems by using the SDG framework and focusing on a truly transdisciplinary approach.

 

In addition to the literature relevant to integrated or systems-based approach to food, there are numerous instances within the body of the paper where claims are made, in passing, without reference to supporting research or literature. Taken as a whole, this does not give the reader confidence that the authors are speaking from a place of authority on these issues. I understand that this is a challenge given the wide scope of the framework presented, and the piece as a whole, but I found there were just too many instances where references were needed, but missing. Several suggestions of where the authors could bolster claims are below:

 

3. the two claims in the two first sentences in 2.1 should have references to support them

Author response

We agree and added to both sentences the following references:

FAO 2018 reflecting on the increased food security for the global North and Anderson 2010 showing the increased globalization in food and trade.

 

4. the claim at the end of paragraph 2 and claims made in paragraph 3 on page 4 also require supporting references from the literatures.

 

Author response

Instead, agricultural policy embraced the productivist model, and incentivized incremental greening measures within that model, rather than considering alternative models. We’ve added 3 references to support this claim (Duru et al. 2015; Willet et al. 2019; Pe’er et al. 2019)

 

Currently, however, there is renewed interest in considering alternative and more nature-based approaches to food production This is apparent from several local policy documents, as well as the EAT Lancet report and the recently published EU Farm to Fork strategy. We’ve added references to the latter.

 

Although we know that this statement is acknowledged in confidential corporate strategy documents of several large value chain parties and financial institutions, we were unable to support the statement with publicly accessible references. On a broader level, however, the lack of sustainability as a core value of the current agricultural system (including fairness principles), however, is acknowledged to form a risk to continuity by several world leading food companies. We have therefore changed this sentence to:

 

 “by the observation that the lack of sustainability as a core value in the current agricultural system  poses a risk to the continuity of the vested interests in the current food system, both in terms of access to raw materials as well as financial return on investment”

 

and supported this with references to two corporate documents on this issue (Dalberg & Wageningen UR 2018; OP2B 2019).

 

 

5. line 9 of first paragraph of page 8 – this claim requires a supporting reference

Author response

We added the following references:

Branca et al. 2007 and Vandevijvere et al. 2019

 

6. first line of 2^ndparagraph of page 8 – claim requires supporting references.

Author response

We added the following references:

Mazzocchi et al. 2008; Popkin 2004

 

 

 

7. bottom of page 8 – definition of food security should be referenced. 

Author response

We define food security as the ability to access sufficient, safe, healthy and nutritious food (FAO, 2018)

Now the sentence reads:

Starting with the material dimension, we posit that achieving food security, referred to as the ability to access sufficient, safe, healthy and nutritious food (FAO, 2018) is the primary material concern (see also Kalfagianni, 2014)

 

 

 

8. line 6-7 of first paragraph of page 9 – claim requires supporting

Author response

We added the following references:

Fuchs et al. 2011

 

 

 

9. 2^ndparagraph of page 9 – multiple claims without supporting references.

DONE but other contributing authors to this section should also add their references.

 

 

Author response

We added the following references:

Actionaid 2005;

Alkon and Agyeman 2011

Kalfagianni and Skordili, 2018

 

 

• A more substantial instance is in Section 3- where the authors outline an interest in research that engages with non-academic stakeholders (community, industry, NGOs, governments etc). These points would be stronger if the authors engaged with the considerable literature within this area- such as public science, citizen science, community-academic collaboration, community-based research etc. (in particular, as food studies and food systems research have a strong history of community-academic collaboration).

 

Author response

Thank you and indeed we agree fully on this and added the following paragraphs to section 3, with new literature citations linking it to the transdisciplinary research theme in a variety of possible ways of engagements. The new paragraphs in section 3 now read:

 

Such transdisciplinary community-academia collaborations, and community-based research initiatives are increasingly recognized as significant societal movements shaping sustainable transition pathways in food studies. Examples of such localised, citizens- or community-based research are local food communities (Grasseni, 2014; Kirwan et al., 2013), makerspaces (Smith, 2017) and community-supported agriculture (Van Oers et al., 2018). These community-based research activities share specific intrinsic and diffusion challenges regarding social needs and ideological commitment, scaling up, risk aversion and institutional challenges (Seyfang and Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2014). Rooted in a discontent with, or disbelief in conventional systems of food provision, grassroots organisations typically provide protected spaces that shelter alternative forms of social and economic life (Hargreaves et al., 2013; Seyfang and Longhurst, 2016). In their position outside the market-based economy of food provision, grassroots communities offer “visions of radical transition pathways and mobilise marginalised values, organisational forms and institutional logics” (Martin et al., 2015). The network of interactions in terms of sustainability, food production, food behavior and fairness and health is complex, involving multi-stakeholder interactions between researchers, policy makers and societal stakeholders. Previous sources published interesting work around the concept of ‘sustainable healthy diets’ as a briding devise, an inclusive approach around health and sustainability discussions  in food (e.g. FAO and WHO, 2019; Foley et al., 2011; Garnett, 2014).

To address emerging opportunities and challenges of future food and to merge fundamental research related to innovation for future food in terms of production, behavior and health, stakeholders in academia, public policy, civil society and private sector from all fields, especially in climate change, environment, nutrition and food research, economics, psychology, behavioral change, anthropology, and health and agriculture should interact and co-create.

Co-creation is defined as the cooperation of multiple actors in a creative process, working together in networks and aligning a variety of ideas, expertise and interests (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).  In co-creating platforms for interaction and sharing information and practices, the preferences and trade-offs of the different transdisciplinary stakeholders involved could be taken into account, reflecting their values, tradition, history, politics and culture (Johnston et al., 2014). In order to promote such transdisciplinary multi-stakeholder interactions to make healthy planet diets available, accessible, affordable, safe and desirable (culturally acceptable), the current food system changes could be guided by the following (inter)actions:

1. Co-creating an enabling environment through government mechanisms and (dis)incentives, legal frameworks and regulatory instruments to promote production and consumption of healthy planet diets (based on FAO and WHO, 2019);
2. Ensuring policy coherence by aligning policies across all sectors (from agriculture to health, education, environment, water, trade etc), from local to regional, national to international level, and discussing with all societal stakeholders (FAO and WHO, 2019);
3. Developing context-specific healthy planet diets taking into account social, cultural, economic and ecological circumstances (FAO and WHO, 2019);
4. Engaging in transdisciplinary participatory design processes to develop systemic instruments, that is, a set of aligned interventions that collectively aim to tackle food sustainability challenges and that are likely to accelerate the transition to sustainable healthy diets. These instruments are based on co-creation of multiple stakeholders involved in healthy planet diets developments beyond the level of individual organisations, as a source of experiential knowledge and as co-developers of food innovations, developing new functions for technologies, solving unforeseen problems, and proposing or even developing innovative solutions (Boon et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2016; von Hippel, 2005).

 

 

 

• The challenge in outlining an integrated food systems approach is that you are attempting to cover several broad areas of study – each of which have their own nuanced debates and analysis. The vast scope makes it incredibly difficult to engage in any depth on any of the issues and areas discussed. For instance, the section on nature-inspired or nature-based production systems speaks to a diverse set of literatures and issues. For instance, the framing of organic, economic and agroecology are not synonymous. Greater precision within each of the research areas, or acknowledgement of the nuances with them, would strengthen the overall arguments.

 

Author response

We agree that it is important to be as precise as possible in framing different terminologies from the different disciplines. In all sections we have included references to support the definitions.

 

 

• 2) Stronger narrative and overall framing to the article

The paper could benefit to a stronger framing at the outset, which would provide a clearer narrative to connect each of the 4 research areas under discussion, and provide greater precision as to its contribution to the literature. If the proposal is, broadly, that we need an integrative approach to food systems that incorporates sustainability, health, justice and culture – then I’m not clear what the contribution is, as this is something that is already well articulated in the food systems literature. However, if the authors were more explicit in their framing, for instance, that their approach is focused on ‘developing innovative transdisciplinary solutions to the many challenges facing future food systems, in collaboration and co-creation with diverse stakeholders’; then this becomes more interesting.

 

 

Author response

We agree that the framing and uniqueness of this approach compared to other approaches need to be highlighted better and therefore we focused and adapted the introduction chapter by integrating our approach better to other existing frameworks and focusing more on the uniqueness of the approach which is transdisciplinary research and co-creation and focusing on integrated approaches in the context of SDGs.

 

New paragraphs in the introduction are:

 

Further a sustainable diet promote environmental and economic stability through low-impact and affordable, accessible foods, while supporting public health through adequate nutrition.  Importantly, sustainable diets help promote sovereignty and preserve tradition involving culturally sensitive and acceptable foods (Johnston et al., 2014).

 

We realize that the grand challenge of future food is a wicked problem (Batie, 2008), due to interrelations with other economic or social problems, the limiting availability of natural resources and the rapidly changing economic, social and environmental conditions (Candel et al., 2016). Further, an integrated food policy is often lacking as it calls for integration of health promotion and environmental sustainability (MacRae and Winfield, 2016). Future projections often are for a horizon of 50 years or more, as current trends can evolve unexpectedly. Therefore, a large variety of different solutions should be analysed (Raskin et al., 2005). A common approach is to use scenarios, in which multiple futures can be analysed. Currently a wide-set of model-based scenarios has been provided as basis for decision-making on climate change (van Vuuren et al., 2011) and on sustainable resource use including food and water (Van Vuuren et al., 2019). However, there is an urgent need for new scenarios that provide a basis to ensure decent living conditions for all, which are reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 aiming for such a balance in 2030.

 

In this position paper, we will discuss our ideas regarding food sustainability and healthy planet diets specifically aiming to transdisciplinary-oriented approaches by connecting scientists to industry, government and society by using co-creation and finally evaluate the solutions in the context of the Sustainable Development goals.

 

Further we have changed section 3 (besides a better explaining on co-creation), by adding a better narrative on how transdisciplinary and co-creation can work for future food and added a new table on Transdisciplinary Research.

 

Finally we have added new paragraphs in section 4 how future food can impact SDGs and give an example how this co-creation works and how it links to SDGs.

 

 

 

• Some of this framing comes out in the conclusion – I would suggest introducing this more clearly in the beginning, and then returning to it in the conclusion.  For instance on page 10, the authors explain their intention to provide a “platform for scientists and external stakeholders where they can contribute to the transition in the food chain.” This would be useful to explain at the outset of the paper, and provide additional details on what is meant here – is this a virtual platform, an online community, a way in which they are approaching research projects? If this has already been created, how has this vision and platform been operationalized? What have the impacts or benefits been? This type of information would help to contextualize and further frame the content of the article. 

 

 

 

Author response

Thank you. As you can see we have changed the structure of the paper (see points 10-12).

 

 

14. Related to this, in the beginning of section 3 (pg. 10) the authors write that “our vision is to merge fundamental research related to innovations for future food in terms of production, behavior, and health.” However, the framework, as presented, does not illustrate how the considerations of production, behaviour and health could and should be merged – rather they are represented as discreet areas of investigation.

 

Author response

Thank you. We now have clearly formulated the approaches in section 3, and added the following paragraph:

The network of interactions in terms of sustainability, food production, food behavior and fairness and health is complex, involving multi-stakeholder interactions between researchers, policy makers and societal stakeholders. Previous sources published interesting work around the concept of ‘sustainable healthy diets’ as a briding devise, an inclusive approach around health and sustainability discussions  in food (e.g. FAO and WHO, 2019; Foley et al., 2011; Garnett, 2014).

 

• It’s not clear is how the four areas identified can, or should, interact with another. Much of the literature on food systems highlights the importance of not just naming various considerations, but actually identifying how they can, and should work together and inform one another. For instance, there is interesting work around the concept of sustainable diets – bridging conversations around health and sustainability in food (see for instance FAO 2016, Food Climate Research Network 2014, Johnston et al 2014).

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed we have now make the connections of co-creation with existing frameworks in order to promote transdisciplinary interactions in section 4. The new paragraph now reads:

 

To address emerging opportunities and challenges of future food and to merge fundamental research related to innovation for future food in terms of production, behavior and health, stakeholders in academia, public policy, civil society and private sector from all fields, especially in climate change, environment, nutrition and food research, economics, psychology, behavioral change, anthropology, and health and agriculture should interact and co-create.

Co-creation is defined as the cooperation of multiple actors in a creative process, working together in networks and aligning a variety of ideas, expertise and interests (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004).  In co-creating platforms for interaction and sharing information and practices, the preferences and trade-offs of the different transdisciplinary stakeholders involved could be taken into account, reflecting their values, tradition, history, politics and culture (Johnston et al., 2014). In order to promote such transdisciplinary multi-stakeholder interactions to make healthy planet diets available, accessible, affordable, safe and desirable (culturally acceptable), the current food system changes could be guided by the following (inter)actions:

1. Co-creating an enabling environment through government mechanisms and (dis)incentives, legal frameworks and regulatory instruments to promote production and consumption of healthy planet diets (based on FAO and WHO, 2019);
2. Ensuring policy coherence by aligning policies across all sectors (from agriculture to health, education, environment, water, trade etc), from local to regional, national to international level, and discussing with all societal stakeholders (FAO and WHO, 2019);
3. Developing context-specific healthy planet diets taking into account social, cultural, economic and ecological circumstances (FAO and WHO, 2019);
   1. Engaging in transdisciplinary participatory design processes to develop systemic instruments, that is, a set of aligned interventions that collectively aim to tackle food sustainability challenges and that are likely to accelerate the transition to sustainable healthy diets. These instruments are based on co-creation of multiple stakeholders involved in healthy planet diets developments beyond the level of individual organisations, as a source of experiential knowledge and as co-developers of food innovations, developing new functions for technologies, solving unforeseen problems, and proposing or even developing innovative solutions (Boon et al., 2011; de Vries et al., 2016; von Hippel, 2005).

 

Additional Comments

 

• part of the discussion is premised on the need to increase yields per unit – a claim that needs to be first articulated and referenced.

 

We have added 2 references that offer reviews of yield gap studies and the articulation (and critical discussion) of the yield gap issue (Ponisio and Ehrlich 2016 and Wilbois & Schmidt 2019).

 

 

And

 

As the authors note, problems in food distribution and food waste considerably distort our understandings of the required food supply.  Based on the arguments and evidence provided in the article, I’m not convinced that increasing yields is a necessary pre-condition for agro-ecologic systems. 

 

  

Author response

We agree that indeed it is not a given that yield gaps exist between agro-ecological and conventional approaches, as we argue in the manuscript. We note, however, that the discussion about food security and directions for (sustainable) intensification is still ongoing, and is indeed convoluted by arguments about fair distribution and reducing waste, confusion about the global food production versus local needs, contrasting observations on the presence or absence of yield gaps between agro-ecological approaches as well as a neglect of interdependency between sharing and sparing approaches. Reviewing this discussion and the value of the various arguments, however, would constitute a whole paper in itself. For the sake of clarity and brevity, we have left the arguments for and against as they were in the original manuscript, have added critical reviews of these claims (see above), and now note that new nature inspired production methods are being developed either to improve yields where yield gaps occur and have added that these new techniques also aim to prevent losses due to pests and global change impacts. Specifically, we now state:

In any case, new, nature-inspired enhancements to food production are being developed that could further increase yields per unit area in agro-ecological systems, thereby closing yield gaps between agro-ecological and conventional approaches where necessary and that can increase the resilience of agro-ecosystems to prevent losses to pests and increased environmental variability due to global change.

 

 

• Section 2.2: - I would advise the authors to use a different term than “overweight” to describe dietary-related health issues – in response to critiques within the literature (see for instance Monaghan et al 2013 and the entire Critical Public Health Journal Issue 23, No. 3 2013, or Rich and Evans (2005) – in Social Theory and Health); or at the very least acknowledge the complexities and limitations of medically-based concepts such as overweight or obesity.

 

Author response

Thank you. We disagree with the common research and policy emphasis on body size/weight/fatness as a proxy for health as well as the assumption that diet and/or physical activity unequivocally explain trends in obesity regardless of other possible contributors (e.g. endocrine disruptors, sleep debt, smoking cessation and side effects from medicines) (see Keith et al. 2006), as discussed in Monaghan et al. 2013. Specifically, we question the assertion of a causal link within dominant obesity discourse, often made on the basis of correlations rather than causal pathways, and we acknowledge that measures such as the Body Mass Index (BMI) are notoriously unreliable. We have removed the word obesity and changed the paragraph accordingly

We have changed the paragraph accordingly

The relation between food and health is visible in societies around the world. In developed countries the occurrence of obesity (defined by WHO as abnormnal and excessive fat accumulation) that may impair health and possible related incidence of non-communicable diseases is increasing. Ample (pre)clinical studies point out to a role for obesity in low-grade inflammation, derailed immune response and the development of non-communicable diseases (for recent reviews see: (Frasca and Blomberg, 2020; Keane et al., 2017)). Though unhealthy food  consumption  and overconsumption-induced obesity, even normal weight obesity, are suggested to be the major contributor to the increased prevalence of  non-communicable diseases other more complex societal factors might also be involved (Maejima et al., 2020; Monaghan et al., 2013).

 

 

• It is unclear what is meant by “innovative food and feed concepts” – is innovation understood here in purely technical terms, or also as a social and political process?

Author response

We have changed the wording in ‘health-improving food and feed concepts’ and explained that these concepts consist of healthy and sustainable ingredients

 

 

 

• the reference to a “Sustainable Immune Fitness Lab” in the middle of page 7 is confusing – what is meant by this? Is this an existing project the authors are planning to undertake, or something in existence?

 

Author response

We have made a new box (Box 1: Sustainable Immune Fitness Lab”) in which we added the most important future challenges to study the effects of sustainable and healthy food concepts on human immune resilence. Here improve immune resilience means and improved immune fitness

 

 

 

20. Section 2.3: culture and food traditions is presented as something to be overcome, rather than an acknowledgement of the cultural importance held by food, particularly for many marginalized and/or Indigenous communities.  I would encourage the authors to consider a more nuanced approach that explores how culture shapes, and is shaped by, notions of health and sustainability

 

Author response

We agree and added a few new references. We also changed the following text and added:

 

To most traditional food cultures that have own definitions of healthy food.

 

Diets in the industrialized world have (been) changed fundamentally, neoliberal governments are reluctant to regulate the industry and to restrict consumers' choices. We need to realize that diets are rooted in long-standing cultural or religious traditions and therefore are 'very personal' (Mazzocchi et al., 2008; Popkin, 2004).

 

• Section 2.4” -I’m curious as to why the authors selected the concept of food security in reference to food fairness – as opposed to food justice or food sovereignty – both of which provide more of a systems-based or integrated approach (food security is most often operationalized in relation to consumption). 

Author response

We are using a multidimensional concept of food fairness: material, political, social and environmental. In our view, the material dimension is first and foremost about being able to have access to safe and nutritious food, i.e. food security. We don’t see food security as something that refers only to consumers. Rather it is important for all human beings. Food sovereignty may be a precondition for food security for some producers but the goal itself is food security. We are now clarifying this in this section and now reads:

 

There is an extensive literature on questions of fairness and justice in the food system today (e.g. Alkon and Agyeman, 2011; Gottlieb and Joshi, 2010; Guthman, 2011; Nicholls, 2010). Focusing on questions of access, distribution as well as recognition of identity and culture this literature offers a compelling articulation of fairness particularly as this is expressed by the experiences of the most vulnerable and marginalized (see also Schlosberg, 2004). Instead of focusing on a single dimension, here we understand food fairness as a multidimensional concept that covers the material as well as political, social and environmental dimensions of life (Kalfagianni, 2014). This multidimensional understanding of fairness is also supported by the broader environmental justice literature, which argues that both the theory and practice of fairness and justice need to embrace the diverse notions that are associated with it (Schlosberg, 2007).

 

 

 

• The last sentence on page 8 – referring to the unequal distribution of risks and benefits of food systems is precisely what food justice speaks to (See Gottlieb and Joshi 2010). Similarly, in the discussion of the disproportionate distribution of the negative environmental impacts of our food system, here again, food justice would provide a useful framing.

 

Author response

We agree but we are using a broader concept of food justice to which we refer as food fairness. However, we add the Gottlieb and Joshi reference here.

 

 

• the authors claim near the end of the 1^stparagraph of page 9 – that “the core of the problem tends to be poor people's access to available food” – much of the food security literature is critical of the framing of “access” emphasizing that it is not a question of accessibility or availability, but a lack of resources (income or social assistance etc). If this is what the authors mean to reference, I would encourage a qualification of the use of “access” here.

 

Author response

We agree and now it reads:

 

Starting with the material dimension, we posit that achieving food security, referred to as the ability to access sufficient, safe, healthy and nutritious food (FAO, 2018) is the primary material concern (see also Kalfagianni, 2014). Indeed everyone needs food in order to survive before undertaking any other functions in life. However, a key focus of public policy in many countries on food security together with market forces has led to large scale farming, global food chains, and a powerful food industry in the developed countries. In turn, the detrimental environmental and social consequences of large scale farming, the adoption of controversial technologies, and food safety scares have triggered an increasing interest of consumers and policy makers in how food is produced, and who benefits from food purchase (Briggeman and Lusk, 2011). Overall, it becomes increasingly obvious in the material dimension of food fairness that the benefits and disadvantages are not equally distributed among all participants in the global food chain (Gottlieb and Joshi, 2010). In this context, food sovereignty is also emphasized by peasant movements and broader civil society as an important condition to claim ownership of food for food security especially among vulnerable members of the human population (La Via Campesina).

 

Organization/Structure

 

 

• If the intention is to use the SDGs as an important reference for achieving sustainable food systems, it would be useful to integrate them into the four research areas and questions articulated, rather than speak to them briefly at the end of the paper. How will the selected SDGs be addressed through this research agenda? I would then suggest that the authors include the SDGs in their overall framing at the outset, which again, would help to contextualize and position their contribution to the literature. I’m not convinced of the utility of the series of questions posed at the end of each research area. They read off as a laundry list of areas of inquiry – it’s not clear what should be prioritized, nor what work has already occurred in these areas (which in many cases is substantial); or what precisely will be achieved by answering these questions. I would also encourage the authors to review the questions to achieve greater consistently in scope (some are rather specific, while others question broad).  Section 2.3 does not really have a list of questions, just a list of areas of research within cultural studies of food.

 

Author response

We agree and now have changed the structure of the paper (see earlier points) and put our research agenda in the context of the SDG framework. Here we combine the questions from the four different domains and link it to the 12 SDGs

 

 

 

• -the discussion of Willet et al (2019)/EAT Lancet in the second paragraph of the Conclusions (pg 11) would be better placed near the beginning, where the authors reference other approaches and their limitations. 

Author response

By changing the whole structure of the paper, and already introducing Willet et al. in the introduction, we think it is now more clear

 

 

 

 

• it would be useful for the authors to define how they understand sustainability

 

Author response

We now have added the SDGs in the introduction section, so we interpret sustainability in the broader context, not only based on the resource part but also on the social part. See also the paragraph based on the definition by Johnston et al. 2014

 

 

• -greater consistency in terminology – in section 2.1 use terminology of nature-inspired and nature-inclusive, as well as agro-ecological.

Author response

 

We have removed the term ‘nature-inclusive’, because it is not a widely recognized concept internationally. However, we did maintain the term nature-inspired next to agro-ecology, to distinguish between current agro-ecological practices, and new and innovative techniques based on natural processes that are currently being developed to further enhance agro-ecological food production systems.

 

Minor grammar/copyediting points:

 

28. in the abstract – “truly sustainability” – this should either be “truly sustainable” or “true sustainability”  Changed

• line 8 of the first paragraph of the introduction, there is a comma missing between “sustainable” and “illustrated”  Changed

30. middle of page 2, 2^ndlast paragraph (line 20), there should be comms before and after “for instance”  Changed

• the last paragraph on page two (beginning with “Universities and research institute) might fit better as the opening paragraph of the paper (or parts of it)? Just a suggestion.  Thank you, didn’t change it in the new introduction

32. first bullet point at the bottom of page 7, should be “How do we assess THE health-promoting effects of nutritional concepts on immune resilience in humans and livestock usING standardized controlled protocols, with kinetic read out?”  changed

• line 3 of the last paragraph of page 7, the word “also” should come after “patterns of food consumption”  changed
• last sentence of first paragraph on page 8, “also” should come before, not after, “create”  changed
• line 5 of 2^ndparagraph on page 8 is missing a closing parenthesis.
• line 7 of the 1^stparagraph on page 9 – should be “market” not “marker” and there is a period missing after “market”  changed
• line 12 of first paragraph of page 9 – should be increaseD production  changed
• last line of section 3, should be “non-commercial communities SUCH as Immunowell”  changed
• second line in Section 4, “often” should be after, not before the world “are”  changed

 

Reviewer 2:

1. The paper is interdisciplinary and proposes innovative approach to food system transformation. The four key areas are remarkably well defined and elaborated. But the elaboration of the actual platform made by the key areas and potential actions between the them remain indefinite and vague.

 

Author response

Thank you. Indeed we agree and have tried to do this within the new box of questions from the four keay areas and how they relate to SDGs. We further have improved the connection from the four themes to the co-creation framework.

 

2. I would propose the authors to take the actual challenge of the presentation (the activity of the proposed platform) more seriously. The value of the paper would improve a lot with the authors' further processing the ideas of the co-creation and transdisciplinary research. A jump directly to FFU scenarios to be developed for assessing impact to SDG:s remain unclear, when connection between key areas and the scenario process has not been described. Now, just some self-evident issues are mentioned under the title co-creation and transdisciplinary research. As such the manuscript is not balanced in terms of science

 

Author response

Thank you. Based on the detailed suggestions from the other reviewer, we think that this is highly improved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf