Here’s the announcement:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) today launched its 2024 Statistical Yearbook, offering an in-depth overview of the most significant trends shaping global agrifood systems. This year’s edition highlights critical challenges, including increased temperatures over land, the ongoing global struggle with food insecurity alongside increasing obesity rates, and the environmental pressures faced by agricultural production….

The 2024 Statistical Yearbook is also available in a digital, interactive format and comes with a companion pocketbook, offering a clear reference to key data on agriculture, food security, and sustainability. It is part of FAO’s ongoing effort to improve data accessibility, complementing the FAOSTAT platform, which hosts the world’s largest collection of free agricultural statistics, covering over 245 countries and territories.

It’s got great graphics.  One example:

A few highlights:

• The value of global agriculture: $3.8 trillion in 2022.
• Proportion of global workforce employed in agriculture: a decrease from 40% in 2000 to 26% in 2022.
• Hunger remains persistent: In 2023, between 713 and 757 million people were undernourished, 152 million more people than in 2019.  Most are in Asia and Africa.
• Obesity is rising: More than 25% of adults in the Americas, Europe and Oceania are obese.
• Meat production increased by 55% from 2000 to 2022, with chicken accounting for the largest share of this rise. 
• Pesticides increased by 70% between 2000 and 2022, with the Americas accounting for half global pesticide use.
• Vegetable oils grew by 133 percent between 2000 and 2021, largely driven by an increase in palm oil production.
• Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems rose 10% between 2000 and 2022, with livestock contributing to around 54% of farmgate emissions.
• Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are withdrawing each year 9 to almost 40 times their renewable freshwater resources available.

Comment: Food systems need immediate transformation to become healthier and more sustainable. 

I learned about this from one of the last posts from Chuck Abbott’s AgInsider (written for FERN, the Food and Environment Reporting Network), which he is stopping and I will greatly miss.

USDA deregulates GM wheat, says it is safe to grow in the U.S.:  For the first time, the Agriculture Department approved cultivation of genetically modified wheat in the United States on Tuesday, deregulating a drought- and herbicide-tolerant variety developed by an Argentine company. A U.S. wheat industry official said it would be years before the HB4 wheat from Bioceres Crop Solutions was successfully commercialized in the country because of the need to gain acceptance on the domestic front and by wheat-importing nations.

The USDA says the Bioceres Crop Solutions, wheat with drought tolerance and herbicide resistance is “unlikely to pose an increased plant pest risk compared to other cultivated plants. As a result, they are not subject to regulation under 7 CFR part 340. From a plant pest risk perspective, this modified plant may be safely grown and bred in the United States.”

The company announced to investors, “Bioceres Crop Solutions Corp. (NASDAQ: BIOX) announced today that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has favorably concluded its Regulatory Status Review (RSR) for HB4 wheat technology.

According to Reuters, this wheat variety has already been approved in several other countries.

The announcements all make a big deal of its drought resistance; none of them say anything about its herbicide resistance.  AI to the rescue!  HB4 wheat tolerates glufosinate, a potent week killer “used for broadcast burndown application before planting or prior to emergence.”  It has been reasonably well studied, kills non-target plants easily, seems OK for insects, gets into water supplies, is moderately toxic to fish and slightly toxic to mammals.  The EPA considers exposure levels to be “below levels of concern.”

Why am I not reassured.

If you want to know why the Non-GMO Project label is seen on so many supermarket products, uncertainties about herbicide effects are surely one reason.

You don’t want to be a guinea pig in this experiment?  Buy Organic or Non-GMO Verified, or foods with both labels.

Food trade is always a big issue, but it’s one I have a hard time keeping up with.  It’s in the news right now because President-elect Trump is threatening to increase tariffs with unsettling effects.   His vows, vows to slap new tariffs on U.S. trading partners on Day One, according to Politico, “has sent ripple effects through the U.S. agricultural industry, which relies on exports to boost profits for vital commodity crops like soy and corn.”

On top of that, the USDA predicts a record $45.5 billion deficit in food trade this year: U.S. Agricultural Exports in Fiscal Year 2025 Forecast at $170.0 Billion; Imports at $215.5 Billion.

As Agricultural Dive explains,

An already record agricultural trade deficit in the United States is expected to get even bigger, the Agriculture Department said Tuesday.  The U.S. farm trade deficit in fiscal year 2025 is on track to reach $45.5 billion, according to an updated USDA outlook. Government analysts were previously forecasting a $42.5 billion deficit in August….

While U.S. producers have been able to modestly increase exports of livestock, dairy, corn and sorghum since the USDA’s August forecast, trade of other major commodities — namely cotton and soybeans — has declined. Crop farmers have been hit the hardest by a decline in global prices and are expected to bear the brunt of the widening trade deficit….

Trade with two of the U.S.′ biggest markets faces additional risks next year as President-elect Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trade with both countries has soared in recent years, with Mexico replacing China as the top U.S. agricultural market.

Much of the deficit is our fault, apparently.  We have a voracious demand for “ever-larger amounts of imported fruits, vegetables, wine, alcohol, coffee, and beef.”

The issue of Mexico as our top market raises questtions about the GMO corn we send there.  US Right to Know has published or reproduced a series of articles on this issue.

• GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from Mexico-US trade dispute 
• New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
• Mexico’s Scientfic Dossier on GMO Corn and its Effects
• Leading scientist defends Mexico’s food sovereignty from GM corn and glyphosate

The trade dispute works both ways: US suspends Mexico cattle imports after New World screwworm detected: The United States has relied on livestock from the country as ranchers struggle to rebuild depleted cattle herds.

Finally, for now, a new FAO report offers guidance and data on integrating nutrition goals into food trade policies: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2024.

While trade liberalization has numerous benefits for food security, questions linger about whether it is conducive to healthy diets. An analysis for SOCO 2024 using FAO’s Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet indicator found that higher import tariffs are associated with higher food prices irrespective of the healthy qualities of the foods, indicating that, in general, trade openness does not have a disproportionate effect on high-energy low-nutrition foods.

Two previous short-term studies demonstrated that if you eat a diet based largely on ultra-processed foods, you are likely to consume far more calories than you would eating less processed diets–and not notice that you are overeating.

The big question: why.

Study #1:  Hall K, et al.  Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake .  Cell Metabolism 2019; 30:67–77.

When study subjects ate the ultra-processed diet, they consumed 500 calories a day more than when they were eating the unprocessed diet.  This is a staggering difference.  They seemed to eat the ultra-processed diet faster.

Study #2: Hamano S, Sawada M, Aihara M, Sakurai Y, Sekine R, Usami S, Kubota N, Yamauchi T. Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: A randomized, open-label, crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024 Nov;26(11):5431-5443. doi: 10.1111/dom.15922.

These investigators reported a difference of 813 calories.  They attributed it to less chewing.

Study #3 (as yet unpublished): Its results appeared as a Tweet (X) from Dr. Hall describing a presentation he gave at a meeting in London (Apparently, X is where science gets discussed these days).  The recording of the entire meeting is now available.  Dr Hall’s presentation begins at minute 38.

The latest result: a difference of 1000 calories a day!

Dr. Hall was kind enough to send me the slides from his presentation.

My translation:

• Blue bar: Minimally processed diet, low in energy density (calories per gram) and low in irresistably delicious (hyper-palatable) foods.
• Red bar: Ultra-processed diet high in energy density and high in hyper-palatable foods.

The big result: Difference between blue (unprocessed) and red (ultra-processed): 1000 calories a day.

• Purple bar: Ultra-processed high in energy density, low in hyper-palatable.
• Green bar: Ultra-processed low in energy density, low in hyper-palatable.

Difference between purple (high, low) and red: 200 calories a day.

Difference between green (low, low) and red: 630 calories a day.

Participants reported no differences in appetite or pleasantness of the meals on the various diets.  There also were no observable differences in eating rate.

Obviously, participants who ate more calories gained more weight.

Comment

My summary: We love and cannot stop eating yummy high-calorie foods.

All of this reminds me of the work of Barbara Rolls, who for years has argued for diets low in energy density, and whose low-energy-dense Volumetrics diet is consistently ranked at the top of diet plans.

It’s great to see all this research coming together.  Whatever the reasons—energy density, hyper-palatability, less chewing—the take-home-message seems utterly obvious: reduce intake of ultra-processed foods.

As Jerry Mande summarized the significance of this study, also in a Tweet (X) :

BREAKING..@KevinH_PhD  presents preliminary data from long awaited (6yrs!) follow-up study. Confirm initial findings. Energy dense, hyper-palatable UPF foods result in 1000 kcal/day greater intake than minimally processed food. Time to regulate UPF #MAHA

Indeed, yes.

[Apologies for sending this out yesterday (in error).  I’ve added a few things.]

Such an odd time we live in, with politics making increasingly strange bedfellows, this time with the American Council on Science and Health, an industry front group if there ever was one.

Yet here it is with two articles on the looming threat of bird flu.

USDA’s Dereliction in Containing Bird Flu Could Cause Calamitous Pandemic (Part 1) An inherent conflict of interest – USDA both regulating and promoting livestock industries – prevents appropriate responses to outbreaks of infectious disease. READ MORE

The government’s inaction has allowed H5N1 to spread with remarkably little attention. The virus has now affected at least 446 dairy herds in 15 states and more than 100 million birds, mostly commercial poultry, in addition to the documented human cases…USDA is the primary culprit in this failure. The department is tasked with two conflicting roles: protecting the health and safety of the nation’s livestock while promoting and protecting the $174.2 billion agriculture industry. Sick cows with a novel strain of bird flu do not bode well for business, especially for a dairy sector that exports millions of tons of milk, cheese, and other products globally each year.

Shortly after the March detection of H5N1, USDA imposed what amounts to a gag order on its employees, according to insiders. State veterinarians began receiving private phone calls from their USDA colleagues, who told them to refrain from discussing the outbreak without prior approval. This information embargo severely hindered the response from the start.

How Bureaucratic Infighting, Dairy Industry Lobbying Have Worsened H5N1 Bird Flu Outbreak (Part 2): There is an inherent conflict of interest – and the potential for injury to public health – when a federal department both regulates and promotes an industry. Nowhere is this more evident than at USDA. READ MORE

While the White House pushed for a response focused on public health, the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which share jurisdiction over the production, transportation, and storage of eggs, seemed more concerned with protecting the interests of the dairy industry. Dairy representatives worried that the virus and subsequent restrictions could cripple their business…According to a former USDA official, dairy industry insiders were alarmed that White House staff were contacting them directly, bypassing the usual channels through the USDA. State veterinarians reported they were told to discontinue routine calls with the USDA’s veterinary services. This exacerbated the communication rift between the White House and the USDA.

The USDA had historically relied on the cooperation of farmers and industry stakeholders, and the bureaucrats feared losing that trust. In contrast, the White House’s OPPR and its public health allies grew increasingly frustrated as the USDA dragged its feet and adopted an approach that seemed to be, “If you don’t test, you don’t know.” This tension and communication failures have come to define the fractured nature of the government’s response to the H5N1 outbreak.

Comment: much of this sounds familiar.  As with any food safety issue, testing protects the public but puts companies at risk.  If testing finds something, companies have to do something: recall products, cull animals, or other things that will cut into profits.  Bird flu is a looming threat to humans; only 55 cases have been detected so far, but as the disease spreads among cattle, cases could increase.  Federal agencies should be doing everything they can to stop this threat.  Let’s hope.

In the meantime, the USDA says it is taking action: USDA Builds on Actions to Protect Livestock and Public Health from H5N1 Avian Influenza.

Since this disease was first detected in dairy cattle in March 2024, the USDA and state and federal partners have taken several steps to better understand the virus and work to eliminate it from dairy herds. In May 2024, USDA implemented a Federal Order to require the testing of cattle before interstate movement, which has helped to limit H5N1’s spread to new states; in the past 30 days, the number of states with known avian influenza detections in dairy herds has dropped from 14 to two. However, USDA believes that additional steps are needed to proactively support effective biosecurity measures, which are key for states and farmers to contain and eliminate H5N1 infections from their livestock.

From the report’s introduction

THE UK’S FOOD SYSTEM ISN’T WORKING. It is unsustainable, unhealthy, and unfair. Deep rooted power imbalances mean that profits and power are concentrated in the middle of the food chain, leaving farmers and citizens feeling the squeeze. Among the poorest fifth of the population, households with children would need to spend 70% of their disposable income on food just to afford the government’s recommended healthy diet….

Diet, overweight and obesity are now the biggest risk factor for preventable death and disability in the UK…growing numbers of farmers and growers are struggling to make a living, with 61% of British farmers saying they are likely to give up their farm in the next 18 months….This is arguably an example of market failure – a predictable outcome of a food system where the governing rules mean there is currently little incentive for companies to sell healthy and sustainable foods.

It makes these points with  data.

I like this one too.

Resources

• Read the full report here
• Technical Report
• Annex

Well, only a little.

First, what this dinner is going to cost you: less than last year but more than before the pandemic.

And how about some agricultural statistics for turkeys?

And some key facts:

• The rise and fall of turkey production in the U.S.: Since 1960, per capita turkey production rose sharply and peaked in 1996 at 26.8 pounds per person. However, in 2022, annual production had dropped to just 20 pounds per person—a decline of approximately 25%.
• Rising prices and shifting consumer demand: Health concerns and changing dietary preferences play a significant role, with more Americans choosing plant-based diets and reducing meat consumption. Rising turkey prices, which increased from $0.80 per pound in 2018 to $1.40 per pound in 2023, also impact consumption.
• Larger birds soften the decline: The average size of turkeys raised in the U.S. has nearly doubled since the 1960s—averaging 32 pounds per bird compared to around 18 pounds in the 1960s. This trend has helped maintain relatively high production levels even as the total number of turkeys raised has declined (a peak of approximately 303 million birds annually in 1996, but an estimated 218 million birds in 2023).

Aren’t you happy to know all this?

Enjoy your dinner!

What are healthy diets? Joint statement by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization

What this is about:

Healthy diets promote health, growth and development, support active lifestyles, prevent nutrient deficiencies and excesses, communicable and noncommunicable diseases, foodborne diseases and promote wellbeing. The exact make-up of a diet will vary depending on individual characteristics, preferences and beliefs, cultural context, locally available foods and dietary customs. However, the basic principles of what constitutes healthy diets remain the same.

The guiding principles: Adequate, Balanced, Moderate, Diverse.

Here’s what they mean by Balance:

The actual guidelines are discussed under the Moderate principle.

• Sodium: restrict to 2 grams/d (5 g table salt)
• Sugars: restrict to 10% or less of daily calories.
• Saturated fat: restrict to 10% of calories, with no more than 1% from trans fat

FAO and WHO duck making a clear statement about the next two issues, although their implications are clear.

• Red and processed meat: even low levels may have negative health consequences
• Ultra-processed foods: these have negative health consequences

I wish they had stated these recommendations more clearly.  Yes they are controversial with big industries lobbying against any suggestion to eat less of these foods, but these agencies, or at least WHO, should put public health first.

I recognize that these agencies have constituencies of nearly 200 countries, many with strong meat and ultra-processed food industries.  I also recognize that the agencies have no power other than leadership to get any of those countries to do anything.

They at least stated what they thought.  It’s up to country governments to take action.  I hope they do.