 to all the microphone. Yes, I maybe want to say just one thing, then you go. Well, first of all, I am really pleased in these two days one and a half for all you people and the saying and talk to me, actually, and to us. I think it is very lively and very important. And so that is the first things I wanted to say. The second thing is just what we are doing here now is just to try to summarize some questions, some important questions and some problems that you raised, because that will be taken as an assignment to us, to the laboratory for what we have to do in the future. So that is the mission of this hour or less of discussion that we are doing together. Thank you. Well, let me first thank all the speakers for their very important contributions to the success of the workshop. I think we have had two very interesting days. We have definitely faced the complexity of the problem. And that's why we are dealing with theoretical physicists who are able to deal with complex systems. I think these morning's presentations that were more focused on diets are showing that whether it comes to primary production or whether it comes to making choices in diets. In both cases, we have many technologies. We have many solutions. And I think in both cases, we have a very heterogeneous situation that requires well-differentiated solutions that need to be suited to the local conditions. And so I think the term that was used by one of you, we need flexible solutions, is correct, both when it comes to diet as well as when it comes to agricultural production. We need good sense. We need not to stick to dogmas and ideology. And even in diets, I think there are often definitely lots of dogmas and ideologies that apply. I'm proven that, of course. And the same is true for agriculture. And forcing ourselves into restricted boundaries is not going to allow us to find the optimal solution to the problem. I think one important issue that has come out of the discussions is that we need indicators for sustainability that consider all the different aspects that sustainability can be declined even when it comes only to environmental sustainability. We have different aspects to consider. But I think when we want to assess the sustainability of the food production system, we should also incorporate into whatever measure will come up with the impacts on health and medical care. Because of course, we can have beneficial impacts of the choices that we make in the primary production systems. But we can also have negative effects. And I think the figures that were provided to us about the problem of obesity are striking in terms of the added burden on societies that is imposed by making wrong dietary choices, but also wrong choices in the food production system. So I think what we have clearly realized is that we need composite indices that combine different aspects by giving proper weights. And those weights may, again, differ from situation to situation, because there may be areas of the world where we need to give more weight to one aspect or to the other, depending on the local conditions. I think one topic that came out yesterday, and it was interesting to see how it was declined differently from different speakers, was the need for making consumers aware of the real cost of foods. So the FAO representative reminded us of the difference between price and cost. There is a price, which is what we pay when we buy the food, but there is a cost, which includes the externalities. His proposal was to add the externalities to the price to make the price higher. I think we heard from the European Union, and I was very intrigued by that, that they want to get to an environmental labeling system, which I think is something I'm very in favor of, but I also see that it could be very difficult and complicated to do. We have already seen the difficulties that have come out with the green, red, and light system that they want to put on food based on the health benefits. I think environmental sustainability is even more complicated. And finding an agreement on how to do it could be very difficult. But I do believe that we need to get to that point. I think it's no longer sufficient to inform people on how many calories they get from 100 grams of food, how many carbohydrates, proteins, and fats they're consuming. I think we also need to tell them how much water has been used to produce that food, how much energy has been consumed, how much CO2 has been emitted so that they can make their choices in a more conscious and aware manner. As to the proposal of increasing the price by including externalities, I think it's something that needs to be carefully thought about. I personally find it easier to think about imposing a carbon tax on specific food production systems, which would not be in the end very different. But at least it would probably be easier to accept for the producers. I think one aspect that was stressed also this morning by the colleague from the Philippines is the close relationship between food production and consumption and biodiversity. The figures she gave were striking. 24,000 out of 28,000 species that are threatened are due to land that was used for agriculture and where natural ecosystems have been destroyed. So we have to be fully aware that we can no longer afford to put more land into cultivation. But we also have to be aware, and the several speakers stressed that, that going forward we'll need to produce more food, more food because the population is increasing in number, because the population is increasing in food needs, dietary needs. So we have clearly one strategy ahead, which is what FAO has called sustainable intensification. So we have to be able to combine an increased production with a decreased impact on the environment. How to achieve this is clearly a matter of discussion. And I think there are very different views. We heard several times yesterday that nobody wants to do it by going backward in time, even though it's a temptation that appears to be quite popular, especially in some circles. I let Andrele discuss about the need for production systems that satisfy the criteria of being regenerative and circular, because I think that's a very important aspect. But if we want to achieve sustainable intensification and go towards regenerative and circular production systems, we need to rely on scientific progress that can come in many different ways. We have seen yesterday's examples of how genetic improvement can help us to do that. We have seen wonderful examples of how increased digitalization of the agricultural production systems combined with sophisticated modeling of the agricultural production system can help us to achieve those goals. Of course, one of the big issues is how to transfer these approaches and technologies not only to countries that have less developed economies, but also within the developed economies, how to make these technologies accessible to everybody, whether they are large farmers or smallholder farmers. And that's a really complex issue to deal with. I think we started off with a very important message. And the message came from a communication specialist who told us that whatever we decide to do, we need to be able to explain what we do and why we do it to the consumers. Because if we don't gain acceptance from the consumers, there will be no way that any policy will be able to achieve its goals. I think what Giovanni Carrada told us is that before we try to speak to the brain of the consumer, we need to speak to the heart of the consumer or perhaps to the guts since we talk about food and... To the pocket. And we need to play on emotions more than on rational aspects. Rational aspects come later. How to do that is not easy. We as scientists are not used to do that. We actually tend to use the opposite approach. So I think one important message that has to come out of this is that we need not only the science, we also need the help of communication specialists that can help us to get the right messages to the consumers. So I will stop here and hand over to the others for their considerations. Well, let me try to add a few points to your comprehensive review of what we have achieved. I think that what we need to ask now is what we have to do next. Because in my opinion, this meeting, this symposium, has been a sort of a seeding expertise, a seeding experience. We need to start from this seeding experience to collect what we are going to have from this experience. And what we need to do is actually to try to address the issue not only in terms of science, brain, heart, pocket or emotional, but we need to put some science behind. Because if we put some science behind, the discussion and the decisions, there's going to give us the leverage to impose what we think is good not only for us, but for the future generation. I mean, if we consider that in the future, I mean, the burden of what is now related to the adolescent overweight is going to be dramatical. I mean, as a pathologist, we understand that in 20 years, 80% of the liver transplantation will be related to an overweight child children now. And I think we need to take advantage of this information in order to prevent. In order to so, we need to have a sort of a comprehensive and translational approach to the problem. Made by scientists, communicators, economists, and you name it. And this is why the idea to have under a sort of common roof, although theoretical, the different aspects of this enterprise is going to be a winning experience. It's going to be difficult because it's going to be a total different approach of what we are used to consider medicine, physics, humanitarian sciences, and so forth, so on. This is time to remove the burden, try to mix things together, and actually to increase the outcome. I mean, and then the outcome is not the sum of the different expertise, but it's actually the blending of different experiences. So I think that what we have achieved during this two days event is going to be a very important message. We need to work together in order to achieve this important goal in order to make the world much more sustainable. Because if we are going to continue to work this way, we're going to face civil struggles. So I think that this is what is in front of us. We need to tackle this hurdle, but we also need to understand there's going to be a great opportunity to be played in the right way. And I think that all of us should be able to understand this and to be able to provide help to achieve this important task. And I finish in the past the mic too. To me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I think this has been a great two days seminar and I agree with a comment that it is a seeding one, by the way, in agriculture you need to seed. And just to seeding in a sense that it gives a kind of the sense of the critical aspects that we are tackling with. First of all, for the first time, we are talking about nutrition and agriculture together. Because even at the European Union level, this new strategy is farmed to fork, see? So putting together these two dimensions which are totally different and both are significantly under knowledge because we don't know the most important factors of agriculture yet. And in nutrition, we know a lot about toxicology, metabolism, et cetera, but how really the cocktail of ingredients we consume every day, dependently also on our lifestyle, is really complex to understand. So if you put these two dimensions together and say, hey, I have to produce in a way which is not arming the environment at the same time, ensuring enough food, at the same time, safe food, not safe food security and food safety, and the disciplines involved are so many because you have genetics, of course, you have soy science, you have botany, you have agronomy, you have engineers, you have engineering now, more and more agriculture is lying upon digitalization for not only process management and automation, but also particularly for data collection and data mining. So it's a long journey that I think the most important thing we can do is to strategize. Because we are not fit for the job yet because science is very much super specialization. I was seeking for a doctor a few days ago, a generic doctor, a doctor to whom you can go and have a generic, let's say, diagnostic and this doctor then address you to the different specialists. They say there are really, really few doctors because everything is about specialization. You go to detail, detail, detail, detail. And in the science of complexity, there is always this kind of metaphor of the forest that if you look the forest from far away, you, of course, miss all the complexity of the life within the forest itself. But if you look into the detail of a single ant or a single plant, you also miss the detail. So where have you, at which level have we really to put our lens in order to observe the system and catch all the necessary system? And I think that this lens is a zoom. We need to go from sometimes empirical knowledge which has not been translated into scientific knowledge yet and see whether there are some correlations, some knowledge that we can extract by machine learning. And then once we have hints, then we investigate deeper and we try to figure out if we can extract the scientific knowledge. In this, I think it will be a very, very, very, very long journey. One day, I'm sure that we will have medical devices, no matter if it is a watch like this or a ring or whatever it will be or a kind of something on the skin which we'll be putting the condition to immediately read with the markers the response of our organism to the food that we eat. And this will be the day where we will really be able to reverse and go back from food just eaten to the plantation where it has been grown or the factory where it has been processed because this is another problem, processed food. For instance, in my case, I do coffee. I have a problem because if I eat a tomato, it's rare, so I eat what's come out from the plant. I have a direct correspondence between the chemical composition of the tomato and the physiological effect in my body. But if coffee is a seed, is a seed which is roasted at very high temperature where all the chemical composition of the original green coffee bean is completely changed. So how can I go from the physiological response of my body to my coffee bean to discover what is the driver, the trigger of this physiological response in a field? And there are so many of those kinds of examples. Still we do, still we do because we with 25,000 scientific studies centered around coffee and health, we now have a few ideas. This molecule, maybe this is antioxidant. Okay, this is another antioxidant. Oh, this antioxidant is present in the plant already because it's a defensive agent for the plant. Oh, this antioxidant is a consequence of roasting. And so we can see, oh, maybe this antioxidant is higher depending if coffee's grown here and there compared to if the coffee's grown in another condition. The day I would be able to say, I see that there is a higher concentration of the chlorogenic acids, just to name a few in coffee. And I see that consumer are responding better to that cup of coffee. This is the necessary correlation that we are looking for. Point is that there is a significant political and competitive and financial hurdle against that because who's going to build this gigantic database containing all the data from agriculture, food chemistry and nutrition? Who's going to build that? Maybe Google for profit, maybe, which level? Maybe the big pharma for their own competitive advantage in selling agronomical inputs. Are they going to put this data at disposal of the public for scientific research? So this is what we really need to come out in the years ahead. Thank you. Do we have any input from the floor on this discussion? I have built an agenda from what these people have sent. Do we have some other points? Oh, thanks for the very thoughtful consideration you have done. I'm not sure anyway that we really need more food for the future. I think we need more equitable food and more sustainable and equitable way of addressing the needs all over the world because we are perfectly aware that we live in a part of the world where we eat too much and there is a part of the world where they're eating insufficiently. And the amount of food must be or should be much more distributed. And I think we cannot address the challenges of modifying the diet of the population unless we are able to address also the problem of the distribution and the sustainability in terms of equity in terms of food. The other point I would like to stress is that we should make a clear cut division between what is the best diet for people who have to modify their habits because they eat too much and they are obese and what is the best diet to a well-nourished population and a well-growing population. So the normal diet is one issue and the diet to address diseases is probably something different. I understand correctly that besides the flexibility that I'm trying to understand what you're saying that besides the flexibility issue that Morganti was saying before, then you are asking another variable to the other one that have been included like for instance understood that nutrition and agriculture has to stay together, has to talk together. The other one is that the instruments to do that and to analyze that and to measure that are provided by science and what that. But there has to be a variable, economical variable that comes from different ways. And then I think society, we have to have a social variable to what we are saying and that was missing from what we are saying. May I say one example, the first movements of cereals from Ukraine were Mace, which was due to Europe for maintaining the kettles and the nut to feed the populations of the Ethiopia or Somalia who are facing a tremendous shortage of food because of the absence of cereals. And this is something which is really relevant in my opinion. We have as part of the Western world which is assumed to be superior in some way. And I'm not sure we are the same and we really are superior to other population. But anyway, we feel we have more culture and we're more prone to discuss of these problems. We should be aware that a more equitable distribution of food is what we need. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute into the solutions to look into the sustainability of environment, food and other related resources. I strongly believe in climate sustainability and climate modulation because climate controls everything on the earth. We live in a system, we live in the solar system where everything also fluctuates with the climate. Another point again is nutrition. Nutrition in the sense that also as a relationship with the climate from all what has been said. Then another strong point is financing, public, private financing, partnership. It's key, especially when you talk about water. Water is number one in agriculture and most part of the world including Africa that suffer severe drought due to excessive climate change. So if water financing is looked closely into that will also solve the problem. Climate financing has been a top talk during the IPCC climate forum for years now. But that has not really pay off for some countries and that has inhibited them from keying into the several climatic twitties like reducing emission to less than two or two. That calls into a severe climatic funding so that that can also be done scale to each localities and give them what they require to cut down, let the people who are emitting paid for people who are sequencer in the carbon. Stakeholders collaboration, I see it like key to collaborate in a cross-continental approach so that you can harness resources and intelligence all over the globe to solve this problem. And also strengthening policies and twitties that has to do with food and nutrition and reviewing some part of it that is not favorable for some countries. Because I know if you go into treaties some country may just sign the paperwork and when it comes to implementing what that treaty talks about, they may not do it. That could be maybe their culture. It could be due to their finance level and it could also be to their technological backwardness or advancement limitation. So let me stop there. Thank you so much for giving me the time. Thank you very much. I think in these closing remarks we have heard a number of elements which compose the puzzle of the whole idea behind this workshop, if I may say. And I will just quote a few of them. We talked about product production, productivity, nutrition, distribution indeed is a very important aspect. We have talked about flexibility. We have talked about science and technology. We have talked about culture. I think all these come under a very common denominator that needs to be tackled also and as a priority which is education. Education at the level of the schools, education somebody has already mentioned it at the level of the parents of the children, education at the level of society, education at the level of our economists also that they need to conceive also a new way of looking at how the economy of food needs to be developed. Thank you. Thanks a lot. I think coming back to the issue raised by Professor Marquezini, I fully agree that we are risking to yet increase inequalities between different areas of the world even just by enforcing specific environmental policies. The best example is that, I mean, one of the things that is not often discussed in the European Union is that it's extremely easy to decrease the environmental impact of food production. If I measure it on a per hectare basis, if I don't cultivate, I have no impact. I mean, there needs to be no science but what that means is that I'm simply moving the problem elsewhere. So I'm offshoring the environmental impact to other parts of the world. And that could be yet another way by which we are damaging other countries for our own good and we're not compensating them in any manner for the damage we're making them because we're paying them the price but not the cost. So they're bearing the cost, we're paying the price. And there is a big difference as we heard between price and cost. But on the other hand, FAO itself said multiple times that there is no magic wand of redistribution. The problem of redistribution is itself a complex problem. And I think we need to think about ways to put everybody in a position to be able to produce food abundantly and with a low environmental impact. And I think that's a big problem. I was discussing this with Dr. Healy on the phone a few days ago. I think there should be a big plan to try to transfer technology to educate people all over the world, which would imply from the developed countries to spend money to do that. I don't see too many signs of that. He said that the European Union is thinking about a plan like that. Let's hope that that will happen because I think it's something that affects our life in many ways. I mean, if you think about the big migratory phenomena, they're related to the fact that there is not enough available food for the populations. And so if we don't tackle this problem, the problem will come to us in many different ways. I fully agree that education must be a priority. Of course, we are at a time when schools and educational institutions are not the only sources of information, unlike in the past, where there were definitely the main sources of information. Now, information is available in many different ways and it's not always easy to control. Sorry, too much information. Which is a problem that we need somehow to tackle. I'd like to ask you the problem of healthcare systems in the Western world at least, but also in the other parts of the world. The healthcare system is facing a problem of sustainability. So too many non-communicable disease. And if you reduce, for instance, obesity, you have diabetes disappear, hypertension is reduced, cancer is reduced. So therefore, I think the chance for nutrition is to face this problem. Nutrition is very important, but we are now there is medicalization of obesity treatment. So I think obesity is mainly associated with a nutritional problem. Therefore, if we are able to reply to this question, to improve nutrition, we reduce the non-communicable disease, we reduce the drug company effort in taking care of the problem. So it's very important for us to think about the future and you were speaking about children and the less. And yes, for me, obviously my word, but yes, it is important education, of course, but you have daughter Google, we have YouTube and you have this kind of information for especially for the youngest, it's very difficult to modify the information, the authoritative or sorry, the certification of quality of the information is very difficult to provide to people. So this is another important question that we have to face so potentially. Thank you. I try to add some comment about your idea. I mean, I agree, but we must realize that, I mean, if we invest now in nutrition, if we seed now, we harvest in 20 years. So we think to, we have to do something now, seed now, but I mean, also having something to cover the gap between seeding and harvesting. And I think that education is very important. It's also training in terms of how to behave. There's a lovely paper just published in APT, in a large series of population of South Korean where they demonstrate for the first time scientifically that the amount of obese adolescents with fat liver is much higher if the parents, both parents are obese and suffering of fat liver. And we wrote an editorial, like father, like son, talispata, talispilius. I mean, it means that if we teach them how to behave is important. We have to realize that our kids are not exercising any longer. They're behaving wrongly and we behave wrongly. So and I think that combining a proper food production, a proper food processing, a proper food storage and proper food delivery. And I quite agree that we need to balance because I mean, in the Western, the so-called, so-called underlying civilized countries, we are wasting a lot of food in other countries. We don't have food to be distributed. So we need to balance. And I agree that we need to make a joint effort. I'm glad to hear that the European Commission community are thinking about this possibility. Good, let's do it. But I mean, we need to act now in order to prevent the disaster in 20 years. And also to finish, the cost of health system is increasing almost every day. This is for two reasons. Number one, the number of diseases are increasing. Number two, the lifespan of population is increasing almost every day. That's, I mean, making possible to develop much more diseases related to the ages. But also, and this is also education because the demand for health system is increasingly and most probably unsustainable because it's not related to the real necessity. I mean, how many people go to the emergency room for nothing? Look at that. So we need to educate. And I think that addressing this in a sort of scientific way is the only way to win. Sorry, you have to be attractive. It's a competition information. I change behavior because this choice is better than the other one in my opinion. So you have to be competitive to propose to me a better choice to convince me that it is fashion. This is fine. This is good for me. So I can change. I can invest myself in changing. The motivation to change is a very difficult, very difficult issue in the medical science. So I think the patient or the subject has to modify the behavior. He has to be convinced because it's more convenient economically or for the reward that I get for nutrition or easily accessible and so on. So I have to be competitive. And this is the really difficult target to find, to have some chances because the people can change behavior, in my opinion. Very difficult to reply. Competitive is not fashionable because now it's fashion, it's not compatibility. Okay, I think just the last comment. Last comment. In the United States they invested millions or billions of dollars in education and they failed totally. So the problem is not to educate people. The problem has Browniel, which is one of the major leaders in terms of obesity said that the message should be that of favorable defaults which means that we must make healthier behavior more favorable and more sustainable than unhealthy behaviors. Because people choose according to what is best for them immediately. Now, if I have to go downtown and I can take a car and I can park my car over there, I will take the car. If I do not find a space where to park my car, I will take the bus or I'll go on foot. And this is what is called the theory of favorable defaults. And there is definitely a massive commitment for the institution to make healthier defaults more favorable than unhealthy defaults. Also in terms of prices, also in terms of everything, this is the only way to change something. Okay, I think that with this last comment, I'm sorry. With this last comment, I think that we, I think we can close now here thanking you again and again for so much. And we finish saying, do it and do it now, right? That is what we were saying, yeah, tomorrow. So in the afternoon, some of us will go to Udine. In Udine, actually there will be a part of what you are saying. It will be more communicational rather than very top scientific. And so that is in that and we will do that just to tell you, but I would like finishing too that we should thank not only you people as I've done, but also the people who made this conference to be real available. And so there are some of these people that we are sitting in this audience. Okay, so having said that, I think thank you very much. Excuse me.