 and welcome to our session today. My name is Sharon Donovan, and it's my pleasure to be co-chairing this session with my colleague, Emery Meyer, who's a physician and researcher at UCLA. I will be providing the introduction, and Emery will be providing the concluding statements, and together we'll be moderating the Q&A following this session. The title of our session today is Balancing Planetary and Human Health, The Crucial Role of Biodiversity. The session is sponsored by the Yogurton Nutrition Initiative. So let me just take a minute to introduce you to the initiative. So this is our 19th Yeni Summit. So Yeni, or the Yogurton Nutrition Initiatives for Sustainable and Balanced Diets, is a collaborative project between Denone Institutes International and the American Society for Nutrition, and it was established in 2013. Our mission is to advance scientific knowledge on sustainable healthy diets in the place of yogurt in them, and then to broadly share this information in three languages, currently English, Spanish, and French. We have an eminent board of scientific experts that are international and cross-disciplinary. We have a very strong digital ecosystem. We host scientific events such as the one today. We publish the outcomes of these events in peer-reviewed journals, and we also host a small grants program to promote research in this area. We have a very active international online community of over 60,000 members with a total reach of more than 250 million people. So I really encourage you to visit our website and also our Twitter and Instagram pages for the latest in information from the Yogurton Nutrition Initiative. So our session today will be, we'll have three presentations, the first by Fabrice DeClerc, who will be talking about One Earth, increasing evidence of the interconnection between the planet, people, and health. Next, Joelle Duree will be taking us to human connections and talking about the gut microbiome diversity, the link between food, gut health, gut microbiota, and health. And then finally, Herbert Hurt will talk about soil microbiome diversity, the link between soil, microbiome, plant, food, and health. So as you can see, we're very interested in looking at the whole biome from Earth to individual. And we think we have a very exciting session for you today. So following our scientific program, we will have a live Q&A session. Please submit your questions using the Q&A button at the bottom of the Zoom screen. You'll also have the opportunity to upload on existing questions to increase their priority. So with no further delays, it's my pleasure to introduce our first speaker, who is Fabrice DeClerc. Thanks for the introduction, Sharon, it's a real treat to be with you all today. My name is Fabrice DeClerc, I'm science director at Eaton, a scientist with CGR. And what I'd like to focus on today is interconnection between people, planet, and health. And I think really try to emphasize the biology of the solutions that we're looking at and present some links between soil microbiome and human gut microbiome. So let's go ahead and get started. So first of all, I'm an ecologist. And so the way that I look at the world is really through ecology. Ecology, eco, or oikos is the study of the house. And there's two houses that I want to focus on. First, I think it is this really special place that we inhabit. And that is the planet Earth. And this is a fantastic photo taken by the Cassini space probe as it was shooting past Saturn, but looking back. And in the lower right hand side, you see this tiny blue dot with an arrow pointing to it. That's our home, that's planet Earth. And as far as we know, it's the only place anywhere where there is life. And so biodiversity or the collection of diversity of life is really a unique feature of where we live. But unfortunately, I think a feature that's too often understood and underappreciated as we look towards the human and environmental health. For those of us working on Earth systems or environmental systems, I think we've really begun to realize the degree to which we've now entered a new geological era at the Anthropocene topic or title that now has begun to be used by both scientists as depicted here in nature, but also in the public dialogue as seen here in the economists. And Anthropocene very simply recognizes that humanity has become the biggest force on the planet, rivaling that of other geological forces and that we merit in recognizing that this geological era that we've entered is one that is defined by humanity. Second, I think really critical feature about the Anthropocene is recognizing the decisions that we make this decade have planetary scale impacts, geological scale impacts. And so it's really time I think I think quite critically about which trajectory we choose. How is it that we want to define our relationship with the Earth, our home, and with the biodiversity that inhabits it? One of the key challenges with one of my institutions eats that we decide to really begin to tackle is trying to understand what is this relationship between the foods that we eat, our own human health, but also planetary health. Food, as you understand, it really is our closest relationship with our own health, but also is our most closest relationship with planetary health. What foods we eat, how we eat them, how we produce them, how much we lose in waste, where we produce them all have tremendous impact on both dimensions of health. Human and planetary. So result of that work was one, trying to see whether we could define what is a healthy diet and to do that, we've focused on two elements. One is quality. So recognizing that everyone everywhere should have access to approximately or at least 2,500 kilocalories per day. Yes, that will vary a little bit based on age, gender activity level, but globally it is a planetary challenge to make sure that we can provide this amount of food for everyone everywhere. And second is quality, depicted by the image on the plate here. So about half of our plates covered with fruits and vegetables, recognizing the importance of many of our stable crops, rice, maizeweed, but why not teth, ammonia, sorghum, millet and other whole grains as key sources of energy. Recognizing the value of animal source foods, but for many of us consuming those in much more moderate amounts. For many of us increasing consumption of plant-based proteins and limited amounts of unsacred plant oils and added sugars. But I think what you really recognize here is the diversity of foods, the balance of those foods, proportion of those foods that allow us to lead healthy lives. Right now, too many of us are not able to access either enough food, two billion people, but there's a growing number of individuals, two billion as well, who are struggling to find, again, that diversity and that balance. So you put those two numbers together in approximately half of the global population today is struggling with accessing a healthy diet. This is a major global challenge. When we look at the health impacts of that challenge, we realize that there are 11 million premature adult deaths per year related to diet-related disease. So simply transitioning towards healthy diets would allow us really to improve the quality of life for many people across the globe. The second dimension, the work that we try to do with this eat-plant commission is to find what are the environmental limits of food and what is then the relationship between how we produce food, how we consume food and planetary health. We borrowed a concept led by Johan Rockstrom and other scientists, the planetary boundaries concept, which basically looks at what is the resting rate of the planet over the policy of this geological era that we're now emerging out of. And can we then understand what are the environmental limits of this very stable geological period that we've come out of? And can we understand then what is human pressure or what is your impact on pushing past these boundaries and begin to understand what are the actions that we can take that bring us within what we would argue is a safe environmental space. Within these nine boundaries, food has a huge impact. Food creates one third of greenhouse gas emissions, one of the planetary boundaries that we see here. Food production is a major disrupter of both the nitrogen and the phosphorus cycle. Food production accounts for 80% of freshwater use globally. Food production accounts for 40% of land globally, that's nearly half of all lands globally that have been appropriated by humanity for either cities and shelter or for food production. And food production consumption is a big striver of biodiversity law scope, primarily through habitat conversion for food production. These are major environmental limits, which are impacted by again, by how we produce and consume food and within which we're trying to understand how can we bring ourselves back within these environmental limits. I wanna focus up on biodiversity for the rest of this presentation. And what I wanna emphasize with this figure created by Shahid Naeem at Carlton University is that when we think about biodiversity, we tend to think about panda bears and orangutans, bison, all these charismatic megafauna that the biodiversity community likes to call them. And quite often our conservation objectives are about leaving enough space, these wild spaces for this wild biodiversity. This is a really important goal, but what I think it often misses is that when we change species composition, species abundance, these proportions within the ecosystems and that's what's represented by the three images across the top, changing tropical forests to agriculture, changing savannas and up to agriculture, changing marine ecosystems, the pre-production systems, we're changing the proportions, the diversity, the densities of species within those systems. And it's not just the change in those species numbers if you will about diversity, but ultimately we're impacting how those systems function, how carbon is cycled, how much carbon is stored and stopped in those ecosystems versus transferred to the atmosphere. We impact the nitrogen cycle, phosphorus cycle, oxygen production. So biodiversity really is much more than a collection species, but it is equivalent to if you want the global operating system. And when we change species composition, we change key functions that these items are able to provide. The classic example, which I think many of you are familiar with is tropical deforestation, which is a major source, not just a biodiversity loss, but a major source of greenhouse gases and climate change. We move carbon stored in plants, transfer to the atmosphere as we convert these landscapes to, from tree-based systems to annual crop-based systems. So it's not only the loss of the system, but the loss of the function that really interests us. What I think is really exciting about today's presentation is that we're going to focus on two ecosystems that really don't get enough attention. One is our own gut, human microbiome, and the second one is a soil microbiome. These are two ecosystems, which just like macrobiomes provide function regulated by biodiversity. We have the same kinds of functions and processes occurring within the gut microbiome and the soil microbiome, but we really have not paid enough attention to either of these two. So what I'd like to do as I continue on is to think like an ecologist and ask what are the systemic changes that we might be thinking about or the questions that we might ask as we begin to think about these two ecosystems from a much more functional biodiversity point of view. The first is that we're finding that there's tremendous homogenization of food globally, but the figure on the left shows 1961, 1985, 2009, the diversity of foods that were on our plate. You see if these circles are getting smaller and smaller. So globally, we're finding that we're consuming a smaller number of species and there's a much greater homogenization of foods that are on our plates. The second figure on the right is the number of varieties within major food groups. So even within a single species, the diversity of foods and diversity of varieties that are on our plates is reducing tremendously, several orders of magnitude in several cases. So when we begin to think about diversity, not just the wild places, not just the functions, but particularly I think the diversity that we put on our plates and related to that the diversity that are in our fields. When we look at the primary tribes of premature mortality globally, that 11 million that I was flagging earlier on, this is what we see emerging as the top 10 variables that drive that premature mortality. This is fantastic work by the global disease collaborative looking at mortality rates should be able to diets and the number of deaths at the global level should be able to diet. And what I want you to see is that we talk a lot about meat and protein as a health challenge, but when you look at the top variables, high in sodium is number one, but then just below that low in whole grains, low in fruits, low in nuts and seeds, low in vegetables, low in seafood, low in fiber. Then we have low in legumes. So the top seven variables are all about under consumption of protective foods, plant-rich diets. So low dietary diversity has become a major source of premature mortality globally. This is clearly related to protein consumption. If you're trying to stay within a 2,500 calorie diet and you're eating a lot of animal source protein, then the number of calories available for plant diversity becomes much lower. So I think this is really the two sides of the same coin, learning how we balance these different foods on our plate and getting the proportions right. But I think we don't speak enough about increasing the diversity foods in diet and particularly the diversity of plant-rich foods in diet. One of the very early studies that began to look at the relationship between human health and dietary health was led by David Tillman and Michael Clark, who began to ask, began to ask a question. If we were able to transition towards a healthy diet, what impact would this have on the environment? This was a fantastic study back in 2014. They used the Mediterranean diet, pescetarian diet and vegetarian diets as examples of the diets that would shift the proportion of meat versus plant-based. I don't mean to rep the state that they were saying that these are the three diets that we should all follow. This was just their way of categorizing a gradient of food consumption. And what they found is that if we follow business as usual, looking at these environmental variables, we're going to increase just through consumption greenhouse gas emissions by 20, 30%, and that we would also increase the amount of land that we need by 800 million hectares. Many biodiversity colleagues in my argue we don't have this land available. What they also found is that if you shift towards Mediterranean, pescetarian or vegetarian, that you can actually begin to reduce your emissions and maybe even become negative in food-based emissions, as well as imagine a food consumption that would require zero land conversion. I think that the big result from this study, again, was just to emphasize that not only how we produce food or what food we produce, the food consumption is a major means of achieving a major environmental goals. Looking at those same diets, that what they found is that those same transitions have really important effects on several causes of disease, type two diabetes, cancer, coronary mortality and all cause of mortality. We're beginning to suspect that the relationship here is one about protective food consumption and its relationship to microbiome, which we're going to cover later on today. What I then want to emphasize is that when we look at these planetary boundaries, one of the ones that concerns ecologists like me is the rate at which we're losing species globally. We now recognize that we're entering the sixth extinction. There have been five previous extinctions in global history and the history of the earth. The five previous ones have all been led by catastrophic geological events, eruptions, near strikes, et cetera. This sixth one is led by us, by humanity. And this is really again emblematic of this notion of Anthropocene where humanity is what's driving these changes. And I love the quote by Al Gore here in reviewing those coberts, the little Colbert's book, The Six Extinction. We are deciding without quite meaning to which evolutionary pathways will remain open and which will forever be closed, no other creature has ever managed this and it will, of course, be our most enduring legacy. When Al Gore wrote this, he was very much thinking about macrobiomes. But when I think about what we're beginning to understand about microbiomes, I think we're realizing that these have been two forgotten ecosystems, ecosystems where in many places and with many societies within individuals, we may already have undergone some rather significant extinctions and some rather important consequences to both human health as well as to planetary health, which again, the next two speakers will begin as to speak to. If I look at microbiomes from a macrobiomercy lens, there's some really important or fastened questions that begin to emerge. The first is where do these biomes come from? In ecology, we talk about island biogeography. Islands create these really unique places where we can study how our habitats colonized. Krakatau, which exploded in 1883, is one of the classic examples of the creation of a virgin ecosystem, a massive volcanic eruption, which denudes the island completely and ecologists then become excited about, say, well, what happens next? Which are the first species to arrive? How quickly do species arrive? How does the arrival of biodiversity on this island affect the creation of soil? The creation of a soil microbiome. And we have this fantastic theory that suggests that depending on how far an island is from a continent and how large that island is, that we can predict quite closely the number of species that will eventually be able to inhabit the island as well as how quickly they can begin to colonize it. We think about this from the point of view of what we call relay floristics, and some theoretical questions that ecologists like to ask is, is this about which species comes first? And does that first species create the conditions for other species to then come on later? Or is it initial floristics where there's a huge set of species that are available from the start, but again, that the first species to become active create the conditions that allow the other species to arrive? So this notion of how do we succeed or what's the succession from a virgin ecosystem to a lush tropical or temperate forest? When we think about ourselves, we then realize that we're actually islands unto ourselves. We're all born in the same way that Krakatar was born. A virgin ecosystem that is devoid of any microbiome. I think a really interesting statistic on the microbiomes is that we realize that we share 99% of our human genome with the rest of humanity. But when we look at our individual microbiome, we share less than 0.1% of that. And that our human genome is 20,000 genes, but our microbiome is 2 million genes. And so we really are much more unique, if you will, from a microbiome point of view than we are from a human genome point of view. It raises some interesting questions about, well, how do we ensure that we allow each of us to begin to develop that microbiome? What are the consequences of choices that we make as a society, starting with either cesarean birth or vaginal birth? This is that first shot of biodiversity that we are exposed to as we pass through the birth canal and are born. What happens if we're breastfeeding or not breastfeeding in terms, again, increase in exposure to microbiome? The foods that we eat, pets or no pets in the house, exposure to soil when we're children or to nature when we're children, or the relationships that we develop as adults. These are all the same kinds of events that allow biodiversity to colonize islands and create, again, that succession of processes that determine the flora of an island or the flora in our own microbiome. The second, I think, important question that is raised is, well, how do we then take care of a microbiome, whether it's a soil microbiome or a gut microbiome, as we develop? And here, again, there's some interesting ecological analogies that I'd like to draw and have us think about as we go to today's presentations. The first is we till soil on an annual basis for constantly disturbing, taking that toxin, flipping it over, exposing it to air. So there's a lot of oxidation of the soil carbon that happens to that process. And it changes the soil microbiome from a fungi-dominant one to a bacterial-dominant with changes in the capacity of that soil to store carbon or to produce food. We also provide a lot of nitrogen phosphorous to those soils. And this might be the equivalent of a high-sugar diet, why we provide a readily available nutrient which is normally rare, which speeds up or ramps up biological processes, allows rapid growth but also rapid oxidation. So can we think differently about how we apply nutrients to our soils so that they become a slower burn, more resilient to change? We apply a lot of agrochemicals to our soils. We use herbicides just to facilitate the harvest of soil, for example, in the US. Is this equivalent to the use of antibiotics? And are the impacts of taking or overtaking antibiotics equivalent to the use of biocides within agriculture? Does this mean that we're constantly resetting soil microbiomes and human microbiomes through the use of antibiotics or orthopedicides? And finally, dietary diversity. The image here is a young man in England who lived, I think, his first 18 years just on chicken nuggets. And we realized that a low diversity diet has huge impacts on our microbiome. It determines the composition of that microbiome and in turn, the functional capacity of that microbiome. We do the same thing in agriculture. We grow the same crop year after year on massive extensions of land. So what do we expect of a soil microbiome that is fed corn roots year in, year out? It's going to be a very different soil microbiome with a very different functional capacity than if we begin to rotate different crops on that same soil or grow multiple crops together. So all of these, I think, are just questions to think about if we realize that by the basic extensions that we've been faced with, our microbiome extensions, does that change the perspective of how we might want to both treat ourselves in our own microbiome but also how we might want to treat agricultural soil microbiomes? And it does offer a different set of solutions that we might look at. As we look to 2030, there is a big campaign led by many conservation organizations. We will be signing the Convention on Biomedical Diversity this fall. And the big challenge that we're trying to set for ourselves is can we set a global goal for nature? Could we nature positive by 2030? I think the fundamental recognition of this goal is that we're in a deep slide in terms of biodiversity globally, not just charismatic species, but also function and contribution to ecosystem function. Can we bend the curve on biodiversity loss and really begin to set ourselves on a path for recovery? Recognizing again that this is a biological planet and that it may be a wiser investment to learn how to work with biodiversity rather than in opposition to it. And I think for the health community, the challenge is to ask ourselves, can we transition from an antibiotic approach to a probiotic approach? And I know these terms can be very specific. And what I mean by probiotic is, can we become better at working with biodiversity and nutrition and health than working without it? I wanna leave you with poor main thoughts as we think about what the future might be of a probiotic society or probiotic health plan. One is learn to manage the system, not the species. I think Krakatau reminds us that there are events in our lives, birth, our relationship with our mother, our relationship with others, our environment, would determine what microbiome that we have. These are systemic choices that we'd be thinking about. Second, input diversity equals output diversity. The diversity of fresh foods in our diets seems to be very protective in terms of health impacts. And so the diversity of fruits, nuts, vegetables and even meat products is a key means by which we cultivate a healthy gut microbiome. I hope that we can apply these same blessings to agriculture. Third, focus on function. Let's better understand what are the functional groups in the microbiomes and how we can support their capacity by those functions. And the last one is be aware of invasive species. When we look at biodiversity loss globally, invasive species are the number two driver of the extinctions globally. And I wonder as we think about gut microbiomes in particular, but even probiotics in agriculture, if we just need to take a little bit of time to ask ourselves a single species approach or we're introducing novel species organisms into either our own microbiomes or our cultural microbiomes, let's be sure and think through what the consequences are of a homogenization, biological homogenization of either guts or soil microbiomes going forward. I think there's a really exciting avenue. I think that microbiome research, both in agriculture and in human health is going to reveal some fascinating new ideas, new approaches, and it will be a key component to setting us forward on a road to sustainability, both for people and for planet. Thanks for your attention. I look forward to the question and answer period. Sharon, over to you. Well, thank you Fabrice. It is now my pleasure to introduce our next speaker, Dr. Joelle DeRay, who is a research director at the INRAW, McKayless Institute for Food and Gut Microbiology and Scientific Director of the Metagenopolis. He is a world expert in gut microbiome and we're very happy to welcome him here today. Thank you. Thank you very much for the introduction. I'll start expressing my gratitude for this opportunity to give what will be a Zoom into the gut microbiome and its interconnection with food and health. I'm Joelle DeRay. I'm a research director with INRAE in France and a scientific director of Metagenopolis unit. I'll start with the disclaimer, highlighting some links of interest with a number of industrial companies with whom we've been working on and research co-founded by some of those. I also was involved in editorial work on the intestinal microbiota, a full-fledged organ together with my colleague, Philippe Martot. And I'm scientific advisory board member for a few companies and co-founder of some of those, including Matt Farmer. We humans are symbiosis. We are microbial. We are ecosystems. And this symbiotic relationship starts from the very moment of birth where we meet the microbial world and we will, at the same time, mature our immunity and develop our microbiota, which lead to this unique situation where the microbiota itself is recognized as a component of self, like any cell, any tissue, any organ of the human body. And this is key if we want to innovate in terms of prevention and therapeutics of the symbiotic human. It will have impact on evaluation, monitoring, prevention, and treatment. Now, we are microbial to the point where each of us in adulthood interacts on a constant basis with 50 trillion bacteria and many more microbes. This is 50 trillion as many as we have human cells in our body. And as microbiome science allows us to count genes today, we know that we are, on average, carry 600,000 microbial genes in our dominant microbiome, which is 25 times the size of the human genome, highlighting the potential massive functional contribution of our microbes. Now, I will split my presentation in three parts. First, giving metagenomic highlights, what we have got to learn recently on the human metagenome, then zooming into symbiosis and going into details of what symbiosis between man and microbes can be, and then highlighting the interconnection between food, gut, microbiota, and health. In just one slide, what we have shown, analyzing the metagenome, i.e. the combined genomes of all dominant microbes of the human associated microbiome, so to speak, and I'm zooming here on the gut. We essentially have a highlight of the pathway we use. We extract total DNA from these ecosystems and apply whole genome shotgun sequencing. And we can assemble and rotate genes and build the reference gene catalog. Today, a resource of more than 10 million bacterial or microbial genes that we use for direct mapping of short sequences to determine the metagenome profile. And from that, we have learned that we share a small set of common bacterial species and genomes, which we can view as a core metagenome. And yet, we harbor a large, unique set of microbes, evolving rather slowly over time for a given human individual. We differ by our gut ecology. We described 10 years ago now, the Anturatimes as stratifiers of the human population, and we differ by gene count, or a representation of diversity. And I will show how policy by this can be viewed as a health stratifier. And finally, we've been able to describe differences in microbiome composition that can be viewed as diagnostic signatures, possibly predictive signatures in various disease conditions such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, and liver sources. Now, how much of a symbiosis are we and why do we look into this? One of the key reasons is that we have seen through the second half of the previous century that as we were going to progress in medicine, going to hygiene, vaccination, antibiotics, as we were controlling ever better infectious conditions, then we did see the onset of a chronic disease epidemics. The curves were all on the rise to the right. They indicate that following recent transitions, we've seen this increase in incidence, uncontrolled for now more than 60 years of a number of chronic conditions, immune related, sometimes autoimmune conditions, associated with changes in birth mode and environment, changes in nutrition and life habits, changes in exposure to xenobiotic compounds that Fabrice DeClaire already mentioned. One of the extreme cases is autism for which the rising incidence is exponential. 25% or so of this is due to an improvement in diagnosis, meaning that indeed it's exponentially rising. It's one birthed out to 50 in the US today, one out of 150 or so in the UK or France. And the World Health Organization is anticipating that one person, one human in four will be concerned by one or the other of those chronic conditions by 2025. So we have a situation where global health and life expectancy may be at threat and we urgently need to rethink prevention and medicine. Now, the common thread in chronic conditions has been as a start the evidence of altered microbiota. And this is true for hepatogastroenterologic conditions, obviously, but also true for metabolic conditions, such as insulin resistance or BCT, for strictly immunity related aspects, such as allergies or autoimmune diseases, but it's also true for disease that relate to the central nervous system, autism spectrum disorder, major depressive disorders, multiple sclerosis. And yet after we documented alteration of the microbiota, we were led to realize that in fact, what we deal with is a disruption of host microbes symbiosis. So altogether we have altered microbiota, but also a leaky gut syndrome, an inflammatory state, mostly low grade and oxidative stress coming with inflammation in conditions where we have no current prevention, no cure. Now, an illustration of that is given here. We have this correlation between the low richness of the microbiota, leaky gut syndrome, combining their effects to lead to inflammation, itself leading to oxidative stress, and then we close the circle of oxidative stress, aggravating the alteration of the microbiome. We have circular causalities or vicious circle that can establish and that may be actually really what happens in many of those conditions. In fact, when there are vicious circles or circular causalities, there is essentially no continuum between states, between states that can be health and pre-disease or disease. And so there can be complete disruptions that will lead to situations of disease that will be really complicated to set back to the initial condition. Now, how does food come into play between gut microbiota and health? I will discuss the specific elements of gene richness. We have come to realize that the distribution of the human population in number of individuals as a function of gene count is not the usual bell-shaped curve for biological criteria, but it's a shoulder to the left indicating a fraction of the population that has a low gene count microbiome, which I call here posibiosis, versus a larger fraction of the normal population with a high gene count. And in fact, the distribution is bimodal if we separate non-obese versus obese individuals. So we have a true fragment of the population on the left-hand side, posibiotic, 10 to 15% or so of the healthy population, 25 to 30% of the overweight or moderate obese, it actually reaches 75% for the extreme obese with the BMI over 40. And we get to realize that posibiosis or low gene count is associated with more severe, metabolic and inflammatory traits. This is specifically true or especially true in obesity. It's associated with non-response to calorie restriction in obesity. Similarly, it's associated with severity or speed of progression in acute liver conditions. It can be all the way a marker of risk of death of liver conditions. And it's associated with non-response to cancer therapies, including the latest highly developing immunotherapies. Now, if our food comments to play is that we were able to show that a high diverse fiber diet can actually correct posibiosis. What's illustrated here is that over a six weeks intervention with a low calories diet, high protein, low fat, low glycemic index carbohydrates, but with a highly diverse fiber content, what we were able to observe is this rise in gene count, average gene count from the population that has at start at baseline, a low gene count microbiome, plus 25% in gene count. This is highly significant. We were led to postulate that the high diverse fiber content was doing the difference, making the difference, i.e. a large diversity in primary substrates, plant fibers here, may promote diversification throughout the microbial food chain. Promoting the fiber degraders to start with, that actually feed the rest of the microbial community with a simpler sugars and hence promote increase in richness. It's in a way a new paradigm that may have a major impact in terms of prevention. Now, we did go a little bit further with my colleague Li-Ping Zhao in work where we were addressing the impact of a whole grain, traditional Chinese medicinal food and prebiotic based diet, not only in simple obesity, but also in Prada-Willi syndrome, which is a condition related to a genetic mutation that prevents from the perception of satiety. So infants, babies, infants have no perception of satiety. They crave for food all the time and they very early in life become obese, in some cases, extreme obese. What we were able to show is that with the dietary intervention, we were able to reduce body weight, to reduce BMI in simple obesity, but also in Prada-Willi syndrome, early on recognized as a genetic disorder where diet would not be able to do anything. We were able to show that the microbiome is changed by the diet over 30 days from rather similar diversity of microbiome in simple obesity or Prada-Willi syndrome to this condition. Not much more improvement following the first 30 days of intervention, actually in Prada-Willi syndrome. And this was associated to changes in metabolism that was evidenced by changes in the urinary metabolome, also modulated mainly during the first 30 days of intervention. And my colleague, Li-Ping Zhao, was able to show that, again, comparing a whole grain, traditional Chinese medicinal food and probiotic diet versus an isocaloric control diet, the fiber-rich diet would have a strong impact in terms of modulating diabetes parameters, such as glycated hemoglobin, such as the fraction of the population with low glycated hemoglobin, such as fasting blood glucose dramatically impacted. And the connection with microbial metabolism was linked to butyric acid production, highly increased or favored by the whole grain diet. And there was a connection with the GLP-1, which is a regulator of perception of satiety. Now, we pushed this a little bit further in a French study, where we worked together with the company Bredor, a bread company, and the Human Nutrition Research Center of Oronalp in Lyon, implementing a crossover randomized control trial with 40 volunteers at metabolic risk based on the waste circumference and also dietary habits. Whereby we compared a multi-fiber bread, combining not only the usual sources of fibers in bread, also extreme sources of fiber, such as the pectins from citrus or a carob gum or dextrins, unusually presenting bread. And in this study, what we were able to show is that, well, we do modulate the microbiota. We have a, with multi-fiber bread reduction in pro-inflammatory bacteria, such as bactoidus dolgitis, and an increase in bacteria that are either directly involved in the degradation of fibers or possibly involved in anti-inflammatory properties, especially via butyrate production. So only the consumption of fiber in which bread in our study modulated microbiota composition and it induced a limitation of the potential deterioration of cholesterol levels and an improved insulin sensitivity by 20% actually, compared to control bread. To move towards my conclusion, I will just give another example of an intervention we performed, whereby we aimed to modulate the microbiota richness together with intestinal permeability, inflammation and oxidative stress in a mouse model of depression. Mice are driven to a completely altered behavior by chronic stress exposure for four weeks, and then they are treated for three weeks. In our case, with a combination of glutamine, of lactobacillus from the GG as a probiotic, of curcumin as a micronutrient, a polyphenol, and these are geared here to address all four triggers of our vicious circle. We compare this with chlamyltramine, a classical anti-depressant molecule, and what we were able to show is that based on a modulation of anxiety-like behavior or depressive-like behavior, we do correct the impact of stress exposure as well with a combination of our three bioactives as we do with chlamyltramine, which is a tricyclic parent or anti-depressant, which is known incidentally to have high secondary effects. So to conclude, take home messages I would like to convey is that we humans are microbial, we are ecosystems, we are symbiosis, and circular causalities may actually drive and maintain durable alterations of host-microbe symbiosis. Now, this will have implications in our ability to monitor and to integrate microbiota and host parameters in the monitoring of the status of symbiosis in prevention or cure, targeting several triggers of a vicious circle in altered host-microbe symbiosis, with a crucial place in this case for bioactives, including fibers, including micronutrients, including probiotics and small molecules, and specifically in this case, diversity of the dietary ingredients will matter, and it should lead to innovation in trial design as well, where novel methodologies to study chronic diseases with alteration of host-microbe symbiosis will be awaited. I thank you very much for your attention, and I will pass the word to our chairman, Chairwoman. Thank you, Joelle. It's my pleasure to introduce our next speaker, Haribor Hertz. Haribor is an expert in plant and soil microbiome. He is currently located at the Center for Desert Agriculture at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. So take it away, Haribor. Thank you very much for the introduction and also for the invitation, and I think it's a fantastic opportunity to connect different threads. Some of these and Joelle, they already gave fantastic introduction, so it really fits very well to what I want to tell you. I'm a professor of genetics, research director, and I've been working for more than 40 years on basically how plants and microbes are interacting. And in this case, I want to try to convince you that healthy soil makes healthy food, makes healthy humans. So that's a big equation. If you want to read some more about us, here's some information. The Darwin 21 project or also a recent presentation that I gave in Zurich that you can look into. As you heard already that this biosis of the gut really has major implications in human health. So the question is, of course, where does it come from and how can we treat it? And the multiple factors are actually influencing the human gut microbiome. As Farh Abriz was very nicely laying out already that we live in an environment and this environment has major influence on the gut microbiome. And the question is can, there's only very few places where you can actually change the human gut microbiome in its composition. Most of these factors that are shown here, exercise, aging, drugs, geography, birth mode, these are factors that are contributing to basically the composition. But once you have this composition, people are thinking that this is it and you cannot change things. And I want to convince you that actually the diet is a major factor how you can change also your composition. So a simple solution would be then that you could take healthy food which makes healthy microbes and makes healthy humans. And that's a big hypothesis that I put forward here in the context of course of this major complexity. Now we have to look into what healthy food really is all about. And as you heard so far, our healthy food concept is really that healthy food should be rich in fiber, in vitamins and minerals and other compositions types of sugars, proteins, things like that. So we are more actually looking into chemical or physical components and food has not been considered in terms of microbiome itself. And this is a misunderstanding because healthy food must also be rich in microbes. And most of you probably think if you buy food, you wash it properly then there's no microbes left on the surface which is true on the surface there is microbes that you can try to wash off it's not very efficient, I can tell you that. But what people have been ignoring for very long time is that every plant and every food that you buy basically has its own microbiome that you already get in the shop or wherever you buy. And actually raw vegetables and fruits are rich sources of healthy microbes. Now, we have to must have a further look into this relationship what the healthy microbes are really are all about. And first of all, I just want to tell you a little bit more about the invisible world in and around us. Now, this I think is a fantastic illustration that could show you how you could see actually nature if you could see microbes. So to our eyes they're invisible they're too small to be seen with our eyes. You can see them in the microscope. And of course, first few would be that you are covered with microbes. But in fact, this is as we know now the gut microbiome, the lungs they're all filled with microbes in our human body. But this is not only true for humans or for animals. This is true for the soil. The soil is full of microbes. The trees or plants are full of microbes. And we have been ignoring this relationship almost entirely until very recently. So maybe some of you also don't know that already the sources of healthy microbes from plants already comes with a seed. And we talk here about the endosphere. So this is what is inside the plant. So every seed actually inherits an individual microbiome from its mother plant. But in a way very similar what happens already in human births. But the plants are of course living also in an environment. And every seed that you put into a different soil will actually be exposed to a very different soil microbiome. And for the most part of history we were thinking that soil is just chemical and physical composition of things but there's no life in it. And actually soil is the richest source of life on this planet. So one gram of soil harbors about 10 trillion microbial cells of 10,000 different microbial species. So everything that you find on humans, animals, plants actually is derived from originally from soil. That's where the ultimate soil is sourced. And plants are very clever. They are actually recruiting microbes from the soil that they are needing. So then a healthy plant actually has a healthy microbiome by itself and protects it from different pathogens. So this can be bacteria, viruses, insects, herbivores and also make these plants resistant to drought and heat stress. So moreover, there is more analogies. So you know that the fissile transfer can suppress disease in humans. This has been one of the most eye-opening revolutionary therapies one could see. But in fact, this also holds true in agriculture. So one knows for a long time that you can take actually a soil that keeps a certain plant happy and you can treat a plant with that and it will be protecting the plants from disease. So for example, here shown in this fact from a typical disease state which you see on the left side. So things are actually very similar between plants and animals and humans. And we have to now look into little more into our recent way of dealing with ourselves and with our nature as Chakris was telling us, we are actually have been very concerned about different chemicals that are affecting our health. And we know now since recently that many of these chemicals are indirectly affecting our health because they are affecting our microbes. So the human gut microbiota is very prone to interference by different chemicals and can also work on these chemicals to change their nature. That means that you can have certain chemicals that are non-toxic and they become toxic or the other way around as a million different possibilities. But in fact, almost all of these chemicals can also affect the plant and the soil microbiota. And especially if you think about industrial chemicals and pollutants. These are originally coming into very small amounts to the human body and the human gut. But actually these are used in massive amounts in agriculture. So the most chemicals that are used in agriculture are herbicides, insecticides and fungicides that and they are basically applied to almost all agriculture. Here you have a little map which shows actually the amount of pesticides used per hectare and you can see that all the data that are available, they show that there's massive use of these chemicals. Now, what happens now? We know that these chemicals affect the human gut microbiota but they already affect the soil microbiota and the plant microbiota. So you see here on the right side this is basically a non-contaminated soil and you see there's multiple colors which are representing various different microbial species and if you have pesticide contaminated sites here are site one and site two, shown you have a massive reduction of the complexity that means a number of these species are basically disappearing and this is exactly what Fabrice was saying. We are probably having in agriculture already eradicated massively certain species. It's much more complicated it's not just disappearing of species it's actually also that we are favoring some species by treatment with different chemicals and you see here for example in red there's different chemicals that have been compared and with different species on the Y axis. So if you look for certain chemicals they are reducing the number of species, so in green but they are favoring some species in red and in fact very similar effects have been identified in the human gut microbiome studies. So I just want to give you one case study which probably everybody of you know life has saved this has been in the media there's a big discussion about the toxicity and the toxicity of course of glyphosate has been is thought to be minimal on humans because humans don't have the enzyme that is targeted by glyphosate which is this EPSPS. So it's an enzyme that is basically part of the amino acid biosynthesis pathway but not in animals and humans. So it should then fact glyphosate should be an ideal herbicide. However, of course it acts on these enzymes that all plants have. So if you have a field that has been sprayed with a herbicide and then you come with a herbicide resistant crop and that's basically what we see on all acres. If you go out into the nature and you see a field that is basically free of any weed that has been herbicide treated. But the thing that has been completely forgotten is that the same enzymes are present in all microbes. So that means when you are spraying glyphosate on the field you are affecting all these microbes. And so one study here shows that about 54% of the core human gut microbiome is sensitive to glyphosate. So many of the effects that actually might be considered to be glyphosate derived in human might be due to the effects on the gut microbiome. The same again is true that glyphosate reduces the soil rhizosphere community. And with that, of course, you will, when you buy the nice fruit and food and you think that is very good for you, there is a deficiency of these microbes. So there is every year, this environmental working group publishes basically the 30 dozen of the most pesticide treated foods. Or the thing is, I mean, of course, you have these residues of these pesticides on these, and all these vegetables and fruit that you see here, they look perfectly healthy and this would be the best food that you think to buy, right? But in fact, one drawback is that all these derived pesticides have reduced the microbiome in the fruit and in the vegetables already. So you are getting much less potentially good ones into your system. So I think what the whole argument is that we have to basically grow back and start at agriculture. And agriculture makes out most of our environment today. It's not that we are having to look at into some specific major research parts and think about this, what exists there. Massive, the biggest part of our environment is actually used in agriculture. And we are using in conventional agriculture a massive amount of herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides. And this I hope I could convince you shows you that already we have a poor soil microbiome and we have a fragile plant microbiome. And we have to change into a future agriculture to replace most of these chemicals here. And with that, we can make a rich soil microbiome with a healthy plant microbiome. And of course, this is also what I think what is the difference between a conventional food and a healthy food. And the healthy food must contain, must be pesticide free and must also be microbiome rich. And this would in my view be a healthy, give a healthy gut microbiome. So directly and indirectly because it feeds the healthy gut microbiome but it also adds exactly the important players. Now, one of the things that I think when I was working on this, I was looking into basically publications and there's a search of publication in the human gut microbiome. You will see and over the last five years about 30,000 papers have been published. And but if you now look into the connection between the gut microbiome and pesticides or into the gut microbiome and organic food, this is a tiny little fraction of actually what we are looking at. And so I think we need some more studies and we need some more funding that goes into this direction because I think this is completely underfunded and underestimated. So this is basically one of my final slides here where I tried to convince you that actually we need to work on a healthy soil and healthy agriculture because this is the basis for healthy food and also an environment. And this is the basis for healthy humans. Of course, we healthy humans are not actually at the end of this chain. We are the major players of this. We are going in all directions in the system. We are changing the agriculture and we can also change environment and we can also determine what is healthy food. So the take home messages in my view are healthy soil is rich source of microbes. Healthy soil is also equal to healthy plants and healthy plants are equal to healthy food. And healthy food must also be considered in terms of healthy microbes as a rich source of healthy microbes which is essential for healthy humans. And with that, my microbiome and me, thank you for your attention and I pass back to our convener. Thank you. Amaran Meyer, Professor at UCLA and I had the pleasure of co-chairing this fascinating session with the three speakers and we'll take a couple of minutes to just make a closing of this session. So we heard talks by Dr. Dirk Lerke about the One Earth concept from Dr. Duree about the gut microbiome diversity and from Dr. Hurt about soil microbiome diversity. So the common themes that came up through all three presentations even though all three individuals came from very different areas of the field was the theme of interconnectedness, ecological systems and as a part of this the concepts of diversity and resilience. These are normally not topics that come up in a presentation about healthy nutrition but I think they have come to the forefront in many discussions and recently also in an increasing number of publications. So let's start with the unique role of microbes. So microbes are the oldest life form on the planet. They have lived in the oceans for at least four billion years, 3.5 billion years before any other life form appeared. They had a lot of time to perfect their communication systems and accumulate the vast number of genes which gives them abilities that most other life on earth does not have. For example, they are extremely adaptable and resilient. They're adaptable to the worst to the most traumatic changes in the environment. They have survived catastrophic events on planet earth and they've survived several waves of extinction. And as I said, they have the greatest gene pool of a life form on earth which gives them this ability to and most of these genes we don't really know what they do yet. So just as a comparison, we humans have about a mere 20,000 genes whereas the microbes have been estimated to have between two and 20 million microbial genes. So if you put those two together in this concept of a whole of biomes, the microbial genes make up about 99% of our gene pool. They have the ability to rapidly adapt to changing environmental factors, to a change in diet. They have adapted to the unhealthy diet that we have consumed over the last 75 years but our human bodies have not been able to mirror this traumatic change. One important concept that has come up, particularly in the first presentation, Dr. de Klerk is the systems view of the microbiome. Not surprising coming from an ecologist. It's definitely the one aspect or the one dimension of microbiome science to look at it as a complex system as opposed to try to focus on individual microbes as microbiology and the search for pathogens if really concentrated on. So one of these systems and it shows the connectivity with the environment as well. So within the body, there's not a linear relationship between the microbes in our gut and our orient systems which is illustrated for the brain but it is these bi-directional loops that connect different players or nodes in that system which leads to feedback loops and a completely non-linear behavior. What we see here is a very simplified view of this. In reality, there's hundreds, possibly thousands of these arrows going back and forth. What's also important to realize that this close connection to the environment. So we all know from the environment we are exposed to stressors and psychosocial stressors but also we derive our food from the environment. We get pathogens from the environment and we are linked as we became clear in one of the presentations very closely to the soil microbiome and its health. Another very fascinating aspect of this systems view of the microbiome are the similarities between plant and human health. So a group of molecules that interacts closely with the rhizosphere, the root system of plants and plays a major role in defending the plants against all kinds of perturbation, stressors, drought, UV light, pests, insecticides. All these polyphenols is very large molecules that the plants produce and they're most concentrated in their seeds and fruit and in their leaves. So when we consume plants that have been grown in a healthy soil with a lot of interactions between soil microbes and the root system which is essential to stimulate this polyphenol production. When we eat these plants they, these plants are not absorbed in our small intestine because a large portion is made up of undigestible fiber and of these large molecular polyphenols are too large to be absorbed in the small intestine first for the intestine. So they make it down into the distal small intestine and into the colon where there are several functions. They feed the probiotics for the gut microbes contribute to their diversity just like fiber does and the microbes can break them down in digestible and absorbable molecules which is then absorbed and provide health benefits throughout our body and including the brain. So the same role that these polyphenols play mediating between the microbiome, either in the soil or in our gut is sort of becoming apparent. This is pretty the best example why a largely plant-based diet is good for the microbes in our gut and on the other hand why a healthy soil is important for enriching the plants that we eat with the largest diversity and concentration of these health promoting molecules. So if you put this all together the first talk started with this one health, one planet concept. I would like to apply this also to the one health concept. So the close interconnectedness between human health, gut health, health of our organs, the health of plants and the soil which play a big role in our own health. And then the consequences of a diet that is optimal for the soil microbiome and for our gut microbiome how that diet also have benefits for the environment and is a major factor in combating climate change. So I would like to thank again the speakers for their stimulating and excellent presentations and I'm looking forward to the questions from the audience. Hey, thank you very much and thank you to all the speakers and we have about 15 minutes now for Q&A and I'd like to start with Fabrice and the question that has gotten the most attention is about the Eat Lancet report. And basically, can you comment on the uptake of this tool and ways in which we might successfully promote it? Sure, sure, certainly. So the Eat Lancet report published two years ago generated much controversy for some but that also was used by many others. And I think the two points that we wanna emphasize is that the dietary guidelines were really developed based on human health objectives primarily. They were not developed looking at environmental considerations. The second part was asking what is the impact of a healthy diet on environments? I think one of the biggest challenges we had is that many people read the mean value that was produced for each food group rather than looking at the range and just really recognize that within what is healthy there's tremendous diversity, flexibility and opportunity. So much of the controversy I find was really focused on that mean value for red meat consumption in particular rather than then again, looking at the range. I think for red meat that was 0 to 400, 0 to 200 grams per week was the range that was proposed. So within that diet, yeah, but there's good evidence that vegan and vegetarian can be healthy and equally good evidence that a balanced omnivore or a flexitarian diet can also be healthy. So when we look at its recommendations compared to the blood burden disease or the WHO, FAO, health and sample dietary recommendations they're actually quite similar. And when we look at the global challenges that we're faced with in terms of malnutrition both in terms of under and over consumption they really are much larger than the range proposed. So I think it's been a really useful tool to point out universal healthy diets but a diversity of pathways towards healthy diets. And we're thrilled with the way that's created some really important conversations including leading up to UN system summit later on this year. Okay, so I'm gonna go in order. So the next would be for Joelle and this was related to your concepts of microbial diversity and what role do you think it could have potentially played in the COVID-19 epidemic? Okay, actually what we have got to realize quite rapidly in the COVID pandemic is that the most severe forms are connected with risk factors such as diabetes, obesity and or old age and all three we know come with altered symbiosis. There is alteration of gut permeability and immunity in this context and possibly that would be conferring a higher risk of developing severe conditions. Now our society is increasing the risk of pandemics because of the way we deal with nature overall or globally as was illustrated by the presentation of Fabrice but we are also increasing the sensitivity to severe forms by the way we alter human microbes symbiosis. So do you think that I've seen some papers looking at different probiotics potentially as a treatment for COVID? What do you feel about that? I think more generally and we discussed that a little bit already in the presentations acting with one single microbes might be complicated to really reset and alter the host microbes symbiosis. I think more globally overall nutrition could be a nice way to leverage altogether microbiome, gut permeability, inflammation, oxidative stress and that might probably be the best way to go as a start I would think. So I'll ask the next question and then I'll turn it over to Emeryn to ask a few but there's been a number of questions and this is sort of directed to Heribert about the concept of regenerative agriculture as one but also the movement towards more hydroponic or greenhouse types of crop systems and what do you think is the impact of those systems potentially on the soil and plant microbiome? Yeah, that's an interesting question because basically it would be a possibility to manipulate or to direct the microbiome in an aquaponics system or in a greenhouse system that uses artificial media for growth of plants and the problem is that at the moment we don't really know what are all the good players and the important players. So as I tried to point out if you just take a little bit of soil from different places in the world you will have a very different landscape of microbes and if you take different plant species you will have a very different landscape of the microbes that live within them. So it's like actually every plant that you're looking at has its own family of microbes plus the system gets more complicated because they are also depending on where they live in which soil they live and plants are always living in the soil they are recruiting microbes that they actually need for living in this specific environment. So we have actually a huge complexity that we have poorly scratched at the surface. So it's like the iceberg and we just look we just discover that there's an iceberg swimming. Sharon, do you want me to continue with the questions? I'm sure we only have about eight more minutes so. Okay, I personally had a quick question kind of addressed really to all the speakers and that question is why and how can diet restore a microbial ecosystem if many strains have already gone extinct is are we aiming for doing the best we can do with the with this impoverished ecosystem or are we actually gonna be able to bring some of those microbes in that whole system back? I take this first and then probably others can go on. I was illustrating how we were able to increase by 25% the richness of a microbiome that was initially really poor. And the concept behind is that it's dietary habits that actually reduce the dominant microbiota. But still we keep in subdominant fraction microbes that are ready to come up again if you open the ecological niches for them. And so just diversifying the richness in plant material will bring in a lot of biomolecules that are different in their form in their shape and that are taken care of by different microbes. And so you will essentially increase the top of the food chain for the microbes and they will actually feed the rest of the community. So what we envision is that this diversification is simply or it's possibly manipulated by the input of a high diversity of fibers in the diet to start with. Okay. Dr. Hurt, I was gonna ask you a question. I got the impression that you focused a lot on the microbial presence on various plant-based foods as a health beneficial and good for our human microbiome. Do you think that that's an important component or do you think the other component that the soil microbes stimulate these plants to make more of the polyphenols which we then consume is more important? Do you think the direct transfer of microbes or the indirect transfer of these phytonutrients? It is indisputable that actually certain microbes in plants are producing certain features such as certain vitamins. Actually it's not the plants that are producing the vitamins, it's the microbes that are producing the vitamins in the plants that we are then eating and we say, okay, you have to eat this plant to get the vitamins, but in fact, it's the microbes. Now, the problem is that in current agriculture we are using so much chemicals that we have actually deprived the soil and with that also the microbes in the plants because they are the most prone to actually inhibition and extinction as Fabrice was telling. So in fact, we have to look into soils that have not been treated with chemicals, which is, this is the, I think the ultimate source and this is the holy grail where we can actually still find all the good microbes that we might have already extinct in a lot of the, you know, long-term treated agricultural fields that we use. And I think that's where we have to go, we have to roll back, we have to actually really try to get rid of the chemicals which are basically antimicrobials, all are antimicrobials if you look into their action and we have to replace them with soft chemicals or with microbes that actually do the job in a sustainable way. Yeah, I mean, this is also addressing a very important point that, you know, everybody is recommending more a plant-based diet, you know, 75% and but at the same time, there are all these, so we see these shifts that are being celebrated as going in this direction with the plant-based meat substitutes, for example, which are, many of them are made out of soybeans which are grown the same negative way that you have described. So eating the impossible burger essentially would do, would not be any significant benefit. Absolutely not. So maybe we only have a couple more minutes but that was actually one of the questions that came as, because there are many registered dieticians and nutritionists in the audience and they would like all of you or any of you to comment on, you know, what types of concrete actions are we able to recommend to consumers that would better balance planetary and human health? So maybe Fabrice will start with you. Yeah, so I think there's a lot of things that dieticians can do, you know. And so one, of course, from a plant-to-health perspective is look at compositions. So for many of us that were in Western audiences, it may indeed be reducing the red meat consumption particular but I think more importantly or more positively, focusing on increasing diversity of fresh produce in diet fruits, not specials. And I think many, many people are really calling or raising attention to the role of fiber in diet which is probably something we don't speak enough about as a recommendation. I'm always hesitant to say, you know, is there a food that we should be consuming more of? I mean, I think this often is a trap you fall into, right? Is recommending a food which will fix it rather than a whole-of-plates approach. So I think as long as on whole-of-plates we're striving for balance, we're including the fresh produce, we're including mainly processed produce and diversity, each of colors, I think is what we like to say at least in ecology that this is at least the foundation for recommendation upon which specific recommendations can be built. All right, so Joelle, would you like to add anything else? Yeah, please, yeah. So our fellow dietitian are pointing at what could be, in my view, a microbiome-friendly diet. I think I only have rather straightforward answers, I think, although it may seem generalizations, but more organic plant-derived food makes a big difference. We have documented that already quite extensively. Diversity matters, diversity matters greatly. I think that if you concentrate on the bringing plant in the diet, you have to convince people to bring diversity in their plant intake and more organic plant-derived food overall makes a big difference, diversity matters and least transformed, I think is also an important point. I like actually to recommend 25 different plant-based portions per week rather than the five fruits and vegetables per day we recommend in France, because I think that when people go shopping, they really think diversity. Yeah. Okay, well, we only have about a minute left, so I would just like to wrap up and thank all of the speakers for their presentations. I would recommend the attendees to please go to the Yogurt and Nutrition Initiative website. There's a lot more information on this topic out there as well as this general health and nutrition. What we will be doing afterwards is we'll be collecting all of these questions and giving the speakers an opportunity to answer those and we'll be reposting those on our website as well. So we didn't have time to get to everything, but I'm really hoping that everybody learned a lot today. I know that I did and I'd like to thank Dr. Meyer for co-chairing and all of our speakers and of course Yv and ASN. So thank you, everyone. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye, everyone. Bye.