 It's, it's good because I have a choice of who I want to be, many choices. So welcome to everybody. Oh, you are the right guy. No, that's it. That's it. Welcome to everybody. It's a real pleasure to have you here. Thanks to those who accepted our invitation to contribute to the workshop and of course thanks to all of those who have decided to attend both in presence as well as online. So of course to Stefan of Anthony to Nicola Casagli for leading this initiative of TLQS, which I'm sure will give us a number of fruitful results because I think it's an innovative idea to bring together different competencies to tackle these fundamental problems of making our economic activities more sustainable environmentally socially and economically by combining different approaches and most importantly as it has already been underlined by taking a quantitative approach. Sustainability is a term that today is very commonly used, but oftentimes it's not used in the correct way. And oftentimes our choices are made without really considering what the impact is but rather thinking that what we are doing is the most sustainable solution and food is one of the areas where these misbeliefs are most common. The first misbelief that the consumers have is that food production is not very important from the point of view of its impact on the environment. All these statistics tell us the opposite 34% of the greenhouse gas emissions are due to the food production process so it's more than a third. And of that 34%, two thirds are due to the primary production alone. So the process of agricultural production, only one third is due to whatever comes downstream of the agricultural production, the supply chain transformation and so on and so forth. And for example, one of the most common beliefs that the consumer buys into is the zero kilometer strategy and in transportation when it comes to food production weighs very little on the environmental impact. There is a very nice paper that was published a few years ago by a group of British economists who made a life cycle assessment of the environmental impact of a loaf of bread from when we put the seeds of wheat into the field until when the loaf of bread gets on our table. And whatever is the measure of environmental impact that we use two thirds of the impact are due to just the production of the wheat seeds so from when we put the seeds into the field until when we collect them. Transportation weighs for less than 5%. One factor alone weighs for 45%. And guess what is that factor it's nitrogen fertilization. So nitrogen fertilization. When we consume a loaf of bread. The most important factor in the term in the environmental impact of that loaf of bread. And so if we want to really affect the environmental impact by decreasing it. We need to know what is the exact weight of each factor, so that we can choose which factor to try to improve on. And of course we will start with those that have the biggest weight. At the same time, we do not always make rational choices when it comes to food choices. And if it's a general truth that humans are usually not in favor of innovation of whatever type and history teaches us that we have always been resilient to accepting innovations. This is even more true when it comes to food. When we make our food choices and I, even though I consider myself a scientist I admit that I also make choices based based on these beliefs. The values that we go for are natural, old, small, when it comes to artificial, new, large, those are not the winning values those are the losing values and we're not considering so much really what the environmental impact of what we buy is, but we're rather buying into this type of values and the food transformation industry, I must admit is also part of this problem because their marketing are trying to convince the consumer to buy not necessarily into what is most environmentally sustainable, but rather they're trying to convince him that they have to sort of be nostalgic of the good old times. When according to what they want to make us believe everything was working better than it is working now. But for example, if we think about milk production, I mean we all know that animal products are part of the big impact on the environment of food production. If we think about the production of a liter of milk, the environmental impact of the production of a liter of milk in Europe is one sixth of what it is in Africa today. So, despite the fact that we are so against intensive farming, the environmental impact of intensive farming is much smaller than the environmental impact of all traditional farming strategies that are still being used in Africa. And that puts that into another type of problem. I mean if we look at what is expecting us. We know that the war population is increasing. The statistics tell us that we're soon going to be 10 billion now we are about 8 billion. It's not only increasing in number. It's also increasing in food needs. And that's thanks to the fact that there is a sustained economic development, especially in the poor areas of the world. A lot of these demographic increase is going to happen in Africa. And if Africa continues to produce food with the technologies that it's using today, but it tries to do it for the for a much larger population, the impact on the environment will be huge. So there is a big problem of trying to transfer new technologies from the countries that have developed these technologies into the countries that can make the most use of them, of course, with the correct social and economic approach. And these will be extremely useful to reducing the qualities and also to overcome an additional problem which has to do with the fact that we do a lot of greenwashing. And that's typical of Europe and the European Union and when the European Union makes its choices in the area of sustainability of the food system. It decides that they want to decrease the environmental impact of agriculture in Europe. That's fine. We all want that. But if the price to pay to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture in Europe is the fact that what we do not produce because we want to decrease environmental impact will be produced elsewhere. And if when it is produced elsewhere, it has a greater impact that when we produce it in Europe, the overall result will be that the environmental impact globally will increase. And additionally, in order to produce what we do not produce any longer. There will be decreasing the capital of natural resources of other countries that are extremely rich in natural resources by diversity and so on and so forth. And we will not be compensating them for that. So it will be yet another way by which we exploit other countries for the benefit of our own economy economies without properly compensating them for that. There are big global problems that we will try to tackle today and tomorrow. I hope that we will come out of these two days with a clearer understanding of what the problems are at all levels, scientific, economic, socially, will start with discussing how to communicate the problems of innovation and science in the food system. And I hope we will come out of these two days with some proposals. Since we have here our Minister for Research. I think a useful initiative that our region could be could try to launch is an initiative for labeling food. We have labels on the food that describe how many calories, the food contains how many of those come from protein carbohydrates fat. We should have a label that describes to the consumer what is the exact environmental impact of the food he's buying into. In terms of energy consumption greenhouse gas emission, water consumption. It's a very complicated problem, but it would be a very interesting project that could lead the consumers to make more rational choices when it comes to food consumption and environmental sustainability. I think also we need to make the consumer understand that when they buy food, they're only paying the direct prices of food production. There is a whole set of indirect costs that nobody at the moment is paying if the consumer had to pay for the direct plus indirect costs. The prices of the food that we consume would be much higher and right now. It's the planet that is paying for those costs and nobody else and we have to try to change the situation. We need to make sure that if we don't want to charge the consumer also for the indirect cross. We need to make sure that we decrease those indirect costs. In all of these science and innovation can play a very fundamental role. Out of the sustainability dilemma that we're facing in the food system. If not that we adopt scientific and technological innovations to try to reduce the environmental footprint while increasing productivity and improving the quality attributes of our foods. Some people think that there may be easy solutions out of these. Some people think that if we only reduce waste that will be enough. Some other people think that we can avoid consumption of animal products. But the reality is that neither of these two solutions will be sufficient nor neither of these two solutions will be easy to accept for the consumers. So it's a much more complex problem which will need much more complex solutions. I'll stop here and I'll let Claudio continue with the introduction. The introduction from my side will be totally different because I'm going to try to address the other side of the coin or the dark side of the moon. Actually, what we are dealing with is not only a problem with the food production, but also the food consumption. We have to realize that about 25% of the total global population is overweight. And that 25% of the eight billions of people. And this is true particularly in the low income countries which is even worrisome even more worrisome is consuming less calories than what they are taking in, which means that the amount of food we ingest every single day is much higher or that amount of calories we are using. This is mainly due to one fact that our adolescents, our children, we, our population is not doing any or less exercise physical activities, and the physical activities simply because we are too pressed by a lot of different adults, which has kept us busy from the very beginning of our day, until the last moments before sleeping. We have internet we have the phone calls we have what's up we have you name it. And this makes impossible to take something which in ancient times was usual. And our kids were used to go to school by walk walking. And now there's a car bringing them and taking them from the school to other additional activities. We are, we were used to play football we play whatever in in the in the backyard, no way. So altogether, this makes possible to increase our weight. So carefully, what is really worrisome is that 40% of the Europeans children are overweight, which means that we have to pay attention to this. So the issue is why this dramatic picture is affecting the sustainability, because we, of course, as well described by my previous speaker. Not only to improve the production of food, we need to improve how the food is used. And we need to teach people how to reduce or how to balance the in the in and out caloric balances. This is true, because we are also be submerged by nonsense ideas. I mean, if you look carefully in terms of food. Now there is a long campaign, longstanding campaign, say that wine is dangerous. And we need to put on the label that like in the cigarettes that wine can do something bad to your family, to your health, which is totally correct. But the issue is how much wine you drink. There's a landmark study done in 20 in 1999, assessing for the first time in the top in general population, how much alcohol you are allowed to use per day without any problem for your health. And the amount of alcohol is 20 grand per day, which means off of a liter of wine. And we have to rely that in our culture, wine was a source of calories. Because wine was a source of calories when food was very scarce. And the big celebration during Christmas and Easter is because was the only two days when you can eat as much as you want. And then wine, which was a cheap calories produced at home can be used to sustain your work. And why remember ethanol is a seven kilo calories per gram. So it's a lot of calories. So that this is the issue. And the issue is why, in this issue, liver is important. This because why I'm here. And I'm here for two reasons. Number one, because liver is, in my opinion, the most important organ in the body, not because I'm studying liver, but simply because historically speaking, when the root species are open, we're not opening a separate sacrificial animal. The first thing they're we're looking at was liver. And second, because liver is the central plays a central role in so called metabolic syndrome, metabolic problem, which is to wait hypertension and reduce expectancy of life. And why is the playing a central role because liver has the bad attitude to, I mean, and God itself of fat, the so called steatosis, the fatty liver, and not a liver problem. Fat liver is a metabolic problem. And fat liver needs to be recognized because fat liver may start a long way towards cardiovascular disease, tumor and heart disease. This is what we need to discuss, define and prevent. Mind that a child overweight now has the possibility to get a cirrhosis in 20 years, 10 times higher than a lean adolescent. And if this is the case, it is being calculated and in in in 20 years, which means around 2040. The main indication for liver transplantation was a metabolic metabolic liver disorder related to overweight. Now, so we need to invest time and efforts to prevent this. This prevent in terms of cost, in terms of sustainability of the health system and in terms of sustainability of the of the world. So basically what we need to do is to understand that a fat liver, a liver in God of that is important to predict the future. And how can I assess the possibility to have a fat liver very simple. You can make an ultrasoundography, which is very cheap, which is available all over the world, and then you get the information. It's like something like a good friend of us is selling several times that a fat liver is like if you are driving a car in your car, there's a red light. It means that something is wrong, maybe the oil, maybe the engine, maybe whatever. But this is what the fat liver is telling us something is wrong and we need to do something. And what we have to do. Don't forget about drugs. There is no drugs for this. Forget about false ideas. If you eat more vegetables you increase if you eat more artichokes you improve your liver. If you drink less wine, you had to increase the your expenditure in calories. You need to walk. You need to walk. You need to exercise. You need to make to go back at the ancient times when everything was based on physical activity. This is what we must done and we must combine this dark side of the moon with the bright side of the moon. Bright side of the moon is how produce food, how to increase the productivity. The dark side of the moon is how to reduce the effects, the damaging effects of overweight and overeating. And mind that if you go to Africa, or if you go to Asia, or if you go to South America, you realize how large is the population overweight. Another factor of income is a factor of structure, mentality. And also mind that if the parents are obese, the possibility that the children are obese or overweight is 10 times higher. So we need to teach the population how to deal and how to select the most beneficial food, the most less aggressive foods for the planet, but you also need to understand that we need to eat less and to walk more. I think liver is playing a role. This is why the foundation is cooperating this important and really new project, which in my opinion may be a frontliner in for the future of our society. Thank you very much. Is this sustainable? Hopefully. Thank you, Claudio, and we are done with the introduction. So we'll take a break during the break. We'll have a group photo. Before that, are there questions either from the attendees or online? Okay. Okay. I'll be at your disposal. My pleasure. I have a question very much. I thought both speeches were very interesting. Just one thing, there is a correlation between income and obesity or malnutrition. Unfortunately, it is reversed. The lower your income, the worst nutritional status. And this is both in countries. So we see this a lot in Africa. And as you mentioned in lower income communities in richer countries. So we see this a lot, for example, in the United States and inner city communities and so forth. So nothing just there is it's even worse than what we were thinking that the poorer people tend to have the worst nutritional outcomes. Right. Yes, I mean, this is exactly the point. I mean, I'll give an example. I mean, if you go in the Andes, where they actually are supposed to eat very, very marginal amount of calories and they supposed to expand a lot of calories by walking in at the altitude. And if you look around, I mean, you are impressed that amount of obesity present. And this is what we need to address. Because, I mean, it's very easy when we are living in the fourth in the Fifth Avenue to go to exercising to go, I mean, to eat a lot of vegetables. But I mean, there's not the case. I mean, we need to address the real problem. And the real problem is to link together all the expertise we have around this table. This is why the idea of this institution is brilliant. Yeah, just a comment. I think based on what Walter Sergo told us about the environmental impact of medical procedures, we should compute into the cost of the food system. Also, all the medical treatments that are due to the over nutrition, for example, and then the impact would increase even more. And for this, also a part of my question, because we forget that we need to pay attention to food culture as well because a lot of a majority of people in the States were obese and also in Ireland. I was shocked how many of these people, they don't, they don't cook, they don't know how to cook. They for them is simply a gate to go to the supermarket and buy, and they, and so many times they don't have kitchen to cook actually. It's also something that we need to address. Well, they have definitely a microwave oven but I mean, but I mean the point is that what you, you buy already assembled is something full of preservatives, because need to to mean to last longer than a usual fresh food. But there's a culture, the culture is that you don't have time to spend. There is one. Thank you. I'm literally Pandelia and the president of the Italian leave a foundation so I would certainly not enter into anything of what already professor to the belly said, because he, he did it much better than I can. I think I that Professor Morgan, they has recalled, Professor Sergo's reference about about the impact of medicine, and definitely this is a way to to join the two sides of the moon that you were, you were mentioning and I think it's, it's rather important. The comments are more provocative. Unfortunately, I got the invitation to come here a little bit late and I had already some commitment so I won't be able to stay the whole time. When you were referring, Professor Morgan to about technology and food, and the way people accept or don't accept new technologies in food in my provocation I would like to raise also I don't know if it will be raised throughout the workshop. The issue about the use of biotechnology in agriculture and the production of genetically modified food. And what is the impact of that kind of production for sustainability. Just to give an example, I'm not a pro GMOs, but I have been working in this sector for a while, and I, the impact that has the production of GM food is rather important in positive terms as well. Just think about the amount of pesticides that are to be used to combat pests, which can be compacted without the use of pesticides, which means also having no trucks. Using those pesticides there was a calculation made in 1996, showing that the amount of greenhouse gases that was released by the trucks using dispersing pesticides was equivalent to something like 50% of all the cars circulating in Italy. I think that these are all elements that need to take to be taken into account GMOs are not the civil bullet, but they can have an impact, a positive impact as well with all the due consideration about safety. Finally, the fact that in the 17 sustainable development goals, there is not one development goal which is centered on the conservation of biodiversity. It is dispersed throughout these 17 goals, which is fine, but I think it's a huge limit for the whole success of Agenda 2030. Thank you. I'm sorry if I was a little bit long. Thanks a lot for raising these two issues I'll address the second one. Food production is one of the biggest contributors to the loss of biodiversity and it's a very simple thing I mean the biggest component in terms of an environmental impact of food production is land use change, which means that we take land, which is hosting a natural ecosystem we converted into agricultural land, which of course supports much lower levels of biodiversity among other things. So it's definitely a very important aspect. In terms of genetic improvement, it's my area of research so of course I'm very convinced that it can give a big contribution. If we look at the historic data. I mean if we want to be very simple in terms of how you bring innovation into the agricultural production system you can do it in three ways by modifying genetically plants and animals. So genetic improvement of plants and animals by changing agronomic practices and third through chemistry. If we look at what has been the biggest contributor both in terms of increases in yield and decreases in environmental impact, it has been genetic improvement. Historically seems to be around 50% alone for genetic improvement. And in the last 20, 30 years that percentage seems to have increased even more. So it's definitely a very important strategy to try to decrease the environmental impact of food production. There are very innovative genetic modification technologies, among which genome editing for Chris Percasse is perhaps the most promising. And during the workshop will deal with those aspects there will be a presentation by Pierre Domenico Pareta who will exactly touch upon that. The other big innovation in agriculture is the use of very sophisticated modeling and informatics to go towards what is called precision agriculture or digital agriculture and there will be a contribution in the afternoon by Bruno who will tell us what we can do by using those technologies but of course these are technologies that it's easy to envision being implemented in our food production system but the real challenge will be to make those technologies available globally because the biggest impact of those technologies will not be in Europe or in the US, it will be in those countries that will have due to climate change the biggest problems with food production and that we'll see the biggest increases in population and food needs, which is Africa. All right, thank you I just wanted to add something I was you're already addressed some of the things I wanted to ask, but just to maybe drop this point for us now that in my home part of the world is so funny and interesting that even people in the villages, they live longer than the people in the city, because they eat better food, they eat raw food from the farm, which leads to processing and all of that has gone through the food system in the city, so people in the villages they live longer, they eat raw, good food, unprocessed food and just talking about the health aspect of this talk, thank you. Yes, I mean, I agree. The point is that it's very difficult to compare the two situations, because although the fact that in the farmers are probably eating much better than us, because they are eating raw and then much more health food. The life they're doing is totally different from the life we're doing in the city in terms of stress in terms of pollution in terms of you name it. And I think that I mean, at the end, you need to draw a line and the draw line is usually the farmers are living less than the people in the city. And it's also because particularly in the low middle in countries, because the medical facilities are not so easily available for the country. We are, I mean, at the foundation, we are studying different models, I mean, one of which is neonatal jaundice, for instance, you know, all of us are becoming jaundice upon birth, and this is good. But if it is the jaundice too much, maybe have a different, I mean, if you are getting jaundice here, you can go to Bordeaux, there's no in no time, you can get assessments. If you are jaundice in the middle of the Andes, that's totally different. So this is where we need to make things sustainable. We need to have a sort of a common level to make possible to all of us around the world to eat well, not to waste a lot of veggies and environmental goods, and then have the possibility to live definitely better. Okay, so if there are no other questions. We have a problem for a group that names itself quantitative because the program says that at 1030 we have a 30 minute break, but we reconvene at 1115, which is 45 minutes later. So I don't know if the theory of relativity can help us here, you are physicists. So do we reconvene at 1115. Okay, so we'll be back at 1115 we have time for a sustainable coffee break and for a group photo.