 The food system is not broken, it is serving multiple functions at a societal level. A huge number of livelihoods embedded in the food system, it obviously feeds us, it's important, but the way it feeds us and the change that we've seen over the last 50 years has led to increasing over-consumption of what's often termed empty calories which is high-calorific food, oils, fats and sugars, but not particularly nutritious. On the other hand, we still have about a billion people hungry, as I say, and that number is the last increasing year on year now. This is very challenging. We like what we like, and bringing about systemic change is going to need a combination of all the actors involved. The policy process, the private sectors, particularly important. The NGO and civil society and ourselves as citizens and consumers. Malnutrition is a phrase, it's a word that's been used very liberally. Malnutrition actually means bad nutrition, so it does refer to those of us having too much, as well as those of us not having enough. Under-nutrition is a big problem. It's essentially a problem of the developing world, a particular abject hunger, but over-nutrition is another form of malnutrition, which is a worldwide epidemic. It's not just the, quote, global north. It is across the globe, and it's much more related to wealth and opportunity to buy different foods than it is related to geography. Over-nutrition brings two types of problems. First of all, to personal health, non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes is very much on the increase. That is a great challenge, particularly for poorer nations, which have a less robust public health sector. The other problem with over-nutrition is the unnecessary, from a physiological point of view, consumption of food, which puts extra pressure on the natural resource base on which our food system depends. So if we were to reduce the amount of food we eat, if we're eating too much, it will, in effect, reduce the pressure on the natural resource base. Reducing food waste is also a very big part of that. Fifty years ago, about two billion people were not hungry. Today, about six billion people are not hungry. This is a remarkable story. With it has come this divergence of the over-consumption, particularly with the more wealthy, and the baseline of those not getting enough has remained very, very steady. So how has it come about? Combination of economic development, population growth, globalization, huge market reach by multinational corporations, and a policy framework that is not adequate to manage more effectively the food system to mitigate the negative aspects and to reinforce the positive aspects. Whose role is it to change the system is a really difficult one because it's everybody's role, and arguably it's nobody's. Who has responsibility? Who takes responsibility? Is it the public health people? Is it the agriculture people? Is it the finance people in government? Or is it civil society organizations? Or is it down to the individuals? So there are a large number of actors, and recognizing that they all have their own motives, their purpose, what they want out of it is very important. And so as we discuss interventions to bring about systemic change, we need to recognize that there will be losers as well as winners, and that we need to pave the ground for the losers more strongly than we need to celebrate the success for the winners. The winners would be ourselves from our health point of view. The winners would be the physical environment. We would have less environmental damage due to excess consumption. The losers would of course be the enterprises that are dependent on sale of goods all along the value chain. They could be a political dimension. There could be a civil disturbance, for instance, if it was implemented in an incorrect way. There could be a change to our habits and our lifestyles and our preferences. So we, as a society, need to prepare for a change diet, and that includes all the actors involved in the food sector, both the direct actors and the many, many influencers of it. The perfect food system would bring a more equitable society. I would be loathed to try and define a perfect food system, but certainly it's not the one we have at the moment. We would be looking to enhance the nutrition status of those people who don't have enough. We'd be looking to ramp down the consumption patterns and the food waste and loss, looking at the other side of the equation. And we would be looking for an equitable business environment so that enterprises are successful, because without successful food system enterprises, the food system is not going to function. We have to respect the role of business and enterprise as much as we have to respect the role of environment and public health. Forests are fundamental to the earth system functioning. From an environmental point of view, they are part of the regulatory mechanism, which in turn affects our climate and hence our weather, and all of that trickles down to affect the entire food system. Obviously there are direct outputs from forests, which are important, forest products, nuts and the like, but also think of the livelihoods associated with timber, with silver culture generally, and so that affects the food system because it increases the affordability of food for those people engaged in those enterprises. They have a job. So it's not just what we eat from the forest, but it's what we earn from the forest that affects our food security status.