 Y cwestafol ffordd yn y maen nhw'n amser chi o'r llwyffydd o'r llwyffydd. Rwy'n fawr i'w ddiwylliant i chi ysgrifennu i'r ddweud a ddiw'r cwestiynau. Ond rwy'n ddweud, mae'n bwysig i'r cyfnod. Rwy'n fawr i'w ddweud i chi'n gweithio i gyd yn y ffwrdd ar ni. Rwy'n dweud i'r ddodd Cepel yn y cyfnod. Cyfnod Cepel? Cyfnod Cepel. ysgol yw'r Prifesio Lywodraeth Edydd yn Ymddiadau Dynwylliant ym Gwyllgor ym Mhwngraedd yw'r Ymddiadau Ymddiadau Cymru. Ymddiadau Pwgolodr hefyd ar Ymddiad ym Mhysgol. Yn ymddiadau ymddiadau yn ymddiadau yn ymddiadau yn ymddiadau. Mae'r ddweud yn ymddiadau lle mae'r ffordd o'r gwaith o'r newid yn ymddir llogau. Ond ymddiadau yn ymddiadau llogau. Chynweithiaeth i Nid, Rydych yn disgyl campeolau 10% i gMR. Rwy'n gwrs fel y ffrindiau gyda... ... fod mae'n gofio'r truch ddegodd iawn, mae'n gofio'r gofio'r gofio'r gofio'r gofio, mae'n gofio'r gofio'r gofio'r gofio'r gofio'r gofio. Mae gorfio feed ar gweddill yn ei cyfnod gyda'i Llywodraethion, bach yn gyr� mewn 1 miliwn, cadw yn gweithio'r gofio'r gofio. It seems all this is absolutely individual about community, right? And all all of these very poor rural, many of them have primary income from farming, and there's gonna be more demand for food. And yet we're seeing increasing numbers of the very poor living in urban areas and even those very poor people in rural areas are both producers of food but also consumers of food from elsewhere. Climate change is gonna make all of this even more complicated So, what do we do? Well, okay, you said you're going to have to be a general question, but that's what we do. Well, I want to start with challenging some of the framing, which is basically what political colleges do. I'm actually, by training, an agro-cologist, conservation biologist, but my question always was when I started grad school, like how do we fix things? And it seemed to me very quickly apparent that we had far more possible solutions from the science and technology than we'd ever tried. And we don't know which ones are going to work, Professor Lehman earlier was mentioning, we need different farmers, we need different things, the gentleman from Rodeo Institute said the same thing. And getting through and trying these things and studying how they work is really the constriction point. And so I really focus sort of what you could call social technology, I don't know, sort of a jargony term, but you know, how do we look at policy systems, how do we work with people, and the thing that is often to me missing at these kinds of conversations are the people, communities. Farmers are a very, very important constituency and they don't have enough representation of this type of thing. I'm glad we have at least some farmers here, but there's also consumers, poor consumers, you know, we're having a conversation about them rather than with them. And we can't solve our problems in that way. And so one of the key issues, as far as that goes in terms of the population growth, I've got a colleague, Ann Larramore, who's a scholar in African Studies and Women Studies. And every time in our group at University of Michigan we would discuss population, she said, I really insist that you guys don't just say we're going to have 9 billion people because that assumes the continued oppression of a certain number of women. Because you see when women have more rights, more education, more political representation, childbirth in general goes down as well as nutrition goes up. Productivity tends to go up in terms of rural women. And so if you assume 9 million, you're just assuming like, okay, well we're going to just allow that repression to continue. And you know, it's not going to be easy, but neither is splitting the atom or putting genes in new plants. And so from my point of view, you know, focusing on how we change our social systems, which we know are changeable, we're very different today, 50 years than 50 years before, 50 years before that. And we know societies are changeable. But it's hard, it's not exact. You know, we'd like to be able to come up here if you had a big conference, you want to say, if you do X, Y will happen. The Nobel laureate, Eleanor Olesstrom, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for her work on basically how local institutions can be very, very sustainable. She never says it's a solution. She never says, if you go local, it'll work. It just raises your odds. And you know, academics hate that. You want to say, no, it'll work. This is how you do it. But so I mean, I think that there's a huge emphasis on technical solutions because these other solutions, you can't just guarantee it. You have to work with the community, you have to have the people there. It takes a lot of more involved work in groups talking directly to each other. And that's not what we're set up to do in most of our policy systems. And so I think there's a lot of potential there. There's a lot of examples of that working. I work in Southeast Brazil especially. And I was just thinking heading up to this conference. Princess Moira Pei, the great food activist, one of the founders of the Modern American Food Movement, said to me years ago, you know, we don't have a scarcity of food, we have a scarcity of democracy. I thought, well, that's kind of kitschy. I mean, sure, I agree. But only recently, I really understood what she meant. If we think of democracy just in terms of voting, that's one thing. But democracy is also education for everyone. Democracy is also rights for women. Democracy is also having rural extension support for agriculture, having the tools you need to be an independent citizen. And when you do that, when people have those tools, they tend to have less children, they tend to have higher productivity. So we can do two things at once. Property activity goes up when people have more education and more equality. So we can do a lot of these things, but we have to focus on working with people and looking at policies as much or, in my opinion, more than the technical solutions in terms of plant breeding. I work at the agricultural system, so that's great, awesome technology as well in terms of knowledge technology. Those are great, but we need to focus at least as much on working with people and how we do that. Thank you. Deborah, you're the co-founder and program director of Food Corps and yourself an organic farmer working in Ohio. Food Corps is a non-profit national service organisation that seeks to reverse childhood obesity by increasing vulnerable children's knowledge of and engagement with and access to healthy food. So one of the ironies of having a discussion on this general topic now is that, of course, nowadays there are more people worldwide who are overweight than there are who are malnourished. Of course, in fact, there are some who are both, especially amongst relatively poor people in relatively rich countries. Too many calories, not enough nutrition is a growing problem. So I guess the question to you is how do we get more people eating not only enough, but the right stuff? Good question, and thank you for having me. I do want to say that I feel bad that Fred only had 15 minutes, so I will try to address his human capital concern that he brought up when he was speaking. But one of the reasons why I co-founded Food Corps is because we do have this dual issue of one in four being hungry and one in three being obese, and that core solution is access. And it goes towards knowledge, engagement and access leading towards actually having a lifetime habits of healthy eating. And what I find interesting in being in a lot of these discussions and discourses between scientists and politicians and practitioners is that we actually have this high need for translation. We don't take what you're studying and discussing in the ivory tower and translating that to the people that are doing it on the ground. And we're not doing it in fun and easily transferable ways. Graham was talking about his documentary, but also something that really struck me was when he said that he uses the tool of documentary to educate people, but it's a failure of educational system that he didn't know that potatoes grew under the ground. What does that say for us as a society? And how many of you grew up on a farm in the room here? Already, look at that. I'm the youngest of seven. I grew up on a dairy farm. All I knew until I was 18 was milking cows. I didn't know anything else and I went as far away from farming as I possibly could because I heard there was things such as vacation and salary. I was like, wow, salary sounds delightful. But now here I am, I'm back in my hometown of 900 and I have an organic farm a quarter of a mile from where I grew up and I'm surrounded by commodities, corn and soybeans. I live the urban world divide and my day-to-day is trying to understand what we're trying to do in commodity agriculture and small sustainable agriculture. My day job is trying to make it so everyone has access to healthy food whether you're in Detroit or whether you're in Los Angeles or whether you're in Knoxville, Ohio. I'm here because I think it's a human right to have access to good food and it shouldn't be that complicated and it isn't that complicated if you know how to do it yourself and you know how to grow your own food. Roginaldo, you've worked on economic development for Guatemala and indigenous communities since the 80s. You were a vice-chair of the Fair Trade Federation and the founder and you've served as an advisor to the World Council on Indigenous Peoples. You've also co-created a coffee company, Peace Coffee, and worked on forestry stewardship projects. We want cheap food. We also want sustainably produced food. We also want small scale producers in developing countries to earn more, have a better life and we want indigenous people to have their land rights protected. Can we going forward have all of this cake at the same time and eat it or is in fact the likely course that it is all going to horribly unravel and we're going to get even less of it? We can have the cake and we can eat it too. In fact, is the way it was designed. So bottom line is the movement away from the perennial, the consistent natural food production system is what got us into the troubles we have. In that process we created injustice, we created ecological devastation. We put ourselves in a really deep pit where it's really hard to climb out of because the infrastructure, the systems, the power, the politics, the money and all of that is actually designed to stay in the pit. So solutions that are coming up don't see the light of day because the lead is on and those who see a little bit out don't actually get the support that they need to actually flourish. So we stopped that doing some of that more massively back when Riga dismantled all of the USDA rural communities infrastructure that we're supposed to create more of that diversified system of research and more applied to the farmer and so on and so forth. The bottom line is there is an original formula for food and agriculture that says on one hand, and this has been discussed in different words, on one side you got just energy. It's nitrogen, it's phosphorus, it's potassium, it's all of those things. You take a plus sign, you add a new set of energy with normally think of sun so that we can photosynthesize or change through photosynthesis and processes. All of this energy on one side, you put it over a process of transformation for which we need the soil, we need the tools, we need the people, we need all of this infrastructure and which we have called farming since we have done it 10,000 years, that's all it is. And that equals, at the other end, energy again. Just this energy on this side you can't eat. This energy on this side you can't eat. That's calories. The processes that we have put in between, the infrastructure that controls, the infrastructure, the control and the ownership infrastructure that we have put in place to achieve what we have today is what's wrong. But the cake has always been there and we are all invited to eat it except we have set up systems that keep someone invited and others eat too much of it. And so you end up with all of these other problems. That equation, if we went back to the original equation and we brought it to today's reality, it would give us a very fascinating new system proposition and that is what I am into at this time. That new system proposition starts with a very simple three-prong strategy. The first one is understanding what we don't want to replicate. Like you said before, if we don't know where we're coming from and where we're headed to, it's really hard to create a strategic plan. So what did that destination point look like and what is affecting our ability to get to there today is three basic things, although there's a lot more and I want to oversimplify, there are three things that we should and can affect at least one of them. The first one is the fact that we don't hold the conventional system accountable for what it actually does. From the diversity of actual access to food to the food available to the diversity of the solar ecology, all of those things we don't hold accountable for, especially for the devastation of the ecology that belongs to all of us. The second one is that we don't hold the infrastructure accountable for the ownership and the control that was put in place that creates the other two issues. One, cheap labour, which creates the consumer solution that food is cheap. And the second one is that when we built all of this, we also gave all of the power, or at least over 90% of it, to the conventional system and removed it from whatever could come up. Those three things have to be changed, but the one that we know has to be changed first for this to be just in the first place is that a sustainable food system that resembles closer to that energy equation we're talking about, which Fred Krishman mentioned. It takes about 10 units of energy to produce one in the current system today. To bring it back to at least one-to-one, we need to change one element first that creates a ripple effect, and that is the labour that goes into conventional food that creates the illusion of cheap food, and that is the labour in the farm, the labour in the factory, and all of those places where people are abused, where all of this can be... The sector is pretty much invisible to everybody, and it's not even talked about at this level. We haven't even addressed the fact that 80% of the population that works in the food and agriculture system conventionally go home poor. We haven't even talked about it yet. Forget about all the places. Let's look at that place right now. The other piece is that most of those people are good farmers. That should be part of this solution. It needs to be part of the solution. The third one is that if you look at the landscape, a lot of other things are happening because most of those folks in the US system are Hispanic, and a lot of them are new or generational immigrants. In the context that they have stayed within that cycle of poverty and food and agriculture, cheap labour supply infrastructure for a long time. Now, when we fix that in a way that incorporates them into the solution, then we have a lot of folks in the run, and that's the way we need to put this whole thing if we are really going to create, bring an opportunity for the solutions that we are hearing a lot about, which, by the way, are not new. Most of what we have talked about today have existed for a very long time. If you talk to Martin Kleinschmidt, probably his father taught him most of what he knows. If you ask me, my grandfather taught me how to raise free range chickens. That's nothing new. So that's the other proposition. In our proposition, the system we propose is all of these things we talked about, but most importantly, it's aligned with that fundamental factor we have to change the Hispanic family that is eager to produce the food for this country as a beginning point. And then, of course, let's bring everybody on board, but there has to be a linch bin. And we think that's what it is. It's not the technology. It's the politics. It's what I'm hearing. Yeah, Marcia Johnston. Could you just expand? I'm curious and interesting. I think it's a good point that nobody has touched on the labor issue. When you talk about bringing in that component, the Hispanic family that wants to grow food, how do you see that? I'm not sure where you're going with that. That's all. Where do you see those people moving into the system, essentially? Give me a time frame. No, no, no. It's 15 minutes to the end of the session and there will be more questions soon. So we're not responding right away? Please respond. 30 seconds, 145. Until I get bored. Because a new system proposition is complex if it's components, but it's very simple in its actual equation. The equation is what I just described. How we do what we do, for example, in properly balanced ecological production systems that maximise the ability of any specific region, in a specific place, farm or whatever to produce food, also has to maximise the vocation of the individual, the people involved in it. Those two combined create the actual enterprise that you can then start from. For us, that's free range poultry. So we created a scalable system for rearranging poultry that incorporates perennial cropping systems, large scale soil building, free ranging for food production, sprouting systems so that we can eliminate or reduce the amount of actual feed that is coming into the production system, all of that, but it's also very, very low labour intensive so that we don't end up locked up with inefficiencies that are not acceptable in an scalable proposition. That free range system is now broken down into very specific engineering processes which include specifications for every single detail so that we can actually train individuals by the hundreds or thousands or as much as people want to embrace it. So that is the shortest version of it, but if you want all of this is now captured into documentation that we are using to start training. We graduated the first class last year. These folks are now going into production. We are now trying to figure out what the scalability equation is for the actual deployment of this, and remember, the reason we picked that is because it's compatible with the conditions, economic, social, migration, immigrant status. All of the assets in the Hispanic family align with free range poultry because it's got a short lifespan, a short cash flow turnaround, a small-scale beginning point. All of those factors had to be incorporated. Now that we have that equation, we can start because livestock is the beginning of the production of an equation that generates energy and that consumes it. Then you can think about vegetables and other kinds of things because you've got an excess of energy and so on. I hope that gives you a better sense of it. My research, like I said, has been in Brazil and so Brazil right now has a series of different movements and policies going on, one of the most famous being the Latinas Royal Workers Movement. Over the past 20 to 30 years, they've created essentially, you could say, 1.3 million new farmers. Not all those people have stayed farmers, but the Brazilian constitution, as we reacted, I believe in 87, said that land has to have a socially productive use. It has to do something that's good for society. Land speculation doesn't cut it. Brazil has huge land concentration so as a result of this constitutional rule, over the years, a movement formed to occupy land that belonged to land speculators, sometimes friends of the government, large business owners, and say until you redistribute some of the land that's not being used for socially productive use, which farming is productive, speculation is not. Until you do that, we're going to occupy this piece of land and over 300,000 families have been settled. There's other movements that are parallel to it and it's not perfect, but the research shows that most of the families that have gone to those farms, they're still below the poverty level, but their income is doubled. The nutrition is much better. In general, the education is better. The movement also about five or ten years ago just declared ecological agriculture, agriculture to be their official method of agriculture. They're producing food for local markets. So there's a model for that and what's interesting is anything that sounds crazy United States redistributing land, that's not good. But there was someone who said that if there's a man who's hungry or poor and there's land somewhere that could be given to him, it should be given to him. That was Thomas Jefferson. He's not always the most popular founding father. He's been muted from some history books I've heard, but it's not something that's completely new to the national character of the United States. This idea of if people have the skills and the desire to farm, then they should be supported in doing so. We know from cases like South Korea that it was a vital part of creating national wealth which was Landry's institution at the beginning. Lots of hands. Over there and then over there. Over there, there and there. My name is Martin Appel. I want to thank you for addressing the really primary issue that we came here to discuss, which is the food security and the global climate change because the primary issue is population control. And I'm glad somebody finally got around to addressing it, even showing how to address it in part. I would like you to expand a little bit more on how we can all perhaps really get involved in making those things happen rather than just talking about them. And secondly, I want to comment on your energy equation. I love that farming system that you've created, but I want you to think about the whole purpose of how we've been designing agricultural systems in this country, which is to get rid of labour and make things machine intensive. For example, if I put a tomato on the shelf of a grocery store, it took ten calories to produce the four calories you're going to get out of eating it. What we have to be able to do around the world is create a food system that reverses that, maybe gets ten calories out of one calorie of input of energy. So we need to have systems in which the efficiency is inputs, input of water, input of energy. So that decreased water and energy footprints create the agricultural systems of the future. Can we do...we're going to do three at once. So here's straightforward. Yeah. Did you... Yeah. Did you want to... Nope. Oh, well, just while the mic is there. I really like your comment. When you first started speaking about the fact that, I guess, maybe poor people or community members are now represented, I guess, on a panel, which makes a lot of sense. So I guess my question is, given population increases in, I guess, inner city communities, not just urban communities, not just especially in the United States, but globally as well, I guess we need more agricultural systems that are beneficial to inner city communities. A lot of times, land isn't accessible, but there is public property space that is available, and you have a lot of unemployed people. I work for a program in Washington, D.C., Cymru Good City Farm, and I have teach 97 low-income residents how to garden about nutrition and about health, and I'm just one person, but a lot of these people are employed, but they want to learn how to grow food and things like that. So we're going to need, I guess maybe you can speak upon some type of system these urban communities can have in order to grow food, sustain food, begin this process of employing people. And then back there. There we go. And then on to this. Hi, I'm Wesley Reith with the National Family Farm Coalition based here in D.C., and this question is for Deborah, but I'd like to hear any comments, and thank you all for sharing your knowledge as well. My question is, a common theme we've addressed is that of this disconnect that our new generation has between us and agriculture. Less and less people are growing up on farms and disconnected from how things grow. So I guess my question is, how do you think we should best accomplish this in the future? How are we going to educate a large population to bring them back to knowing where their food comes from? Is this a federal education issue? Is this a state or local issue? What's your solution? How do we best address this? Thank you. Should we just go down the line? Sure, and I'll start. Thanks for the question. I should probably elaborate on exactly what food core is. I jumped right into talking about the farm issues, but what your question is is what we're trying to address. Food core is an AmeriCorps program, so we place literally boots on the ground in public schools. We launched in August 2011 and we've already served 40,000 kids and built around 260 gardens and generated 785 volunteers. We're working in 40 sites and 10 states. What I hope accomplishes and the goal of this is that we end up having we are in all 50 states with 1,000 public service members by 2020 to really have the peace core of school food, if you will. What I'm seeing, and I apologize, I have a cold, so my pseudo-fed is impacting my brain a little bit. What I'm seeing and the work that we're doing is incredible hunger, if you will, for this kind of program. We had over 1,000 applications for 50 spots. That's more competitive than Harvard. It's a 4% acceptance rate. Same thing happened again this year. There were 500,000 applications for the 82,000 AmeriCorps slots. There's a demand for service in the United States and we're not giving young people an opportunity to serve. The Kennedy Serve America Act was passed in 2009 to triple the amount of service members by 2017. Right now, the budgets have been flatlined. We have this beautiful opportunity to use service in America for healthy kids and we're not doing it. We're not putting the money where our mouth is. The other thing I wanted to share with that in regards to connecting food and agriculture into the public institution with 32 million people go to school every day. There's a captive audience for children to be educated. Our system right now, it's $147 billion a year for what our diet-related diseases cost us as just for the United States. Mississippi alone last year, $900 million in obesity-related healthcare costs. Really, is it that expensive? Is it that hard for us to put a penny more in our school lunch system? It took three years for us to increase the childhood reimbursement rates by six cents. Three years, people. We're just talking about getting a fresh food onto the cafeteria plate. We want to talk about energy in the environment. It takes 50 times the amount of energy to put apple juice on the plate versus an apple. It took the simplicity of putting the whole food item in front of the child. My husband is diabetic. He takes his blood sugar six times a day. Every single test strip is a dollar. If 50% of our society is diabetic by 2030 is what we're hearing now, it's an average statistic, consider the cost to society. Instead of investing in novel laws, let's invest in good food and education for our kids. Oh, well, so... I'm a little passionate about this. I couldn't agree more. It's wonderful. Well, so yeah, whole dissertations can and have been ridden on population, but to that gentleman's question, I mean, I actually spent a lot of my time yelling at people about over-emphasizing population. Let's just take climate change. As of about 10 years ago, at least, the United States used 15 times as much oil per capita than India. India has maybe three times as many people, more or less. So we're still using five times as much. Is the problem 1.1 billion Indians using 1.15 as much oil? Or is it 1.3 as many people using 15 times more? I mean, it's both ends. It's not that we can ignore the entire population of different countries, but with climate change, China has become the world's largest emitter. For one thing, they also have over a billion people. We're still pretty far up there, and we have 300 and some million. So comparing those two, it's important to keep in mind the context. There's a lot more people being supported in China, but even beyond that, there's a great paper in Proceedings of National Academy of Science. I can't remember the exact title, something like Unequal Ecological Exchange. Around, I want to say, 70% or 80% of the carbon emissions from China are for products exported to other countries. About 25%, 30% was the United States alone, I think, I can't remember. So is the problem 1.1 billion Chinese emitting carbon gas? 80% of that is for our products? No, that's not just about population. And in terms of food, just I don't know, I don't want to take time from the novel, but most countries in the world have enough food produced within their own borders. There's some exceptions, but India alone has more hungry people than all of Africa. Now, they're both problems, but it's not just population, so as far as food security. Please respond quickly, and I want to come back along the line and you'll get to do this first. The one policy recommendation for Washington is a great one that was asked earlier. I want to do it here too. How are you going to respond on your one policy recommendation? Various questions there. I'll say back to, what is it going to take? It's all hands on deck. One thing that frustrates a heck out of us is the lack of actual awareness in the public as to how bad this whole thing is. And then on the solution side, the lack of clarity as to what is it going to take to actually make significant strides with the least amount of effort and investment, because bottom line is we don't have the investment needed, so we need to maximize it. In that context, back to your question here about what a system looks like. A system of food and agriculture isn't about farming. That's the beginning of the system. Farming is critical. We started with the enterprise development system because the farmer has to make it first. But on the other end is the consumer. And in between is a massive infrastructure that we have to re-engage. And that includes the inner city, includes access, includes engaging the population that is most vulnerable first. And then the ones who are already already well wealthy and over controlling the system because that is not where the solution will come from. That we can have a guarantee that you can bet whatever you want on that. A quick policy recommendation for Washington. That is a policy recommendation. So I didn't get a chance to suggest that to this question. Luckily my policy recommendation fits into that too in terms of access to land in the city, food systems. There's another innovation started in Brazil all over the world now called participatory budgeting, where people are directly involved in budgeting part of the city, or you could do it at a larger level too, budget through a series of councils where you are directly involved in setting priorities. And it's a lot harder to tell someone I'd rather have a stadium than you have roads to their face. Mine is that members of Congress have to have dinner together because there is too much bipartisan ranker and I think that the left eating the right and the right eating the left and I think when you sit down together it's a lot harder to throw food when you're actually dining together. Great. There we go. Food. I want to add something that Fred mentioned before and I don't want it to be missed. That is the fact that we can live without a lot of things but not food. And remember food, spirituality and all of those things that we yearn for in our whole lives and we will do for as long as we exist will always be there. And when that food comes to you in an unjust system in a way that destroys everything else your own soul depreciates and your own spirit suffers and that is a worse disease than everything else that we have seen because it deteriorates the core of who we are. That I think would be a way to wrap this up because we absolutely need a system and it's urgent. Communal eating of just food, there you go. We're done. Thank you.