 We have almost a billion people in the world that are underfed, but we have even more people in the world, about two billion people that have poor quality diets, which means that they're deficient in essential nutrients. So the idea that all we have to do is plant more wheat or corn or rice and give people more calories actually doesn't resolve the deeper problem of malnutrition in the world. If we clear the world's forests and plant more staple foods, we actually might make things worse. That's what our research is actually showing. My colleagues and I have put together this large data set looking at child nutrition in Africa. So we have data from about 21 countries with over 90,000 observations of children. And we have information on what the child ate in the day before. So we've combined that data with satellite images on tree cover. And we've looked at the relationship between children's diets and tree cover. And what we've found is that dietary diversity, which is a standard indicator amongst nutritionists for dietary quality, actually increases with tree cover. So what that means is that children that live in communities that are closer to more trees have healthier diets. So if that's the case, if we clear the world's forests to try to feed more people, we might be able to get them more calories, but we would actually potentially be making the quality of their diets worse. So the more trees, the more diverse the diet. But for fruit and vegetable consumption, which is a very important category of nutritious foods, we actually do find that the relationship increases up to a certain peak of tree cover, which is about 45% tree cover. And then it starts to decline. People that live in very, very dense forests, and for our sample of, as I said, about 90,000 children, that's less than 10% of our sample, those children do seem to be consuming fewer fruits and vegetables.