 The question that everyone is grappling with is how to feed 9 billion by 2050, how to feed more with less, less land, less water, less natural resources. How do we move from business as usual to a system which is more efficient, more inclusive and gives higher income to the farmers, connecting them to the markets? People take for granted that safe, nutritious and healthy food will continue to come to the supermarkets. Food should make a positive contribution to three things. Food security, environmental sustainability and economic opportunity. You can't sacrifice one for the other as we have sometimes done in the past. Efficiency and productivity gains provide higher income and reduce production costs. But sustainable intensification needs to be addressed at the landscape level and with an ecosystem approach. Eating rice and fish in the same area of land and new resources use efficient technology. Healthier food is marketable, vegetarian and vegan products are trendy. Salad grown on wrecks using no sun and no soil. In vertical farming, plants are exposed to specific spectrums of light. Less water, less fertilizers and zero pesticides. Could bugs be the food of the future? Very nutritious, abundant and easy to reproduce and they're already being eaten by one-third of the world's population. Or how about a beef from a Petri dish producing hamburgers with the use of stem cells could one day replace current meat production? And who can make everything change? The final consumer is you and me. We put all this in our stomach. We have the right to know where it's coming from and how it has been produced. Because there's not the pressure or maybe not the interest yet from the final consumer. It's not happening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. Good evening. This is about the future of food. This is a topic that is being discussed throughout the annual meeting in various sessions and I think it's very important. The main question we are discussing is what is needed to propel a sustainable and nutritious food revolution? Today and I think everybody agrees with this. The global food systems are unsustainable for both people and the planet. They leave around 800 million people chronically undernourished and they operate at high and oriental cost. What are the ideas to change this? We try to find them with these five distinguished panelists. A warm welcome, Her Excellency, Maryam Almheri from the United Arab Emirates on the right hand side from your perspective. She has been appointed Minister of State for Food Security three months ago. Her responsibilities include overseeing the development of necessary infrastructure to achieve the food security objectives. Her Excellency received her degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the university in Aachen, Germany. I assume you speak German well. I assume you speak German well. You can put your questions in German after and I'm sure you'll be understood. Jennifer Morgan was named the first female Executive Director of Greenpeace International two years ago. She has a joint leadership role to guide the Wispand in McDermott. Before joining Greenpeace, Jennifer Morgan worked for the World Resources Institute and she led the global climate change program of WWF. Jennifer holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and in Germanics Studies. She, too, speaks German. Sie won't live in Berlin. Francis Seymour is a distinguished senior fellow at the World Resources Institute based in Washington, D.C. She conducts research and writing on forest and government issues and advises major initiatives including, for example, Global Forest Watch. She's an expert in agriculture, climate change and deforestation and she's the author of the book Why Forest, Why Now. Welcome. Paul Balke is the chairman and former CEO of Nestle, the largest food company in the world measured by reminisces. It's headquartered in Switzerland in Röwe and it employs over 300,000 people worldwide. Paul Balke, who graduated as a commercial engineer, has been working for Nestle for almost 40 years. And last but not least, Pat Brown is the chief executive and founder of Impossible Foods, which is a very interesting company. It develops plant-based meat and dairy products made without animals. Impossible Foods, headquartered in California, gives people the taste and nutritional benefits of meat and says its products don't have the negative health and environmental impacts of real meat. Earlier Patrick Brown was a professor at Stanford University. We will first discuss on the panel and in the last 30 minutes, everybody in the audience is invited to ask questions to our five panelists. I think this is what the open forum characterizes an open discussion. Welcome everybody and let's clarify this at the beginning. Does anybody eat meat? Our Excellency? Yeah? You don't feel guilty? I'll come to that later. Paul Balke, you too? Enjoy. Yeah, I do eat meat and I don't feel guilty per se for that, but there's something about meat that we have to discuss maybe and Impossible Foods is definitely going to touch that topic. The three of us are vegetarian? No, I still eat pork. I'm from North Carolina. It's part of my cultural heritage, but I don't eat beef anymore. Jennifer? No, not for, gosh, almost 30 years. Almost 30 years for ethical reasons or just you don't like the taste? It was a mixture. When I was in graduate school, I kind of learned about the energy youth in producing meat at the same time that I read about the treatment of animals at the same time that I read a fascinating book called The Sexual Politics of Meat. So as a feminist and as an environmentalist, I said, I got to go vegan, so, yeah. I haven't eaten any animal products for quite a long time. So the only meat I eat is Impossible Foods meat, which is as good as it gets. You can taste it. I'm curious about the audience. How many of you do eat meat? Raise your hand. Wow. All potential customers for the products of Patrick Brown? Are there any vegans? Fake honor? Raise your hands. One, two, three, five. So it's quite a meat-eating audience. I had the privilege to eat one of your burgers for lunch, and I have to admit it smells and it tastes really delicious, but I didn't have to pay for it. Is it affordable? Your fake burger? Yeah, it's completely affordable. It's sold in, as of right now, more than 500 restaurants in the U.S. and they're pretty mainstream restaurants, burger chains, and so forth. So it's priced on par with the regular cow-derived burgers that they sell. Price is not an issue. We will discuss the relevant issues tonight, such as malnutrition, climate change, new technologies, and so on. But let me start with a personal question to everybody of you on this panel. Did you change your consumer behavior in the last 10 years in terms of what you eat and what you drink? Her Excellency. Good evening, Suzanne. First of all, I'm delighted to be here. Thank you, Patrick. Also, I'm delighted to see so many young people here as well. This is very, very inspiring to see you all here. And going back to your question, Patrick, there's two, I'd say, two times in my life when my food consumption patterns changed. Number one, when I started university and I was on my own and I had to cook, I was not looking so much on the nutritional side of the food. I was looking more on the price. And food was more, it was more about the functional task of eating food and not the food experience. Then I think seven years ago, when I bore my first child and having a child and that really changes your view on food and what you're feeding yourself. And I think it was during my pregnancy as well, where I really thought about what I'm putting in my mouth. And that was also a big shift in how I was eating. So those are the two major changes where I started eating differently. And now I say more of the importance of the food experience has much more value for me than the actual functionality of just eating and putting something in the mouth. Jennifer Morgan, you mentioned your change 30 years ago. Can you explain in the perhaps last 10 years, did you change anything? I think I've started to pay more attention to the sourcing. Well, the locality of it, where it comes from, you know, how it's farmed, more aware of industrial agriculture than I certainly was before and tried to pay a bit more attention to that. And, you know, that thing you always have when you're in the supermart and you go, OK, it's organic, it's bio, but it comes from Argentina. What do I do? Right, which is the worst or the best for the environment. I think that's the thing that every environmentalist kind of goes through there. So trying to educate myself a little bit more on the trying to buy more local. Francis Seymour? So since my work focuses on the problem of deforestation, I've always been a very sensitive consumer of wood products. And over the last couple of years have been trying to build an environmentally friendly house in Washington, D.C. And I thought, oh, it should be easy to source certified legal and sustainably produced timber. Turns out it's 2018 is still not easy to do. But in my diet, as I mentioned earlier, I've pretty much phased out beef in part because of, you know, the sourcing issues, particularly as a driver of tropical deforestation and have also started reading labels to see how much palm oil is in there and whether it's certified. Volvalki, any changes in your diets? First of all, it's good to be back here. I've been here before and I just mentioned to the other panelist how the freshness of the discussion is here so inspiring. But yeah, I changed too. And not only did I last 10 years, but when I was young, the whole awareness of food and how food links up with health has increased so much. And from all different angles, there are lots of discussions and all that. So definitely salt usage and my diet and whole grains, all these dimensions do have another dimension in my life. And I think it's good, the discussion around it, there are lots of emotions too. And so what has changed definitely is working for a company that is a food company and being able to make an impact in that company and steer that company into going and focusing on these areas and trying to leave answers there also through our research and products is something that has changed my attitude towards food in another dimension. I think that's what was so enriching in the, I would say in the last decade, a discussion we have. It's good to have a panel like this too, because let's face it, we have, and Davos speaks a lot about the environmental dimensions and global warming, very, very important. Water was put on the agenda too. But food per se, and although they have been speaking about food and agriculture, food and the future of food and how we're going to feed well sustainably and all that, it's a very important topic and it's good to be part of that discussion here. Thank you. Patrick, you're changing the behavior besides that you invented impossible foods and consumed it, of course. Yeah, it's interesting that I, so I haven't eaten meat for probably 40 years or more than that and I stopped eating animal products altogether, probably about 15 years ago, but really I never thought much about food. I mean, I like food fine, but I don't spend any time thinking about it pretty much except when I'm eating it, and I've never taken a picture of my meal in my entire life, so that shows how old I am, but anyway, what's interesting to me about that is that I'm probably the least likely person in this room to start a food company. And the reason I did it was not because I was interested in food per se, but because I was interested in the terrible impact of the food system on the environment and other big issues with the food system that I wanted to solve and this was the way to solve it. I'd like to structure the discussion in two main parts. First, malnutrition, second, climate change and environmental aspects and then digital innovations and the fourth, industrial revolution. Of course, everything is connected with each other, but let's begin with malnutrition. Paul Balke mentioned it. There is enough food produced today to feed the global population, yet around 800 million people are chronically undernourished. This number has risen in the past three years. Why this problem hasn't been solved so far, but worsened? Francis Seymour. Well, there are, of course, many different reasons and my colleagues on the panel can elaborate, several of them. One that I would highlight is that I think often in development strategies, our societies, our development aid programs, our agricultural research have shifted directly to sort of industrial-scale production of food and have neglected the importance of diversity in diets and the importance of locally grown foods. And so, for example, there's research that shows how important forest foods are to rural communities because, in fact, they do provide amino acids or micronutrients that they don't get from the staple grain that's the focus of their diets. And even bushmeat, for example, hunting in Central Africa provides an important source of protein or fats to, say, AIDS orphans who only get their protein from hunting. And yet, those sources of food and diverse sources of nutrients are completely ignored by sort of national-level food statistics and development programs. Merriam Al-Hari, what is the main reasons from your perspective? I see it as we advance with technology. What's missing here is sometimes in many nations, like, for example, in the UAE, we have a lot of technologies, but the people who are actually supposed to use these technologies are not there, or we don't have the qualified, skilled people to use these technologies. So there's that imbalance that we have to make sure that the education is there in line with the advancing technologies. On another point of view, it's awareness. I feel there's still a lack of education in understanding nutrition. Even at school, I don't remember having anything about nutrition. You learn about the general foods and the pyramid, I remember, but there's not much more on nutrition. And I feel that's something I've realized myself just because I've started becoming more aware of what I'm eating and my interests in what I'm buying. But I think nutrition and awareness and education and nutrition is very, very important, and I think that's lacking in many parts of the world. So those are the two elements, awareness and education, which I think where I think there's a lot of gaps of that around the world. Paul Balke, what responsibility do you see for Nestle to remove this problem? We're a food company and it's quite frustrating to see that actually today we have almost 20% more food per capita in the world, per capita with more people and all that. And yet you have the double burden because it's not only malnutrition and micronutrients and all that. It's also the obesity, which is one of these diseases that's coming to us in a very important way. And it's a societal problem, so companies are part of society too, so we should be part of the discussion and see how we can answer this. But what I do see is education is definitely one. Also, people, education, I never had one hour of education on nutrition when I was at school, so that's fading in too. But then also the supply chains, I see a total disconnect somewhere of production and demand or at least the consumer to a certain extent. And there you have to start with 30%, 40% of food is lost, which is an aberration because you see the impact. The specific loss is a tremendous environmental loss somewhere of resources. So I think we should, just like global warming is one of these things that so many dimensions and so many initiatives have actually brought multi-stakeholders together there. And you see the Paris Agreement is some quite sizable expression of, hey, we have to do something still between that expression and doing something as it's, but there is some societal multi-stakeholder commitment to something. We don't have that actually in food, to a certain extent, it's all spotty and silos. So I think the government's organizations, private sector, I think we should start really having a more explicit agenda on this and be collaborative, because there's still a lot of isolation there in the sense of how you're the bad guy or the good guy and I think there there's so much to be done that I feel can move needle. Think about the fact that of the malnutrition, the biggest part of the malnutrition are actually farmers and families, small farmers. It's an amazing dislink of the whole system. And then you see this, and I bring it now to environmental dimensions, the impact of agriculture and food. It's something like 25%, if I'm not mistaken, there is the global warming impact is linked with that dimension. We talk a lot about cars and fine, we have to do, you have to work on all angles, but 25% is there and 40% of this 25% is lost. At the end of the day, if the global warming dimensions, the biggest countries are China and USA, well, then that food loss would be the third biggest country of having a negative impact. So I think it's more a systematic multi-stakeholder and putting hands together and start framing it. There's quite a lot of initiatives here, but how much action is translated into the fields and education, education, education, and malnutrition is not only the developing world where the biggest part is, malnutrition is also in the Western world, where there's enough food and yet people are not well. They don't have a good diet, anemia and all, it's also here. So I think there's a little bit of education and then also consumer behavior. I'm not talking for my church now because of the industry, but so much of people express and talk about how do they behave. And somewhere there's a little bit of link there too, to really help people to behave, also consequently what I say. And I think we as a company can help there also to be transparent, do the products right and reformulate and put a lot of R and D in there to give by design healthy products and micro fortification and et cetera. All these things have to work hand in hand I think. So it's not a simple solution, but at the end of the day, we don't a lot of effort, we can make major strides already there. And I think fact that we are actually, if you see who's sitting on the panel, it's interesting to see these from different angles going to the same subject. It's quite motivating. Where's the right priority? Isn't there a trade off between the fight against malnutrition and environment protection and fight against climate change? Francis Seymour. I'm so glad you asked that question. It's a persistent myth that somehow, in order to feed the world, we have to simplify all of the ecosystems and turn them all into vast cornfields. And in fact, there's an increasing body of research that shows that it's actually the opposite. That natural ecosystems and particularly forest ecosystems provide not only protection from climate change, which is the biggest threat to the world's agricultural productivity and you say food waste is number three after China and the US. Actually deforestation is also number three. If deforestation were a country, it would be third after the US and China as a source of global climate emissions and that's around eight to 10%. But recent research shows that it's around 30% of the solution. If we stop deforeesting and allowed forest to grow back, it's about equivalent to 30% of total global emissions. So it's to protect agriculture, we have to protect the climate, so we have to protect forests. But even more than that, there's now a whole new generation of science showing that forests provide a lot of other ecosystem services that are very important to agricultural productivity that have been mostly invisible. In terms of regulating hydrology, Antonio Nobre in Brazil talks about the flying rivers across the sky in the Amazon. It's not just the big Amazon river flowing down, but it's also rivers in the sky of water being transported from the Atlantic Ocean across the continent and falling as rainwater in the interior agricultural fields. And there's a very good chance that if we destroy those forest ecosystems, it disrupts that conveyor belt of water and the rain stops. New research in Indonesia showing how deforested areas are associated with higher surface temperatures and lower rainfall. So the science is piling up that if we want to maintain agricultural productivity, we need to maintain the forests and we need to maintain the forest to keep the carbon in the ground and in the trees rather than up in the atmosphere because that's gonna be the major threat to the world food system. Jennifer Morgan, you see a kind of trade-off between those two aims? No, I mean, I think it's important in the question about malnutrition and hunger though to also realize how much of agriculture goes to livestock, right? So if you were actually, if we were to have our meat consumption, so just reduce it, you could feed another two billion people around the world. And this kind of, I think from just thinking more about a shrinking and sharing approach where you shrink, you eat less meat and dairy, right? But you then share that space with others because I think if you were to just be producing food for people, then you would be, you would have a much greater possibility of solving some of these hunger and hunger issues if you speak about hunger, not just malnutrition. So I don't think it has to be a trade-off. I think that it can work together but it really requires a reset and really looking at the systems that are behind our agricultural systems and moving more into ecological farming which is very good from a resilience perspective to climate change brings local jobs. So, you know, that's the direction that I think has the best outcome for both people and the planet. Patrick Brown for food companies regardless of whether it's a multinational company such as Nestle or it's a smaller one such as impossible foods, it's more lucrative, more profitable to improve products for European and American consumers to make them healthier and so on, you mentioned it, than to solve the problem of hunger. Do you agree? Do I agree that that is factually correct or that that's the way we should think about it? A private food company, it's not on the agenda, the problem of hunger. Well, it's certainly on our agenda, I mean. You probably offer for rich people actually who want to live healthier, but not for people who don't have anything to eat. Yeah, so from the perspective of mine, actually I wanted to just pick up on a point that was raised about the conflict between food security and sort of protecting the global environment. And I think that the most important solution to both of them is the same thing. And that is to replace animals as a food production technology, and why is that? Because a lot of food insecurity, it's a very complicated issue, so I don't want to be gloob about it, is related to extreme stress on the availability of land and water. And animal agriculture, land-based animal agriculture uses at least a quarter of the world's fresh water supply and is the biggest polluter of water in the world, and is using 45% of Earth's land area. That's an area equivalent to North America, South America, Europe, and Australia combined, actively in use as of 2011, raising animals for food. A lot of that land used to be forested. The total amount of biomass that was on that land has actually been pretty well-calculated from a lot of data. It corresponds to 15 years worth of fossil fuel emissions, or should say, greenhouse gas emissions, total greenhouse gas emissions at the current rate were released into the atmosphere in converting that biomass that was on the land that's used to raise animals now into grazing lands and feed crops. The flip side of that, that's very interesting, is this is just the importance of land, okay? The flip side of that is that if I could snap my fingers and just make that industry go away and step back and do nothing else and allow the vegetation to recover, and there's actually very good data on this than a lot of ecosystems, the native vegetation recovers spontaneously over a couple of decades, if you just stop grazing and farming. But if you did that, you would immediately start lowering, not stabilizing, lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would have tremendous value, not just for climate change, but for preventing acidification of the oceans and so forth, and restoring forests and so forth. So in terms of, those are environmental benefits, but the other thing is that this is the system that is by far the biggest user of land and water, and competition over land and water not only creates food insecurity, but it's actually probably the biggest driver of local and regional conflicts worldwide, so it creates political instability as well. So the kind of solution that I think best addressed both is exactly the same, which is we need to find a better way to make the meat, fish, and dairy foods that the world demands and will continue to demand. And actually, can I ask a question to the audience? Okay, so we know how many people here eat meat, and I'd like to know how many people here eat meat because they like the fact that it's produced using animals as the technology, that we're using animals as a technology to produce it. How many people like meat because it is made using animals? Okay, very interesting. And how many people like meat because it's so delicious and nutritious in spite of the fact that we use animals to produce it? Okay, so this is the magic thing, is that the problem isn't meat, fish, and dairy foods that the world loves. It's that we're still using prehistoric technology to produce them that's incredibly inefficient and environmentally destructive, and it's entirely within our capability of producing foods that are more delicious, more nutritious, more affordable, and have a tiny fraction of the environmental footprint and satisfy the demand for those foods. And that, to me, is the most critical thing we can do to improve global food security as well as to reduce the environmental impact of the food system. But does anybody think Paul can? I think to that because Patrick, you know I'm a true believer of these vegetable proteins and actually Nestle is also spending a lot of warranty on this to offer vegetable proteins because the impact is one-tenth or something and you have mentioned the impact of animal proteins on the environment and all that. But you see somewhere in all honesty there is this rational thinking of if we, but you see that is what's so difficult to consumers, they have habits, they have been living with meat eating and these things, and it's so entrenched in the basic culture and it's not rational in the sense, it's just a continuum of what was, without the awareness of what it means. And so the discussion of per se is a valuable one. It's the discussion about nutrients and food and the impact, I think the societal discussion is bringing so much more insights, awareness. But before that flips into attitudes, 100%, but that's a hard thing. And I think there it's good to have these discussions and start to really engage with the broader society on these things and investing and you do that. Actually Impossible Food is a nice name, we try to make it impossible. So we are complimenting each other, but I think also how many do eat meat and everybody almost and should you feel better? Well, I think we should be aware of the impacts and starting to live up to that as part of society. But I think that you're... Jenny, for more than first, please. Let me just come in for a minute, just because I think that the consumer and culture and everything else is incredibly important and it is, it's what we do in a daily way. But I think we also have to bring in the role of government and the role of the private sector into this conversation because it matters what marketing goes out. It matters whether industrial agriculture is allowed and you look at the power dynamics in our countries today about who's setting policy and it matters whether a large private company, private sector company sources its meat from ecological farming. So I'd like to kind of talk about what the different pieces of the puzzle are to eat less and better meat and dairy, whoops sorry, and looking I totally agree with all of the problems that you're talking about and there's a role there too. But I feel a little anxious that it's all up to the consumers because I think that it's more complex than that and the systems that we work on have very large interests behind them. Let me pick up this point. Do you think that governments should try to change the behavior of the consumer? Is this the task of a government? I think the government can try and change the behavior of a corporation. I think you can set standards for how things are farmed. I think you can set incentives for what's done. If you look even in a country like Germany and the type of livestock practices that are there there is a role for a government on that side. Not to tell people what to eat but actually to try and get standards set so that the food is as healthy as possible and we know all of the games that go on within the US. Department of Agriculture, wherever else you wanna look at as far as from pesticides all the way up to energy use. Can we be clear that governments affect people's choices all the time directly and indirectly and a lot of times by making things cheaper or more expensive than they would otherwise be. I mean, the biggest elephant in the room that nobody's talking about is government policies that encourage us to put food in our gas tanks. Certainly here in Europe, certainly in the United States, we have policies that encourage the use of, for example, palm oil or corn to transfer it into biodiesel or ethanol to use to drive our cars and call it renewable energy. That is insane. The accounting from a climate change perspective is all wrong, these are not climate friendly fuels and the idea that we're using food to drive around instead of to help resolve the global food problems is crazy and so step one in government policy is stop doing the stupid things. Let's get away from these perverse policies that drive consumer behavior or corporate behavior in the wrong direction but then apply some of those same tools to provide incentives in the right direction. So Mr. Bulkey's company is one that stepped out to make commitments that no longer gonna source commodities from areas recently deforested areas and there are ways that governments can help support the implementation of those corporate commitments and send signals directly to producers and to producer country governments that that's the kind of change that we wanna see. How do you do that? Well, you can have a public procurement program which many European governments have started to do saying we're only gonna source, for example, legally and sustainably certified timber when the public is sourcing those things. That's now branching out to include commodities such as palm oil or cocoa or other commodities. So I think there's a lot that governments can do on behalf of those of us who are rich country consumers who as has been pointed out, we're a big part of the problem and I think we can also be a big part of the solution. We need to ask our governments to do their part to stop doing the stupid things and start rewarding the good things. I was speaking, we're speaking about the role of government we have, minister on the panel. I'd like to add to what the panelists have said. Very interesting discussion. For me, when I look at how we can basically go towards a sustainable food revolution. Okay, this is what we're talking about. For me as working in the government of the UAE we're setting a foundation and I'll call it the Triangle of Progress. It's got three sides to it, which is the community, the government and the private sector all have a role in this. And this foundation is set in a way that the public sector facilitates the private sector to cater to the needs of the consumers. And from this foundation, I'm now gonna talk about the driving forces of reaching this sustainable food revolution. So we were talking about technology, we're talking about education and the youth. I think these are the three big driving forces in order to go towards a sustainable food revolution. And as the panelists all said, everybody has a role. I have a role, you have a role, we all have a role in this. And even if we look at small behavioral changes, this is like the butterfly effect. These small changes make a huge impact. And I think it's our behavior, the way we're looking at food, what we choose to eat will make a difference in a few years time. And also we are all role models to the next generation. And that's why I'm also really happy to see the youth here because I really would like to also know their view on this new revolution, especially with the fourth industrial revolution touching on all industries, on all sectors, touching governments, the community, the private sector. So that's my view on how we all have a part in this. Short question, short answer. As minister of state for food security, do you think it's possible someday to feed the world or to feed your country without meat to come back to Patrick? I think it is possible. And I am someone, if you say to me, okay, there is an alternative to meat. I look at meat more on the nutritional protein value. I eat actually a lot of seafood as well coming from the UAE. We live on the coast, so we eat a lot of seafood. For me, it's the proteins that I'm looking for. So if there is an alternative, which for me, knowing that it comes from plant-based, I'll be happy to try it, and I'll be happy to eat it. Patrick, I interrupted you before. Now it's your turn. Oh. Well, first of all, from a nutritional standpoint, it's trivial to produce foods from plant proteins that have the same nutritional value in terms of protein content, essential amino acid content, as any meat or dairy product. That's really not an issue, that can easily be done. And another thing that is the most common form of malnutrition in the world is iron deficiency, as I'm sure you know, it's almost two billion people. And a lot of people regard meat as a critical source of iron. But again, that is, it's entirely possible to produce foods without using animals that have not only the same iron content, but the same bio-available iron content. So there's really no problem there. I think that the critical problem is, and this is something that Paul was touching on, which is it only works if consumers want it. But I think that the fallacy is that people want their food to come from animals. They want it to be delicious. And in all their experience, the only really delicious meats and fish and so forth have been made using the technology we've used for, since prehistoric times, which is animals. If we can solve that problem, and only if we can solve that problem, meaning give consumers, you don't have to compromise, you don't have to settle for an inferior product in terms of taste or nutrition or anything like that, it's kind of on us to figure out how to do that. But if we can do that, I think we saw from the audience here, nobody wants, nobody sees any added value from the fact that we happen to use animals as the technology to produce the foods as long as they're delicious, nutritious, and affordable, and that I would say is completely doable. The other thing I'd say about government is, yes, it would be wonderful if governments would do something about this. And I'm like the most optimistic person in the world, but the one thing that I think is extremely unlikely to happen is any meaningful government action on any scale that is going to reduce, let's say, the impact and scale of animal agriculture. It's only gonna happen, I think, on a reasonable time scale from individuals taking the initiative to solve the problem by giving consumers what they want and finding a much more sustainable way to do it. I wouldn't be doing, believe me, I love my job before, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now. The last thing I wanted to do was get into the food business, not that I have anything against it, but I'm glad someone's in that business. But if I thought governments were going to solve the problem anytime soon, and this is an urgent problem, I mean, we are heading toward an environmental catastrophe, largely due to the use of animals in the food production system. We have reduced the total number of wild animals living on earth, mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish, according to the World Wildlife Fund, which monitors those populations. We've cut those populations in half in just the past 40 years, and overwhelmingly, according to their data, this is due to our use of animals as a food production technology, and the demand is going up, and this is really heading toward catastrophe. Okay. I think also a very important part, I mean, didn't discuss that, but you touched it, though. Food should be enjoyable, and I don't know if we speak about meat, should it be from, et cetera, because of enjoyable. In general, food should be enjoyable. You sit around with your family around the table, and you try to go, because that's where people stay with. So, and somewhere we, and that's overall then too, and you, with what you do, you try actually to have visible proteins used in such a way that you can have a burger made of visible proteins and make it enjoyable. I think there's a lot of work to be done, and we're investing quite heavily in there too, so it is good to see that you dedicate 100% of your attention to that, and so that dimension is extremely important to how to combine these things, and that's the job of what we feel we should do, and do that in such a way that brings the nutrients. For example, we spoke about iron. I don't think you have to go for meat for iron. We can fortify with iron and have the bioavailability, because it's not just putting iron, and that's where research comes in again, but we're selling almost 1.3 billion products a day. Now, many, almost all of them, can be carriers of nutrients, additional nutrients, and see how we make them enjoyable so that they don't have a flavor or flavors, and that's where our R&D comes in. That's why the preface say they can play into what the consumer wants and yet be conscious about how to do that in such a way that it is more sustainable and more nutrient dense. We, for example, last year alone, we fortified 250 billion products, units, with iron, vitamin A, the big four specifically, and we started now to monitor that together with the United Nations a little bit of, well, what is the impact over time on this? So that's where you combine. We speak a lot about meat and it's extremely important, but there's so much more that can be done. Let's talk about 30%, 40% of what is produced, apart from the stability of biofuels, which is liberation. So that cannot forgive that, but that's another story. But 30%, 40% is lost. What can we do? Well, for example, in the food consumer forum where we have the manufacturers and the retailers together on a platform where we embrace deforestation, for example, you know that, and see how we, the people who are a member of that, and it's quite sizable companies, how can we commit to reduce and monitor and then report back? Same thing with waste. We decided that as a group of companies, and we do have quite a sizable impact, if you think about the Nestle is part of that, the Unilever is part of that, also the retailers, the Walmart's, commit to reducing food waste in our system to half in 10 years' time, and then report back on that. And it's possible. It's just awareness, and these are major impacts already on environmental dimensions. One small example, and I don't wanna sell Nestle here, but milk districts. We have a milk district in Pakistan. We have one factory there. 110,000 farmers per day bring milk, and so, and we can through, for each square meter, increase the milk production through good farm management and so on, training, we can increase that dramatically. So on square meter, we can increase. Yet the loss of a normal milk district there is something close to 20% loss. By good practice and et cetera, we can bring that, and in our milk district, it's 1.5%. These are not small numbers. That's where you can really impact dramatically. So first of all, we speak about food. We should speak about nutrients, delivering of nutrition, not only quantity of food and micro-fortification, all that works, and then also upstream in your own supply chain, impact there, and you can do that. And extend it then to retailers and upstream to the farmers. I think these are the things that we can do. Now, you have to scale it up, hence these organizations that scale it up. I do feel, and we should not wait for governments to regulate ourselves to do what we have to do. I think there's a little bit also of awareness and taking responsibility, and it makes sense. It doesn't destroy a company in the future. It makes sense. We reduce food loss or upstream, et cetera. It just makes it much more efficient for us. So it costs less, it costs less to nature, costs less in our cost structure. So in that sense, I would say, look, it is a combination of many other areas, too. Not only meat, it is a matter of attitude, too, and know that there is no one solution to this. Some in our society, we wanna have one solution, very fast, a pill, it doesn't exist. It's too complex, and it's the multi-stakeholds. It has to be inclusive, too, because farmers, the malnutrition is in the rural areas where the farmers are, and so you have to make sure that they are benefiting from that initiatives and these many multi-stakeholder platforms. They should be part of it. Talked about the role of private companies of the farmers, of the governments, of the consumers. I'd like to talk about technology now in a wider sense. In 10 minutes, we will start the Q&A part with your participation, but before, I want to mention this report released today by the World Economic Forum and the McKinsey Group. It's available on the forum's website. And I quote, one of the key insights in this report is, new technologies present a major opportunity to accelerate food systems transformation, one that has been underused, particularly in developing country regions. What is needed, that the fourth industrial revolution, which changes everything in the world, except it seems the food systems, what is needed to make it better? Anyone? Yeah? Well, again, I'm not going to reiterate what I think is the biggest problem to solve, but I'll just say that I come from outside the food world. I mean, I'm a consumer of food. That's pretty much my role. And, but when I started looking at the food system as a scientist and from a technology standpoint, I realized, I never thought about it before, it is the most technologically, like in terms of the potential for innovation, the most backward system in the entire economy. There's been, you know, there's innovation, but it's kind of incremental innovation. Make it a little bit more efficient, you know, make the pigs grow faster, make the corn grow bigger, whatever. Incremental, nothing transformative. And we need transformative technology. And there's so many opportunities in the food system. I mean, you know, just as an example, we could produce all the same foods much more efficiently by changing the choices of what plants we call crops. And of course, again, the biggest thing is animals are a prehistoric and ridiculous technology for producing meat, fish, and dairy foods. People are going to continue to want those foods and there's better technology. And that's just one example. In fact, I think that probably in 50 years, a large fraction of the protein in the human diet will come from phytoplankton that grows in the open ocean. Just to give you an illustration of the kinds of transformative things that could potentially happen in the food system. Jenny from Morgan. Yeah, I mean, Greenpeace is not opposed to technology per se, but I get nervous about technological fixes that, and I haven't read the report, so. But I feel like we need to make sure we're going to the root of the cause, a root of the problem, and look at it more systemically. And I think actually there's a lot of innovation going on right now in communities about how they engage. So I wanted to come back briefly to ecological farming as well because I think there's greater attention by UNEP, by IKO, by UN bodies about the importance of that. So I think another private sector thing would be to actually source from ecological farming. Albert Heine is doing it now. There's a number of different players. That's another role that the private sector can play. And I think we need to think about innovation about things like what people can do. So there's lots of communities around the world right now where parents are asking their schools to actually provide more vegetables there. There's a lot of different ways that we can not value increase yield, but actually value diversity. So I don't know how you've defined innovation in your report, but I think that the solutions lie with us. It's really the systems that are now set up that incentivize something different. That I think we also need people to be part of that solution because I agree it, we're not all gonna wait for government to come and solve our problems, but even getting smart technologies in place, if you have a set of actors that are benefiting from an old system and you're trying to shift something that's new or more local, you're gonna count, we need people power. We need people to say we want a different future. We want a different food system. So I think that's part of the mix as well. So I share Jennifer's concern a little bit about the rush to technological solutions. I like Patrick's characterization of animals as a prehistoric technology for manufacturing protein, but sometimes prehistoric technologies are the best ones. And so like, our governments are spending gazillions of dollars on industrial carbon capture and storage technologies to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, clean coal and all that. In fact, the best carbon capture and storage system that we have, which is safe, proven, cost effective is forests, because forests actively pull carbon out of the atmosphere. So let's stick with that particular prehistoric technology. But in terms of the potential of the fourth industrial revolution, the enterprise of monitoring what's happening in the world's forests has been totally revolutionized just in the last five years through satellite technology and through computational capacity. I mean, as recently as little over five years ago, the only way we knew what was going on in terms of loss of the world for us was this report that the FAO issued every five years based on self-reporting by governments. Now, how accurate do you think that was? But starting just about five years ago, we combined the remote sensing of satellites with the computational power of algorithms that could read every pixel and see how much had been deforested, so that we can now know on a weekly basis what's happening in the world's forests on an area the size of a baseball diamond. And that has just changed everything because not only does it allow us to account for how much carbon is coming out of the atmosphere through deforestation and so therefore give us a metric to actually compensate countries that are preserving it, but we can also empower the law enforcement authorities in countries where deforestation is taking place to actually go out there and arrest the bad guys while they're still at it. As you can imagine, if you get a report a year later that, oh, there was illegal logging in this area or illegal conversion to pasture, there's not much you can do about it. Those guys are long gone. But if you can see it in real time and have a rapid response and impound the cattle or impound the equipment that's being used for illegal forest clearance, that's a very powerful tool. Multiply that by drones that communities are now using to patrol indigenous territories. This new app that my colleagues at Global Forest Watch have developed that allows somebody to go out into a very remote area with the technology on their cell phone to get the data on what's going on and then come back and upload what they found is just changing everything in terms of the ability to actually respond to illegal forest clearance. What is your government doing to adopt new technologies in agriculture, in food systems? OK, I'm going to talk a little bit about our situation in the UAE. We have the biggest challenges that we don't have water. You have plenty. You have plenty of snow. But we actually need energy to produce water. So the UAE has taken quite big steps now into looking at how we can use renewable energy to produce water. At the same time, urban farming is something that we're looking into much more now. So I actually see emerging companies now that is using. And it doesn't necessarily mean vertical farming. We don't have the issue of space in the UAE, not yet. But you can also go horizontal. But it's basically closed environment farming, where you can control the climate. You can control the temperature. And you can control what's really important for us, the amount of water that you use. So technologies and hydroponics and aeroponics is going to be very, very important for us because we need to increase local food production from the health side, from the economical side. So we need to use these technologies. And for us, we want to develop these technologies and adapt them to the UAE environment and then be able to transfer this knowledge to other nations who are suffering the same challenges as we are. So that's just some examples. We have 30 minutes left. I would now like to invite you to ask questions to our panelists. Please keep them short. Tell your name and ask the question. You can also ask the question in German. Yeah, and as I said, you can put your questions in German, if you wish. Who would like to put the first question? Yes, Jen? Yes, please. I'm Rosemary Halter. Rosemary Halter. And I live locally. I provide for myself to a larger extent. So listening to this, I'm wondering what can we do with our woods and forests here in Davos, for example, because we can't plant things in the soil we have here, for example. So what do we do with the ground that we have here to make it more productive? You don't have to hit it on. She is asking, what do we do in Switzerland? Sorry. What do we do in Switzerland where we don't have the areas to, it's not land which is adopted for every kind of plant as in lower regions. What about these areas? We cannot plant anything in certain areas. There is something, it's a good question, but it's a principal question, too, that forcing nature is not a good thing. So countries and regions should play where their by nature are good at. I think so much of damage is done by forcing and going against nature. So you have a fantastic landscape. You have many regions in Switzerland that you have an extremely efficient agriculture dimension, so very intense, well done, et cetera. Now the mountains are something different. You cannot change the mountains. So somewhere also humanity has to live with certain dimensions of why would you force a country or a region to do what nature doesn't express? And I think that would help a lot also for sustainability to a certain extent because forcing it, then you have to start also putting artificial dimensions into it. And I think, and it is extremely costly. So I think somewhere give nature a chance, too, to be itself, to a certain extent. But that's more a philosophical answer, but I do believe it has some value, you saw. And somewhere, and I may go into a difficult area here, but a more integrated world allows that to happen if you have a little bit more free trade and all that to a certain extent, too, because then you let that flow. You don't force yourself to do it because if not, you don't have it. Because you can count on where certain countries are good at by nature and have a more efficient agriculture by nature, that flows into your reality. And then you have something else that you can give back to that other country. But that's a very fundamental principle, philosophical answer, but I feel it has some value in the discussion. And sometimes we don't dare to express that. I think we should, we should. So there are several other questions, okay? In Africa, around 50% of food is thrown away before it gets to a distributor. That is something that I saw a professor recently say. Someone said it's worth avoiding food waste, it pays for itself. If it did pay for itself, then people would have stopped wasting food a long time ago. So what other solutions are there? Answer all of them, but there's something there. That's a very important question. But that's why we, for example, we have quite a lot of factories in the world that are close to the supply chain of three means. We have in Africa factories there that are close to the farmers there. And you're totally right, 30, 40% of food in general what is produced in the field is lost. And in Africa and in the developing world it is lost in the fields. Because there is, first of all, no conservation possibility, no warehousing, no infrastructures, et cetera. While bringing close to the raw material with a factory there, which is not always easy. You have to find also the infrastructure, you have to set it up, you have to build it up together with communities. But that's what we feel as a company how we connect positively with society. And we produce products locally, also with local ingredients, for example, cassava or so, for the local consumption. So we shorten the supply chains and transport. But that's a major issue still. But there's not only having a factory there, it's all infrastructure, continuum, consistency of policies in these countries is extremely important so that the investments can be made. And I think there, that commitment to connect with these farmers. As a company, only Nestle is directly linked with over 750,000 farmers. And we have agronoms on our payroll working with them and seeing how we can do good agricultural husbandry and farm husbandry. And I mentioned the build districts, we have coffee plantation working with farmers there too and how we can increase the yields there and preserve and less water usage. That's a major issue we don't talk about. We didn't talk about water, but 70% of the water usage, freshwater usage is in agriculture. And we know that the biggest part of it is actually not well used. So, and that's another thing. So, but linking up. Now, modern technology to a certain extent to communication. You know, in Africa, give and take one billion people there. Three-quarters of them are actually connected with cell phones. We think, no, they are, they are. Now, what does it mean they're connected? That's the Ford Industrial Revolution at work in simple areas. We work with milk farmers. They're better informed about satellite photographs and all that. So, and education through the cell phones, the connectivity, that would help dramatically to reduce the waste in the fields in these urban areas that are not in developing, that are in developing countries. So, again, you know, in oversupplied it's sizable, but it's small still in proportion, but it's amazing with just a little bit of education, a little bit of engagement in time. Because it's education. Education is like children. You have to say 20,000 times. You have to stay and commit your own company and supply chain and your factories there. You have to find people that go over there and make their families live in these areas and that creates stability. Where we are, we can reduce dramatically the 40, 45% you refer to. And it has a spillover effect. And that's a little bit what we, and the Web has done a good job there in growing Africa, growing Asia. It's specifically on agriculture and how can we help these supply chains to be much more efficient, creates better incomes and more stable incomes for these farmers too. So it has an inclusive dimension. And I think these are, because sometimes here in Davos we talk a lot about abstract things and we're gonna change the world and we want to and all with the best intentions, but then you go out there and that's where it happens. And that's where, that's so motivational to, that's why I'm a part of this company because I've seen it, I've been there. I lived in developing countries for a long time in my career. So it is important to really have concrete action on the ground and not wait until we have a major multi-stakeholder platform to start shaping it. And we're criticized and that's part of life and engage in discussion and engaging here because that's how you build societies and you build inclusive societies. I have something to add there. Also this is an example of what I see in the UAE. We, in the UAE we are one of the largest food waste producers in the world. Now what I've seen in connecting that to what's happening in the field, for example we produce a lot of dates from the palm trees. Now what happens is it's actually the consumer who says I want a nice looking date, no scratches, it needs to be a particular size. And what happens is the farmers are producing and there's a large percentage of, let's say not perfect dates. Number one, I think it's also us. We need to be a little bit more open and that a fruit doesn't have to be perfectly, like the apple doesn't have to be perfectly green and the perfect shape of an apple. Number two, also maybe there needs to be an industry for those not perfect fruits. Like for example in the palm tree itself, from the palm leaves and the low quality dates, we use it to produce feeds for livestock, for animals. So I think these are two dimensions that also need to be looked at when we're trying to reduce food waste in the farm. But like a country like the United Arab Emirates, we have also a lot still to do on the reducing food waste and that comes also from awareness that for people to actually see what we are actually doing and how we could actually help. So you've got a very detailed answer from Africa specialist, any other questions? Second one. My name is Adriane Rindscher and my question is this. The European Union's budgets, about 50% of that goes into agriculture. And I think they are in the process of reducing this percentage a little bit. And the other aspect of this is that lobbyism is very strong in the European Union, but also in all national governments. And the influence and the manipulation that can take place through lobbyism is very strong and what can be done to avoid, you know, certain lobbyists to be successful because they would be just bad for the environment, you know? Question is clear. Who'd like to answer? Yeah, I can try. I think, well, I think first of all on this sector, just having these kinds of conversations but others as well and that organizations like Greenpeace and others start working on these issues more actively, I think so that we then can help translate what's happening in the common agriculture policy, how many subsidies are going to which industries and then connect with our supporters, with other people to say this is the moment where we need you to be engaged. This is, and to make it much more real, much more engaging to say why it's important. So I think first of all, it's what you're saying in a way of, you know, getting out there. That's what I meant. There are mega industries that are behind this that receive incredible amounts of subsidies within Europe. When you think about the inequities within Europe, you think about all the issues that Europe has to deal with right now. And this is where having, you know, also a debate about Europe's role in the world and where it is spending its resources, I think is quite important. So I take that partially as an action point back for us in the activism that Greenpeace does but also I think part of it is getting more and more organizations to engage from a personal level of kind of what's the culture we've been talking about and creating and why it's important but also where are the moments? I think we've gotten a lot better, I would say of saying, okay, this is the big moment to shut down that coal-fired power plant. This is the big moment to go look what, let's go look what Norway is doing out in the Arctic, but we need to do the same thing on this. So thanks for the question. Thank you. You want to add anything? You know, I'd like to tie this back to the first question about, you know, what can I do here in Switzerland? I remember I spent many years in Indonesia associated with the Forestry Research Institute and had some cooperation with the Swiss Development Cooperation Agency. And I remember going to a presentation where a colleague from Switzerland put up his first slide and it was this slide of a completely denuded landscape of mountainous slopes with no trees and a river flowing through with all these logs in the river and it's like, where is that? And everybody was guessing, oh, well, that's Indonesia and Kalimantana. Well, it turns out it was in Switzerland a hundred years ago. And so it was like remembering that all countries, you know, have these various histories and are at different points, you know, in the journey on reaching, you know, a more sustainable land use as described earlier. You don't want to impose something that's not natural there. And so in a way, the answer to your question is not what trees can you plant here in Davos, but how can you be an active citizen to prompt the kind of public policies in the context of international engagement that Mr. Berke was talking about? Because indeed, you know, the comparative advantage of Switzerland versus Indonesia in terms of growing forests that store a lot of carbon, for example, is just, you know, night and day. And it makes a lot more sense for Switzerland to support Indonesia to do it than to try to do it at home. So that kind of international engagement, I think, is partly an answer to your question. Thank you. Who was next? I see many, many hands. I think, yeah. Hi, my name is Jaffa Nidrafa from Singapore, but I've been living in Munich, Germany for the past seven years. And as an urban night, as someone who's living in cities all his life, I'm all for the proposals and suggestions that Ms. Seymour and Ms. Morin, for example, put forward. But when I try to step on my echo chamber as an urban night, for example, I've met people from rural communities or people from farming families. And I think there's, my question here is, how can you convince people from these rural communities to go forward with the suggestions that you've put forward to accept a more sustainable food production model? Because a lot of these people, when we talk, when we urban nights talk about, oh, more sustainable food production, we should change the way of paradigm shifts, our consumer behaviors, they see it as an attack on the traditional lifestyles that some of them have been farms for generations. So maybe I'll tie it back to the question period question. Like, how do we win over these communities from the lobby groups that, you know, try to dissuade governments from implementing policies that you suggested for more sustainable food production? It's a complex question, even though please keep the answer short that we can take two or three more questions. Who'd like to answer? I'll just go real quick. I think it's in dialogue with those farmers to sit down and look at, okay, what are they doing right now? What could they be doing differently and how do we get the incentives and structures to do that together? And if they do need to change, to look at how you get a just transition and support for them to change. And I would say that it's not efficient to do it in some top-down way, but the way to get them to operate more sustainably is to change the way the market operates so that the incentives to the farmers incentivize them, i.e., you'll make more money if you grow this crop as opposed to corn, and then the farmers will change. But I think that the fundamental driver will be change in market demands and we just have to create a change in the incentives, market incentives. Anyone better, short please? We can also change our public subsidy regimes. Instead of subsidizing things that we don't want, there's recent research in Uganda about how much you have to pay Ugandan farmers to maintain more forest cover on their areas. Turns out, very cheap, only a couple of dollars per ton of carbon and farmers responded very quickly to the availability of a payment for keeping trees, so, you know, money talks. So, we have time for two last questions. Yes, please. Where's the micro? Yes. Oh, my name is Reneer van Breda. I'm from Bauden, Switzerland. This question goes out to Mr. Brown. As a meat eater myself, I find it quite hard to believe that you can convince me to stop eating meat. So, my question is, how would you convince me and especially young people to stop eating meat as the founder of the company Impossible Foods? Do we have the opportunity to sample it after the session? Yeah, it's a super great question. I think that the answer is, I'm not going to do it by arguing with you, by telling you that what you're doing is bad. And frankly, I don't even want you to stop eating meat. I want you to stop using animals as the technology to produce it and the way that will succeed for me or anyone else to get you to change is to produce, to find a better way to produce meat that not only is more sustainable, but gives you what you want. Does a better job than the cow say of giving you a delicious experience and the nutritional value that you want and affordable prices. That's the only, I mean, that's what I think will convince you. If you have a choice between this piece of meat that's more expensive, worse nutritional profile, and less delicious, and one that's more delicious, cheaper, better nutrition, which do you choose? That's the way. Okay. The lady in white. Thank you. Emma Cusworth from Lombardier. What role do you see for capital markets and specifically for investors to get involved and help with the transition towards a more sustainable agriculture industry? I think it's a great question. And increasingly, financiers of various kinds and capital markets are becoming interested in cleaning their investment portfolios of unsustainable practices of various kinds. I think it's like, you know, next week there's gonna be a conference in New York that's gonna bring investors together and increasingly institutional investors are looking for metrics. How do we choose between the green companies and the less green companies to direct our investments? And again, as I just said, money talks, right? And so for example, when the Norwegian Pension Fund divested from palm oil companies that were associated with deforestation in Indonesia, it got the industry's attention. So the capital markets and financiers have a big role to play. Since I have depended on investors to keep my company going for the first, until we actually were earning money, I can tell you what motivates them above all, which is no surprise, is money. And the thing about the kind of project that my company's taking on is that the market for foods that we make today using animals is one and a half trillion dollars and by 2030 it'll be three trillion dollars. And if we can do that more efficiently and be more successful in the market, our investors will be very happy. And that's, I think what's driving a lot of interest is people see the potential for not only good things that make the world better, but things that can be financially sustainable and a good investment. Time is running out. You've had your hand up there, the man in the blue shirt, for about 20 minutes, so I'll have to ask you to put your question. It doesn't, that much, but I just wanted to address two points which haven't really been touched upon very briefly. We talked about Africa. Everybody says we want the best for Africa. My experience is that we have a concentration, including at the WF, of power and energy. In terms of power, in terms of food producers, we have a concentrated market and industrialization of food. And that is what has driven food production, but has also led to a health issue. So how do you want to address the major players? Nestle, for example, how do you want to counter market concentration? I alluded to here. First of all, very fast about the investors, about sustainability and all that. I can confirm what you say. Investors are increasingly very interested and they want to know, in fact, how you behave as a company, so that's true. Then, industrially zero. We have to go back somewhere and I understand that some feelings are the industry and the food industry bad, but let's go back a little bit in history. It is true the food industry, actually, that the Industrial Revolution, that's why 150 years ago and all that, urbanization, that food safety came in much bigger, that nutrients were, conservation, convenience, all that was coming with it. And society was actually a part of the food industry, was building the society that we have now, also of savor available food, choice, all that is there. I don't want to put my chest in, hey, hey, but that's something that we forget sometimes. Now, we have a role to play. There are issues, there are awarenesses, new angles, insights that are very important and actually the Millennium Syndrome is calling and knocking on our door to, hey, that's your responsibility and I'm saying here, we take it up and we are challenged and we are investing in R&D and all that to do that, to give answers, to not speak about quantity but quality, nutrient quality, to be part of society in a positive way and that's how I see our company. Now, our company is quite sizable. You say that there's a little bit of a concentration. Now, I can tell you we are a sizable company very small in proportion to the food equation in the world so I don't feel there's a higher risk of us starting to dominate here. What we do have though is scale. We are quite sizable so we can move things. If it is well inspired, that capability and capacity is to be gone towards society in a positive way. We are engaging and we have the green pieces of this world saying, hey, I'm watching and yeah, keep us on our heels and that's good. So let's go to Brussels and change the subsidies on agriculture together. Look, but subsidies, yeah, and there was the question about lobbying and all that and I feel subsidies are good to bridge things. It is not good when it really institutionalize and makes it firm over time. You're totally right. And there, wherever you can engage, we do because subsidies only to defend self-centered interest is not good over time. We know that. But you see, there's also having a size, having a capability of moving things. If we can talk to 750,000 farmers in a certain way and we have been on the Sustainable Agricultural Initiative, we were actually starting this. We linked with 3 million farmers indirectly. We can move things. We have 450,000, we can move things. We have R&D capabilities that thanks to our size we can really invest in seeing how new things interact with the metabolic dimensions and pathways and how that is linked with health. So I feel it is actually a positive thing if you inspire it positively. And look, I'm in this company and I'm proud of it. And we are criticized. But that's how society is and that's how I see criticism. So thank you for your question. Thank you for your questions I'm sorry I haven't been able to take all of your questions. Because it's almost 8 o'clock, but I've come to a short conclusion in a nutshell. What is your top takeaway from this discussion? I'd like to know from everybody on the stage. 30 seconds, perhaps Marion Mehary. Can you start from the other side? Yeah, you start with Patrick Brown. Your top takeaway, your top insight from these 90 minutes. I'd say that in terms of the motivations and the things that people see as really important things to try to make better in the food system, I think they were extremely aligned and differed somewhat on the priorities and the way to solve those things. And the last thing I want to say is that it's great that there are so many students here because if you're wondering whose job it is to solve this problem, it's your job. And not government and not my job, we all need to do it. Jenny from Morgan. I want to take home my final thing, the shifting of power dynamics. I know I'm in Switzerland where you do everything by people power, or lots of what you do by people power. So if I think of what's happened in other countries on the Enigivende with you have people being able to produce their own energy and change the power dynamics of utilities, let's work together wherever you are and do the same thing on this sector. Because we have to do it. We have to shift the power so that what is being produced is what we want. Lesser meat, lesser dairy, more ecological and healthy. Francis Seymour. Well, making the assumption that this audience is representative of the Swiss public, I come away very heartened about the broad understanding and engagement with this set of issues as a global issue and understanding the interconnectedness through markets and governments and companies and expressing concern about the impacts of these things on the small farmers in Asia or Africa. And that gives me great hope that that kind of engagement can be mobilized not only for changes in behavior but changes in government policy. Full public care? Well, I quite motivated that we had the discussion and actually Nestle is a 150 year young company and I'm motivated for the next 150 years to be able to enhance quality of people's lives and being able to contribute to a healthier future together with the other stakeholders. I think that is what I take away from here. The fact that I'm here with all of you, I've come here to listen, to learn. My new role is also very challenging. It's multi-layered and listening to all the insights, knowing that there's an alternative to meets, knowing of all the challenges that you are all facing because I am facing different challenges. But at the same time, we're all sharing the same earth and we all want to take all these fractures away. That's what we're learning here in the World Economic Forum. And yeah, this is my takeaway. Many thanks to our panelists. Thank you very much to the audience for your kind attention. In the audience to a vegetarian during the last 90 minutes, raise your hand please. I saw one in the bag. One, two. There's happening something. On your way out, I invite you to stop by the large touchscreen at the back of the room to explore the Forum's Knowledge Platform, the transformation maps for different industries and countries, very interesting. Have a good evening.