 Rwy'n dechrau'r ddweud. Tom Arnold yn ymgyrch. A oedd gweithiau ei bod nesaf yn ymdill ac yn ddigonol'r ysgolwyr y gallwn amser ymdill wedi'u gwneud ddim yn ddegwyd ar dr Loren Saeddaid. Loren Saeddaid yn ymdill yn erbyn i'r economist mewn cyfnodol o'r maen o'r ddweud o Gwyl i'r Ysbryg oedd cyddiadu'r gyffredig o'r dfodol Of Development Studies, and Lawrence will be glad to know in these briefing notes, I discovered that the Institute of Development Studies is, according to this, the leading research institute in the world, under development. Under development. Ond oedd yn ymddangos yn ysgolion cyfeirio ar gyfer y gallu'r unig, a ymddangos yn ysgolion yng nghymru yn ysgolion. A gynnwys yma, i gael ei ddweud o'r ffordd o gweithio. Lawrence wedi'u gwirionedd ymddangos, ond Dr David Nabarro, wedi'u ddweud o'r ddweudio, yn ymddangos yn ymddangos. Ymddangos yn ymddangos yn ymddangos, yn ymddangos yn ymddangos, ac rydw i'n rhagorio, gan y syniad gyda ni, ac rydw i yw dweud hynny. Rwy'n teimlo yn ei bobl ei ei iechyd i'r t headingol, ac yn ddod o glaube inside, efallai y gallwn gwneud ginger o'r gwneud hynny. Ond, i gyfweld y Llorence, yn ysgrifennu Adan, Passypatr yn ei ystyried ar hedgefod, ac y hynny'n ceisio ar y Celfyryd, yw'n gweithio armarfer trio ar beth sydd genbl i roi'r dweud a chyrelu i wella newydd. Mi'n fawr. Mae'r hyn yn bywyd? Mae'n credu yn meddwl ar fywyd. Felly yw'r anhygoel. Felly ydym yn goreid o hynny'n cyffredinogieth mewn bywyd drwsfyrdd fawr a'r gw triesle. Bydd ymw bikeswch ar 10 rlyniad. Mae'n bywyd yn gweithio am ymwiynt i'r ysaf! Mae'n gweithio cyffredinol iawn. Fy enw i sy'n cael ei bod yn gweithio i'r rai cyfriddur o enghreifio y cyfriddur cyfeithio. Mae'r ysgol yn gweithio ac yn ymdweud yn ôl am yma yn yourdau i fewnaddodol. Roeddwn ni'n ddweud yma i bonus y ddweud, ichon y ddweud yma ar lŵr gweithio. Fy hoffi storio yma, roeddwn ni'n ddweud, diddau chi'n sgwrdd ymlaen, rhaid iddyn nhw'n ddweud. Mae gennym dros gofyn yn gweld â'u cyfweld. Ond mae'r gynllun y ddeilol iawn, ydy'r dŵwn i'r ddweud am yr rhai gwybod sydd yn deall. Mae gennym dros gofyn o'r Ddoch, yr Ddoch, Jermyn sydd yn deall. Ond mae'n bod ni'n weithio i ymddangos hwn, ond mae'n mynd i'r ddweud am gweithio'r ddweud. Ond y parwynau餵id yn gweithio'r ddweud yn gweithio'r cyfeithio'r gweithio'r ddweud. Rydym ni'r bobl yn rhoi gweithio ac yr awrfyrdd yn gallu gwir eich bywyr yn oesaf iddyn nhw. Am y cymdeithasol hwnnw yn ei dweud, ac maen nhw'n deall iddyn nhw am ymddangos o gwir eich bywyr. Felly'r bywyr newydd yn wahanol, ac mae'r oedd y bwysig yn gyfrydd hyn ymlaen, a maen i'r byw arall. Mae'r bwysig a'r bwysig wedi'u bwysig i'w bwysig, a'r bwysig a'i bobl yn ganddo i'r byw. that, so if people are interested in a copy of that. But in our new development policy, we have a strong focus on food systems, and again, a key challenge we see in that is harnessing the contribution of the private sector, and again, gain have been invaluable in helping us to think through that. We've recently supported, well in the last year and a half, a whole new piece of work y lleoedd y gallwn yn gweithio ar y maed a'n ddefnyddio'r wneud yma, ac rydw i'n meddwl gydag y byddai'r arddangos yn gofio ar y ddechrau, ond rydw i fynd yn gweithio byddai'r byddau yn gweithio er mwynnig. Felly mae'n fwy ffraeg, mae'n gweithio i Llorens ddim yn ei wneud, a dyma'r yma, wrth gwrs, dyma'n gweithio i Llorens. Ddweud. Wel, ddwy'n ddweud, Tom, ac ddwy'n ddwy'n ddigon i'n ddysgu'n ymddangos, I thank you for coming and listening. A joint gain two and a half years ago, I applied for the position, because I was outraged, I think is maybe slightly too strong a word, but maybe not. I was outraged by the complacency of people in the public sector, and there are very complacent attitudes towards the private sector and nutrition. I felt like there was a moral obligation to... So I'm trying to be provocative. I felt like there was a moral obligation to engage, because not engaging incurred costs to kids. You can engage badly and incur costs to kids and other people. But as far as I could tell, very few people in the public sector worried about nutrition were actually trying to engage, because they didn't see the value in it, or they were too scared to do it, or they didn't know where to start. So I applied to the gain position when it became available because gain is one of the few organisations that's really trying to do something sensible in the public private space for nutrition. When I joined, we were doing mostly large-scale food fortification work, which you can't do that work unless you engage the private sector. It's fairly uncontroversial work. You can reach a lot of people, but it's a fairly... It's not a transformative kind of intervention. It's an important intervention, but it's just one of many. So we redesigned the institution's strategy to focus exclusively on how do we improve the consumption of safe and nutritious food for all, especially the most vulnerable. If that's your mission statement, you have to work through food systems, because food systems is where most people come into contact with food. Everyone eats every day. Some people don't eat every day, but most people eat every day, and most people eat three meals a day, but most people eat a large number of people eat food that is not sufficient for them in terms of calories, not sufficient in terms of micronutrients, and sometimes they just consume too much of the wrong kinds of foods, very high in sugar, very high in salt, very high in trans fats. So if that's your purpose to improve the consumption of nutritious food, you have to work in food systems, and if you work in food systems, you have to engage with businesses, because businesses are all over the food system. The question is, how do you do that? How do you do it in ways? When do you do it? Why do you do it? And how do you do it? And that's what we are trying to do again. It's a difficult space. It's a space that's fraught with dangers and controversies, but someone's got to do it. And so it's really important that organisations like Irish Aid and our partners and our other funders are helping us to lead, not lead, but be part of a collective journey to figuring out what to do. So my title is Why and How to Engage the Private Sector. If I can get this to work. So here's the problem. I mean, those of you who are familiar with nutrition will be very familiar with these numbers. Malnutrition is a really difficult topic because there's lots of different expressions and types of malnutrition. Those of you who work in emergency settings will know about severe and acute malnutrition or wasting. Those of you who work in chronic development issues will know about stunting. Those of you worried about women's food intake will be worried about anemia and women of reproductive age. Those of you worried about exercise and wellbeing and diets will be worried about overweight and diabetes type 2. So here are some of the numbers. Chronic hunger is 821 million. Those are the numbers you see when you see reports from the World Food Program and FAO that these are the number of hungry people in the world that go to bed without enough food. But a bigger number, the two billion light blue circle, is a bigger number is deficient in vitamins and minerals and that's really important for their growth and their development and their immune systems. The big orange circle is overweight or obese. Notice that it overlaps with the light blue circle. You can have too much of the wrong food and it can be deficient in vitamins and minerals. And then the little circles are for children under the age of 5. 151 million kids are stunted. That means they're too short for their age. They're actually 8 or 9, but they look 4 or 5. And that's important, not because height per se is important, but it's a marker for cognitive development and immune system development. So if they're short for their age, they're at a greater risk of not learning as much, not having as much grey matter in there, dense neurological connections. So they'll learn less in school, they'll be less productive in the labour force if they get a job. And they'll be much more likely to live in poverty. So, when you put all of that together, you come up with a number of 1 in 3, roughly, 1 in 3 people worldwide are malnourished in one way or another. And this is very new. It's about 5 years old. There's a big community that works on the blue circles and a big community that works on the orange circles and these two communities are coming together. And they're... I'm going to skip that. They're united, because it's too complicated. These two communities are united by poor diets. Poor diets are not the only cause of overweight and obesity. They're not the only cause of anemia. They're not the only cause of stunting type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure. But they're a common factor in all of those types of malnutrition. And so if we can improve diets in terms of increasing the number of calories when they need to be increased, increasing the number of the concentration of proteins and vitamins and minerals, and we can reduce the concentrations of sugar, salt, and trans fats when they need to be reduced, we can do an amazing amount of good for all forms of malnutrition. Just to give you a sense of how important diet is for overall mortality and morbidity, this is a rather complicated figure. Apologies for that. I've been run by the IHME, which is this health metrics unit near the University of Washington in Seattle, and they run this big program called the global burden of disease. Some of you may be familiar with it. It basically tries to mash up data on mortality and morbidity and come up with one metric, which is called disability-adjusted life use. They calculate this globally and they calculate it for each country. They have subnational estimates. This is the number for India. I was in India last month. This is the picture for India. What they do is they say what's the burden of disease for India, mortality plus morbidity, and then what are the top 10 risk factors driving that? On the right-hand side, here are the top 10 risk factors. I've circled the ones in red which are linked in one way or another to diets, what people eat. The top one is malnutrition, which is the classic stunting and wasting under five malnutrition. Then dietary risks is number two. For India, you can see the top right-hand column, 34.9%. That means that the dietary risk factor has gone up a lot since 2007, which is when the last time it was evaluated. There are the 2007 rankings and the 2017 rankings. In 2017, dietary risks was number four. In 2017, dietary risks was number two, but the change in the number of dailies that dietary risks are responsible for is huge. It's gone up by 34%. Some of the other ones that have gone up by a huge amount, body mass index, 101%. Body mass index is responsible in 2017 for two times as many disability-adjust life years as it was in 2007. It's a doubling in 10 years in India. High LDL is cholesterol, high fasting plasma glucose. One of the factors is too much added sugar in the diet. High blood pressure is linked to too much salt. Lots of other things it's linked to, but too much salt. All of those things, as far as I can tell, are going up in India. Some of the other risk factors, like wash, it's gone down. It was number three in 2007 and it's gone down to number seven in 2017. That's a result of lots of efforts to improve water and sanitation coverage in India. Air pollution is about the same. This is a big deal. It's a big driver of the burden of disease. So what's going on? One of the big problems is that the price of cereals is going down, which is good. That's what the Green Revolution was put in place to do 50, 60 years ago, is increase the productivity of cereals and root crops, improve the productivity, drive down the price, make these kind of staple foods more available, and it's done that brilliantly. The idea was, as the price of those foods goes down, that frees up income for other kinds of things and some of the other kinds of things will be more nutritious foods, so people will be able to afford a higher quality diet. It turns out that the prices of foods that are higher have more micronutrients in them, vitamins and minerals have more proteins in them. The price of those foods is increasing much faster than the price drop in the staples and the cereals and the root crops. So here's a study from the Lancet Global Health a couple of years ago, and it's a study that said for Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Zimbabwe, if every person in the household was to consume five fruits and vegetables a day, which is a fairly standard aspiration, how much of their household income would have to go to that? So would it be 10% or 5% of their household income? The answer is 52%. 52% of their household income would have to go on buying five fruits and vegetables a day for every person in the household every day. Clearly, and that's just fruits and vegetables. There's many more healthy foods that people need to eat. So it's clearly unaffordable. Here's some data, and it's surprising there isn't that much data on food prices over time. Here's some other data from IFPRI, an IFPRI study in Ethiopia, from a couple of years ago, showing what the change in real prices is Ethiopia-wide, so it'll vary from district to district. Ethiopia-wide, this is a change in real prices between 2007 and 2016. Again, you can see oils and fats, sugar and honey, grains, roots and tubers have decreased in price on the left-hand side in terms of their changes in real prices. This is taking into account inflation. But the prices of these other foods that are richer in micronutrients and some animal proteins have quite big price increases over a relatively short time period, in eight, nine years. So we have a real problem with food prices. Businesses are big players in food consumption. When I say businesses and food, you might be thinking of the big business, big food, and big food is responsible for about 15% of food purchases in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, 1.5%. The big beverages are responsible for about 50%, 5.0%. But big food, setting aside the beverage, which we'll come back to later on, is responsible for 15%. That means small, medium and larger national companies are responsible for the other 85%. So what data do I have to back my assertion that businesses are intrinsically entwined in the food consumption of even the poorest folks? Well, I have this data from the World Bank. This is the Living Standards Measurement Survey data from the World Bank. They did this analysis for us because we asked them. And these are the nine countries that GAIN operates in. We have country officers in each of these countries. First thing to know is, look how old the data are. 2008 is the most recent data we have for Mozambique. Some of the country's Bangladesh has a more recent survey. What this shows you is, what's the percentage of food that is purchased? Green is the rural population, and orange is the urban population. So in Nigeria, 99% of the food purchased in urban areas is purchased. 89% in rural areas. Mozambique, 10 years ago, but Mozambique, even in Mozambique in the urban areas, which are not just Maputu, 78% of the food that is consumed in Mozambique 10 years ago was purchased. In Ethiopia and Mozambique in rural areas, lower proportions of food are purchased. But as you can see, even in really quite poor countries in rural areas, parts of those countries, most food is purchased. Now why does that matter? If food is purchased it means where that consumer is engaging with businesses. We don't have the luxury of ignoring businesses. A second slide on we don't have the luxury of ignoring businesses if we care about nutrition is this depiction of the food system. This is from a UN report that came out a couple of years ago. Food systems are simply put. Is everything from production through to retail and markets, that's the supply chain, a blue bit, and the green bit is the food environment where the consumer or the citizen comes into contact with the food supply chain. The things that determine what they consume are is it available, is it affordable, how desirable is it and is it safe, and what's the quality like. When you superimpose businesses, they're everywhere in that food system. Farmers are small businesses, they're entrepreneurs. Seed companies, transport companies, processing companies, wholesalers, business finance institutions, traders, speculators, media, refrigeration, all of these are private sector entities. If we want to change that food system, we have to somehow engage with them. The question is how. There are many opportunities to engage between the public and private sector for nutrition. Sorry, this is a very wordy table. But I put it up here to highlight the two columns and the two rows because I think it's really important. When many people think about public-private sector engagement in nutrition or partnerships in nutrition, they're thinking food sector and big companies, which is the top left quadrant. They might be thinking about how do we reduce the levels of salt and sugar and fat and sugar tax is one way of doing that. How do we get responsible marketing of food products to kids? How do we get companies to comply with breast milk substitute marketing standards? Because if there's an irresponsible way of marketing breast milk substitutes, that can discourage mothers from exclusive breastfeeding and we know exclusive breastfeeding is really important for child growth and there was a study in the newspapers today. I was reading a WHO study showing a very clear link to the prevention of obesity in childhood. But it's a big space and there's a lot of stuff in that top left-hand corner and usually the marketing of breast milk substitutes issue crowds everything else out. But there are three other spaces that we also need to explore. There is the companies that are not big companies but nevertheless will be very important in shaping national food systems. Remember 85% of those companies provide the rest of the food. 15% is the big food. So what can we do in that in the not big companies in the food section? Well there are lots of smaller companies in Ethiopia and Mozambique, Kenya who are trying to produce more fruits and vegetables or more nuts or more pulses or more fish or more chicken and they're trying to do that not because they care about nutrition but because that's the business they're in. They're trying to make commercial profit and they're trying to earn a livelihood and generate employment for their local communities and we need to do a much better job of supporting those SMEs. That's a fairly non-contentious sweet spot where you get multiple gains, you get nutritious food that's more available and affordable, you support the local economy and you even support those companies getting into the formal sector so the government can extract some tax. But then there's this whole other column, the non-food companies. Non-food companies are really important for the food system. Think of business to business support to build market intelligence, trust and insight, workforce, nutrition programs. We work with the garment factories in Bangladesh and the tea sector in India and Kenya. Neither of those are food sectors really. Tea is not really a food sector and we work with those companies to make sure that their employees understand nutrition have access to nutrition information and education and materials. They get time away from their job to learn about what good nutrition is and we work with those companies to make sure that their employees have access to nutritious foods on-site, as well as breastfeeding facilities and maternity leave cover and those kinds of things. Go down to the non-food companies and the not big companies. Again, creative agencies, we work a lot with creative agencies who are trying to design interesting, engaging, emotional food marketing campaigns for nutritious foods. How do you make vegetables and fruits exciting and interesting? We don't talk about what they can do for your health. You talk about something else completely. You talk about maybe they make you with one of the campaigns we're trying out in I think it's Kenya is this food made me. That's the campaign. We're looking into traditional foods. We're trying to tap into ideas of patriotism, of tradition, of sort of being a self-made person. This food made me. We don't talk about whether it's healthy or not healthy, but we show only pictures of healthy foods. Public sector is not terribly good at selling healthy food. The private sector is brilliant at selling everything. Can we get the private sector to be engaged in selling healthy food? But you can only do that if there's a public sector partner engaged making sure the science is right, the messaging is consistent with government priorities and standards. I think there are three types of businesses to engage with and again we work with all of them. We work with businesses outside the food system to shape the food system. We work with small and medium businesses in the food sector producing food that are part of the healthy diet and we try to influence the big food and beverage companies. I'll give you an example of each. So this is one example of a UK. This is not us. This is a UK organisation called the Food Foundation that's been working with I think these ads were on ITV which is one of the ITV in the UK and this is about veg power. This is tapping into trying to get kids to be excited about vegetables by linking it into superheroes. A lot of kids care about superheroes. There's another one that's going on right now which is called Eat Them To Defeat Them. Vegetables are bad for you. So let's play with that. Let's eat them to defeat them. Again this is one we did work with a couple of creative agencies in Indonesia as our healthy gossip campaign. It's a one minute spot where it's a lot of humour, there's a lot of fun in it and again it's all about a parent who's gossiping about every other parent who's feeding their kids badly but it turns out that she's the one who's not feeding it very well but it's all done in a very light hearted and humorous and funny way in a respectful way. So it's very important to tap into emotions and aspirations because I've got two teenagers at home myself and it's really hard to get them to eat any healthy food actually. The only chance I get is when I try to make a joke out of it or try to make it seem that I'm not talking about health then they start to listen. I'm sure you have the same experiences. The second type of businesses that we work with and I think are really important to sport are SMEs and this is a slide from a wall of one of our partners in Mozambique, one of our partner SMEs in Mozambique. I took this picture when I was visiting his office and this is a vegetable and fruit business and I said what's this picture on your wall and he said that's my business plan, my business statement, that's my mission statement and I said please explain to me he said that's the price we currently sell out at the top and that's the price I want to be able to sell out because even though it's a lower price I'll get a much bigger market share I'll be able to purchase at a lower price I'll be able to maintain my profit margin and my margin might suffer a little bit but it will be expanded out of a large number of units so my profit will be fine. Many companies want to expand their sales of nutritious food because it's good business not because they care that much about nutrition and we should be working with them to support them because they will be shaping their food systems and the key is how do you do that in a way that achieves scale and sustainability so we again have been doing that with 40 companies over the last 2-3 years but that's only 40 companies you've got to put them through a very rigorous selection process they have to exist, they have to be producing nutritious food, they have to have a business plan that is at least feasible and viable and then you can work with them to develop the technical assistance and small grants to purchase pieces of equipment or pieces of TA but how do you scale that and you scale it we think through lots of ways but financing is a key way to do that and we were just having a discussion just before we came here about what's the best way to provide blended finance to these kinds of companies and when you get it right you get good results and this is a result from an independent third party evaluation of some of the work we've been doing with these four companies two from Mozambique and two from Kenya and we always ask the evaluators to evaluate the impact on availability, affordability and desirability and convenience that's what we're trying to do again make these kinds of foods more available affordable and desirable desirability is key and convenience and green means we're having a positive impact and yellow means we're not there yet red is a possibility so there's no red which is good so I don't have time to go through all of these in detail but it's possible to improve these companies offering that in a way it's good for business and it's good for the consumers but how to scale that is the question now for the big food companies we don't spend a huge amount of time working with them even though they have the potential to really move mountains they generally not that interested in anyone below $10 a day in terms of income that's a bit of a big generalisation but they tend to buy up the smaller companies that have proven that they can get to the $3 or even below if we can get below $3 a day they tend to buy those companies up but we do work with them and we do try to put some heat on them positive and negative heat and we do it through working with governments what kinds of incentives can governments put in place so we've heard about sugar taxes sort of sin taxes and they work but the opposite also works why not subsidise the price of foods that companies are making you can have sin taxes but you can also have virtue subsidies the way we subsidise agriculture right now is a different kind of political economy it's about livelihoods it's about tax revenues it's not about health and nutrition there's a possibility to change the way we subsidise the food system to make it more nutrition friendly you have to pay big attention to the economy but there is at least a possibility governments set up industrial parks for export revenue for companies to generate export revenue for their governments coffers and they incentivise them through lower rates lower utility bills lower taxes we're trying to get governments like the government of Ethiopia to do the same thing in the big industrial parks that are going up around Addis can they offer companies that are producing nutritious food a slightly better deal to entice them in to produce nutritious food for the tens of thousands of workers in those big industrial parks so I think you can do a lot there you can do a lot with consumer demand and we're working with as I said these creative agencies and the government to generate really engaging demand programmes from consumers you can do a lot with the civil society accountability there are score cards we had a presentation yesterday about the ten different score cards that big companies are subjected to these companies care about these score cards they don't like it if they're number six in the list of ten they want to be number one I've had conversations with them where they say to me how can we get better on this score so I think some people within the companies really care about this stuff so that's another way of putting pressure on them I think employees also there was a study in the US I haven't seen any for Africa or Asia but it was a study of where is the search for purpose where do most companies report the search for purpose coming from, the pressure for purpose is it, by I mean a social purpose and the study concluded that it was employees were a very important part of the search these are US companies a part of the search for purpose and especially the younger and newer employees want to work for a company that they think is doing good as well as being sustainable commercially is doing good things there's pressure from shareholders activist shareholders who own 2 or 3% of a company can really get the attention of the company's board of directors environmental societal and governance standards are important can we get more health and nutrition into those standards footsie for good is an example of that, the UK stop listing and then finally change from within companies we mustn't forget that there are champions for change within companies big companies are not big monoliths often we talk to people who are 3 or 4 levels down from the CEO who are desperate to do something but they have to convince internal champions it's like I talk to colleagues in USAID and DFID and Irish aid who are champions for nutrition and we help them to make the case to get more resources within their organisations for nutrition and we need to do the same thing for companies and we do the same thing Government price and centres work is a systematic review that shows the conclusion is to maximise success and effort the review suggests taxes and subsidies should be should be at a minimum 10-15% of the price and they should be used preferably in tandem that's very important there are lots of sticks but we also need a few carrots otherwise the businesses just get turned off so in conclusion most countries, I didn't show you this slide but most countries are really off track for STG2, STG2 is the food and nutrition sustainable development goal there are lots of notable exceptions to that Indonesia just posted some good stunting numbers Bangladesh just posted some good stunting numbers I'm optimistic about India but really to get to the sustainable development goals India is going to have to reduce its stunting rate at twice the rate it's managed in the last 6 or 7 years and that's a big ask and then for obesity and overweight everything's either going up or stable I think it's going down in one country at 193 and that's a very small island somewhere in the pacific where the rates are already 60% obesity so most countries are off track for STG2 improved food consumption is really vital for meeting STG2 food is I was taught the UNICEF framework for under nutrition is food, care and health so all three of those things are really important and when you get all three of them right you get a lot of action but most organisations can only improve one thing and try to improve one thing and we've chosen food consumption because it's so central to every type of malnutrition it's so important for the global burden of disease but if you're going to try and improve food consumption you need to engage and influence private sector actors because they are the main players in the food system we need to engage with food and non food companies and we need to engage with big and small and medium companies so you need to unpack what you mean by the private sector it's not a monolith and then you need to look for the sweet spots we had a review of public private engagements it's quite an obvious conclusion but it's worth saying there are areas that are not contentious in public private engagement small and medium enterprises who are producing fruits, vegetables, fish pulses that's non contentious do it, start there and try to incentivise more good as well as less bad behaviour activist governments are really important I think governments underestimate their role they have to play we often talk about the power and balances between big companies and governments and of course there are big imbalances between big companies and governments but big companies are not that important in some of the countries that we are really looking for change in and activist governments are actually much more powerful and even some medium and large national companies and even an activist government can scare the hell out of a big company by threatening to shut it all down in that country in the past in India and Ethiopia it's still a latent threat we need to evaluate and mobilise knowledge and know how on what works there's very little knowledge that's codified, organised mobilised and made easy to learn from and that's one of the things we're trying to do in one of our programs that we're presenting and we really need to embrace transparent accountability mechanisms not just for businesses but for governments too if a government is not doing all it can to make it easier for businesses to do the right thing and hard for them to do the wrong thing they are also culpable in this burden of disease it's about complementary commitments they don't have to be a quid pro quo but everybody has a role to play we often say that malnutriousism can't be solved by governments alone that's true but the corollary is that accountability can't just be solved is not just businesses problem it's everyone's problem and this is my last slide Tom I wanted to show you the figures for Ireland I showed you the figures for India early on and these are the figures for Ireland tobacco is the number one risk factor for the burden of disease in Ireland then it was in 2007 but look at number two, number three number four, number five and number seven and in particular the one that's increasing the most is high fasting plasma glucose which is probably linked to high quantities of added sugars in various foods so malnutriousism is not malnutriousism is a quintessential SDG problem sustainable development goal problem it's not something over there that's a problem it's not something where we have all the solutions and they have all the problems nobody has a monopoly on the problems unfortunately and nobody has a monopoly on the solutions so we all need to come together to end it thank you very much