At New York Climate Week in September, opinion leaders voiced concern that high-profile events often gloss over the deep inequalities exposed by climate change, especially how poorer populations suffer disproportionately and struggle to access mitigation or adaptation resources. The message was clear: climate policies should better reflect social justice concerns, ensuring they are inclusive and do not unintentionally favor those already privileged.  We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, because everything starts with food: it is a fundamental human right and a foundation for health, education and opportunity. It is also a lever for climate, economic and social resilience.  > We believe access to food sits at the heart of this call for inclusion, > because everything starts with food This makes the global conversation around food systems transformation more urgent than ever. Food systems are under unprecedented strain. Without urgent, coordinated action, billions of people face heightened risks of malnutrition, displacement and social unrest.   Delivering systemic transformation requires coordinated cross-sector action, not fragmented solutions. Food systems are deeply interconnected, and isolated interventions cannot solve systemic problems. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach report calls for systems thinking and collaboration across the value chain to address overlapping food, health and environmental challenges.   Now, with COP30 on the horizon, unified and equitable solutions are needed to benefit entire value chains and communities. This is where a systems approach becomes essential.  A systems approach to transforming food and agriculture  Food systems transformation must serve both people and planet. We must ensure everyone has access to safe, nutritious food while protecting human rights and supporting a just transition.   At Tetra Pak, we support food and beverage companies throughout the journey of food production, from processing raw ingredients like milk and fruit to packaging and distribution. This end-to-end perspective gives us a unique view into the interconnected challenges within the food system, and how an integrated approach can help manufacturers reduce food loss and waste, improve energy and water efficiency, and deliver food where it is needed most.   Meaningful reductions to emissions require expanding the use of renewable and carbon-free energy sources. As outlined in our Food Systems 2040 whitepaper,1 the integration of low-carbon fuels like biofuels and green hydrogen, alongside electrification supported by advanced energy storage technologies, will be critical to driving the transition in factories, farms and food production and processing facilities.   Digitalization also plays a key role. Through advanced automation and data-driven insights, solutions like Tetra Pak® PlantMaster enable food and beverage companies to run fully automated plants with a single point of control for their production, helping them improve operational efficiency, minimize production downtime and reduce their environmental footprint.  The “hidden middle”: A critical gap in food systems policy  Today, much of the focus on transforming food systems is placed on farming and on promoting healthy diets. Both are important, but they risk overlooking the many and varied processes that get food from the farmer to the end consumer. In 2015 Dr Thomas Reardon coined the term the “hidden middle” to describe this midstream segment of global agricultural value chains.2   This hidden middle includes processing, logistics, storage, packaging and handling, and it is pivotal. It accounts for approximately 22 percent of food-based emissions and between 40-60 percent of the total costs and value added in food systems.3 Yet despite its huge economic value, it receives only 2.5 to 4 percent of climate finance.4  Policymakers need to recognize the full journey from farm to fork as a lynchpin priority. Strategic enablers such as packaging that protects perishable food and extends shelf life, along with climate-resilient processing technologies, can maximize yield and minimize loss and waste across the value chain. In addition, they demonstrate how sustainability and competitiveness can go hand in hand.  Alongside this, climate and development finance must be redirected to increase investment in the hidden middle, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up most of the sector.   Collaboration in action  Investment is just the start. Change depends on collaboration between stakeholders across the value chain: farmers, food manufacturers, brands, retailers, governments, financiers and civil society.  In practice, a systems approach means joining up actors and incentives at every stage.5 The dairy sector provides a perfect example of the possibilities of connecting. We work with our customers and with development partners to establish dairy hubs in countries around the world. These hubs connect smallholder farmers with local processors, providing chilling infrastructure, veterinary support, training and reliable routes to market.6 This helps drive higher milk quality, more stable incomes and safer nutrition for local communities.  Our strategic partnership with UNIDO* is a powerful example of this collaboration in action. Together, we are scaling Dairy Hub projects in Kenya, building on the success of earlier initiatives with our customer Githunguri Dairy. UNIDO plays a key role in securing donor funding and aligning public-private efforts to expand local dairy production and improve livelihoods. This model demonstrates how collaborations can unlock changes in food systems.  COP30 and beyond  Strategic investment can strengthen local supply chains, extend social protections and open economic opportunity, particularly in vulnerable regions. Lasting progress will require a systems approach, with policymakers helping to mitigate transition costs and backing sustainable business models that build resilience across global food systems for generations to come.   As COP30 approaches, we urge policymakers to consider food systems as part of all decision-making, to prevent unintended trade-offs between climate and nutrition goals. We also recommend that COP30 negotiators ensure the Global Goal on Adaptation include priorities indicators that enable countries to collect, monitor and report data on the adoption of climate-resilient technologies and practices by food processors. This would reinforce the importance of the hidden middle and help unlock targeted adaptation finance across the food value chain.  When every actor plays their part, from policymakers to producers, and from farmers to financiers, the whole system moves forward. Only then can food systems be truly equitable, resilient and sustainable, protecting what matters most: food, people and the planet.  * UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization)  Disclaimer POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT * The sponsor is Tetra Pak * The ultimate controlling entity is Brands2Life Ltd * The advertisement is linked to policy advocacy regarding food systems and climate policy More information here. https://www.politico.eu/7449678-2

The Trump administration won’t tap emergency funds to pay for federal food benefits, imperiling benefits starting Nov. 1 for nearly 42 million Americans who rely on the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO. USDA said in the memo that it won’t tap a contingency fund or other nutrition programs to cover the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which is set to run out of federal funds at the end of the month. The contingency fund for SNAP currently holds roughly $5 billion, which would not cover the full $9 billion the administration would need to fund November benefits. Even if the administration did partially tap those funds, it would take weeks to dole out the money on a pro rata basis — meaning most low-income Americans would miss their November food benefits anyway. In order to make the deadline, the Trump administration would have needed to start preparing for partial payments weeks ago, which it has not done. Congressional Democrats and anti-hunger groups have urged the Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits flowing into November, some even arguing that the federal government is legally required to tap other funds to pay for the program. But senior officials have told POLITICO that using those other funds wouldn’t leave money for future emergencies and other major food aid programs. Administration officials expect Democratic governors and anti-hunger groups to sue over the decision not to tap the contingency fund for SNAP, according to two people granted anonymity to describe private views. The White House is blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding due to their repeated votes against a House-passed stopgap funding bill. The Trump administration stepped in to shore up funding for key farm programs this week after also identifying Pentagon funds to pay active-duty troops earlier in the month. USDA said in the memo, which was first reported by Axios, that it cannot tap the contingency fund because it is reserved for emergencies such as natural disasters. The department also argues that using money from other nutrition programs would hurt other beneficiaries, such as mothers and babies as well as schoolchildren who are eligible for free lunches. “This Administration will not allow Democrats to jeopardize funding for school meals and infant formula in order to prolong their shutdown,” USDA wrote in the memo. The top Democrats on the House Agriculture and Appropriations committees — Reps. Angie Craig of Minnesota and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, respectively — lambasted the determination Friday, saying “Congress already provided billions of dollars to fund SNAP in November.” “It is the Trump administration that is taking food assistance away from 42 million Americans next month — including hungry seniors, veterans, and families with children,” they said in a statement. “This is perhaps the most cruel and unlawful offense the Trump administration has perpetrated yet — freezing funding already enacted into law to feed hungry Americans while he shovels tens of billions of dollars out the door to Argentina and into his ballroom.” Congress could pass a standalone bill to fund SNAP for November, but that would have to get through the Senate early next week and the House would likely need to return to approve it. Johnson said this week if the Senate passes a standalone SNAP patch, the House would “address” it. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he would lean toward using the emergency funds to help keep some food benefits flowing. “I think the President and GOP should do what we can to alleviate harm done by the Democrats,” he said in a text message. Bacon also said he would support having the House return to approve a standalone bill should the Senate pass one next week: “I figure the Speaker would want to.” Some states, including Virginia and Hawaii, have started to tap their own emergency funds to offer some food benefits in the absence of SNAP. But it’s not clear how long that aid can last given states’ limited budgets and typical reliance on federal help to pay for anti-hunger programs. USDA, furthermore, said states cannot expect to be reimbursed if they cover the cost of keeping benefits flowing.

Bug food for pets was never Plan A — it’s the last resort for insect producers to stay afloat. They blame EU bureaucracy. “I wake up every morning for the fish, not to feed the pets,” said Sébastien Crépieux, CEO of Invers, a French insect producer based in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes that grows mealworms in cooperation with local farmers. He explains that most insect producers started with the idea of replacing protein in fishmeal used to feed farmed fish with a more sustainable source — such as insects. Fishmeal is usually made from fish processing waste and forage fish like anchovies or sardines, and contributes to overfishing and biodiversity loss. In 2017, the European Commission approved the use of insect protein in aquaculture feed to address that issue. In 2022, it also allowed insects to be used in feed for pigs and poultry. For many in the field, that was a big step forward. “We all developed based on this concept,” said Crépieux. “But unfortunately, the Commission never banned fishmeal, so we’re still competing with a resource taken freely from the ocean at a very low price. Fishmeal imports into Europe must be controlled — we’re really killing the ocean,” he added. According to the 2024 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report, 10 percent of fish populations were fished at unsustainable levels in the mid-1970s. The number has almost quadrupled in 2021 to 37.7 percent of stocks. The ambitious EU monitoring rules on fisheries, which came into force last January, introduced electronic tracking systems for vessels and minimum sanctions for violations of the common fisheries policy — but failed to include limits on how much forage fish can be diverted to fishmeal. That’s where insect-based pet food comes in. “If we had to compete by selling our production as fish feed, we would already be dead,” said Crépieux. That is why he, like some other producers, shifted his focus to pet food. FEEDING PETS WITH BUGS Insect-based pet food — marketed as hypoallergenic and more sustainable — remains a niche product embraced mostly by true enthusiasts. Traditional pet food, made from meat or vegetable byproducts or grains, still dominates more than 99.5 percent of the market. According to Crépieux, it’s unlikely this type of pet food will ever become mainstream unless major brands like Purina or Acana adopt it. Insect-based pet food is marketed as hypoallergenic and more sustainable. | Sam Yeh/AFP via Getty Images Still, his company has managed to attract customers who care about the environment and good nutrition for their pets, he claimed. “The palatability is high. I think animals, unlike us, know what’s good for their health — they really eat it,” he said, adding that his cats are happy with this alternative protein. However, green NGOs like Eurogroup for Animals and Compassion in World Farming have questioned its true environmental benefits. “Farming insects has a higher sustainability impact than most traditional pet food ingredients … most insects are not sourced from Europe,” said Francis Maugère of Eurogroup for Animals. “If you want to rear them here, you can — but you must keep them at high temperature and humidity, which comes with financial and energy costs,” he added. The group also argues that there’s insufficient scientific evidence to support the hypoallergenic claims. “The sustainability of insect-based pet food is highly questionable — from insect welfare standards, to the need for diets based solely on byproducts rather than cereals and soy, to its high carbon footprint due to heating requirements,” said Phil Brooke, research and education manager at Compassion in World Farming. FEDIAF, which represents the European pet food industry, called insect-based pet food “one of several promising innovations” in the drive to diversify sustainable protein sources. Cecilia Lalander, a professor at the Swedish University of Uppsala specializing in insect use in waste management, believes using insects for pet food is “not the best use of resources.” “If we’re replacing pet food made from animal byproducts — like slaughter waste, which is already a good use of waste — then it’s really not sustainable,” she said. THE UNSUSTAINABLE LOOP Lack of fishmeal regulation isn’t the only source of frustration for insect producers. The EU classifies insects as farmed animals and prohibits using kitchen waste to feed them. As a result, insects are often raised on the same food processing byproducts — like wheat bran or brewery grains — that are already suitable for feeding pigs and cattle, making insects an unnecessary extra step in the food chain. Lalander argues this is inefficient and unsustainable. “The reason the insect industry can’t be as sustainable as it could be is entirely due to regulations,” she said. Following the mad cow disease (BSE) outbreak in the 1990s, the EU implemented strict rules to prevent a recurrence. It banned the use of processed meat in livestock feed, and ruled that farmed animals — including insects — may not be fed catering waste, as it could contain traces of meat. However, Lalander points out that insects cannot develop or transmit prions, the infectious proteins responsible for BSE, and that health risks are minimal. “The system the EU opposed was the most closed loop imaginable — giving feed originating from the same species, even if they were dead or sick,” she said. “What we propose is using post-consumer food waste to feed insects, which are then used to feed animals.” The European Commission, for its part, disagrees with the view that feeding insects with catering waste is risk-free. “The risks are not limited to BSE and prions only … but related to several transmissible animal diseases,” a Commission official said in response to a POLITICO inquiry. Catering waste may transmit several animal diseases such as African or classical swine fever, foot and mouth disease or avian influenza, the official said, while catering waste has been identified as a possible or likely source of infection in several outbreaks of these diseases in the EU. “Due to the nature of the insects which are living in their feed and are contaminated with their feeding substrate, only feeding substrate already declared safe for farmed animals has been authorized,” added the Commission official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Several scientific studies have found, however, that these risks can be avoided if food waste is treated properly before feeding it to insects. Such treatment can include fermentation, heat treatment, or drying to remove harmful pathogens that can be found in unprocessed food waste. Lalander argues that regulatory barriers aren’t the only challenge circular business models like the insect one are facing. Long-standing market expectations, shaped by cheap, linear production systems that overlook environmental costs, also pose a significant obstacle. “In a circular business model you pay for every step of the production. But if you look at the world market predominantly it’s a linear economy which means you take product and then you have a waste and that’s it,” Lalander said. She points out that expecting insect feed to be as cheap as fishmeal and soy is unrealistic, noting that “the cost for using soy and fish meal comes in the environmental impact.” Crépieux ended his conversation with POLITICO on a grim note. “Everything sustainable always loses. It’s always easier to take from nature, which is free,” Crépieux said.

THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET IS A LIE Italy’s food is supposed to be the world’s healthiest. So why are so many of its kids obese? By ALESSANDRO FORD in Nicotera, Italy CGI illustration by Chan Yu Chen for POLITICO It’s the most famous diet in the world. It might also be the most misunderstood, I think, as I scarf ink-black spaghetti al nero di seppia, savor a Lamezia red and drizzle olive oil on Calabrian ’nduja meatballs. Cerulean blue waters bob below, flecked by the basil green of nearby Sicily and the Aeolian Islands. I chew fast so my dining companion can deliver another helping of history. “This cuisine dates back millennia,” declares a proud Antonio Montuoro, president of the International Academy of the Mediterranean Diet. Food is just a part of it though. “The other parts are the panorama, the beauty of nature, our historic centers, our heritage,” he enthuses, extracting his fork from a potato peperonata to point at the scenery around us.  “All this is part of the lifestyle of the Mediterranean diet,” the 72-year-old explains serenely, mopping tomato sauce off his plate with a thick hunk of artisanal bread.  It’s a beautiful story and a terrific seasoning for our meal. The only problem is it’s not true. Fifty years since the term was coined by the American physiologist Ancel Keys — and a decade and a half after UNESCO recognized it as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity — the Mediterranean diet has become a mishmash of hyperbole, half-truths and howlers, stirred together for political and commercial ends. Advertisement Amid backlash against the Green Deal and agricultural protectionism hardening across Europe, southern politicians and lobbies have weaponized a series of recipes and ingredients to fry the European Union over its liberal climate and trade policies, while boosting lucrative — and often unhealthy — exports to America and Asia. Italian politicians have always been sensitive about food, but Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has taken that to new extremes, pursuing a vendetta in Brussels against attempts to cut meat consumption, draft warnings against booze and pick a common front-of-pack nutrition label for the EU. The right-wing figure claims ad nauseam that these stigmatize her ancestral food traditions, and has stoked a gastronationalist frenzy to enlarge support for her Brothers of Italy party. Public health has greatly suffered in Italy as a result. The country struggles with one of the EU’s highest rates of childhood obesity. One-tenth of citizens drink alcohol daily, and salt overconsumption costs it more than France, Spain and Greece combined, according to a recent report by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization.  Compare modern Italian eating with the original idea of the Mediterranean diet and you reach an unavoidable truth: The Mediterranean diet is dead.   So why do we keep hearing about it? CUCINA POVERA There are two competing theories on how the Mediterranean diet was born. Both begin with Ancel Keys, its founding father. A Colorado-born polymath with PhDs in biology and physiology, Keys got his start in the world of nutrition in the 1930s, developing a portable provision for United States troops as they prepared to enter the World War II (the famous “K-ration”). An energy-dense brick of sausage and sweets, the K-ration was hardly salutary. But then neither was contemporary American food, whose fatty abundance was killing middle-class men in droves. At the time, doctors were baffled: This was the best-fed cohort of the richest nation on Earth. What was going on? Keys and his chemist wife Margaret figured it was down to diet, specifically too many saturated fats, and in 1951 they flew to southern Italy to prove it. A colleague had told them working-class Neapolitans rarely suffered from heart attacks and generally lived longer than, say, Minnesotan executives. The Keys measured the locals’ serum cholesterol. It was much lower.  Advertisement But correlation isn’t causation, so the couple set up a pilot study in Nicotera, a sunny seaside town at the toe of the Italian boot. The Keys recruited 35 families and, for the next three years, took blood samples, calculated body mass and ambushed Nicoterans at mealtimes to see what — and how much — they were really eating.  It was “cucina povera” (peasant cooking), described Montuoro, whose relatives remember being accosted by the peculiar foreign researchers. Everything they ate was local and organic, rooted in traditional recipes furnished by subsistence farming.  The results of Keys’ research were incredible. Besides scarce coronary disease, the experiment found minimal cancers or degenerative illnesses. Off the back of their findings, scientists organized the “Seven Countries Study,” the largest epidemiological investigation in history, spanning 12,000 men across three continents. It turned the Keyses into celebrities, and the couple put out several bestselling cookbooks. “How to Eat Well and Stay Well the Mediterranean Way” was published in 1975, bringing a cornucopia of rustic dishes to the overfed households of industrial America. Idyllic imagery was key to its success, helping blow the notion of la dolce vita across the Atlantic. This contributed to a dramatic fall in heart attacks, saving thousands and spurring the global rise of Italian food. Freshly picked tomatoes at a Mutti factory near Parma. | Miguel Medina/AFP via Getty Images So far, so good. Where the two theories split is on what the Keys really found in Nicotera. Orthodoxy holds that the American duo discovered a fantastically nourishing, mostly plant-based regimen centered on moderation and communal eating, as well as a food pyramid much like the one we all saw as children. According to their data, young men got one-third of their daily intake from cereals, one-third from fruit and vegetables, one-fifth from wine, and one-tenth from animal proteins and olive oil. Sugar and salt were negligible. It’s the dominant interpretation and the one modern nutritionists rely on when they assert that the Mediterranean diet is the world’s healthiest. But there’s another version. Backed by iconoclastic academics and anthropologists, this rendering argues that Ancel Keys’ books were never meant to be descriptive — they were prescriptive. “Italians have never practiced the Mediterranean diet,” said Alberto Grandi, author of “Italian Food Doesn’t Exist” and professor at the University of Parma. “The goal is to make Americans eat better and so [Keys] builds an ideal food model,” a fictional amalgam of ingredients cultivated around the Mediterranean basin, insisted Grandi. The diet wasn’t discovered so much as invented — and Nicoterans’ leanness was due to a different ingredient: hunger. Advertisement Keys “went to the people’s houses and people were ashamed. They’d say ‘Come back tomorrow because today we won’t eat anything.’ Or they’d only have polenta or chestnut flour,” Grandi contends. Claiming such individuals enjoyed some ancient, gastronomic elixir is “really offensive to the memory of our grandparents and great-grandparents. Because they went hungry.” It’s a controversial take that has made Grandi notorious in Italy. Several of my interviewees dismissed the northern academic as an attention-grabbing sensationalist. Others, however, backed him, citing archeological evidence, Keysian exegesis and parental memories. It’s impossible to know for sure and, in a way, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line is that while the Mediterranean diet may stand above others in eminence, its feet are mired in mystery. And for many, that’s convenient, since this ambiguity has been crucial in transforming the coarse peasant cooking of mid-century Nicotera into the slick brand of mass marketing we know today. CUCINA COMMERCIALE Icons take time to build and the Mediterranean diet was no different. Affluent, modish northerners initially laughed at the Keyses’ notion that they should imitate the impoverished, backward south, said John Dickie, professor of Italian studies at University College London and author of “Delizia: The Epic History of Italians and Their Food.” It took twenty turbulent years to change their minds. First was the economic miracle of the 1960s, which industrialized Italy at the same time as agriculture’s “green revolution” drove people from farms to factories. Next were the “years of lead,” during which anarchists and mafiosi bombed the state. Then came the financial crash triggered by the 1970s oil crisis. Overwhelmed, Italians turned to a mythical past, embracing folksy foods and a culinary crusade for so-called “authenticity.” “What we associate with the Italian diet, these supposed traditions, loads of them date from the [period] when Italians have left peasant living far behind and covered it with a nostalgia for the countryside,” said Dickie.  An anti-American backlash followed. The Slow Food movement erupted in 1986 after a McDonald’s opened in central Rome. Angry at the “banalization of food,” the left-wing peasant alliance wanted a return to Italy’s gastronomic lineage, including the increasingly well-known Mediterranean diet, said Barbara Nappini, the current president of Slow Food Italy.  Right-wingers liked that too, and they soon adopted the lingo. Farmer unions and food companies spotted the opportunity and lobbied the European Economic Community — the forerunner to the EU — for intellectual property protection and overseas promo, which they received in the 1990s. Yet even as the largely meat-free Mediterranean diet attracted burgeoning interest from the medical profession, in the popular imagination, it was growing ever more open to interpretation. The health craze of the 1990s stamped the diet into fitness magazines, which were less fussy about animal proteins. Meat and cheese slowly acquired more prominence, as did olive oil, while fruits and vegetables were gradually passed over.  “Europeans’ heritage fever begins,” remembered Michele Fino, a winegrower and professor of European law. “Cheeses, cured meats, vegetable preserves, baked goods, pasta — a whole, huge range.” Along with wine, these are the moneymakers, creating more added value and netting more profit than the humble cereals, fruits and vegetables promoted by the Keyses. They are also the less healthy products though, meant to be consumed sparingly. It was around this time that the World Health Organization classified alcohol as a carcinogen, for which there is no safe level of use (processed meat got the same grade in 2015, with red meat listed as “probably carcinogenic”). By the time UNESCO recognized the diet as an intangible cultural heritage of humanity in 2010, a mental switch had been made. In theory, UNESCO recognition isn’t intended to confer any commercial benefit. In practice, this one endorsed — and unleashed — one of the world’s most successful brands. “The Mediterranean Diet” became synonymous with “Mediterranean food” — as if whatever Italians ate was wholesome by definition. The Galbani cheese plant in Casale Cremasco, near Milan. | Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images That year Italian agri-food exports totaled a modest €27 billion, topped by fresh fruit and vegetables (over €4 billion in value), which were roughly still on par with meat, cheese and processed pastas combined. Over a decade later, exports have tripled, streaking past €70 billion last year. The composition has also flipped. Wine dominates the ranking (€8 billion), followed by pastas and dough-based goods (€7 billion), dairy (€6 billion), and processed vegetables (tomato sauces and such). Fresh produce has grown too, though not as much as cured meats and olive oil, which now account for a couple of billion each. This evolution has been mirrored by a shift in how Italians eat. Supermarket shelves in the country have swollen with doughy snacks and processed sauces, sparking an obesity and overweight crisis. Southerners and children have been particularly affected, with the latter ranked Europe’s second-most obese (behind kids in Cyprus and just ahead of neighboring Greece, Croatia and Spain). Ultra-processed foods and sugary drinks undoubtedly play a big role, but so do local staples. While it is convenient to blame fatness on foreign imports, under-18s are also the highest meat, dairy, pasta and dessert consumers, as well as the least careful about excess salt and the lowest fruit and vegetable eaters, according to the country’s statistics institute.  The plates of today’s Nicoteran children are more likely to hold a gelato than a tomato. Yet that hasn’t stopped companies waving the diet around to flog foods their grandparents would’ve hardly recognized. “Mediterranean diet sets records on world tables,” crowed Coldiretti, Italy’s largest farmer union, in a press release this month, as it celebrated the boom in sales of trademarked wines, olive oil and factory-made pastas. According to Massimiliano Giansanti, the head of Italy’s third-largest farmer union, Confagricoltura, it’s all gravy. When I asked whether people were confusing terms, he admitted “there’s a potential risk,” but he argued we shouldn’t tell people what to eat. “We’re exporting the products of our Mediterranean diet to the world,” he concluded proudly. CUCINA POLITICA Italians are said to have two obsessions: football and food. Former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi famously exploited the first, scoring big electoral points by manipulating the craze for calcio (his Forza Italia party was named after a football chant). Giorgia Meloni has taken to the second, cooking up a pungent gastronationalism with her Agriculture Minister and ex-brother-in-law Francesco Lollobrigida. Meloni was berating Brussels about food before she came to power, making attacks on the Farm to Fork strategy, the agricultural arm of the Green Deal, into a pillar of her platform. Addressing a European Parliament event in 2021, the then-opposition politician alleged there were “discriminatory policies” against meat, referring to EU plans to cut livestock emissions and encourage more sustainable, plant-based diets. Advertisement The European Commission also wanted to establish a bloc-wide food label to help consumers make better choices. The top contender was France’s Nutri-Score, which provided shoppers with a simple, five-color nutritional rating from green to red. Meloni denounced it as “crazy,” arguing it favored French products and unfairly penalized Italian staples, like salami, Parmigiano Reggiano and olive oil (in reality, these fatty products got the same score as their French counterparts). Lobbies like Coldiretti and Confagricoltura had a solution though. Researchers had amassed evidence that the Mediterranean diet (the all-but-vegetarian one) was among the world’s healthiest. Italy’s money-spinning meats and cheeses were still in its matrix, no matter how minimal. Why not just say the Nutri-Score clashed with the unassailable Mediterranean diet?  So Meloni did. After her landslide victory in October 2022, she marshaled a multipronged influence effort in Brussels to bury the front-of-pack labeling legislation. While Lollobrigida fulminated at the monthly meeting of agricultural ministers, Meloni’s lawmakers joined flash mobs and demonstrations outside. Italian politicians have always been sensitive about food, but PM Meloni has taken that to new extremes. | Adnan Beci/AFP via Getty Images There, Coldiretti and Confagricoltura staff heaved signs saying “Italian produce = quality” and “No to Nutri-Score.” Behind the scenes, the Italian ambassador also met with Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski — part of Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists political family — and pressed him to scrap the labeling law. Days later, the Pole’s chief of staff emailed the health commissioner, who was leading on the file, to argue against the French system, according to documents recently released to NGOs in a freedom-of-information act.  “It was the hijacking of the Mediterranean diet,” Serge Hercberg, a professor at the Sorbonne and the inventor of Nutri-Score, told me over the phone. “They knew it was false. They had to know. But by force of repetition, they thought they’d be able to convince, and they did.” More than 300 scientists published a report refuting the allegations in 2023, but by then it was too late. The Commission shelved the law. “It’s Goebbels’ line,” said Hercberg. “Repeat a line often enough and it becomes the truth.”  The playbook was so successful that Rome repeated it with alcohol, insisting the Commission’s intention to put cancer warnings on booze violated the Mediterranean diet.  Advertisement Historically, they had more of a point here given the liver-curdling quantities of booze that Nicoterans drank, but scientifically the research had moved on. We now know coastal communities were not healthy because of wine drinking but in spite of it. No matter. The Commission dropped that plan as well. Ireland eventually went it alone, facing a barrage of Italian criticism, with Lollobrigida claiming it was a protectionist conspiracy to bash wine in favor of local whiskey (despite the fact they will bear the same label). Lollobrigida also attacked lab-grown meat and went after veggie sausages, banding together with far-right parties in Spain, France, Hungary and Poland to harangue Brussels over its supposed attempts to dismantle national food traditions.  As absurd as the accusations were, they’ve won hearts and minds. Right-wing or left, nearly every single Italian I spoke to for this article was opposed to Brussels’ agri-food policies. They were convinced their cooking was among the world’s healthiest and that obesity was imported by foreign corporations. That’s partly true. But it’s also partly false, and until Italians acknowledge they are no longer eating as their ancestors did, they and their kids will be the ones paying the price. The Mediterranean diet is dead. Somebody please tell the Italians. Giovanna Coi contributed to this report. Advertisement

BRUSSELS — The biggest dietary problem facing Europeans is not excess meat, sugar, or salt, says Serge Hercberg, professor of nutrition at the Sorbonne and creator of the Nutri-Score food-labeling system. Nor is it alcohol, artificial sweeteners, or even a lack of fruit, vegetables and whole grains. The most confounding obstacle, Hercberg told POLITICO in an interview, is deception by self-serving agri-food lobbies. “It’s very difficult to identify one ingredient or behavior. Moreover, we know what measures work,” he reflected, citing VAT changes, advertising restrictions, healthier public procurement policies, and of course his own labeling system. “The big challenge is being capable of thwarting lobbies who oppose those measures.” It’s a sobering message from the man behind the “five fruit and veg per day” slogan, who has watched as right-wing politicians and corporate interests successfully buried the five-color logo, which was adopted in France in 2017 and was seen as the likeliest candidate for an EU-wide front-of-pack labeling scheme during the last European Commission. Since 2022, however, Nutri-Score has been in full retreat, caught up in the same anti-Green Deal backlash that stymied laws to reduce pesticide use, promote animal welfare and curb deforestation. Italy has led that counterattack, driving culture-war narratives about an “anti-Italian system” that unfairly marks down its meats, cheeses and olive oil. Greece, Hungary, Romania and others have joined in, bolstered by support from EU agricultural association Copa-Cogeca and its national members such as France’s FNSEA, Italy’s Coldiretti and Confagricoltura, and Spain’s Asaja.  Since 2022, Nutri-Score has been in full retreat, caught up in the same anti-Green Deal backlash that stymied laws to reduce pesticide use, promote animal welfare and curb deforestation. | Loic Venance/AFP via Getty Images “It’s caricatural,” said Hercberg, noting that olive oil is well-graded with a B and that meats and cheeses get lower scores because they should be eaten in moderation. “I remind them that today it’s in the countries of the south — Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal — that the prevalence of overweight and childhood obesity is the highest.” Nevertheless, Italy has backed the alternative NutrInform, whose algorithm displays five batteries (calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt) and the percent of a person’s daily needs that the product meets. The French scientist is skeptical: “If tomorrow there was a logo shown to be more effective, I’d abandon Nutri-Score immediately,” he vowed. For now, he isn’t letting go and complains of stagnation in the takeup of Nutri-Score. Portugal’s new center-right government dropped the system this summer, leaving only six EU countries whose health ministry still recommends it: France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.  Hercberg blames what many are calling “gastro populism,” which he described as an “attempt to flatter the identitarian fiber, to make people believe we’re threatening their core values.” He cited the campaign rhetoric of far-right parties ahead of the EU election in June, where they gained their strongest-ever representation in the European Parliament. But Nutri-Score’s outlook has only worsened since then, with the new commissioners for agriculture and health — Christophe Hansen and Olivér Várhelyi — appearing to have shelved the idea of proposing an EU law on food labeling. That’s despite a recent report by the European Court of Auditors urging the EU executive to do just that.  “It’s really absurd,” Hercberg concluded, highlighting how the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimated last month that bad diets inflict nearly €1 trillion in hidden health costs on the continent. “The big problem in Europe is this incapacity to not give way to lobbies and put public health first.”

For many coastal communities around the world, especially in developing nations like ours, fish are essential for survival. They support robust livelihoods, provide protein and nutrition, contribute to food security, and anchor centuries-old cultures and traditions. But all of that is at risk. Rampant overfishing is depleting this valuable marine resource. In the mid-1970s, 10 percent of fish populations were fished at unsustainable levels, according to a 2024 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report. Now, nearly 50 years later, that number has almost quadrupled. In 2021, 37.7 percent of stocks were overfished. It is imperative that all of us — developed and developing nations alike — embrace sustainability and halt this spiraling problem. > For many coastal communities around the world, especially in developing > nations like ours, fish are essential for survival. Much of the world’s overfishing is powered by government subsidies. Of the $35 billion spent globally on fisheries subsidies each year, $22 billion are classified as harmful subsidies because they make unprofitable fishing profitable and increase fishing capacity to unsustainable levels, according to data published in the journal Marine Policy in 2019. Industrial fishing by the largest subsidizers is primarily to blame. Eighty percent of the world’s $35 billion in annual subsidies goes to large-scale industrial fishing fleets, and only 19% goes to the small-scale fishing sector, including artisanal and subsistence fishers, according to research published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science in 2020. Industrial fleets use many of those subsidies to build bigger boats, travel farther out to sea, and fish for longer periods, enabling them to catch more fish than is sustainable — often in other nations’ waters. Developing countries are often the destination of these industrial fleets. For example, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia, and Mauritania are among the top five targets for distant-water fishing subsidies, according to 2018 estimates from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Competing against subsidized foreign fleets is difficult for developing nations, which often have limited financial resources to support our own fishing sectors. And when harmful subsidies incentivize excessive fishing pressure in or close to our waters, the marine resources that support our socioeconomic development and the well-being and livelihoods of large parts of our populations are under threat.   We have seen the consequences of irresponsible subsidized fishing firsthand. Fishers in our countries are bringing in smaller yields and being pushed to fish farther from home, often in rougher seas, at great personal risk and cost. Families are spending more of their hard-earned money as low supply drives up prices. Harmful fisheries subsidies are jeopardizing the livelihoods and food security of our communities. > Competing against subsidized foreign fleets is difficult for developing > nations, which often have limited financial resources to support our own > fishing sectors. But there is a solution within reach. World Trade Organization (WTO) members are negotiating new rules that would limit these types of damaging subsidies. Finalizing these prohibitions is essential for protecting the health of the fish stocks on which so many coastal communities rely. The draft rules, which would build on the 2022 WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, are intended to create an element of fairness currently missing in the global fishing sector. They should allow developing countries that have small fishing industries — and that provide only minor capacity-enhancing subsidies to their fishers, if any — to grow their industries with relatively less competition from other nations’ highly subsidized industrial fleets. Crucially, the new WTO rules encourage a much-needed paradigm shift toward improved conservation and the sustainable use of marine resources in both developed and developing nations. In doing so, the draft provisions place a greater burden on countries that have more heavily subsidized and advanced fishing sectors, which has been a key demand from many developing countries during the negotiations. In its current form, all large subsidizers and fishing nations must accompany risky forms of subsidies with fisheries management. But developing countries are given time to establish their management structures, as they would be granted a transition period to prepare and ensure that fishers’ livelihoods would not be impaired. The latest version of the rules also goes to great lengths to ensure that least-developed countries, small fishing nations, and artisanal fishers in many developing countries would not be negatively impacted by the removal of subsidies — illustrating our negligible contribution to overfishing and, even more importantly, that our voices were heard during the WTO negotiations process. > Harmful fisheries subsidies are jeopardizing the livelihoods and food security > of our > communities. As we and more than two dozen other developing nations said in a June communication sent to the WTO, curbing harmful subsidies is critical “for protecting ocean health, the livelihoods of fisherfolk, and the communities they support.” At this year’s United Nations General Assembly session, world leaders adopted a Pact for the Future to improve global governance and cooperation for the benefit of future generations. They agreed that sustainable development should be a central objective of multilateralism and committed to taking “ambitious action to improve the health, productivity, sustainable use, and resilience of the ocean and its ecosystems.” The adoption of the new WTO rules is one of a number of actions that the international community can take to achieve this target. Effective multilateralism and international cooperation were essential in achieving consensus around the 2022 WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. We must recapture that spirit and finalize the new rules under negotiation at the WTO to curb harmful subsidies that drive overfishing and overcapacity. Our coastal communities — their livelihoods, food security, and way of life — depend on it.

BRUSSELS — It’s Christophe Hansen’s first working day in his new job, and he is sitting nervously by his temporary desk in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture with some well-prepared talking points.  The new European Union agriculture and food chief — a farmer’s son who hails from Luxembourg, and from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s European People’s Party — tells POLITICO he has a clear goal: to help farmers have a better life. Five years ago, von der Leyen’s first Commission unveiled the flagship Farm to Fork Strategy, an overarching vision “at the heart of the European Green Deal” to green agriculture and food systems.  The strategy included targets to reduce pesticide use; new animal welfare rules; and a nutrition labeling scheme — which were either abandoned or never implemented after a backlash from parties on the right of the political spectrum and Europe’s powerful farming lobbies.  At the beginning of his mandate, and with farmers’ protests still raging in parts of Europe, Hansen pleaded for a “different” approach that will be revealed in a new Vision for Agriculture and Food that von der Leyen has tasked him with delivering within his first 100 days in office. “Farmers had the impression that it [Farm to Fork] was a top-down imposition,” he said on Monday in his first interview as commissioner in Brussels. In addition, Hansen prefers to speak about objectives and aspirations than about targets. “I’m not a big fan of putting down percentages.” At the same time, there seems to be little room for agri-food systems — which still account for about one-third of total EU greenhouse gas emissions and are a major contributor to water pollution and biodiversity decline — to slow down their green transition. “We have to continue our path toward sustainable farming and food systems,” said Hansen, a former member of the European Parliament who sat on its environment committee. “But I want to achieve those objectives with the farmers, and with the actors of the food chain, together.”  Hansen, 42, insisted that instead of telling farmers “this is the percentage, eat it or die, let’s [tell them] we want to reduce pesticides; what are the means needed to get there?” A NEW LOBBY IS BORN To achieve that consensus, the commissioner will announce a call for applications for a new consultative body made up of 30 farming, food supply chain and civil society representatives — the European Board on Agri-Food — by the end of the week. The board would build on the work of the Strategic Dialogue on the Future of EU Agriculture, a similar but time-limited exercise convened by von der Leyen that presented a final report with agreed policy recommendations in September. The mandate of the EBAF will last five years, and its members would meet up to six times a year. Hansen will chair its meetings, which aim to provide advice on policy initiatives — including his 100-day vision. A first get-together will likely happen before the initiative is presented on Feb. 19. Even before the new Commission was announced, Copa-Cogeca — the EU’s largest farming lobby — demanded greater representation in the bloc’s newest policy forum. | Hatim Kaghat/Belga Mag/AFP via Getty Images The new group “will not have a legislative role [nor] replace the co-legislators,” Hansen explained. He sees it as “an opportunity to confront the board with certain political ideas and pathways to make sure that afterward everybody is firstly, informed, and secondly, in line with the political decisions that are going to follow them.” “It will require a lot of work,” he admitted. Even before the new Commission was announced, Copa-Cogeca — the EU’s largest farming lobby — demanded greater representation in the bloc’s newest policy forum. “In the Strategic Dialogue, just five out of 29 participants were farmers,” Copa-Cogeca wrote in a Sept. 20 letter to the Commission. “At least half of the Board should be composed of participants representing the farming world, and Copa and Cogeca … should be granted a stronger presence in comparison to other actors.” Hansen seemed to be on board with that. “It will be very important not to disadvantage the farming community because we are speaking about their future,” he said, adding that farmers are more affected than others by the issues to be discussed. “This criteria needs to be taken into account” when selecting members, he concluded. The final decision will be taken by the College of Commissioners. EVOLUTION, NOT REVOLUTION A major hurdle for the first half of Hansen’s mandate will be repurposing the EU’s €300 billion farm budget, the Common Agricultural Policy. It is mostly distributed in the form of direct subsidy payments based on farmed area — meaning that farmers with more land get more money than those with less. While many hope that the next cycle of the CAP starting in 2028 will be a defining chance to make EU farm policy more just and sustainable, Hansen called for an evolutionary approach: “The focus should be to make things better, not make a revolution.” Giving “predictability and stability” to farmers was of utmost importance, he said, and therefore, “Predictability is not changing everything that is functioning for the last six years, I think that would be the wrong way.” One of the “evolutions” that Hansen is eyeing is to make area payments degressive — meaning that payouts per hectare would decrease gradually once a certain farm size is reached. As a negotiator on the file when he was on the Parliament’s environment committee, Hansen is confident of support from MEPs — although EU capitals may need convincing. “The Parliament was very clear on that line,” he said, “but we knew that last time the Council was reluctant, [and] that is why it became voluntary.” At the beginning of his mandate, and with farmers’ protests still raging in parts of Europe, Christophe Hansen pleaded for a “different” approach that will be revealed in a new Vision for Agriculture and Food. | Guillaume Horcajuelo/EPA-EFE On the other hand, he added, “We can’t compare the size of a farm from one country to another.” But much will depend first on negotiations on the EU next multiyear budget. As much as the agriculture commissioners’ job is to maintain the share of money going to farmers, the EU’s obsession with competitiveness and growing demands to fund other sectors such as defense will likely take a toll on the CAP. “Agriculture and food production is a strategic sector for the EU, and it would be very unwise to give away this potential that we have,” Hansen warned, while adding, “We will not have more money in the pot, that is something we need to acknowledge.”