Introducing Jack Bobo, the distinguished director of the Food System Institute at the University of Nottingham, whose expertise and insights into agricultural innovation shed light on pressing issues facing the industry today. Having recently relocated to the UK to spearhead the launch of this groundbreaking research institute, Bobo’s mission is clear: to bridge the gap between research and real-world impact, ensuring that cutting-edge advancements in food systems benefit society at large. He’s also the author of Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices.
Through his thought-provoking analysis, Bobo underscores the urgent need for informed decision-making and public support for scientific progress, emphasizing the pivotal role of innovation in shaping the future of agriculture. As we stand at the cusp of a transformative era in agricultural history, Bobo’s insights serve as a beacon of wisdom, guiding us towards a more sustainable and equitable food system for generations to come. From addressing the obesity epidemic and front-of-pack labeling to reshaping the food environment and understanding smart food choices, Bobo offers valuable perspectives. Furthermore, he engages with topics such as farmer protests, the role of NGT (New Genomic Technology), agriculture’s environmental footprint, and the precautionary principle. Bobo provides insightful answers to our questions in this comprehensive roundup.
The European Scientist: There is a significant obesity epidemic in the US (with 36% of the population recorded by 2010), and this trend is spreading worldwide, especially in Europe. How can we explain this, and what can we do to combat this issue?
Jack Bobo: In the United States, the obesity crisis is escalating, with approximately 75% of Americans overweight or obese, 42% are obese and projections suggesting this could rise to 50% by 2030. This trend is mirrored globally, with obesity rates skyrocketing compared to previous decades. Before 1970, US obesity rates were lower than in most of Europe, and before 1975, no country had an obesity rate above 15%. However, today, virtually no country falls below this threshold. This rapid escalation underscores how quickly the situation has deteriorated. While approximately 800 million people go to bed hungry, there are currently two billion people suffering from overweight or obesity, highlighting the dual challenges of malnutrition and overnutrition facing the world today.
So, how did we get here? It’s a complex question and lies at the heart of why I decided to write my book “Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices.” I was struck by the paradox: despite having more knowledge about health and nutrition than ever before in history, obesity rates are at an all-time high.
To truly understand what’s changed, I believe we need to shift our focus from individual nutrients and food components to the broader environment in which we live. Many of the changes that have occurred relate to our food environment: what we eat today is fundamentally different from what we consumed in 1960 or earlier.
Some interventions aimed at addressing this issue have backfired. For instance, in the US, dietary guidelines recommended reducing fat consumption, leading companies to introduce low-fat versions of various products like cookies, salad dressings, and yogurt. However, this well-intentioned effort inadvertently encouraged overconsumption, as people often interpreted “low-fat” as a green light to indulge excessively.
Moreover, our eating habits have shifted towards more frequent consumption of food outside the home. It’s not just one factor that has changed since 1960; it’s a multitude of factors contributing to the current situation. Addressing this issue requires a systemic approach, understanding how we arrived here and what it will take to enact meaningful change.
TES: As a specialist with a distinct background covering international law, food and environmental policy, as well as behavioral science, what is your view on EU policies to tackle obesity that are currently being under consideration, such as the project to adopt harmonized front-of-pack labeling?
J.B.: Nutrition labeling presents challenges as it often evaluates foods based on individual ingredients rather than considering their role in the overall diet. For example, French cheeses like Camembert tend to receive low scores on assessments like Nutri-Score or others due to their high fat content, while other highly processed foods tend to do better.
If you look at the Mediterranean diet, which is highly recommended as a healthy diet, what you find is that individual components, whether it is processed meats or olive oil, as individuals they might not score very well under Nutri-Score. However, when you think about the diet as a whole, it actually has a positive effect on health outcomes. It’s sometimes hard to reconcile the outcomes of those scoring systems with the overall diet that actually works. This is one of the reasons why, I believe, most dieticians would say that there’s no such thing as an unhealthy food, there are just unhealthy diets. You can eat anything you want as long as it is part of a healthy diet.
That is why I think there are going to be challenges to implementing a Nutri-Score. No one is ever going to be happy with it and with how it categorizes products. It is also missing the aspect of having an overall diet approach of understanding how individual foods feed into somebody’s overall diet.
TES: While most EU policies under review aim at educating consumers, you suggest that reshaping the food environment is more vital. Could you elaborate on this concept?
J.B.: When looking at healthy eating habits, it’s not only about the specific foods we eat, but also about aspects like food preparation, meal duration, and portion sizes. In the United States, where restaurants often serve large portions, even slight overconsumption can contribute to weight gain, regardless of food quality. The motivation behind offering oversized portions lies in customer perceptions of value, as larger servings are often seen as more attractive.
Encouraging consumers to prioritize quality over quantity involves shifting the perception that larger portions equate to better value. Offering smaller portions can actually enhance enjoyment, as evidenced by the increased enjoyment we sometimes experience from drinking smaller cans of soda. By tapping into human psychology and insights from behavioral science, we can gently guide individuals towards healthier and more fulfilling food choices. This approach, inspired by works like “Nudge” by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, seeks to empower individuals to make decisions that support both their health and happiness.
TES: “Why Smart People Make Bad Food Choices” is not only the title of your latest book but also a very interesting question that policymakers have not been able to properly address, given the current number of obese and overweight people across the EU. So, why do you believe smart people make bad food choices?
J.B.: For the most part, we should not have to make tough choices. Back in 1960, our parents or grandparents were not dietitians or nutritionists. They simply ate what they wanted without gaining weight. So, what would it take to reshape our food system so that consumers don’t have to make choices and still maintain a healthy weight?
In China, they addressed food waste by banning unlimited food at banquets, forcing behavior change. Similarly, France tackled food waste by making it harder for grocery stores to discard food, leading to discounts or donations to food banks. In the UK, efforts include restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children and providing healthier options in elementary schools. Early education about healthy eating habits can have lifelong benefits.
A comprehensive food strategy is needed, focusing not only on making unhealthy foods more expensive but also on making healthy foods more affordable. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s report The State of Food and Agriculture 2023 highlighted the immense global cost of healthcare systems addressing issues related to overweight and obesity. Redirecting funds from treating illness to promoting health could be part of the solution. Initiatives like food prescriptions, where doctors prescribe fruits and vegetables, can bridge the gap between healthcare and the food system. However, these policies must be coordinated to avoid unintended consequences. Implementing isolated measures could exacerbate existing problems. Therefore, a holistic approach is essential in shaping effective food policies.
TES: EU policies like the Farm to Fork Strategy have ignited farmer protests across Europe. What are your insights on these recent developments?
J.B.: I believe the issues of farm policy and sustainability are closely intertwined. Many European farmers feel that current agricultural policies fail to grasp the challenges of meeting stringent standards, such as reducing pesticide and fertilizer use or increasing organic acreages.
The EU’s Farm to Fork (F2F) strategy, for instance, is projected to result in a 15% reduction in food production across Europe if fully implemented. That is a lot. This could mean decreased productivity for all farmers or even the closure of some businesses. If you’re going to take money out of the pocket of the farmer, or you’re going to take farmers out of business it is not surprising that it might ultimately lead to protests or certainly to concerns about this policy.
We need to recognize that there are trade-offs in this ax of policies. While reducing inputs like fertilizers and pesticides may improve local sustainability and soil quality, it also leads to decreased food production.
Moreover, the benefits of sustainability are often local, but the impacts are global, as other regions may need to compensate for reduced production. The largest food exporter to Europe is typically Brazil. Therefore, if Europe were to transfer its environmental burden to the world’s most biodiverse country, it would have detrimental consequences. Thus, instead of viewing these issues as simply right or wrong, it is essential to consider the complex choices and consequences involved.
TES: You mentioned that “The environmental footprint is as big, if not bigger, than we want it to be.” How can we reconcile environmental challenges with feeding a population of 8 billion?
J.B.: About 40% of the Earth’s land is currently dedicated to agriculture, with croplands spanning an area equivalent to South America and pastoral lands matching the size of Africa. Given the significance of agricultural land use, it’s imperative to avoid further expanding this footprint. Thus, the focus lies in finding ways to increase food production without increasing land use. However, this endeavor is compounded by the fact that approximately 800 million people still suffer from food insecurity, and by 2050, the global population will require 25% more food.
Addressing food waste is crucial alongside productivity enhancement efforts. Approximately one-third of food is lost before reaching consumers in low-income countries, with a similar amount wasted post-consumer in high-income nations. Tackling this waste is vital for aligning current production levels with future demands. Moreover, improving income levels among the underprivileged can boost purchasing power, stimulating increased food production to meet growing needs.
TES: Last week, the European Parliament approved its amendments on the new rules for new genomic technologies (NGTs). Do you have any comments on this vote?
J.B.: I believe that providing farmers with more tools to enhance productivity or achieve the same level of food production with a reduced environmental impact is beneficial. So that’s a win for farming in the EU, as these technologies, while not fundamentally different from traditional breeding methods, offer a faster pace of change.
Accelerating agricultural innovation is vital amid anticipated climate change in Europe, ensuring adaptability and resilience for farmers. These advancements offer tools to navigate environmental shifts, fortify food systems, and potentially mitigate climate impacts, benefiting farmers by enhancing adaptability and resilience.
TES: Since Brexit, it appears that biotech ventures have benefited from softer legislation in the UK. Historian of science and essayist Matt Ridley has suggested that the use of the precautionary principle by the EU was one reason for Brexit, as it was contrary to the freedom necessary for innovation. What is your perspective on this?
J.B.: In terms of the precautionary principle, its application is crucial. If it entails careful consideration before implementing impactful actions, then it holds merit and should be embraced. However, if it adopts a hazard-based approach where any potential harm leads to avoidance, it becomes impractical for agriculture, given that many existing practices have adverse effects. Thus, by de-emphasizing the precautionary principle in the UK, it becomes easier to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of technology rather than solely focusing on the negatives. This approach has facilitated the UK in swiftly enacting legislation on NGTs compared to Europe, increasing the likelihood of these products reaching the market sooner in the UK. Conversely, in Europe, the initial steps taken mean that the actual cultivation of these products in fields is still years away, if they ever materialize.
Image par Gabe Raggio de Pixabay
Leave a Reply