The first is from the New York Times: it's about the idea of developing a "National Institute of Nutrition." While this seems like a no-brainer, a conference I attended this week featured several nutritionists agreeing that one of the defining characteristics of nutritionists is that the discipline is a mess. Every day another new study comes out pushing some new superfood or potential carcinogen. How do we make sense of that if the experts can't? I'll leave that right there.
The second is about another hidden dimension of climate change: impacts on fish. Since most of the world's fish come from the ocean and since the ocean is, well, huge, it's hard to see all the impacts of climate change. Yet another place where we may not know what's going on until it's too late.
A late addition: I've been hearing a fair amount about lab-produced meat lately, and this article is an interesting overview. I'm surprised that the impact is as low as it is: it's apparently only slightly less impactful than regular meat, and a long way from better alternatives. The chart on the page also indicates that CO2 impacts of pork are less than those of chicken, which I didn't expect. Curious.
Finally I wanted to highlight this piece by my professor David Zilberman. He is pretty negative about organic agriculture, but a few days ago I heard a similar opinion from uber-nutrition professor Barry Popkin. I have a lot to learn about this area and I'm keen to hear more.
***Update: this brief article in the Guardian highlights updates for improving the food system in the UK. Unfortunately it has only good things to say about organics. To be clear, there are certainly good things about organic agriculture, but the large decrease in yields is pretty concerning!
