The UN's FAO (one of the 4 pillars of the WHO's One Hellth) plans to remake food production and consumption.

Why are we paying for these international agencies that want to control and/or destroy our food and us?

Read: Can FAO’s road map to transform agrifood systems meet its climate goals? 
Background reading: FAO’s net-zero plan for food systems lacks ambition, experts say

But a growing chorus of experts say that FAO’s road map so far is not ambitious enough, writes Devex contributor Andrew Green. The first installment, released at COP 28 in December, outlines FAO’s overall vision. It puts forward 20 “milestones” across 10 domains — including livestock, fisheries and aquaculture, healthy diets, forests and wetlands, and clean energy — plus 120 specific actions to achieve its goals.

Among the most glaring omissions, critics say, is a call to shift away from meat production and consumption, particularly in higher-income countries, or to boost alternative proteins as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That first report also never mentions One Health, an approach that recognizes the interconnections between human, animal, and environmental health that has become increasingly important in policymaking. 

Among the road map’s most vocal critics is the FAIRR Initiative, an investor network attuned to environment, social and governance risks and opportunities in the global food sector that is backed by more than $70 trillion in assets. And in March, a group of scientists and food policy experts wrote an article in the Nature Food journal outlining many of the same concerns. 

David Laborde, the director of FAO’s agrifood economics division, tells Andrew that FAO’s plan is meant to be comprehensive but not exhaustive and that other players — such as governments and corporations — will build out its recommendations. 

The key, Laborde says, is that the road map introduces “a common language, a common software, because it did not exist before.”