It is an exciting time for JNEB, and this issue is especially great! Exciting for JNEB because we are online only and with a new website! Check us out at www.jneb.org.

I may be prejudiced as the Editor in Chief, and each of our issues is filled with pearls, but this issue, in particular, has particularly impressed me. Our lead article is a SNEB position paper: Healthful Food for Children is the Same as Adults.1 Of course it is, you say! Think about this concept, though, and read the paper. Think about it when you babysit your grandkids and try to fix lunch or snacks. Think about when you teach nutrition across the lifecycle or when you see what kids are served in restaurants or on picnics. Think about the implications for food companies and marketing firms. I think that although we all (probably) acknowledge this is true, we may not always act on the concept and don’t always promote the policies and practice beyond our specific focus.

A new idea to me was the concept of diet-related self-identity, as described by Ryan et al. 2 In this article, the authors adapted the 8 diet-related self-identity constructs of Rosenfeld and Burrow 3^, 4 into 4 constructs. Self-reported dietary patterns were also analyzed. Together, these were analyzed to predict diet quality.

Also interesting to me was how Ye et al 5 looked at how health communication strategies were received by ethnic groups in China. One was influenced most by mass media, another by family,and the third by village doctors. This analysis lends itself to either using certain strategies with certain groups or broadening communication strategies to include several types in order to ensure widespread acceptance.

We know that dietary diversity is important, but the systematic review by Molani Gol et al 6 examined the association of dietary diversity with growth outcomes for infants aged under 2 years and for children under 5. Their results suggest a stronger association with the infant-centered studies (45 studies) and less strong for children under 5 years (36 studies). Examining possible modifiers to dietary diversity is recommended by the authors for future studies.

Finally, I must comment on the Perspective by Bellows et al. 7 They call on us to sustain our research rigor by acknowledging the complexity of our work, enhancing training, and endeavoring to promote funding of our critical research areas. I hope this article is read widely, and that it influences many to consider their own training, collaborations, and the training of our students.

Last year we implemented a new article type category for Questionnaire Development. These can be found under the Collections tab on the jneb.org website. The Development and Validation of a Military Eating Survey includes 43 eating habits and 90 mediating behavior items. 1 The 14 habit scales include hunger, satiety, food craving, meal pattern, restraint, diet rigidity, emotional eating, fast/slow eating rate, environmental triggers, situational eating, supplement use, and food choice; the 8 mediating factor scales include body composition strategy, perceived stress, food access, sleep habits, military fitness, physical activity, military body image, and nutrition knowledge. While only appropriate for military personnel, the process that was used can provide a guideline for other questionnaire development.

Similarly, there are 2 Questionnaire Development papers in this issue: Development and inter-rater reliability of a street food stand assessment tool 2 and Development of a 24-hour movement behavior questionnaire for youth: process and a reliability testing.3 The street food stand assessment was developed in Mexico with street food stands in Mexico City. Again, a unique target that doesn’t apply to other areas, but the authors provide an interesting lens into the issues with food access and availability. The youth movement questionnaire includes 19 questions in 5 categories: general information, sleep and nap, active transportation-related activity, school life, and free-time activities for Korean adolescents aged 13 to 17 years. I was amused that while pilot-testing the questionnaire with youth, 1 responded: “Is there anyone watching TV or DVD these days? I don’t have a TV at home.” Of course not. They use their phones.

One questionnaire development paper that was published in November is the Development of Food Literacy Assessment Tool Targeting Low-Income Adults. 4
Food literacy is becoming more popular over the last few years. I always like to read the items for each category and see how I’d do. The 2 in the nutrition knowledge section of this questionnaire relate to soda: how many calories and how many grams of sugar. I seldom drink soda so this is not on my radar. However, it probably is on the radar of adults from low-income environments. Indeed, food insecurity increased the odds of habitual sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in Hispanic/Latino WIC families in New York.

While the JNEB collection of Questionnaire Development is a valuable resource, we all know these are specific to the program aims and target population. Auld et al outline this issue in their 2017 article Confirming the Reliability and Validity of Others’ Evaluation Tools Before Adopting for Your Programs 5 much better than I can. I know it is easier to adopt another’s work that has gone through rigorous development and testing, but you may not be pleased or satisfied with the results. And it certainly may be challenging when you go to publish. However, you will have a better program or intervention evaluation and you might get another publication if you develop a questionnaire specific to your needs!

I believe that curiosity is one of our super powers. In my undergraduate class focused on sustainable food systems, we follow an inquiry-based model and identify a topic, then create a series of questions that we try to answer to find a path forward in the food system. Our latest topic was the new plant-based and cell-based meat substitutes.

The students’ curiosity led them to logical and valuable questions. Were the new meats more ecologically sustainable? Nutritionally equal to meat? Healthy? Affordable? Accessible for everyone? Fundamentally, were these new products better to create a future world that allows us to “live in harmony with nature,” which is the vision of the UN Global Biodiversity Framework 1 , while also meeting our social, health, and economic needs?

One third of the class had already tried new plant-based products, with reactions ranging from unimpressed to acceptable, indicating their curiosity led to a purchasing decision. Potential market opportunity does drive investments into the path forward. A recent report suggests that the U.S. plant-based food market will reach $10.7 billion by 2027 2, and the global investment specifically in lab-grown meat drew six-fold in 2020. 3

My students’ curiosity is also reflected in the conversations by many others. Within the business arena, specific questions about the new lab-grown meats were featured in a Forbes article titled “What Questions Should We Be Asking About Cell-Based Meats?” 4 Broader questions about how investments shape the path in food production and food systems, especially the underinvestment in agroecology, which is recognized as a sustainable path, have been the topic of webinars and a recent International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems publication.5

As food and nutrition educators and leaders in behavior change, we often are responding to the food system but recognize that now is our time to have an active voice in shaping the food system and considering the often divergent paths forward. As theories shape our practice, there are emerging models that can help us direct our curiosity and conversations.

The discussions leading up to the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, a discussion starter document included these 10 elements to consider in designing nature-positive food production systems, and we are using this as a guide in my class discussions.6 The 10 elements include diversification, co-creation and sharing of knowledge, synergies, efficiency, recycling, resilience, human and social values, culture and food traditions, responsible governance, and circular and solidarity economy.

These elements may provide a roadmap for our curiosity and potential checklist as we consider our path forward. These may also help our discussions within local communities, because a resilient and sustainable future is lived locally, while recognizing the global repercussions of our food patterns.

The curiosity within our class was exciting and empowering as we look for answers and take action. For those who might be curious, the conclusion from my class about plant-based meats is that we need access to much more information to make a decision, and we would proceed with caution and moderation.

Systematic reviews have been around for a long time. JNEB published its first systematic review in 2008, analyzing the impact of peer education on dietary behaviors and health outcomes among Latinos. 1 While peer education was found to have positive outcomes, the authors called for additional research concerning the peer educator themselves, the length and type of intervention, and of course, better standardization of questionnaires and scales. Because this paper has been cited in Scopus 113 times, I think the message was received and instigated or supported other work in this field. To me, this is a crucial reason for conducting and publishing systematic reviews.

Since that first systematic review, JNEB has published 24 others. They can be found in the Collections, Paper Types on jneb.org. There is a range of topics, including online nutrition courses, 2 the effectiveness of interventions for community-dwelling older adults, 3 college students, 4 and adults with low income.5 Most called for better research, longer studies, and improved study design. Many of these calls to action would involve improved funding to implement. That may or may not happen, but it is important to document what we probably know and where research gaps are. These discussions should always be at the table, whether it is in a dissertation, at a conference, or in our own lab groups.

The findings of this issue’s systematic review may seem intuitive: more frequent grocery shopping may lead to increased fruit and vegetable intake. 6 The authors acknowledge that these were observational studies, not interventions, so caution must be taken. However, they pose an interesting issue of those using federal assistance and the limited shopping frequency capacity of many of these clients because of allotment distribution. If this were adjusted, and shopping more frequent, would the fruit and vegetable purchase and intake of these individuals with low income increase? The questions raised by our systematic reviews have implications not only for research, but also for policy and practice.

Although there are many guidelines for how to conduct a systematic review, and even college or online courses, we at JNEB are in the process of updating our guidelines. We’ve had discussions about the need to include only interventions that have been powered on the outcomes of interest, or to explain why this wasn’t possible. Evaluation of the quality of the articles included is a must, but there are many tools available to conduct this evaluation. Are there some that are better than others? And finally, what about “failed searches” or those where the only conclusion is that more research is needed? Generally, JNEB does not accept these, unless the gap in the research is truly novel and moves nutrition education and behavior research forward. I must note, JNEB does not accept scoping or narrative reviews. These have a place in the literature, but JNEB prefers to include only those with the systematic review methodology.

Lastly, I wanted to alert you to JNEB’s new tagline: Advancing Research, Practice, and Policy. Soon you will see it everywhere! I want to thank the editors, Journal Committee, publisher, and Society for working on this.

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphereand biosphere have occurred. 1

This is the leading conclusion in the first United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group report as part of the Sixth Assessment released on August 9. As science professionals, we understand the level of evidence necessary for the use of “unequivocal,” and this assessment presents the latest advances in climate change science with a deeper understanding of the relationship of specific levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases with physical changes on our planet, including extreme climate events—heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts—that are more frequent and severe. 1 The disruption affects not only humans but all other life on the planet, including plants and animals.

The necessary action was emphatically repeated throughout the IPCC press conference; there must be “rapid, strong and sustained reductions in emissions.” 2 Fossil fuel burning, the main source of our rising carbon dioxide levels must rapidly decline in the next two decades. Reductions of all greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide must reach net zero emissions by 2050, if we are to limit global warming to 1.5°C. 1 For the first time, the IPCC report details regional changes under different levels of GHG changes and the subsequent rise in temperature to provide the basis for immediate, appropriate actions necessary for resilience and mitigation.

To stop fossil fuel burning and reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 requires a methodical approach that involves all people across the planet. However, immediate, consistent individual change is necessary because every fraction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission released each day will compromise our future. Meerow and Woodruff 3 suggest 7 principles for strong climate change planning, which we can consider as we plan: set ambitious, yet attainable goals; provide a strong fact base with the best available data; outline diverse strategies to achieve goals; engage the public and foster justice in all planning processes; coordinate efforts to address climate change across actors, sectors, and plans; include a clear process for implementation and monitoring; and address climate change uncertainty.

The global food system, including food loss and waste emits 21% to 37% of the total global GHG emissions. 4 High-input, resource-intensive farming systems have high levels of GHG emissions and cannot deliver sustainable food and agricultural production. 5 While GHG emissions are produced at every step of the food system from farm to table, dominant food systems differ by nation and region resulting in different contributions to the climate change crisis. A lifecycle assessment of GHG emissions from U.S. household food choices found that 899 billion kilograms of CO₂ emissions were generated from food spending in 2013. 6 Of this, 67.9% was from production and manufacturing, 25.4% from restaurant and retail sectors, and 4.7% from truck transportation. Weekly CO₂ emissions per household were highest for red meat, fresh vegetables and melons, cheese, other milk products, and poultry. Identifying areas of greatest GHG emissions for different food systems will be necessary to develop the diverse strategies needed to reach our goal.

Increasingly, household food systems are dependent on national and global food systems, as we experienced with the COVID-19 pandemic-related food system disruptions; therefore, a global food system approach will avoid climate mitigation in one area of the food system that would be offset by increased emissions or loss of carbon sinks in another area, while supporting our biodiversity and natural resource base. Rosenzweig and colleagues 4 advocate for a global food system approach and list responses in different stages of the food system that synergistically support mitigation and adaptation while providing benefits to livelihoods, health, water, biodiversity, and reduced pollution. These responses include changes both in the supply side of improved plant and animal production and management, as well as demand-side responses such as dietary change, reduction of food loss, and reduction of food waste. 4

These changes align with a recent analysis by Clark and colleagues 7 that modeled 5 strategies to reduce global food system emissions to achieve the Paris Agreement climate change targets of limiting 1.5°C and 2°C above preindustrial levels. The five strategies include the following: globally adopt a plant-rich diet; adjust global per capita caloric consumption to healthy levels; achieve high yields by closing yield gaps and improve crop genetics and agronomic practices; reduce food loss and waste by 50%; and reduce the GHG intensity of foods by increasing efficiency of production. All 5 strategies would need to be implemented 100% to achieve the 2050 target; no single strategy would be successful.

This climate crisis demands immediate attention and significant sustained action. Our participation in developing a long-term strategy for food system change is necessary, and action can begin with knowing our regional food system. Which regional farmers incorporate or are transitioning to more sustainable production models, such as agroecology, silvapasture, and agroforestry? Does your region have policies to maintain access to affordable land, especially for small- and medium-holder farms? Can supply chains to retail, restaurants, and institutions be reduced? Do local laws support urban green spaces for gardens and foraging? Are there incubator spaces with certified kitchens available for entrepreneurs to develop added-value food products that help reduce food loss and waste? Do restaurants, schools, and community events celebrate with plant-based menus utilizing regionally sourced foods? Is food waste monitored in your community? We need daily effort to reach carbon-neutral behavior change by 2025. Let’s be the change and foster change.

We know that water is important for health. A new resource review for Water: The Foundation of a Healthy Body 1 is a good example of educational material we can use to spread the word. But it was the article in this issue by Sharma et al on the Strength and Comprehensiveness of Drinking Water Language in California School District Wellness Policies 2 that prompted me to wonder about water fountains in schools during this resurgence in COVID transmissions and with many children back to face-to-face instruction. Part of the drinking water policy evaluation looked at water access, promotion, and water quality checks. The article also pointed out that water during the school day is important to children’s health. School Wellness Policies can contribute to healthy water intake while at school.

But what about now? I still am wondering about those water fountains. I did a little searching, not exhaustive, but I found little information about water fountains in schools during the pandemic. Anecdotally, I know many were turned off and covered to prevent access. Before the pandemic, concerns about lead in the water, 3 functioning water fountains, and cleanliness of fountains have been published. 4 An excellent review of drinking water in the United States provides background, context, and suggestions for improving water intake. 5 And we know that hard surfaces have been found to have little conveyance of the COVID virus. 6  Interestingly, the CDC has guidelines for reopening water systems after prolonged shutdown 7 as well as for cleaning and disinfection, 8 but little on school water fountains in particular.

Are refillable water bottles the answer? One study in Austria reported that providing refillable water bottles increased water intake in third-grade students but the control school students also increased water intake. The authors concluded that the measurement in drinking habits may have provided the attention needed to motivate increased water intake. 9 While this more simplistic approach may work, I found the Aquatic Program very interesting not only for its sustainability perspective in decreasing disposable water bottles but also for the intervention based on the Multiple Phase Optimization Strategy (MOST) 10 and the theoretical model of Comprehensive Action Determination Model (CADM). 11 I haven’t seen this intervention strategy or theoretical model used much in the manuscripts we receive at JNEB, but I plan to do some additional reading. I encourage you to as well.

I will keep looking into the school water issues during the pandemic. If any of you have more information, please send me a line.

On June 5, 2021, the global family celebrated World Environment Day with the theme “Ecosystem Restoration” and called for not only conservation but also recovering systems that have been degraded or destroyed.1

This World Environment Day also officially launched the United Nations Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, a decade addressing various ecosystem challenges around the world. Everyone around the world resides in 1 of the 8 identified ecosystems, including fresh waters, urban areas, forests, and farmland. 2 In other words, wherever you live is your ecosystem and the opportunity to be part of the #RestorationGeneration.

We have now spent 2 decades of effort to make progress toward the agreed upon global biodiversity goal of “Living with Nature” by 2050. The 2020 Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is the latest report on a decade of effort to meet biodiversity targets, and, disappointingly, none of the goals were met and various pressures are, in fact, worsening the state of nature. 3 Clearly, we are at a serious crossroads with substantial changes needed to the way we live on the planet, including transforming our food system.

Members have many opportunities to engage in system thinking and begin to move into action that supports rather than degrades nature. The 2019 SNEB position paper focused on the Importance of Including Environmental Sustainability in Dietary Guidance 4 and provided a summary of the current environmental concerns, including the ecosystem changes that are leading to land and water degradation and serious biodiversity loss and considerations of diet changes. Our 2021 annual conference, August 8–10, 2021, provides many opportunities to consider the system changes necessary to meet sustainability goals within more equitable societies.

For many of us, this time of year provides a celebration of seasonal abundance and increased local varieties. Noticing your local and regional biodiversity, exploring the unique varieties within your ecosystem, and connecting directly with farmers are immediate actions we can take. The focus on diet diversity within food groups that incorporates more local foods purchased directly from the farmer helps make every bite count in ways that benefit the environment, celebrates our cultural and agricultural heritage, multiplies local investment, and provides nutrient-rich foods.

Supporting household, school, and community gardens that focus on increasing biodiversity; introducing hunting, foraging, and fishing to youth; and incorporating regional foods in our institutions are other actions that support domesticated and wild biodiversity and increase awareness of our regional ecosystems.

Food and nutrition education is quickly evolving as we consider the challenges of significant change within this decade and a renewed focus on ecosystem vitality. Let’s make every bite count in as many ways as possible.

Food production and consumption contribute substantially to greenhouse-gas emissions and water usage.1 Estimates suggest that agriculture dwells on about 40% of earth’s surface and food production accounts for 30% of greenhouse gases2  Moreover, food production accounts for nearly 70% of freshwater use.3 Plainly put, what we grow, what we eat, and what we waste have strong impacts on environmental shifts related to climate change.

Calls are being made for significant changes in how and what we eat. The EAT-Lancet Commission 4 brought attention to how diets are inequitable when considered globally, and how diets are “inextricably linked to human health and environmental sustainability.” The point has been made that the global population, far from static, will likely grow to 10 billion people by the year 2050; further increasing the demand on resources and the environment.

The EAT-Lancet Commission undertook the estimation of dietary patterns that would both address global inequities in availability of nutritious foods and that could reduce the burden upon the environment. These reference dietary patterns are offered in efforts to decrease noncommunicable disease and are based upon estimations of appropriate energy intake, plant-based, low in animal source foods, and limited with respect to highly processed foods (eg, foods lower in added sugars, refined grains, and sodium). The expectation is that adoption of these dietary patterns will reduce global consumption of highly processed, less healthy foods by 50% and increase consumption of healthful foods (nuts, grains, fruits, and vegetables) by 100%. Such changes are projected to result in improvements in human health while reducing the toll on land and water use.

The proposed changes in dietary patterns would demand major changes in intake for a majority of the world’s population. Notably, the international commission that produced the projections consisted of nutrition epidemiologists and experts in human health, agriculture, political science, and environmental sustainability. Less prominent was the presence of nutrition educators and behavior scientists and practitioners. This begs the question of how individuals will be educated and motivated to (willingly) adopt such dietary and cultural changes.

A long history of complex nutrition interventions has taught us that nutrition education and behavior change theories and practice are critical to the design and implementation of successful interventions that actually produce the desired behavior change(s). Thus, an opportunity exists for nutrition educators to lean in and be leaders in developing effective strategies and programs to address the coming demands for global change. Nutrition educators and behavioral scientists have unique and important skills to contribute to these efforts. Perhaps it is time to seize the day.