>> Hi, everybody. Welcome to another Conversations Series. And for everybody
watching on the stream, if you send messages to the hash-tag MLTalks, I will
have a section at the end where we'll get questions -- interesting questions
from Twitter we'll get to ask But today I want to introduce Sam Kass. He was,
until recently, the chef at the White House and the Senior Policy Advisor for
nutrition. So we'll start out with Sam giving a few thoughts to us. And then we'll
have a conversation and a Q&A with the audience and Twitter later. Thanks.
(Applause).
>> How is it going? It's incredible to be here. You know, the Media
Lab here is sort of like the analogy I guess in Washington is kind of like Camp
David. It has this like mystique, the aura of discovery and just wanting to know
what actually goes on behind these walls. So it's been incredible to be here. So
I'm going to talk a little bit about myself and talk about a lot of the things we're
seeing in food and the future of food and where that's headed. I'm a chef by
training. Trained in Vienna under a great chef out there. And then spent about 5
years cooking my way around the planet. Never had any kind of culinary --
official culinary education. But just sort of worked my way through restaurants.
And came back to Chicago in 2007, right when the campaign was getting
started. So helping out the First Family when the kids were quite young and the
First Lady was starting to get on the road. And started helping them with their
food and their health and cleaning out some of the cabinets and making sure
that the girls were getting some solid food. And through that process, we were
able to really dive into health, nutrition, food politics, policy, what was going on,
the challenges that the First Lady was having or then preFirst Lady time. And
dreamed of planting a garden at the White House. And then if that went well,
do a big initiative on childhood health. But the now President was 30 points
down in the polls and most people probably didn't know his name. So that
seemed like a bit of a pipe dream. But it ended up happening. So we went to
the White House. And were able to plant that garden. And launched Let's
Move!, which I recently just left as the director of and senior policy advisor for
nutrition. So it's a pretty amazing ride and we've been able to sit sort of in the
center of Government and because, a lot of work with the business sector. And
also sort of culture and marketing and how we really help facilitate a shift in
the culture around health and wellness and food. Because ultimately -- and I
think this will come up a time again -- food is one of the deepest ways we
express ourselves as who we are. Which makes change fraught and
complicated and messy. And scary at times. And it's that personalization and
the emotion that comes from that that is both one of the great strengths and
passions around food and nutrition. But also makes it quite a complicated
piece of business Particularly when you're trying to create change from a place
like Washington where it's such a personal thing. People typically don't want
Washington interfering in such personal matters. But right now the
combination I think between Government, our cultural shift and what's
happening in the marketplace is leading -- or creating the continues that are
going to lead to just dramatic innovation over the next 10, 15 years. Pretty
much in every step of food, I think it's going to be turned on its head. And
there's going to be one big disrupter of that disruption and I think that's climate
change as everybody I know spends a lot of time thinking about. So from the
Government side, right now we're spending about $190 billion a year treating
obesity-related conditions right now. We have 1 in 3 of our youngest generation
is on track to have diabetes in their lifetime. So when we project out what the
costs to the nation are going to be for 1 in 3 children having diabetes, it's
extraordinary. It's also having -- health is having tremendous impact on our
ability to defend ourselves. So obesity is the No. 1 cause of military
disqualification for recruits. 27% of 17- through 24-year-olds cannot serve in
our military because of obesity. And the military has had to create a preboot
camp for boot camp for the whole other sector of the population that
otherwise wouldn't qualify. From a Government standpoint it also has a huge
impact on productivity. A huge impact on kid's ability to learn. And this is on
the nutrition side and also on the hunger side. 1 out of 6 kids are food insecure
throughout the year. Which in a country of this magnitude, it's just hard to
fathom. So when you put that together, it's a real underpinning of a lot of the
challenges. So from a Government perspective both on the local level and on
the Federal level, the pressure to take action I think is growing. And will
continue to grow. So a lot of our work at Let's Move! led by the First Lady has
been focused on how do we bring real simple solutions in a language that
people can understand to where people are. And some of that is policy. So we
worked very hard to overhaul school nutrition across the country. Which has
become a politically fraught issue in a way that it never had before. And you'll
see actually this week there will be hearings about how to roll back a lot of
those standards to make sure kids are getting fruits and vegetables and not
too much sugar, et cetera. Which is hard to believe at times But it's working.
And we've made a lot of progress. We've done work with 15,000 child care
centers to take soda out of child care centers and make sure they are getting
fruits and vegetables at snacks and those kind of pieces So the other main
component of that work is working with the private sector. Obviously they are
who feeds us. Retailers, farmers, manufacturers. And so working with them to
make easy choices -- healthy choices easier is really important. If we're going
to work very hard to eat well, then we're not going to eat well. I think all of the
behavior economics research shows us that is certainly the case. So I see that
over the next 5, 10 years, unless we continue to make accelerated progress,
governments are going to feel the need to act and act with you know more
sense of urgency. Particularly because in -- we hope to see health insurance
companies step up a little bit more than I think they have. Now that everybody
has to be covered, you can't be dropped because of pre-existing conditions,
one could posit, and I did, and I'm not sure I'm wrong yet but so far I'm not right,
that the incentive towards prevention would dramatically increase and there
would be a huge investment in making sure that the 1 in 3 kids who are on
track to have diabetes don't get that. It looks, though, that there's not a huge
race to do that, because ultimately the upside is too far out in the future And in
the end, Government, through Medicare and Medicaid, is going to end up
bearing a huge part of that burden. So the incentive I think long term is going to
be for the Government to take bigger and bolder action to really solve this.
Unless, as a country, we step out in front. And you're going to start to see I
think these issues start coming together in a deeper way. The Dietary
Guidelines recommendations just came out last week. I'm not sure if anybody
had a look at that. It's the report that informs Dietary Guidelines. That's the
underpinning of all nutritional policy that's made from school nutrition, SNAP,
WIC, all of the various programs. For the first time, it talked about uniting
sustainability and nutrition. So making recommendations about what people
should eat, not just based on amounts of fat or sugar. But also on what's
sustainably produced. Particularly around meat consumption You've seen a
very lively, very Washington, reaction of interest who would be losers in that
kind of recommendation seek quite loudly about their displeasure over it. It will
be very interesting to see in the next few months where the USDA and HHS
comes out on that. But I think we're absolutely going to have to start taking into
account the impact and our ability to grow food and how that translates to
what a healthy diet looks like So as Washington sort of figures this out, there's
been this incredible cultural shift that's gone on that's accelerating seemingly
every day. Little things like beer. You know, when I was a kid there was like five --
I can now start saying when I was a kid. When I was a kid there were five or
ten beer makers. Now there's thousands and thousands of beer makers,
including a very tasty White House beer that we brewed ourselves in the White
House. We have three beers, which are delicious I might add. Cheese makers
are popping up all over the country. Restaurants of all kinds Just simply the
richness of the food culture is becoming so much more strong -- stronger
across the entire nation that I think it's creating an understanding and an
education, particularly for young people who now this is just what they know.
Farmers markets are on a dramatic increase. Gardens -- community gardens
have tripled since the last five years since we implanted our garden. There's
about 3 million community gardens. There were 1 million when we started.
There's about 30% more families are gardening in their homes. So there's just
this influx of passion and knowledge and understanding about food and where
it comes from. I will say, though, as it relates to politics and policy, it's yet to
translate into politics. People aren't yet voting on this issue. And I think that
interesting shift about where the culture is going but not being translated into
elections is something that's a barrier to I think further change. And it will be
very interesting to see in 2016 if the candidates are talking about these issues
as part of their platform. I certainly hope they do. And the younger generation
is taking this to the next level. Junk food just doesn't look appealing to them
anywhere near like it did when we were kids. They are willing to pay more for
healthier foods. Where everybody used to say, I prefer healthier foods but I
won't actually pay more. Generation Z is saying, I prefer it and I'll pay more. And
that marks a real shift in an approach from an entire generation. And now
you're seeing all of this start to translate into the marketplace. So the shift has
just been incredible. So Kraft Foods is down 60% last year. Kellogg's is flat or
going down. Coke is -- sales have been in this pretty steep decline. The diet
category is bottoming out in a way that's unprecedented. Diet Coke was down
8 points last year which is unheard of. If you can move a product that big a
point up or a point down, it was a major deal. And this is not just a health thing.
But I think health is a big piece of it. Shoppers are now -- after price, health is
the No. 1 driver. Convenience will always be your main player. But health is
becoming the No 1 driver after price about how people are making choices. But
they are also looking for authenticity. And I think as we talk about tech and the
future of food and how technology and food are going to weave together,
making sure that we take into account authentic experiences is going to be
vital to the success of any kind of new approach to eating food It is one of the
most authentic acts we do every day. And people are looking for the real
natural. Because they are craving that I think across their lives, all of us are.
And food is one way to keep that close And I think a lot of the shift you're
seeing is because of that. The restaurant sector is just incredible. Chipotle is
up 26% last year. You see McDonald's is on the decline. So a lot of these older
companies who know how to do what they do really, really well are having
trouble shifting to meet the shift in the marketplace. And what -- ultimately
what I think is going to occur over the next 10 years is just a massive
opportunity for young companies to start filling in that void and there's going to
be a huge period of acquisition I think the only way a lot of these bigger players
make it through this shift is through acquisition of young, innovative
companies to help bring sort of that next generation forward. These big guys
aren't going anywhere. But they are also not -- this is not their expertise. So I
think it's going to be a very exciting time in that regard. So I think these
conditions are leading to just huge new areas of potential innovation. The
kitchen, for one, is this just hot bed of possibility. I mean, it's hard to imagine --
we basically are eating for all intents and purposes the same as we have been
eating for 60 years. There's been one major advance in the kitchen. And that's
the microwave. And you know, I will leave it to everybody else to debate
whether that was a good thing or not. But as the rest of our lives has become
digitized and we're moving much faster, cooking and food production has
remained basically -- especially for the consumer -- at the same speed. And
that's why people are cooking less. Because it has not become as convenient
as the rest of their lives. So the opportunity to digitize the kitchen, to make
appliances actually make cooking easier, is just an extraordinary set of
possibilities. And walking around today I was immediately seeing technology
that if you put -- overlay how do we make cooking and eating better easier for
people, I'm just sitting surrounded by a chance to really help transform peoples'
lives in that way. Fundamentally for the better. Spectrometers, the
spectrometer technology, the ability to actually understand what it is in that
grocery store. That's coming, that's coming soon I think it's going to be one of
the most disruptive things we see in the next 15 to 20 years. Transparency is
something that has been fundamentally lacking in our food. We don't know
where it comes from. We don't know how it's grown. We don't really know
what's in it. We have to trust people who have a stake in selling it to us to tell
us what it is. And when people have the power to figure that out for
themselves, beyond just that information that the consumer is going to have,
the -- what that's going to force the industry to do to respond is going to be just
transformative I think beyond what we can even imagine right now. And it's
quite exciting Another area that I see is going to be fundamental to the shift is
all of the work on the gut biome and microbiome writ large. The evidence of
the impact of the healthy gut biome versus not is extraordinary. Some of the
most stark differences in research that I've seen. We don't have much idea of
why yet. And people are starting to figure it out. But with that understanding is
going to come I think some pretty simple -- I would assume some pretty simple
solutions to what have been very complicated behavioral problems that we
have been facing. Which then leads into the behavioral economics side. I think
we know a lot about how people make choice. What influences choice. Very
little of that has been put towards public health Marketers use it. Companies
use it really well. They are masters at this But we, in the public health side, have
not taken and leveraged that understanding to help make it easier for people to
make these better choices. But really, there's no area that I don't see being
turned on its head. The retail sector, as we know, is fundamentally being
overhauled The center of the grocery store is shrinking and will pretty much be
gone I would say in the next 15 to 20 years. The delivery systems, straight from
the farm, are starting to become efficient and viable models in a way that up
until now they just haven't been. Which is going to lead to really interesting
opportunity to deliver food particularly to people who don't have access to it. If
you can take it straight from the farm without having brick and mortar, without
having a fleet of trucks, and actually get it to low-income communities, you can
do it in a way that's affordable that right now simply we're failing. So many
communities have no access to healthy food. So this is an era of possibility
that is the most exciting time in food, when I look back, then I can ever imagine
existed. This is going to be a transformative moment that it's going to be
interesting to see how governments keep up. A lot of the oversight and
regulatory authorities just are already outdated. Already aren't meeting the
needs of where the technology is headed. But all that to say I think the one big
question mark and I know a lot of people spend a lot of time here thinking
about it is what is the implication of climate change on this? And I think food is
Ground Zero for the impact of climate change. We're already feeling it. Last
year beef prices were way up. Milk was way up. Pork was way up. Vegetable
prices started going up because of the drought in California. And we are living
in a time of -- still of great climate -- we're in like one of the best periods of
climate in measurable time. So our systems have been built around that. And I
think it will be interesting to see, we're on the right path. We're seeing
fundamental shift in health, we're seeing obesity rates starting to decline in our
youngest kids. We're seeing consumption of healthier foods increase. All of
that disruption and all of that disruption that's coming can get totally thrown
off course if we don't get out ahead of what it means to grow healthy food in a
fundamentally shifting climate. So some of the work that I saw today, the work
that Caleb is doing, is just unbelievable how you actually solve for that in what
is truly an efficient system. And I think it's going to take those kind of
innovations. But also do it in a way that's human that keeps us connected to
our food that does not lose that -- the love and the flavor that makes food such
an integral part of our lives. So it's an exciting time. And I don't know, maybe I'll
leave it there Is that okay? And open it to some questions. Because I want to
learn as much from you guys as you get to learn from me. Thank you
(Applause).
>> So I just wanted to check. It sounded like you were fundamentally
optimistic with the climate change caveat; is that true?
>> Absolutely. I think we're changing around food and health
in a way that certainly is unprecedented.
And with a rate that is incredible. These are things that take --
these are long timelines Food is over centuries and food culture is
over centuries handed down. And the fact that you're seeing such a shift in
both the big companies and all of the small guys coming up, you're seeing the
fact that school lunch has been overall -- junk food is now out of schools
completely. Those kids are now only going to know healthy food in their
schools. That kind of shift is happening tremendously fast. So it gives me great
hope I think for the future
>> So the question I have is like when -- when I was just sort of thinking --
starting to think about food, I was reading books by Michael Pollan
or the China study and others that talked about this kind of -- it wasn't
a conspiracy but this industrial complex around food with the Cargills of
the world supplying fertilizer and lobbying for change and really increasing
calories and junk food for profit
>> Right.
>> And that they sort of had control over the politics.
This actually was probably just before the Obamas came into office.
Was it a political change or was it the people woke up? What's behind this?
>> So there's a lot to unpack in that Look, I think what -- a number of
things I've found. One is that while there's plenty to be cynical in Washington,
the cynicism doesn't match the reality. That there is a lot of people there who
are dedicated to the right things. And are producing big change. I think what
you're seeing is a cultural shift. It's being mirrored in Washington. In the end
politicians do what their constituents want them to do and respond to their
needs and what they care about. Democracy basically in that way works. And
so you're seeing the space that's been created by this cultural shift by the
Michael Pollans of the world for somebody like the First Lady to come in and
make this her signature issue, dig up the south grounds of the White House -- it
now seems totally normal that there's a vegetable garden in the White House.
But when we got there and I said to them, okay, we want to dig up the lawn of
the White House and plant a bunch of vegetables, they looked at us like we
were crazy. They -- everybody came around and it was wonderful. But it was
because we were responding to this big shift. So it's a conversation between
culture, business and politics that you're seeing this move forward.
>> But in a way, it's bottomup. Because the parallel that I saw, I was involved
I remember in the early days of the electric vehicle and there's a movie --
>> Who killed --
>> Who killed the electric vehicle. Because I remember when California
was against the electric vehicles. And they lobbied against it.
And everybody lobbied and said, no, no, no. But once the people started
buying it, they were like, okay, fine. So the companies,
if the market changes, they are okay. Is this a market change that happened
because the people got smarter? Or was there some --
>> I would say the answer is both. So you just step back about --
people talk about big food, industrial food. That comes out of a time where
malnutrition and hunger was the overriding challenge that we faced. And the
fact of the matter is we got really good at producing very cheap calories. We
externalized a lot of the costs and that's a lot of the environmental impact that
people are concerned about and rightfully so But we figured that out. And now I
think we're realizing, okay, there's some other challenge that we've come
across. Over that time, are there interests that have been built up that have a
vested stake in maintaining the status quo? Absolutely Of course. And do they
fight to maintain that interest? Absolutely. Has the issue become less
politicized on some levels? So like we did the My Plate, we good rid of the food
pyramid and did My Plate. There's been whole books written. Mary Nesser
wrote a whole book about the politics around the
pyramid. There was no politics around the Plate.
>> Really?
>> Because of the leadership of the First Lady and the shift in the culture,
the company just knew that this is like kind of offgrounds.
You're not going to be able to just come to us and say, we want you to do it like this --
>> Without looking like a jerk
>> Without looking horrible. And I think that's a product of the shift in the culture.
And leadership. You need both. So I think that's really where we made progress.
>> And it seems like in addition to just the
calories, if you look at -- I remember at the recent reThink Food conference
that we did Kevin Shriven (phonetic) showed commercials from back
when Pop Tarts came out and when McDonald's came out. And a lot of it
was around convenience. It had advertising agencies. But the McDonald's
commercial he showed there wasn't a single piece of food in the
commercial. It was all about how you were going to save time for Mom
who is now working and busy. It seemed like it also tied in -- the fast food
thing tied into lifestyle change and people wanting a whole different
lifestyle, which seems that that's part of it. We're slowing down. We want
to eat better food.
>> Yeah, so we want to eat better food and we say we want to slow down
but really we're not slowing down at all. I think when you look back,
I mean the structure of the family was changing. Both parents
started working. Everything -- people started working longer
hours, et cetera. So they were filling a need. And then built that out. And
the marketing around this has been huge. I think it's actually one of the
most powerful components about how -- as we know, evidence is
overwhelming. But marketing deeply impacts our choices. And on the
health and food side, we have never leveraged this. So some companies
are saying eat or drink this and be happy or be full of love. And we're
saying eat this broccoli it has vitamin B12 and fiber. And so long as we're
up against that kind of dynamic and we don't -- on our side as we figure
out how to forge our future. If we don't fill it with love and happiness, we're
going to lose --
>> Wasn't there an ad agency that was engaged to try to market broccoli
as -- was that you --
>> We were working -- we're working with them In fact
there's going to be a big thing coming out in a few days on it around
how do you market healthy foods to kids. They pitted broccoli versus kale.
And saw dramatic shifts. In New Haven I think broccoli
consumption increased by over 100% when they did this campaign in New
Haven, Connecticut. Marketing really works.
>> Kevin's point was speaking of microbiome that jokingly that what we
eat was a conspiracy between the ad agencies and the bacteria in our gut
(Chuckles).
>> That basically decides everything. I mean, one of the things
that you talked about was this knowledge gap.
And one of the big arguments that we had at this food conference
that we did in Napa Valley with the CIA -- the culinary institute --
>> That CIA.
>> Was labeling and stuff like that. >
> Yeah.
>> And again, Kevin being the New Yorker
contrarian sort of crazy person at the conference argued
that it had nothing to do with the knowledge gap and that it
was all about advertising an agency. And he uses the example I
don't know if you've seen the Heart Attack Grill in Las Vegas Have you seen this?
>> No
>> All of the people who work there wear white lab coats and there's
the triple bypass burger, the coronary dog, the flat liner fries. I think it says
if you weigh over 300 pounds, you eat for free. And these people clearly don't
-- there's no knowledge gap. They are going there knowing
fully that what they are about to eat is going to increase their risk of heart
disease It could be that this is just a weird insane anomaly. But
when you look at sort of the role of agency and just the punk rock attitude
of teenagers, knowing what the right thing is is very different from wanting
to do that. So -- and this probably ties to your marketing thing. But how do
you think that -- I mean, do you think it really is about knowledge and how do you --
>> So I would say the answer is -- I think the answer is both.
There is a certain part of the segment of the market where education is
how -- is what people really respond to. And typically more educated
people, you really are digging in, you're wanting to learn, you want to figure
it, you're reading the labels, you're doing the research. So that needs to be
available. I would never say we shouldn't try to educate the country,
educate kids, educate families Without a doubt. But we've been doing that
for decades. And it hasn't really worked that well ultimately. Right now
kids see -- the average American child sees 5500 ads for junk food every
year and 100 ads for water, fruits and vegetables and whole grains. So
long as there's that disparity and the messages that kids are being
surrounded on is just extolling the virtues of unhealthy food, that's not
only going to be what they see and are surrounded by, it's also going to be
a value. It's a value system that we put forward. So until we fix that
equation, I agree with him, we're not going to solve this problem.
Marketing is one -- there's few things that are more important than
learning how to market healthy foods, market this new future, in a way
that's desirable.
>> There's some research in our group -- Alex Pentland groups social
dynamics in his book "Social Physics," where he looks at
what people eat and what the people around them eat. And it's quite i
nteresting how almost unwittingly the stuff that people -- your peers eat,
whether you respect them or not, rubs off on you more than say the
respected person that you only meet occasionally. And that people tend to
start to mimic the environment around them There seems to also be this
kind of -- at risk of using a cliche -- a tipping point thing where once you
get enough momentum behind something that it does become a grassroots thing.
>> No question. The research both in terms of social structure, but also
in terms of the family. So when one person in the family is trying to
change their diet, they almost never succeed. The rate -- I don't
want to quote. It's like 10 or 15% when one person is trying to change
what they eat as opposed to when the whole family is on board. Because
it's the cohesion of your environment that's critical. What -- basically it's as
simple as you eat what's around you. Period. No matter if you're -- you
know, if I'm a health expert, I live my life, I'm a chef, if I have a bunch of
cookies around me, eventually I'm going to eat one of those. And if it's all I
have around me, I'm definitely going to eat one of those. If you think about
people in their homes, if what you're surrounded with is choices that are
unhealthy and they are what you see -- so it's not only that it's there but it's
also what you see. So if it's in the -- if the grapes are in the bin behind the
milk underneath the -- your rate of consumption plummets. If you take
them out and put them on the counter, your rate of consumption
dramatically skyrockets. And that's all about how you set up families and
how you set up social groups to influence each other in a positive way on
that. But there's no question, food is fundamentally social. It is how we
interact with each other So that is no surprise.
>> The other question I had since you are fundamentally optimistic,
I assume you agree on this a little bit. But how there are these fads.
So salt a bad. Fat is bad. And they seem to be these fluctuations
that can be quite confusing, especially if you're trying
to follow the research. Do you feel like these fluctuations are
starting to be less wild in terms of the extremes and down into something
more reasonable or do you think it will continue to say actually it's not
about the biome, actually it's about this, or actually it's about that?
>> I feel very confident about the biome.
I feel very confident in sort of our core understanding.
I mean, if you read the last Dietary Guidelines, the one -- the
crystal clear example of this was the originally cholesterol was bad,
too much cholesterol was bad. Then they start modifying it In this last one
they are like, it's no problem. Eat as many eggs as you desire. And then
people get very frustrated and confused. And we've seen this now with a
lot of issues.
>> And they lose trust in science.
>> They lose trust in science. And understandably so.
And it's a problem. I think the things that have held --
we get into trouble when we try to break down into a nutrient.
Like this one component of food is bad or good. The fact of the matter is,
this all interacts in a complex way that we have pretty limited
understanding of. We're growing. Which is why it involves. The
fundamentals of eat lots of plants, fruits, vegetables, eat whole grains
when you're going to eat whole grains, eat protein but you don't need
anywhere near as much as what we're eating, those fundamental -- like
that basis of approach, if you eat a balanced and a diverse diet based on
that, all of the science always confirms that
>> Right.
>> And I think that's where -- and that's how people eat.
People don't eat cholesterol. Like they eat an egg or they like a shrimp.
So I think we need to work on is that right and talk in terms of
how people are actually experiencing food if we want them to make those kind of choices.
>> That's what I've been calling my own diet practice is sort of,
I'm steady fluctuation robustness. Which is really to try to try --
(Chuckles).
>> That is the Media Lab term. I don't know how that would play out in the country.
>> But is to have enough of a little bit of everything so you can't say,
oh my God, I've been eating too much of that. Or my God,
I haven't been eating any of that. So that even if it fluctuates,
you sort of average out to probably the core guidelines and stuff.
>> That makes perfect sense to me. I endorse -- I'm with you on that. (Chuckles).
>> Look, you just get into trouble when we get out of balance. And the fact
of the matter is all of the food has got the bull's eye on it. It's
fine if you have it seldom or once in a while. Or even once a week. The fact
of the matter is that so many kids and family members are eating that
morning, noon and night. And that's why we got into sort of the extreme
situation that we're in.
>> Can you talk a little bit more about -- detail about the climate change
and food? We're, by the way, for anybody that knows, we're looking
for a climate change faculty member. So if anybody knows a good one.
And also Patty, who is working -- running a wellness initiative
that cuts across the lab. And I hadn't really tied nutrition -- we've tied it sort
of a little bit. But it would be interesting to get your thoughts on like how
do those two communities, if we brought them together, what would they talk about?
>> Well, I think right now -- so we have the recommendations
that come out. We're woefully underconsuming vegetables, worse fruits,
and even worse whole grains. By a lot. So we know we need to produce
more fruits and vegetables and whole grains, which will help bring the
price down. That's one part. Affordability and accessibility is a bill
challenge around fruits and vegetables. So we already have a challenge
right in front of us. But hotter climates, more volatile weather, significantly
less water is going to put tremendous pressure on our ability to grow
healthy food, which is already too expensive. Part of the reason is it's so
expensive is because for 50 years, the vast majority, like vast, of research
dollars, people like to point to subsidies as being the reason that we are
growing what we're growing. And it turns out it's just actually not true. It
had a big impact maybe in the beginning. At this point, the market is so
mature that the subsidies are just a drop in the bucket Really, I think one
of the main drivers is the investment in research, which has allowed us to
grow corn and soy, for example, incredibly efficiently. We have not put that
money into fruits and vegetables at all. Partly because there's not the
same scalability of any one of those crops like corn was such a scalable
commodity. So we need the research to figure out how do we grow this
much more efficiently Because the price is already starting to increase
and is going to dramatically increase over the next 10 to 20 years. Unless
we really invest in some serious innovations around how we're going to
grow these efficiently. So that right there by itself is key So I think that's on
how do we get ready to grapple with it. On the other side, unlike a lot of
the other sectors, agriculture holds huge promise in actually mitigating the
effects of climate change. There's digesters for animal production that
could actually have a huge capture. Methane, turn it into energy. And the
soil can actually retain carbon in a way that if you incentivize farmers in
the right way, they can become part of the solution. Whereas a lot of the
other issues around climate change, there's just clear winners and losers.
Agriculture is one of those places where you could have a win-win
situation if we figured out the right incentive structure. So that's I think a
big opportunity on both ends of it. And I think there's a lot of work to do on this space.
>> So you don't have to comment on this if this is something
you don't want to comment on. But when I saw Kofi Annan recently, he and
others are working on demystifying GMOs. Because, again, it's one of the
pathways to create things that respond to the climate change, to make
things that are stronger in tougher conditions and things like that And I
think especially in Europe and Africa, it's eliminating a whole category of
innovation that could be used to combat climate change. I don't know if
you have any thoughts on that or whether we should --
>> No, I'm happy to step into that
(Chuckles).
>> Normally I would walk right around that. But it's a new day.
(Chuckles).
>> Look, I think the answer is complicated. I think the potential
and the technology is one that -- I think the future that we face,
everything needs to be on the table We would be unwise to say,
this whole area of possibilities, we should stop exploring it. I think some
of the -- on the other side, I don't think it's the panacea of this is going to
save us, this one technology is -- we're going to be fine. Particularly if you
look at how the technology has been used, there's been a lot of promises
about what it's to bring. Really what it's brought, the vast majority of what
it's brought, has been herbicide resistant crops to grow a couple of
commodities at massive scale. It's at a -- taken a huge toll on diversity,
which is a real risk for a system that's going to come under stress. So I'm
concerned about that. The amount of herbicide that's been put into the
environment is something that I think people are just starting to
understand the impact of. We are dealing with a lot of the environmental
impacts of super weeds, et cetera. It's complicated. I don't think it's like
the solution. The health fears are unfounded. And it's disappointing when
those are revisited over and over again. There's just no science on that.
The environmental impacts are something that -- but all agriculture has
environmental impacts. It's sort of the core tension of feeding ourselves.
But -- so I would say it needs to be put on the table. I think we need to
think about how it's actually used to help benefit consumers, not just
farmers. But I think in the face of a much harsher climate, this debate will
evolve with the change in climate. And we'll be looking for anything that
produces food in an efficient way.
>> Thank you. I guess my last question before I open it up,
and you sort of mentioned it a little bit. And it ties into what you're
going to do next, what you told me you haven't actually decided yet.
But if you had to pick one theory of change, if you were -- if it
weren't necessarily -- but if we had to bet the Media Lab on like how do
you change everything and make it better?
(Chuckles).
>> Wow. If I knew that exactly, I would know what I would be doing
(Chuckles).
>> Well, if I had to make one bet.
I'll throw out a couple of things but then I'm going to --
I want to be able to come back and change my answer later Leave that
door open. I think the lowest hanging fruit -- I guess there's two sides You
have to think about the production side and you have to think about
consumption. But I think actually if you can make it easier for people to
cook and eat fruits and vegetables, you have the biggest impact up and
down the chain. Because fundamentally for peoples' health, it dramatically
improves. And it's a much more sustainable set of pieces of what people
are eating. So -- and ultimately this is about -- consumption is going to
drive this. And if we increase demand, the market is definitely going to
follow. And right now the demand is not there. Anywhere near it should be.
Which is why marketing is a big component of it. But I think also
technology in the kitchen, technology in transportation, technology in
making it easier to cook these -- break down a head of broccoli so it's
easier to cook, which is happening, I think that is one solution that affects
up and down the entire supply chain in a pretty profound way. So I'm going
to start with that. And I'm going to keep thinking about it. And then I'll
send you a note when I come up with whatever I --
>> We can do that here.
>> I'd like that. That would be good.
>> Well, thank you, Sam.
>> My pleasure.
>> I'm going to open it up I don't know if anybody has questions or
comments or anything from Twitter. Natia, we have a mic for you.
>> So mostly I want you to just elaborate on things.
I think it's a very nice popular way to think about food right now,
to have this Dan Barbaraesque reimagining
of rural heartlands as this wonderful idyllic place where we have flavor --
>> I got married there.
>> Nice. See you're all in it.
>> I'm all in it. But I know where you're going. I'm with you.
(Chuckles).
>> So the annoying question that everyone answers differently
is how do you pay for it? What you've touched on it here is you pay
for it partially through technology and making that more efficient.
And efficient technology is great. But you didn't specify
what you thought that could be, beyond spectroscopy,
which doesn't work so great in the field without any baseline.
And knowledge that you get from transparency by making
places like Dan Barbara's farm more visible, don't necessarily disseminate
to the communities that are affected by poverty and also most affected by
the health risks that you described earlier. So how do you make sure that
you disseminate that information to low-income communities and poorly
educated communities? And then I have one last thing. Answer all of this in one go.
>> Okay.
>> If you're going to talk about climate change with respect to food,
how do you touch upon the global diet? If the easiest way to feed cities
in China is to import milk in New Zealand and soybeans from
Argentina, then efficiency is really going to be quite important. And moving
away from that by making everything, you know, more purple
carroty is not necessarily going to be so great. So maybe a global diet,
how do you make it cheap? What's the technology?
And what about low-income communities?
>> That's her job here. Our customer.
>> Good. I love it. (Chuckles).
>> So if I miss a question, like remind me. I'm sure you will.
I feel like I can count on you on that
(Chuckles).
>> So essentially what you're asking me is how are we going
to make sure that low-income communities have access to a healthy diet?
>> (Off microphone).
>> Yeah. So when I talked about spectrometers,
I wasn't actually thinking that as like a targeted solution to
low-income communities who are really struggling with access
to healthy and affordable food. That seems to me to be a broader --
that's not a solution for what is a very specific problem, which I have actually --
we have done a lot of work on I think it's a combination.
It's not one thing I think the -- like we have to grow more
fruits and vegetables. And we have to grow them more -- more efficiently.
So I'll get to that in a second. I'm going to ask you where the technology is.
That's why I am. You guys tell me what the technology is. I'm the chef. So
I'll cook it for you, after you grow it cheaper. But I think it's a combination
of things. We need to figure out what markets work in these communities.
So a lot of times what's happened in low-income communities, they've had
a big box store that was a very generic like this is just what we have. And
it didn't actually meet the needs of these lower income communities that
often have ethnic populations that are quite diverse that have very unique
needs to those communities. So those stores go out of business. And
then all of the other companies see that that store is out of business and
they don't want to set up shop. The shops that are working are small
retailers, independent grocers, that actually have the ability to know and
learn the community and shift what they are putting on their stores based
on the needs -- based on the needs of that community. So I think that's
one, is building that infrastructure. Either in brick and mortar. Or in delivery
systems. I've been engaged with a woman who has done a deal with
FedEx to do direct shipments and accept SNAP benefits. She doesn't have
a store. She doesn't have a fleet of cars She just has a warehouse that in
24 hours, the food comes in, the food goes out. So she's delivering in a
pretty incredibly efficient delivery system to people who are on SNAP. So
that's one. I think the Government programs that are designed to protect
these communities who are exposed to food insecurity are vital. So SNAP,
which is about to come under a dramatic assault, we -- the last round
Republicans wanted to cut -- not to get political in this but it just is -- $40 billion
out of this program, which would have kicked hundreds of
thousands -- about a million people off the program. The Women, Infants
and Children program, which is giving access to a very strict box of food
of very healthy fruits, vegetables, which we actually added to that program
Before it didn't have any fruits and vegetables in it, which was a bit
astounding -- to women, infants and children who are very vulnerable, very
low income. So I think we have to improve access and improve -- protect
these programs that are providing the service. But the one thing that we
have learned is you can put a grocery store in a low-income community or
any community. But that doesn't mean that people are going to make
those right choices. In fact what we have seen a lot is that people
continue to make poor health decisions. And that's where I think the
marketing really comes in. We have to put the same kind of energy and
effort behind the more healthy foods as the sodas get for their highly
sugary beverages. So there's no easy answer for that. I don't think there's
like one thing that we have to do. You have to put together all of those
components of a solution But we've seen it work. A friend of mine, Jeffrey Brown,
in Philadelphia, put a big grocery store in an area that hadn't had a
grocery store for 20 years. And for a year before, two years before, he met
with the community, figured out what everybody's needs were. He figured
out who they were. He actually started helping them start jobs to provide
products in that store. And the store is going gangbusters. They hadn't
had a grocery store in 20 years. So it's a process. It's a long process. But I
don't think there's an easy answer there. Okay. What else? You're probably
not satisfied with that answer but -- that's okay.
(Chuckles).
>> On the technology, yeah, you got to figure out how to grow
this healthier. Look, what I just saw there, what Caleb
is doing is unbelievable. And we'll see the scale of that
will be interesting and a challenge. But I think --
>> (Off microphone)
I mean we can work on it But you can't promise and deliver at the same time. >
> I'm not promising anything. I'm hopeful. And I see enough out there
of enough incredible minds and enough sort of ideas
that are starting to be experimented in and invested in, that I'm pretty
confident that we're going to be able to do -- make strides around
efficiencies that are pretty incredible. Right now there's just some obvious
things. Right now we throw away a third of what we make. What other
system does that? I mean, that's just crazy inefficiency. And then the
actual food waste that should be going back to growing the next round of
food is also just thrown away and actually it produces a problem as
opposed to a solution. So there's just so much opportunity that I would be
shocked if a place like the Media Lab can't come up with some brilliant
solutions to those kind of very obvious inefficiencies.
>> (Off microphone) the west. So what about cities?
Feeding cities. Are we going to do it all
with urban farming and rooftop gardens?
>> No, I think it's going to be an increasing component of it.
But there's never going to be -- there's never going to be one --
there's no silver bullet here. There's never going to be one thing like, this is the solution.
I think as more population moves to the city, yes,
you're going to see more vertical growing for sure.
I, for one, haven't seen a system that I think could actually feed 20, 30 million
people. But I think we're just at the very beginning, like
infancy, of experimenting and trying to figure that out. So I think the
answers are out on that. I don't know the answer to that.
>> So the sharing economy has been a major disruptive force
in the taxi industry with Uber and Lyft and so on and then also
in the hotel industry of course with Airbnb.
Do you see any kind of potential for something similar happening
in food growing and delivery where online markets can more
easily sort of match up the supply and demand? So you'll end up buying
eggs from your neighbor and lettuce from another neighbor and so on.
Do you see that as a possibility?
>> So absolutely. I mean, I think there's really serious food --
there will be really serious food safety and Government
challenges there. And this is local more than anything.
But the local health departments are going to be real worried about my
sister just deciding to start making cookies to sell like that. But with
that aside, you're already starting to see that happen with smaller
farmers or very small producers. So Good Eggs is an example of a
delivery service that two main innovations, one, they don't hold any
food. You put in the order, and the order goes straight to the farmer.
That morning the farmer harvests it. Drops it in. And then they have
drivers, a very Uber style model, drivers in their own cars pick up the
orders and then take them to the customers in between 24 and 48
hours. The quality is incredible. The infrastructure is minimal. And
there's no -- so like I live in Brooklyn and you go in thinking there's
nothing but products made in Brooklyn. Now, it's Brooklyn so it's its
own little world. But you can see the next iteration of that growing to
exactly what you're talking about. I think unlike -- and Uber obviously --
and both Uber and Airbnb are having serious regulatory challenges
around how they deal with some of these very same issues. I think food
will actually be harder. Just because food safety is serious and you get
somebody sick and you got a big problem. But if there's ways to figure
out -- and I've never put much thought into that -- how you could
account for that, there's no question. That's definitely -- we're in that
direction in a way that we never have been before.
>> Coming from Europe, I'm used to governments controlling
prices with taxes. Is that an option here, too? If price is an issue.
>> Yeah, this definitely isn't Europe for sure when it
comes to that. I think -- the main one that's talked about is soda tax.
It gets a lot of attention. It actually was in the report for the
Dietary Guidelines. I think it remains to be seen. The first one got
passed in Berkeley this past round. And it's an -- it will be an
interesting experiment. It will be very interesting to see, we just don't
know. Anybody who says they know it's going to impact consumption,
they don't know about what that will do to consumption around soda.
The one thing it will probably do is increase revenue, which will be
appealing to a lot of cities. So I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a lot
more of that. But on the Federal level, I think it's going to be a while
before there's enough of an evidence base to start doing more and
more of that kind of taxation.
>> Hello.
>> Yeah.
>> I don't think that European governments doubt that tax control works.
Is that what you're saying? That you're not sure whether it works or not.
>> No I think it depends on what it is.
So in certain food products, which is the way it's being talked
about here, we don't know the elasticity around sodas, for example,
which is what gets 90% of the talk around food taxes.
>> But sugar tax --
>> Same with sugar. Sugar is really cheap. So I mean, I'm sure --
I don't think anybody would disagree with the fact that at a certain point --
there's a certain point where a sugar tax would impact
consumption. But it would probably have to be pretty high. And
politically, people aren't really into their foods being taxed in that way.
So right now we just have -- there's a different dynamic around
Government authority here than in Europe. But until people really
supported that, I think that would be something that would be very
difficult to get through. Certainly at the Federal level. We'll see on the
state level and local level.
>> Hi, thanks for coming today. My name is Katherine Shimmer
and I'm the founder of Sprut, and our expertise is getting kids to
love healthy food. So a lot of what you say resonates here
One of the things that we do is we scour the academic world for
research on what works with this population. And we put that into our
product design. So both on the behavioral economics and interest in
science front. Have you seen good examples of academic research
being used in products in the way that you describe sort of the need for
good marketing to kids of healthy food?
>> It's something that we're trying -- so when we were in the White House,
something that we really worked hard on facilitating.
So for example, there's good research to show if you put
Elmo on a vegetable, I'm sure you've seen this study,
this is a famous study, kid's consumption dramatically increases. So I
think it was 80/20 brownie to broccoli to choose and then when you put
an Elmo on the broccoli, it's 50/50. Kids will pick the broccoli 50% of
the time. Based on that kind of work, we partnered with Sesame Street.
And they have given their characters for free to all fruit and vegetables
producers and retailers to market fruits and vegetables for free. For two
years. And we'll see where we go. So part of it is there's -- you know
particularly in the produce world, farmers, there's the notion like it's an
apple. What are you talking about? Why do I have to put something on
it? It's an apple. It's delicious. It's healthy. What's the deal here? I think
part of the barrier is the culture even in the sector not understanding
how important marketing is. So I think it's starting to increasingly
inform how we make those decisions. But I can't tell you one example
where I know somebody read a study and then implemented in the
private sector outside of the work that we've done. Although I'm sure --
I'm sure it's happened.
>> Anybody else?
>> Can you talk a little bit about the White House experience
with working with the public school system
from kindergarten up through college levels in terms
of food preparation that's healthful and also palatable?
>> Yeah. Never a dull moment is probably
the first way to start it. I think there's just some huge challenges
when it comes to this. One is the resources are small
And the infrastructure has been lost in so many schools. So
many schools don't have kitchens at all. Or some schools have sort of
half kitchens. And then others have full kitchens but food safety for
particularly the bigger districts is a gigantic concern that's a real
incentive away from cooking. So the ones that I've seen work the best
is when the foodservice directors engage the kids in the menu
development. Engage outside chefs and parents in creating what they
actually want on their menus. Let the kids test it. Kids give feedback.
And then they tell the rest of their friends, oh, I helped make that dish.
So that's one process I've seen work really well. The other thing is just
leadership. Like the schools that believe in -- believe in serving healthy
food, it's hard. There's a lot of barriers. But they tend to figure it out.
And are doing a really good job. And I think the kids feel it, the faculty
feels it, and you start to create a culture in the school that values
healthier food. The ones that sort of say, I don't really like this healthy
stuff and my kids aren't going to like it either, are the ones that tend to
really struggle. So it's that investment in it. It's also I think the new
standards went in two years ago The schools that have gotten to work
on it two years prior and did it iteratively had a lot better success rate
When schools felt like, I've got to overhaul everything right away, a lot of
the pushback and consternation that you saw was from schools that
thought it was too much too fast but they actually hadn't taken any
steps oftentimes to get on the path. But I think those are sort of the key --
just the key approach. And continue to stick through it. Because I
can't tell you how many times we've gotten the question, well the kids
are complaining. This isn't working. We've got to bring back these less
healthy options. It's just a simple question of kids complain about math
and science all the time. Are we not going to teach them math and
science? The fact of the matter this is just as important for their
development. And I think continuing to just see this through starts to
create a new norm. For the kids who are now in kindergarten, that's all
they are ever going to know. And I think it's just at this point sticking it
through. Is that what you were asking? More or less? Not really?
>> Stacey, are there any --
>> There are two. The simple one is, what do the Obamas eat for breakfast?
(Chuckles).
>> So -- yeah. Typically my answer is like that's a
top secret thing and I cannot disclose but I will give you a little bit.
It changes, hard boiled eggs, oatmeal, some fruit, some juice is a typical --
maybe some toast. I didn't really do much breakfast.
So I can't say firsthand. But I know that's basically what he eats. Yeah.
>> An addendum to this question which is how prescriptive
were you to them about what they should be eating?
>> I think we were -- I wouldn't say super prescriptive.
It wasn't like, we're giving you 12 grams of this and 3 grams of this.
>> I saw him eating a lot of cheeseburgers on TV.
(Chuckles).
>> Yeah, I would get a bad rep for that. Every time I saw him doing that,
I was like, oh, you're killing me. (Chuckles).
>> We got a rep to protect here No cheeseburgers are good.
We love a good cheeseburger. It just would happen every time he would
leave it would be for a cheeseburger. That was the only public display.
But we kept very balanced always vegetables, always whole grains, lean
protein. And also simple. I think you think about the President, some
big fancy thing. He's in his house with his wife and his kids. They want
to feel like they are in their home. So the food was always very simple.
Nothing fancy. One plate. You know, that kind of approach. And
fundamental. So then on the weekends if they want to have pizza, it's
like great, no big deal
>> All right. The other question is, what can you tell us about supplements
and why aren't they regulated?
(Chuckles).
>> You're going to have to ask the FDA on that.
I can't tell you why they are not regulated. I don't have an answer
for that. It's a question that needs to be answered.
But I don't know why the FDA does not regulate them.
I've got to be honest with you
>> Back there.
>> Hello. So I have a question about like -- you talk about marketing
a lot, quite a bit. Do you have any ideas on --
as to how you might market like health food? Because right now,
at least not -- in the past, it's talked about lifestyle. It helps you increase --
like save more time for the kids. But since you spoke
about it not slowing down, what is the draw of healthy food? Or
how can you package it to people?
>> So I think the fundamentals of marketing work for unhealthy food
or healthy food. Part of it goes from not marketing cognitively.
So we have -- unto this point haven't thought
cognitively about making the right argument about why somebody
should do this. The marketing that works -- and if you look at how all of
these foods are marketed or how anything is marketed really, it's an
emotional targeting. So you actually appeal to somebody's emotions
around love or happiness or nostalgia. So really the combination of like
a childhood memory and a feeling of love or happiness is the most
powerful combination to actually get somebody to make a different
choice when that's what you're triggering in somebody. And figuring out
who you are trying to target. So if a soda company, they segment their
market. They know exactly what age group. What kind of person they
are, what they read in the newspaper, what they watch on TV, what kind
of products they buy. And they craft their message right around that
specific group. And I think using that same kind of sophistication, the
same firms that are doing that marketing, the same research from
Nielsen that underpin all of their work, that's the kind of sophisticated
approach that we're going to have to take if we want to get somebody
who is getting that kind of sophisticated marketing targeted to them to
make that different choice in the face of that kind of less healthy
marketing. Does that make sense? So it's really about -- there's these
fundamentals that work. Like love and happiness, it works. Like sex, it
works. Like these are the kind of things that, you know -- athletes, stars --
so characters also really work. So getting celebrities to get on board
on this is a big opportunity. Licensed characters. So putting the various
cartoon characters on healthier foods is critical and not just on less
healthy foods. Like those are the kind of strategies that are being
employed that we just know that have billions and billions and billions
of dollars behind them every year that we know that work.
>> I guess in that sense, it's hard to get billions and billions of dollars
behind a low margin vegetable and fruits industry.
Who is going to pay for that?
>> So it's harder. There's more money there than is
being spent. And I think that's where the public --
the public health sector needs to step in and help augment that.
Because it is in their -- right now we're pouring tons
of money into education with little return. And I think a lot of that
money can be poured into helping leverage the marketing platforms
that I think will ultimately lead to greater consumption of what they are
trying to accomplish. So I think we're going to have to see that as a
public good approach as a component of it.
>> And it gets back to actually a kind of fundamental disagreement
that we have even among the researchers at the Media Lab,
which is people who believe that with knowledge, human beings
will make the right decision. Versus people who believe
that people are fundamentally deceived, self-deceived, and
are only going to do the right thing by marketing -- because marketing
in a sense is deception. Right? It's putting -- I mean, to use a negative
word. But it is. Right? It's kind of like you're reaching out for Elmo and
you end up with a broccoli. You're not reaching out for the broccoli. So
there are a lot of people who are -- especially in health -- who believe
that any kind of deception, even -- and you can see it in people, for
instance, overemphasizing the risks. So people come in and do tests.
Some people will say that's deceptive and bad. And some people will
say, no, that's good because the health outcomes are better. But that's
actually an interesting ethical thing. And what we find -- and I use the
word deception because it's provocative but it is kind of what
advertising is. And I think there's an interesting category of scientists
and health people who just don't believe in using deception. And I think
that's a thing we need to think about.
>> I agree. And I don't disagree with that critique.
Except for I care about people eating fruits and vegetables.
So I would just say I don't think it's an either/or. I think no
question the foundation of education is important. But even somebody
like myself who is fundamentally educated on these issues, it's my life,
it's what I do, I'm influenced by this, as well.
>> You'll grab Elmo?
>> Yeah, I'll grab Elmo. I love Elmo Elmo is the best.
(Chuckles).
>> So I think even those who are educated are influenced by marketing.
And I don't think we're going to solve this
unless we also have that as a tool and a weapon in this effort
Ethical debates rightly should be had And I think their critique
is justified to a certain extent. But I will take that
critique and have a healthy nation and a healthy future rather than not.
>> Anything else? There will be a mic coming in a second. Actually there's a microphone.
>> Hold on.
>> If you can take the microphone.
>> The healthy choice is water but here in Massachusetts
they release one dirty secret, addition of fluoride water here.
A recent study from a Harvard public school said that
30- to 50,000 when talked people about IQ (inaudible),
it's lowered by 6%. Do you think that Federal Government
is responsible to cut this fluoride water and save a lot of millions of dollars?
>> You're talking about fluoride in water?
>> Yeah
. >> So I'm not versed on the studies that you're referring to.
So I probably shouldn't weigh in on that.
>> (Off microphone)
>> Yeah. There's a lot of 100% sure.
People who say fluoride has had a transformative impact on
health in a positive way for decades.
>> (Off microphone).
>> Yeah, well, I'm not -- that's not my area of expertise.
So I can't -- I don't have a good answer for you.
That's not what I focus on
>> Anyone else?
>> (Off microphone).
>> Anybody else? Caleb, we'll give you the last question.
>> Nice.
>> That's a lot of responsibility. What I'm sitting here thinking about
and I know you must think a lot about, too, is the
interface of technology and science and food being a scary one right
now. It's just incredibly divisive so I'm wondering who is the team that
needs to come together that -- I don't know if that's -- you said
potentially a political actor, potentially a literal actor, a movie actor, who
do you see as a group that could come together that could say things
like, you know, maybe GMO isn't bad and this is why. And that it
wouldn't be immediately divisive in a community but would just lead to
more thought leadership? Do you have any thoughts on putting that
kind of a group together? Because science and food have become so
far apart. And education around it has become so far apart that it's
going to take something to bring it back.
>> Look, I think we need to think in terms of what are the
kind of people who would constitute that? That's the core --
>> Sure.
>> So I agree with the basic premise obviously.
You know, I think it's who is credible in this space. Chefs are
really important. And you see right now, chefs are playing -- I mean, the
fact that I'm even on this stage is a testament. But chefs are constantly
now the spokespeople for food on so many things. But doctors are
really important. Moms are really important Some of the most
tenacious advocates who we would go to around school nutrition stuff
are circles of moms who are just like out there beating the pavement,
online, getting the -- ringing the alarm bells. So I think that's critical. I
think young people are always left out of these conversations. And their
leadership particularly to other young people is critical ultimately for
the long term. And I think you absolutely -- celebrities obviously are
having a big impact on all of these issues. Not always for the better I
would say. But oftentimes they have a pretty profound impact. But
when you start putting those pieces together and you get political
leadership to step out, and they are willing to step out when there is
that kind of coalition that's being built. When there is the support on the
ground. And when they step out, there's at least part of a win. Right now
there's no incentive to step out at all. Because no matter what they do,
they are going to get crushed. We have to make sure there's some
incentives for positive steps, positive reinforcement. But I think as big
and diverse a coalition as we can build on this is critical Because right
now it's so narrow. There's like the experts over here and activists over
here. And then a great divide that everybody else is sort of like, I'm not
touching that. And I think that's -- finding the areas of common ground,
there's pieces in there that we can all agree on in figuring out how to
agree on that While it's okay to disagree and not to have this continue
to be a zero sum game. Because right now that's what it is. It's like right
or wrong, black or white, zero sum. And that I think we can break
through with a better coalition. So I'll keep thinking about that.
>> Thank you, Sam.
>> Thank you.
>> So we've been plotting about how we might be able to work together
and so you should watch this space for new ideas.
But if anybody at the Media Lab has ideas about things in this space,
let me know, and we will talk to Sam. Because he's in New York. And he's close enough.
>> I'm close. I'll be back. Thank you so much for having me.
>> Thank you; thank you. That was great.
(Applause)