Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #2 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org
Prevalence of undernourishment (%)
The aim by 2030 is to achieve zero hunger as part of SDG #2. As of 2020, a tenth of the global population, equal to 811 million, experienced hunger and undernourishment. Due to the effects of COVID-19, the number of people suffering acute hunger may have doubled by the end of 2020, and may also have pushed up to 132 million into chronic hunger. The global proportion of those living in hunger has been decreasing, though the total number of those living in a state of hunger has risen - the main causes due to climate, conflict and recessions.
This indicator’s definition is the portion of the populace unable to meet dietary energy requirements for a year or more, defining energy requirements as maintaining body functions, health and normal activity. As with ending extreme poverty, this indicator aims for a 2030 goal of eliminating undernourishment, aligned with Goal #2 (Zero Hunger).
SDG #2 flows on from SDG #1, implying the interrelationship between poverty and hunger. One of the reasons for this is the poor are among the most sensitive to fluctuations in food prices. Undernourishment is often due to geographical isolation. Hunger affects the most vulnerable regions of the world, represented by the LDCs, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing states.
Hunger, in the context of sustainable development, is different from the sensation of being less than satiated. In the context we’re looking at, it’s the global leading cause of death, to be unable to meet the essential nutrients humans need to sustain healthful lives over a long period. The global areas most vulnerable to acute hunger are those experiencing wars, pandemics and extreme weather. Undernourishment is a diet with insufficient nutrients, meaning calories providing us with energy. The right biochemical combination allows for proper metabolism in the form of proteins, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins and minerals. At the extreme of undernourishment is starvation, as well as micronutrient deficiency, when an individual is experiencing the undernourishment of a particular vitamin or mineral.
Many of us are familiar with the heart-rending images of starving children. The medical term, marasmus, is often characterised by the wasted mass of emaciation from energy deficiency, occurring from a diet of starchy carbohydrates offering little nutritional value. We recognise the symptom of distended abdomens, caused by a swelling of fluid retention, and a liver overwhelmed with fatty deposits. Sufficient calories, but protein deficiency, causes this condition, termed kwashiorkor.
A clear remedy to preventing and reducing undernourishment is food aid in the form of dietary supplements to fortify food with micronutrients.
Aid can assist the development of sanitation systems to ensure drinking water and sewage remain separate, which can otherwise lead to infectious diseases causing undernourishment. This can also lead to dehydration, further exacerbated if the drinking water is contaminated by infectious pathogens.
For readers from high-income countries, your commitment is to give 0.7% of your gross income as foreign aid. This captures the necessary expenditure to help low-income countries scoring red for this indicator. The remedy once again lies in the wealth transfer from those with means to those without. Foreign aid satisfies this, with food aid a component of ODA. Ensure whichever charity you’ve donated the 0.7% of your gross income to also includes a food aid component, whether famine relief, or more long-term remedies ensuring food security. This could even mean sharing technologies with communities for more productive food yields.
What about readers from middle-income countries which scored red or orange? Is it too much to ask of the nourished citizenry of these countries to make up the shortfall? If this is you, ask yourself if this is workable or realistic. Cash amounts might seem burdensome, but food aid to a food bank - even giving first-hand - may feel less of a big ask. In any regard, to remedy this, the ultimate responsibility should live with the DAC countries. The priority of their aid dollars will be the LDCs, but will touch any developing country experiencing the serious malady of undernourishment.
Summary: For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end undernourishment by 2030.
Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%)
This indicator, like the one before, considers the effects of undernourishment manifesting in the form of stunting for children under 5. Again, the 2030 goal is 0%, ending stunting for kids under 5. Stunting is the prevention of the development of height in a child due to malnutrition, often caused by diarrhoea or infection by parasitic worms. Open defecation in the absence of toilets and sewage systems creates such conditions. 149.2 million children under 5, or 22% of all children, suffer from stunting, down a quarter from 2015.
Stunting occurs for two-fold reasons. One is due to lack of food, overlapping with the undernourishment indicator. Another reason is enough food, but the inability of a child under 5 to absorb the nutrients due to ongoing infections drains the body of more nutrients than it absorbs. Such infections are common in environments with poor sanitation, explored in SDG #6 (Clean water and sanitation).
The promotion of breastfeeding in these early years from infancy is especially important, though there may be misconceptions in some developing countries about the importance of breastfeeding. Mothers may substitute baby formulas, mixed with contaminated water. Furthermore, if the mother’s undernourished, it makes sense her ability to breastfeed is also affected.
If you’re a mother in a country off-track to achieve this indicator, the WHO encourages breastfeeding instead of formulas for the best nutrition in infants. If a medical professional has indicated to you to use formula rather than breastfeed, then observe this expert medical advice. Note, the above only applies to countries experiencing a high proportion of stunting, indicating unsanitary water sources are being mixed with formula. Otherwise, it’s between you and your doctor or maternal nurse whether you choose to breastfeed.
As much as possible in your circumstances, assure your own nutrition during pregnancy and breastfeeding years. Even if you’re considering planning for a family, this pre-natal period will affect the stunting potential of the child. Further yet, responsibility for the encouragement of breastfeeding extends to employers, as well as societal and cultural attitudes in public and private toward breastfeeding.
Also of immense importance is the period when a mother weans a child from breastfeeding. Whether this is due to the birth of another child, the mother must ensure the weaned child transfers to a balanced diet i.e., enough vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fats. This is of emphasis as children may be weaned onto African staples such as cassava, yams, and plantains - all starchy carbohydrates missing critical nutrients.
For parents of children in these countries scoring red for this indicator, be mindful of risks for children around the water they drink or play nearby, which may be subject to contamination of infectious diseases. This may be a particular challenge for slum dwellers. Also, if you live in a malarial zone, use bed nets and other means of prevention where available.
Another factor in stunting is the age of marriage and childbirth for girls. Cultural attitudes surrounding this may often be strong and difficult to break down. But looking at it from the perspective of the child's health, the younger a bride and mother, the less chance the mother has to develop her healthfulness and ability to sustain a dependent infant.
Summary:
For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end stunting worldwide by 2030.
For developing country readers off-track for the Goal/indicator:
Delay marriage and childbirth to adulthood.
For prenatal, pregnant, and breastfeeding mothers:
ensure infants are breastfed
ensure weaned children transition to a balanced, nutritious diet
ensure your own health and nutrition
For parents and carers of children under 5, monitor children near unsanitary points.
Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%)
This measure is like the previous, substituting stunting for wasting, whereby muscle and fat waste away from the body. The long-term global goal is to eliminate wasting for kids under 5, down from current levels of 7%, or 45.4 million children, though it’s anticipated 15% more children will experience wasting due to the current pandemic.
Famine is an obvious cause of wasting in children. The arid band of the African Sahel and Arabian Peninsula has been at significant risk of acute famine, and will continue to be because of climate change.
As with stunting, infections can hinder the intake of essential nutrients in children, lost to diarrhoea or other symptoms of diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.
What can each of us do to end wasting in children under 5? You know the refrain by now: for high-income countries, as wasting is a feature of extreme poverty and LDCs, your foreign aid will go toward remedies for wasting - crucial in instances of acute famine. Such occurrences call for external help from a region unable to produce enough food for sustenance.
What of readers in countries scoring red for this indicator, thus with a priority for action? This indicator applies to parents, or whoever has responsibility for the care of a child under 5. For these readers, the guidance is the same as the prior indicator.
Please consult a medical professional - where available - for what constitutes healthy nutrition for a child under 5. Dismayingly, many of the regions experiencing wasting are those with insufficient health coverage, as we’ll see in the next chapter.
Summary: For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end wasting worldwide by 2030.
Prevalence of obesity, BMI ≥ 30 (% of adult population)
We associate the prevalence of malnutrition as described in the prior indicators within the developing world. Yet some developing countries are beginning to see another form of malnutrition far more common in the developed world i.e., the inverse of undernourishment - overnutrition, overeating and obesity.
The body mass index (BMI) is a height-to-weight value, with a BMI of 30 meaning 30kg per square metre, the threshold for diagnosis from overweight to obese. To achieve this indicator by 2030, the aim is a prevalence of obesity in the adult population of 2.8% or less. Obesity is a strong risk factor for cancer, alongside cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Processed food consists of a sea of carbohydrates, fats, and sugars, without the accompanying fibre, putting tremendous stress on our liver, an organ under-appreciated for its value in sustaining our health. The NOVA food classification, endorsed by the UN, can act as a guide to classifying ultra-processed foods, often identifiable by being in packaging, in contrast to “real food”.
We're looking to encourage the first grouping, only use the second and third categories in spare quantities when cooking at home, or in the case of processed meats, omitting altogether. Plus, we’re aiming to cut the last category from our diets altogether.
The necessity of fibre has given way to sugars in the modern diet, leaving our intestinal bacteria unfed, unable to carry out the symbiotic role of assuring our metabolic health. In some countries, the prevalence of food deserts is a reality, characterised by cheap fast food, and a dearth of fresh produce. This is especially harmful to lower socio-economic segments of society, who may yet be educated about what constitutes good nutrition, or the harmful effects of bad nutritional choices.
The human mind is vulnerable to the sophisticated tactics of advertisers peddling obesogenic food and drink. For this, you can target your enmity to the most powerful, who derive their strength from their marketing prowess e.g., Nestlé, Mars, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft Heinz/Mondelez.
Beyond the malnutrition aspect of accumulating excess body fat are more holistic factors resulting in unwanted weight gain, including:
Additional to the NOVA system, below are two great dietary guidelines for healthy, sustainable diets. The first is the evidence-based Harvard Healthy Eating Plate, illustrated below:
Copyright © 2011 Harvard University. For more information about The Healthy Eating Plate, please see The Nutrition Source, Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, http://www.thenutritionsource.org and Harvard Health Publications, health.harvard.edu.
Also recommended is the EAT-Lancet Commission’s report entitled Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. The basic precepts of this report are:
double the global consumption of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes by 2050
halve red meat and sugar by 2050
It’s easy to remember to halve one type of food, and double another - a diet rich in plant-based foods with fewer animal-based foods. This is to afford us a planet for future generations with healthy land and a nourished population, curbing the prevalence of preventable diseases. As the EAT-Lancet Commission states:
“Food is the single strongest lever to optimise human health and environmental sustainability on Earth.”
What if you have a BMI below 30, but live in a country scoring red on this indicator? Your part to play is to encourage those in your household, social circle, and loved ones to exercise and eat a healthy diet.
For those with a BMI of 30 or more, use your GP if you live somewhere with access to healthcare, as you can go on this path with support. Medications or surgery may also be worth considering in consultation with your doctor.
Summary:
healthy diet, heeding the Harvard Healthy Eating Plate
regular exercise
halve red meat and sugar and double fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes
Human trophic level (best 2-3 worst)
Trophic levels tell us how energy intensive the food we consume is, measuring the content in our diets of other animals, in contrast to plant-based foods. The higher the rank on the food chain, the higher the human trophic level. This is because growing an animal requires far more energy compared to plant food. As an example, a cow may live off pasture or feed grain, and due to its size, requires a lot of it. If the cow eats grains, farmers use the land to grow animal feed at the expense of land used to grow food for humans. The land could even otherwise be forest, and once was, before being cleared for grazing. Once humans slaughter the cattle to eat beef, the amount of energy which has gone into the life of these ungulates - weighing almost a ton - is vast.
Humans are a combination of herbivorous and carnivorous, rather than the apex predators we may think of ourselves. Whereas a fox’s diet is exclusive to eating herbivores, instead humans are akin to pigs and anchovies in the global food web.
For this indicator, we’re aiming for a long-term goal of a trophic level of 2.04, with the global human median at 2.21 in 2009. Below’s an example of the respective levels:
Trophic level 1: plants and algae, metabolising via photosynthesis
Trophic level 2: herbivores
Trophic level 3: carnivores
Trophic level 4: carnivores who eat other carnivores
Apex predators: without natural predators
An example of what the 2030 objective of a human trophic level of 2.04 looks like is Burundi, which had a plant-based diet at the year of measure. Whereas Iceland, with the highest human trophic level of 2.58, had a diet split between fish and meat for one half, and plants for the other. To reach this indicator’s long-term goal you can aim for a similar diet mix as Burundi.
Take the following from Albert Einstein, synonymous with intelligence, but far more, humanity:
If you’re serious about this indicator, and Goal #2 of sustainable food systems in general, you’ll find a way to make your diet all plant-based. If you think your doctor might disagree, check with them e.g., if you’re anaemic, they might say you need to continue to eat meat when you feel weak. Taking cues from Burundi, we need only 96.7% of the population on board to meet the indicator’s goal - rather than everyone - so we have room for those with medical or nutritional reasons to eat animals.
Summary: Plant-based diet, targeting a national human trophic level of 2.04 by 2030.
Cereal yield (tonnes per hectare of harvested land)
For this indicator, we're aiming for 7 tonnes per hectare of harvested land by 2030. A hectare is 10,000 square metres, almost equal to a rugby field, or the grass interior of an athletic track. This indicator measures dry cereal grains (wheat, oats, maize/corn, rice, rye, barley, millet, and sorghum), in contrast to hay or grazing grasses used as feedstock for agricultural animals.
Agriculture is an aspect of sustainable development undervalued for its impact on all facets of human life. The cultivation of crops, rather than always being inherent to human culture, sprang forth when humans shifted from hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Settling into the land in fixed civilisations, humans tilled the land to make it arable to sow seeds, producing crop harvests to a surplus level beyond mere subsistence. Agriculture has since shifted from smallholdings to industrialised farms, characterised by crop monocultures bred through science for optimal traits.
This indicator is asking us to increase crop yield for food security for countries off-track. Yet making this balancing act trickier is the trend of human overpopulation at unsustainable levels, especially true in countries facing the most acute food security challenges.
Sustainable food systems - and SDG #2 as whole - can be intransigent to deal with, due to the complexity of diverse types of soil and terrestrial conditions for growing different crops. What’s good for northern England or southeast Australia might be less successful in equatorial Africa or the steppes of Central Asia, rather than a catch-all solution to improve global cereal yields. What can be universal though is the contribution of aid to finance improvements in technology transfer, in the form of innovative agricultural techniques.
Once again, the high representation of LDCs scoring red for this indicator invites DAC readers to reinforce the need for giving 0.7% of gross income as aid.
The affluent among us have the tools and knowledge to share the greatest advantages known to humankind. Technologies and knowledge need to be transferred to boost cereal yield in these regions, as well as to mitigate climate change by curbing our greenhouse gas emissions. The industrialised countries bear responsibility for a large concentration of such emissions, yet the harshest effects of warming will befall the rich world far less than developing counterparts. Smallholder farmers will experience the brunt, isolated from best practices, proffering staple crops for themselves. Climate variability is an inescapable facet of crop cultivation - true since the genesis of the Agricultural Revolution millennia ago. Yet the volatility of weather patterns will only become more turbulent due to climate change. Crop resilience is now a crucial, added consideration, which farmers can help by using resilient seed varieties and other practices.
Consistent with sustainable agriculture, we need to reconsider flooding the global ecology with fertilisers, overburdening the nitrogen cycles, pressing against many planetary boundaries. Though we need to boost cereal yields when lagging, rather than doing this at all costs, it must be consistent with the best agricultural practices and knowledge.
Summary:
For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, targeting a global cereal yield of 7t/ha of harvested land by 2030.
For all readers, decarbonise your life.
Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index (best 0-1.41 worst)
The Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index is a score combining two measures:
nitrogen use efficiency
land use efficiency, measured by crop yield (explored in the prior indicator)
Nitrogen use efficiency is often correlated with environmental performance, so we could consider the Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index as a measure for sustainable agricultural practices. The 2030 aim is for a Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index score of 0. The global map of scores for this indicator puts the whole global population off-track, except Paraguay and Ireland, who are on track.
Whilst there’s an economic imperative in agriculture for higher yields, we're attempting to conserve the soil to allow its continued use in future seasons. To grow in the soil, plants need nutrients, in the form of minerals such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen and sulphur. Soil’s constituents are carbon-based organic matter, 'organic' meaning any compound containing carbon and hydrogen. These ingredients support life, alongside sunshine and water, via the process of photosynthesis.
To aid this process of nutrition for the soil, humans add fertiliser, to fertilise the conditions for life to occur in the soil. Fertilisers tend to focus on three ingredients needed by soil: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. In the early era of agriculture, manure and compost served as fertilisers, as did blood meal and fish meal, by-products of animal and fish slaughter, as well as crop rotation to help manage the nutrients.
The invention of a chemical process would usher in the intensive agricultural practices now pervasive. The Haber-Bosch process was monikered after its inventors, German chemists Fritz Haber, and Carl Bosch. The Haber-Bosch process allowed for the synthesis of ammonia, a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen.
We want to use an efficient amount of nitrogen, at the same time compromising as little as possible on crop yield. Conventional farming tends to use too much nitrogen, risking harmful runoffs, but organic farming uses nitrogen too. This is tricky, because there’s a strong link between the amount of nitrogen used and the yield. Nitrogen is necessary for the soil to harbour the conditions for growth. But we’re aiming for sustainability, rather than high yields at all costs to the environment, risking our future food security. Sustainable agriculture ensures use of nitrogen is in harmony with the nitrogen cycle of the planet. If we need less agricultural produce, because we’re wasting less, and we need to grow less feedstock for livestock, then we ought to have enough yield.
Excess nitrogen use in agriculture is a driver of climate change. Also, the surface runoff results in dead zones of eutrophication in bodies of water, robbing conditions for life. Excess nitrogen erodes the long-term biology of the soil, threatening biodiversity and destroying habitats. All this puts us at perilous risk of food insecurity. Business-as-usual farming today may very well lead to our inability to feed ourselves long-term.
But without the legacy of the Haber-Bosch process, could humanity sustain the global food system feeding 8 billion mouths? In 2015, of a global population of 7 billion people, chemical fertilisers supported 3.84 billion. Before the innovation of the Haber-Bosch process, the entirety of the global population of 1.65 billion had little choice but to support themselves with natural fertilisers.
Could the global population today survive on organic food? Let’s weigh up some points:
Conventional farming offers a higher yield, but the soil quality is poorer.
Organic uses less energy, is better for biodiversity, and minimises water pollution.
Organic farming is more profitable, yet both methods are on par with costs to producers.
Organic far outperforms conventional ecosystem services provided.
Organic farming outperforms conventional farming in adverse weather conditions.
Living off organic is more within reach if you reduce food waste, and reduce your meat and dairy consumption, which would reduce the need to grow feedstock. Studies show we can feed a projected scenario of 9.6 billion people in 2050 with the necessary yield if we shift to a vegetarian or vegan diet.
We’re striving for sustainable agriculture, whether organic or some other form e.g., permaculture, local food, Slow Food. The food system must be sustainable, inclusive of food distribution, diets, and food waste. There ought to be a guiding principle of sustainability of our food systems. It’s an open-ended exploration of ideas and improvement of behaviours central to our lives, yet very much shaped by a lifetime of habit, as well as cultural or familial attitudes.
Very few of you will be farmers, weighing up how much nitrogen you use. Most of us live in urban environments, where our food production needs are met by someone else, exchanging money we’ve earned doing another occupation, rather than having to till fields each day. The consideration of nitrogen in your day-to-day experience in likelihood appears distant and far-flung.
Yet sustainable agriculture is a gargantuan issue - the most ambitious of all, surpassing decarbonising the global energy system. If you know the food which you’re sourcing is grown with sustainable agriculture techniques, whatever its method, this is encouraged alongside organic food. Keep in mind an attitude toward sustainable food systems, inclusive of distribution and waste. Be curious, and be dubious of where your food is coming from. Explore and educate yourself over a lifetime to improve your knowledge around this most important facet of our lives.
Summary:
plant-based diet
end food waste
eat local produce
eat organic food, or food grown by sustainable agriculture methods
Exports of hazardous pesticides (tonnes per million population)
This indicator aims to end by 2030 the export of pesticides deemed hazardous to human health.
Pesticides can be chemicals or biological agents intended to kill or repel the lifeforms it targets e.g., plants, insects, rodents, microorganisms, fungi.
Yet these same agents can also be poisonous to species other than those it intends to target, e.g., humans, bees, plants, or other wildlife. Pesticides are another contributor to the negative environmental effects of agriculture. Due to cycles of pesticides in the flow of agriculture, they make their way into the lives and bodies of humans via runoff of water from the soil surface following rain and storms.
If you work in the chemical export industry, you’d be aware of which chemicals fall within those deemed hazardous by the Rotterdam Convention. For casual readers, there’s only a couple household names among these e.g., DDT and asbestos. Many of these pesticides are hazardous to human health, either because they’re carcinogens, disrupt your endocrine system, or are persistent organic compounds, affecting us by resisting degradation in the environment.
Summary:
End exports of hazardous pesticides by 2030.
As an alternative:
use biological pest control
adopt integrated pest management methods
Yield gap closure (% of potential yield) *
This indicator measures the percentage of a country’s potential yield in the three annual crops using the most land area, aiming to close the gap in the actual yield to 77% of this potential yield.
Using Australia as an example, the percentage of yield in its top three crops, according to land area use, was 47% in 2015. Phrased another way, the field for these three crops was half its potential. For Australia to close this gap to achieve the indicator, it would need a yield of 77% for the three largest crops by land area used: wheat, barley and canola.
My ideas around the solution to this indicator are the most extreme in this book. For the 2022 SDG Index, there’s only data for some European countries, the US and Australia, so my wild idea ought to only affect a small portion of readers. My recommendation is for those countries scoring red for this indicator to reduce, or eschew altogether, the consumption or use of the top three crops by land area.
Your initial reaction might be, “This guy wants me to go plant-based - now he’s taking staple crops out of the equation?! What, he wants to protect the feelings of the barley grains too?”
In an OECD country, a farmer has access to best practice agricultural tools and techniques, but humankind still depends on the good charity of Mother Nature. Thus, I’ve placed liability downstream to the consumer.
What does this look like? Using the example of Australia, this would mean abstaining from wheat, barley, and canola. There are alternatives, notably rye. Yet if Australians substituted rye for wheat at a similar scale, we’d be in the same situation. One of the issues with the predominance of wheat is the lack of variability in crops, or the prevalence of monoculture, inclusive of wheat’s varieties like spelt and durum. Wheat might be central to an Australian diet, or a Western diet in general, but our digestion systems are unevolved to digest it, hence the prevalence of gluten intolerances. Processed wheat is the true culprit, which we’ve already seen from the harms of processed food. When wheat is refined beyond its whole grain form, stripped of its fibre, it's worthless. In Australia, can we bridge the yield gap for wheat for the long-term aim whilst its end uses are being processed to offer little nutritional value?
For those unable to fathom a life without wheat, you could consider ensuring any wheat you consume is wholegrain and organic. This seems an acceptable compromise, and sets a good example for others. Wheat stripped of the fibre of its whole grain form includes the ultra-processed foods listed earlier. All of these are contributing to unsustainable agricultural practices or are a form of food waste in the sense the whole grain is hulled. What’s left is a foodstuff devoid of nutritional value, other than empty calories.
The other top two crops in Australia by land area are barley and canola. Barley is the main constituent of beer. In Australia, there are good beers free of barley, which anyone on a gluten-free diet would know about, and which most liquor stores stock - if not, you can buy a carton from the brewers online. In Australia, beer seems a national pastime, yet ought naff cultural traditions get in the way of sustainable development?
Canola has other uses besides food, but for this indicator, if you’re Australian, use a substitute. Many kinds of margarine and other foodstuffs list ‘vegetable oils’ in their ingredients as a catchall, which may well include canola. You could prioritise products you know exclude canola, or abstain from margarine altogether.
Readers from the countries scoring red for this indicator will need to research their respective countries’ top three crops by land area, and make the call whether it’s a crop they could live without, or seek out an organic alternative.
Summary: For readers in countries off-track:
Research your country’s top three crops by land area
Either:
Seek alternatives to consuming these three crops until your country returns to 77% of potential yield by 2030
Buy organic forms of these crops