“I want us all to imagine that we are in 2050, and we’re looking back on this moment, this day, and we ask ourselves: did we do everything that we could do to make the world the place that we want it to be?”

Jack Bobo, CEO of Futurity, opened his keynote presentation at the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience with a challenging question for the audience. If our mission is for a better future of food and agriculture, what can we do to achieve this? The answer begins with a simple yet effective solution: we need to listen to the narratives surrounding these industries.

“We give meaning to the world around us through the stories that we tell… so today in my presentation, I’d like to talk about three different stories of what food and agriculture means.”

The three stories Bobo focused on were those of:

1. Conservationists.
2. Consumers.
3. Farmers.

These three groups of people have one goal: a plentiful future of food and agriculture. However, these three groups tend to actively work against each other. But why is that?

Starting with conservationists and the planet

In 2018, the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report documented that 60% of wildlife populations on the planet have disappeared between 1970 and 2014. We also know that 20% of the Amazon has disappeared in the last 50 years.

“So, this dramatic loss in biodiversity has occurred within the lifetimes of many of us,” said Bobo. “Biodiversity is undergoing this incredible challenge, and things are not looking good.”

According to these findings, the future will suffer the same trend of degrading biodiversity.

“So, we have this tremendous challenge of not destroying all of our wild spaces,” said Bobo. However, the bigger question is, “How do we make sure that we leave a world for our children that’s as good or better than the one we received?”

Many people wonder: Is agriculture the problem or solution to our conservation struggles? People tend to believe the former, yet Bobo is not convinced.

“But how do we talk about it?” asked Bobo. “What’s the story that we need to tell?”

The stories we hear about biodiversity tell us that:

1. Of global respondents, 80% believe that poverty has either increased or remained the same over the past 20 years.
2. The food system is broken, and agriculture is failing the people around us.
3. All deforestation is due to agriculture.
4. We do not have the means to feed the rapidly growing population.

The stories we need to tell about biodiversity are that:

1. Statistically, there is less poverty than there was 20 years ago — “Yet the public,” said Bobo, “think things are getting worse.”
2. We are producing more food on the same amount of land than we were 50–60 years ago — “This is important,” said Bobo. “If food production stays ahead of population growth, well, that means people become better fed, they rise out of poverty, nutrition and hunger disease.”
3. Better productivity and higher yields mean more food is being produced due to higher efficiency — “Improved productivity has saved a billion hectares of forest around the world. So more than a quarter of all the forest — nearly a third of all the forest — would be gone today without productivity increases.”
4. The rate of population growth was at its highest in 1968 when we were growing at 2.1% per year. However, today we are growing at about 1% per year. As we continue to project toward the future, that number will keep going down. Because population growth will slow dramatically but, “if that productivity was to continue, every day after 2050, it gets easier to feed the world,” said Bobo.

“And so, I want to look at this question of sustainability, and how it impacts the stories we tell about the world we live in,” explained Bobo.

Diving into sustainability with consumers

Bobo says that sustainability is not a destination — it is a journey. However, sustainability means different things to different people. Is it organic food? Regenerative agriculture? GMOs? Consumers, in particular, seem the most concerned about sustainability in agriculture.

The stories we hear about sustainability are that:

1. Farmers need to use less fertilizer and insecticide in order to reduce run-off into the local environment.
2. We need to farm organically.
3. Europe has pushed to intensive agriculture and is reducing the amount of fertilizer they use and the size of their farms. This should be a global initiative.

The stories we need to tell about sustainability are that:

1. It is a challenge for farmers to use less insecticide and fertilizer because it means that they will probably produce less food — “If you produce less food on that farm, that means you’re going to need more farms,” explained Bobo.
2. Organic agriculture produces 20–30% less food. If the whole world farmed organically, we would need to dedicate another 20­–30% to farms, and 40% of all the land on earth is already allocated to agriculture. This would have a devastating impact, according to Bobo, including the loss of our forests.
3. Europe practices intensive agriculture but also imports 70% of its animal feed needs. Most of their imports come from Brazil, the country with the greatest level of deforestation — “So, in many ways, Europe has exported its environmental footprint to arguably the most biodiverse country on the planet,” said Bobo.

No matter how you dissect it, it is clear that we have a problem: we need to produce more food. The Food and Agriculture Organization states that we are going to need 50–60% more food by 2050, but why is that the case if we are only going to see about 20% more people? This is directly due to an improvement in income and overall wellbeing, and when people are making money and feeling well, they buy more animal protein. Yet more protein means more crops to feed animals, hence, a spike in food production.

“The former director general of the Food and Agriculture Organization, Jacques Diouf, once said that the amount of food that needs to be produced in the next 40 or 50 years is equivalent to the amount of food that was produced in the last 10,00 years,” explained Bobo. “Let me repeat that. The amount of food we need to produce in the next 40 or 50 years is greater than the amount of food produced in the last 10,000 years of human civilization.”

The challenge is daunting, and while agriculture is getting better, it is not getting better fast enough.

There are no silver bullets to solve this challenge, but we do know that we need to increase our food production as sustainably as possible.

Bobo explored possible solutions, such as:

• Shifting diets: Many people believe that becoming a vegan or vegetarian is the solution to the problem. It is important to think about changing our diets to improve our health, but is this the way to also improve the environment? — “It’s not going to solve all of our problems,” said Bobo. He further explained that, even if the United States and Europe shifted their diets completely, people from low-income countries will be making more money in the next 30 years, which means they will be eating more protein. “So, shifting diets is important, but it can’t solve the problem all by itself.”
• Food waste: A third of all food produced is lost to food waste. In developed countries, a third of food is wasted post-consumer. But, in third-world countries, food is wasted because of loss in the fields, supply chain and storage — “If we could somehow address that third of food that’s lost through food waste, then that would get us most of the way to our challenge,” explained Bobo. However, there are so many types of food waste (storage, distribution, consumer, field) and food waste issues with different products (tomatoes, soybeans, corn, cantaloupes) that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to solving the issue.
• Technology: There are high-tech solutions, like gene editing and genetic engineering, and abundant ag-tech data that proves cover crops produce a higher return on investment and a lower environmental footprint.
• Alternative proteins: “Of course, these alternative proteins are part of the solution,” said Bobo. “The problem we have, though, is that companies that are producing these different products… they’re talking about them as the solution. That plant-based proteins can eliminate livestock. That cell-based agriculture is going to make dairy obsolete.” This approach suggests that there is a silver-bullet solution to a really complex problem, “and as we’ve already discussed,” said Bobo, “there’s not one solution to the problem.” Bobo also notes that the protein market is a trillion-dollar opportunity and will only get bigger in 2050. “And so, who really believes that plant-based meat is going to become a trillion-dollar industry in just 30 years?” asked Bobo.

These solutions are all necessary for achieving sustainability. However, they have become competitors in the market rather than working together as a single solution. Bobo says we need to think about what the future will look like, and work toward opportunities instead of focusing on problems.

“We don’t need one solution,” explained Bobo. “We need them all.”

Actively working on these solutions with farmers is the best and most effective way to achieve the goals of conservationists and consumers.

Working with farmers

“I’m just happy that consumers and conservationists are now joining farmers on this journey of sustainability,” said Bobo. “Because we could use their help. Instead of framing it as agriculture is the problem to be solved, we need to help them to understand that agriculture is the solution to the problem.”

What we find from data collected by the World Resources Institute is that if agriculture continues to improve the way it has been, 60% of the gains we need to achieve a sustainable future will happen just by farmers continuing what they are already doing. The data also talks about incentivizing steps that will increase productivity and improve efficiency in:

1. Livestock production.
2. Reducing methane emissions.
3. Using less fertilizer.

“Well, efficiency is something farmers want to do… So, these are huge opportunities. These are not challenges,” said Bobo.

However, if agriculture is the solution to our problem — the answer to improving the future of food — then why do we still hear that agriculture is the problem to be solved?

“Why do we talk about a broken food system when the food system was never not broken?” asked Bobo.

While it may be broken, Bobo assured the audience that the food system is better than it has ever been, and it will only continue to get better every day. But it is just not happening fast enough. Yet if we continue to spend our time spreading false stories and narratives about farmers being the problem, we cannot actively work with them toward a solution.

Organic agriculture may be critical to saving the planet, but it does not mean that genetic engineering and gene editing are not.

New alternative proteins are critical to saving the planet, but so are dairy farms and livestock production.

“It takes a menu of solutions to solve a problem,” explained Bobo.

Final thoughts

Bobo asked us an important question at the beginning of his presentation: Thirty years from now, will we be confident that we did everything that we could do to make the world the place that we want it to be?

Again, conservationists, consumers and farmers all want the same thing: a safe, plentiful and sustainable future of food and agriculture. The only way to achieve that goal is to start telling the same story, even if we are not always on the same page.

“Because if we do that,” said Bobo, “we all can save the planet.”

Visit one.alltech.com for more information.

The COVID-19 pandemic is transforming the way we buy and sell food, perhaps forever. This time of upheaval will determine who in the food industry will surge ahead and who will get left behind.

According to Jessica Adelman, former Kroger executive and CEO of ESG Results, in 2015, for the first time in history, the consumption of food prepared outside the home was greater than the amount of food prepared at home. However, as a result of COVID-19, sector analysts are predicting a $100-billion shift back from restaurants and food service to the retail space. Between March 9 and March 22, 2020, the internet saw a 60% increase in cooking-related tweets, as well as 250,000 tweets about ordering and delivery. This represents a seismic shift — a 294% increase in talking about food from the previous month.

Jessica has held numerous leadership positions in the food, retail and agriculture sectors, including most recently as group vice president of corporate affairs for The Kroger Co., serving as chief corporate affairs officer, chief communications officer, chief sustainability officer and president of both Kroger Foundations. She joined the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience to share her insights on the long-lasting habits of the new consumer emerging from the lockdown, including trends in food and retail as well as long-term patterns already beginning to take root.

She said that now is the time for the agri-food sector to seize opportunities and write its own story.

“The rhetorical question that I pose to you today is, ‘Who do you want to be during, and then as a result of, COVID-19?’” asked Jessica. “I encourage you to write your own headlines now. And I encourage you to think about who you want to be and how you want to lead your organizations so that, coming out of this chapter, the best headlines and lead paragraphs are written about your organization's conduct, resilience and courage during COVID-19.”

Food and retail: The meteoric rise of e-commerce

In many difficult situations, such as the current pandemic, retailers often find themselves on the frontlines of challenging discussions. Retail is currently in trouble, with estimates that 15,000 stores may stay closed permanently post-COVID. The food industry and grocery space is different, however, and is seeing a boom, according to Jessica.

Nielson has reported that $18.8 billion was spent on consumer packaged goods (CPGs) in the month of March alone, which was directly attributed to COVID-related buying. Approximately $10 billion of that was spent on increased consumption, and $8.2 billion went directly toward pantry loading.

“Interestingly,” said Jessica, “70% of Americans say they still want to be able to, and like to, venture out to the grocery store. So, all of this leads us to the insight that the food industry is one of the only sectors that is actively hiring and thriving during this pandemic.”

The retailers who will struggle, she said, are the independents, leading to further consolidation and monopolies at both the regional and national levels of the retail food chain.

The most striking trend in food and retail is the rise of e-commerce. Jessica shared Nielson data that shows that e-commerce orders saw a major surge in the month of March, with online orders increasing by 60%. Significantly, 37% of that growth came from new households, and 45% of new online shoppers were over the age of 55. As this “new normal” continues to evolve, Jessica believes retailers with good infrastructure are more likely to come out of the transition in a good place.

“I think you're going to see the retailers who have the infrastructure, the ability to invest in their rail system — and ‘rails’ is kind of the e-commerce term for the infrastructure and platform that people use — who had their rails and the infrastructure in place already, those guys are going to do really well during the e-commerce boom, meet the customer expectations,” she said. “Maybe not in all cases, but they'll walk away with a decent customer experience, and they'll probably win that business for the long term. Those who had infrastructure and systems that were held together more by duct tape will just find themselves slowly losing ground and won't be competitive in the long run.”

A combination approach, which Jessica referred to as “bricks and clicks,” could also develop, similar to what happened when e-commerce giant Amazon bought brick-and-mortar Whole Foods. Whether retailers are online or just around the street corner, the important thing will be building an emotional relationship with the customer base.

“People don't really care about the infrastructure behind it,” explained Jessica. “We don't want to get too worried about what kind of rails or systems the retailers are using. We just want to know we can get the thing that we want, in the venue that we want, for a competitive price, when we want it.”

A key challenge the food and retail sector must meet going forward is retraining and upskilling workers as the industry continues to become more efficient, which will involve more technology, automation and “touchless” environments.

“Many of those manufacturing jobs and other positions might never come back to the 100% mark they were pre-COVID,” said Jessica. “That's what we're going to have to deal with as a society, is how do we retrain workers, and how do we make sure that we can have a productive workforce in this nation and other nations who are facing similar crises as a result of COVID. How do we upskill? And what is the future of work?”

Consumers: Food as medicine will grow, and trust in science could see a resurgence

University College London has conducted research that shows most new habits take an average of 66 days to form, which means that we are cementing new habits during the COVID-19 crisis, even while many of us remain in lockdown. Consumers, said Jessica, will likely begin to blend their new habits with their old routines. In fact, among consumers who have purchased alternative brands due to the effects of the pandemic, she said only half indicate that they will return to their previous brands once the pandemic calms.

Both private-label and national brands are winning in different areas of the market. Private-label brands could be growing as much as four times faster than national brands at the moment. On the other hand, one sector analyst from Stifel mentioned in a recent Washington Post article that big-company sales grew 39% through the month of March, a number that has never been seen before in the industry.

Food as medicine and the importance of health is a trend accelerated strongly by COVID-19. Functional foods are becoming more mainstream, and Jessica believes agriculture must take action in this space.

“Certainly, as we are taking these drastic steps to preserve our health and safety right now, you can't help but imagine a world where we're all much more dialed into food, food safety and how to keep ourselves healthy for the long term,” she said. “And I think the food and ag position to take the leadership role and thought leadership in this space is absolutely a great moment in time. And we should step up and seize it.”

Another critical development at this time could be a renewed sense of trust in science in the food space, which has traditionally been wary of science. Now, more than ever, we must listen to experts if we want to feed the world while also ensuring we protect it for future generations.

“We might be at the tipping point where consumers will permit science to re-enter the discussion on agriculture, food and nutrition,” said Jessica. “It's been very interesting to watch how COVID-19 has led to a re-appreciation of scientists, science, doctors and, in general, the return of experts. And we might have a newfound appetite for letting experts do more to ensure food security versus just hope for the best, which means we might have a chance of feeding the 10 billion and better preserving our planet.”

Traditionally, she explained, agriculture has answered questions of a more emotional nature with scientific responses, but food is a very emotional topic.

“Society has been asking emotional questions for the past couple decades about science in food and technology in food,” said Jessica. “And we, as an industry, have done kind of a lousy job and only given them scientific answers back. Now, things that I love in this space are thought leaders — much like Alltech and your Planet of Plenty™ work; you are stepping into that void, hearing that people want to have emotional answers, but then answering in a scientific way with data and facts.”

The future of food and retail

Jessica identified six long-term patterns that will continue to evolve as the agri-food space emerges from COVID-19:

1. Big data and the internet of things (IoT): People’s appreciation for harnessing information and gaining relevant insights is growing, and it will likely be used more moving forward. Society may therefore accept a tradeoff between data and privacy.
2. A stronger digital infrastructure: In conjunction with big data, IT departments and people around the world have been under great stress to ensure that a large number of people can complete work virtually, and the digital infrastructure should emerge much stronger as a result.
3. Tele-health, tele-education, tele-everything! Many things we thought could only be done in person can now be done online, and it could remain that way moving forward.
4. From “frictionless” to “touchless”: The user experience of the future will involve as little interaction as possible with hard surfaces and human beings, especially as we continue to determine how to conduct business during the pandemic. Retailers must help people to feel safe during these in-person experiences.
5. Widening income inequality: Unfortunately, there are likely to be deep political repercussions surrounding income inequality for years to come.
6. Stakeholder capitalism and ESG: The way companies treat their workforce today will have huge ramifications in the future, with those that focus on the environmental, social and governance (ESG) aspects of their businesses coming out on top.

The take-away, said Jessica, is that people will be more in tune with, and loyal to, brands that showed up well during the crisis with a strong focus on the ESG aspects of their business.

“Companies that are bold and don't let a good crisis go to waste will emerge stronger,” she explained. “But they also have to make sure that they're taking care of their communities and their workforce at the same time, which is a difficult balancing act and a needle that they'll have to thread, but one where I think, if you take that holistic stakeholder capitalism approach and think about the long term, you'll be able to navigate successfully and emerge as one of the winners from this chapter of history.”

Visit one.alltech.com for more information.

Sometimes, it takes leaving your world to better understand and appreciate the people you live and work alongside — just ask Cady Coleman. A retired NASA astronaut and colonel of the United States Air Force, Cady has spent more than 170 days in outer space during the course of three missions, including two on the Space Shuttle and a third as part of Expedition 27 on the International Space Station (ISS), where she lived for more than five months.

As the first featured keynote speaker at the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience, Cady gave a presentation on “Innovation in Isolation: An Astronaut’s Guide to Mental Strength, Creativity and Connectivity.” In both her lecture and her subsequent discussion with Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, Cady shared pictures and videos of her time in space — as well as some of the lessons she has learned, both on Earth and beyond.

Gaining new perspectives on people 220 miles from Earth

Cady didn’t always dream of being an astronaut. Despite the fact that her father was a deep-sea diver, she didn’t start thinking of herself as a potential explorer until she attended a campus lecture given by astronaut Sally Ride, the first American woman in space.

“You see somebody that you can relate to, and I just thought, ‘Wow, maybe I could try to do that,’” said Cady.

After graduating from MIT, Cady was commissioned as a graduate of the Air Force ROTC and entered active duty on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base as a research chemist. During this time, she participated in the NASA Long Duration Exposure Facility experiment, where she set records in endurance and tolerance that still stand today.  

Unfortunately, not everyone recognized Cady’s potential as quickly as she herself did, but she was able to continue striving toward her goals thanks to her conviction that she deserved a seat at the table.

“I knew that I brought things to that team that others didn't,” said Cady. “And I cheerfully showed up to meetings that I wasn't invited to — not because people said, ‘Oh, we didn't like her’ or anything else; it was just that they looked at me and couldn't imagine that I should be part of that team. But I knew. And when it's something as important as exploring space, it gives you that extra courage to just say, ‘I know. I am showing up.’”

Cady’s persistence paid off: She was selected to be part of the NASA Astronaut Corps in 1992, and in 1995, she joined the crew of a scientific Space Shuttle mission that logged more than 15 days in space, orbiting the Earth 256 times and traveling more than 6 million miles. She experienced her second space flight in 1999 as a mission specialist in charge of deploying the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, which conducts comprehensive studies of the universe and phenomena such as black holes. And in 2010, she became part of the mission that allowed her to spend 159 days on the ISS.

Throughout these missions, Cady began recognizing the beauty of diversity and differences in others. Among the most profound aspects from her time on the ISS was gaining a new perspective on the distance — or lack thereof — between people by seeing the Earth from above.  

“You just realize that everything is closer than you thought — and so is everyone,” she said. “We’d go around the Earth 16 times a day, and the Earth is turning, so we're always seeing a different slice of it. It becomes so clear that everything is connected — and, actually, everyone could be connected if they just knew that we're all there is.”

Teamwork makes the dream work, even in space

Recognizing the importance of other perspectives was pivotal to forming bonds and building a successful team on the ISS, where Cady lived and worked among astronauts from Italy, Russia and the United States.

“Most of the lessons I learned were about people, about being a crew,” she said. “I had to learn to ask different questions, and I had to learn to listen. You only know this little slice of (your colleagues’) life; you don't know the rest of it. And one of the ways to really make a group (work) is to find out more about the rest of them — really, the rest of their life.”

In space and on Earth, Cady noted, the differences among members of a team only make that team stronger, especially when we learn to appreciate other people’s unique offerings. 

“Every one of us is different,” she said. “Find some way to recognize what people bring (to the table). Make them tell stories about themselves in a group. Get to know each other a little bit. Just knowing a little bit more about somebody, I think, can help you realize that they bring other things.”

The ability to collaborate with different people has made Cady a successful leader. She posits that exhibiting true concern for and attention to others is one of the most basic and important tenets of leadership and teambuilding.

“Somebody asked me the other day how I basically got people to trust me as a leader, and it made me realize: It's (that) I ask people about themselves,” said Cady. “I do that because I want them to know that I see them and I know that they are more of a person than just the part that comes to work.”

Your mission, should you choose to accept it…

Once trust and appreciation have been built among team members, the next most important step, said Cady, is focusing on the mission at hand. This concept of taking on a mission and striving to meet a goal is one that Cady has found herself thinking a lot about in the midst of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting lockdowns. If anyone knows about social distancing and experiencing long stretches of isolation, it’s astronauts like Cady, who asserts that identifying and focusing on a mission is key to getting through difficult times.

“We have this advantage as space explorers that we're part of the mission,” she noted. “It's really clear to you that you've got a job to do, so it's easy to think, ‘It's important for me to be ready, and all these actions, they're important.’ But I think, with COVID-19, the mission can be less tangible. The fact that you stay in your house with your family and stay safe doesn't feel like this step forward. And yet it is. It's a step toward the mission. And I think what can help people is just (to) give it a name. This is the mission: staying safe.”

In Cady’s mind, there are some aspects of the COVID-19 lockdown that are actually harder to deal with than being in space — especially the unknowns.

“The hardest thing that we don't actually have to wrestle with much in space is that we know, eventually, we're coming home,” she pointed out. “I was up there for six months, and the mission was extended by two weeks, which I was incredibly thrilled about, but it's still finite, whereas, with COVID-19, there's a lot of uncertainties — about finances, about dreams, about what you're going to be able to do next. And owning that uncertainty, I think, is really helpful — realizing that it's hard and just acknowledge you're working through hard things.”

Cady’s unique perspective on life has helped her see a silver lining in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic: That, despite being physically distant from each other, people are coming together to help their neighbors and make important changes.

“I see a lot of positive happening,” she said. “I see this on the internet, I see it in the news — different people coming together, seeing something that they can do together and doing it. It's so hopeful.”

Of all the things Cady learned as an astronaut, her new perspective on humanity and the planet we live on may have been the most meaningful.

“I used to think that space was someplace different — like, ‘I'm on Earth, I'm going to go to space’ — but actually arriving up there, it just made me realize that Earth and the place that we live is just bigger than we thought,” she said. “And yet, it's home. And I think, for all of us, getting to look at what is home — home to our ancestors, home to our families — is what is the most special thing to look at as we go around the Earth.”

The magic of space exploration has clearly not lost its sparkle for Cady, whose wonder for the world and what lies beyond is uncapped — but whose unique experience away from Earth has only helped her appreciate her fellow man all the more.  

“It's like leading the life of Peter Pan, and everything is different, and everything is a discovery,” she said. “But we're still human. We each have our own way of bringing that experience back home.”

Visit one.alltech.com for more information.

Many tried-and-tested theories come up again and again in global economics. These are the philosophies and formulae that our leading economists use as the foundation of their own musings and studies. But there are situations in which these theories fall short, and our greatest minds are obligated to look elsewhere for their underpinning wisdom.

Speaking at the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience, respected Irish economist David McWilliams admitted that he was confronted with this very issue when thinking about how the economy will develop post-COVID-19.

“We are at this extraordinary, one-off moment where the global economy is now in a tailspin,” said McWilliams, “and the timing of when we get out of that is not going to be dictated by anything you and I understand in economics.”

Fortunately, having worked as an economist for around 25 years, as well as taking up a professorial post at Trinity College Dublin, McWilliams has built up other resources outside of regular economic texts that he can look to for inspiration. His advice in this instance is to look to history to determine how our ancestors dealt with and emerged from similar challenges. The events of the past have helped to inform him on:

• Short-term remedies.
• Long-term changes.
• The possible economic opportunities of the future.

Using history as his basis, McWilliams offered insights into three potential economic phases as the world moves beyond the COVID-19 crisis.

1. A shifting psychology

One point that McWilliams was certain of is that the world post-COVID will definitely not be the same as before, and neither will be the ways we look and think about our economic future. Referencing major, world-changing events of the past, such as World War I and the fall of the Berlin Wall, he said that crises tend to dramatically shift people's ways of thinking and operating.

“What was radical before the crisis becomes mainstream, and what was mainstream becomes redundant,” explained McWilliams during his keynote presentation.

However, McWilliams believes that a drastic change in outlook is necessary for the world to get itself back on track. He spoke about the monetary authorities around the globe as a point of reference, specifically about how they are using money and spending to help fix the current global issues. This unprecedented spending goes against the economic principles of any country. It will also doubtless lead to challenges, such as mass inflation, further down the line. But McWilliams is adamant that, in a crisis, it is essential to deal with the immediate problem first and cross the next bridge when you come to it.

“You know, if you're on a football team, you don't face the potential team if they do this, that or the other,” analogized McWilliams. “You've got to face the team that's in front of you.”

But quick thinking and action can only keep going for so long. Mindsets will change again, and tough decisions will need to be made.

“I think the consensus that locking down is the most important thing will begin to atrophy as the economic pain amplifies, and that's a big worry,” mused McWilliams. “It's very, very hard to know where we draw the line and the trade-offs we have to make — what they are and how to make them.”

As we move forward, McWilliams does believe that there should be a serious discussion about the long-term sustainability of our economies during varying states of lockdown.

2. The new global supply chain

When it comes to the long-term effects of global economics, McWilliams predicts yet another significant shift in thought processes and priorities.

“I think what's quite obvious for a global business is that the supply chain is going to change profoundly,” he stated.

Again, looking at history, McWilliams pointed out that from the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 right up until early March 2020, the global mindset stayed the same.

“The great corporate economic narrative is globalization, based on an extended and efficient supply chain,” explained McWilliams, “where sourcing and assembling become crucial.”

However, instead of history repeating itself, McWilliams believes that the events of COVID-19 will completely change people's perceptions of what is vital for their businesses and supply chains. He thinks that the most notable differences will be that:

• More emphasis will be put on reliability.
• Cost and efficiency will become less critical factors.

“I think what's going to happen is that the more extended the supply chain, the more likely you'll see that people will come back and begin to manufacture in countries that they really, really want to do business with — they trust, they understand, they feel comfortable there,” said McWilliams. “And I think that maybe price, which had been the dominant vector for many, many years in the supply chain management, will probably be elbowed out by security, by perceptions of security. Can we keep this plant open? Do we know what we're actually dealing with?”

Spring-boarding off of this change in mindset, however, McWilliams believes that opportunities will arise for small countries to become important players in the global supply chain. He used his native Ireland as an example of how this can happen. From being in the depths of recession in the 1980s — when McWilliams’ own father lost his job — the country has grown economically and socially to become an essential cog in international business by building trust and relationships.

“I think small cogs in the global supply chain, countries that position themselves well, could do extremely well,” McWilliams explained. “I think there's a huge opportunity, because I do think supply chains will contract. And I think that relationships will trump price; I think trust will trump competitive edge.”

3. Opportunities arise

Taking both of these major mindset shifts into account, McWilliams believes that businesses and leaders with the right wherewithal could find lucrative prospects in this new economic landscape. Again, this theory is based on narratives that have repeated throughout history.

In his presentation, McWilliams first referenced Florence, Italy, in the 1300s. Having suffered an enormous death toll due to the Black Death in 1347, it was believed that Florence’s then-thriving society would never recover. However, the Florentines contradicted all assumptions by ushering in the Renaissance, a historical period that forever changed how we view the world and operate within it. McWilliams then noted that something similar happened in the United States after the flu pandemic of 1918 to 1920. The country entered the new decade by diving nose-first into a period of intense deflation — but from this dark pit of despair sparked the now-famous Roaring ’20s, an economic upswing that brought electricity, radio and motor cars.

“There are many instances where you imagine that humanity will go into a tailspin,” said McWilliams, “and what humanity actually does is entrepreneurs come through, leaders come through, thinkers come through, and they change the world.”

With regard to the post-COVID-19 economy, McWilliams sees the same opportunities arising once again. While he did admit that not everyone will succeed and a lot of money will be lost across the board, there is potential for entrepreneurs to adapt and shine. Furthermore, putting faith in this entrepreneurial spirit, he believes that an economy can repair itself.

“These opportunities emerge in crises, and you just have to have the self-confidence and belief in yourself to keep plowing on,” assured McWilliams. “And I think, as I said before, all these crises lead to great renewal. And great renewal stems from people taking a risk because things have changed, and normality has changed. And that normality, in a way, is full of risks already, so why not go ahead and direct your own risk, in that regard.”

McWilliams concluded by again looking at a work from history. He cited the poem “The Second Coming” by famous Irish literary W.B. Yeats, saying, “The center will not hold, and things will fall apart only if the best people lack all conviction, allowing the worst people to come through and be full of what he called passionate intensity, full of slogans, and dominate the agenda.”

McWilliams explained that this is a message of rallying urgency, calling on all leaders to step up and figure out a way through the situation that lies ahead. This, he believes, is how humans have survived adverse periods throughout history, and how we will do so once again.

“All these things, this is all part of what I call the great commercial adventure of life,” stated McWilliams. “As long as we put commerce at the center, in terms of the adventure that is commercial adventure, and we protect it, then it's an evergreen urge that humans have, and it will not be defeated.”

Visit one.alltech.com for more information.

As people around the world adjust their lifestyles to social distancing restrictions, it’s more important than ever to keep our lives in balance and our health in check. As a registered dietician and director of human health initiatives at Alltech, Nikki Putnam-Badding is an expert on supporting immunity and well-being through nutrition. Join us as she shares her tips for eating healthy, shopping efficiently and maintaining a sense of normalcy during the pandemic.

Hosted by Michelle Michael

As lead video producer at Alltech, Michelle travels the globe for the company’s award-winning Planet of Plenty™ documentary series. Michelle spent a decade as a video producer/reporter in Germany, reporting from military hotspots at the height of the war on terrorism. The National Press Photographer's Association (NPPA) has twice recognized Michelle as their solo video journalist of the year.

Co-produced by Brandon Whitworth

As the senior media production specialist at Alltech, Brandon co-produces the company’s award-winning Planet of Plenty™ documentary series. Brandon is a two-time Emmy Award winning television news photojournalist and three-time nominee. He has received several regional awards from the National Press Photographers Association for excellence in visual storytelling.

The following is an edited transcript of Michelle Michael’s interview with Nikki Putnam-Badding. Click below to hear the full audio.

Michelle:       Hello! I'm Michelle Michael. In this special series of AgFuture, we're talking with those working along the food supply chain about the impact of COVID-19. My guest today is Nikki Putnam Badding, a registered dietician and, also, a colleague of mine. Nikki is the director of human initiatives at Alltech. Nikki, thank you so much for being with us today.

Nikki:              Thanks for having me, Michelle.

Michelle:       Let's talk about self-care. This pandemic, it can feel overwhelming. People are dealing with information overload, long work hours, caring for family during those work hours and a whole host of other things. It's important, though, I think, to pause for a moment, collect ourselves and just admit that this is, at times, a taxing situation and it can impact our well-being. Is that right?

Nikki:              Absolutely.

Michelle:       As a dietitian, what concerns you most about people during this experience?

Nikki:              Well, as you mentioned, Michelle, this is a really challenging time for everyone. I think it's really easy to let that self-care slip on occasion. We're trying to focus on our new roles, on working from home, maybe taking care of children and other family members at the same time. Really, what we want to focus on from a nutrition and health perspective is choosing a healthy lifestyle for the short and long term for your overall health and wellness — so following general good health guidelines is really one of the single best steps you can take for yourself and to keep your naturally functioning immune system strong and healthy.

                        Every part of our body, including our immune systems, functions better when bolstered by healthy living strategies — for example, trying to quit smoking, if you're a smoker; eating a diet high in whole foods, like lean meats, seafood, dairy, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and healthy fats; continuing to exercise regularly, which can be really tough during a time like this; maintaining a healthy weight; drinking alcohol in moderation, and that'd be one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men; trying to get adequate sleep as much as we can; and also, trying to minimize our stress levels.

                        During this time, proper nutrition and hydration are absolutely vital. People who stay active, eat a well-balanced diet and take supplements as necessary tend to be healthier and have stronger immune systems, which is very important at a time like this, and (also have) a lower risk of chronic illnesses and infectious disease.

Michelle:       When you talk about strengthening our immune systems to fight off illness, can you talk a little bit more specifically about which nutrients or which foods we should be taking in to boost our immune system and stay well during this pandemic?

Nikki:              Sure thing. As I mentioned, good nutrition is essential to a strong immune system, and it may offer protection from seasonal illness and other health problems. Although no one food or supplement can prevent illness, you can actually help support your immune system by including some key nutrients in your overall eating plan on a regular basis. While, unfortunately, just eating one orange here or there won't do the trick, a truly healthy immune system depends on a balanced diet, normal sleep patterns and regular exercise.

                        A few nutrients that are known to help support a strong immune system are protein, interestingly enough, which plays a role in the body's immune system, especially for healing and recovery, and vitamin A, because it helps regulate the immune system and protect against infections by keeping our skin and the tissues in our mouth, stomach, intestines and respiratory system healthy. Vitamin C, the one we all know, supports the immune system by stimulating the formation of antibodies. Vitamin E works as an antioxidant and may support immune function as well. Vitamin D is in there; it promotes an immune response that helps defend your body against pathogens, and there's zinc, which helps the immune system work properly and can also help wounds heal. Finally, selenium, which has an absolutely crucial role in a wide variety of physiological processes, affecting immune response — and the immune system in general actually relies on adequate dietary selenium intake.

                        Though I usually tell people it's best to get most of your nutrition through food, a specific vitamin or mineral supplement may benefit your health and overall wellness in the instance that you're not reaching the recommended daily intake of a nutrient, or perhaps you're utilizing them as a part of a preventative health regimen.

Michelle:       And not just upping your nutrient intake, Nikki, but many of us are limiting the number of times that we would go to the supermarket to pick up fresh foods. What are some tips for healthy eating when we're minimizing our trips to the store or maybe even the selection is limited, in some cases, temporarily?

Nikki:              Yeah, that's a great point. I think purchasing, storing and cooking fresh food can be really challenging when we're advised to limit trips outside of the home, particularly to the supermarket, so my first recommendation would be to try to keep up as much as possible with that fruit and vegetable intake. Whenever it's possible to get ahold of fresh produce, do so, of course, but depending on where you live, what time of year it is and, now, as you've mentioned, the availability, due to interruptions in the supply chain or perhaps other people who are food hoarding, you can't always get your hands on high-quality, fresh produce, so the next best thing is frozen. Manufacturers most often freeze fruits and veggies at peak ripeness, which means they pack a similar nutritional value as their fresh counterparts. Just make sure you're choosing options without added sugar or sodium. You can also swap in healthy dried or canned alternatives when fresh or frozen are not available. Although canned vegetables and dried fruits do tend to be a bit lower in quantity of vitamins than fresh, they are a great fallback option when fresh produce or frozen are hard to come by.

                        I also like to mention that other canned items that are great to have on hand are canned beans, because they do provide an abundance of nutrients, and they can be stored for months, sometimes even years, and they can be included in meals in many ways. Same goes for canned fish, such as sardines, mackerel, salmon — they all provide great protein sources, omega-3 fatty acids and a range of vitamins and minerals — and then having some dried goods on hand is a good backup, like dried beans and grains. One last note on this front: I know it's really tempting to stock up on processed foods like ready-to-eat meals, packaged snacks and treats. They're often very high in saturated fats, sugars and salt and, at the same time, provide us with less nutrition. So, in that vein, also try to avoid sugary drinks as much as possible and, instead, drink lots of water and other low-calorie beverages.

Michelle:       I hear from you, certainly, that fresh is best, and I've talked to many growers or farmers who feel that perhaps people at this time are shying away from fresh produce because of a fear that COVID-19 can be spread through food. From you, from a dietitian — can you answer that question for us? Can this spread through food?

Nikki:              I'm really happy you asked that question, Michelle. First and foremost, I should note that, of course, I'm not an infectious disease expert, but following the basic guidelines of hygiene and food safety, it's very unlikely that the virus could be spread through food — but not entirely impossible, meaning that it's possible the virus can get onto or into food if someone who is infected coughs or sneezes on the food or has the virus on their hands and touches the food. But unlike bacteria that causes foodborne illnesses, coronavirus doesn't multiply on food. There's currently no evidence to suggest it can be transmitted through food or water systems, but a lot of experts are saying that sharing food and beverages during this time should be limited, and always continue proper home food safety.

Michelle:       Well, would it be safer, then, during this time, to — if you're buying fresh produce — would it be safer to cook it and consume it that way?

Nikki:              Potentially. I don't think consumers need to be fearful of eating fresh produce, raw fruits and vegetables, though it's possible that someone who is infected sneezed directly on a banana and you picked up that banana and touched your face. You could get infected, but you're much more likely to get infected by standing next to that person while shopping for that banana. That's why social distancing, putting at least that six feet of space between you and other people, is so important. Interestingly, about cooking, the World Health Organization has said that the virus is probably susceptible to normal cooking temperatures, so you don't need to cook food any differently than what you typically do for food safety. These experts are saying that cooking your food to the same temperatures required to kill pathogens that cause foodborne illness is also likely to kill COVID-19. That would be, as a reminder, 145°F for fresh pork, beef roast and fish; 160°F for egg dishes and other cuts of beef; and 165°F for poultry, ground beef, or reheating pre-cooked ham or leftovers or casseroles that might contain some of those pieces of fresh produce you mentioned.

Michelle:       If we are going to eat that raw produce, fruits and vegetables, are there certain precautions we need to take at this time — differently washing the fruits and vegetables than we would have before this pandemic?

Nikki:              At this time, many of the expert organizations are saying no, we don't need to take any different measures than we did before. Just make sure to thoroughly wash those fruits and vegetables when you get home.

I know there's a lot of questions out there, too, about (whether or not you can) pick up COVID-19 from food packaging. This is a question that the CDC actually addressed recently, and they're saying COVID-19 is primarily transmitted person to person through respiratory droplets, so currently, there is no evidence to support transmission of the virus through food. In general, because of the poor survivability of these viruses on surfaces, there is likely a very low risk of spread from food products or packaging, but that being said, if you touch something that has the virus on it — like a food package or produce or a package of meat — and then touch your nose, mouth or eyes, you could become infected. So, before preparing or eating food, it's important to always wash your hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds. Also, just making sure you're wiping down those surfaces when you get home after you've picked up your groceries. Make sure, when you unpack your food, you just wipe everything down. Make sure you're tossing away those disposable bags, if they came in that, or washing your reusable bags immediately when you get home.

Michelle:       Good advice. Nikki, when it comes to plants, processing plants, farmers — a lot of times, those vegetables, they're picked by hand. A lot of that is done by hand. I know that they're practicing social distancing, but should we be concerned about food coming from areas where there is a high risk of COVID-19?

Nikki:              Actually, according to the Department of Agriculture's recent updates on COVID-19, they're saying there's no evidence to support transmission of the virus with any of those foods that had been either imported or transported throughout the country. It's important to remember that, unlike bacteria that causes foodborne illness, the virus, as I mentioned before, doesn't multiply on or in foods, and the current research shows that it can only survive for a very limited time on most surfaces. Most often, even if a product or packaging were carrying the virus or it was handpicked by someone who was infected and maybe had the virus on their hands, it would most likely die during transport. I think that can put a lot of consumers' minds at ease — although, as I previously mentioned, it's always just a good idea to keep following that (guideline to) wash your fresh fruits and veggies when you get them home from the store and wipe down that food packaging, just for that final line of defense.

Michelle:       We keep hearing about the importance of supporting local businesses, especially restaurants, during this time, as the bulk of their business is gone. They're only doing takeout right now or curbside pickup or delivery, but is that safe? Is it actually safe to get takeout and delivery from restaurants during a pandemic like this?

Nikki:              Yes, it is. I'm happy to hear that you mentioned supporting local businesses, particularly restaurants right now, when we can't dine in. The takeout and delivery from restaurants can actually be a very good alternative to obtaining food because, unlike grocery shopping, it really does greatly reduce the need to interact with other people. Most restaurants have instituted contactless delivery or pickup practices that allow people to either pre-pay for food or receive it without coming close to another person, which we know is the biggest risk factor for the disease, interacting closely with other people. If you are worried about bringing those foods into your home, to further reduce your risk, just transfer that food, that takeout, to a plate when you get home, dispose of the containers and then, again, always wash your hands before you eat — but it is a very good and, typically, very safe way to obtain food.

Michelle:       We keep hearing about the 65-and-up population (being) at an increased risk of COVID-19 at this time. I wonder, from a dietary point of view, somebody in that age bracket — does the immune system change with age, and does that age group have to eat differently?

Nikki:              Yes. As we age, our immune response capability becomes reduced, which, in turn, may contribute to more infections. While some people age healthily, the conclusion of many studies is that, compared with younger people, elderly folks are more likely to contract infectious diseases and viruses and are more likely to die from them. Interestingly, there appears to be an even stronger connection between nutrition and immunity in the elderly. A form of malnutrition that's actually surprisingly common, even in affluent countries, is known as micronutrient malnutrition. Micronutrient malnutrition occurs when a person is deficient in some of the essential vitamins and trace minerals that are obtained through diet. Older people often tend to eat less, and they have less variety in their diets. One important question is, perhaps, whether dietary supplements may help older people maintain a healthier immune system — something to be discussed with their doctor or dietitian.

Michelle:       I wonder, Nikki, if you can talk about why, during this time, (when) everybody's schedules are just changed suddenly, everybody's lives are just uprooted and nothing is normal, why is it so easy to get off-track, and what can we do to try to maintain some sort of normalcy from a dietary perspective?

Nikki:              Yeah. As you've mentioned, Michelle, it's so easy to get off-track during this time because our schedules are changed, and many of us have been forced into this change without any prior warning — working from home, taking care of children and family members from home — and everything's just been thrown out of whack. Some really important things, and fairly easy things, that you can do is just try to keep yourself on a regular schedule. Go back to thinking about what was your schedule for eating, grocery shopping, working out, trying to stay active, sleep — what were your tactics for minimizing stress before this? Try to pull in as much of those tactics as you can, because many of those you know already worked for you, and then try to change that around and make it fit your new schedule.

                        Those people who have kiddos at home: I think a really nice way to entertain kids and keep them busy is to involve them in mealtimes. Have more discussions about food. This is a fantastic time to talk about where food comes from, how it nourishes their body, and get them really involved in planning and preparation of food, and then try to do more things either as a family or, if you don't have kiddos, just get outside when possible and where it's safe to spend some time moving around. There are also a lot of really great online resources where you can find at-home workouts. I recommend that to a lot of people, even if you do it for ten minutes a day. It's just a nice way to keep moving.

Try to stay to a normal work and sleep schedule. It can be very difficult while we're working from home to step away from our computers and close everything down like a normal eight-to-five or nine-to-five business, because our office is right there, so try to make sure you're stepping away for breakfast, lunch, dinner, maybe even snacks, if you can, just to get a break from the computer and a break from work, and try to go back to some normalcy.

Michelle:       If you've never had time to prepare your own meals, to fall in love with cooking, it seems like this might be a good opportunity, even.

Nikki:              Certainly. I've seen that there are a lot of YouTube channels that are jumping in popularity. There's one I really enjoy: it's Italian grandmothers making old Italian recipes and pasta. I've seen their viewership just skyrocket recently because people are taking a new interest in preparing things from scratch, or some of those YouTube channels that are showing people how to just start cooking from the very beginning. As you've mentioned, there's no better time than now to start learning.

Michelle:       Nikki, do you have any other recommendations for keeping our food and keeping our kitchens safe?

Nikki:              Yeah. First and foremost, when you're going out for food, just a reminder, wear a mask and gloves when you're going out for food, to get groceries or picking up takeaway meals, and if you do use reusable grocery bags, masks or gloves, make sure you wash them immediately upon returning home. That's really important — or use single-use bags or disposable protective equipment during this time. We can't stop hearing this, but wash your hands regularly, as recommended by countless international organizations, plus before preparing and eating food. Even if you picked up your phone while you're eating lunch, make sure you wash your hands again, because a lot of those viruses and contaminants can stay on phones and surfaces and the like for much longer than they would on food.

                        Try to keep your kitchen a safe zone by removing non-cooking items from countertops. I know many of us, myself included, often end up tossing daily items here without thinking twice, putting mail on the countertop. Don't put grocery bags or takeaway bags on your countertops. Also, try to clean them every time before you prepare a meal, and sanitize kitchen surfaces, including your refrigerator, stove handles, cupboard pulls and the like, on a regular basis.

Michelle:       It adds so much to grocery shopping and preparing food, but some very important advice. Nikki Putnam Badding, a registered dietitian with some really fabulous advice on taking care of ourselves during this time. Nikki, take care of yourself, and thank you so much for joining us today.

Nikki:              Thanks, Michelle.

Michelle:       For additional resources on COVID-19, visit alltech.com.

Click here for additional COVID-19 resources.

As part of Alltech’s effort to provide valuable resources to colleagues, customers and the global agricultural community confronting COVID-19, the company has created a special discussion series, Forging the Future of the Farm & Food Chain. Available online beginning today, this free, on-demand series features experts from around the world as they share their insights into how the global pandemic is affecting the agriculture industry’s present and future.

“Crises illuminate character, and COVID has highlighted the heroic work undertaken by the global agriculture community to ensure a secure food supply in the midst of such uncertainty,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “We created this series as an expression of our support for this community. In addition to offering valuable information and insights in the context of this COVID challenge, we hope to deliver inspiration — we have an opportunity in this moment to, together, shape the future of the farm and food chain.”

The series consists of presentations from Lyons and three panel discussions with experts including David McWilliams, economist and professor at Trinity College Dublin; Jessica Adelman, CEO of ESG Results and former executive at Kroger; Jack Bobo, futurist and CEO of Futurity; and Ryan Quarles, Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture.

Forging the Future of the Farm & Food Chain, a special COVID-19 discussion series, includes:

• Cultivating Optimism & Opportunity: Leadership in Times of Crisis

In times of crisis, leadership becomes even more consequential. How can leaders bring certainty in a time of uncertainty? How can they help their teams think proactively in order to discover opportunity and drive innovation? 

Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, explores how a leader can shape a culture of resilience that empowers a team, even during times of turmoil.

• From the Frontlines of Food Production

The COVID-19 crisis has brought renewed attention to not only the critical importance of food production, but also to the people on the frontlines who work tirelessly to ensure we have food on the table. This panel discussion takes a first-hand look at the experiences of those working within the food/feed sector in the midst of COVID-19.

The panelists are global Alltech team members Matt Kwok, China operations manager; Sayed Aman, India managing director; Andrea Capitani, Italy business manager; and Alex Galipienso, Spain general manager. The panel is moderated by Michelle Michael, Alltech media producer.

• The Post-COVID Consumer: A Remaking of the Market?

Consumer trends are constantly evolving, but post-COVID, will the market see another seismic shift? This panel discussion features an investigation into the lasting impact COVID-19 could have on consumers and the global economy.

Moderating the panel is Damien McLoughlin, professor of marketing at University College Dublin, with panelists David McWilliams, economist and professor at Trinity College Dublin; Jessica Adelman, CEO at ESG Results and former executive at Kroger; and Jack Bobo, futurist and CEO at Futurity.

• Keep Calm & Carry On: The Essential Business of Agriculture

In this panel discussion, experts investigate how the current crisis is reshaping the agriculture sector. What permanent changes could COVID-19 create in how we source, produce and deliver food to market? Will there be a new appetite for automation and supply chain provenance?

Mary Shelman, former director of Harvard Business School's Agribusiness Program, moderates panelists John Young Simpson, president of Bluegrass Partners in Singapore; Ryan Quarles, Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture; Mike Osborne, former president and CEO of Nutra Blend; and Kayla Price, technical manager of Alltech Canada.

• Planet of Plenty in a Post-COVID World

In the midst of this COVID crisis, the global agriculture community has carried on its essential work — rising with the sun no matter the circumstance. We have provided the security of certainty at a time of great uncertainty and, in doing so, have reshaped the perception of our industry and perhaps even the way we view ourselves. 

Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, shares his thoughts on how we can create a world of abundance post-COVID. How will we harness this renewed trust? Will the experiences of this time usher in a new approach to the ways in which we produce food, structure our supply chains and connect with consumers?

To access the Forging the Future of the Farm & Food Chain series on-demand, visit alltech.com/futurefarm. As Alltech has been closely monitoring the COVID-19 pandemic, an online COVID-19 resource portal has been created for customers and industry partners. 

This COVID-19 special series reflects the insightful, thought-provoking content that will be available as part of the Alltech ONE Virtual Experience beginning on May 18, 2020. The virtual program will include live-streamed keynote presentations and on-demand video content from some of the world's leading industry experts as they address the challenges and opportunities facing agriculture today. Learn more about the ONE Virtual Experience and register here.    

The rise of insulin prices over the last decade, plus the cost of pumps and syringes, has made treatment for diabetes more expensive than ever. Will a cost-effective insulin replacement ever exist? Dr. Ronan Power discusses Alltech Life Science's breakthrough in insulin pills for diabetes.

The following is an edited transcript of Tom Martin’s interview with Dr. Ronan Power. Click below to hear the full audio.

Tom:            Insulin prices have more than tripled in the last decade, and because insulin cannot be taken orally, pumps and syringes can add significantly to the cost. The result? This treatment is quickly becoming unaffordable for many diabetics, but insulin therapy is critical for most of them, and there's a search for options. One might have been found.

                     Dr. Ronan Power, vice president of Alltech's Life Sciences division, joins us to talk about something of a revolution in the treatment of diabetes. Thanks for joining us, Dr. Power.

Ronan:          Thank you, Tom.

Tom:            Tell us why, first of all, there is this need. I kind of described it in the introduction, but diabetes is a huge problem in this country, I assume.

Ronan:          Absolutely. It's a huge problem not only in the Western world, but it's becoming more and more of a problem in countries that have, if you like, found affluence in the last two to three decades and are adopting more and more of a Western-style diet and lifestyle. It's becoming a really, really big problem. I think one of the figures I saw most recently was an estimated 360 million sufferers worldwide, but that's only diagnosed cases.

                     Of the subtypes of diabetes, the two main ones, of course, people will be familiar with are Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 typically hits younger people, and that is a type of diabetes where the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin are destroyed, and that can be an autoimmune-type disease or a reaction to a virus, in some cases. The most prevalent form is Type 2, which used to be called “adult-onset diabetes,” but now, it's creeping downwards in the age group and it's hitting people as young as four years of age — even younger — and that's part of the associated obesity epidemic or pandemic that we see in the world today.

Tom:            We're seeing studies that are projecting that if these rates, these obesity rates, continue at current trends, more than half the population of almost 40 states in the United States will be obese in 2030. What are the implications of failing to stop and reverse that trend?

Ronan:          I think they're absolutely massive — and I would say 50% is a conservative estimate. If you look at the implications of obesity as they relate to diseases like diabetes, there is a condition known as metabolic syndrome that precedes the development of diabetes. This is a condition which is characterized by not just obesity, but high blood pressure, high cholesterol or dyslipidemia. That's abnormal blood profiles, high triglycerides and so on and so forth. That can predispose people to many, many diseases, particularly coronary vascular disease or cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease. That's even before you hit any diabetes threshold. Once people develop diabetes, there's a whole range of attendant problems that come with that, as people are aware of, but one of the larger problems, in my opinion, is the state of insulin resistance that begins to develop in people who tend to be overweight or have a higher-than-normal body mass.

                     Insulin resistance in itself can cause huge problems. Let me just mention an example. One of them is called PCOS, or polycystic ovary or ovarian syndrome. That's becoming a huge problem in the female population in terms of reduced fertility, inability to conceive and inability to sustain a pregnancy. That's a direct implication of insulin resistance. So, we're not just talking diabetes here; we're talking much broader, more debilitating conditions of life, if you will.

Tom:            We're here to talk about something that you're working on, which is an alternative to insulin that you have in development now. Can you tell us about this?

Ronan:          Sure. This is, I guess, the culmination of about 12 years of work in our labs here at Alltech. This started off as a plant-based or a botanical-based compound we found which was able to increase energy production in cells, or seemingly increase energy production in cells. Actually, it turned out to be that it improved energy consumption. So we've been studying this for quite some time, and we actually have made a lot of variance of this particular compound. We isolated it. We synthesized it. We made variations on a theme, as it were. Today, we have a compound, which we call Compound 43 — obviously a very imaginative name, the number 43, the variation of the compound which we developed. So, Compound 43 has got a very unique ability in being able to bind to insulin receptors and activate that receptor in the absence of insulin.

                     In effect, if you want to view the action of insulin on a cell as a lock and key mechanism, imagine that insulin is the key. It fits into a lock, which we shall call the insulin receptor. When both lock and key are working correctly and the mechanism is turned appropriately, that opens a glucose channel and allows glucose to enter the cell and be used properly.

Tom:            Let me make sure I understand up to this point. The compound that you're working on replaces that key.

Ronan:          It replaces the key. It can activate the lock even when the lock is broken, because in Type 1 diabetes, you're missing the key. In Type 2, there's something wrong with the lock mechanism; it doesn't work properly, or not at all, in some cases. But what this compound does is it binds to the insulin receptor (i.e., the lock) and can open it.

Tom:            So, it's doing the work of the insulin.

Ronan:          It's doing the work of the insulin. What we have, in effect, is an insulin replacement. It doesn't bind to the insulin receptor in the same place as insulin. It binds at different locations. Its purpose, simply, or what it does, is it brings the two arms of the insulin receptor together, and once they join together, it activates the insulin cascade inside the cell, which then allows that glucose door to open and allow glucose in.

Now, it's not a runaway reaction, by any means. It does stop, so there is a finite half-life of this compound, which we've determined to be about eight to ten hours. It doesn't crash the blood glucose. It takes it down, but it doesn't bottom it out at a dangerous level.

Tom:            Now, as I understand it, this would be administered orally as opposed to a shot.

Ronan:          Absolutely. This is our big breakthrough in the last year. When we initially tested this compound, we were using it in the traditional insulin-type way, of a subcutaneous injection, or even an IP, an intraperitoneal injection, but we've now developed a formulation which can be taken orally in tablet form, pill form, which works very well indeed. We have actually tested that in mouse models of diabetes, several different mouse models of diabetes, and it works perfectly well. The compound itself, we've also tested in human cell lines — liver, skeletal muscle, all of the major organs that are impacted by diabetes — and find that it works beautifully.

                     It can even be used in concert with insulin, in some cases, because when I describe the Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, especially for Type 2, there are various levels of it. For some people, insulin works, but not as well as it does in the normal case. That's what we term “insulin resistance.” Insulin resistance can be a graded or a gradated type of resistance. That's why some diabetics, Type 2 diabetics, still take insulin, but this can actually help insulin action, so it works in concert with insulin, in some cases. Because it doesn't share the same binding site, it can be an additive or synergistic effect.

Tom:            I'm sure that anybody who is suffering from diabetes and hears this is going to be quite excited and quite hopeful.

Ronan:          Yes.

Tom:            How should they temper that hope? How far off are you, do you believe, from going to market with this?

Ronan:          First of all, I wouldn't be sitting here if I didn't believe this was a breakthrough. I believe that we can get this out through what we call a phase-one clinical trial in humans within about three years. If it shows promise there, we hope to go right ahead and follow with phase two or three. Best-case scenario, Tom: we're probably looking at six years to market, but I think that's a fast track. That will be a fast track, but I'm hopeful that when we approach FDA with this, they may, in fact, look upon it and say, “Okay.” This type of compound is not unknown, so it has a pretty good historical safety profile.

I believe that there is an urgent need to come up with alternatives to insulin. For whatever reason, Tom, there is some egregious price gouging going on in that market, and people are dying as a result, and I'm not being overdramatic in saying that. You can look at the press, the news, a whole variety of states, and see that people are actually rationing their insulin, using less-effective forms. People have to decide between groceries and insulin, and in some cases, it costs people more than their monthly mortgage, so it's a desperate situation for something that was sold — the patent for this — a lot of people aren't aware that the patent for insulin was sold in 1923 to the University of Toronto for the princely sum of CAN$3.

Tom:            And I understand, now, that a vial of insulin can be manufactured for about $7.

Ronan:          Yes, it is, depending on the grade and the type. It can vary from a very low price like that up to — I'm not sure of the final cost, but certainly, I would guess, no more than $20 or $30, but it's selling for people without insurance — I hear horror stories of people paying $400 to $500 a vial for the material, and that's something that, when you open it, you have to refrigerate it, and it's active for 28 days. What we're looking at is a tablet or a pill, and it's stable for two to three years.

Tom:            I believe I heard you say that a dose, let's put it that way, would last eight hours or so.

Ronan:          Yes.

Tom:                          So, theoretically, a person could take two of these pills a day.

Ronan:                       Theoretically, yes. Yes. It will vary per individual. And obviously, that would have to be determined medically by a person's physician, but I would think that, under normal circumstances, two pills per day, based on our studies, our modeling so far.

Tom:                          When you think beyond FDA approval and marketing and use, Ronan, what do you see out there as the implications for how this impacts the quality of life of diabetes patients?

Ronan:                       Well, if you look upon it this way, you'll see people in public and in restaurants looking at their little glucose pumps. You know, people still, every morning, come along and take that pinprick on their finger and look at the glucose strip and so forth. So, there’s a whole lifestyle associated with living with diabetes. Probably the biggest drawback I see for people is, you know, having to use all of the paraphernalia — the syringes, the needles, the phobia about the needle itself, even though, nowadays, it's tiny. Very thin needle indeed. But there’s so much that goes along with using insulin. I mean, having to refrigerate it, which is no problem in the West, but think about countries where refrigeration is not an option. Think about Africa.

Tom:                          Oh, it can limit your mobility too.

Ronan:                       Of course. Of course it can. And you know, we've done our stability testing on this. I mean, some of the models we use are mice. And can you imagine — we can put this compound into a mouse diet, right? Into a laboratory mouse diet, and retrieve it, fully active, 1 year later. We can pull it back out. So, it's an extremely stable compound.

                                    Now, insulin is basically a protein, so it will degrade. And that's why you have to refrigerate it, and it loses potency after a very limited period indeed. I think 28 days is the expiration on it. So, there are huge benefits for something like this, and indeed, companies have been struggling to develop an oral insulin preparation for decades, but I don't think anybody has ever looked at an alternative to actually physically activating the receptor.

Tom:                          Since this compound is being designed to treat a disease, I assume it would have to be approved and marketed as a pharmaceutical.

Ronan:                       Oh, absolutely, yes.

Tom:                          And that has implications for the company.

Ronan:                       Uh-huh. Yes.

Tom:                          Tell us about the discussions around that topic, because I know it's a very complicated one.

Ronan:                       Oh, it is. It's certainly a departure for Alltech. We have always been — well, apart from our beverage division and crop science — we've been very much associated with animal feed supplements and health supplements for animals. So, our dealings with regulatory bodies have been with the European Food Safety Authority in Europe (and) the Center for Veterinary Medicine branch of the FDA here, which deals with all of the ag products, if you will. We've had little or no dealings with the FDA itself, even though we did have initial discussions with them concerning a supplement we have called AT-001 some years back. But I think that while it will be a departure, it's an exciting new horizon for the company to actually get into something. We launched Alltech Life Sciences for that very purpose probably 8 or 9 years ago, to try to transfer some of our technology and products from the animal health arena to the human health area.

Tom:                          And it does seem to complement an announcement made at (ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference) about the establishment of an Alltech foundation in partnership with UK Healthcare, which, of course, is human-oriented.

Ronan:                       Yes. Yes. I think that's an exciting prospect also. There are many, many excellent researchers and research laboratories at (the University of Kentucky), as you know. And many of those are active in the diabetes area, and I look forward very much to perhaps collaborating with them in the future. This may just be the first of many such preparations that we develop.

                                    We have other products in the pipeline, some of them related to diabetes. And as you know, we're also interested in neurodegenerative diseases. And we're also interested very much in intestinal health for humans. And by that, I mean, you know, trying to prevent this condition that is becoming quite pervasive in the U.S. and, indeed, in the West, which is sparked by what's called — I guess, rather unsavorily —  leaky gut syndrome. So, that leads, in turn, to a nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and that's a condition that afflicts perhaps 20% of the adult population in the U.S., to varying degrees. So, that’s the third area: digestive health. So, neurodegenerative health, digestive health and, also, the diabetic care or, if you like, metabolic health. That will be our three areas of focus.

Tom:                          Well, I know that you’re a consummate professional, but I also have to believe that, on a personal level, that this accomplishment feels like a pretty good achievement for you.

Ronan:                       It has been a long road. I have been very, very fortunate, Tom, in having some excellent colleagues working with me, many of whom have what I call “green fingers” in the laboratory — excellent scientists. Dr. ZJ Lan is one. I have two very good ladies working in the lab, Katie Eastridge and Hayley Kincaid. I’ve got Dr. Rijin Xiao, who works on the bioinformatics side of things, all the data collation. And Ryan Goettl is a young man who’s also working on bioinformatics. We’re all held in check and held together by Ms. Jeannie Francis, who herds us wherever we need to go, but I’ve been very fortunate, and our outside collaborations have also been excellent. It’s 12 years. It seems like a long road, but it has gone in a flash. So, it has —

Tom:                          As these things have a way of doing.

Ronan:                       Indeed.

Tom:                          Well, Ronan, good luck with this. Congratulations as well. And we will be anxious to follow your progress.

Ronan:                       I look forward to updating you as we go along, Tom. Thank you very much.

Tom:                          Dr. Ronan Power, vice president of Alltech’s Life Sciences division, we thank you very much.

Dr. Ronan Power spoke at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference (ONE). Click here to learn about ONE and how you can access innovation on demand.

The 2020 Alltech Global Feed Survey estimates that international feed tonnage decreased by 1.07% to 1.126 billion metric tons of feed produced last year, due largely to African swine fever (ASF) and the decline of pig feed in the Asia-Pacific region. The top nine feed-producing countries are the U.S., China, Brazil, Russia, India, Mexico, Spain, Japan and Germany. Together, these countries produce 58% of the world’s feed production and contain 57% of the world’s feed mills, and they can be viewed as an indicator of overall trends in agriculture.

Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech, shared the survey results via public livestream from Alltech’s global headquarters in Nicholasville, Kentucky.

“2019 presented extreme challenges to the feed industry, with one of the most significant being African swine fever. The regional and global implications are reflected by the Alltech Global Feed Survey and the decline in global feed production, said Lyons. “While pig feed production is down in affected countries, we are noting increased production both in other species as producers work to supplement the protein demand, and in non-affected countries as exports ramp up. The damage caused by ASF will have long-term implications, and we expect that the top protein sources will continue to shift as our industry adapts to the shortage.”

The global data, collected from 145 countries and nearly 30,000 feed mills, indicates feed production by species as: broilers 28%; pigs 24%; layers 14%; dairy 12%; beef 10%; other species 6%; aquaculture 4%; and pets 2%. Predominant growth came from the layer, broiler, aqua and pet feed sectors. 

Regional results from the 2020 Alltech Global Feed Survey

• North America: The U.S. is the largest feed-producing country globally with an estimated 214 million metric tons (MMT), with beef (61.09 MMT), broilers (48.525 MMT) and pigs (44.86 MMT) as the leading species. North America saw steady growth of 1.6% over last year. Canada produced 21.6 MMT with pigs (8.23 MMT), broilers (3.25 MMT) and dairy (4.2 MMT) leading species feed production.

• Latin America: As a region, Latin America saw 2.2% growth to 167.9 MMT. Brazil remained the leader in feed production for the region and third overall globally, with the primary species for feed production being broilers (32.1 MMT) and pigs (17.0 MMT). Brazil, Mexico and Argentina continue to produce the majority of feed in Latin America with 76% of regional feed production.

• Europe: Europe remained relatively stagnant with a slight increase of 0.2% over last year. The top three feed-producing countries in Europe are Russia (40.5 MMT), Spain (34.8 MMT) and Germany (25.0 MMT), with pig feed production leading the way in all three countries. The ruminant sector was hit the hardest as both dairy and beef numbers are estimated to be down by 4% and 3%, respectively. This was offset primarily by strong growth in the aqua (7%) and layer (3%) industries.

• Asia-Pacific: The Asia-Pacific region saw feed production decrease by 5.5% in 2019, primarily due to African swine fever and large declines in pig feed production. China’s feed production declined by almost 20 MMT of feed overall to 167.9 MMT and fell from the top feed-producing country globally to second, behind the U.S. India and Japan remained in the top nine feed-producing countries, with similar production compared to 2018 with 39.0 MMT and 25.3 MMT, respectively, while Vietnam declined by 7%.

• Africa: Africa continued strong growth with a 7.5% increase in overall feed production, with all the primary species seeing positive growth. The top five feed-producing countries in the region account for 75% of Africa’s feed production, and they are South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco and Algeria. The region’s primary species include broiler, layer and dairy, and combined, they account for nearly half of feed production estimates in the region.

Notable species results from the 2020 Alltech Global Feed Survey

• Pig feed production was greatly impacted by African swine fever, with an 11% decrease. The primary producing region for pig feed remains Asia-Pacific, but it also experienced the largest decline of 26%, with China (-35%), Cambodia (-22%), Vietnam (-21%) and Thailand (-16%) experiencing large decreases. Europe, North America and Latin America remained relatively stable compared to last year, within a percentage point’s worth of gain or loss. While Africa is a small region from a tonnage standpoint for pig feed, it showed a large increase of 29%.  

• In the poultry sector, Asia-Pacific is the leader in both broiler (115.2 MMT) and layer (73.1 MMT) feed. In Latin America, total broiler production amounted to 60.8 MMT, with Brazil leading the region with 32.1 MMT followed by Mexico with 10.5 MMT, while Mexico’s layer feed production increased by 11% to 7.05 MMT and surpassed Brazil. Russia leads Europe with 10.86 MMT of the total region’s 56.3 MMT of broiler feed and 5.3 MMT of the region’s total of 33.5 MMT of layer feed. In North America, the U.S. accounts for 94% of the broiler feed with 48.5 MMT, while layer feed in Canada increased by 460,000 metric tons. 

• Europe leads global dairy feed production with 34% followed by North America (21.8%), Asia-Pacific (17.6%) and Latin America (15.3%). The top dairy feed- producing countries are Turkey (6.5 MMT), Germany (5.2 MMT), Russia (4.2 MMT), the U.K. (3.8 MMT), France (3.4 MMT), the Netherlands (3.3. MMT) and Spain (3.2 MMT).

• North America continues to lead global beef feed production with 62.3 MMT, followed by Europe (21.9 MMT) and Latin America (13.9 MMT). For the 2020 Alltech Global Feed Survey, the beef feed production estimation was recalculated to improve its accuracy. The new estimate takes into account the average days on feed and intake as a percentage of body weight in the feedlot. Last year’s estimation was also recalculated to reflect this formula change for a proper year-on-year comparison.

• Overall, aquaculture feeds showed growth of 4% over last year. Per ton, Asia-Pacific grew the most with an additional 1.5 MMT. The primary contributors were China, Vietnam and Bangladesh. Europe’s decrease is in large part due to decreased feed production in Russia, which is primarily due to an increase in imports.

• The pet food sector saw growth of 4% with the largest tonnage increases in Asia-Pacific (10%), Europe (3%) and Latin America (6%). By country, increases were seen in China, Indonesia, Portugal, Hungary, Ecuador and Argentina. 

During the live presentation, Dr. Lyons was joined by a panel of industry experts, including Jack Bobo, CEO, Futurity, USA; Matthew Smith, vice president, Alltech, U.K.; Bianca Martins, general manager, Alltech, Mexico; and Brian Lawless, North America species manager, Alltech, USA. The group discussed the trends behind the data and the implications for the global market. Topics ranged from consumer demands to the adoption of new technology.

To access insights from the 2020 Alltech Global Feed Survey, including a recording of the panel discussion, an interactive map and presentation slides, visit alltechfeedsurvey.com.

The Alltech Global Feed Survey assesses compound feed production and prices through information collected by Alltech’s global sales team and in partnership with local feed associations in the last quarter of 2019. It is an estimate serving as a resource for policymakers, decision-makers and industry stakeholders.

In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. What are the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and how can organizations implement sustainable business practices? Here, Brian Lowry, deputy general counsel at Bayer Crop Science U.S., gives his take on sustainability and the broad impact it can have on people, animals and the environment.

The following is an edited transcript of David Butler’s interview with Brian Lowry. Click below to hear the full audio.

David:            I'm here with Brian Lowry, deputy general counsel at Bayer Crop Science U.S. Welcome, Brian!

Brian:             Thank you.

David:            In your role at Bayer, a lot of what you do is related to sustainability and making the company more sustainable, so tell me about some of the things that you think are very important in that area.

Brian:             Well, I think, when you look at sustainability, you have to understand that it is not a single deliverable; it is a dimensional deliverable that includes everything from human rights to environment to social responsibility to good governance rule of law. Sustainability cannot be defined in a consistent way for every single person. The Brundtland Report that came out back in 1980s actually gave what became the generally accepted definition, but we've moved quite a ways in those 30 years and, over time, we have found sustainability to be a much more dimensional challenge and opportunity.

David:            So, let's talk a little bit about the UN's Agenda 2030 that was rolled out in 2015 and what the implications are for that.

Brian:             Certainly. I oftentimes think of Agenda 2030 a little bit differently than some other people. Many folks look at Agenda 2030 as being coextensive with the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs), which were, indeed, signed and adopted unanimously by the General Assembly in September of 2015. Agenda 2030 is indeed about the SDGs, but it's also about other commitments and other activities that also went on in 2015.

                        During 2015, we actually had three other agreements come into place, all of which twist with the SDGs to create a very strong tug for Agenda 2030, which is a sustainability agenda for the world. Those other agreements include the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction; the Paris Accord on climate change, negotiated under the United Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change; of course, the SDGs; and the last would be the Addis Action Agenda, which is on financing for development, negotiated in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

David:            That's a lot of stuff.

Brian:             That's a lot of stuff. It's a lot of reading, but there is a really interesting piece that weaves through all of those agreements, which is not always picked up when people talk about Agenda 2030. That interesting theme that weaves through all of them and that we see coming to the forefront in many discussions is a rights-based approach to sustainability and to the world. In each of those multilateral agreements — whether it's an environmental agreement, like Climate; whether it's a financing agreement, like the Addis Action Agenda — they all have a rights-based approach woven through it, and they all explicitly call out human rights and recognize the importance of a full realization of human rights for all people. These four agreements, when twisted together and create that tug, we will tug people out of poverty. We will tug the world into a better place. We will tug business into being more sustainable and more collaborative and actually earning the public trust that it so desperately needs.

David:            That's exciting.

Brian:             I get a little bit excited about it, indeed.

David:            So, this is not the first time that the UN has set a big batch of goals like this. I think, maybe, in 1992, they rolled out Agenda —

Brian:             Agenda 21.

David:            Agenda 21, yeah.

Brian:             That was the Rio Conference, very focused on the environment.

David:            And how close did we get to those goals? These, of course, are very aspirational, right?

Brian:             You must have high ambition to make a difference. Doing what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten. That's not an original quote, I promise, but the fact is, Agenda 21 came out of Rio. The Agenda 2030 actually started many years before 2015, because agreements aren't negotiated in one meeting, but it truly was Rio+20 where the governments and the civil society and the private sector all came together and said, “This is the world we want. This is where we're headed.” It was from that negotiation and that document, "The world we want, with no one left behind," that the Sustainability Development Goals were born.

David:            I guess, if you wanted to criticize those sorts of things, it would be based on maybe a cynicism that, "Oh, that's crazy. That's a pipedream," but that doesn't make it any less important to strive for something like that and push the needle and try to work for a better world for everyone.

Brian:             Absolutely. I think that cynicism is a real challenge for people in the developed world. When we wake up in the morning and we don't turn the light off in our bathroom, we don't really think about how that could impact the generation that we haven't seen or people we'll never see.

                        There are generations of people that will suffer or benefit from the actions we take today, and there are people we will never see and don't see today that will benefit from the actions we take today. I don't mean to suggest for a moment that one person turning off a lightbulb in a bathroom on one day is going to move the needle, but I would suggest that you can aggregate incremental contributions to a substantial impact.

                        The existential crisis that we have in the sustainable development discussion and dialogue — social discourse if you will — is that we are trying to put ourselves in the shoes of a generation not yet born. We're trying to understand what it means in the streets of a megalopolis in 2030 or 2050, where there's not enough water for people to drink or bathe or clean, and that's difficult for us. That's not our way of thinking. We think about turning off the light as impacting our electric bill, not impacting a child born in 2035.

David:            Yeah, that's a good point. Why don't we drill down a little bit on the Sustainable Development Goals? There's where a lot of the focus is for companies that are diving in on sustainability. There are how many of them?

Brian:             There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

David:            That's a lot, and they each have quite a bit of detail.

Brian:             There are targets and indicators that are articulated to give countries the opportunity to identify if they have achieved contributions, deliverables, KPIs — whatever phrase you want to use, but there are targets and indicators that allow the countries to measure how close they are getting to the outcomes that they have sought.

David:            Now, some of those goals are environmental, but they're not all environmental. Will you talk us through them broadly?

Brian:             Certainly. SDG 13, SDG 14 and SDG 15 are principally planetary goals. They are planetary goals in that 13 is about climate action. You can imagine that the Paris Accord is linked very closely to that. Then you have Goal 14, which is life and water. This is about oceans. This is about microplastics. This is about overfishing, acidification. There are many targets and indicators about what it takes to maintain a healthy planet. And then Goal 15 is about life on land. This is about biodiversity. This is about environmental responsibility, land clearing, land use conversion, et cetera. The other 14 deal with what makes this planet a better place for everyone. It covers poverty. It covers healthcare. It covers education, gender equality, good governance, sustainable production and consumption. All of these goals are about what we have as people and what we need as people to support the planet we want.

David:            I think the way you described it the other day was you said three of these are about a Planet of Plenty —

Brian:             And the other 14 are about a Planet of Plenty for everyone.

David:            Right, and that's a really good way to look at it. I haven't heard anybody say that before.

Brian:             Well, I stole the phrase "Planet of Plenty" from Alltech, of course. I heard it for the first time, quite honestly, on Saturday (at ONE: The Alltech Ideas Conference), when I was participating in the meetings. Mark Lyons stood up and talked about the vision of a planet of plenty. Having worked for Monsanto Company for 30 years, I've been through a couple of different,  probably the best way to put it is campaigns to characterize what it is we're doing. This idea of creating plenty, this idea of food sufficiency disconnected from the rest of the world, to me, is hollow. It was hollow to me when Monsanto came out and said, "We're going to feed the world." We're not going to feed the world with the technology and the products of Monsanto. What we're going to do is we're going to contribute to food security by creating food sufficiency to the best of our ability.

                        I think the Planet of Plenty that Mark spoke of and I think is a long-time theme in the company is really impressive because it is about putting forward food sufficiency, but a Planet of Plenty for everyone is about the collaboration, the partnerships, the engagement, the access that is really needed to ensure that it is for everyone.

David:            Yeah, it's exciting, and it's aspirational, definitely, like the SDGs in general. Tell me a little bit about what Bayer and, formerly, your part of it was Monsanto. What are you working to do specifically related to the SDGs?

Brian:             Legacy Monsanto, where I have most of my experience, is really how I must confine my comments, because I have not been in Bayer for even a year at this point, because the transaction just closed last summer. I just want to be sure that everyone understands my comments are limited Legacy Monsanto work.

                        We actually undertook a project to assess our products, our practices, what we sell, how we sell it, what their footprints are, to decide what are the most impactful places for our work. We had a self-designed set of criteria where we went through and we looked at these things, and we came up with a focus on three SDGs that were about what we do specifically: poverty, obviously, good health because of nutrition, and hunger. But then, we also looked at others that we impact. Our focus might be on those three, but the SDGs themselves are an intricately woven, well-balanced approach to the agenda. So, you can't say, "I'm doing a great job creating a great deal of food, but I'm not paying attention to run-off or nitrogen management. That's irrelevant. It's all about food." No, it's not, because you might have enough food, but if you don't have water, or you don't have healthcare, or you don't have access to education — it doesn't matter because you're just going to have wasted food.

                        So, really, it's important for Monsanto, when we were doing this, to look at where can we impact — where is our greatest substantial contribution? We looked at that and then we built around it. We have projects on everything from nutrient management, we have projects on precision planting, where do you plant, what's the compaction of the soil like, what's the irrigation requirements, et cetera. So, we had a lot of practices that we brought in to actually talk about and look at and consider whether those could make a difference, and then we take those out to our customers and our farmers.

                        We similarly looked at things like, how does a cellphone enable a smallholder farmer in India to understand the market, to understand insect pressure? We built a program now called FarmRice where, on FarmRice, they could connect to a 24-hour call center, and they would get automatic information daily about weather, about prices, about insect pressure — but if they also saw a leaf crawler that they hadn't seen before, if they found insects they couldn't identify, they could take a picture on their mobile phone, send it in to the call center, and one of our experts would respond and tell them what they were looking at, what they thought the concern was. It was about empowering local people to make their own decisions. This was a service that we started in the corn space, and we are actively working to expand it.

                        So, when you can actually help people who are making day-to-day decisions, as I said earlier, about those small, incremental contributions, if you have 10,000 to 100,000 farmers in India all suddenly having access to information about how to manage drought, how to manage insect pressure, et cetera, you suddenly have created a substantial impact. That's really what this is about, when we think about the SDGs; it's about the impact on the planet, how we minimize it, live within planetary boundaries and maximize the personal position of each individual.

David:            I think a lot of companies that are maybe smaller than Bayer and, formerly, Monsanto for the activities you're describing that are just kind of starting out on this journey, they're trying to figure out, "How are we going to pay for all this? What are we going to do?" Talk a little bit about the evolution of your sustainability-related projects in the company and the discussion that went on.

Brian:             Well, I don't think it's much different than what the discussion was in many other companies. I think, in the 1980s, when I joined the company, the Brundtland Report had just been issued and people thought, "Wow! That's pretty interesting, but that's for governments. We are a good corporate citizen through our philanthropy.” Sustainability and philanthropy became equivalents in many conversations. Even in the investment space, when the Carbon Disclosure Project came up — and now, of course, there's Water Disclosure and lots of disclosures — when those projects came up, people thought, "That's pretty interesting. That's for the environmentally friendly and the environmentally-sound." And Name the Polluter, all these kinds of campaigns that went on.

And there were many companies, when they would get the survey, that would look at it and say, "We're institutionally traded. Our investors don't care about this. It doesn't matter. So, if few people in public affairs want to fill it out, or a few people over here in environmental science want to fill it out, that's fine, but this isn't really mainstream investment.” Candidly, they were probably right; it probably wasn't mainstream investment. They were socially responsible investors, many of them smaller funds, many of them European, and so the conversation was, “This belongs to someone else. This isn't really core to us. This isn't about how we are as a company. This is about what people want to know.”

                        I think the conversation has evolved to the conversation about how we are as a company, not what we do or what we sell, but how we are — how do we sell it, how do we develop it, how do we bring it to market, how do we steward it, how do we assess the life cycle of that product and its impact on the world and the byproducts that are resulting from its production or use? So, when you look over your shoulder, you see this almost disconnected approach to sustainability from companies — but, again, the Brundtland Report only came out in the 1980s, and that's where I'm saying the conversation really began.

                        It was, as it went forward, now that you see BlackRock, you see Norges Bank, you see major retirement funds coming into the conversation and having questions during proxy season with publicly traded companies or on one-on-one dialogues or engagements, asking you about what you're doing on human rights, what you're doing about child labor, how many women are on your board, what is your program to advance and empower minorities, and this has become a mainstream conversation. It's no longer limited. Internally, we, as a major corporation, had to get in time with that march from philanthropy to how you are as a sustainable company. The conversations over the years were not always easy, because when you go to your board of directors and you say, "It's going to cost us an extra $14 million to do X, but it's the right thing to do," and you don't have the bottom line for it, there's a question.

                        Now, there are very enlightened companies and very enlightened people who could see the business-case and could move forward, and those are the leaders. The laggards are those who didn't see the business-case, required far more evidence, et cetera. I'm not saying they're wrong, but they just lag behind. They wanted to know the business-case more digitally, more fundamentally, and understand the total fiscal impact. Now that they can see it, and now that investors are valuing it, I think we've brought a lot more companies to the forefront.

David:            That's exciting, and I'm sure it's probably such a long process. Some days, it was very frustrating and felt like an uphill battle for all the various people that we're working on in the company, and then you'd get a little wind and go forward like that. Were there any partners that Monsanto had along the way, nonprofit environmental organizations?

Brian:             We've had many partners over the years. It has oftentimes depended on the issue or the space, because we're expert in what we do. We're not the expert in what we don't do, and we needed people to step in and help us, so we would reach out to them. When you've worked for a company as controversial as Monsanto, with some of the reputational challenges that we faced, it wasn't always easy to find those partners, but I will tell you, it is far more beneficial and rewarding to come off of the mountaintops from which you've been screaming at each other, down to where they overlap, and find that common ground, and to make some progress.

                        That was really the approach I've used in my work in this space, which is, “I hear you, but I'm not sure you hear me,” or “I'm not sure I understand you. Maybe you understand me, so let's go to a place where we can actually talk and respect the views we each have and see if there's a space to go forward.” We have partnered with a number of civil society organizations, environmental organizations, human rights groups, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, faith-based investors. The doors are open, quite honestly, because we know we don't have all the answers. We know that we need experts in those spaces, because that's not what we do. It's what they're experts at, so help us move forward and we will help you as we contribute to the overall effort that they're advancing themselves.

David:            Do you have a favorite story about one particular partnership like that, maybe, with an organization that was a detractor, and then you built a bond with them to work on a project?

Brian:             I'm not sure that I do have a favorite story from a detractor, although there is one that is pretty interesting. A number of years ago, I worked with a group called The Crucible Group to write a series of books on the patentability of genetic resources. It's a big question. There are lots of things going on up in the world of intellectual property organization on this. There's something going on through the United Nations’ Environmental Program on this, but this was an effort to write a treatise, if you would, for government officials as a backgrounder, because this is a tough topic, and the patentability and the rights of ownership on genetic resources is something most people do not walk around thinking about on a daily basis.

David:            Sure.

Brian:             There was a gentleman who I won't name who was on this book with me. I was one of the only people from the private sector; everyone else came from civil society, indigenous people's groups, and this gentleman was truly a detractor. He was not fond of the company, our products — had lots of questions about what we were doing — but he and I got along quite well because we were both there for the same reason: we were there to advance the understanding of the use of genetic resources and why it's important, but how you balance the equities. Indigenous peoples have a lot of interest in the genetic resources that they've used for thousands of years, perhaps, and yet, companies come in, create a product using that genetic resource. What's the benefit-sharing supposed to look like? Do you do something for that group of people from whom you've taken this resource?

                        He and I had differences of opinion, but at the end of it, he walked up to me and he said, "I'll drink milk with you from a cow that's been injected with recombinant bovine somatotropin because, after meeting you, I actually think it's probably safe."

David:            Wow. That's pretty good development, one communicating one-on-one, one person at a time. How do we take that to the next level? You talked in the panel on Sunday about how the narrative around ag-tech is often scripted by the consumer. How do we tell our industry's own story?

Brian:             Well, it's great for industry to tell its story, but it's very difficult to get consumers to listen to it. Industry often comes from a mercantile perspective. We are for-profit companies. That is what we do; that is our sustainability. Some would define sustainability for a farmer by having enough money in the bank at the end of the year to farm next year. When you're coming at it from a mercantile perspective and that's how you tell your story and that's what you want to bring forward, you are inherently suspect. You're doing this for your own good. There must be something else.

                        I would say that telling the story is important, but what's more important is earning the public trust. You aren't going to earn the public trust just by telling a good story. You're going to earn the public trust by what you do and how you do it. I think being transparent, being collaborative, being communicative is really probably the foundation for getting the public to build their trust in the ag space, because agriculture is a group of practices and products, et cetera, that take management, that take work, that take people committed to it, and the whole food and ag chain requires it from start to finish, so it's a huge undertaking with a huge impact, but it's not a single story. So, if you can't tell a single story because there are 17 steps, it gets quite difficult to keep consumers interested, to keep others interested, quite honestly, even if we work in the chain, because we're at this end, you're at that end. We don't need to worry about this together — but we do need to worry about it together because I do think that the public trust is far more important than the public ag campaign.

David:            Awesome. Well, thank you so much, Brian. That was a great conversation, and I appreciate you spending some time with us.

Brian:             Sure. It was fun.

Agriculture has the power to solve some of our most challenging environmental problems. We can put carbon back in the soil and forests. We can recycle nutrients and keep them out of our rivers, lakes and oceans. We can generate renewable energy. And, together, we can build a more sustainable world. Learn more about Working Together for a Planet of Plenty^TM. 

Complementing his many and varied achievements over the course of an extremely successful career, Dr. Karl Dawson, chairman of Alltech’s scientific advisory board, has been inducted into the Animal and Food Sciences Hall of Fame in the Department of Animal and Food Sciences at the University of Kentucky.

The annual award, the highest that the department can bestow, recognizes someone who has made outstanding contributions to the department and to Kentucky animal agriculture.

A nomination letter submitted for Dr. Dawson highlights the achievements that merit this honor:

“Dr. Dawson is an individual who has spent most of his life dedicated to agriculture: living it, teaching it, researching it, improving it and making it more efficient,” the letter reads. “However, through both his careers in academia and industry, his greatest impact on agriculture in Kentucky and the world is likely the legion of agricultural scientists that he has mentored, developed and supported to continue advancing the future of agriculture.”

The late Dr. Pearse Lyons, founder of Alltech and Dr. Dawson’s friend of nearly 40 years, was also inducted into the hall of fame in 2011.

“I never dreamed I would get close to this recognition,” said Dr. Dawson. “I have seen many distinguished scientists inducted into the Animal and Food Sciences Hall of Fame over the years, and it is my great honor and privilege to be included among them. Any impact I’ve had is due to the tremendous people around me, and I look forward to continuing our important work.”

Dr. Dawson began his career in academia in 1979 in the Department of Animal and Food Sciences at the University of Kentucky. In 1999, he accepted a position as director of global research at Alltech, and from 2011 to 2019, he served as vice president and chief scientific officer at Alltech. Today, he continues to work with Alltech in a consulting role, and he is also an adjunct professor of nutritional microbiology in the Department of Animal and Food Sciences at the University of Kentucky.

As chief scientific officer at Alltech, Dr. Dawson directed all activities at the Alltech bioscience centers around the world, including the Alltech Center for Animal Nutrigenomics and Applied Animal Nutrition in Nicholasville. He also led scientific programs for the research team of more than 140 members, directed annual programs for graduate students around the world and headed the activities of Alltech’s more than 20 research alliances.

His lifetime research has focused on strategies for improving animal performance and health by altering microbial activities and digestive processes in the gastrointestinal tract. Of particular interest are strategies that use antimicrobials and substrate availability to beneficially alter microbial populations in the digestive tract. He championed Alltech’s nutrigenomics and epigenetics research, which have led to nutritional programming strategies that are being tested as alternatives to the use of growth promotants, changing the face of nutritional science in agriculture.

“Dr. Dawson’s strength as a researcher and teacher lies in his in-depth understanding of the many different aspects of animal agriculture, as opposed to the very focused area of expertise that most specialists have,” his nomination letter reads. “His excellent grasp of how the future of farming and agriculture is shifting and changing allowed him to focus his research in areas long before they were truly relevant, such as the need for proven alternatives for in-feed antibiotics.”

Indeed, the 122 research papers that Dr. Dawson has authored or co-authored have been cited more than 3,100 times to date; peers in his field are validating the quality of their own work by recognizing his work as a benchmark.

Dr. Dawson continues to have a true passion for education, teaching and science. At the University of Kentucky, he developed an individualized degree program in agricultural biotechnology and advised undergraduate students in the program.

At Alltech, he started an internship in his lab that offered competitive and valuable real-life educational experience to young students interested in science. Dr. Dawson was also involved in the Alltech Young Scientist competition and Alltech Innovation Competition.

“Most of the programs that Dr. Dawson has developed at Alltech over the years have had a strong education and student development component to it,” the nomination letter points out. “When one considers this, it is somewhat unique for an animal feed industry-based company. However, it serves as evidence of Dr. Dawson’s dedication toward furthering education in the field of agriculture.”

Dr. Dawson was integral in forming the alliances with Coldstream Research at the University of Kentucky, which focuses on poultry production research, and the Alltech-UK nutrigenomic alliance with the University of Kentucky College of Agriculture and the University of Kentucky Graduate Center for Nutritional Sciences. They have worked with Alltech to make the state of Kentucky a leader in the field of nutrigenomics by supporting a variety of research projects.

His passion for education, teaching and young people extended beyond his day-to-day job as well. Dr. Dawson sent members of his science team to area schools to showcase experiments and involved them in local science fairs. He is also always willing to participate in discussion panels, as the letter notes, “to help bridge the gap between what academic programs teach, and what the industries need.”

“Alltech’s research achievements in Kentucky and successful alliances with UK are a credit to Dr. Dawson’s dedication and vision,” said Dr. Mark Lyons, president and CEO of Alltech. “He has empowered the research of today and the breakthroughs of tomorrow by inspiring others in the field of animal science.”