Embracing Disconcertment

Myanmar local food systems in a changing climate: Insights from multiple stakeholders

The tribal belt of the Hindu Kush mountains is famous for its unique culture, ethnography, wild food plants, food systems, and traditional knowledge. People in this region gather wild plants and plant parts using them directly or in traditional cuisine, or sell them in local markets. However, there is a huge lack of documentation of the food system, particularly that related to wild food plants (WFP). In the current study, we focus on the uses and contributions of WFPs in the traditional tribal food system of the Hindu Kush valleys along the Pakistan–Afghanistan border. Ethnobotanical data were gathered through questionnaire surveys of 84 informants, including 69 men and 15 women, belonging to 21 different villages of the chosen area. In tribal societies men and women rarely mix and thus very few women took part in the surveys. We documented 63 WFP species belonging to 34 botanical families, of which 27 were used as vegetables, 24 as fruits, six in different kinds of chutneys (starters), and six as fresh food species. Fruits were the most used part (41%), followed by leaves (24%), aerial parts (24%), seeds (7%), stems (3%), and young inflorescences (1%). The reported uses of Carthamus oxyacantha, Pinus roxburghii seeds, and Marsilea quadrifolia leaves are novel for the gastronomy of Pakistan. The results reveal that WFPs provide a significant contribution to local food systems and play a role in addressing human nutritional needs, which are usually not met through farming practices. The tribal peoples of the Hindu Kush use WFPs for their nutritional value, but also as a cultural practice—an inseparable component of the tribal community’s lifestyle. This important traditional knowledge about the gathering and consumption of WFPs, however, is eroding at an alarming rate among younger generations due to the introduction of fast-food, modernization, and globalization. Therefore, appropriate strategies are imperative not only to safeguard traditional plants and food knowledge and practices, as well as the cultural heritage attached to them, but also to foster food security and thus public healthcare via local wild foods in the region.

Co-creation, a form of engagement in which stakeholders jointly generate value, has increasingly received attention as a way to enhance responsible research and innovation (RRI). To explore the extent to which co-creation might support RRI, this paper analyses three co-creation workshops with different types of stakeholders in the area of nanotechnology for health. The analysis considers the potential of co-creation to enhance the legitimacy of and add value to innovation based on the four dimensions of RRI: reflexivity, inclusion, anticipation, and adaptation. The results show that it is difficult to address all the dimensions at once. A trade-off between creating legitimacy and added value can be detected: a co-creation process focusing on added value requires deliberation early in the innovation process, a certain specificity and an action-oriented perspective. This comes at the cost of the inclusion and anticipation of societal values, which are important dimensions of a legitimate innovation process.

This paper explores the correlation between small farmers' market integration and sustain-ability within the eco-economy and agroecology framework. Local dynamics of market inclu-sion and sustainability promotion are analyzed to comprehend their impact on farming practic-es, sustainable approaches, and local extension services. Findings reveal a tension between sustainability goals and the emergence of a green revolution model reliant on agrochemicals for productivity. The study underscores the significance of preserving local farming knowledge and practices, and supporting extension officers to fortify the food system during the sustainability transition.

To identify immune-response signatures in the blood of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients predictive for clinical disease trajectories and supporting personalized treatment decisions based on pathobiological principles.

Without abandoning the practical idea of farming as a business, the small-scale farmers in this book foster connections between consumer experiences and expectations and farming practices that support their visions of organic. They try to build new, alternative markets to challenge the watering down of “organic” that the full-force entrance of corporate market logics ushered in. However, there are limitations to how sustainable such farming operations can be without further changing the relationships the modern food system is based upon. This chapter begins by recognizing the many limitations of localism, including the potentially neoliberal aspects of such efforts. However, the neoliberal notion that individuals can and should bring forth their own interests and engage in political contestation could (paradoxically) be the very kernel that further popularizes small-scale food production networks that provide safer, more healthful food and a better sense of community than the isolating conventional shopping experience. Finally, the chapter considers how deepening consumer involvement in the process of agriculture, incorporating concerns about social justice into local food systems, and addressing the inefficiencies of decentralized food production could push local agriculture to be even more alternative.

An evolving green agenda as the UK seeks to achieve ‘net zero’ in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, coupled with our new trading relationship with the European Union, is resulting in new government policies, which will be disruptive to Britain's traditional food and farming practices. These policies encourage sustainable farming and land‐sparing to restore natural habitats and will provide an opportunity to address issues such as high emissions of GHGs and dwindling biodiversity resulting from many intensive agricultural practices. To address these and other food challenges such as global conflicts and health issues, Britain will need a revolution in its food system. The aim of this paper is to make the case for such a food revolution where additional healthy food for the UK population is produced in‐country in specialised production units for fruits and vegetables developed on sites previously considered unsuitable for crop production. High crop productivity can be achieved in low‐cost controlled environments, making extensive use of novel crop science and modern controlled‐environment technology. Such systems must be operated with very limited environmental impact. In recent years, growth in the application of plasticulture in UK horticulture has driven some increases in crop yield, quality and value. However, the environmental cost of plastic production and plastic pollution is regarded as a generational challenge that faces the earth system complex. The distribution of plastic waste is ubiquitous, with a significant pollution load arising from a range of agricultural practices. The primary receptor of agriplastic pollution is agricultural soil. Impacts of microplastics on crop productivity and quality and also on human health are only now being investigated. This paper explores the possibility that we can mitigate the adverse environmental effects of agriplastics and thereby exploit the potential of plasticulture to enhance the productivity and positive health impact of UK horticulture.

Agriculture is pivotal in securing global food security and sustainability, especially in pressing challenges such as climate change, population growth, and resource depletion. This review examines the interconnections between agriculture, food security, and sustainability, focusing on current challenges, innovations, and strategies to address these critical issues. The global demand for food is projected to increase substantially, necessitating agricultural systems that boost productivity and ensure environmental sustainability. However, conventional farming practices have exacerbated soil degradation, water scarcity, and greenhouse gas emissions, posing significant threats to long-term food security. This review aims to evaluate the role of sustainable agricultural practices in enhancing food security while mitigating environmental impacts. It also identifies existing gaps in farming systems and explores innovative solutions to promote resilient and sustainable food systems. A comprehensive review of peer-reviewed literature, policy documents, and global agricultural reports was conducted. The analysis focuses on key themes such as sustainable farming practices, the impacts of climate change on agriculture, advancements in agrotechnology, and the socio-economic dimensions of food security. Synthesized findings provide actionable insights into best practices and emerging trends. Sustainable agriculture offers a viable pathway to address the dual challenges of food security and environmental conservation. Precision farming, agroecology, and regenerative agriculture enhance productivity while preserving resources and reducing ecological footprints. Integrating advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence and genetic innovations, can optimize agricultural efficiency. However, global food security requires coordinated efforts among governments, the private sector, and local communities to implement equitable resource distribution and climate-resilient policies. Future research should prioritize scalable, region-specific solutions that align with sustainability principles to ensure a secure and resilient global food system.

Is agricultural adaptation to global change in lower-income countries on track to meet the future food production challenge?

Historically, agroecosystems have been designed to produce food. Modern societies now demand more from food systems-not only food, fuel, and fiber, but also a variety of ecosystem services. And although today's farming practices are producing unprecedented yields, they are also contributing to ecosystem problems such as soil erosion, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution. This review highlights the potential benefits of perennial grains and oilseeds and discusses recent progress in their development. Because of perennials' extended growing season and deep root systems, they may require less fertilizer, help prevent runoff, and be more drought tolerant than annuals. Their production is expected to reduce tillage, which could positively affect biodiversity. End-use possibilities involve food, feed, fuel, and nonfood bioproducts. Fostering multidisciplinary collaborations will be essential for the successful integration of perennials into commercial cropping and food-processing systems.

India’s tribal population or indigenous population (IP) faces significant food security challenges. This review article examines the problems, challenges, and solutions related to food security among certain tribal populations of India. It discusses the cultural significance of traditional food systems, the impact of urbanization and industrial agriculture, and the need for community-led initiatives to promote food sovereignty. This updated review also aims to understand the food security in the backdrop of recent environmental changes as indigenous people’s livelihood and food security are weather-driven and have to be keenly observed for any change in the same. Ecological change and severe events may exacerbate the vulnerability of indigenous populations. It is worth mentioning that the main challenges which are already encountered by the poor IP include economic and political exclusion, abuse of human rights, unemployment, discrimination, and resource depletion. In the review, it was also observed that the residents of this specific community were further compelled to transfer and live in the areas where their ancestors had a site for thousands of years to minimise the detrimental effects. It affects their social capital, food security, water supply, sanitary conditions, mental health, and ability to fight off infectious diseases and injuries, and the availability of healthcare directly or indirectly. It can be concluded that as such ecological changes affect the food security of IP in India, reviving indigenous food systems and encouraging indigenous crops and farming practices can help communities become self-sufficient, economically free, and sustainable. Similarly, community-led initiatives like supporting indigenous-led food sovereignty can promote ecological and cultural sustainability. The government’s actions involving documenting traditional knowledge and preserving and promoting indigenous foods can help address malnutrition and hunger in indigenous communities.

ABSTRACTThe relation between technology assessment (TA) and responsible research and innovation (RRI) is a very topical (and controversial) issue, as TA is clearly enveloped in broader science, technology and innovation (STI) processes, such as the EU-wide shift towards RRI. In this short response to van Lente et al.’s [Van Lente, Harro, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Pierre-Benoît Joly. 2017. “Responsible Innovation as a Critique of Technology Assessment.” Journal of Responsible Innovation] essay, I first stress that this contribution has several merits; for example, it points to pervasive challenges for TA communities, such as the issue of including normative concerns when assessing innovations, it opens these challenges to debate, without shying away from engaging TA communities. However, I disagree with the authors’ claim that RRI would be ‘a next step of TA’ or even a ‘form of TA’. In my essay, I explain why I believe RRI is different from TA and why, rather than a critique of TA, RRI could instead lead to a travesty of TA, threatening the vitality and the uniqueness of TA institutions in the long-term. Under the spell of RRI, TA risks being reduced to a role of mere provider of ex-ante impact assessments. I conclude that following the money attached to RRI has a price that TA institutions should carefully, critically and reflexively consider before they pay.

<h3>Objective:</h3> To assess patient preference for conventional (CON) or shorter (SHORT) infusion post unblinding of the ENSEMBLE PLUS study. <h3>Background:</h3> Shortening the infusion duration of ocrelizumab to 2 hours reduces total site stay. Previous infusion-related reactions (IRRs) are a risk factor for future IRRs. Identification of specific symptoms, potential risk factors during infusions, was investigated in ENSEMBLE PLUS. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> ENSEMBLE PLUS was a randomized, double-blind substudy to ENSEMBLE (NCT03085810). Ocrelizumab (600 mg) administered over the approved 3.5-hour infusion time (CON) was compared with a 2-hour infusion (SHORT). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with IRRs at first randomized dose (RD). Risk factors were assessed for development of IRRs. Patients could switch between CON/SHORT infusion post unblinding. <h3>Results:</h3> Within 24 hours of first RD, 27.1% (CON: n=101/373) versus 28.8% (SHORT: n=107/372) of patients had IRRs. Most IRRs (CON 100%; SHORT 97.2%) were mild or moderate (Grade 1 or 2);none were Grade 4 or 5 IRRs. No IRR-related discontinuations occurred. The proportion of patients with throat irritation as an IRR symptom was 23.1% (CON) and 33.0% (SHORT) in patients with ≥1 throat irritation before first RD; in patients with no throat irritation before first RD, the proportion was 5.3% (CON) and 5.4% (SHORT). Patient migraine/headache history did not correlate with IRR development. Post unblinding, 79.7% patients switched to SHORT infusion from CON, and 94.6% patients stayed on SHORT infusion. Treating neurologists frequently attempted minor adaptations of pre-medication timing/regimen without substantially affecting IRR incidence. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Previous IRRs may be a risk factor for future IRRs but are not influenced by shorter infusion time. Pre-randomization throat irritation was predictive of developing throat irritation as an IRR symptom, however migraines were not. Most patients remained on/moved to SHORT infusion after unblinding. Overall, IRRs did not strongly influence patient decisions. Most pre-medication changes had no impact on IRR incidence. <b>Disclosure:</b> Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Biogen. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Sanofi/Genzyme. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Genentech/Roche. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Viela Bio. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Novartis. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Merck Serono. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Astra Zeneca. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for LabCorp. Dr. Bermel has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for TG Therapeutics. The institution of Dr. Bermel has received research support from Biogen. The institution of Dr. Bermel has received research support from Roche. The institution of Dr. Bermel has received research support from Novartis. Dr. Bermel has received intellectual property interests from a discovery or technology relating to health care. Joep Killestein has nothing to disclose. Prof. Berger has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as a speaker at scientific meetings and participant of local and international advisory boards with various companies producing and markerting treatments for multiple sclerosis (Almirall, Biogen, Biologix, Bionorica, Celgene-BMS, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, UCB). Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Merck. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for celgene. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for jansen. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for biogen. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for novartis. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for merck. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for biogen. Prof. Brochet has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for celgene. William M. Carroll, MBBS, MD, FRACP has nothing to disclose. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Actelion(Janssen/J&amp;J). Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Alexion. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for BiogenIdec. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for BMS/Celgene. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for EMD Inc. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Roche. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Novartis. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Actelion (Janssen/J&amp;J). Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Alexion. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Atara Biotherapeutics. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Bayer Healthcare. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for BiogenIdec. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Clene Nanomedicine. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for GRI Bio. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Roche. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Magenta Therapeutics. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Merck Serono. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Novartis. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Freedman has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for EMD Serono. The institution of Dr. Freedman has received research support from Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Holmoy has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Norwegian MS Society. Dr. Holmoy has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Biogen. Dr. Holmoy has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Merck. Dr. Holmoy has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Sanofi. Dr. Holmoy has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Novartis. Dr. Holmoy has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Speakers Bureau for Merck. Dr. Karabudak has nothing to disclose. Dr. Nos has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.. Dr. Patti has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Alexion, Almirall, Bayer, Biogen, Bristol Meyers and Squibb Merck, Roche, Sanofi, TEVA. Dr. Patti has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as an officer or member of the Board of Directors for University of Catania and AISM/FISM, Fondazione Italiana Sclerosi Multipla. Ms. Perrin Ross has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving as a Consultant for Horizon. Ms. Perrin Ross has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving as a Consultant for EMD Serono. Ms. Perrin Ross has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving as a Consultant for Alexion. Ms. Perrin Ross has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Roche. Ms. Perrin Ross has received personal compensation in the range of $0-$499 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Novartis. Dr. Vanopdenbosch has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for celgene. Dr. Vanopdenbosch has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Biogen . Dr. Vanopdenbosch has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for F Hoffmann La Roche. Dr. Vanopdenbosch has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Novartis. Dr. Vanopdenbosch has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Merck Serono. Dr. Vanopdenbosch has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Sanofi Genzyme. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Biogen IDEC. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as a Consultant for Genentech/Roche. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Siranax. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Celgene. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for EMD Serono. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Bristol Meyers Squib. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Viela Bios. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for Novartis. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received research support from Rocky Mountain MS Center. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received research support from Biogen. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received research support from Actelion. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received research support from Genentech/Roche. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received research support from Anokion. The institution of Dr. Vollmer has received research support from TG Therapeutics. Dr. Buffels has nothing to disclose. Karen Kadner has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr. Bortolami has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Roche. Dr. Bortolami has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Statistical Reviewer with Emergency Medicine Journal. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Consultant for BMS Celgene. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as a Consultant for Geneuro. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Novartis. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Novartis. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Merck. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Bayer. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for TG Therapeutics. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving on a Scientific Advisory or Data Safety Monitoring board for Roche. Dr. Hartung has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as an Editor, Associate Editor, or Editorial Advisory Board Member for Frontiers Neurology.

To report efficacy and safety of ravulizumab in anti-aquaporin-4 antibody-positive neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder AQP4+ NMOSD.

To confirm dose selection and rationale of using the reduction of total immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels as a pharmacodynamic (PD) marker of noninferiority for subcutaneous (SC) efgartigimod PH20 (coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20).