The tines, they are changing The nature of the ‘Lunch’ dialogue is changing. It is now accepted that producing more food did and does not necessarily result in better food security. Unfortunately current research is very much focused on farm productivity. The evidence is ripe. However nutrition specific and nutrition sensitive evidence is missing, leaving a huge knowledge gap. And a deadly one, resulting in millions of child deaths, 45% of them avoidable, and 165 Million children stunted in 2011. Without more nutrition sensitivity even at a cost of estimated $ 9.6 billion and 90% targeted intervention coverage only a 20% decrease of stunting is in the cards. Major recent reviews agree: There is always less input on nutrition than expected. The knowledge gap needs to be closed. Without including diet quality, food system safety and delivery platforms there won’t be conclusive evidence of nutritional impact. Respondent Lindsay Allen, USDA, added lacking nutrition outcomes to the picture. ‘It is not enough to measure food diversity, people need to eat enough.’ And drink enough, for instance milk. The importance of nutrition quantity a Kenyan example impressively shows, where 750 ml milk resulted in 0.4 m height increase in school children. Claim less, demonstrate more The potential thus, is clear, but is yet to be unleashed, says Webb: Cost-effectiveness, assessment of impact pathways, technology adoption barriers, cross sectoral integration and governance of nutrition sensitive action are the key. This key can be found in the CGIAR strategy, in case you managed to decrypt the tangle of their organigram of myriads of boxes. But rather than in the boxes of research fields, it will be found in the arrows, connecting them. How and why we can connect agriculture and nutrition, we need to explain as stewards of scarce resources. Honesty in expectation, cross sectoral engagement and rigor in outcome appropriate methods will help, Webb points out: ‘Claim less, demonstrate more’. Net impacts are crucial for the next generation cross-sectoral research agenda of agriculture and nutrition. In Webb’s words: 'It’s not that we could do better, we have to do better.' One Health Better also policy makers have to do, as a remark from the audience pointed out: He wanted to see more policy changes instead of more policy makers. And their responsibility is clear, as Chizuru Nishida of WHO, with a quarter century of experience in nutrition, adds: Governance for effective nutrition sensitive action needs to focus on decision making and implementation, including nutrition budget in health budgets, as part of development plans and with better monitoring. Without such governance ‘One Health – healthy people, healthy soils, healthy environment and healthy food’ – is not possible Von Braun concluded. ‘We need to get back to food, lunch is ready’ Patrick Webb in interview