occurs because the overreaction and intense amount of traction or placed on companies by the brand damage, but the cost of litigation really makes -- there's a cost to that. it's great for lawyers. the companies themselves striving towards reasonable security you have to put so much more into it because you want to be because of the concern that half of the brain damage is done and goes wrong, but damage will be substantial. >> just to extrapolate that to the marketing department to the analytics to progress up, taking the governance model and that they not out in the innovation innovation -- [inaudible] you know, i want to hit wal-mart

topic a for reopening it to discussion. but you made an excellent observation there seems to be a lot of tech illogical stuff arising and consumers are as we say in my household, just pay cash. why not? and then my kids roll their eyes at you. but this is the argument over a consensus could be argument over do not track, are they really viable or am i going to go out and buy a bad kiss my refrigerator, this marker anyway and just know it will track stats or must i physically turn it off. for the consumer marketplace is going in the regulators behind that point reads business behind that point were only just ourselves and some sense in having the ability to self regulate? >> first of all, please indulge. lawyers, too.

so that said, privacy is not security and security is not privacy. that's an important point to make. the more sad that we are as data for an actual asset, the more we will make asset-based discovery decisions and develop incisions and investment decisions because as it turns out in chapter eight, you can work with a 17-year-old boy who wants to create a cross-country running at them in the afternoon you can have a privacy ready for your principles respecting data model program. and if my nephew can do it, so can you. so that's the thing about you have to start somewhere. you have to figure out what your priorities are. it might take an extra afternoon for you to think about your deal, but i also think we will start to have the cost of data sold and that is the equation that is missing in a lot of our

contextual risk and reward discussions. after there's a breach there's no choice. you're going to over fix things that you need to be fixed and that is what happened. we went and protect the most protected data we have to the witches was our financial. the perspective i believe to go after data overall. not just financial data. the cost of data sold, the cost of data added to your repertoire one form of how badly people want cars that tells them that they are cold. i heard it on hold. i don't need some being that tells me 69 degrees felt comfortable. that's just me. once you figure out is that knowledge of that exact configuration in my automobile

but the exact rotation, i know what i noticed that. i doubt any smart refrigerator refrigerator tatami that. i may need my smart refrigerator tatami i've been losing money. i think they are going to figure out to play. in the regulatory environment we currently have. i don't want to be regulated and there is some practicing double happy to say what is truly creepy and what it's worth paying for. i think before we can have a real analysis of what it's worth, we need to talk about words. it is difficult to talk about words because of course it is a human right and it's about dignity. people start getting their version of creepy. money does spur innovation who do know how to say it's really hard. that guy is going to find you.

so will figure out the mma site. the gadget is great, but the technology itself has to be said into his large environment. ..

they also talked about halberd said, in particular, the concerned about investigating the data practices of projects they're going to invest in because they have scrubs at the beginning they lose their money. they recognize that it is an investment consideration. another key equation i wanted to mention is the way that -- there are a lot of equations. the way that the database notification law has redistributed cost and revealed the cost of certain kinds of bad practices that before were borne by the consumer, borne by the subjects. you know, wherever they turn out to be. instead the cost of doing the notification and all that is

involved in that which i certainly know is quite costly falls on the entities of -- the entity that has more ability to be inappropriate steward of the information and make changes that can protect them can reduce the cost. i think it is an interesting privacy law and security law and that it does not prescribe do this, don't do that. when you lose control you have to tell. >> one more point, i'm sorry to keep going. i think these things are revolutionizing everything. and it is not because you know they're all combined. i have to buy recover some of the device will break. the fda that changes everything is the location.

everything a supercomputer did but it is location, location, location. really interested exciting things and really scary things. i think it always -- you know, once a year for your privacy person you have to watch. just remember, it's about people. after read more in the grand as the right to privacy. am assuming you'll reach your kids a christmas. i do. it's about to go lacking the ability never wrote to have relatively low ball location based technology that would reveal things in context where people could not control the context. it's pretty relevant as it was at the turn of two centuries ago >> interestingly enough here we're talking about corporate issues. california noted.

it's part of the struggle. >> hear one of the few allies that does not love comprehensive as someone pointed out, we are more regulated than almost any place on the planet and we are truly regulated. is not lip service. >> so we have time for some questions of folks want to ask questions of anybody, and clearly the mike is there. >> thank you. the elephant in the room is of course the renovation. what that is done to expectations. i have heard a good defense that we should not use the fears of bridges to stop collection or to stop assembly.

so the rules may not need to be the infrastructure, technology and collection. that was made clear. my concern is there seems to be a belief that nothing-share. the rules just don't apply to the government of all and that people will not -- the rule of law that might apply to have the data are used will not result in any real punishment of people who abuse the rules. is there a short coming here that the rules of use are not going to be effective at all unless there is true enforcement of the rules? in we can talk about class-action for breaches and for failures to disclose and the

like. seems to me of those finance compared to the governmental problem. i was wondering how people feel about that. >> okay. a little bit. one is that it is clear that the rules are different. from what we have learned, the government and the opinion as classified. the rules are different. and if that's the case then we do need to be thinking about oversight and how to make an oversight process work to make sure that the actions of government, even if their legal within the scope of what is policy. whether that processes it will

the function or has there been a function effectively. what they need in order to raise a the kind of guidance. as one of the biggest questions and one of the most difficult questions raised by the snow and revelations and all the discussions that came after. it's pretty clear the overseers to not really know the ins and outs of was happening. >> and just want to -- for every time you mentioned as no and you should mention people like trying crest. really trying to reveal things to help people rather than someone who is famed seeking. i think it's a gray matter case that we can talk, for a long time of what that person's intent was based on the nature of the revelation. i have my own personal opinions, but i think there are heroes

that help us this speak out and look at what's going on. the information that is readily available and free will look. one of those people not affiliated in any way in all. i use it as a rule because it is hard for me to be surprised by those revelations. i am definitely satisfied. they agree that there should be definitely consequences, but it also highlights to me there is a burden of collection and the burden of fiduciary duty that that think is not put on the shoulders of the right people and the right places throughout industry and government alike. but i also think the power of social engineering, if you really peel back how all those intrusions' were made by someone like that, a lot of social engineering even within a group of people -- and there are a lot of people in that organization

that i know personally are true patriots. there was a code of honor. i think it was that code of honor and is used against them. so when i take the education from that into my own context as a leader within my organization i talk as much about being aware of sharing information, collecting information, but also being polite and sharing information of people to call you and ask you. that is where a lot of those documents were collected. it was not as early available through normal channels. there was checking involved here. that's all different thing. i'm not privy to any of that. >> one thing to keep in mind when you think about the government verses industry is that there are different rules. and that is just the fact of life that we deal with. a move to california not quite two years ago and had the pleasure of proceeding yet

another bar examination. a shocking thing to me of the 20 years of the past for roughly 20 years since last time i had taken the state's bar exam was the fact that the fourth amendment -- and if you go back and look at the cases, briefcases and the fourth amendment, thinking about some of the surveillance questions of ,. think of it when maybe those of you are older, the cases that we study the we look a criminal procedure and delicate the cases the people steading alan realize that there is no exception that will swallow the rule. in the government has brought rights at the moment. so from the snowdon perspective and the lawyer, i look at that as a different rule creating an interesting backlash now and working with organizations that try to deal with the government, but the friendly perspective and

an antagonistic perspective creating industry government relationship issues, interesting to see how this bill out. roomer, the fourth amendment jurisprudence changes incrementally. so it's going to take a long time for those rules to change. >> the good news is we can set the rules. and i think that there is now quite a lot of discussion that maybe should have taken place some years ago about an actual risk analysis about how much privacy need to give up, how much actual security, how much security is actually obtained by various privacy measures. and a more thorough analysis of some of the policies is certainly called for.

>> our current system of data collection and management is dominated by hubs, let us say. so the same information about a person is in many places in many collections. is it sort of -- i'm not asking whether it is politically feasible. i think i know the answer that. is it sort of technically and economically feasible to imagine a regime where you are not allowed to hold information about a person unless it relates to your relationship, that is to imagine a system of many lines, of many lines among the various sectors rather than something dominated? >> so back to the affirmation

practice, this is about purpose and proportionality. these are two of the things that have not yet been technologically innovative against i think well enough. and so can you create proportionality? absolutely you can. can you create -- does it take more met a data? yes. probably for short term. at the proportionality and purpose and a fiduciary right to have information or control is certainly within the realm of possibility if we use the information like the unified modeling language. it is an academic question. i don't think it's done in ways anyone would like. >> i think people could. the technical matter, as possible of to do more to reduce the control how much information's somebody asked. there is tendency to take the

easy path than just collecting everything and keep it because it might turn out to be useful. as opposed to being very thoughtful from the beginning about what you really need and how you can boil the data down to retain the things you actually need rather than just keeping everything around just in case. >> very quickly. is part of the problems of that the general public, they get a notice from target that there was a data breach. someone finds the name unexpectedly on the no-fly list. otherwise people don't really care about it that much. you know, if you agree with that then what do we do to increase public care about this? >> a lot of people care.

there -- it's a hard issue to research. it's hard and emotional state that you are tapping into. very interesting research done at berkeley, one of what people understand or believe, online privacy rights and what they believe other offline privacy rights. and in both cases they of segmented the people by how privacy concerned they were from not very much to very concerned. what they found was those who were the least concerned about privacy had been mistaken belief that they had all lot of legal rights that they didn't and that those with the most concern had a greater understanding of the rights they did not have. >> i think that's true. certainly in our school safety program i think defining what

privacy actually is, is not covering up, concealing, encrypting. we're having this conversation at the engineering level. security guys all the time get out of. really is proportional to their sharing, processing throughout the life cycle. i think we just don't really quite have the language yet. when you ask someone if you like it and they say sure in the u.s. them if they would like a candy wire and when they tapped their e-mail in d.c. is behavior. the conclusion has been, oh, well, we give away our privacy for a candy bar. if they're really interested the trade off for you do have to bucks in your pocket. give yourself a candy bar, i don't think that dialogue has occurred yet. i really don't. i think it needs to happen at a

multiple level for us to really have the analysis. do people care, don't take care? some of these bad things that happened to create a market for security and privacy. i think that's the silver lining in dark days. is not just that the business is doing better, but the awareness in the marketplace is doing better. one industry moves as an example boom. but it's expensive. add another layer. it slows down checkup at yet another authenticator at the checkout line. we have this massive intrusion into cards what level. boy, oh boy, those first in line, they believe it's going belgium and a lot of different ways. on not pointing any one. >> if i could jump in on this, i think people do care about these things. they often feel like they don't -- there's not much they can do to affect the privacy. if you believe that the choices you make will really serve to

protect you then you will act differently. you might believe that there actions don't have an effect because you believe the law already protects you when, in fact, it doesn't. allegis might believe that your permission is out there this. if we see people being willing to sell their social security number for dollar we have to bear in mind that is entirely rational thing for them to do if they believe that their social security number is already on sale somewhere else. the mine is a target that dollar myself. so we need to be careful about how we interpret the way people behave, bearing in mind with their expectations are. >> as a follow-up perhaps there is a space first. maybe a somewhat more paternalistic approach by government, the europeans. perhaps -- i don't know.

you have to comply with all these rules around the world. so. >> no. to be -- you can't tell people how to care about privacy in that way. he can't say you will care and technically it behooves us to do want to show value we have to be more transparent about what's going on. real choices, contextual understanding. a graphic novel instead of writing. you have the written policy, but also have a policy with cartoon images because i know people don't read privacy policies. it will be a lot easier for them to gather the context about the amount of sharing that is done in a security context that i didn't understand before i came on board. and i think that is what we are reaching out to our students in these missions. for every sitcom you have untracked. if anyone falls in love, you

have to have violence. when you reach a contract there is no musical score. i don't know how to feel and win think it's an important decision. if you want someone to feel something in that this is the moment, the social security number is a moment, we should think about music in context. is not just pop up. there is a huge, huge room for innovation. >> you're using a gang -- yin and yang example which is perfect cy. >> there is some interesting work has been done, privacy on the books and on the ground. they studied the few european data protection authorities and companies in europe and then american companies. what they found was with a couple of exceptions there is

actually more internalized the implementation of privacy, governance and the u.s. companies, a much lighter system of law then in your where most of the privacy program in most companies was directed to filling out forms and complying with the bureaucratic processes and not really building into as though corporate value with real implementation. the one exception was germany which was much much more like the u.s. much more internalized and the company with resources to support it and build it in the process. >> that kind of what we did. making sure it we have the flexibility to allow the innovation that it does not become a process of thinking about compliance which is basically freezes in place or stops innovation for allowing the flexibility to have innovation also protecting people's rights only see that

there is a potential for real or . >> any more questions? >> the data and potentially illegal institutions with pausing a potentially big data were small data could be used to address the consumer law market organdy and restitution is to better get access to people in the legal services and down the that they have that are have a need for legal services. want to know your opinion on whether big data gorgeous small datasets could be used in regard to providing more legal services to individuals who potentially can't afford to go to a lot or -- law firms. >> data. >> yeah. >> what kind of data. >> i think they can do a lot of things. the analogy that i hearing you

ask about his kind of like whether in the, kind of the bear and a patients. i think i got malaria. you know, it also helps people be more informed and engaged in the process. maybe a similar possibility. >> another way, hope that information robbery information and using the affirmation to deliver better health care services and as the main appeal to pay for them. many aspects of the affordable care extracting information exchanges set up. but we don't have that yet coming into difference to fund industry's. is still a very disparate, almost vulcanized system of providing services to people.

>> i no there was some concern after the revelations the u.s. companies were going to lose business because of fears of u.s. government surveillance i know that steward baker said very forcefully that there is no evidence the u.s. companies have lost any business. i have heard reliable reports on the other hand that non u.s. companies have reported a spike in business. i was wondering what you know and can say about the business from this. >> steward is a friend. we know stewart beatty does not say anything not forcefully. stewart is a friend. i think we have had at least a quarter. i think the financial results speak for themselves. i will leave it there.

>> so i've would be interested in the comments from the panel about culture. there were some hints at that. it seems like the backdrop for whatever is going to happen illegally is culture. for one thing as we have talked about that is different country to country, even regions within the country let alone part of the world and traditions and those parts of the world. so -- but just looking at our culture for a moment, most of us , i think, were groomed on the ten commandments. and nice, simple list that was drilled into all of us. and i don't recall one of them saying, thou shalt not put the nose and other people's business and our mothers may have told us that. ..

you must have turned out out the cookies on your machine and i got up on the wrong side of the bed that day and i said gee i'm not going to do it and i want my subscription back just to see what would happen. they said okay and they returned the rest of the balance of my subscription. i was amazed and i said gee that

was easy, great okay. i thought everything was fine until i told my daughter and she tore my head off because she used the service. she said dad, get over it. what's your problem? so they want to put in a cookie? what's the big deal? so i did the bother thing and i said -- and two months later i frankly got frustrated that i didn't have the service anymore and i put the cookies back on and signed up. i think there is a generational thing here. i'm curious to see whether people feel there is a generational issue and the difference of views going on in other countries as well and i think as we all get more used to the notion of the fact that it's out there. it's like my trade secret in the story to beginning. once you put your data out there may be 10 years ago people were surprised at the notion that you could be driving down the street

and there would be an electronic ad targeted at you because they knew you were driving down the street. people 10 years ago would say how could they do that? where did they get the data? it's not surprising anymore paper -- people understand it and they understand that the privacy or the sense of privacy or expectations is eroding. i think the younger people are likely to be more, less interested in worrying about it and it could be a lot of it is because the rest of us older people are the ones pulling the strings these days. i don't know, we will see. >> john do you want to comment? >> agro -- i think people grow up over time and their own experiences can instruct them over time and younger people aren't always aware of the consequences in

many arenas in what they do. that said i don't know that there won't be some very much more common understanding of everything being out there but i do also think we see a lot of privacy instincts and younger people. certainly they are concerned about protecting their privacy from their parents for examples so i don't think we can say the next generation won't care. i don't think we know that. >> in fact i think we know it's not true. there is pretty good data out to shows for example the young people are more likely to try to obtain privacy settings on facebook than older people. they are more likely to adjust the settings at all than older people and young people are quite savvy about what they do

and say on line. if you have a teenage kid, don't be fooled into thinking that you can look at their facebook page and know the stuff about their life if they don't want you the parent to know. the fact is that kids are able to communicate with each other on line and share details of their lives with each other in ways that are very difficult for the people who they really want to maintain privacy from meaning their parents and teachers. so i don't think it's right that young people act like they don't care about privacy. that's not what i see from our students and all of the people who have studied this in detail seem to find that in fact they do care. >> yeah, in fact they don't care about the data that we care about necessarily but we certainly see if for example any of the world governments behave like a 15-year-old girl had a secret crush we wouldn't have snowed and revelations.

these gals hop from device to device and they switch on and off sites. they are choosy about the social network. they may have a fake site that is different from their party girl site but i want to address another issue. this is actually a callout that was written by j. klein a privacy consultant from npc and he writes a whole article on sacred references to privacy so this actually turns out does go way back into the genesis of the koran and we have writings from ahamed. we also have chapter 2477 of the kennedys of the catholic church stating respect and this was a long time ago, respect for their reputation of persons likely to cause unjust injury and guilty of rash judgment and without foundation the moral thoughts of and a brand that goes on and

talks about how sacred text in the form that the united nations did in their treaty for human rights in 1947 following the largest privacy disaster on the planet. they couldn't organize the murder without computers or privacy. and this is where you see some of that stuff. it does go back in time and our culture goes back thousands of years. >> the this is fascinating. i am curious about legal developments. licensing vis-à-vis privacy and it's fairly commonplace about potentially providing a complement to copyright related things but it's an emerging kind of law that relates to this

developing transparency that is a consequence of this distributed internet that is worldwide. i am curious and i'm asking this in the context of developing an on line university with wikipedia and coursework on line which is m.i.t. censured degrees. i am curious if you have have seen any developments vis-à-vis creative licensing or something parallel around privacy law that would rewrite some of the questions of the perpetrated fairness of questions which you have all been quite eloquent about. >> i think yes is the answer and i think where you see it happening is in the procurement space particularly i think the europeans model clauses for data as an example. i don't think it's a perfect example because they are absolutely nonnegotiable. they are a system of law but i think more and more because

people are trying to push liability around we have an obligation if we have a global environment to ensure their processing of data regardless of the circle offenders and others that third hardees that touches so we are coming up with a more common way so which we can have shorter negotiations when someone is coming in as a service provider or buying software or sharing a dataset. if i was a law student today this is the two sides of the moment for you to write that law review article. >> it think one of things to watch out for and to think about is who you put in your comments model. it is a dataset that someone has already collected or a dataset you transferred around yourself as an individual which case maybe it's more a -- type of model. in that respect though we already have that going on with the do not track settings for

example and it seems like most people have gone out of their way even in california statute to say we ignore that or we don't look at it yet. >> they ignore it. >> the ignored because at the end of the day they don't know what do not track means so that is one of the issues you have, and individuals trying to have a contract it heejun back to a corporation that is trying to track data from you and it's difficult to enforce that. that is kind of the systemic or the cultural issue that you referred to at that point. >> it i have a question on that. how would you support targeting of the ads for the individual on an individual basis like their reading habits or surfing habits

or device for people who are using safari over microsoft it or internet explorer explorer orr versus windows. or mac versus windows. >> i can view it as a person on two bases. if you are browsing the sport space i can assure ads for nike shoes as opposed if you are using apple where your individuality doesn't come into the picture but broadly getting it right and who is using what kind of technology and on that basis i can track it. >> i don't have a good answer. it's a whole area. it's a whole thing of how much

you can target and when does it become personal. i think your second scenario of looking at someone's operating system and making assumptions about them and for instance they may or may not be targeting. if you are taking that you are adding their mobile data and their location and e-mail account that they may have with you and that certainly is regulated. >> the let me be clear. these are all free services and how do people make money? let's say from a privacy point of view if i save google, yahoo! and ebay people they're not going to store data and how do you suggest they should make money and how should they place ads or something? >> the last advertising panel i participated and, the percentage of on line advertising dollars that come from targeted advertising that is based on

tracking was under 20%. there is a lot of advertising going on on the web. it doesn't depend on collecting personal information and using it to target ads. >> it i want to make to suggestions that don't have anything to do a target ads that i mentioned them earlier which is i think they are interesting. one is a fiction book called little brother. it is good reading for your high school aged kids until you get to the end. spoiler alert, think they go a little bit too far and i don't think i give it to my daughter for a while. we don't need to do that but i think it's about a kid was trying to avoid government surveillance and it's a very kind of dark world of over surveillance but i think it's interesting and it talks a lot about how location plus parental and overuse of local --

and it's an interesting fiction view and there's another important book to this debate tonight about the data in particular with which is mickey mcmanus' book trillions and it talks about today there are about a billion nodes that can send or receive information of a kind. before 2020 in print last year will be faster. in 2016 we will have a trillion nodes of central type data and to put that in context 30 billion seconds ago was 30 years ago when we were all this going and doing all sorts of funky things but a trillion seconds ago was 30,000 years ago. that is a lot of difference in humanity that has happened in the time span. there is a lot of humanity within a trillion data notes so we will start developing strategies, policies and

protections and experience some data op-ed when we get to a trillion. so i think it's an excellent reading if you're into sudan this topic. it's not a law book. its initial sting book. >> it's all very non-transparent, all those notes. >> yes right now it is, absolutely. >> it all right then if there are no further questions join me in thanking our panelists. [applause] a fascinatifascinati ng panel. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> you what we are focused on is making sure that we can eliminate their ears to getting those networks in place, building out these networks is our priority. sometimes there are local siting issues and sometimes there are federal rules that might affect how we them deploy things are what they impact might be on historic sites or the environment. we want to make sure we are sensitive to those issues. at the same time we want to make sure we move forward on deployment because our customers, those that use these devices every day in their lives depend on having a good strong connection and getting the data they want when they wanted and wherever they wanted and that means having a robust wireless network.

[applause] >> thank you. thank you all. wow. your campus is amazing. pepperdine and i remember when i was looking at colleges not that long ago but longer ago than many of you, that my parents suggested this i think mostly because they would have loved to have visited here. i came and looked a little bit even from the road driving up and i was like i'm not really sure i would ever get any work done. i'm highly impressed that all of you are still here in school

whether it's been one semester or a couple of years and that means you are getting enough work to stay here so i find that incredibly impressive and i'm really in awe. and yeah thank you. we are upset in california that we are having this ridiculously long drought but it is glorious weather and it's kind of the good and bad going together. but anyway thank you so much for having me here for the bayard lecture series. i want to start off, this talk obviously is a new understanding of these issues that oftentimes seem very disconnected. but i want to start off with kind of a main premise which is that i believe we can feed the world and i think you know it's an interesting statement to make in a global picture that we often get that suggests actually can't feed the world. the population is growing to

9 billion and we still have so many hungry people and we have all these issues connected with agriculture and the many things that food is connected to. so many people i think make the statement that we won't be able to feed the world. what's interesting is, his mouth as made a statement hundreds of years ago talking about the fact that we are going to run out of food and people are going to starve and of course there still is hunger but i think if we come from the perspective that we can feed the world we actually have a lot more hope in solving some of the world's biggest problems. assuming we have a solution i think it's a much better way to go about trying to find a solution. i think the bigger question is though can we feed the world well? we certainly have plenty of calories right now on our planet to feed everyone but as we know there is a lot of other food related problems that don't just end up having enough calories. i think that really is one of the biggest challenges of our time. it's a question that has driven

me to this new understanding of hunger, obesity and the food system so i'm hoping in this time i can walk you through my own experience, my own coming to the awareness of these problems and maybe you can see how i have come to this new understanding of these big deep issues. the other thing to start with whenever you are talking about food is that food is awesome. so many times it's kind of awkward you go to a fund-raising event for hunger hunger and there is this fancy meal or people are sitting around talking about the problem of both obesity while eating junk food. they are all challenges to talking about food because it's something we have to do every single day. it's something most of us do many more than four times a day but there's also something that every major culture has always come to as part of their celebration. no matter where we come from. i was home a month or month and

half ago at christmas or celebrating one of the many cultural celebrations. it's all about food and that's the same for every single corner of the planet. i think we are talking about these issues with food. food isn't necessarily the problem. food is something we all want to enjoy. this is not about the world going on a global diet. this is creating a food system that allows us to enjoy food but doing it in a much healthier way. i'm also going to its darkest talk and this is so super random worldview and yes it is an aircraft but it has a lot to do with my study of food. i started my career working for the military. as was said i started in political science and international relations and i was at school my senior year at columbia when 9/11 happened. obviously this had a huge impact on my studies but also on my life and i started to look in my

work studying security issues and security. i was focused team these issues working with the military and i was noticing a lot of places around the world me these aircraft carriers to come whether it's terrorists or violence for a long term security or are from the same ones where there is hungry and this really crystallized for me in my own reading about these issues around the time that the darfur crisis around 2005 was burning through east africa and the sudan and obviously that's a major challenge today. just a couple of weeks ago there was an american helicopter that was shot at in south sudan. this is the area of the world where there has been chronic long-term hunger and also chronic long-term violence. those things are connected. the other thing that's interesting about this aircraft carrier is i switched my career focused to talking about terrorism and insecurity.

i notice that we use the same big ships to deliver food to people around the world and what's interesting is that it's almost like we are going to take the shifts of those places anyway whether we are going to bring food or the weapons that need to fight the conflicts that come out of a lack of food. it's kind of a question. i found it so interesting that this one image that was so connected to our military and our physical security is also deeply connected to global food security. i would say that since i'm on a college campus i have have to make the statement once but it's going to be reiterated throughout my talk. the reason i connected those two things is not because i got a masters degree or two ph.d. in them. it's not that i had teachers that totally walked me through the process of seen the linkages between food insecuritinsecurit y and terrorism. it's actually because i just read a lot about it and i'm

courage you in your own journey whatever the issue you are passionate about and clearly i'm passionate about food that whatever issue are passionate about a lot of the answers for the new understandings about these issues actually can come from your own personal study. my own reading about the crisis in darfur were having looked at through the lens in studying terrorism is what brought me to this idea and shifted me -- my career. what happened was i started working at the united nations world food program. this is the u.n. food agency that is their largest humanitarian age and see. it's actually the largest humanitarian agency in the world and responsible for feeding millions of people. one the most simple things i learned about in working for them was their school feeding initiative. it's a symbol that we have an america where kids can't afford a school lunch we bring it to them. it's a way to get them to go to school and given the ache a signatures and to get them through school. it's a smart it's a smarter low-cost intervention. at that time in 2006 when i was

learning about it, it was $34 to feed a child for a year now but we have seen around the world it can vary from $20 to over $50 depending on prewar and where the food is coming from. there's a relatively low-cost way to make sure a kid gets into school by providing them that free school meal. part of my job is working with the celebrity ambassadors which was really cool but also gets the balance of how do you use people, how do you use our friends who live 15 miles south of here? how do we use them to get attention on these causes but not take attention away from what really needs to be talked about? in my work i started working with one of the celebrity ambassadors lauren bush and she had this idea of how can we use the fashion industry to waste awareness about this really simple easy solution to child hunger called spoonfeeding?

because we have all been so much reading about food issues in the world i thought wow now seems like a time, a moment where people are ready to talk about whether it's child hunger or how we can use fashion in a better way. around the time we were thinking about this new idea magazine started having their green issues and started talking more and more about socially conscious things and eco-friendly things and reusable water bottles. the idea was if we could support the school feeding initiative in a simple way that a lot of people could access and use the fill this need for children to have enough money and enough food to go to school. we cofounded a business and it was completely insane at the time. i had no idea how to start a company and neither did my business partner. i was working as a spokes partner at the u.n.. probably the last person you would think would go to be an entrepreneur but it was really a need to get money and awareness

raised about this problem of child hunger. the company feed was founded on that mission. we can feed one child in school for a year just by selling these bags. turned out it was a little hard work. we actually could create these products and sell them all around the world. we did this great partnership with whole foods. we had our feed bags in every single whole foods in the idea was hey wayward buying groceries for your family think about the people who need food around the world. through that partnership we were able to provide 400 -- 540,000 square mills which was incredible for the simple partnership sold in a story that we shot that on a regular basis. the other thing that was cool was we were able to produce our products wherever they wanted. we had this amazing experience

producing products in kenya where i thought we were working with a women's co-op. when we got there we found out it was mixed boys and girls who were all students of the local school for the deaf. one of the most amazing experiences i had running feed when this guy actually in this picture told me that what he liked about this was i was one of the cofounders of the company what he liked about working on this product was he knew the product was going to be sold to provide meals for hungry kids in kenya. and so here is a young person who he himself is deaf and living in what we consider to be a core part of the world that he was actually proud that something he was working on would go to help children that were less fortunate than him. what a great lesson about the human nature that everyone of us wants to make the world a better place. we are all just looking for ways that we can. one of the other things that was

interesting about running feed on the flipside was there was expectation when you are producing a product. like we said our friends were 20 miles south of here. there's an expectation that they will get this product for free. you people have the most money in the world and you want me to send a bag of food for free? no. we have this policy that somebody would buy it and pay for it and one of the coolest experiences of this time in 2,072,008 when these were just getting off the ground was we actually got us weekly magazine that she carried a baggage went to whole foods and bought. that was an incredible snapshot of a moment in time that they're such an energy around getting products that have meaning and people that are willing to go out of their way to buy them and wear them to be photographed. i think we have to remember that no matter what and issues we are

interested and sometimes there are amazing moments in time when those issues time has come. of course feed was his great success. it's an incredible company and i'm so proud to be involved in getting it started. we were able to provide now the number is close to 70 million school meals. if you think about that that was too young girls who started a company in my apartment and we have no idea how to run a business. those products sold to individual consumers around the world to provide 70 million school meals which is incredible but one of the weird parts about running feed was there was so much travel both around the u.s. and the stores and the developing places where we were feeding the kids. i would have these weird experiences in both of those environments. there was something still wrong and it was something i kept paying attention to so here i was and this is a picture in uganda. near where this house was that i was visiting and i was there to

shoot some pictures of the project i was supporting, it gone into a little market and in that market i was like maybe i will just get some local food to bring out to me. some bananas from a banana producer but the only things i could find were no teleand cookies and lots of soda. not to be like the american snob but i don't eat any of that junk. this is really weird that i'm in a rural uganda in a little market and i can't find something healthy to eat. i got out a plan and went back and landed at jfk in new york. when i got into the news airport i was like we go into this little snack shop hudson new shop you have the same exact options available to you. it's soda, chips, cookies and i was like that's really weird. the air of this world that is suffering from chronic hunger and food insecurity in this city

that certainly there are still millions of hungry new yorkers that there is this major obesity crisis happening across the country. the picture of food in both of these places is strangely very similar. also at that time we are creeping up to 2010 time period. i was noticing a lot more people were talking about domestic food issues too so the food crisis that happened in 2008 a lot of people focused on hunger. there were governments toppling and all kinds of stuff going on related to so many people that were hungry related to food prices. within a few short years the conversation swung back to this random obesity epidemic. as i was living in this while trying to support hunger that actually eating in a world that was all about how to avoid obesity i found it incredibly ironic. around my 30th birthday and

i'm actually over 30 now but around 2010 i was wondering how am i going to have a big party? i wanted to do something more meaningful than that obviously considering my career. i had this crazy idea that maybe in the last 30 years since i have been on the planet this problem of obesity that has been entirely created since i was born in this problem of hunger have more connected to them that i thought initially. maybe i have the experience of being in the market in uganda and coming home to the airport snack shop at jfk. actually what the answer is and they are the key to this new understanding. so i had the opportunity to give a talk in 2010 in new york and i made this link that maybe these food albums will really kind of a 30-year window. if you looked at 2010 where we were and where we have continued to go in 2014. actually over time although the

gross number of people yes we have reduced hunger but the fact is there still so much hunger. in 2008 the numbers of the hungry were dramatically up. obviously this other problem of obesity that we see face to face has been entirely created in just the last three years. in just the time most of us have been on the planet this obesity thing went from literally nonexistent to being a major crisis. look at these two maps. we are talking about most people which is under 15% and now almost every single state is a crisis of obesity. thank goodness we are in california where we are a little bit better but i think depending on where you are you get the same really high percentages of a deadly disease. the other thing that is crazy and that i notice also in spending a lot of time in the developing world was and you are out in the hungry areas are the

rural areas and you don't see people there so much overweight but as you get closer and closer into the cities you end up seeing obesity taking root they are too. as more people are eating our western diet you end up seeing the levels of obesity and disease and diabetes and cancer and heart disease and stroke in all of those things as we have. everywhere you go you see the same chains in the same brands in the same soda in the same sugar cereal. it's this incredible fact that we are actually ending hunger in getting people to be overweight. we are also having this kind of weird never before seen problem of people that are in the same person both hungry and overweight. this happens a lot actually. you see him and his people going to a food bank in america. a lot of people visiting food banks look overweight but are

malnourished, don't have proper nutrition because the calories that they can access or the cheapest least healthy calories. they are gaining weight but not actually gaining nutrition. i really think this connection between how we end hunger in our time but not me call the hungry people into people that are dealing with another food related health problem is a question for our generation. we now know what it's been hap thing in the last 10 years have created an obesity epidemic and has an end of hunger so what are we going to do going forward? if we have a world where in 2010 it was 1,000,000,001,000,000,000 now it's around eight or 900 aliens that are chronic hungry and 1.5 william people that are overweight. the numbers are not necessarily going in the right direction. so we are looking at this stuff and looking at one area food i had to dig deeper into what could have possibly created these problems. that kind of takes you way back to the farm.

as weird as it is when you kind of look at the basic snapshot of farming systems we have farming systems in america that are these massive farms producing a lot of corn, a lot of soybeans, wheat and then we have farming systems in the developing world where mostly women farmers are struggling to get by. it's almost like neither of those is just right. it's kind of the goldilocks and the three little bears thing. none of that is just the right way of farming. there has been so much changed just in the last 30 years. we have lost a lot of farmers and their farms have consolidated into a lot of our food companies have consolidated to become bigger. farmers are making less to the dollar than they were. we have reduced our agricultuagricultu ral aid and getting more food aid like those big ships in the picture so ships sending over specialist to help people learn how to grow

their own food. they are sending more and more of our food to feed people. we have reduced our funding for this basic public research in agriculture and african corn production originally the world that especiallespeciall y needs corn production has in many cases gone down. consolidation has gone up ,-com,-com ma temperatures have changed. all of these natural disasters have increased. so many data points have gone in the wrong direction. one of the major things that has changed especially in the last 30 years as our reliance on single crops. obviously corn. so many of you whether you've seen the movies or read the books or occurred about this corn is in everything whether it's high fructose corn syrup which was put in both pepsi and coke in 1984. this was a product that didn't exist until the 70s. then you look at the obesity emma dimmick starting in 1980 and continuing dramatically, that data point alone as a

question. we started feeding more corn to our animals so we have this massive increase in people looking around the world to how are we going to feed and increase the supply of animal products? maybe we are not doing it the right way. we are feeding a lot of corn to animals increasing their fat. maybe that's also increasing hours. now of course we are feeding corn to our cars and still having so much corn extra that we are sending it overseas to feed hungry kids. we are doing a lot more dumping of our corn excess. at the same time as this one agricultural product has overtaken us the agricultural problem -- products have become harder to e. over the past couple of years fruits and vegetables grown near here and telephone the prices have gone up for the consumer so it's been harder to access those things. of course the prices of soda and junk food and a lot of things

that are made of corn have actually gone down. at the same time which makes a lot of economic sense if fruits and that shovels are getting more expensive and less healthy food is getting cheaper more and more people are being less healthy food and we have a system built on things like subsidizing those agricultural products coming creasing the investment and research for those agricultural products. we have the outcome of people eating more and more fast food and drinking more and more soda. if you look at this graph which is a little bit nerdy but really interesting. we all go to the store and we have a limited number of dollars spent we have to spend it on something. it makes a lot of sense that we end up spending those limited dollars on things that have more value for the dollar. if it's cheaper to buy soda than a healthier product it makes economic sense to do it and if it's more challenging to buy the fresh fruits and vegetables at the top of the line maybe we are not going to buy them so much.

the usda is telling us to fill half of our play with fruits and vegetables that we don't grow anywhere near that. if you go to most grocery stores they only take up 10% of the grocery store so you are supposed to fill up your plate halfway that owns only in temper some of the grocery store. that doesn't make much sense. we have these dueling problems as an outcome. it's crazy that mississippi and india have the dubious distinction of both having the highest numbers of malnutrition and some of the highest numbers of the city existing in the exact same populations of people. clearly there is something radically wrong with how we are getting food or growing food in those places that is leading to these problems. the other thing that i think is so ironic is our population of farmers are some of the most overweight people in our country it's kind of crazy that the super bowl ads from last year i

remember the famous farmer ad was this gruff looking guy out there doing the hard work in the fields. the reality is pretty different. a lot of people are driving around in totally mechanized tractors not getting a ton of exercise and eating a lot of junk food while sitting in their tractor cab and a lot of farmers especially the ones growing a lot of food in the junk food companies are demanding aren't even growing healthy foods close to home. it's very hard to eat the fresh right from the garden right from the farm food that we getting california. it's harder and harder to eat those foods and corn and soy growing regions. its obesity and hunger that are killing us. it they are killing innocent kids and people that don't realize by eating they are eating themselves to death and then you have health care as a solution. another interesting fact and this is from more than the last

30 years but it's a similar trajectory. we used to spend more money on food. maybe we were eating food differently and they spend less money on health care but today we are loving the fact that we don't spend that much money on food. we are all looking for the cheapest option but we are spending a lot more money on health care. instead of food being an agricultural act may be agricultural is a health act. actually the farm bill was just passed this week again but so many of us don't even know about it. there is an uproar when the health care legislation is going to affect us all and changes everything but isn't food in the farm bill going to affect us so much more and no one is talking about it. here we have in the state of california one of the most rich agricultural lands in the world that so many of us don't even know it. i'm not saying it's our fault. we don't even know the fundamental issues affecting these farmers.

where the subsidies are going in where the tax breaks are going and that eventually will end up in our mouths. i would argue it's time to rethink the entire system and yes maybe i am crazy but it's not as complicated as you might think. in the last 30 years the food system kind of went crazy. i was in many of the wrong direction so will it take us another 30 years to make things change for the better? i don't think it will take that long but i think if you look at young people today they are looking into the future and saying what is the food system i won't? if we take some responsible for for -- responsibresponsib ility for building it now it's possible that 30 or so now we will be looking back and saying wow is not cool that we reverse the entire epidemic of obesity and is not cool that we finally ended hunger like generations before them said they were going to do? i think we have to look at food as the problem and the solution. we can't tell people not to eat

is a way to end obesity and we can't keep flowing excess food to end hunger. we have to look at the little bit more fundamentally at how it will change the system. i would argue to change the system we actually need to start a sick here. if we are going to change how a system has the outcome we have to change the measurements that go into it greater we going to judge our agriculture just on how much it produces or are we going to judge it on how much nutrition it produces? what about ways? does everyone here know there's about 40% food waste in america a? actually this was the first super bowl that happened was the first super bowl one of the largest sporting events in the world that had composting. isn't it crazy that it's 2014 in this technology that is thousands of years old and is the first time it was used in the super super bowl? there is also 30 to 40% food waste in the developing world as well because all this investment

that is gone to helping people grow corn for giving people some of our food access hasn't gone to helping them store at and having better roads to take it to market them better refrigeration along the way so doesn't go bad. in these places where there is dire hunger instead of focusing on growing more food maybe we could focus on reducing waste. how about focusing on food diversity? we grow so many of the same thing over and over again and we forget the fact that we actually don't need just one thing to survive. we have a lot of different foods so we are rewarding diversity in agriculture could change the way our agricultural system functions. maybe instead of thinking about growing a lot of one thing we think about replicating farms around. we are lucky like we said in california. we can access great farmers markets. there is a lot of great stuff growing nearby but what if we have a system that was replicated in other states? what if instead of growing tons

of corn in iowa and nebraska we grew a lot more diverse things? iowa needs to be a capital of apple growing. what if we grew more diverse apple varieties and the united states? what about the real cost of growing food? i know you're not agricultural scientists here but it's pretty important to think about what goes into grow the food that we eat and most of us don't know about the chemicals in the products and inputs that are used to grow our food. what if the health of the farmer was the number one goal so farmers in the developing world were hungry that would mean the system had failed and if they were overweight it meant the system failed. what if that is the key goal? what if another goal in the farm bill is tied to health care legislation so the only way health care legislation is successful is if food legislation is successful? what if we demanded that from

our congresspeople although i wouldn't hold your breath on that one. what if instead of focusing on foods and let's get enough calories and getting people vitamins over here we actually thought about the fact that nutrients are compacted inside of foods. we don't want them to get a multivitamin and sugar cereal. what if we actually in our generation redefined the value meal? what if the value meal wasn't just how many calories can i get for the lowest dollar? what if it was valued by a series of metrics like how a nutritious is this? how good is this for the community i live near? how good does it make me feel? how will this help me prevent obesity in the future? a few other new questions before we get to the fun stuff. first of all there's so much talk about how we are going to feed the world in end obesity. what if we just thought about future consumers because people

don't often focus on the fact that young people today are actually going to be the ones making all of the decisions about our food economy in the future. a future consumers are demanding one thing or another that's the best place to start. i think it isn't really a hopeful place to start. i don't know if you have heard that mcdonald's one of the largest food companies in the world has publicly stated they had a millennial problem. the problem is there are not enough mullah nails that will go because we are too busy going to chipotle which has healthier food and treats the animals better and often treats the bet bet -- workers better too. what if that is the future of our food system? that would be i think a much better place to start. maybe we should be questioning if yes there is food on every corner but will that model continue? do we want to make sure every time we turn around we will be going to staples to buy office and school supplies somehow there are candy bars there and that is so weird.

what if we don't want food to be every single place we turned? once we are there we know we will buy it so maybe that's a fundamental question we have to ask. i don't know if you've heard this quote but it's misattribmisattrib uted to einstein. this idea that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. we keep growing more and more food but hopefully somehow we will end up with a country that's not overweight and not hungry. clearly that's not working. let's talk about the teacher either because i would guess that the future in this room and when you look at changes that we have started to make an rfid system i think it goes really well with what the future could hold. one is that we love farmers markets. it's not just because it's the hipster thing to do on a sunday morning, which it is in our

skinny jeans but also it's an experience to see someone who has grown your food or made your cheese and the like that experience. we like these things called csa's which depending on pray you are is a well-known acronym but the idea of community supported agriculture buying food directly from a farmer to help the farmer have a consistent income but also to help you have a consistent stream of healthy local food. then the crazy word organic that people like to diss or not talk about or possess over. the fact is the sales of organic food has grown very consistently. if you are looking at is this trend sits a smart business trend to get involved in. it's something that is consistently growing even as some other foods and food groups have slowed down. the local thing isn't just hey it's be really cool and wealthy and shop within our region.

it's actually a legitimate economic movement. people are interested in finding out where their strawberries were grown. i think people are more willing to say i don't need this type of fruit in the dead of winter. i know we are in southern california but let's pretend we are in the rest of the world. people don't need fresh strawberries every single day of the year so there is always this attitude about these trends that suggest they are only for a certain few but the fact is these are trends that once they start have actually moved around the country and eventually around the world. i was at a meeting at a group called the world food prize two years ago and there was a farmer from bogotá colombia talking about the fact that we are just starting a really strong farmers market is there. something that has probably been replicated from california farmers markets that have existed for a long time but now

it's built around the entire world is a new way to engage farmers and to work together to create economies and growing food in cities is not something for people to want to have a vertical garden or they think it's cool to grow tomatoes in a restaurant. it's a major economic force. there are something like 800 million people living in urban environments and growing their own food especially in the developing world but in south l.a. and unbelievable leader for this movement has set things like you know growing your own food is the only way you can truly make your own money and if you become a guerrilla gardener you are really saying screw the man just by growing vegetables near your house. if you think about turning food into a revolutionary act when

you look at the data of hunger and obesity around the world but it's not just here in america and not just for farmers nearby. more and more you go to college campuses and people are interested in things like fair. coffee. that sounds like is just starting on college campuses but more and more places you go are offering things like fair trade. they are two examples of a huge percentage of sugar in the u.k. are fair. certified because people realize we are buying things from countries around the world and we need to support them because we don't grow them nearby. should we make sure those farmers are not turning into hungry people later on? we are so concerned about agricultural policies here and so concerned about immigration policies here but we are not thinking about the fact that our food dollars impact our vote. our food dollars at the huge impact on immigration policies because people can't stay successful small farmers in the country if they live of course

they will look for ways to come here. should we connect things like how we buy our fruits and vegetables to things like -- on the backend? maybe this next generation of people and will. it looks like i may be a little bit right about that. this is the national restaurant association and this is their 2013 trend alert. these are the representatives of all the major food chains. the mcdonald's in the chile's in the olive gardens. what they are saying is people are looking for things like locally grown produce environmental sustainability on their menus, nutrition gluten-free sustainable seafood. all of these things are not just the trends that the fancy restaurants and l.a. or malibu are interested in but actually the neighbor --

major chains around the country and eventually around the world realize it's the way of the future. i argue that we have to do a better job of connecting our apple computer's. so many times people say oh we can never get the whole world to eat healthy because it's impossible. it's only something that the wealthy do but the reality is that's exactly what people were saying 10 years ago about cell phones. people were saying that cell phones are just this niche rob him that a few people would only have. the fact is today there are more cell phone users on the continent of africa than there are in america. that's the way the trend is going. there are more people that have better access to technology but still don't maybe have the access to basic food. we have to think of that same creative destruction that we use to create awesome technology products and bring that into our

food supply. one thing that is super exciting about this is that there are so many young entrepreneurs engaging a new food companies so food trucks which are really fun to eat at our crazy creative destruction example of innovation. they're showing hey i have enough money to buy a track and make some good tasting food out of my truck. you see a lot of app companies being developed to connect people to their farmers. all of these tech innovations that are improving our lives whether we talk to each other on snapchat which is so awkward. they keep all of your pictures, people. don't do it but the fact is all the technologies we use to have fun with we also use the same type knowledge he liked the snapchat farmer. i don't know if you have seen this because i'm a food so i would but there is a hashtag on twitter called --

which is a farm selfie in that super cool. there was a pope with a lamb around his neck and someone tweeted out. we have all of this technology at our disposal and instead of just using it as a great way to have fun and take pictures of ourselves we actually can use it to find better quality food. we have layers on google earth of where restaurants are and we have great technologies to find the best food option or the secret underground restaurant that is a pop-up restaurant. that's something that i think our generation is play nearing as a way that we will connect better with food going forward. it's not just because it improves the food systems for us but because the food systems we build an america as we have seen and that becoming the food systems around the entire world. i think that such a missing link

about all of these discussions. we americans have ended up holding the systems and building the brands that people are using literally around the world. an example of this is that coke is available in more countries than are recognized by the united nations. that's a product that we have invested our consumer dollars in building and now we have seen it is literally one of the most universal products around the world. what if we the next generation could do the same thing for healthy food that we have done for brown sugar water? what if we can actually use the technology and use our will to create a food system that is replicated in a way that other people get healthier and that solves these dueling challenges? i think it's upon us and the time is now that we can actually build a food system that will feed the world well. there's there is so much energy around food. there is so much information around food. there is so much technology

available and none of us want to grow up and deal of the health problems of obesity and none of us want to continue to see a world full of hunger. we are at this incredible unique almond in time where we actually can be the generation that helps to build a better food system. so who is weak wax one of the most incredible things about going to food conferences and being relatively young as i have sat in so many rooms where people working on these issues for 50 years really, really old dudes are standing up there and are like how were we going to feed the world? i'm not trying to make fun of them but i'm just saying that's how it is. the fact is they are not going to see the world because they're not going to be around. ..

it's totally true. have you seen the things that we find cool, the things that we invest our limited to major was limited dollars and buried the things that in the taking of the world. it was unlike any -- any consumer was begging to have

wrinkles and coat to be the only options for them and the girl you gone up. it was because those companies have been so empowered by our use of them that they were the first ones to be able to get around the world and be available. i think it is really up to us, especially the next generation, the millenniums from across all sectors and across the world to actually change we put on our plate and in doing so to build healthier food systems. think it's time we realized that although giving in charity is awesome and i am so proud to have been engaged in a great company that gives and in helping people to give one, we have to remember that how we give this a much greater. we are still mom means spending 10 percent of our income on food, less than 2% on charity. we shifted a little bit more of our food dollar to be something that helps to improve the world consisted of something the navy hopes to degrade the world we're doing so much more and improve the world.

i know that such a crazy thing to think about. and try to tell you the differently because it will somehow -- bomb was kind of right. the way we eat actually does have an impact of food that's available around the world, but more importantly the foods available in our community. that would challenge your think about what she read as a way that you think about innovation in life. the same way that we think of our apple computer, think of the apple is going to eat. if we are investing in a few narrow varietals and not all but the diversity that we are making a consumer choice that that is the kind of apple that we want. a couple things to remember. eat your values. do you value the life of the farmer and the developing world to agree that been an act? or is it just like what the cheapest in and out there. would argue that if we get a

better job with the banana republics paying a fair price when may not have challenges like guatemala having the fourth highest level of malnutrition in the entire world. this is a country that we import from and we have not yet been able to get this very nearby neighbor out of poverty enough to feed its own people. we partially responsible and buy every single one of those parts that we buy which does not a four people the opportunity to send their own kids to school without a charity dollars. i would also challenge although it's hard in college, but if a going to occupy something how about occupying it kitchen? have found it really ironic during a lot of those sort of social movements that were -- the word occupy the sum much of this was the same big corporate food that theoretically there were fighting against. one of the most powerful things you can do it take a stand for someone you believe in is to control what you put your own

body. i think we forget about that. we viewed this apron as something that our grandmothers or when actually it could be the most sort of subversive to of we have to take all of something and do for ourselves dividend as much as this seems weird, eating family dinner. the irony is so few of us actually eat, sit down with the friends and family and have a meal and share meals. we're so focused on all the other things in the world that are some much more important than just sitting at that moment eating. the data suggests when your e with others call me with their parents, kids, just of humans so many things in your life improved. and i'm sure that it also means the food you actually need improves. you want to sit there in front of -- eating a family dinner when all you're doing is picking of the bag of doritos. and it's also a way to make it cheaper to do a better thing for your food. it's a less-expensive to make a

big thing of chemlawn for five people and share the burden than it is to a, you know, try to go and individually portion these things of yourself. also spending the time, spending a little bit of the effort cooking makes the food much more meaningful. we all don't need any more reasons to try the yield of less. if the food may be has a little bit more meaning into co little bit more energy to produce maybe we will savored just a little bit more. maybe that's the only diet will need. i would say that we do have the opportunity to feed the world well. i think it is the a opportunity of our generation because of foul interested we are defeating ourselves better. i think it's so connected that if we feel ourselves better we really well feed the world better. i encourage you to stay interested in what's going on, continue to give, continue to help the hungry. i know that the work that companies are doing and organizations and non-profit to

doing is incredibly important for feeding people today. the strata make it so that tomorrow we don't need companies like that. we don't need solutions to be sending our excess over to feed hungry people. we maybe have helped build by that point food systems that allow people to feed themselves and a better way. the reality is the revolution should be delicious because food is also. so are going to leave you there. we will be able to take questions on the microphones. [applause] [applause] >> we a plenty of time for questions. you have a question raise your hand and will bring the microphone to you. >> that was an awesome talk. >> great. my question for you, this was

your generation. i remember that my cousins are your age. when they were school children they fought against mcdonald's. i remember don't go to mcdonald's. a boycott of the mcdonald's. so i think it's terrific that you're targeting this generation of college students. the being fed at their schools candy and soda and all kinds of things that then becomes normal to them. and if that became something that they rallied against the new got the next generation. so you thought about how you might give general children. >> i think that's a really great question. what has been interesting is from where i sat looking out at this sort of the ecosystem there is some much energy, mom had a garden, but my mom had a garden

to save money. it wasn't because it was hit thing to do. i did grow up knowing what a tomato was and where it came from. i don't think most of my schoolmates did. and i don't think most people understood the connection between the low pippa that he may be planted in kindergarten and what that ended up being later. i think the energy and the focus now around school programs and gardens is amazing. it's actually a great example of something that is done and works both your home and in the developing world. there are school garden programs across latin america, africa, asia, south asia, luckily everywhere they're helping feed those kids healthy foods. those same solutions apply to kids in our school. it's a perfect example of how those similar solutions, the simple solutions actually help kids everywhere no matter where they are. that said one thing i would say specifically to the generation,

the specific generation gaps is my generation of people, and in my mid-30s, i don't think they're ever going to roll back to the happy meal. i think we now have hit the next generation. and i think any of us would go feed our kids that food. i think we are really at this amazing tipping point of radical change. i mean mcdonald's actually recently has announced that they are switching over to sustainable beef honestly it's amazing. in england and i only use kaythree exec fairly radical when you think about how many i've muffins' the make. they're not serving old mill. it's really sugar real bill.

and now serving a meal for breakfast. these movements to work. they are proven to work. i think in terms of this interesting tool movement, the school garden, this incredible work being done in california, chef and cooper in boulder. there's also now this next generation of parents to mime sorry. you don't need a cut a party every friday. i think will we start having kids were going the sort of put our foot down. just because you have soccer practice doesn't mean you get a gator it. you did in our slice. a more pragmatic sense of what kid food means. sonya.

>> thank-you very speech. i really enjoy it. my question is about how you propose changing the way we'd have related to the problem that is predominantly in western countries that need to rely on ourselves for food. that's why i think african countries and latin american countries to allow the farmers and not being allowed to sell the food that they produce. being dumped in african american countries. howdy feel -- out the proposed getting the error cultural perfectionism? >> i think you pretty much summed up the very clear and deep understanding.

king grass to you and your teachers. that's -- the complexities of the issue are there. i would say at think all of this comes down to power at the doorstep of our senators and congressman. if we disempower the companies, the groups, the lobbies, go and knock on the door and beg for that kind of protection we disempowered them by removing a dollars from their corporate coffers. it is true. and one thing has been very interesting as a long time that between food excess aid, the

organizations, the company's that provide the corn and soy excess and the organizations and non-profit their giving that food excess and a. there's a relationship there. nonprofit need corn to feed people. in the company's need to cover of the hundred organizations to allow them to continue to get support from washington. people probably don't know this, in order for us to give most of our help to hundred people it has to be u.s. food and while we on u.s. ships send over to developing world. now that might be geared for a few people's jobs and i respect that, but i don't think that's a long-term answer. so we have been able to the

actually already in this last farm bill been able to break that lobby a little bit. now people say why are we helping people in the developing world grow the wrong food. there is now a lot more energy to my conversation, money being directed tell people grow their own food and there was fiber to in years ago people none of us the system. trying to push it in a different direction. i think the more that we stop eating these foods are less power there will have to continue to spread those kind of policies all-around world. that -- it's incredibly frustrating. we feel so disconnected from it. but to know when you do the research how much we are hurting

our neighbors around the world but just the three policies of our effectiveness. you know, it seems so counterintuitive. wire we trying to feed people over here but actually eating in ways that kind of keep them down over here and in not allowing there imports over here. the secular system does not seem to make a lot of sense. that said, as more and more people were able to eat more and more locally and regionally that would not be a terrible thing. roh is going to have to import coffee, is going to have to import some of these foods. i don't think or risk of cutting of the developing world. i think we have an opportunity to eat more local foods and make sure that the foods we do read that are imported are imported in a fair manner. >> thank you very much. i don't want to sound cynical. when i preface was there with that.

i'm a historian. i do see some parallels to the critique you're talking about about food aid. going back to the 70's certainly and into the 70's and 80's. and so what i want to know is whether you think it's particularly different now. one thing i'm hearing is that there is a broader consumer base movement to you think and have power. but i guess i'm still just wondering about that. i don't want to be cynical. i want to have hope in reno of the way he prefaces the soap. your talking about a generational terms. again, even in the pastor is the sort of generational energy. a lot of people writing about food and some of these issues using some of the same language, there is some new language. but there are patterns here that are all to me. >> yap. there's one radical difference.

the obesity epidemic. and why that's a radical differences because it actually affects me. i can speak to any audience anywhere in the world. every single person is either in the context of the modern food system struggling with their own way because we now -- maybe we always did, but we certainly now all struggle with our own way because of the food system we live in because it's much easier to be heavy and is to be normal. everyone knows people that i deeply struggling with major, major health problems. i think that's a radical change. if you look at the data, says the 1980's that is radically changed. so, yes, there were always called problems, i'm sure there'll is food related problems. food safety problems and all these other things, the radical obesity epidemic, the availability of cheap sugar, fat, salt, it's a major difference.

i think people have an energy to protect themselves from that. i am trying to harness it as a way to also approve the world. i think the connection is i understand that many people might come to this. they actually care about their own weight or elf. actually can be harnessed to help people around the world. one thing that's missing from a lot of die conversations, how that fits into the food system, going on a diet is just restricting -- is putting a ball around yourself. what i'm arguing is less change the system saw none of us have to live like that anymore and we can actually assume that will we go to a restaurant the food that were going to be eating is just fundamentally of 80. we now know many of it is not. many of the options that are available at mainstream restaurants are just not locate the. thousands of calories in one

dish or fried in trans fats that are truly on healthy. all these things that just really did not exist before. >> i would like to reiterate, great talk. there seems to be a low of tension using capitalist system, voting with their wallets and that kind of thing to change a system when there are already institutions from economies of scale what kind of things outside of generic anti corruption lane changes the thing should be done with

respect to the food policy and/or shipping policies of something like that. what you think of the most relevant policy changes that need to be enacted at the governmental level? >> that's a great question. i think again that's a very comprehensive analysis of these issues. number one, finance reform. you know, that's what's so interesting about the new issues surrounding food. so many of the political challenges are not limited to what the outcomes are. a lot of challenges to our different systems that campaign finance reform and help. and so i think the food is the same. incredibly deep pockets that are -- but to hold that thought the reason that we have incredibly deep pockets is because were buying the food. again, i think these things are really connected. if we do disempower the companies and lobbies that a

spending that time knocking on washington's door, you know it's a great irony. there was a big announcement by the first lady his work really respect. she had this big announcement was subway about getting people to eat more vegetables. literally subway as a new sense that as free as an it. i'm like of this has got to stop. this is ridiculous. does not more vegetables. that's corn chips. again, our dollars are pumping into the free us and which. one of the things that i think -- and i'm glad you ask this because i often don't get to talk about this in the context of the food talks, i think there are a lot of other complementary issues that will help nudge food policy that has nothing to do with food policy. an example is urban planning. that sounds really random, but you guys live in a college

campus. you're pretty much living in one of the best designed human sized , human focus living environments that you will ever live and unless you go and live in a what will city. the fact is the college campuses are designed to be -- your designs to walk even of this big kills your. they're pretty -- there really strong. tomorrow less designed to be allowed to walk where you need to go. as a public transport bus that takes you if you can't walk. and there's options for you to get some snacks or food, options. each exercise, google library, go to the bookstore. there are all walkable. i think one thing that's going to help nudge through policy among people, especially younger people want more walkable environments when they leave college. one thing that has been interesting, real estate has shown this moralistic becomes

tighter. the areas that have lost the most and best of the areas of what's called the expert, the far outside of cities, suburban areas where you really can't do anything unless you drive. i don't think most of us want to live like that. even if it means you have a smaller house, most of us would rather live in a place for you get this block to a coffee shop. i think there will also help to shift food policy because you can't have a major make a super walmart in a wok or environment. i think we are choosing in other areas of our policies for of our lifestyles, were choosing systems that actually don't fit with the current for its system. i think that's really cool actually. that may be something like urban design for urban planning and maybe buy a policy which is

getting more attention all-around world, not just in california where we should be biking a rare because the weather is amazing, but everyone around the world there are bikes teams connected the food policy because it's giving people a reason to say actually want to be able to just like somewhere instead of driving. maybe not going to get to buy one get one free because actually i can't carry it in the back of my bike. so it seems so disconnected but those are actually very connected and the will of national policies in the right direction. not the signer of remove. that would be a big help. >> i haven't got. people have to learn to cook

again. in school kids can -- when i was growing up we learned how -- we had held back and learn habakkuk. i think vegetables of come from a garden, you have to know what to do with them. there were these three generations of amazingly obese people, not one of the three generations, everything they it was bought. what can you do with getting food preparation, the question is have we get people to cook again. there's so many examples of people struggling with health and weight issues. deleting all the things that a packaged.

you know, i think actually up on this side as a low company astra recall the apron project which was in on the picture one of those lines to occupy your kitchen. i think that -- you know, it's funny. there's a total have mr. mr. movement around di why, do it yourself stuff. it's also -- some of it is very connected to the food movement, some of it is i want to do things more cheaply and i don't want to buy stuff it's only made overseas and terrible factories. i think that's another little sort of tangential area that's imagine non-food system change. but the fundamental thing is we -- it's really weird. historically sort of call it the feminist movement. it's really weird that part of the feminist movement was to throw off her aprons and don't be afraid for the kitchen and a more but actually be a slave to a company is making a product in the kitchen that's going to put you on a course to permit an

obesity and make you hate your body image in a way that -- so i think the young feminist conversation is like with a minute. iphone outsourcing the food intake and actually giving all the power to the man in . so i think there's an energy around finding new ways to embrace things like cooking, making your own smoothies. these are little, easy steps the lot of people take. i think there's a lot more, you know, realization that his knowledge because it's a cute martha stewart thing to do, but actually because it's incredibly powerful. his power to control what actually goes into your body instead of just taking whatever is given to you. so i think if we, as cooking from that perspective it may be a better way to reach the next generation and by the way it's

also an issue. acting more and more there's a lot of energy. the great example you brought up more and more energy not just around in that-ups but men that want to cook and want to also sort of control this one part of their lives that previously they, you know, were often left to other people. i think refraining cooking as an empowerment tool is a really smart way to go in this totally working because there's so much more energy around picking them was a short time ago. >> join me in thanking her speaker. [applause] >> thank you for that great presentation. thought-provoking. the example that you provide to act in the difference of one individual can make and how we can make a difference in the world is a great message. thank you. to remember your time here we

have. >> that so cool. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank-you all for coming. >> coming up tonight on c-span2, the communicator's examine wireless infrastructure. setting an 830 eastern book tv and prime-time features books on u.s. relations with russia. first with edward lucas, then berman. ..