What this site does not cover, and why

The rule we are following

Every ActSmall topic operates on a single editorial rule: where the named scientific and operational authorities converge, we display it; where they diverge or are silent, we do not invent a position. The named bodies for food security and food systems are the FAO (production, hunger, IPC/CH), the WHO (nutrition, food safety), IFPRI (policy analysis), and the World Food Programme (operational humanitarian response). Where they converge we cite them. Where they have not, we say nothing.

GMO health claims

The published position of the WHO is that "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health"; the FAO and the European Food Safety Authority publish equivalent product-by-product positions^[1]. This is the public-health consensus, and we cite it where the question comes up. The environmental, regulatory, and trade positions on GM crops differ sharply by country and we do not assert a single answer to those. We do not include a "GMO content" layer on the food map because there is no actionable household-food decision at the granularity such a layer would suggest, and most national labelling regimes already cover the consumer right-to-know question.

Organic versus conventional health claims

The largest systematic reviews of "is organic food healthier than conventional" (Smith-Spangler et al. 2012, Stanford; Brandå et al. 2014 BJN; and the EFSA 2018 review) all reach essentially the same finding: differences in nutrient content are small, and there is no clinically meaningful health-outcome difference at typical consumer intakes^[2]. There are real and well-documented differences in pesticide-residue exposure, antibiotic-resistance gene levels in animal products, and on-farm biodiversity outcomes — these are different questions, and the FAO has published technical analyses on each. We do not assert "organic is healthier"; we do cite the environmental and on-farm differences where the named bodies have spoken to them.

Single-diet rankings

Mediterranean, DASH, plant-based, ketogenic, paleo, carnivore: the public conversation treats these as a competitive ranking. The WHO and FAO have not published a single "best diet" ranking. The WHO's published nutrition guidance covers a small set of indicators (added sugar, saturated fat, sodium, trans fat, fruits and vegetables, fibre, whole grains) and the EAT-Lancet Commission published a planetary-health diet framework that we cite as a reference, but neither is a brand-name diet endorsement^[3]. We do not rank brand-name diets and we do not produce per-diet health verdicts.

Per-product "carbon footprint" comparisons

"Beef has 100x the carbon footprint of lentils" is the kind of headline that maps onto a real and important difference (livestock systems are higher per-protein than most plant proteins, and beef is higher than other livestock) but the per-product number depends on the life-cycle-assessment (LCA) methodology, the system boundary, the country of production, the feed regime, and whether soil-carbon and land-use change are included — and reasonable LCAs differ substantially. Poore and Nemecek (2018) is the most-cited single source for an industry-wide median, and we cite it as a reference; the FAO LEAP partnership publishes the methodology recommendations^[4]. We do not produce a "this exact food has this exact footprint" calculator because the inputs vary by a factor of two to ten by region and method.

"Seed sovereignty" and corporate-concentration positions

Concentration in the seed and agrochemical industries (Bayer-Monsanto, Corteva, Syngenta-ChemChina, BASF), patent-on-life debates, and seed-saving rights are real and active policy areas; the FAO's International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is the multilateral framework. We link to the treaty text and to the named ENGO positions (La Via Campesina, GRAIN, Bioversity International) without endorsing one side over another on contested points.

Food-as-medicine and supplement claims

Specific food-as-medicine claims (turmeric "anti-inflammatory" dosing, apple-cider-vinegar metabolic effects, alkaline-food cancer claims, raw-milk benefits, fasting protocols at non-clinical durations) are not endorsed by the WHO, FAO, or major national nutrition authorities at the strengths popular sources assert. We do not repeat them. Where the WHO or named national bodies have published positions on specific dietary supplements (vitamin D, iodine, iron, folate at population level), we cite those.

Where this leaves us

The food topic covers what the FAO, WHO, IFPRI, and WFP have converged on: prevalence of undernourishment (FAO SOFI), IPC and Cadre Harmonisé acute food-insecurity classifications, child stunting (WHO/UNICEF/WB JME), the FAO Food Price Index, household actions that the named bodies endorse (reducing food waste at home, supporting local food systems, dietary diversity within the EAT-Lancet ranges). Where the named authorities are silent or where the question is policy rather than household action, we say so.