The first step in the development of FBDGs is for a jurisdiction or policy agency to recognize that the location and peoples for which it is responsible has nutritional problems--and there is almost nowhere that does not.
Generally, participatory approaches involve communities and embrace households, and are therefore the logical focus of FBDGs.
If FBDGs are seen as intrinsic to community development and recruit now-available technologies to connect communities, households and individuals, they have greater prospects.
A fundamental feature of the ability of China to play an early and foundation role in the development of the FBDGs in 1995 was that its nutrition scientists maintained a thread of basic community-oriented research during the most difficult times and rapidly re-asserted themselves once the opportunity arose.
As observed by Ge Keyou, FBDGs reflecting these changing trends have not penetrated the country as a whole or beyond a more informed constituency.
Changing Roles of FBDGs in Safety, Security, and Sustainability
In Figure 1, which depicts the CCH-FBS model, they are made more explicit than with the first generation of FBDGs for international use by additions (*) to the original core process.
Figure 1 draws attention to how a new generation of FBDGs will, if effective, have a focus on households and communities.
This, therefore, needs to be explicit in regard to FBDGs (see Figure 1).
Given the complexity of the issues outlined above, it does seem time to move to a more proactive stage in the FBDGs era.
Hence, FBDGs can be more effectively implemented (Figure 1).
It will not be enough to have "Harmonization of FBDGs" as has been suggested (Smitasiri and Uauy 2007) Harmonization tends to standardize inter-locality difference in DGs and, thereby, negate some of the intrinsic value of FBDGs which cultivate difference in approach with an agreed underpinning of broadly-based food and nutrition science.