I start with a question: 
can food communicate with our DNA?

And if it communicates with our DNA, 
can it affect health?

Let's think of a first image, the bees.

We have three bees: the worker bee,
the drone, and the queen bee.

All three have the same DNA,
the same genome;

but the queen was fed by larvae

with a different food: royal jelly.

And as we can see,
the queen's dimensions are different.

But not just the size:
her function is different.

It is the only one, inside the hive,

that can mate and give rise
to a new colony.

So the food communicated
something to the DNA,

because they all have the same DNA.

And we need to go,
in order to understand that,

into the small core of our cells.

Two microns, enclosing
three billion bases,

which is our two meters long,
extremely packaged genome.

Think that in the late 90s

it was thought that the study
of the human genome

would have provided great answers

both in understanding diseases
but also in understanding the DNA.

It soon became clear,
we were only at the beginning,

because only 2-3 percent of DNA
encodes for a protein,

and therefore a function.

Everything else - think, 98 percent -

is a DNA that at the time
was considered junk DNA,

sorry for the English term,

junk that served as a backup

to ensure that mutations
did not fall on genes.

In fact this DNA turned out to be

the beginning of a new adventure:

this DNA was functional
to regulate the expression of genes.

How's that?

There are chemical markers on DNA,

flags that are affixed to DNA
during development.

These flags,

which can be directed either on the DNA
or on the proteins that wrap the DNA,

or even on some RNA, which are
the mold of anti-sense DNA,

are affixed during development

so that the cells
can perform their function.

Mind you, we have
the same DNA in our cells,

in each of our cells.

But each cell operates differently. Why?

Because it has the first parts
of DNA which are different,

thanks to these flags,
these markers that say to a gene:

you have to be expressed in this cell,

you have to make sure
that this cell has this function,

and that another cell has another one.

To better understand,

let's imagine that our DNA
is an orchestral score,

and that genes are the instruments.

If you play all together,

there would be no harmony,
there would be no symphony.

It wouldn't be the music,
there'd just be noise.

Actually, every gene knows perfectly well,
thanks to these flags, these markers,

when to start working,
when to play, to shut up,

whether to play loud or slow.

This harmony takes place
every second, every instant

within our cells.

And there is a study,
an extremely interesting study,

done on mice -

in biology we always start
from an experimental model,

and often on mice.

Two mothers with the same genetics
were given food to eat.

Mother was fed with low-nutrient food;

another mother was fed
a nutrient-rich food.

And especially rich in vitamins,
specific nutrients.

The result of this was,

the pups of these two mothers
had a phenotype,

that is, an evidence of what
they are different in -

even the color of the coat changed,

because the food has communicated
something different

during the development
of these these pups, to the genes.

So let's think about food at present.

We have on this small planet,
as Edgar Morin says,

people dying of hunger;
people who eat in excess;

we waste food.

We have people who get sick
because they eat too much, too bad.

And we also have a paradoxical situation,
called "nutritional desert":

I leave home, and in ten minutes

I can not find any food rich in vitamins.

I can only recover the so-called -

I don't like the term,
as food must always be respected -

food that has only calories
but no essential nutrients.

And the most interesting thing

is that the environment, food,
lifestyle and even emotions

can edit DNA.

They can talk with the DNA.

And this writing can be transmitted -

especially during the first
1000 days of the child's life,

from conception to the third year of age -

this writing can also be transferred
from one generation to another.

There is evidence, historical evidence
of this intergenerational transfer

of how much the environment, and food,

influenced the health
of subsequent generations.

This is a historical study,
which took place in Holland.

A population of 45 million
Dutch people was studied,

who during World War II

was confined to a very
restricted area of the Netherlands.

It was winter: on one side
there were the German troops,

on the other side the frozen canals.

This population lived
for about nine months

eating very little,
they were almost starving:

they even came to eat
the bulbs of the tulips.

And it was calculated,
they ate about 500 kcal per day.

We then studied the babies

born from them pregnant mothers.

These children maintained
their mothers' programming:

their mothers lived without food,

and when these children

were born they were programmed
to resist the absence of food.

When the war was over,
they had access to food

and these children were more exposed
to health vulnerablity:

more exposed to diabetes, obesity,
overweight, cardiovascular disease

and even cancer.

And this vulnerability,
this increase in risk

also reappeared in the second generation

and now we are studying
the third generation.

We must think of the small scale,

so that the small can suggest actions
to be taken on the large scale,

to improve our society, and also
the health expectancy of our society,

and rethink the origin of diseases.

And that is the best way
to promote health:

bring the science of the small scale,

these wonderful mechanisms
that occur in our cells,

in the great choices.

Invest especially in the social classes

that are less aware of all this.

They have access to poor food,

because it is cheap,
and maybe they have a low income,

and they may also have
a low level of education

that cannot allow them to access
these types of messages.

Above all, investing in mothers,

[Right to health / Health and Equity]

because the right to health,
also enshrined in the Constitution,

is also a right
of intergenerational justice.

We must care about our health,
because it is a precious good,

but we must also think,
we can pass it on to the next generations.

Then we need to wake up a little bit,
and this is my awakening.

There is an origin that gives
a greater vulnerability to disease:

the first thousand days
of the child's life are important.

And there is perhaps -
this is a question I often ask myself -

a silent evolution that leads a society

to have a different health perspective

because their access to food is different.

And will this evolution continue?

Fortunately, it can be reversible
if conditions change.

And if the mom's food, our food, changes.

So, if it is true that it is important,

for the health of the unborn
and of the following generations,

the environment and the food
that mother eats,

then we must take care of the food

and everything that surrounds
the mothers, their environment,

around what are the new lives.

So we have to consider
every eating moment.

And curate this moment.

It can be the hospital:

we can't forget, treat food
like yet another hotel service.

Food must convey values:

it must also be deemed important,
and promote health.

Many parents, in schools,

are more concerned
if the children do not eat,

but never worry if the child eats badly.

Always the worry: my son doesn't eat.

But let's worry about what they eat,

let's worry if what he eats
is important for his health.

Then there are companies:

at any time, but also among friends,

a health marketing that can also span
across different social worlds.

We think in every moment that we eat

how much we can communicate through food.

It must always be good,
but also functional to health.

Because food is an interconnection

between our past, our present
but also our future.

It connects us with the Earth,
because food is work:

it is produced and transformed,
we must respect it.

With human beings, with the environment.

A great English agronomist said

that the health of man, animals,
land, water and air

is unique and indivisible.

Consider also: we feed on molecules,
which are carbohydrates,

where the carbon is
in a high energy chemical bond.

But where does this
high energy bond come from?

From the plants!

And plants, on the other hand,
use solar energy

to transform a carbon molecule,
with a low-energy CO2 bond,

into high-energy oxygen.

For the transitive property,

we can say that we eat
thanks to the energy of the Sun.

So we have to respect
this kind of environment around us

which allow us to be part of our history.

Let's think of the scents
that evoke emotions,

the scents of our grandmother's kitchen.

Let's think of Proust and the Madeleines.

Let's think about how much
food binds tradition, history:

it is part of our past,
but it is also part of our future,

And it is also part

of what we can transfer
to future generations.

Sometimes, however,
you also eat standard foods,

with standard scents and standard flavors,

and I think this is disqualifying

for taste, our organ of sense.

We have five sense organs,

and the sense organ of taste
is a wonderful organ:

we have five tastes through taste,

but through the vomer-nasal organ
and the sense of smell

millions of possibilities
to appreciate flavors and aromas.

Sometimes the food
is industrial, very processed.

A food that endlessly repeats itself.

And we must invest in the culture of food.

Which is a different culture
from prevention,

but they can really have links in common.

Also, nourishing and loving
are a mother's first acts.

A feeding food is a loving food.

And then, of course, our traditions.

Our traditions account for a distinction

between a daily diet,
with frugal but still tasty food,

and a holiday that we have
to expect and wait

so we can share a richer food
with our beloved relatives.

Then what is epigenetics?

From "epi", Greek, "above" DNA.

All these modifications on top of the DNA.

It is a bridge that links
the environment - alas, even pollution -

emotions, food, that encompasses
all this, to our DNA.

We thought of DNA as an immutable code:

tall, short, blue eyes, black eyes.

In fact, we understood,
through these latest studies -

there are not so recent,
because they dates back to 15 years ago -

that we can have a dialogue with our DNA,

and we can also transfer our history

to the following generations.

And in fact I think, a fairer, more equal
health perspective for all.

So that new generations

will have even less vulnerability
to certain diseases.

Thank you.

(Applause)