Estimated 90 % of the world’s
dietary energy supply is obtained from only 30 plant species, although more
than 700 species through time have been cultivated for food (FAO, 1997). The forces
behind this monocultural approach to agriculture are mainly economics,
production volumes and market power of consumers. There is a great deal of
variety in nutrient values even from the same species of fruit, grain or
vegetable. The compositional difference among varieties or cultivars can be
very significant for macronutrients, micronutrients and bioactive components. Different
food species and a variety within species provides energy, nutrients thus
contributes to food and nutrition security (Toledo & Burlingame, 2006). Data
on the nutrient content of foods is very limited and this variation has been an
ignored area of research, despite data on nutrient contents at the level of the
genetic resource being important for the sectors of health, agriculture, trade
and the environment. These sectors have different approaches for the use of
such data, though some consensus can be reached towards a healthier population
and healthier ecosystems. With agriculture of great variety in cultivars, the
biodiversity in the ecosystems the agriculture exists in will accordingly be
greater. According to the authors of the article; “food composition activities continue to improve the evidence base,
which in turn gives value to ecosystems, the food species they contain, and the
within-species diversity” (Burlingame et al. 2009).
We discussed the possibilities of using
native species agriculture at larger scales; however, it is clear that the
trade and economics are the determinant of agricultural cultivar use. Local
communities might grow native species, such as potatoes in Peru, for their own
use, but use high yield species for trade and export. In addition, we discussed
the difference between the survival needs of local community farmers in
comparison with the target of large scale agriculture to feed the world, and thus
the pros and cons for the two sizes regarding profit and biodiversity. A member
of the group even questioned the profit value of big scale agriculture versus
loss of biodiversity.
From large scale agriculture to
global money we also discussed the difference in ability to digest and absorb
nutrients between world populations and continents. Nowadays people travel and
move around the world, trends and advertisement follows thus the consumer behavior,
demands and wanting follows too. The matching of physiological needs and
abilities with the physical environment is being challenged in the attempt to
make the world adapt to us. We further discussed the value of food and
concluded it to be much more than only nutrition and physical needs, but also a
social and cultural matter. With the example of children believing that eggs
comes from Wal-Mart, the issues of respect and responsibility for agriculture
and nature was raised.
If our world is ruled by global
money and trading, how can scientists make a difference in conserving nature,
wildlife, biodiversity, etc.? How can different sciences cooperate in terms of
reaching a common goal? And do we all have the same goal?
References:
Burlingame, B., 2009. Food composition is fundamental to the
cross-cutting initiative on biodiversity for food and nutrition. Journal of
Food Composition and Analysis, 22, 361-365.
FAO, 1997. State of world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture.
FAO, Rome.
Toledo, A. & Burlingame, B.,
2006. Biodiversity and nutrition: a
common path toward global food security and sustainable development.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19, 477-483.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the key is to teach people how healthy a product can be for them, make this product accessible for them and promote its consumption. It would require a multidisciplinary work. In Peru we had a very good example with the ¨Consume Anchovies¨ Campaign, which involved not only marine biologists (whose work was providing data for the sustainable fishery of this species which included studies about this species biological cycle, its niche, its ecosystem, its relation with other species, the best ways to fisher it, fishery quotes, …) but also food scientists (who determine how extraordinarily nutritional was the anchovy and what a waste was it to make only flour out of it to feed other animals or the soil where plants were grown to feed other animals), famous chefs (who made contests for the best and most creative dish made with anchovies among restaurants in different parts of the country and between the public), the media (who published notes about the campaign), the fisherman (who started to sell some of this fish in to other buyers but fish flour making companies), the small fish sellers and super markets (who started selling this fish) and the government itself (who gave some money, the Fishery Minister made some changes in this species fishery policy and even the President and his wife appeared in some TV spots).
ReplyDeleteThis campaign helped changing Peruvians mentality about anchovies because we didn´t have a consumer culture of this species. However, with this campaign, Peruvians learn about how nutritional anchovies even though they were so cheap and they stop seen it as a ¨poor people¨ food for it was offered in famous restaurants. Moreover, it helped to make some environmental education and people started to notice how important was this species for other species (other fishes, marine birds, marine mammals, …) and how important was to preserve their environment if we wanted to keep consuming it and be able to keep watching penguins, dolphins or sea lions (charismatic species).
A common theme runs through the discussions we have had on food production, the role of the consumer.Much of the urbanized population especially in the west have been removed from the production of food.We go to our supermarkets and expect to see and buy a range of food that once was unavailable because of seasonal growing restrictions or because it was just not imported. Not only do we want this choice but we want it to be affordable.An example from my own childhood is chicken, it was a luxury but with the advent of full scale chicken farming it has become an everyday item. The use of antibiotics and growth hormones has been part of this rise.I believe the consumers have been guilty of falling to market pressures when buying food. We need to be more discernible in our choices especially if we wish our food to be more healthy and to be grown in a more sustainable way.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we really know about the food we are eating and do we really care? This is were science is needed to give consumers the knowledge to make better choices. Pressure from consumers can make real changes, the backdown of Cadburys to use palm oil in their chocolate because of consumer out cry is an example. We now have country of origin on our fruit and vegetables in
supermarkets and the ability to purchase organic produce is now becoming more mainstream because of consumer demand.
With good robust science the evidence base will increase of the benefits of food grown and processed in a way that promotes human health and the maintenance of ecosystems while feeding being able to feed the masses.