Comments on the Draft V-0 Nutrition and Food Systems
I appreciate that the draft report attempts to convey a holistic view of the problem, and tries to design a systematic means of mitigating it. However, I find it makes certain basic assumptions, which owing to their untenability, would hinder the committee’s Endeavour. I shall comment on them as they occur, and suggest a possible solution. Before dealing with some concrete issues, I should like to direct your attention to the following issues concerning the questions posed at the beginning of the draft.
Question 1:
“The purpose of this report is to analyze the ways in which food systems influence dietary patterns…”
The Introduction begins with the fallacy of substituting the effect for its cause—
“Malnutrition in all its forms affects every country on the planet and is a major impediment to achieving
Both global food security and nutrition and sustainable development worldwide.”
Rather it is the very lack of an adequate Global Food Security and Nutrition that causes “all forms of malnutrition. In other words, malnutrition is a symptom of the former. This is a logical fact.
And later on---
“Food systems govern the types of food produced and the nature of their journey from farm to fork …”
This is an ontologically unsound notion, for food systems are tools designed by man to serve his nutritional needs and not vice versa. As such they cannot govern human habits any more than a motor car could govern where you want to go.
“The objective is to focus on consumers and consider sustainability issues.”
A food system consists of several sub-systems (see below). Operators of each sub-system are a ‘consumer’ of the output of the preceding one. So, whom do you mean? End-user who actually consumes the food, or some middleman?
“The report aims to be solution oriented and to highlight efficient policies and programs. Are those major objective(s) clearly reflected in the V0 draft?”
The draft seems to lack the cohesion it has tried to achieve. As for solutions, it is not very clear how general or specific they were intended to be.
If I may make a suggestion, after the initial problem statement with less statistical details, the draft could have described a generic food system so that the reader would be able to apprehend the tool whose inept/unskilled use has brought about a considerable amount of malnutrition and environmental harm. It is the consequences of this latter that threaten the sustainability of our food systems.
Then, it would be possible to identify the sub-systems of a food system that have been put to dubious use, which in turn is one major cause of our problem. Once this has been done, we could identify the kind of policies needed to ameliorate the situation, possible generic strategies for their implementation, and finally, some examples of good practices that may be adapted for use in specific locations.
Question 2:
“Do you think that the overall structure of the draft is comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated?”
It is comprehensive, but its value attribution is erroneous, for it consistently overlooks the obvious fact—
Food acquires its high value by virtue of it being essential for remaining alive.
The function of a food system is to enable us to secure food for our own use. Thus, a food system acquires a value as a tool that enables us to secure food.
But, when it is used principally as a means of gaining profit as it is often done today, it may become ‘valuable’ to tradesmen, but that use of a food system could hardly constitute a justifiable reason for attributing a value to it. The draft suffers from failing to make this critical distinction.
“Does the draft strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters?”
The chapters could be re-arranged as suggested above.
“Are there important aspects that are missing?”
Yes indeed! The draft looks at the people’s procurement of food and eating habits as pieces of behaviour hard-wired to food systems. Most of us know what we need for adequate nutrition with reference to our particular food cultures. Today, operators of food systems have disenfranchised the end-users of their ability to choose through appeals to people’s innate desire for easier ways of doing things, and advertising. It is this atmosphere of helplessness this report ought to dispel if it wishes to nourish our hope for better and balanced nourishment.
“Does the report correctly focus on the links between nutrition and food systems without straying beyond that?”
Much of the factual information would have been best placed as an appendix.
Question 3:
“Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified?”
It would repay to re-think the conceptual framework so that its ontological status would be sound, and its epistemological foundations solid.
“ Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework?”
I think this notion can be more of a ‘silo’ than the well-known ones we are now trying to avoid. I would strongly advise its removal from the text. As sustainability of food systems is intimately linked to the soundness of our environment, we should reserve this term to refer to our habitat to avoid confusion.
Question 4:
“Are production systems and their role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes adequately addressed?”
This change in terminology from food systems to ‘production systems’ is both inaccurate and confusing. As for the question, once again, are we controlled by our own tool, or shall we do something to ensure that those who use it to do so appropriately? Shall we make money offerings to the god of commercialized food system and praise the deity for the food we get in return, or shall we reward the food system operator fairly for providing what we need and like? This may sound harsh, but this is the unappetizing crux.
Question 5:
“Does this draft cover adequately the main controversies in the field of Nutrition and food systems?”
Draft’s conception of a food system does not enable it to identify the nature of the controversies, hence their adequate resolution.
“The project team is working on a categorization of food systems. Are you aware of specific approaches?”
Yes, please see below.
“…. and particularly of quantitative indicators that could be used?”
It is impossible to categorize food systems either qualitatively or quantitatively due to logical reasons. Their only justifiable categorization would have to in terms of complexity with reference to number of sub-systems constitutive of a food system. This may be of some academic use, but of little practical significance.
Question 7:
“Does this draft adequately show the multiplicity and complexity of diets and nutrition issues across different food systems…”
I think here the draft commits a category error, viz.; complexity and diversity of diets are not mediated by food systems. It is important to understand that a food system however complex it may be, is just a tool to obtain food. What food it may help one to obtain is determined by the flora and fauna of an area, and the degree of cultivar and household animal diffusion into it. One may argue that this diffusion is a man-mediated expansion of a yielder system (see below), but even then, please note that it is a man-made addition to a system, and not vice versa.
Question 8:
“What areas of the document are in need of strengthening or shortening?”
After identifying how various sub-systems of a food system may not be put into its ‘best use’ and its nutritional consequences like various forms of malnutrition, I suggest we proceed to solutions. Of course, each kind of far from best use of sub-system could be illustrated with concrete country examples if it is thought necessary.
The statistical data and descriptions of different manifestations of malnutrition ought to be placed in an appendix so that the main line of argument remains clear and free of factual clutter.
Question 9:
“Section 4.1 contains case studies/examples of effective policies …”
There seems to be a slight confusion here with respect to effective policies. An effective policy to ensure a sustainable, adequate and balanced nutrition to a populace will be similar in kind irrespective of the ethos, economy, etc., of countries. But, constituents of the end result of their successful implementation may differ. For example, in one land, the successful result will involve X tons of rice, Y tons of fish and Z tons of fruits and vegetables a, b,c, d, etc. But in another, it may be X tons of assorted meat, Y tons of fish, and Z tons of fruits and vegetables b, d, e, f, etc. Moreover, how they are prepared may also differ, not generically, but in surface details like spices and condiments use, etc. This is only complexity in detail, but not in kind.
Question 11:
“Is the report too technical or too simplistic? Are all the concepts clearly defined?”
It is too technical in details, eg. Malnutrition, and these details and be placed elsewhere with profit. It is simplistic in that it does not follow the chain of elements of a food system in a sound conceptual framework.
Question 12:
“Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance?”
The most crucial omission is a clear representation of the instrumentality of food systems. This has several unfortunate consequences, which have been mentioned earlier.
Specific examples and factual data distributed throughout often hinder one from following the reasoning. I have already commented on this.
Some Additional Problematic Statements:
“All forms of malnutrition are the result of interactions between poor diets and unhealthy environments.”
This is patently incorrect unless ‘unhealthy environment’ is believed to mean ‘human body’.
“Value chains…”
I know this has become a fashionable phrase, but it is not only unsound, but also highly misleading. Do please refer to my description of a generic food system given below.
Its physical ‘length’ has no real importance except in that it may involve expensive/polluting transport, costly preservation en route, etc., all of which are at the expense of the end-user.
It certainly cannot enhance the nutritive value of food, at best, it may be retained. Adding nutrients to food to make up for their loss in transit or during industrial processing cannot count as enhancing its nutritive value.
A Suggestion:
I think it would serve no useful purpose to pick more questionable statements from the draft. The good practices and examples will be very useful if placed in their appropriate place is a sound conceptual framework.
1. Introduction:
Aim and the problem.
How one is going to achieve that aim in very general terms.
Chapter 1.
Description of a generic food system.
How its components can be used recursively.
It’s appropriateness.
Examples from real life (successful cases)
Chapter 2.
Dubious use of a food system and their consequences.
Examples from real life.
Chapter 3.
Generic solutions:
Appropriate policies
Intra- and inter-policy disharmony to be avoided.
Examples of success (brief).
Chapter 4.
Implementation of policies
Level 1:
How to choose right strategies
What to avoid.
What is required.
Chapter 5.
Policy implementation continued.
Level 2:
Execution of chosen strategies:
How to choose the right ways and means
What to avoid
What is required.
Chapter 6.
Evaluation
Mechanism of policy/strategy revision with reference to feed back.
Long-term follow-up, etc.
Appendix 1.
Examples of successful policy and modes of their implementation.
Appendix 2.
Successful examples of tools used to implement various strategies, ie.e., successful projects, case reports, etc.
Appendix 3:
Other data; definitions, tables, charts, etc.
References can be made in the main text, i.e., chapters to relevant info in the appendices. This will make the main argument easy to read and understand, while the supporting evidence is just at hand. This arrangement is not only logical, but it is also very pragmatic as it allows a busy decision-maker quickly to see the way forward without having to plouh through piles of supporting evidence.
The suggested conceptual framework:
1. The problem:
Incidence of the various forms of malnutrition is indefensibly high especially in developing countries.(this may be expanded with a few statistics). Some of its forms like obesity is an increasing public health problem in developed countries, but it is also becoming a health issue among the relatively affluent in developing countries.
Every form of malnutrition is brought about by a qualitative and/or quantitative deviation from a balanced diet for a given individual at a given time. Obviously, what makes a balanced diet for a person varies according to whether one is in an infant, child, teenager, adult, pregnant or old. Moreover, it also varies with one’s nutritional needs related to what one does daily. I think everybody will agree with me this far, and I’ll go a step further.
Our climate, geography and soil type of habitat have played a key role in determining what we eat today, because what is available to eat depends on those factors whether we are hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists of today.
Look at the actual diets of those who live above or near the northern polar circle like the Greenlanders, The Samoyads of northern Russia, etc., and those who dwell in Tierra del Fuego. Animal protein and fat from blubber are their dietary mainstays, and over the centuries their bodies have become adapted to that diet.
But as we approach the tropics, vegetable components begin to predominate people’s diets owing to the greater availability of vegetable food. The nomadic peoples of central Asia and the middle-east were an exception to this general trend, because their habitat was best suited for grazing, but not for cultivation. Here, I refer you to the shrinking of the Aral sea and the desertification of central Asian grasslands, , the greatest man-made environmental disaster brought about by the Soviet attempts to ‘cultivate the Steppe’ using modern agro-technology, when it was totally unsuited for the purpose.
I say all this to impress on the reader the indisputable fact that there is no such thing as a universal balanced diet, for even for an individual it varies with time and what one does. Secondly, whether we like it or not, our bodies have evolved to store a certain amount of nourishment because regular feeding is not a given, but a convention. True, we are evolving towards adopting this convention as a regular habit, but some traces of our ancestral traits in nutrient storage still persist in our anatomy. San people of South Africa and the general plumpness of a one from extreme North are striking examples of this. Meanwhile, many intermediate anatomical variations can be seen throughout the world. Therefore, it seems hardly scientific to consider some ‘body mass’ based number as a universal indicator of ‘ideal/perfect/standard’ physique resulting from a regular intake of a balanced diet.
I strongly recommend you to avoid this dangerous line of universal body standardisation whose evil consequences are now plaguing considerable numbers of teenagers in affluent countries who suffer from Anorexia or Bulimia. Let us move away from people standardisation with respect to dietary habits, and confine ourselves to informing them what is reasonable to eat under given conditions, and empower them to make their own choices.
Let me next outline how qualitative and quantitative deviations from a balanced diet can affect us adversely:
Qualitative and quantitative shortages result in various deficiency diseases, defective cognitive development and/or impaired physical development. This can be expanded hugely, but it is not necessary.
Qualitative and quantitative excesses could lead to problems ranging from vitamin poisoning (excessive intake of vitamin D for instance) to obesity and its consequences.
Now, it is time to move on to the causes of the two undesirable phenomena above. As our brief restricts us to view the problem in terms of food systems, I shall assume that the rest of a holistic perspective is already in place, and what we need to do is to fit food systems into their correct niche there.
Thesis:
A food system is a tool man invented, and whose use was intended to enable him to satisfy his nutritional needs.
True, our hunter-gatherer ancestors made use of a natural food system as all other members of the animal kingdom did and do. But after a while, a change emerged even in their simple way of satisfying their nutritional needs. And so, some of the generic sub-systems of a food system were invented. Later on, when agricultural revolution changed our way of life greatly and that of nomadism to a lesser extent, all the components of a food system were in place.
What has actually changed since then is merely the degree of sophistication of each generic sub-system, and an insertion of a non-essential sub-system as will be shown later.
Anatomy of a Food System
The Essential Sub-Systems:
1. The Yielder System; it may be a forest, some body of water, a ranch, a modern farm, etc.
Existence of a yielder system depends on having adequate ecosystem services. This became increasingly difficult due to repeated cultivation, grazing, population growth, etc. Hence, ecosystem service supplements were invented at a relatively early period (irrigation canals of ancient Sumeria for instance). I call this an adjunctive system to ecosystem services. Irrigation, the use of fertilisers, biocides, agricultural machinery, etc., are examples of this.
As the output of yielder systems could not keep up with population increase merely by increasing the size of a yielder system, i.e., bigger farms or ranches, increasing the output by using high-yielding cultivars and animals was invented. This represents agricultural research in this area. It also justifiably belongs to adjunctive system to ecosystem services, because plants and animals in the domain of agriculture are indeed a component of ecosystem services to man for we took them from nature to serve our dietary needs.
2. Even at hunter-gatherer stage, we used another sub-system to procure food from the natural ielder system, .e., the forest or a river, etc. This may involve going around and collecting edible vegetable food, active hunting or fishing.
When agriculture and animal husbandry become yielder systems, procurement system becomes a two-way action involving cultivation/taking care of animals and harvesting/milking/killing and butchering. This is still the case with subsistence farmers of today.
However, when we invented division of labour for our own greater ease, procurement system was ‘updated’ so that an end-user did not have to grow/raise one’s own food and harvest it, but procure it from a producer in exchange for something of commensurable value, i.e., engaging in barter. Later on,bartering was replaced by money, but the same principle obtains, i.e., an exchange of commensurable values.
3. Transport system.
After procuring it, even the stone age man had to transport his food from the place of its gathering to where he lived in a social group. Whether it is on a man’s or an animal’s back, or on board a giant refrigerated ship, it represents a system performing the same function, carrying X from A to B and nothing more.
4. Storage system.
There is archeological and anthropological evidence to indicate that even stone age people resorted to storing food in some way. Usually, a hollow in a tree was chosen for this purpose. Then storage was combined with another system as described below. For the moment, both that hollow in a tree, an Indonesian rice bin on stilts, a grain silo or a refrigerated store room perform the same function.
5. Preserver system.
Most items of food are perishable, hence their storage for extended use require their preservation by some suitable means. Some stone age people placed a mixture of honey and venison in a hollow of a tree and sealed it with clay (Veddas of Ceylon). Whether it is that drying, smoking, salting or freezeing, all are instances of a preserver system in use.
6. preparation system.
On procurement of food whether by harvesting one’s own cultivation, animal or poultry farm or through fishing, or by barter or purchase, it is passed through a preparation system before it is actually eaten. Exception to this are cases like one plucking a fruit from one’s own orchard and eating it and similar instances.
Note that food may be sent into a preparation system directly or indirectly via a transport and/or storage system at home (fridge, larder, etc.)
The preparation system may consists of two sub-systems of its own, viz., a refiner system and a culinary system. In the first, inedible components of procured food is removed by some suitable way. This may include husking and grinding the cereals, peeling, skinning, gutting, washing etc. More sophisticated version of a refiner system is seen in the manufacture of sugar and extraction of salt from sea water.
Food is then passed into the culinary system proper, where it may be cut into desired size and shape, dressed in different ways, and then eaten either cooked or raw. The cooking procedures are universal and need no further elaboration.
These then, are the absolutely essential sub-systems of a food system.
Meanwhile, social evolution towards greater ease and convenience gave birth to division of labour. As a result, people could purchase their food from farmers, butchers and fishermen, which gradually became even more specialised. It resulted in the emergence of food sellers of two different kinds, and both were fairly well established in Europe (this does not exclude it from other parts of the world) by the early middle-ages.
7. The seller systems.
The first might be called the plain seller system. In its simplest form, which is still the commonest by far, a seller purchases food from an operator of some yielder system, i.e. a farmer, husbandsman, or a fisherman and transports it to potential end-users (street hawkers still active in many developing countries), or sells it from an stationary retailer outlet.
A wholesale seller purchases food on a large scale to re-sell it to retailers, but is not categorically different from his humbler colleague, the street hawker. And a retail outlet may range from a simple booth to a supermarket with advanced storage and transport facilities.
The second seller system began as a service of convenience to travellers and pilgrims. There, an operator purchases the food items and sends them through a suitable preparation system and offers his customers cooked food for consumption in exchange for money. It represents a combination of procurement, storage, preparation and selling systems. A simple sausage stand and a world-renowned restaurant are both examples of this combination.
In the 3rd variant of a seller system, procurement, preparation and a packaging system are combined, and the product is then disposed of by a seller system. Its output may include baked beans, tinned foods and various types of frozen or refrigerated industrial food.
A less industry-intensive variant of this seller system involves the use of procurement and refiner systems, whose output may be packaged and sold directly, or stored and disposed of in batches through a retailers. Examples of this are pre-cut and packaged meat, vegetables etc., ready to go into a culinary system.
Argument:
I. There cannot be a food system without the operators of yielder systems and end-users.
II. They have created the tool food system in order that the two parties may engage in an exchange of commensurable values, i.e., fair trade if you will.
III. By this exchange, an end-user procures food, while the operator of a yielder system gains something else of equal value he desires. Thus, the exchange is mutually beneficial.
IV. Food acquires it value by virtue of its necessity for survival, hence its value is equivalent to the value we attribute to human life. This is a logical fact, hence it is indisputable.
V. Selling system is a tool of ease and convenience invented in the aftermath of division of labour. When an end-user uses it to procure food by purchase, an additional cost is added to the intrinsic value of food. This cost can neither increase nor decrease the value of food qua food.
VI. Therefore, it is a fallacy to attribute an increase in its value when food passes down various sub-systems that may constitute a food system.
VII. Hence, it would be both logical and factual to speak of “chains of increasing cost” rather than untenable ‘value chains’ in connexion with food.
VIII. Moreover, SDG-Nutrition is concerned with the dietary well-being of hungry end-users, for many of whom food is not affordable or available but its value for them remains unchanged while its cost may be unjustifiably high.
IX. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to bear in mind whom we attempt to help, and their value perspective.
X. Doing XI above, entails we refrain from using commercial notions of value in our endeavours.
I have already noted packaging system that has become increasingly ‘important’ for the tradesman not so much as a container, but as an object that appeals to the eye of an end-user owing to its colourfulness rather than the potential wholesomeness, flavour, colour, and the texture etc., of the food a package may contain. This adds an extra cost to the food, but hardly contributes to its value.
. Another such system that imposes a high monetary burden on the end-user is advertising system. It is purported to ‘inform’ the end-user about the availability and ‘wholesomeness’ of items sold. This becomes a little difficult to believe when we know that mankind has managed to meet its nutritive needs since antiquity without this ‘expensive service’
It is true that the continued social upheavals brought about a radical change in global demography, whose incidence was first greatest in the industrialised world. It involved a huge migration of employment seekers into the cities, which were the industrial centra at the time. And the trend continues to this day.
This distanced the end-user more and more from the source of his food. It is at this pointing the evolution of our tool, i.e., the food system, that several undesirable additions were made to it, and a long string of middlemen of different ilk sprang up. They located themselves between the actual producers of food and the retailer, each demanding a reward for his real or putative service to the food supply.
These include various brokers, those involved in sales of commodities including those who speculate in commodity futures which ought to be illegal, highly paid designers of packages, printers of labels and cartons, and those engaged in advertising trade whose charges are exorbitant.
So, when their cost is added to the real cost of food and the reasonable profit a retailer must make to live, the end-user is left with an unreasonable financial burden i.e., to support a small army of middlemen who make no worthwhile contribution to human nutrition. In developing countries, this often puts wholesome food beyond the affordable range of even the middle class.
In a word, excessive commercialisation of food supply is one of the most important hindrances to wholesome dietary habits as it makes As food passes from one sub-system of a food system to another so many times as it often does today, food spoilage and wastage increase. Independent reports on the ingredients of some industrial food indicate that their manufacturers are not very particular about the raw materials used. Health consequences of this attitude are obvius.
Even though it is not directly linked to food systems, economic policies promoting cash crops in place of food crops has diminished the potential food production of several developing countries. This short-sighted policy ought to be revised very soon if we wish to improve the status of nutrition in those countries.
After this long preamble, let us look at the causes of malnutrition in both its manifestations:
1. Malnutrition from qualitative or quantitative deprivation of a balanced diet is brought about by---
I. Lack of availability
II. Lack of affordability
2. Malnutrition from qualitatively or quantitatively excessive intake of food brought about by---
I. Lack of availability of wholesome food, while the opposite kind may be freely available.
II. Wholesome food is not affordable while the opposite kind is cheap.
III. External influences on eating habits of people that turn them into consumers of unwholesome food. Various forms of direct or indirect advertising is the major cause of this. Once it takes root in a social group, peer pressure seem to spread and reinforce it in ever-widening circles. This is commonly seen among affluent youth everywhere.
IV. Personal situation that makes traditional cooking difficult for various reasons, and forcing people to consume ‘convinience food’ not known for its wholesomeness. For instance, working single-parent families.
V. Lack of sound dietary knowledge.
I think it would be reasonable to call these the 7 causes of malnutrition. Please note that other things being equal, real hunger has but two causes, while the second category of malnutrition can be due to any one or more of the five causes given above.
The Problem:
Our problem then, is how to counter these two generic types of malnutrition by changing the food systems in use today. At the same time, such changes should make our food systems environmentally sustainable. It is important to recall that environmental sustainability is incompatible with the unlimited quantitative increase in population of any single species.
Malnutrition due to 1.I and 1.II, is mainly due to an insufficient output from a yielder system. It may arise from any one or more of the following shortcomings in it:
A. An inadequate area used for cultivation, grazing, etc., due to a natural shortage in arable land or its misallocation, or over-population.
B. Insufficient soil fertility, low-yielding crops and animal breeds in use.
C. Reduction in the numbers engaged in agricultural pursuits.
D. Inadequate adjunctive services to compensate for reduced ecosystem services.
E. Inadequate infra-structure and/or a fair trade mechanism to link those who run yielder systems and end-users, which results in food wastage.
F. Inadequate agriculture knowledge and skills among those engaged in the area.
I shall not describe the specific policies needed to address the issues above, because they have been thoroughly discussed elsewhere in this forum. But, I must add that policy makers ought to remember the importance of the local food culture, and when choosing modern methods, employment opportunities to the greatest number of people have the moral, political, and pragmatic priority over high technology which is intended to save labour.
Another factor that adversely affects the availability of wholesome food is its wastage during its passage through a food system. Inadequate storage and transport systems are the main difficulties here. In affluent countries, food wastage in selling system serving ready-to-consume food, and at home is indefensibly high. Fortunately, the latter is now receiving the attention it deserves.
I have already mentioned the problem of policy that gives undue priority to cash crops (or animals) over the food requirements of a country. A comprehensive policy to combat malnutrition, ought to pay careful attention to this error.
Another cause of malnutrition is the demographic change I have mentioned earlier. It has two components. First, the rapid increase in the population of urban centra puts an excessive strain on even food system with an adequate yielder system owing to rapid increase in demand for transport or storage systems. Keeping these systems up-to-date with respect to increasing demand is often beyond the capacity of developing nations.
Secondly, migration of rural youth into cities creates a shortage of people engaged in agricultural pursuits, thus exacerbating the consequences of the first above. Hence, we must formulate a policy to retain rural youth at home by enabling them to earn a decent income through agricultural pursuits. It would be useful if one could incorporate into it a suitable mechanism to attract those who have already migrated into cities back to their home districs for the same purpose.
Even though it is not directly connected with a food system, health of its operators, particularly those who run various yielder systems has a significant bearing on its output. It will repay the policy makers to bear this in mind. Likewise, a sound environmental and a security policy will be of considerable help.
Let us now look at malnutrition due to 2.I and 2.II, which is commoner in affluent countries, but it is rapidly advancing into some developing ones. If one examines the anatomy of food systems I have outlined above, it would be obvious to anyone the chain of events that has brought about 2.I and 2.II type of malnutrition, which is most frequent in cities.
I hope the reader would be kind enough to follow my reasoning as carefully as possible. I think there would be a general agreement on the facts listed below.
1. Food systems are getting more and more commercialised, i.e., the number of intermediaries between an actual producer/harvester of food and the end-user is increasing.
2. These intermediaries often operate one or more sub-systems of a food system. Fro example, industrial food production involves the use of a procurement system to obtain the raw materials, which are then passed through an industrialised preparation system into a packaging system, and thence to a selling system. To mislead the end-users and the analysts, these intermediaries always resort to jargon even though what they do is so obvious.
This processing robs the raw materials of their natural flavour, colour, taste and the wholesomeness. Moreover, they are mixed with a variety of chemical taste ‘enhancers’ preservatives, etc.
These intermediaries are motivated by their desire to earn a profit. Let us not be naïve enough to assume anything else.
There are no legal limits on how much wealth one may acquire by profiting from trade, be it food trade or any other.
Profits are increased in two basic ways, which are always combined, viz., cutting down the cost of production and increasing the demand for what one produces, in this case, industrial food.
Cutting down the cost is easily achieved by using cheapest possible ingredients to make ‘ready-to-eat industrial food’ that is easiest to make.
These products are marketed into society, where factors 2.III, 2.IV and 2V above have become social concerns.
Under these circumstances, carefully targeted packaging and advertising cannot fail to increase the ‘demand’ for items known to cause type 2 malnutrition. And this trend is spreading rapidly in all industrialising countries.
Bluntly put, this undesirable health and nutrition problem stems from nothing but use of food systems by intermediaries to earn huge profits at an enormous personal cost to the public. It is a sad irony that their free profit extraction from the possibility of satisfying one of man’s fundamental needs, i.e., nutrition, is called ‘added value’! Indeed, it is to them, but is it to the poor, and to those affected by 2.III-2.V? Do let us call spade a spade for the nonce!
So, I have now drawn the picture of the holy cow of modern commerce in its manifestation as one freely browsing the food systems. What is unacceptable is that the creature’s greed seems to be limitless. We have no alternative but to restrain the brute starting now. This is not a solution that has much political appeal, but when nearly third of the world’s population goes hungry and NCD’s are called a pandemic by the WHO, I think the time has come to act decently.
Two other undesirable consequences of this over commercialisation of food systems are---
1. Reduction of biodiversity among the cultivars and in animal husbandry. As cheap production is the goal, a relatively few ‘high yield’ species are used in yielder systems catering to industrial food producers. This can threaten our future food security seriously. It is irrational, because local food cultures emerged with reference to centuries of empirical knowledge about what is best grown and raised in a given area.
2. The cheap high-yield yielder systems are extremely energy-intensive and depend on extensive adjunctive services. Both of these are harmful to our already highly insulted environment. As a result, sustainability of such a system is extremely dubious.
Yes, I know, it is easy to identify the causes of a problem, and its solution is another matter. Nevertheless, I shall give it a try.
1. Success of this endeavour depends on formulating appropriate policies which are in harmony within and one another. For instance, a sound agriculture policy to produce sufficient quantities of local foods people want, cannot succeed even it is well implemented, if the trade policy allows manufacture/import of dubious industrial food and drink and their colourful packaging and advertising. Here the two policies are in disharmony.
2. There has been much talk about ‘thinking in silos’, but I have noticed something a lot worse, viz., ‘acting in silos’. This happens when ministries do not enter into a dialogue to harmonise their policies. This is justified by invoking another holy beast of ancient pedigree, namely, institutional autonomy. A more mature attitude at ministerial level would help here.
3. Education policy is critically important here. Dietary education should be re-introduced as a compulsory subject from the very first school year. However, it should not be concerned with calory count and ‘body-mass’, rather the relationship between growth and health, and one’s diet. Not eating enough and over eating should be dealt with as personal habits that need change. Children should not be taught to think of their bodies as machines to be fuelled correctly, rather they should learn the other pleasures associated with eating a well.prepared balanced diet. Free and wholesome school lunches could prove an important dietary support and a way of introducing them to tasty balanced meals. In some areas of the world, I think there is a considerable need for public education on dietary matters.
4. Health policy should require medical professionals and other health personnel to help their patients to understand the benefits and pleasures of balanced diets. At present, their work in this area is mostly restricted to NCD patients or those who are already overweight, etc.
5. Trade policy will often provide many stumbling blocks to food security and access to balanced diets. This is not limited to national policy, but the international agreements on ‘free trade’ often serve to free you from any chance of getting a balanced diet at a reasonable cost. I think food ought to be given a special status so that it is not treated as just a thing to sell to get the highest profit. No rational trade policy would undermine a country’s agricultural output, rather it ought to do everything it can to boost it with respect to the local food culture.
A pre-emptive means of curtailing the expansion of over commercialisation of diverse sub-systems in a national food system and enabling those who experience type 2 malnutrition to obtain a balanced diet, involves the establishment of msall restaurants throughout urban areas where wholesome national food is served at affordable prices. This requires a supportive trade policy with financial help to establish them, and tax incentives until they can stand on their own. Moreover, their small size would make them a source of employment for many people, which is animportant consideration in many developing countries.
Another enabling action would be help to establish small farmer cooperatives not too far from urban centra and equip them to transport fresh produce to urban customers as quickly as possible. This could be sold at dedicated stalls reserved for such cooperatives, and the urban authorities could be responsible for their erection and maintenance. This will benefit the end-users and enable the producers to earn a decent income without having to reward middlemen.
6. Financial policy should be geared to support and sustain the agricultural and catering strategies mentioned above. Moreover, in annual allocation of funds, food production, its proper storage and transport by environmentally benign ways ought to receive a greater priority.
7. Unless they are duly enforced, legal measures have the least impact on the situation in a country. Having said the obvious, I think it is time that we undertook legal steps to limit the commercialisation of food systems, and actively enabling the small holders to retain their property. Huge retail chains are rapidly overtaking the food sales in many countries, and are already exerting a monopoly on what the end-users may buy. As food producers have to sell their produce to those chains, they are forced to produce what the chains want rather than the end-users. This has become a familiar problem in affluent countries. Therefore, it is essential to revise the monopoly laws so that national dietary diversities are preserved and the end-users are given a real choice. To this end, it is essential to establish legal mechanisms to protect independent retailers of food from unfair competition or take over. It is paradoxical that giant national food chains and their multinational counterparts defend ‘free trade’, while they do everything legally allowed to deprive the small independent retailers of freedom to trade. Real diversity both in food production and sales, and limits on commercialisation of food systems is vital for success.
8. A general government policy on serving wholesome food in the cafeterias of government offices, armed forces canteens, all public offices, schools, hospitals, etc., would have some effect as a ‘vorbild’, or an action worth emulation.
This is an outline only, and there may be other areas one needs to develop sound policies congruent with our purpose. However, I hope the conceptual framework in which policies are to be embedded is clear. To recapitulate, some of us are using food systems exclusively to gain as much profit from them as possible. To compound the problem, deprecation of the value of food production by media, entertainment industry, cultural norms, etc., have driven the those with aptitutde for agriculture away from it. The latter has also deprecated national food cultures, while education has continued to ignore the vital importance of dietary education at schools. Under these conditions, commercialisation of food systems continues apace, which results in big profits for food and pharmaceutical industries while the incidence of hunger and NCD’s increases, and environmental sustainability and biodiversity in agriculture decreases.
The need for action is acute, and we know what to do, the only question that remains is, are we really willing to do it before it is too late?
Best wishes!
Lal Manavado.
Lal Manavado