Forum global sur la sécurité alimentaire et la nutrition (Forum FSN)

GENERAL

There is loose usage of the terms ‘fish’ and ‘seafood’. It is not clear whether when these terms are used (e.g. in the recommended food guidelines, Table 1) they are meant to apply only to fish and seafood (which means shellfish and sea fish, according to one dictionary definition) or not. Or does ‘fish’ include shellfish and aquatic plants (including seaweeds) and does ‘seafood’ include freshwater fish are included (freshwater fish actually makes up the greater component of farmed fish production).

Good definitions are thus essential. We would suggest defining fish very early on, maybe as a footnote the first time it is used, and to have it include all fish species, and include shellfish (mussels, oysters, etc.), crustacea (shrimps, lobsters, etc.) and cephalopods (squids, octopus, etc.) whether caught (hunting wild or enhanced stocks) or farmed (aquaculture). Seaweeds and other aquatic plants should be kept separate …and should be mentioned also in the document, as they can be good sources of important micro-nutrients.

Fish is viewed primarily as a source of protein (e.g. l. 5, p. 18). It is also a source of highly bioavailable micronutrients and essential fatty acids (EPA and DHA), which is often more important. Fish is actually one of the few natural sources of iodine and DHA, both essential for an optimal neurodevelopment in children.

There is a sense in some places that the phrases food systems and value chains are used interchangeably. These two are not the same, as is well defined in the document. Care must be taken in the use of these phrases by the various authors.

Sources of tables and figures are important, and not always provided.

We note that the food safety section (p18) is yet to be developed.

Also, a spell check is needed. Some typos spotted.

QUESTIONS

1. The purpose of this report is to analyse the ways in which food systems influence dietary patterns and hence nutritional outcomes. The objective is to focus on consumers and consider sustainability issues. 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? No … not as far as fish production systems is concerned. There are no descriptions of major fisheries or aquaculture systems which identify those parts of the world that are heavily dependent on fish (including shellfish) as a major source of food security and nutrition. There are no examples, which exist occur in Pacific SIDS, for example, of what happens to dietary health and nutrition outcomes, when these food production systems (i.e. tuna fisheries) become export oriented.

1. Do you think that the overall structure of the draft is comprehensive enough, and adequately considered and articulated? Does the draft strike the right balance of coverage across the various chapters? Are there important aspects that are missing? Does the report correctly focus on the links between nutrition and food systems without straying beyond that?

1. Does the conceptual framework need to be edited? Simplified? Should “the food environment” as defined in the draft be central to the framework? Yes, it should be central, although it’s not sufficiently comprehensive. What’s missing to me are the cultural norms within households that determines who gets what food. For example, male heads of household often get to satisfy their hunger first, the rest of the family often dividing up what’s left according to who can eat fastest. Such norms often condemn the youngest/smallest family members, especially if female, to very poor diets.

1. Are production systems and their role in shaping diets and nutritional outcomes adequately addressed? In addition to 1 above, there is little here about the growing role of aquaculture as a provider of fish and shellfish. See, for example, Beveridge, M C M et al. 2013. Meeting the food and nutrition needs of the poor: the role of fish and the opportunities and challenges emerging from the rise of aquaculture. Journal of Fish Biology 83, 1067-1084. doi:10.1111/jfb.12187; Troell, M, et al. 2014. Does aquaculture add resilience to the global food system? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 13,257-13,263. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1404067111 and Little, D C et al. 2016. Aquaculture: a rapidly growing and significant source of sustainable food? Status, transitions and potential. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 75, 274-286.

1. Does this draft cover adequately the main controversies in the field of Nutrition and food systems? Are there any remaining gaps? I think so. However, something needs said about the impact of aquaculture, now the main source of fish that is consumed, and changes in aquaculture production methods on nutrient content and intake. It’s implied in Fig. 14, p. 40, but no

1. The project team is working on a categorization of food systems. Are you aware of specific approaches of use in that perspective, and particularly of quantitative indicators that could be used? No.

1. Does this draft adequately show the multiplicity and complexity of diets and nutrition issues across different food systems and specific contexts with a good regional balance? It strikes me that the SIDS are somewhat ignored. Also, are the contrasts between urban and rural diets sufficiently explored?

1. What areas of the document are in need of strengthening or shortening?

1. Chapter 4, Section 4.1 contains case studies/examples of effective policies and actions in different contexts/countries across the food system for diets and nutrition. Could you offer other practical, well-documented and significant examples to enrich the report and provide better balance to the variety of cases and the lessons learned, including the trade-offs or win-win outcomes in terms of addressing the different dimensions of diets for FSN? Consider work of Thilsted et al. in South and Southeast Asia on small fish and nutrition (e.g. Thilsted, S H Sustaining healthy diets: The role of capture fisheries and aquaculture for improving nutrition in the post-2015 era. Food Policy 61, 126-131; Belton, B., van Asseldonk, I.J.M., Thilsted, S.H., 2014. Faltering fisheries and ascendant aquaculture: Implications for food and nutrition security in Bangladesh. Food Policy 44, 77–87.

1. Section 4.2.2 on “Institutional Changes and Governance Across the Food System Movements for Nutrition” requires more work, and more inclusion of evidence and of the various players. Any inputs on this section are most welcome.

1. Is the report too technical or too simplistic? Are all the concepts clearly defined? There is loose usage of the terms ‘fish’ and ‘seafood’. See above comments on this.

1. Are there any major omissions or gaps in the report? Are topics under-or over-represented in relation to their importance? Antimicrobial resistance is mentioned once in reference to livestock, but AMR needs to be better reflected in the document. We recognise that the document focuses on food systems and nutrition, but AMR is a major public health issue, and has some of its roots in food production (wider than livestock) with implications for food systems and nutrition.

SPECIFIC

p. 14, Fig. 1.  I don’t think the health element is strongly enough mentioned here, especially the links between Diets and Nutrition and Health outcomes. A child living in a house with no water supply or adequate sanitation, for example, will likely have diarrhoea and be unable to properly absorb dietary nutrients.

p.15, l. 12.  ‘fisheries and aquaculture systems’ ..

p.16, l.37    …into raw food materials, namely crop, livestock and fish commodities…..

p.16, l.38   …include growing crops and fish, animal husbandry ….

p.20, l.15-17 This sentence infers that processed foods are nutrient poor and high energy. They aren’t in many cases. Needs to be rewritten to be more specific on those processed foods that are nutrient poor and high energy.

p. 22, Table 2. The focus in the table is on dietary energy; what about micronutrients?

p.39, l.18 Consumption of seafood omega-3 fatty acids, present in fatty fish……

p. 40, Fig, 13. I find the change in Omega-3 fatty acid intake interesting – this despite the doubling of global per capita fish intake over the past five decades. This may be attributable to the rise of aquaculture and the increasing proportion of freshwater fish in our diets (see Beveridge et al. 2013, referred to in 4 above).

p. 42, Fig. 15. What does the y-axis refer to?

p. 45, l. 3. Delete ‘.. in various parts of the globe.’

p. 47, l. 13 & 28. You could cite Hall et al. (2011) re methane evolution from cattle versus fish (Hall et al. 2011. Blue Frontiers: Managing the Environmental Costs of Aquaculture. WorldFish, Penang, Malaysia. pp. 93).

Also, we would not agree that fish is lower down the food chain than cattle, if you talking about who eats who.

p.48, l.26-29. A repetition of l.10-13.

p. 49, Fig. 19.  Need more explanation as to whether ‘fish’ means fish (or fish and shellfish) and whether they are farmed or wild caught. This table also is unclear as to what each column refers to. Why are there 4 fish columns, 5 F&V columns, 3 livestock columns, etc. Define each column. Are “fish” coming from capture or farmed production systems?

Section 3.2.2. Nothing here about increasing productivity in aquaculture.

p. 49, l. 10. Fish have a high ecological footprint – high relative to what? If to plants, it’s obvious. If ‘fish’ includes mussels and oysters and non-fed carps, then the statement is wrong and misleading.

p. 79, Box 17.  ‘WorldFish’ not ‘World Fish’. (Also Box 24).

p.81, l. 16-17.  Box 24 should be Box 22, and Box 25 should be Box 23. The whole document should be checked in this regard.

p. 81, l. 23. ‘24’ not ‘26’.

p. 82, Box 24. Interesting example on how fish could contribute with micronutrients. Fish powder could also be made of bigger fish, or even processing byproducts from bigger fish which represent about 50% of the fish and most of the micronutrients in the fish.

p.102, l.14  “……production activities that have been overlooked before, such as gathering, hunting and fishing.” It is not often that fishing is overlooked, hence the status of fish stocks globally. It might be better to qualify this statement.

p. 107, 4.2.4.  For future research and data needs, data on food/nutrient composition should be included. In order to combat micronutrient deficiencies, there is a particular need to improve the knowledge on levels of micronutrients, and which foods (at local level) have significant levels of the nutrients needed.