sustainable diets and biodiversity

SUSTAINABLE DIETS AND BIODIVERSITYDIRECTIONS AND SOLUTIONS FOR POLICY, RESEARCH AND ACTION

1


Proceedings of the International Scientific SymposiumBIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS UNITED AGAINST HUNGER3–5 November 2010FAO Headquarters, Rome

EditorsBarbara BurlingameSandro DerniniNutrition and Consumer Protection DivisionFAO

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do notimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these havebeen patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO inpreference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-107311-7

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this informationproduct. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproductionfor resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees.Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queriesconcerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief,Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2012

PREFACEBarbara Burlingame

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

OPENING ADDRESSESChangchui HeEmile Frison

KEYNOTE PAPERSustainable diets and biodiversity:The challenge for policy, evidence and behaviour changeTim Lang

CHAPTER 1SUSTAINABLE DIETS AND BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity and sustainable nutrition with a food-based approachDenis Lairon

Biodiversity, nutrition and human well-being in the context of the Conventionon Biological DiversityKathryn Campbell, Kieran Noonan-Mooney and Kalemani Jo Mulongoy

Ensuring agriculture biodiversity and nutrition remain central to addressingthe MDG1 hunger targetJessica Fanzo and Federico Mattei

CHAPTER 2SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

Dynamic conservation of globally important agricultural heritage systems: for a sustainable agriculture and rural developmentParviz Koohafkan

Sustainable crop production intensificationWilliam J. Murray

Sustainability and diversity along the food chainDaniele Rossi

Animal genetic diversity and sustainable diets Roswitha Baumung and Irene Hoffmann

Aquatic biodiversity for sustainable diets: The role of aquatic foods in foodand nutrition securityJogeir Toppe, Melba G. Bondad-Reantaso, Muhammad R. Hasan,Helga Josupeit, Rohana P. Subasinghe, Matthias Halwart and David James

Dietary behaviours and pratices: Determinants, actions, outcomesPatrick Etiévant

Table of contents 6

10

11

12

20

28

30

36

44

54

56

66

75

82

94

102

3

Conservation of plant biodiversity for sustainable dietsKate Gold and Rory P.H. McBurney

CHAPTER 3CASE STUDIES: BRINGING BIODIVERSITY TO THE PLATE

Biodiversity and sustainability of indigenous peoples’ foods and dietsHarriet V. Kuhnlein

Revisiting the vitamin A fiasco: Going local in MicronesiaLois Englberger

Exploring new metrics: Nutritional diversity of cropping systemsRoseline Remans, Dan F.B. Flynn, Fabrice DeClerck, Willy Diru, JessicaFanzo, Kaitlyn Gaynor, Isabel Lambrecht, Joseph Mudiope, Patrick K. Mutuo,Phelire Nkhoma, David Siriri, Clare Sullivan and Cheryl A. Palm

Nutrient diversity within rice cultivars (Oryza sativa L) from IndiaThingnganing Longvah, V. Ravindra Babub, Basakanneyya ChanabasayyaVikaktamath

Canarium odontophyllum Miq.: An underutilized fruit for human nutrition and sustainable dietsLye Yee Chew, Krishna Nagendra Prasad, Ismail Amin, Azlan Azrina,Cheng Yuon Lau

Improved management, increased culture and consumption of small fish speciescan improve diets of the rural poorShakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted

Traditional food systems in assuring food security in NigeriaIgnatius Onimawo

Edible insects in eastern and southern Africa: Challenges and opportunitiesMuniirah Mbabazi

Bioactive non-nutrient components in indigenous African vegetablesFrancis Omujal, Nnambwayo Juliet, Moses Solomon Agwaya, Ralph HenryTumusiime, Patrick Ogwang Engeu, Esther Katuura, Nusula Nalika andGrace Kyeyune Nambatya

Achievements in biodiversity in relation to food composition in Latin AmericaLilia Masson Salaue

CHAPTER 4AN EXAMPLE OF A SUSTAINABLE DIET: THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET

Biocultural diversity and the Mediterranean dietPier Luigi Petrillo

Sustainability of the food chain from field to plate:The case of the Mediterranean dietMartine Padilla, Roberto Capone and Giulia Palma

108

116

118

126

134

150

164

176

182

198

206

214

222

224

230

Biodiversity and local food products in ItalyElena Azzini, Alessandra Durazzo, Angela Polito, Eugenia Venneria, MariaStella Foddai, Maria Zaccaria, Beatrice Mauro, Federica Intorre andGiuseppe Maiani

Organic farming: Sustainability, biodiversity and dietsFlavio Paoletti

Mediterranean diet: An integrated viewMauro Gamboni, Francesco Carimi and Paola Migliorini

Food and energy: A sustainable approachMassimo Iannetta, Federica Colucci, Ombretta Presenti and Fabio Vitali

Double Pyramid: Healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planetRoberto Ciati and Luca Ruini

ANNEXESANNEX IFINAL DOCUMENT International Scientific SymposiumBiodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger

ANNEX IIDRAFT PROPOSAL FORA “CODE OF CONDUCT FOR SUSTAINABLE DIETS”International Scientific SymposiumBiodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger

ANNEX IIIPROGRAMMEInternational Scientific SymposiumBiodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger

ANNEX IVLIST OF PARTICIPANTSInternational Scientific SymposiumBiodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger

ANNEX VLIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERSInternational Scientific SymposiumBiodiversity and sustainable diets united against hunger

ANNEX VIAFROFOODS CALL FOR ACTION FROM THE DOOR OF RETURNFOR FOOD RENAISSANCE IN AFRICA

242

254

262

274

280

294

295

297

302

306

307

PREFACEBarbara BurlingamePrincipal Officer,Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

7

The book presents the current state of thought onthe common path of sustainable diets and biodiver-sity. The articles contained herein were presentedat the International Scientific Symposium “Biodi-versity and Sustainable Diets: United AgainstHunger” organized jointly by FAO and Bioversity In-ternational, held at FAO, in Rome, from 3 to 5 No-vember 2010. The Symposium was part of theofficial World Food Day/Week programme, and in-cluded one of the many activities in celebration ofInternational Year of Biodiversity, 2010. The Sympo-sium addressed the linkages among agriculture,biodiversity, nutrition, food production, food con-sumption and the environment.

The Symposium served as a platform for reaching aconsensus definition of “sustainable diets” and tofurther develop this concept with food and nutritionsecurity, and the realization of the Millennium De-velopment Goals, as objectives.

In the early 1980s, the notion of “sustainable diets”was proposes, with dietary recommendations whichwould result in healthier environments as well ashealthier consumers. But with the over-riding goalof feeding a hungry world, little attention was paid tothe sustainability of agro–ecological zones, the sus-tainable diets’ concept was neglected for manyyears.

Regardless of the many successes of agricultureduring the last three decades, it is clear that foodsystems, and diets, are not sustainable. FAO datashow that one billion people suffer from hunger,while even more people are overweight or obese. Inboth groups, there is a high prevalence of micronu-trient malnutrition. In spite of many efforts, the nu-trition problems of the world are escalating.Improving nutrition through better balanced nutri-tious diets can also reduce the ecological impact of

dietary choices. Therefore, a shift to more sustain-able diets would trigger upstream effects on thefood production (e.g. diversification), processingchain and food consumption.

With growing academic recognition of environmen-tal degradation and loss of biodiversity, as well as adramatically increasing body of evidence of the un-sustainable nature of agriculture as it is currentlypracticed in many parts of the world, renewed at-tention has been directed to sustainability in all itsforms, including diets. Therefore, the internationalcommunity acknowledged that a definition, and a setof guiding principles for sustainable diets, was ur-gently needed to address food and nutrition securityas well as sustainability along the whole food chain

A working group was convened as part of the Sym-posium and a definition was debated, built uponprevious efforts of governments (e.g., the Sustain-ability Commission of the UK), UN agencies(FAO/Bioversity Technical Workshop and Biodiver-sity and Sustainable Diets), and others. The defini-tion was presented in a plenary session of theSymposium and accepted by the participants, as fol-lows: Sustainable Diets are those diets with low en-vironmental impacts which contribute to food andnutrition security and to healthy life for present andfuture generations. Sustainable diets are protectiveand respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, cul-turally acceptable, accessible, economically fair andaffordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy;while optimizing natural and human resources.

The agreed definition acknowledged the interde-pendencies of food production and consumptionwith food requirements and nutrient recommenda-tions, and at the same time, reaffirmed the notionthat the health of humans cannot be isolated fromthe health of ecosystems.

To address also the food and nutrition needs of aricher and more urbanized growing world popula-tion, while preserving natural and productive re-sources, food systems have to undergo radicaltransformations towards more efficiency in the useof resources, and more efficiency and equity in theconsumption of food and towards sustainable diets.Sustainable diets can address the consumption offoods with lower water and carbon footprints, pro-mote the use of food biodiversity, including tradi-tional and local foods, with their many nutritionallyrich species and varieties. The sustainable diets’ ap-proach will contribute in the capturing efficienciesthrough the ecosystem approach throughout thefood chain. Sustainable diets can also contribute tothe transition to nutrition-sensitive and climate-smart agriculture and nutrition-driven food systems.

A close involvement of civil society and the privatesector is needed to engage directly all stakeholdersin the fields of agriculture, nutrition, health, envi-ronment, education, culture and trade, along withconsumers.

The Symposium served to position sustainablediets, nutrition and biodiversity as central to sus-tainable development. The Proceedings of the Sym-posium, presented in this publication, provideexamples of sustainable diets, which minimize en-vironmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Var-ious case studies and practices are also presentedbringing biodiversity to the plate, with data showingimprovements in nutrient intakes through food bio-diversity, as a counterbalance to the trend of dietslow in diversity but high in energy which contributeto the escalating problems of obesity and chronicdiseases. The Mediterranean Diet was showcasedas a useful model.

The contents of this book provide an array of new

directions and solutions for policy, research and ac-tion on sustainable diets, and useful contributionsto the follow-up for the Rio+20 United Nations Con-ference on Sustainable Development, and its out-come document, The Future We Want.

Although the evidence base must be improved, ex-isting knowledge warrants immediate action to pro-mote sustainable diets and food biodiversity innutrition-driven agriculture policies and pro-grammes, as contributions to the achievement offood and nutrition security, the Millennium Devel-opment Goals, and post-2015 development agenda.

The contributions of all session chairpersons, rap-porteurs, speakers and everyone who participated inthe discussions and working groups were a vital partof the Symposium’s successful outcomes. This bookrepresents a significant international achievement.

8

10

The Symposium was organized by FAO and Bioversity International. The organ-izers are grateful for the collaboration of the CBD Secretariat, Ministry of Agri-culture and Food and Forestry Policies of Italy, INRAN, CIHEAM-Bari, INFOODS,Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition, IUNS, and FENS. The Barilla Centerfor Food & Nutrition, IDRC and CTA are acknowledged for their contribution tothis gathering of experts from many parts of the world to discuss with us thesechallenging emerging issues.Overall leadership was provided by Barbara Burlingame, Principal Officer of theNutrition and Consumer Protection Division of FAO. The technical and organi-zational support from Sandro Dernini, in collaboration with Ruth Charrondiere,Florence Egal, Stefano Mondovì and Barbara Stadlmayr and the very valuableadministrative and logistical support from Giuseppina Di Felice and NathalieLambert, FAO staff, and Nadia Bergamini, Bioversity International staff, are ac-knowledged.Special appreciation is due to Timothy Lang, Paul Finglas and Isaac Akinyele,who served as Chairs of the Working Groups; to Jessica Fanzo and Harriet Kuhnlein,who served as rapporteurs. These proceedings were produced by FAO with the support of Bioversity Inter-national, IDRC and the Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition. Sandro Dernini pro-vided the overall coordination for the publication, Daniele Comelli provided thelayout design and Ruth Duffy the proofreading/editing.

Acknowledgements

11

AFROFOODS INFOODS African Network of Food Data Systems

BCNF Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition

BIOVERSITY Bioversity International

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CNR National Research Council, Italy

CTA Technical Centre for Agriculturaland Rural Cooperation

CIBFN Cross-cutting Initiative on Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition

CIISCAM International Inter-university Centre for Mediterranean Food-Culture Studies, Italy

CIHEAM-Bari International Centre for Advanced MediterraneanAgronomic Studies, Bari, Italy

CINE Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutritionand Environment, Canada

CODEX Codex Alimentarius Commission

ENEA National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, Italy

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FENS Federation of European Nutrition Societies

ICRAF International Center for Research in Agroforestry,Kenya

IDRC International Development Research Centre, Canada

INFOODS International Network of Food Data Systems

INRA National Institute for Agricultural Research

INRAN National Research Institute for Food and Nutrition,Italy

IUNS International Union of Nutritional Sciences

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MiPAAF Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policy, Italy

NGOs Non-governmental organizations

RUTF Ready-to-use therapeutic food

Acronyms andabbreviations

yy

12OPENING ADDRESSESChangchui He Deputy Director-General FAO, Rome 3 November 2010

13

As you are aware the theme for this year's World FoodDay is "United Against Hunger". This theme under-scores the fact that achieving food security is not theresponsibility of one single party; it is the responsibil-ity of all of us. The 2010 celebration also marks the30th World Food Day, a celebration that has beenobserved around the world over the last threedecades. The latest hunger figures show that 925million people live in chronic hunger. While there isa welcome decline from the 2009 level, the number ofhungry people remains unacceptably high. Further-more, this number does not reflect all the dimensionsof malnutrition. Micronutrient deficiencies, for in-stance, affect an estimated two billion people. Re-sponding properly to the hunger and malnutritionproblems requires urgent, resolute and concertedactions. It calls for united efforts by all relevant ac-tors and at all levels.

Already, close to two million people around the globehave signed the “Against Hunger” petition, as part ofan international advocacy and awareness campaignlaunched by FAO ("1BillionHungry.org”). It aims atplacing pressure on political leaders and mobilizingall parties to take united action against hunger andmalnutrition. As we are aiming to have as many sig-natures as possible by 29 November, when the peti-tion will be presented to member countries on theoccasion of the 140th session of the FAO Council, I aminviting all of you, if you have not yet done so, to signthe petition on the tables placed outside the room.

Coming back to this year’s International ScientificSymposium, the theme for the symposium is "Biodi-versity and Sustainable Diets: United AgainstHunger", jointly organized by FAO and Bioversity In-ternational as a contribution to the 2010 InternationalYear of Biodiversity.

For the first time, the concept of “biodiversity” is

linked with the emerging issue of “sustainablediets” in exploring solutions for the problems ofmalnutrition in its various forms, while addressingthe loss of biodiversity and the erosion of indigenousand traditional food cultures. Our purpose is to pro-mote the development of new sustainable food pro-duction and consumption models.

There is currently no universally agreed definitionof a “sustainable diet”. However, a definition isneeded to develop policy, research and programmeactivities for the promotion of sustainable food sys-tems that minimize environmental degradation andbiodiversity losses. There is growing academicrecognition of the complexity of defining sustain-ability, as well as an increasing body of evidenceshowing the unsustainable nature of current foodsystems. A definition of sustainable diets shalltherefore address sustainability of the whole foodsupply chain and thus provide guidance on promot-ing and applying the concept in different agro-ecolog-ical zones.

The alarming pace of food biodiversity loss andecosystem degradation, and their impact onpoverty and health makes a compelling case forre-examining food-agricultural systems and diets.

FAO has been working with member countries, in-ternational and regional partners for the past fewyears to determine the status and trends of plantgenetic resources that feed the world. We lookedinto the key achievements as well as the major gapsand needs that require urgent attention. This efforthas culminated in the publication of the SecondReport on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food and Agriculture that was launchedby the Director-General of FAO last week. The Re-port provides a wealth of information from over 100countries for improving conservation and sustain-

14

able use of plant diversity to meet the key chal-lenges of malnutrition, food insecurity and rapid cli-mate change. It points out that plant diversity canbe lost in a short lapse of time in the face of rapidclimate change, population pressure and environ-mental degradation.

There is an urgent need to collect, document andbetter use this diversity including crop wild relatives,not least because they hold the genetic secrets thatenable them to resist heat, drought, floods and pests.New and better-adapted crops derived from geneticdiversity can offer more nutritious and healthierfoods for rural and urban consumers, and provideopportunities to generate income and contribute tosustainable rural development. Now more thanever, there is a greater need to strengthen linkagesamong institutions dealing with plant diversity andfood security, and with other stakeholders, at global,regional, national, and local levels. Far greater ef-forts are required to counteract the effects of long-standing underinvestment in agriculture, ruraldevelopment and food security.

The Declaration of the World Summit on Food Se-curity held at FAO in 2009, stressed the urgent needand concrete actions to promote “new investmentto increase sustainable agricultural production andproductivity, support increased production and pro-ductivity of agriculture”, and for the implementationof “sustainable practices, improved resource use,protection of the environment, conservation of thenatural resource base and enhanced use of ecosys-tem services”. In this Declaration it is also statedthat FAO “will actively encourage the consumptionof foods, particularly those available locally, thatcontribute to diversified and balanced diets, as thebest means of addressing micronutrient deficien-cies and other forms of malnutrition, especiallyamong vulnerable groups”.

Agricultural biodiversity should play a stronger keyrole in the transition to more sustainable productionsystems, in increasing production efficiency, and inachieving sustainable intensification. The agricul-ture sector is responsible for ensuring the produc-tion, commercialization and distribution of foodsthat are nutritionally adequate, safe and environ-ment friendly. Therefore, there is an urgent needto develop and promote strategies for sustainablediets, emphasizing the positive role of biodiversityin human nutrition and poverty alleviation, main-streaming biodiversity and nutrition as a commonpath, promoting nutrition-sensitive developmentand food-based approaches to solving nutritionproblems.

The importance of food-based approaches is fullyrecognized by FAO. Many developing countries, in-ternational agencies, non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) and donors are beginning to realizethat food-based strategies are viable, cost-effective,and provide long-term and sustainable solutions forimproving diets and raising levels of nutrition. Nar-rowing the nutrition gap – the gap between whatfoods are grown and available and what foods areneeded for better nutrition – means increasing theavailability, access and actual consumption of a di-verse range of foods necessary for a healthy diet. Fo-cusing on the distinctive relationship betweenagriculture, food and nutrition, FAO works activelyto protect, promote and improve established food-based systems as the sustainable solution to ensurefood and nutrition security, combat micronutrientdeficiencies, improve diets and raise levels of nutri-tion, and by so doing, to achieve the nutrition-re-lated Millennium Development Goals (MDG).

Globalization, industrial agriculture, rural poverty,population pressures and urbanization havechanged food production and consumption in ways

15

that profoundly affect ecosystems and human diets,leading to an overall simplification of diets. High-input industrial agriculture and long-distancetransport increase the availability and affordabil-ity of refined carbohydrates and fats, leading to anoverall simplification of diets and reliance on a lim-ited number of energy-rich foods.

In spite of the increasing acknowledgement of thevalue of traditional diets, major dietary shifts arecurrently observed in different parts of the world,representing a breakdown in the traditional foodsystem. This trend has coincided with escalatingrates of obesity and associated chronic diseases,further exacerbated by the coexistence of mi-cronutrient deficiencies, owing to the lack of dietarydiversity in modern diets. Dietary shifts that have oc-curred in urban areas are currently extending torural communities as well, where people haveabandoned diets based on locally-grown crop vari-eties in favour of “westernized” diets.

Your deliberations should, therefore, focus the needfor repositioning nutrition security, developing andstrengthening food value chains and promotingpublic/private sector collaborations, with biodiver-sity and sustainability at its core. The Symposiumshall also serve to explore ways in which agricul-tural biodiversity can contribute to improved food se-curity and to feeding the world within a frameworkof enhancing agricultural efficiency and ensuringsustainability. I do hope that your collective intel-lectual wisdom will also offer broad perspectives onways of changing current global thinking on how tofeed the world sustainably and achieve food and nu-trition security.

I am sure that the outcome of the Symposium willguide FAO and others in their work towards ad-dressing the role of biodiversity for sustainable food

production, in light of global changes.

I once again wish to emphasize that in the currentcontext of difficulties and challenges, it is the sharedresponsibility of all actors to solve the problems ofhunger and degraded ecosystems, and I am con-vinced that united we can reach the goal of sustain-able diets, now and for future generations.

16OPENING ADDRESSESEmile Frison Director-General Bioversity InternationalRome3 November 2010

17

I think this Symposium was a very timely one, in-deed for the first time in 2010 it would seem thatthe whole issue of nutrition is reaching a level ofawareness in the various sectors, includingamong donors, not seen before. For too long nowthe issue of food security has focused on the quan-tity of food, with very little or no attention given tothe quality of food. What really matters is not justfilling stomachs but providing a nutritious diet thatwill allow the cognitive and physical developmentof human beings. We are aware of the alarmingand unacceptable levels of hunger, but the 2 bil-lion people that suffer from malnutrition still donot receive sufficient attention. Expanding expo-nentially among the world’s poorest people and,more than one would believe, among the wealthi-est people are cases of micronutrient deficienciesand the double burden of malnutrition with non-communicable diseases. This alarming situation isone that we must tackle together, especially whenconsidering the rate of expansion in the poorestcountries.

I am very pleased to see that, through a number ofinitiatives that have taken place and are taking placein different parts of the world, we are beginning tobuild this much needed awareness of malnutritionand its devastating impact on the peoples of devel-oping countries. In 2008 Bioversity, together withthe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) andFAO, launched a cross-cutting initiative on Biodi-versity for Food and Nutrition and, more recently,initiatives such as Scaling Up Nutrition have reallyput the issue of nutrition at the top of the agenda. InNew York in September this year, Scaling Up Nutri-tion was launched by Secretary of State Hillary Clin-ton and Micheál Martin, Minister for Foreign Affairsof Ireland. I think this shows a real interest up to thehighest levels. We must make sure that we seizethis opportunity because tomorrow there may be

some other hot topic that takes over from nutrition.It is up to all of us to take this momentum that isbeing built up and move it into action.

When talking about nutrition we must attempt tomove beyond the predominant medicalized ap-proach of tackling individual or single micro-nutri-ent deficiencies or macronutrient deficiencies,attempting to fix the problem after the problem hasoccurred and with very little effort to prevent theproblem in the first place. In order to tackle thisissue we should begin looking at malnutritionthrough food systems, since it is the integration ofthe entire food system that will provide a sustain-able answer to the problems of malnutrition. ThisSymposium is the right forum for us to do just that.

I believe the true definition of food and nutrition se-curity is that of bringing diverse diets, diets that ful-fil all the needs of human beings, to everyone’stable. This takes me to the role of agriculture, withnutrition being in the medical camp and agricul-ture just caring about the quantity of food pro-duced, any links between agriculture and nutritionare weak or totally lacking. We must, as Deputy Di-rector-General of FAO Dr He has already mentioned,prevent the simplification of agriculture to the threemajor staples. Currently these three major staplesprovide 60 percent of the calorie intake from plantorigin at the global level. Such a degree of diet sim-plification is alarming and it is high time that welooked not only at producing quantities of food thatare sufficient, but also nutrients and nutrition suffi-cient to fulfill all needs.

I have already mentioned the double burden of mal-nutrition, this is now becoming the world’s numberone problem in terms of public health yet it has notbeen tackled properly nor is it even considered amajor problem by many decision-makers. It is up

18

to us now to make sure that this increased attentionto nutrition looks at this issue in a holistic way andin a way that will prevent problems in the future.

The organization of the Symposium also coincideswith the International Year of Biodiversity. The rolethat biodiversity can play in addressing the prob-lems of malnutrition has been underestimated, un-derstudied and deserves much more attention. Forthis reason, this particular Symposium on Biodiver-sity for Sustainable Diets is very important to me, itis also important that the general public is moreaware of the importance of diversity and the poten-tial of biodiversity in addressing the problems ofmalnutrition. In this regard Bioversity organized, inMay of this year, a whole week’s celebration: “LaSettimana della Biodiversità” here in Rome togetherwith the secretariat of the CBD, IFAD, FAO, the Co-mune di Roma and many other partners to highlightthe importance and raise awareness among thebroader public of biodiversity for better nutrition.

There is an urgent need to change the paradigm ofagricultural production in order to integrate this di-mension of nutritional quality, this requires us tomove beyond the major staples and to look at themany hundreds and thousands of neglected and un-derutilized plant and animal species that mean thedifference between an unsustainable and sustain-able diet. It is not just about producing calories, butdiverse diets and that is why these neglected andunderutilized species are so important.

Of course this change will not be successful with-out collaboration and improved communicationamong the different sectors. The gap between theagricultural and the nutrition and health sectorsmust be closed. At a national level (as well as theinternational level) ministries of agriculture, health,education and of course, ministries of finance must

come together to set up and develop policies to ad-dress these problems in a sustainable way. Thereare many examples that show how we at Biover-sity have started to try to practise what we preachin looking at neglected and underutilized species.One such example comes from Kenya, where wehave been working with leafy green vegetablesthat have disappeared from the tables and mar-kets in Nairobi. Our aim was to reintroduce thesevegetables, to provide nutritious food in supermar-kets and markets and to give farmers the opportu-nity to augment their income. In India, we havebeen working with the Swaminathan Foundationto look at nutritious millets (foxtail millet, fingermillet and others that have various nutritious qual-ities) and reintroduce them in areas where theyhad been abandoned due to national policies pro-moting cassava production for starch. Throughanalysing the impact of these policies we wereable to show that the income derived by the cas-sava the farmers sold was not sufficient to buy themillet they would have been producing otherwise.What is more, the farmers themselves were con-suming the cassava and of course this had a neg-ative impact on their diet. We have been working inthe Andes with native cereals, quinoa and ama-ranth etc., in an effort to improve farming tech-nologies and to allow the production of thesenutritious foods to not only be maintained, but to de-velop further and also enter international markets.These examples and numerous others show thatwe can make a difference, the simplification of agri-culture and the simplification of diets is not some-thing that we just have to accept.

In Kenya, the major obstacle in getting those leafyvegetables onto the tables was one of image, ofbeing considered as backward, and the commonconception that this is the food of the poor. However,through communication efforts involving the Minis-

19

ter of Health, the chefs of the most famous restau-rants of Nairobi who prepared new recipes with thisleafy vegetable and by introducing it in the canteenof parliament, this food has been re-evaluated andpeople are taking pride again in producing, purchas-ing and consuming these vegetables. Today pro-duction is not sufficient to meet demand, so it ispossible to make a difference.

The westernization of diets is not ineluctable; wemust also tackle this problem. We have been workingfor a year or so in preparing for this Symposium to-gether with FAO and many other partners, but thisSymposium is not the end of the effort, it is the be-ginning, unless this Symposium leads to some realaction we have not achieved very much. To have abook or a report on a shelf somewhere is not going tofill stomachs and certainly not to feed people betterquality food, so we must take this opportunity in var-ious initiatives, such as the Cross Cutting Initiative onBiodiversity for Food and Nutrition and Scaling UpNutrition, to incorporate the dimension of a diversediet and the role it can play in improving nutrition.

So this is really the start of, I hope, a major effort toensure that all people in the world will not only haveadequate food but adequate nutrition to meet theirneeds.

20

SUSTAINABLE DIETSAND BIODIVERSITY:THE CHALLENGE FOR POLICY,EVIDENCE ANDBEHAVIOUR CHANGETim LangCentre for Food Policy, City University, London, UK

KEYNOTEPAPER

21

It is a deep honour to address this Symposium withso many distinguished scientists; and always a pleas-ure for me to be back in Rome where I happily cameto live after leaving school. I am a social scientist whois concerned about how policy both shapes and re-sponds to the food system. Here, I want to askwhether policies are currently appropriate for thetask of mixing sustainable diets and biodiversity. Atpresent, the answer must be ‘no’. Food and agricul-ture are major drivers of biodiversity loss, which iswhy this Symposium must help chart a better future.For me, a critical issue worthy of more attention isthe definition and pursuit of sustainable diet. What isa good diet in the 21st century? Nutrition sciencetried throughout the 20th century to clarify what is agood diet for human health. But today it has little ornothing to say so far about how to marry human andeco-systems health.

Here lies a major 21st century food policy challenge.Do I eat ever more meat and/or dairy (an indicator ofrising income)? Or do I consume a diet primarily ofplants? If I want to eat meat and dairy, what is theright amount, measured against what indicators?And is this the same everywhere? Does embeddedwater in food make a difference to an acceptablediet? How do I eat nutritionally well while keepinggreenhouse gas emissions and embedded waterlow? And what about fish? Much nutrition sciencehighlights its benefits, yet environmental analysts areconcerned about stocks under threat.

These and many other problems lead me to call for abig international effort to define and clarify a ‘sus-tainable diet’. We cannot ignore this challenge. In anideal world, I’d like to see the creation of somethinglike an Intergovernmental Panel or Special Taskforceon Sustainable Diets. We could also create expertworking parties or Commissions. Or ask some rep-resentative governments to take a lead. There aremany illustrations of processes by which we couldbegin this process: the IAASTD [IAASTD, 2008], theWHO’s Commission on Social Determinants of

Health [WHO, 2008], an International Conferencesuch as the 1992 International Conference on Nutri-tion [FAO/WHO, 1992], or the 1992 Rio Conference[UNCED,1992], a committee of experts; or regionalrathe than global bodies.Whichever policy process finally receives backing, thequality of humanity’s collective response to the sus-tainable diet challenge must be raised. And this mustbegin soon. At present, policy on this issue is a mix-ture of drifting and fragmenting. Yet if we do not cre-ate a policy process to resolve the problem of definingand articulating sustainable diets, there is a real dan-ger that humanity will drift into irreparable damagedue to how and what we eat, as incomes rise. The ev-idence is already too strong about threats to environ-ment [UNEP, 2009], health [WHO, 2004], and socialjustice [De Schutter, 2011]. We have to resolve thisimpasse.

To make matters even more complicated, the chal-lenge of defining sustainable diet is not just a matterof blending two scientific discourses – public healthand environment. Food is also a cultural and eco-nomic matter. Part of the 20th century’s legacy is thatit allowed us, in the name of progress, choice and in-dividual rights, to develop an approach to food policywhich saw no limits. Old cultural ‘rules’, sometimesreligious, sometimes born from experience, havebeen weakened by consumerism, enticed by heavilyfunded marketing. ‘Eat this brand not that.’ ‘Eat whatand when you like’. ‘Eat high status foods every dayall day.’ Thus the mismatch of human and environ-mental health is mediated by economics and culture.There is a push and a pull to this situation; peoplechoose but do not want to accept the longer-termconsequences. That is why many people working inthis area now see the challenge of sustainable dietsas requiring cultural signposts too.

As a Commissioner on the UK government’s Sus-tainable Development Commission (2006-11), I havetried to help my country face this pressing task. In aseries of reports, we argued that not only was the

22

issue of sustainable diets our problem in the devel-oped world, but that to include food’s environmentalfootprint in shaping future food supply would helpus lead by example, and to ‘put our house in order’before lecturing others or leading them to repeatour mistakes. Diet-related ill-health already placesa massive burden on the UK’s healthcare system.The SDC’s sustainable diet study suggested thathuman and eco-systems goals broadly match [Sus-tainable Development Commission, 2009]. If wouldbe better for UK public health and environment if itscitizens ate less much overall (too many people areoverweight and obese), less meat and dairy (theburden of non-communicable diseases is high andcostly); more fruit and vegetables (which are protec-tive for health). These would also have environmen-tal benefits. While this policy argument has beengenerally accepted, we know that this now needs tobe translated into more specific guidance. Othercountries in the European Union have thought like-wise : Sweden[National Food Administration, 2008],Netherlands [Health Council of the Netherlands,2011], Germany [German Council for SustainableDevelopment, 2008]. In Australia, too, scientific ad-visors have been tussling with similar problems re-viewing their dietary guidelines. Unfortunately,while the evidence that policy needs to address theconundrum of sustainable diets, there are pres-sures not to face up to the issue. Alas, my own coun-try’s Government closed an Integrated Advice forConsumers programme created to try to resolve theproblem of welding health, environment, and socialjustice in food advice to consumers [Food StandardsAgency, 2010], and Sweden’s advice to environmen-tally conscious consumers has also been withdrawnafter encountering difficulties over whether pro-moting local foods contravenes EU free movementof goods principles [Dahlbacka and Spencer, 2010].I report this not to dismiss these fates as ‘politics’.Food policy is inevitably highly sensitive. It alwayswas and probably always will be. But everywhere inthe world, interest in the issue of sustainable diets

is actually growing. The stakes may be high, but thatdoes not mean we must ignore the issue.

What exactly is meant by the term Sustainable Diets?Part of the need to create a proper policy and scien-tific process is to define it. The word ‘sustainability’can be plastic, made to fit many meanings. Mostly,when it is used, it is within the terms laid out in the1987 Brundtland report [Brundtland, 1987], whichproposed that human development requires us togive equal weight to the environment, society andeconomy. This triple focus is not precise enough, I be-lieve. Some argue that we don’t even need to define‘sustainable’, but merely need to help consumers ‘dothe right thing’. That was the German and Swedishapproach. They appealed to consumers’ honour, im-plying that they were broadly on the right track butneeded to have help fine-tuning their choices. TheCentre for Food Policy where I work has taken a dif-ferent direction. We have argued that alongsideBrundtland’s three factors, the future of food also re-quires policy attention on quality, health and gover-nance [Lang, 2010]. In my last report as UKSustainable Development Commissioner, colleaguesand I outlined how this new six-headed approach tosustainable food helps include factors which actorsthroughout the food system know to be important[Sustainable Development Commission, 2011].Under each of these major headings, more specificissues can be grouped. Biodiversity comes under en-vironment, of course.

But the argument for this new six-headed approachto sustainable food and diets is that this should notbecome a game of ‘trade-offs’. As we know over thelast thirty years, too often sustainable developmenthas traded off environmental protection for economicdevelopment. The value of ‘sustainability’ is that itgives equal weight to all, not primacy to one focus.We need some rigour from the word sustainable. Itmust encourage policy-makers to try to deliver a foodsystem which is finely tuned, detailed and accurate

23

about evidence. In the case of the environment, thatmeans not just biodiversity measures, or carbon, butother equally pressing issues such as: water, soil,land use,

And one of the reasons we have argued that healthdeserves to be one of the new big six headings forsustainable food systems is that health has so easilybeen lost. Usually it is subsumed within the social.But in food policy, this is not helpful. What is food ifnot about health for survival? Health is more thansafety or minimum requirements; it is also about op-timising nutrition, addressing not just dietary defi-ciencies but dietary excess. 21st century publichealth now requires a vision for food systems and forfood culture which realises the consequences ofunder-, mal- and over-consumption.

To define sustainable diets thus becomes a key ele-ment in recharting the food system for the 21st cen-tury. We cannot eat like modern Europeans or NorthAmericans. There are not enough planets. We can-not just pursue increased production at all costs. 21stcentury food policy needs to face the ‘elephant in theroom’ of consumerism: eating without accepting orpaying for the consequences. That is why we need tobe wary of trade-offs. Ideal it may be, but the defini-tion of a sustainable diet inevitably shows that all sixheadings of the new approach need to be addressed:quality, environment, social, health, economic andgovernance. If specialists or interest groups con-cerned about one heading do not also take account ofthe other five, distortions emerge. For example, if thepursuit of cheaper food (a goal actually heavily de-pendent on fossil fuels) continues to shape rich worldfood systems, there is an implication that consumershave the right to cheap food. The reality is that theenvironment is paying. Food economics needs to bebrought into line with biodiversity and public health,not continue to distort them.

I see this Symposium as an important step in the

process of putting clarity onto the notion of sustain-able diets. This meeting and our task of definition isnot sudden. It builds directly on work done here inthe FAO, such as in the landmark report on the im-pact of rising animal production, Livestock’s LongShadow [FAO, 2006]. It continues in the traditionbegun at UNCED / Rio in 1992. We need to dare to dofor sustainable diets what has been done for foodrights with the landmark 2004 Voluntary Guidelines[FAO, 2004; FAO, 2008] and the work of the SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Food. That line of assess-ing food systems and dietary inequality stems fromthe 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, butreally was shaped in the last twenty years, and givenweight by the Millennium Development Goals [Langet al., 2009]. We in this Symposium need to commit tolsimilar diplomatic effort. We too need to aspire tosome Guidelines on Sustainable Diet. It took decadesto get population-based dietary guidelines shaped byhealth at national and international levels, but wecannot wait for such slow progress for sustainablediet guidelines, if the environmental and other indi-cators about diet’s impact on the planet are accurate.We urgently need movement.

I do not need to remind a Symposium called by bio-diversity experts that modern diets and food pro-duction methods are part of the problem ofshrinking genetic diversity. 17,291 species out of47,677 so far assessed are threatened with extinc-tion [IUCN, 2010]. But we must not allow ourselvesto be mesmerised by a competition as to whichheading’s figures are worse (or best). The onlyshocking truth is that a world of plenty has beenmade which is in danger of undermining itself on anumber of fronts, not just one. We meet here in Eu-rope, which prides itself on being civilised, yet Eu-rope’s agri-food chain contributes an estimated18-20% of greenhouse gases and 30% of a con-sumer’s emissions [Tukker et al.,2006]. In the UK,food represents an estimated 23% of a consumer’secological footprint. We eat as though there are two

24

planets! [WWF-UK, 2010] How we eat is altering theweb of life, how everything connects, what CharlesDarwin called the ‘entangled bank’ of life[Darwin,1859].So, what are the policy goals that ought to shape thefood system for the future? Is it to eat what keeps abody optimally healthy? Or to eat what we like? Or toeat within environmental limits? Or to eat accordingto our income and social status? These are scientific,practical and moral questions. I repeat: my view isthat we need to reshape culture around the com-plexity of meeting multiple goals of quality, environ-ment, health, social, economic and governance. Agood food system will strive for improvement acrossall these, not enter a ruinous competition as to whichhas the loudest policy voice.

This policy position places responsibilities on scien-tists too. We / they cannot stay in the comfort zones.Bridges across the disciplines need to be built. Com-mon discourses and research must be created. Pol-icy-makers frequently complain that they cannot getcoherence from experts. That may be an excuse forinaction, of course, but there is some truth, too. Toooften, experts contribute to what we call ‘policy ca-cophony’, many voices all claiming they represent thekey issue [Lang and Rayner, 2007]. In this context, Iwant to pay respects to pioneering work by someNGOs trying to grapple with this problem. WWF, theconservation organisation has been particularly am-bitious in articulating its One Planet Diet programme[WWF-UK, 2009]. Also the Food and Climate Re-search Network [Audsley et al., 2010]. Some corpo-rations, too, are looking ahead and are troubled bywhat they rightly see as threats to their long-termprofitability and sustainability (in the financial senseof the word). Remarkable commitments are beingmade: to reduce carbon or water [Unilever, 2010].Sceptics might see this as protecting brands and fi-nancial viability. Perhaps, but I think not entirely.Slowly, inexorably, some consensus might be emerg-ing, from different quarters [[Barilla Centre for Food

and Nutrition, 2010]. Everything points to the in-evitability of defining sustainable diets and articulat-ing the cultural and policy pathways by which todeliver them.

Discussions I have held with food companies suggestthat many are content to address what they see asthe environmental challenge of their productsthrough ‘choice-editing’. This term is used to meanthat they, the companies, shave away the footprintwithout telling the consumer too much. The changeis ‘below the parapet’ as we say in English. It doesn’tconfront the consumer with too much radical change.This is interesting and important, not least since itquestions how deep the commitment to consumersovereignty really is. If consumers are not demand-ing such change, why is it being introduced? Let mebe clear. This is a good thing, but it does mean thatalready the discourse about sustainability and sus-tainable diets is no longer in the rigid ideological ter-rain of consumer choice. Changes are beingintroduced without consumer choice. Indeed, theyare restructuring what is meant by choice. These arecautious and hopeful shifts in policy thinking, in ad-vance of most politicians. But I am not alone, as apolicy observer, in my concerns about whether thereis sufficient urgency. The integration is not there forthe whole food system; nor is the required scale andpace of change. No-one is yet leading efforts tochange culture rapidly.

If we want consumers to act as food citizens, surelythey need help in the form of new, overt ‘culturalrules’, by which I means guidelines on the 21stcentury norms of eating. We have quite a range ofmeans by which to do this, from ‘hard’ such as fis-cal and legal measures, to ‘soft’ ones such as ed-ucation and labelling. I doubt any system oflabelling could capture sustainable dietary advice.Labels have not stopped the nutrition transition.The introduction and design of labels themselvestends to become a battleground, when they ought

25

to be policy means rather than ends.

In conclusion, I believe that the case for the betterdefinition of sustainable diets is overwhelming.There is already sufficient evidence as to food’s im-pact to warrant the creation of comprehensive sus-tainable dietary guidelines at national, regional andglobal policy levels. I listed earlier some policyprocesses which might deliver these: panels, com-missions, etc. But we also need to recognise thatdefinitions and guidelines do not engender changeon their own. They are means, not ends. External aswell as professional pressure to change is essen-tial. It gives policy-makers both support and spaceto come up with solutions. Pressure to change foodsystems and policy direction is long overdue. Pro-duction focus is no longer a sound or adequate goalfor food policy. We need a hard, cold look at thefault-lines and power relations in current policy-making: why some interests triumph. Food raisesfundamental questions about humanity’s relation-ship to the planet: is it exploitative or facilitative,democratic or sectional? On the Masters Pro-gramme in Food Policy at my University, we fre-quently give our students an exercise: you have fiveminutes with the President (or Prime Minister orSovereign), what will you say? Here is my attemptfor the topic we are tussling over.

Firstly, we need to define sustainable diets, ur-gently. We need to set up a process to do this, per-haps many processes, but these must beformalised. There will be resistance; some compa-nies and institutions are wary, others are overtlyhostile, but more are beginning to see the point.They are already engaging about sustainable pro-duction, not least since rising oil prices are pushingcore costs upwards. This process can and shouldappeal to the common good. It is among the 21stcentury’s greatest challenges to eat within plane-tary limits yet giving health, pleasure and culturalidentity.

Secondly, we need to clarify where biodiversity fitsinto sustainable diets. Is the greatest contribution ofconsumers just to eat less? To eat more simply? Tocut out or just down on meat and dairy? To eat thesame everywhere? (I doubt it) All year round thesame diet? (I doubt it.) But let’s explore those questions.Thirdly, we need to ensure appropriate institutionalstructures. Have our countries, regions and worldbodies got the appropriate policy vehicles for thesediscussions? Can the Convention on Biological Di-versity be squared with the advice coming fromHealth bodies or Trade bodies? Whose processesmatter most?

Fourthly, we must research which arguments andfactors are most effective in delivering consumer be-haviour change. If we do not do that, our fine inten-tions and evidence on the need to eat sustainablymight fail.

Fifthly, we must fuse nutrition and environmentalguidelines to generate new cultural rules, to guideeveryday norms and habits. Biodiversity protectionmust be part of that. Nutrition education is currentlysadly almost blind to biodiversity, but this need to re-main so. Even the countries trying to take a lead onsustainable diets wrap the notion up in the ‘soft’ lan-guage and instruments of choice. They shy awayfrom the real change agents such as fiscal impact onprice or regulatory frameworks shifting the ‘levelplaying field’ on which business can work. The fullrange of policy instruments to frame choices isn’tbeing applied. To be stark, the pursuit of sustainablediets is an indicator of progress. It redefines what wemean by progress.

We have much to do. We are not sure about what todo about policy on sustainable diets yet, but we haveenough evidence and enough clarity about the crite-ria by which sustainable diets might be judged to actand to urge policy-makers to have courage to actsooner rather than later.

References

Audsley, E., et al., How Low Can We Go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and thescope for reduction by 2050 2010, FCRN and WWF: Godalming,Surrey.

Barilla Centre for Food and Nutrition, Double Pyramid: healthfood for people, sustainable food for the planet. 2010, BarillaCentre for Food and Nutrition: Parma.

Brundtland, G.H., Our Common Future: Report of the WorldCommission on Environment and Development (WCED) chairedby Gro Harlem Brundtland. 1987, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Commission on Social Determinants of Health, Report of theCommission, chaired by Prof Sir Michael Marmot.http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/. 2008, WorldHealth Organisation: Geneva.

Dahlbacka, B. and P. Spencer, Sweden Withdraws Proposal onClimate Friendly Food Choices. December 2, 2010. GAIN ReportSW1007. 2010, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Global Agri-cultural Information Network: Stockholm.

Darwin, C., On the origin of species by means of natural selec-tion, or The preservation of favoured races in the struggle forlife. 1859, London: John Murray. ix, [1], 502, 32 p., [1] folded leafof plates.

De Schutter, O., Reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on theRight to Food. http://www.srfood.org. 2011, UN Economic andSocial Council: Louvain / Geneva.

FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow – environmental issues and op-tions. 2006, Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome.

FAO, Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realiza-tion of the right to adequate food in the context of national foodsecurity. Adopted by the 127th Session of the FAO Council No-vember 2004. 2004, Food and Agriculture Organisation: Rome.

FAO, Declaration of the High-Level Conference on World FoodSecurity: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bioenergy.June 3-5 2008. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/food-climate/HLCdocs/declaration-E.pdf. 2008, Food & AgricultureOrganisation: Rome.

FAO and WHO, International Conference on Nutrition. Final re-port of the conference. 1992, Food and Agriculture Organisa-tion, and World Health Organisation: Rome.

Food Standards Agency IAC Project Team, Integrated advice forconsumers: Discussion and analysis of options.www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/iacreport.pdf. 2010, FoodStandards Agency: London. p. 123.

German Council for Sustainable Development, The SustainableShopping Basked: a guide to better shopping. 3rd edition. 2008,German Council for Sustainable Development: Berlin.

Health Council of the Netherlands, Guidelines for a healthy diet:the ecological perspective. 2011, Health Council of the Nether-lands: The Hague.

IAASTD, Global Report and Synthesis Report. 2008, Interna-tional Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology De-velopment Knowledge: London.

IUCN., Red List of Endangered Species. http://www.iuc-nredlist.org/news/vertebrate-story. 2010, International Unionfor the Conservation of Nature: Gland.

Lang, T., From `value-for-money' to `values-for-money'? Eth-ical food and policy in Europe. Environment and Planning A,2010. 42: p. 1814-1832.

Lang, T. and G. Rayner, Overcoming Policy Cacophany on Obe-sity: an Ecological Public Health Framework for Politicians.Obesity Reviews, 2007 8(1): p. 165-181.

Lang, T., D. Barling, and M. Caraher, Food Policy: integratinghealth, environment and society. 2009, Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

National Food Administration (of Sweden) and E. Agency, Envi-ronmentally effective food choices: Proposal notified to the EU.2008, National Food Administration: Stockholm.

Sustainable Development Commission, Setting the Table: ad-vice to Government on priority elements of sustainable diets.2009, Sustainable Development Commission: London.

Sustainable Development Commission, Looking Forward, Look-ing Back: Sustainability and UK food policy 2000 – 2011.http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=11872011, Susainable Development Commission: London.

Tukker, A., et al., Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO):Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to thefinal consumption of the EU-25. EUR 22284 EN. 2006, EuropeanCommission Joint Research Centre: Brussels.

UNCED, Rio Declaration, made at the UNCED meeting at Riode Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. 1992, United Nations Con-ference on Environment and Development: Rio de Janeiro.

Unilever, Sustainable Living Plan 2010. http://www.sustainable-living.unilever.com/the-plan/ [accessed December 12 2010].2010, Unilever plc: London.

UNEP (Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout,B., and B. Svihus, Prins, A. G., Kaltenborn, B. P. (Eds)), TheEnvironmental Food Crisis: The Environment's role in avert-ing future food crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment.2009, United Nations Environment Programme / GRID-Aren-dal Arendal, Norway.

WHO, Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. 57thWorld Health Assembly. WHA 57.17, agenda item 12.6. 2004,World Health Assembly: Geneva.

WWF-UK, One Planet Food Strategy 2009-2012. 2009, WWF UK:Godalming Surrey.

WWF-UK, Tasting the Future. 2010, ADAS, Food & Drink Feder-ation, Food Ethics Council and WWF: Godalming. p. Tasting t.

26

29

CHAPTER 1SUSTAINABLE DIETSAND BIODIVERSITY

30

BIODIVERSITY ANDSUSTAINABLE NUTRITION WITHA FOOD-BASED APPROACHDenis LaironPresident, Federation of European Nutrition SocietiesINRA, UMR 1260 & INSERM, ERL 1025University Aix-Marseille, Marseille, France

AbstractIt is time to face the evidence of a worldwide un-sustainable food system. Its complexity makes itextremely fragile to any climatic, socio-economic,political or financial crisis. Thus, we urgently needappropriate understanding and new strategies toreally accommodate present and future populationneeds and well-being. In that context, we needsustainable diets, with low-input, local and seasonalagro-ecological food productions as well as short-distance production-consumption nets for fairtrade. Cultural heritage, food quality and culinaryskills are other key aspects determining sustainabledietary patterns and food security. Nutrition educationabout appropriate food choices remains essentialeverywhere. It thus appears very urgent to profoundlychange our food strategy and to promote fair, cul-turally-appropriated, biodiversity-based, ecofriendly,sustainable diets. Authorities should urgentlyassume their responsibilities by orienting andsupporting the appropriate and sustainable food-stuff productions and consumptions in all parts ofthe world.

1. IntroductionAs the President of the Federation of EuropeanNutrition Societies (FENS), gathering nationalnutrition societies of 24 countries in Europe, I wasvery pleased to have the FENS as one of the organi-zations associated to the International ScientificSymposium “Biodiversity and sustainable dietsunited against hunger”, organized at FAO head-quarters in Rome, 3–5 November 2010.At the beginning of this new millennium, we are stillfacing an alarming challenge. One billion poorpeople still suffer from hunger and malnutritionwhile about 2 billion show undernutrition andmicronutrient deficiencies (FAO, 2011). At the sametime, about 2 billion are overweight and/or obese, asteadily increasing number in all countries in theworld (WHO, 2011). This double burden is found in both poor developing

countries as well as in Brazil, Russia, India andChina. It is noteworthy that an important fraction ofthe population in industrialized countries is suffer-ing from poverty too and inadequate food and nutri-ent intakes. The recent trends for these patterns arequite alarming (CDC, 2011) thus highlighting theoverall inadequacy of food supply and dietary patternsduring the last decades and present time worldwide.For a few decades only, a multinational, industrialagrofood system developed worldwide that hasprogressively shifted producer activities as well asconsumer demand and attitude. It has been clearlyshown that low-cost foods are those energy-dense(fat- and sugar-rich) and nutrient-poor (Maillot etal., 2007), inducing both deficiencies and overweightconsequences of inappropriate food choices drivenby household income and education level. The dras-tic changes that recently occurred and presentlyoccur in most countries seem to originate in theerosion of the traditional ways of life and culture asthe new “Western/North American” food model andsystem spreads over the world. This “modern”trend is now clearly facing the challenge of sustain-ability, both in terms of land use for food production,farmers’ income and poverty, water availability,pollution of the environment by chemicals andpesticide residues, fossil energy decline and cost,environment and biodiversity degradation, climatechange and global warming. As discussed below,this global challenge (Godfray et al., 2010) urgentlyneeds appropriate understanding as well as new at-titudes and appropriate strategies from the researchand development sector and stakeholders to reallyaccommodate present and future population needsand well-being.

2. Facing the evidence of an unsustainable foodsystemIndeed, the present food production, food supplyand food consumption system does not generally fitpresent and future human needs, because it is unableto satisfactorily feed everybody and relies on high

31

fossil energy use, chemicals, and energy inputs,long-distance transport, low-cost human work andcultural loss. It generates both micronutrient andfibre deficiencies as well as excess intakes of fat andsugar promoting overweight and obesity in a generaltrend of reduced physical activity and body energyexpenditure. Food choices and their determinantsare in fact central to the present situation. It is wellknown that they are increasingly driven by the world-wide economic sector through industrializedproduction simplification, generalized intensive foodprocessing and refining, aggressive food distributionand advertising. In contrast, they are progressivelyless influenced by the local cultural heritage and asuited integration in the environment.This very new food system has been developingsince the mid-twentieth century, i.e. two humangenerations ago only, and it is known to generatelarge greenhouse gas emissions and promote markedalterations of ecosystems such as biodiversity loss,deforestation, soil erosion, chemical contamina-tions, water shortage. Specifically, it is widely basedon a very low diversity of cultivated food crops andcultivars/breeds and an apparent but limited vari-ety of foodstuffs purchased, processed and con-sumed. Despite an apparent opulence, thecomplexity of the present food supply system makesit extremely fragile to any climatic, socio-eco-nomic, political or as recently financial crisis(Brinkman et al., 2010). This very recently happenedwith the rice financial crisis with prices increasedfourfold in a few months in 2008 highlighting impli-cations of high food prices for global nutrition(Webb, 2010) or with the 2011 earthquake in Japanthat emptied food stores within 3 days in highlyurbanized areas.The high energy content of most food consumed canfit the important needs of people with a high energyexpenditure but is in excess for most urbanizedsedentary people. In addition, the low nutrient/fibredensity of generally consumed food (raw andprocessed) is a widely acknowledged concern in all

countries. As an example, the fibre, mineral, vitaminand anti-oxidant content of wholewheat breadcompared with refined-wheat bread is about three tofourfold higher for the same amount of energy. Theproportion of animal food (especially processedmeat and full-fat dairies) is generally in largeexcess compared to minimal needs and markedlyraises the cost of the daily diet (Maillot et al., 2007).

3. An urgent need for sustainable dietsThere is thus an urgent need to launch a new strat-egy to develop the concept and use of sustainablediets in the various contexts of industrialized anddeveloping countries, to ensure food security andquality. Such systems should be based on low-inputagro-ecological staple food production includinglimited animal husbandry, short-distance produc-tion-consumption nets, minimal food processingand refining, important culinary skills, diet and nu-trition education, and firm links to positive traits ofancestral local cultures as well as appropriate useof recent technology tools. Biodiversity improve-ment appears to be a key for sustainable food pro-duction and food consumption.

3.1 Low-input agro-ecological food productionSince the origin of agriculture until the nineteenthcentury, the food production systems in very differentgeo-climatic contexts all over the world were low-input, ecologically integrated by necessity. Impressiveskills have been developed over millennia andcenturies to adapt to the specific environments andavailable means, and improve farming methods tosustain human development. While this processallowed the human species survival it was notsufficient to provide anybody appropriate food anytime. This facilitated the emergence in the twentiethcentury of the intensive industrial agriculturesystem based on high fossil energy and chemicaluse. Although yields improved in the short term,present limits and persistence of one billion under-nourished request new orientations, in the context

32

of the rapid and important increase in the populationin some parts of the world. In fact, it has alreadybeen advocated through a conference co-organizedby FAO (El-Hage Scialabba, 2007) that appropriateagro-ecological food production systems can performbetter (around 180%) than agro-industrial ones toprovide food to people in developing countries bycombining traditional knowledge and skills withmore recent concepts and means. This could allowthe necessary improvement in staple foods yields ina sustainable way protecting natural and cultivatedbiodiversity as well as avoiding poisoning ofecosystems and humans. This has again been recog-nized by the O. De Schutter, UN Special rapporteuron the right to food by stating: “Small-scale farmerscan double food production within 10 years in criticalregions by using ecological methods. Agro-ecologyis an intensive-knowledge approach: it requirespublic policies supporting agricultural research”(De Schutter, 2011). In industrialized countries,agro-ecological food production systems, generallycalled “organic” and supported in Europe by theCommission already represent 10 percent or evenmore of the agricultural sector and prove to be effi-cient to provide quality food with reasonable yieldswhile respecting environment. It is a sounded approachtowards the necessary need to integrate nutritionand ecology (McMichael, 2005).

3.2 Local production and short-distance production-consumption netsTo produce locally most staple food is the best wayto ensure food security and to avoid disturbancesdue to globalization and international uncertainties.In line with the above points, this implies to growproductions in season with minimal inputs to improvesustainability. This would stimulate the search foradapted species and varieties and thus increasecultivated biodiversity.These seasonally produced foods should be betterconsumed locally. This will optimize the flavours,tastes and nutritional quality of those foods harvested

at top maturity and thus will favour their consumption(especially for fruit and vegetables). Short-distancepurchases would limit transportation energy use anddirect sales from farmers to consumers throughnew local organizations is the best way to get goodprices in a fair trade as well as knowledge, under-standing and confidence, thus the best way to rec-oncile the urban citizen and producers and be abetter part of the whole ecosystem.

3.3 Food quality, culinary skills, dietary patternsand nutrition educationAs introduced before, an overall food quality is aprerequisite for an optimal nutrition.Regarding produced raw food, an optimal qualitylies in tasty products, with high nutrient content andno/minimal contaminations by chemical toxicants.The products raised through the agro-ecologicalmethods such as certified organic ones generally fitthese two requirements by improving the dry matterand some nutrients contents and minimizing chemicaland nitrate contaminations as recently reviewed(Rembialkowska, 2007; FSA, 2009; Lairon, 2010).Minimal processing can be one of the best ways tokeep original flavours and taste, without any needto add artificial flavouring or additives, or too muchsalt. This would also be the efficient way to keepmost nutrients, especially the most sensitive onessuch as many vitamins and anti-oxidants. Milling ofcereals is one of the most stringent processeswhich dramatically affect nutrient content. Whilegrains are naturally very rich in micronutrients,anti-oxidants and fibre (i.e. in wholemeal flour orflakes), milling usually removes the vast majority ofminerals, vitamins and fibres to raise white flour.Such a spoilage of key nutrients and fibre is no longeracceptable in the context of a sustainable diet aimingat an optimal nutrient density and health protection.In contrast, fermentation of various foodstuffs orgermination of grains are traditional, locally acces-sible, low-energy and highly nutritious processes ofsounded interest.

33

Home processing of food, essentially cooking, is acultural heritage of all people groups. Given theenergy source does not compromise the ecosystem, itallows local preparation of foods of easy digestibilityand of variable and enjoyable kinds. Cooking allowsthe use and mix of a huge variety of foods, herbs andspices. It identifies individuals and people groupsaround their cultural traditions, skills and way of life.Dietary patterns are acknowledged as the bestdescriptors of the day life food intake habits and ofrecommended nutrition guidelines. They can relymore or less on diversity, cultural heritage orhealthiness. Overall, some patterns are thought tobe rather detrimental such as the “Western diet pat-tern” which is energy-dense, rich in meats anddairies, saturated fat and sugar and poor in somemicronutrients and fibre. Some others of “prudent”type are recommended which are more nutrient-dense and plant foods-based, with plenty of fruit, veg-etables, nuts, wholegrains and some fish. Inaddition, knowledge, concepts and tools are nowavailable to scientifically design the minimalchanges necessary in terms of food consumed tomake people able to fit the recommended nutrientand fibre intakes necessary to maintain and promotehealth (Maillot et al., 2010 and 2011). In addition toempirical knowledge and tools, this new approachcould help to identify and promote better foodchoices. Another necessary approach is to analysethe sustainability of dietary patterns in terms of life-cycle assessment and energy and land require-ments (Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2002; Duchin,2005). In fact, most traditional local dietary patternsare of the “prudent” type, the most famous beingthe Mediterranean (Willett et al., 1995; Sofi et al.,2008; Bach-Faig et al., 2011) and the Asian ones.Their unfortunate progressive disappearance isassociated with the erosion of the local culture andtraditional food system, and a key challenge is tostop this negative trend and allow a soundedrenewal and updating of such dietary patterns. Thisis now done with the modern Mediterranean dietary

pyramid (Bach-Faig et al., 2011; Reguant-Aleix et al.,2009) which aims to reconcile traditional food pro-ductions and way of life with sounded food choices tofulfil nutrient requirements and fit with low energyuse and environment and biodiversity protection.Another example comes from Northern Europewhere health-promoting and environment friendlyregional diets have been designed for Nordic countries(Bere and Brug, 2008).Information and education about appropriate foodchoices is thus essential to improve the presentsituation in all countries given it is within a frameworkof sustainability, i.e. accounting for nutrition, culture,pleasure, equity, well-being and health, environmentand biodiversity protection for all as illustrated inFigure 1.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the key components of asustainable diet.

4. ConclusionSomewhat opposite to the present economy, tech-nology and finance domination, examples fromagro-ecological local food systems that have thepotential to supply people in rural as well as urbanareas with appropriate food in terms of quantity andquality should be accounted for. This implies thatthe worldwide amazing food culture heritage is pro-tected and further optimized to fit new challenges,especially to ensure food security. Appropriate anddiversified cultivars or breeds should be cultivated

34

Sustainable

diets

Well-being,

health

Equity,

fair tradeCultural

heritage,

skills

Food and

nutrient needs,

Food security,

accessibility

Biodiversity,

environment,

climate

Eco-friendly,

local, seasonal

foods

or raised, farming practices should improve bio-diversity, protect soil, forest and water, minimizechemical contamination of people and food, sustainecosystems in the long term and reduce globalwarming. Authorities should urgently assume theirresponsibilities by orienting and supporting theappropriate and sustainable foodstuff productionsand consumptions.Food and diets are among the key social determinantsof health and well-being, but the present foodsystem is profoundly unfair and generates socialinjustices. From the past half-century experiencesand present trends, we are convinced that it be-comes very urgent to profoundly change our foodstrategy and to promote fair, culturally-appropriated,biodiversity-based, sustainable diets. This is indeeda considerable challenge for nutritionists too.

ReferencesBach-Faig, A., Berry, E., Lairon, D., Reguant, J., Trichopoulou,A., Dernini, S., Burlingame, B., Medina, F.X., Battino, M., Miranda.G., Serra-Majem, L., on behalf of the Mediterranean Diet Foun-dation Expert Group (2011). Mediterranean diet pyramid today.Science and cultural updates. Public Health Nutrition, in press.

Bere, E., Brug, J. (2008). Towards health-promoting andenvironment friendly regional diets, a Nordic example. PublicHealth Nutrition, 12 (1), 91-96.

Brinkman, H.J., de Pee, S., Sanogo, I., Subran, L., Bloem, M.W.(2010). High food prices and the global financial crisis havereduced access to nutritious food and worsened nutritionalstatus and health. Journal of Nutrition, 140(1):153S-61S.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Pipping Ekström, M., Shanahan, H. (2002).Food and life cycle energy imputs: consequences of diet and waysto increase efficiency. Ecological Economics, 44, 293-307.

CDC, Center for Disease Control (2011).Accessible at http://www.cdc.gov/DiseasesConditions.

De Schutter, O. (2011). Report, March 8, Geneva,. Accessible athttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/annual.htm

Duchin, F. (2005). Sustainable consumption of foods. A frame-work for analysing scenarios about chnages in diet. IndustrialEcology, 9, 99-114.

El-Hage Scialabba, N. (2007). Organic agriculture and foodsecurity, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Report of the International conference on organic agri-culture and food security, May 3-5, Roma, Italy, 22p. (availableat http://www.fao.org).

FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.(2011). Accessible at http://www.fao.org/hunger.

FSA, Food Standards Agency (UK). Comparison of composition(nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionallyproduced foodstuffs : a systematic review of available literature.2009, 31 pages. Accessible at http://www.food.gov.uk.

Godfray, H.C., Beddington.J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence,D., Muir, J. H., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin,C.( 2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people.Science, 327(5967):812-8.

Lairon, D.( 2010). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food.A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30: 33-41.

Maillot, M., Darmon, N., Darmon, M., Lafay, L., Drewnowski, A.(2007). Nutrient-dense food groups have high energy costs: aneconometric approach to nutrient profiling. Journal of Nutrition,137(7):1815-20.

Maillot, M., Vieux, F., Amiot, J., Darmon, N. (2010). Individualdiet modeling translates nutrient recommendations into realisticand individual-specific food choices. American Journal ofClinical Nutrition, 91:421-30.

Maillot, M., Issa, C., Vieux, F., Lairon, D., Darmon, N.. The short-est way to reach nutritional goals is to adopt Mediterranean foodchoices. (2011) Evidence from computer-generated personalizeddiets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in press.

McMichael, A., J. (2005). Intergating nutrition with ecology:balancing the health of humans and biosphere. Public HealthNutrition, 8, 706-715.

Millward, D.J., Garnett, T. (2009). Food and the planet: nutritionaldilemmas of greenhouse gas emission reductions throughreduced intakes of meat and dairy foods. Proceedings of theNutrition Society, 69, 1-16.

Reguant-Aleix, J., Arbore, M.R., Bach-Faig, A., Serra-Majem, L.(2009). Mediterranean heritage: an intangible cultural heritage.Public Health Nutrition, 12:1591-4.

Rembialkowska, E. (2007). Quality of plant products from organicagriculture. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 87,2757-2762.

Sofi, F., Cesari, F., Abbate, R., Gensini, G.F., Casini, A. (2008).Adherence to Mediterranean diet and health status: meta-analysis.British Medical Journal 337:a1344. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a1344.

Webb, P. (2010). Medium to long-run implications of high foodprices for global nutrition. Journal of Nutrition, 140, 143S-147S.

WHO, World Health Organization of the United Nations. (2011).Accessible athttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html

Willett, W.C., Sacks, F., Trichopoulou, A. et al. (1995). Mediterranean diet pyramid: a cultural model for healthy eating.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61:1402S-6S.

35

36 3636

BIODIVERSITY, NUTRITIONAND HUMAN WELL-BEING IN THECONTEXT OF THE CONVENTIONON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITYKathryn Campbell, Kieran Noonan-Mooney and Kalemani Jo MulongoySecretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversityMontreal, Canada

37

1. The interlinkages between biodiversity andhuman well-beingBiological diversity, known as biodiversity, underpinsthe well-being of society. The poor, who dependdisproportionately on biodiversity for their subsis-tence needs, suffer first and most severely from itsdegradation, but we all ultimately rely on biodiver-sity. Growing recognition of the links betweenecosystem services and human well-being (Figure 1).

implies that biodiversity should be a priority in na-tional and international efforts to address healthand well-being, including nutrition and food secu-rity, as well as gender equity and poverty reductionin the context of sustainable development. However,this is often not the case and the continuing failureto recognize the value of biodiversity and its role inunderpinning ecosystem services is rapidly pushingus towards critical tipping points, where manyecosystems risk shifting into new states in whichthe capacity to provide for the needs of present andfuture generations is highly uncertain. Actions takenover the next two decades will determine whetherthe relatively stable environmental conditions onwhich human civilization and well-being dependsmay continue beyond this half century.

2. The 2010 targets and the status of biodiversityIn April 2002, the Parties to the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity (CBD) (see www.cbd.int for furtherinformation) agreed “to achieve, by 2010, a significantreduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss at theglobal, regional and national level as a contribution topoverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life onEarth”. This pledge was subsequently endorsed bythe World Summit on Sustainable Development inJohannesburg later in 2002, and by the UN GeneralAssembly, as well as being incorporated as a newtarget within the Millennium Development Goals(Goal 7b). The final review of progress towards the 2010 targetwas undertaken as part of the third edition of theGlobal Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-3) (Secretariat ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). GBO-3concluded that the 2010 target had not been met atthe global level, despite the many actions taken insupport of biodiversity, as the actions were not of asufficient scale to address the pressures on biodi-versity in most places.Of the headline indicators used to assess progresstowards the 2010 target, ten show trends unfavourablefor biodiversity, while three show no clear globaltrend and only two show positive trends (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Biodiversity is affected by drivers of change and alsois a factor modifying ecosystem function. It contributes directlyand indirectly to the provision of ecosystem goods and services.These are divided into four main categories by the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment: goods (provisioning services) are theproducts obtained from ecosystems; and cultural servicesrepresent non-material benefits delivered by ecosystems. Bothof these are directly related to human well-being. Regulatingservices are the benefits obtained from regulating ecosystemprocesses. Supporting services are those necessary for theproduction of all other ecosystem services (Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, 2006).

HUMAN WELL-BEINGBasic Material for good lifeHealthSecurityGood social relationsFreedom of choiceand action

DIRECT DRIVERS OFCHANGEClimate changeNutrient loadingLand use changeSpecies introductionOverexploitation

INDIRECT DRIVERSOF CHANGEDemographicEconomicSociopoliticalScience and technologyCultural and religious

ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES

ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS

BIODIVERSITYNumberRelative abundanceCompositionInteractions

GOODS (provisioning services)Food, fiber and fuelGenetic resourcesBiochemicals / Fresh water

REGULATING SERVICESInvasion resistanceHerbivory / Pollination / Seed dispersal / Climate regulationPest regulation / Disease regulationNatural hazard protection Erosion regulationWater purification

CULTURAL SERVICESSpiritual and religious valuesKnowledge systemEducation and inspirationRecreation and aesthetic values

SUPPORTING SERVICESPrimary productionProvision of habitatNutrient cyclingSoil formation and retentionProduction of atmospheric oxygenWater cycling

3838

Figure 2. Trends of headline indicators of the 2010 biodiversitytarget with indicators of particular relevance to food and nutritionhighlighted in red boxes (Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological Diversity, 2010).

3. Future scenarios for global biodiversity andimpacts for healthTo examine different possible futures, GBO-3 exam-ined available models that project the likely out-come of differing trends for biodiversity in thecoming decades, and reviewed their implications forhuman societies. Three of the main conclusionsfrom the analysis are that the projected impact ofglobal change on biodiversity shows continuing and

often accelerating species extinctions, loss of naturalhabitat, and changes in the distribution and abundanceof species, species groups and biomes over thetwenty-first century; secondly, there is a high riskof dramatic biodiversity loss and accompanyingbroad range of ecosystem services if the Earth’ssystems are pushed beyond certain tipping points(Figure 3); and thirdly, the study concludes thatbiodiversity loss and ecosystem changes could beprevented, significantly reduced or even reversed,if strong action is applied urgently, comprehensivelyand appropriately, at international, national andlocal levels.

Status and trends of the components of biological diversity

Ecosystem integrity and ecosystem goods and services

Threats to biodiversity

Sustainable use

Status of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices

Status of access and benefit sharing

Status of resources transfers

Marine

Trophic

Index

Connectivity - fragmentation of ecosystems

Water quality of aquatic ecosystems

Trends in extent of selected biomes,

ecosystem and habitats

Trends in abundance and distribution

of selected species

Change in status of threatened species

Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated

animals, coltivated plants, and fish species

of major socio-economic importance

Coverage of protected areas

��

��

�

�

��

Nitrogen deposition

Trends in invasive alien species

Area of forest, agricultural and

aquaculture ecosystems under

sustainable management

Ecological footprint and related concepts

Status and trends of linguistic diversity

and numbers of speakers of indigenous

languages

Indicators of access and benefit-sharing

to be developed

Official development assistance (ODA)

provided in support of the Convention

��

�

�

�

?

�

�

39

Figure 3. The mounting pressures on biodiversity risks pushingsome ecosystems into new states, with severe ramifications forhuman well-being as tipping points are crossed. While theprecise location of tipping points is difficult to determine, oncean ecosystem moves into a new state it can be very difficult, ifnot impossible, to return it to its former state (Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity, 2010).

Figure 4. Conservation status of medicinal plant species indifferent geographic regions. The greatest risk of extinctionoccurs in those regions where medicinal plants are most widelyused (Secretariat of the Convention on Biologival Diversity 2010adapted from Vié et al., 2008).

4. What does this mean for global food security andhealth?Ecosystems around the world are becoming increas-ingly fragmented and species used for food and med-icine are at an increasing risk of extinction (Figure 4).In addition to fragmentation, the degradation offreshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems isalso a threat to food security. For example, theworld’s fisheries employ approximately 200 millionpeople and provide about 16 percent of the proteinconsumed worldwide. However, almost 80 percentof the world marine fish stocks, for which assessmentinformation is available, are fully exploited, overex-ploited, depleted or recovering from depletion(FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2009).While the average maximum size of fish caught hasdeclined by 22 percent since 1959 globally for allassessed communities and, in addition, there is anincreasing trend of stock collapses over time, with14 percent of assessed stocks collapsed in 2007(Worm et al., 2009).Over the period 1980–2003, nearly one-quarter (24%)of the world’s land area was undergoing degradation,as measured by a decline in primary productivity.Degrading areas included around 30% of all forests,20% of cultivated areas and 10% of grasslands.Around 16% of land was found to be improving inproductivity, the largest proportion (43%) being inrangelands. The areas where a degrading trendwas observed barely overlapped with the 15% ofland identified as degraded in 1991, indicating thatnew areas are being affected and that some regionsof historical degradation remain at low levels ofproductivity (Bai et al., 2008).In addition to the decline in species populations,there is also a decline in genetic diversity in naturalecosystems and in systems of crop and livestockproduction. The decline in species populations,combined with the fragmentation of landscapes,inland water bodies and marine habitats, have ledto an overall significant decline in the genetic diver-sity of life on Earth (Figure 5).

Percentage

100

80

6060

40

20

0

� Extinct � Threatened �Not Threatened �Data deficient

Australasia Europe Asia North Pacific Southern AfricaAmerica America

CHANGED STATE

Tippinpipipi gpoint

PresPP sures

Actionssto increaseresiliencee

Less diverseFewer ecosystem

servicesDegradation of

human well being

Existingbbbbbiodbbbbiobibbbbbbbbbbbbbbibbbbbbbbb iversityyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

ChanC gedbbbbbiodbbbbbbbbbb iversitytyytyyyyyyyyyyyyyytyyyyyyyyyyyy

SAFEEEEEOPERATING

SPACE

40

Figure 5. Large numbers of breeds of the five major species oflivestock are at risk from extinction. More generally, among 35domesticated species, more than one-fifth of livestock breeds,are classified as being at risk of extinction (FAO, 2007).

While this decline is of concern for many reasons,there is particular anxiety concerning the loss ofdiversity in the varieties and breeds of plants andanimals used to sustain human livelihoods. The reduction in the diversity of breeds has so farbeen greatest in developed countries, as widely-used, high-output varieties have come to dominate.However, the general homogenization of landscapesand agricultural varieties can make the food securityof poor and marginalized populations vulnerable tofuture changes. For example, it is estimated that 21percent of the world’s 7 000 livestock breeds(amongst 35 domesticated species of birds andmammal) are classified as being at risk, and thetrue figure is likely to be much higher as a further36 percent are of unknown risk status (FAO, 2007).More than 60 livestock breeds are reported to havebecome extinct during the first six years of this centuryalone (FAO, 2007).In many developing countries, changing marketdemands, urbanization and other factors are lead-ing to a rapid growth of more intensive animal pro-duction systems. This has led to the increased use ofnon-local breeds, largely from developed countries,and it is often at the expense of local genetic re-sources. In addition, the cross-breeding of indige-nous and imported breeds is also leading to the lossof genetic diversity. For example, in Thailand, with

the import of foreign breeds of livestock, indigenousbreeds such as the Khaolamppon cow (speciesname 1), the Rad pig (species name 2), the Hinan pig(species name 3) and the Nakornpratom duck(species name 4) are disappearing (Office of NaturalResources and Environmental Policy and Planning,2009), while in China there has been a decline in thenumber of local rice varieties from 46 000 in the1950s to slightly more than 1 000 in 2006 (ChineseMinistry of Environmental Protection, 2008).In addition to biodiversity providing food for humanhealth, biodiversity underpins the functioning of theecosystems which are responsible for providingfreshwater, regulating climate, floods and diseases;providing recreational benefits as well as fibres,timbers and materials; aesthetic and spiritualenrichment; and supporting services such as soilformation, pollination, photosynthesis and nutrientcycling (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).Biodiversity also contributes to local livelihoods,medicines (traditional and modern) and economicdevelopment. Ultimately, all human health dependson ecosystem services that are made possible bybiodiversity. In this way, biodiversity can be consid-ered as the foundation for human health and thus,biodiversity conservation, the sustainable use ofbiodiversity and the equitable sharing of its benefitsis a global responsibility at all levels and across allsectors.Previous actions in support of biodiversity havegenerally focused on addressing the direct pressurescausing its loss and on intervening directly to improvethe state of biodiversity, for example in programmesto protect particular endangered species. An estimated80 percent of Parties reported in their fourth nationalreports to the CBD that biodiversity was importantfor human well-being in their country including,amongst other things, as a source of food. However,there has been limited action to address the under-lying causes or the indirect drivers of biodiversityloss, such as demographic change, consumptionpatterns or the impacts of increased trade. Equally,action has tended not to be focused specifically on

�Unknown �Not at risk �At risk � Extinct

Percentage

0 20 40 60 80 100

Chicken

Goat

Sheep

Pig

Cattle

41

protecting, and promoting, the benefits provided byecosystems. The responses from now on shouldtarget these neglected aspects of biodiversity loss,while continuing to reduce direct pressures andintervening to protect threatened species andecosystems.

5. Response of the Parties to the Convention on Bi-ological DiversityAt its tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties(COP 10), held in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, theParties to the CBD adopted a new ten-year StrategicPlan for Biodiversity to guide international andnational efforts. The vision of this Strategic Plan isa world “living in harmony with nature” where “by2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored andwisely used, maintaining ecosystem services,sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefitsessential for all people”.The Strategic Plan includes 20 headline targets,known as the “Aichi Biodiversity Targets”, which areorganized under five strategic goals of 1) addressingthe underlying causes of biodiversity loss 2) reducingthe pressures on biodiversity 3) safeguarding bio-diversity at all levels 4) enhancing the benefits for allprovided by biodiversity, and 5) enhancing implemen-tation including by providing for capacity-building.Most of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets have indirectlinks to food, nutrition and sustainable diets. Thefollowing are particularly relevant:a) Target 3: By 2020, at the latest, incentives, includ-ing subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated,phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoidnegative impacts, and positive incentives for theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity aredeveloped and applied […]. Fishery subsidies thatcontribute to overfishing globally are potential areasfor reform as is the continued and deepened reformof production-inducing agricultural subsidies. Bear-ing in mind the principle of common but differenti-ated responsibilities, this target does not imply a needfor developing countries to remove subsidies thatare necessary for poverty reduction programmes.

b) Target 4: By 2020, at the latest, governments,business and stakeholders at all levels have takensteps to achieve or have implemented plans forsustainable production and consumption […].Reducing total demand and increasing efficiencywill contribute to the target and can be pursuedthrough each production- and consumption-relatedsector, including agriculture and fisheries, develop-ing and implementing plans for this purpose.c) Target 6: By 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocksand aquatic plants are managed and harvestedsustainably, legally and applying ecosystem-basedapproaches […]. Better management of harvestedmarine resources is needed to reduce pressure onmarine ecosystems and to substantially diminishthe likelihood of fishery collapses and hence bettersupport food security.d) Target 7: By 2020, areas under agriculture, aqua-culture and forestry are managed sustainably,ensuring conservation of biodiversity. The ecologicallyunsustainable consumption of water, use and run-offof pesticides and excess fertilizers, and the conversionof natural habitats to uniform monocultures, amongstother factors, have major negative impacts on bio-diversity inside and outside of agricultural areas. Onthe other hand, sustainable agricultural areas notonly contributes to biodiversity conservation butcan also deliver benefits to production systems interms of services such as soil fertility, erosion control,enhanced pollination and reduced pest outbreaks, aswell as contributing to the well-being and sustainablelivelihoods of local communities engaged in themanagement of local natural resources.e) Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of culti-vated plants and farmed and domesticated animalsand of wild relatives, including other socio-eco-nomically as well as culturally valuable species, ismaintained, and strategies have been developedand implemented for minimizing genetic erosionand safeguarding their genetic diversity. Whilesubstantial progress has been made in safeguardingmany varieties and breeds through ex situ storagein gene banks, less progress has been made in situ.

42

In situ conservation, including through continuedcultivation on farms, allows for ongoing adaptationto changing conditions (such as climate change) andagricultural practices. f) Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provideessential services, including services related to water,and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being,are restored and safeguarded […]. Ecosystem serv-ices related to the provision of water and food areparticularly important in that they provide servicesthat are essential for human well-being. Accord-ingly, priority should be given to safeguarding orrestoring such ecosystems, and to ensuring thatpeople, especially women, indigenous and localcommunities and the poor and vulnerable, haveadequate and secure access to these services.g) Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and thecontribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks hasbeen enhanced, through restoration of at least 15percent of degraded ecosystems […]. Deforestationand other habitat changes lead to the emission ofcarbon dioxide, methane and other greenhousegases. However, restored landscapes and seascapescan improve ecosystem resilience and contributeto climate change adaptation, while generatingadditional benefits for people, in particular indigenousand local communities and the rural poor. Consoli-dating policy processes and the wider application ofthese efforts could deliver substantial co-benefitsfor biodiversity and local livelihoods.

The Aichi Biodiversity Targets are an overarchingframework on biodiversity not only for the biodiversity-related conventions, but for the entire UnitedNations system. Parties to the CBD agreed at theCOP 10 meeting to utilize the flexible frameworkprovided by the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity to settheir own targets and incorporate these into nationalbiodiversity strategy and action plans (NBSAPs)within two years, taking into account national needsand priorities and also bearing in mind national con-tributions to the achievement of the global targets(see decision X/2). Additionally, in decision X/10, the

COP 10 meeting decided that the fifth national reports,due by 31 March 2014, should focus on the implemen-tation of the 2011–2020 Strategic Plan and progressachieved towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.The opportunity for urgent and sustained actiontowards implementation of the Strategic Plan forBiodiversity was also reflected in a number of otherCOP 10 decisions (see Programme of Work onAgricultural Biodiversity decision X/34) in which theCOP acknowledged the importance of agrobiodiversityincluding underutilized crops for food security andnutrition, especially in the face of climate changeand limited natural resources; the need to conservein situ and ex situ genetic diversity/resources, speciesand ecosystems/habitats in adequate quantity andquality that are important for food production; theopportunity to better use food, agroecosystems andnatural systems sustainably; possibilities for reha-bilitation/restoration of agricultural ecosystems andlandscapes; strengthening of approaches whichpromote the sustainability of agricultural systemsand landscapes, such as Globally Important Agri-cultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) and those in theSatoyama Initiative (Decision X/32), which aim tomaintain and rebuild “socio-ecological productionlandscapes (SEPLs)” that include villages, farmland,adjacent woods, grassland and coasts for the benefitof biodiversity and human well-being; promotingpublic awareness of the importance of agriculturalbiodiversity and its relationship to food security.While, as part of the Mountain Biodiversity programmeof work COP 10 noted the need to periodicallycollect and update information on genetic resources,particularly those related to food and agriculture(Decision X/30).In addition, as part of the development and imple-mentation of its access and benefit-sharing legislationor regulatory requirements, each Party shall considerthe importance of genetic resources for food andagriculture and their special role for food security(see Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing,Article 8c. Special Considerations). Food, and foodsecurity, is one of the possible non-monetary benefits

43

that can be equitably shared.COP 10 also examined the conservation and sustain-able use of bushmeat (Decision X/32), while takinginto consideration Article 10c as related to customarysustainable hunting practices for the livelihoods ofindigenous and local communities and noted, amongstother aspects, that there is a need to develop optionsfor small-scale food and income alternatives intropical and sub-tropical countries based on thesustainable use of biodiversity in order to supportcurrent and future livelihood needs and food security.

6. ConclusionsFor millennia, people’s use of biodiversity andecosystem services has contributed to human healthand development. Biodiversity is crucial due to theservices it provides for our well-being. Sustainabledevelopment relies on biodiversity therefore develop-ment strategies that undermine biodiversity are coun-terproductive for poverty alleviation and humanwell-being.The recognition of the links between biodiversity,sustainability and human health present a significantchallenge to current paradigms in many sectors. Insupport of the urgent need for action at all levels,the United Nations General Assembly, in Resolution65/161, proclaimed the period from 2011 to 2020 asthe United Nations Decade on Biodiversity. Biodiversity loss is not a separate issue from thecore concerns of society, including issues of nutrition,food security and sustainable development.The current trends in biodiversity conservationand ecosystem services undermine these globalgoals and will impact on achievement of theMillennium Development Goals. With adequateresources and political will, this generation cantake active steps to implement the Strategic Planfor Biodiversity and simultaneously contribute toachievement of the Millennium Development Goalsof eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (goal 1)and ensuring environmental sustainability (goal 7);hence sustaining a healthy planet and benefits forall people.

References

Bai Z.G., Dent D.L., Olsson L. and Schaepman M.E. 2008. Globalassessment of land degradation and improvement. 1. Identifi-cation by remote sensing. Report 2008/01, ISRIC – World SoilInformation, Wageningen. http://www.isric.org/isric/web-docs/docs/Report%202008_01_GLADA%20international_REV_Nov%202008.pdf

Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection 2008. China’sFourth National Report on Implementation of the Conventionon Biological Diversity. http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/cn/cn-nr-04-en.pdf

FAO 2007. The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture, edited by Barbara Rischkowsky & DafyddPilling. Rome.http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1250e/a1250e00.htm

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department 2009. The State ofthe World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0250e/i0250e.pdf)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. Ecosystems andHuman Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC.http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/docu-ment.356.aspx.pdf

Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy andPlanning. 2009. Thailand: National Report on the Implementationof the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ministry of NaturalResources and Environment, Bangkok, Thailand.https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/th/th-nr-04-en.pdf

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2006. GlobalBiodiversity Outlook 2. Montréal. http://www.cbd.int/gbo2/

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010. GlobalBiodiversity Outlook 3. Montréal. http://www.cbd.int/gbo3/

Vié J.-C., Hilton-Taylor C. and Stuart S. N. (eds). The 2008review of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN.

Worm B., Hilborn R., Baum J.K., Branch T.A., Collie J.S.,Costello C., Fogarty M.J., Fulton E.A., Hutchings J.A., JenningsS., Jensen O.P., Lotze H.K., Mace P.M, McClanahan T.R, MintoC., Palumbi S.R., Parma A.M., Ricard D., Rosenberg A.A.,Watson R., and Zeller D. 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries. Sci-ence, 325(5940), 578-585.http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5940/578

44

ENSURING AGRICULTURE, BIODIVERSITY AND NUTRITIONREMAINS CENTRALTO ADDRESSING THE MDG1HUNGER TARGETJessica Fanzo and Federico MatteiBioversity International, Rome, Italy

45

AbstractWith less than five years left to accomplish theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs), it is withgreat hope that nutrition remains a central theme inachieving them. One of the targets of the first MDGis to reduce the proportion of people who suffer fromhunger by half between 1990 and 2015, with hungermeasured as the proportion of the population whoare undernourished and the prevalence of childrenunder five who are underweight. In low and middleincome countries progress has been mixed. With onebillion people hungry, 129 million and 195 millionchildren are underweight and stunted respectively.Of the 117 countries analysed by UNICEF in late 2009,63 are on track to meet the MDG1 target based on theproportion of children underweight. From this review,most strategies being implemented and scaled arefocused on the direct nutrition-specific interventions– critically important and necessary. However the“nutrition-sensitive” interventions are less clear,particularly those in agriculture and agriculturalbiodiversity. This review provides an overview of the roleof agricultural biodiversity in food and nutritionsystems and its potential importance in addressingthe determinants of malnutrition and a road tosustainable progress in achieving MDG1 and beyond.Integrating agriculture and agricultural biodiversitypractices with broader nutrition-sensitive interventionsto address underlying causes of nutrition insecurity iscritical for generating durable and longer-termgains. Such an approach would inherently build onthe knowledge and capacities of local communitiesto transform and improve the quality of diets for betterchild health and nutrition. Success in achieving theMDG1 hunger target will hinge on addressing theroot causes of poor nutrition – through evidence-based and contextually relevant food system approachesthat can rapidly be taken to scale.

Poverty reduction goals that the world agreedupon: The Millennium Development GoalsAt the Millennium Summit in September 2000 the

largest gathering of world leaders in history adoptedthe UN Millennium Declaration, committing theirnations to a bold global partnership to reduceextreme poverty and to address a series of time-bound health and development targets. Amongthese MDGs is a commitment to reduce the proportionof people who suffer from hunger by half between1990 and 2015. In 2011, some countries remain farfrom reaching this target, and ensuring global foodsecurity persists as one of the greatest challengesof our time. In the developing world, reductions inhunger witnessed during the 1990s have recentlybeen eroded by the global food price and economiccrises.

There are currently an estimated 925 million peoplesuffering food and nutrition insecurity; howeverwith food price increases, these estimates may beconservative (FAO, 2010). In addition to those who arehungry, there are also 195 million children under fiveyears of age who are stunted and of those children,90 percent live in just 36 countries. Malnutritiontakes its toll; it is responsible for 35 percent of allchild deaths and 11 percent of the global diseaseburden. Micronutrient deficiencies, known as hiddenhunger, undermine the growth and development,health and productivity of over two billion people. Atthe same time, an estimated one billion people areoverweight and another 300 million are obese in boththe developed and developing world (WHO, 2006)which contributes to non-communicable diseaserisk such as diabetes and heart disease. With over-nutrition, many countries and urban communities inthe developing world are experiencing the nutritiontransition – going from undernutrition to obesitycaused by insufficient exercise, sedentary lifestylesand unhealthy diets (Popkin, 2008).

Global, regional and national progress towards theMDG1 hunger targetOne of the objectives in defining the MDGs was tocreate targets and objective indicators that could be

45

46

used to set benchmarks and monitor country-levelprogress. The MDG1 hunger target has two specificindicators: the prevalence of underweight childrenunder five years of age, and the proportion of thepopulation below a minimum level of dietary energyconsumption.

In the developing world, the proportion of childrenunder five years of age who were underweight,currently 129 million, declined from 31% to 26% be-tween 1990 and 2008 (based on a subset of 86 coun-tries with trend data for the period 1990 and 2008,covering 89 percent of the developing world's pop-ulation). The average annual rate of reduction(AARR) of underweight is based on multiple data es-timates available from 1990 to 2008 with the AARRneeded to achieve a 50% reduction over a 25-yearperiod (1990 to 2015). The rate of change required toachieve the goal is a constant 2.8% reduction peryear for all countries. As of 2005, the AARR was at1.4% per year which would reduce the proportion ofchildren underweight by 37% by 2015. This progressis still insufficient to meet the goal of cuttingunderweight prevalence by half globally. When takingthe recent crises into account, the task will be moredifficult, but not unachievable in some countries.

Progress on the prevalence of underweight childrenAmong low and middle income countries, the greatestdeclines in the prevalence of children who are un-derweight have been in the regions of Central andEastern Europe-Commonwealth of IndependentStates, East Asia and the Pacific with many countriesin all three regions on track to reach the MDG target,in a large part due to progress in China. Latin Americaand the Caribbean also made progress, with levelsdeclining from 11% to 6% between 1990 and 2008,with Mexico seeing major improvements in childrenwho are underweight. In the Near East and NorthAfrica, the prevalence of children who are under-weight has remained roughly the same from 16% to14% from 1990 to 2008. The stagnation in this regionis primarily driven by the situation in Sudan and Yemen.

The data also indicated that those living in citieswere twice less likely to be underweight than childrenin rural areas. In South Asia, the prevalence of childrenwho are underweight declined from 54% to 48% be-tween 1990 and 2008, but with such high prevalencelevels, attaining the target will be very difficult. InIndia, progress has been slow, and the country hasthe highest number of children who are stunted.There have been small improvements in sub-SaharanAfrica, but the level of decline is too slow to meetthe MDG target. Prevalence has decreased from32% to 26% from 1990 to 2008. Most of the childrenwho are underweight live in South Asia and Africa.

Of the 117 countries analysed by UNICEF, 63 are ontrack to meet the MDG1 target based on the proportionof children underweight. Three years ago, only 46were on track, which holds some promise of im-provements for certain countries. Of the 20 coun-tries classified as not making any progress at alltowards MDG1, most are in Africa.

It is important to recognize that within regions, justas within countries, great disparities exist in levelsof undernutrition. Globally, among the highest levelsof children stunted and underweight can be foundin Burundi, East Timor (Timor-Leste), Madagascarand Yemen. In the Americas, Belize, Guyana andPanama are off track in meeting MDG1. In sub-Saharan Africa, countries with the highest under-weight prevalence are Burundi, Chad, Eritrea,Madagascar and Niger. Conversely, some countrieswithin the region are well on track to meeting MDG1including Angola, Botswana, Congo, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, andSwaziland. In Asia, Bangladesh, India and Nepal arein the top ten countries with the greatest proportionof children underweight while Cambodia, Thailandand Viet Nam are on track to meet MDG1.

Progress on the proportion of the population whoare undernourishedThe proportion of undernourished in developing

47

countries, as measured by the proportion of populationbelow minimum level of dietary energy consumption,decreased from 20% to 17% in the 1990s (a decreasein absolute numbers of 9 million) but both theproportion and absolute numbers have reversedtheir trend and increased in 2008 due to the food pricecrisis, which has severely impacted sub-SaharanAfrica and Oceania regions. Sub-Saharan Africa hasthe highest proportion of undernourished with 29%followed by Southern Asia including India at 22%.

Most of the hungry reside in Asia and the Pacific andsub-Saharan Africa, much like the trends for under-weight prevalence. Unfortunately, poor progress onaddressing hunger coupled with persistently highfertility rates and population growth means theabsolute number of undernourished people hasbeen increasing since the 1990s. With 925 millionpeople undernourished (FAO, 2010) it will be difficultto achieve either MDG1 or the 1996 World FoodSummit target of reducing the absolute number ofhungry people by half to 420 million by 2015 in manyparts of the world.

Addressing MDG1 as part of a larger global nutritioneffortScaling up nutrition-specific interventionsPoor nutrition arises from complex, multiple and in-terrelated circumstances and determinants. Theimmediate causes – inadequate dietary intake,water and sanitation and related diseases, lack ofnecessary knowledge – directly affect the individual,with disease perpetuating nutrient loss and poornutritional status. Even without disease burden,children with inadequate nutrient intake will notgrow sufficiently and are at risk of irreversible stunting.

The global community has responded to this mal-nutrition crisis and the lack of progress particularlyamongst lagging countries (International Bank forReconstruction and Development, 2011) by focusingon interventions that impact 90 percent of the globalburden of malnutrition. There has been a particular

focus on the “window of opportunity” – the first 1 000days of a child’s life from the 9 months in utero to2 years of age. This window is critically importantbecause nutritional setbacks during this time canresult in irreversible losses to growth and cognitivepotential, and reduce educational attainment andearning potential. The Scaling Up Nutrition Frame-work for Action (SUN),1 recently endorsed by over100 global partners and policy-makers,2 highlightsthe need for early childhood and maternal nutrition-specific interventions which can be grouped intothose that aim to: • promote good child feeding and hygiene practices;• provide micronutrient supplementation for young

children and their mothers;• support the provision of micronutrients through

food fortification;• treat acutely malnourished children with

therapeutic feeding.

These core interventions will be critically importantin addressing MDG1 as they are interventions withsufficient evidence of impacting 90 percent of theglobal burden of stunting in 36 countries, many ofwhich are in Africa. Impacting this “window ofopportunity” has a direct impact by reducing death,diseases and irreversible harm to future economicproductivity. These actions are not costly and offerhigh returns over the entire lives of children at risk– in terms of their mental development, earning powerand contribution to the economies and livelihoods oftheir communities. These nutrition-specific inter-ventions have been identified among five of the topten development investments that yield the highestsocial and economic returns.

Ensuring agriculture is a part of the scale up processWhile the underlying determinants of malnutritionhave been well understood for decades, the design,

1 Scaling Up Nutrition, available at http://www.unscn.org/en/scaling_up_nutrition_sun/sun_purpose.php

2 1000 days initiative, available at: http://www.thousanddays.org/

48

testing and scaling of more holistic multisectoralpackages that combine child and maternal care anddisease control with nutrition-sensitive approaches,have been limited in their development and imple-mentation. These nutrition-sensitive approaches workacross development sectors to improve nutritionaloutcomes by promoting agriculture and foodinsecurity to improve the availability, access to andconsumption of nutritious foods, by improving socialprotection (including emergency relief) and byensuring access to healthcare (including maternaland child healthcare, water and sanitation, immu-nization and family planning) (Nabarro, 2010). Withthe tools and knowledge that are currently at our dis-posal, there is a renewed global focus to include inter-ventions that address the root causes of food andnutrition security – both under- and overnutrition –as part of a wider multisector approach, whichshould be inclusive of agriculture.

Redirecting the global agriculture system to ensurebetter nutrition is critically important as agricultureis the main supplier of the world’s food. The currentglobal agriculture system is producing enough food,in aggregate, but access to sufficient food that isaffordable and nutritious has been more challenging.Agriculture systems have largely become efficientat producing a handful of staple grain crops mainlymaize, rice and wheat. In developing countries andparticularly those in nutrition transition, people obtainmost of their energy from these staple grains alongwith processed oils and fats, and sugars, resultingin diets that often lack micronutrients and othernecessary dietary and health components.

Agriculture systems vary across the world–fromlarge-scale monocrop landscapes to smallholderfarmers who typically live on less than 2 ha of land.Smallholder farmers often farm on marginal landswithout the tools, knowledge and resources toimprove production, yet in places such as Africa, 90percent of farmers are subsistence smallholderfarmers. In the developing world, the majority of

smallholder farmers are net food buyers, and ruralhouseholds make up a substantial majority of theworld’s 900 million-plus hungry (FAO, 2010). Asindividuals who buy more than they sell, the accessto affordable, nutritious food is a critical issue.Achieving the MDG1 hunger targets clearly involvethe agriculture sector–many of the poor are farmersand herders, as well as those who are hungry.Agriculture contributes to MDG1 by increasing foodavailability and incomes and contributing to eco-nomic growth, and higher agricultural productivity.By combining agriculture and economic growthsimultaneously, with investments in health andeducation, child malnutrition can be reduced from25% to 17% globally (Rosegrant et al., 2006).

Agrobiodiversity: a link to what is grown and whatis consumed?Agriculture is the bedrock of the food system andbiodiversity is critically important to food and agri-culture systems because it provides the variety oflife (Tansey and Worsley, 1995). Biodiversity includesthe variety of plants, terrestrial animals and marineand other aquatic resources (species diversity),along with the variety of genes contained in all indi-vidual organisms (genetic diversity), and the varietyof habitats and biological communities (ecosystemdiversity). Biodiversity is essential for humanity,providing food, fibre, fodder, fuel and medicine inaddition to other ecosystem services.FAO (2010) estimates that of a total of 300 000 plantspecies, 10 000 plant species have been used forhuman food since the origin of agriculture. Out ofthese, only 150–200 species have been commerciallycultivated with four – rice, wheat, maize and potatoes– supplying 50 percent of the world’s energy needsand 30 crops providing 90 percent of the world’scalorie intake. Intensification of agriculturalsystems has led to a substantial reduction in thegenetic diversity of domesticated plants and animalsin agricultural systems. Some of these on-farmlosses of crop genetic diversity have been partiallyoffset by the maintenance of genetic diversity of

49

seed and animal resource banks. In addition to theextinction of species, the loss of unique populationshas resulted in the erosion of genetic diversity(contained in those species and populations)(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2008). Yet theimplications of this loss for the biodiversity andquality of the global food supply is scarcely understoodand measured from a nutrition perspective.

BOX ONE:The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Definition

Agricultural biodiversity includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture,

and all components of biological diversity that constitute the agricultural ecosystems, also named agro-ecosystems:

the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels,

which are necessary to sustain key functions of theagro-ecosystem, its structure and processes (CBD 2010).

Agricultural biodiversity specifically, pertains to thebiological variety exhibited among crops, animalsand other organisms used for food and agriculture,as well as the web of relationships that bind theseforms of life at ecosystem, species and geneticlevels (see Box One). It not only includes crops andlivestock directly relevant to agriculture, but alsomany other organisms that have indirect effects onagriculture, such as soil fauna, weeds, pollinators,pests and predators. Agricultural biodiversity (oragrobiodiversity) is a fundamental feature of sus-tainable farming systems and encompasses manytypes of biological resources tied to agriculture, in-cluding (Thrupp, 2000): • genetic resources – the essential living materials

of plants and animals;• edible plants and crops, including traditional

varieties, cultivars, hybrids and other genetic material developed by breeders;

• livestock (small and large, lineal breeds or thoroughbreds) and freshwater fish;

• soil organisms vital to soil fertility, structure, quality and health;

• naturally occurring insects, bacteria and fungi

that control insect pests and diseases ofdomesticated plants and animals;

• agroecosystem components and types (polycultural/monocultural, small-/large-scale, rainfed/irrigated etc.) indispensable for nutrient cycling, stability and productivity;

• “wild” resources (species and other elements) ofnatural habitats and landscapes that can provideecosystem functions and services (for example,pest control and stability) to agriculture; and

• pollinators, especially bees, bats and butterflies.

Agricultural biodiversity is the basis of the food andnutrient value chain and its use is important for foodand nutrition security as potentially: • a safety net against hunger;• a rich source of nutrients for improved diet

diversity and quality; and• a basis to strengthen local food systems and

environmental sustainability.

This agricultural biodiversity includes species withunderexploited potential for contributing to foodsecurity, health, income generation and ecosystemservices. Terms such as underutilized, neglected,orphan, minor, promising, niche, local and traditionalare frequently used interchangeably to describethese potentially useful species (both plant and animal)which are not mainstream, but which have at leastsignificant local importance and considerable globalpotential to improve food and nutrition security. Yet,the major causes of neglect and underuse of theseimportant crops are often related to poor economiccompetitiveness with commodity cereal crops, lackof improved varieties or enhanced cultivationpractices, the inefficiencies in the processing andvalue addition, disorganized or non-existent marketchains, and perception of these foods being “food ofthe poor” (Jaenicke et al., 2009).

Interspecies and intraspecies variations of cropsrepresent a considerable wealth of local biodiversityand could have potential for contributing to improved

50

incomes, food security and nutrition with a betterunderstanding of their contribution and usage. Theyalso have considerable potential to enhance adaptationto global climate change. Some of these species arehighly nutritious with other multiple uses; arestrongly linked to the cultural heritage of their placesof origin; are highly adapted to marginal, complexand difficult environments and have contributedsignificantly to diversification and resilience of agro-ecological niches; and may be collected from thewild or produced in traditional production systemswith little or no external inputs (Padulosi et al.,2011; Bharucha and Pretty, 2010).

One area that requires further understanding is therole of agricultural biodiversity for improving dietdiversity and dietary quality. Lack of diversity has beenshown to be a crucial issue particularly in thedeveloping world, where diets consist mainly ofstarchy staples with less access to nutrient-richsources of food such as animal proteins, fruits andvegetables. Diet diversity is a vital element of dietquality – the consumption of a variety of foods acrossand within food groups, and across different varietiesof specific foods, more or less guarantees adequateintake of essential nutrients and important non-nutrient factors.

Research has demonstrated a strong associationbetween diet diversity and diet quality, and nutritionalstatus of children (Arimond and Ruel, 2004; Kennedyet al., 2007; Sawadogo et al., 2006; Rah et al., 2010).It is also clear that household dietary diversity is asound predictor of the micronutrient density of thediet, particularly for young children (Moursi et al.,2008). Studies have also shown that dietary diversityis associated with food security and socio-economicstatus, and links between socio-economic factorsand nutrition outcomes are well known (Hoddinottand Yohannes, 2002; Ruel, 2003; Arimond andRuel, 2004; World Bank, 2006; World Bank, 2007;Thorne-Lyman et al., 2010).

Agrobiodiversity as an important aspect in accomplishing MDG1The role and value of biodiversity and ecosystemservices has been recognized at the centre of inter-national efforts to reduce poverty and promotesustainable development, through the framework ofthe Millennium Development Goals (Ash andJenkins, 2007). There is also a growing realizationworldwide that biodiversity is fundamental to agri-cultural production and food security, as well as avaluable ingredient of environmental conservation,all of which are critically important to achieving theMDG1 hunger target.

Yet predominant patterns of agricultural growth haveeroded biodiversity in, for example, plant geneticresources, livestock, insects and soil organism(Thrupp, 2000). Agrobiodiversity management forfood security includes crop introduction, genetic ma-nipulation, crop breeding, genetic resources conser-vation, agronomy, soil management and cropprotection as well as delivering appropriate tech-nologies and knowledge to farmers. Sound agro-biodiversity management therefore provides themain building blocks for appropriate and practicalsustainable intensification of agricultural produc-tion for food security.

Traditional farming methods often maximize diversityin species and can provide sustainability whereeconomic and demographic pressures for growthare low including polycultural systems that includehome gardens and agroforestry systems. Agriculturalbiodiversity also provides ecosystem services onfarms, such as pollination, fertility and nutrientenhancement, insect and disease management, andwater retention (Thrupp, 2000). The practices usedfor enhancing biodiversity are tied to food sovereigntyand cultural diversity and local knowledge thatsupport the livelihood of agricultural communities.In many societies, women are often knowledgeableabout plant and tree species and about their uses for

51

nutrition, healthcare, fuel and fodder (see Box Two).

BOX TWO: Biodiverse-Sourced Local and Traditional Foods

There is no universally accepted definition of local foods or traditional foods coming from biodiverse sources.

Traditional foods are defined as food from a particular culture available from local resources and culturally

accepted. It includes socio-cultural meanings, acquisition and processing techniques, use, composition, and nutritional

consequences for people using the food (CINE 2006).

Local and traditional foods generally refers to plants and crops, fruits, non-timber forest products, livestock, fish, hunted game, wetland species,

wild or gathered foods and insects.

These components of agrobiodiversity have benefits.They contribute to productivity, resilience in farmingsystems, income generation, and food and livelihoodsecurity for numerous societies, and potentially,achieving the MDGs. Agricultural biodiversity isessential in augmenting the productivity and re-silience of agricultural systems allowing a more sta-ble food security for smallholder farmers (Thrupp,2000; Jackson et al., 2007; Borron, 2006). For example,agricultural biodiversity is an important factor inraising incomes, allowing farmers to sell diverseproducts at market, often characterized by positivevalue chain elements (Thrupp, 2000; Baumgärtner,2010). Although rising incomes do not correlatedirectly with better nutrition, if they are coupled withthe correct information dissemination and educationsefforts, they may lead to extra money being spent onbetter, more nutritious foods (Blaylock et al.,1999).The role of agricultural biodiversity is also importantin mitigating the need of pesticides as these havebeen shown to have multiple adverse effects onhuman health and nutrition (EPA, 2011).For many populations, biodiversity overall, particularlyplant species such as lesser-known grains andlegumes, leafy green vegetables, tubers, crop wildrelatives and forest fruits, play an important role intraditional diets and in some cases, income generation.As shown in Box Three, more research and under-

standing of the value of traditional foods is beingdeveloped. Nutritionists now increasingly insist on theneed for more diverse agroecosystems, in order toensure a more diversified nutrient output of thefarming systems. However, little is known about mosttraditional plants’ nutritional value, usage andconsumption patterns and their subsequent impacton human health, chronic undernutrition and over-nutrition and non-communicable disease risk.

Thoughts on sustainability beyond the MDGsIt is important that countries and the internationalcommunity start thinking in a different way aboutagriculture, nutrition and health. It is no longerpossible to see agriculture and nutrition as a simplematter of inputs and outputs which work in a semi-mechanical and extremely simplified way. It is essentialthat we take into consideration complex food system-based approaches in order to understand processeswhich are intrinsically affected by the complexity oflife and living beings (Burchi and Fanzo, 2010). Inorder to produce healthy, nutritious foods we mustencourage a healthy, sustainable model of agriculturebased on healthy dynamic soils, the variety androtation of different crops, on fair and inclusive marketoutcomes. In the same way, if we hope to combatmalnutrition we must concentrate on more than justproviding enough “fuel” to the body but ratherunderstand that nutrition is closely interlinked witha myriad of factors such as agriculture but alsocustoms, culture, preferences, tastes, health,sanitation, livelihood models, economics, historyand anthropology.

In order to achieve MDG1, we must promote effortsaimed at improving the whole food system, startingfrom agriculture, passing through nutrition andhealth and terminating with what Amartya Sendefined as human “capabilities” (Sen, 1985). It isonly inside a system which demonstrates biodiverseand biodynamic agriculture not only as a source offood but also as an economic livelihood, a source of

52

a societal framework, and a source of customs andtraditions, that we can attempt to ensure that nutritionis an outcome and benefits child and maternal health.In the same way, we must understand how watersanitation, health services, and economic pressuresaffect child nutrition and how these can be linked backto agriculture, rural society and markets.

It will be critically important to generate a betterunderstanding of the links among agricultural bio-diversity, diet quality, and nutrition and health, andthe overall role of nutrition within agricultural foodsystems. Large-scale evidence is needed of theimpact of agricultural biodiversity on health indiverse developing world settings. The feasibility ofa long-term approach towards diversification ofnutrient-dense crops and their impact on address-ing the significant deficits in micronutrients andother important health factors amongst global com-munities is also under-researched. Biodiversity hasbeen shown to be critically important in food secu-rity, sustainable agriculture approaches – both ofwhich are essential in translated accomplishmenttowards reaching MDG1 beyond its life of 2015.

Accelerating progress towards the MDG1 hungertargets is less about the development of novel inno-vations and new technologies and more about puttingwhat is already known into practice, with someefforts towards sustainable agriculture approachesthat include the conservation and usage of agri-cultural biodiversity. Success will hinge on linkingclear policies with effective delivery systems for anevidence-based and contextually relevant packageof interventions that can rapidly be taken to scale.Persistent hunger and undernutrition remain an in-excusable unfinished agenda and successfully closingthe few remaining gaps is a pre-condition for widerglobal progress towards achieving the MDGs.

References

Arimond, M., and Ruel, MT. (2004) Dietary diversity is associatedwith child nutritional status: evidence from 11 demographic andhealth surveys. Journal of Nutrition 134 (10): 2579–2585.

Ash, N. and Jenkins M. (2007) United Nations EnvironmentProgramme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). Biodiversity and Poverty Reduction: The importance ofbiodiversity for ecosystem services. Cambridge MA.

Baumgärtner S., Quaas M. (2010) Managing increasing environ-mental risks through agrobiodiversity and agrienvironmental

African Leafy Vegetables (ALVs) are important sources ofessential macro and micro-nutrients. In addition they offer asource of livelihood when marketed as well as contribute tocrop biodiversity. Sub-Saharan Africa contains a large varietyof nutritious, leafy vegetables—an estimated 800–1 000 species.In Kenya, where approximately 210 species are available,only about 10 find their way to markets (mainly African nightshade, leafy amaranth, cowpeas and spider-plant).Bioversity works with resource-poor vegetable farmers onthe outskirts of Nairobi, in peri-urban areas. Together theyhave inventoried leafy vegetable species and identified thekey issues hindering their cultivation, conservation, andmarketing. Other activities include nutritional and agronomicstudies, distribution of seeds to farmers, and disseminationof local recipes featuring leafy vegetables to stimulate demand.With support and training from the project, farmers on theoutskirts of Nairobi began growing leafy vegetables. Results from a study commissioned by the Global FacilitationUnit for Underutilized Species (GFU) in 2006 show that over

the last one decade, the growth of the ALV market withinNairobi has been tremendous. In Nairobi the market grossvalue has increased by about 213% between the period 2001and 2006. The campaign for traditional vegetables between1997 and 2007 brought notable positive changes in growing,consuming, marketing and nutritional awareness of ALVs.The growth of this market has been greatly influenced by anincreased consumer demand that has been caused by anumber of factors. These include promotional strategies oflocal NGOs and international organizations, increased healthawareness and consciousness of Nairobi dwellers, effects of HIV/AIDs, and improved ALV presentation in super-markets and upmarket groceries. On the other hand supplyhas been enhanced by promotion of production in peri-urbanand upcountry key production areas by internationalorganizations and local NGOs, provision of external market-ing support by NGOs, farmers’ capacity for self-organization,and improvement of telecommunication technology (Gotorand Irungu, 2010).

BOX THREE: Traditional African green leafy vegetables find their way to formal markets

53

policies. Agricultural Economics Volume 41, Issue 5, Pages 483-495

Bharucha and Pretty (2010) The roles and values of wild foodsin agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the RoyalSociety. 365: 2913-2926.

Blaylock J., Smallwood D., Kassel K. (1999) Economics, FoodChoices and Nutrition. Food Policy Volume 24, Issues 2-3, May1999, Pages 269-286.

Borron S. (2006) Building Resilience for an UnpredictableFuture. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Burchi F. & Fanzo J. (2010). “The Role of Food and NutritionSystem Approaches in Tackling Hidden Hunger” Int. J. Environ.Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 358-373.

CINE (2006) Documenting traditional food systems of indigenouspeoples: International Case Studies. CINE, IDRC and FAO.Rockefeller Foundation.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Fact Sheet.http://www.cbd.int/iyb/doc/prints/factsheets/iyb-cbd-factsheet-agriculture-en.pdf Accessed December 21, 2010.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)(2010) The Commission on Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (CGRFA) Second Report on the State of the World'sPlant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA).Rome, Italy.

Gotor, E., & Irungu, C. (2010). The impact of Bioversity Interna-tional’s African Leafy Vegetables programme in Kenya ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal, 28 (1), 41-55.

Hoddinott J. and Y. Yohannes. (2002) “Dietary diversity as a foodsecurity indicator.” (Discussion paper 136) International FoodPolicy Research Institute (IFPRI). Washington, D.C.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2011)Improving the Odds of Achieving the MDGs: Global MonitoringReport 2011. World Bank. Washington DC.

Jaenicke J. Ganry I. Hoeschle-Zeledon and R. Kahane Eds(2009). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Under-utilized Plants for Food Security, Nutrition, Income andSustainable Development. Acta Hort. ISHS. 806 (Vol I-II) 739 pp.

Jackson L.E., Pascual U., Hodgkin T. (2007) Utilizing andconserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121 (2007) 196–210.

Kennedy G.L., Pedro M.R., Seghieri C., Nantel G., Brouwer I.(2007) Dietary diversity score is a useful indicator of mi-cronutrient intake in non-breast-feeding Filipino children. J Nutr137, 472–477.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2008) Ecosystems andHuman Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World ResourcesInstitute, Washington DC.

Moursi M., Arimond M. and Deweg KG. (2008) Dietary DiversityIs a Good Predictor of the Micronutrient Density of the Diet of6- to 23-Month-Old Children in Madagascar. J. Nutr. 138:

2448-2453.

Nabarro D. (2010). Introducing the policy brief “Scaling upnutrition: a framework for action”. Special Representative ofthe UN Secretary General for Food Security and Nutrition.http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NUTRITION/Re-sources/042410DavidNabarroIntroducingtheSUN.pdf

Padulosi S. et al (2011) Underutilized species and climatechange – current status and outlook. In: Crop Adaptation toClimate Change. Wiley-Blackwell, US (In press).

Popkin B. (2008) The World Is Fat: The Fads, Trends, Policies,and Products That Are Fattening the Human Race. Penguin.

Rah, JH Akhter, N, Semba, RD, de Pee, S, Bloem, MW, Camp-bell, AA, Moench-Pfanner, R Sun, K, Badham, J and Kraemer K.(2010) Low dietary diversity is a predictor of child stunting inrural Bangladesh. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 64,1393–1398.

Rosegrant, Mark W., Ringler, Claudia, Benson, Todd, Diao, Xinshen,Resnick, Danielle, Thurlow, James, Torero, Maximo, Orden,David (2006) Agriculture and achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. IFPRI. Washington DC.

Ruel, M.T. (2003) Operationalizing dietary diversity: a review ofmeasurement issues and research priorities. Journal of Nutrition133 (11 Suppl 2): 3911S-26S.

Sawadogo PS., Martin-Prevel Y., Savy M., Kameli Y., Traissac P.,Traore AS. et al. (2006) An infant and child feeding index isassociated with the nutritional status of 6- to 23-month-oldchildren in rural Burkina Faso. J Nutr 136, 656–663.

Sen, A. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford: ElsevierScience Publishers.

Tansey G. and Worsley. T (1995) The Food System. Earthscan,London.

Thorne-Lyman AL., Valpiani N., Sun K., Semba RD., Klotz CL.,Kraemer K. et al (2010) Household dietary diversity and foodexpenditures are closely linked in rural Bangladesh, increas-ing the risk of malnutrition due to the financial crisis. J Nutr140, 182S–188S.

Thrupp LA. (2000). Linking Agricultural Biodiversity and FoodSecurity: The Valuable Role of Sustainable Agriculture. RoyalInstitute of International Affairs Vol. 76, No. 2, Special Bio-diversity Issue pp. 265-281.

US Environmetal Protection Agency (2011). Pesticides and Food– Health Problems Pesticides May Cause.

World Bank. (2006) Repositioning nutrition as central fordevelopment. World Bank. Washington, DC.

World Bank. (2007) From agriculture to nutrition: Pathwayssynergies and outcomes. World Bank. Washington, DC.

World Health Organization (2006) WHO Fact sheet No 311September 2006: Obesity and overweight. World HealthOrganization. Geneva.

55

CHAAPPTTEERR 2SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBLLEE FFOOOODD PPRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN AANNDD CCOONSUMPTIOOONN

56

DYNAMIC CONSERVATIONOF GLOBALLY IMPORTANTAGRICULTURAL HERITAGE SYSTEMS:FOR A SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTUREAND RURAL DEVELOPMENTParviz KoohafkanLand and Water Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

57

AbstractThe story of world agriculture is closely interwovenwith that of the evolution of human civilization andof its diverse cultures and communities across theglobe. In many developing countries, agriculturaland rural life to this day is considerably influenced bythe society’s ancient cultural traditions and localcommunity institutions and values, which are mostlyconditioned by natural endowments, wealth andbreadth of accumulated knowledge and experiencein the management and use of natural resources.The Globally Important Agricultural HeritageSystems are dispersed over many countries andregions, and represent a microcosm of the largerrural world of land-use systems, livestock, pastures,grasslands, forestry and fisheries. They reflect thevalue of the diversity of agricultural systems adaptedto different environments and tell a fascinating storyof man’s ability and cultural ingenuity to adjust andadapt to the vagaries of a changing physical andmaterial environment, from generation to generationand leave indelible imprints of an abiding commitmentto nature conservation and respect for their agri-cultural patrimony. These agricultural heritagesystems have a contemporary relevance, amongothers, for providing sustainable diets for the ruralpoor, food sovereignty, livelihood security andsustainable development.

1. IntroductionThroughout centuries, human communities, gener-ations of farmers, herders and forest people havedeveloped complex, diverse and locally adaptedagricultural and forestry systems. These systemshave been managed with time-tested ingeniouscombinations of techniques and practices that haveusually led to community food security and theconservation of natural resources and biodiversity.These microcosms of agricultural heritage can stillbe found throughout the world covering about 5million ha which provide a series of cultural andecological services to humankind such as thepreservation of traditional forms of knowledge

systems, traditional crops and animal varieties andautochthonous forms of sociocultural organizations.These agricultural heritage systems have resultednot only in outstanding landscapes of aestheticbeauty, maintenance of globally significant agriculturalbiodiversity, resilient ecosystems and valuablecultural inheritance, but above all, in the sustainedprovision of multiple goods and services, food andlivelihood security for millions of poor and smallfarmers. Their agricultural biodiversity is maintainedand dynamically conserved by rural farmingcommunities through localized, traditional ecologicalagricultural practices/knowledge systems. However,many of these globally important biological diversityand ecological friendly agricultural systems andtheir goods and services are threatened by severalfactors such as lack of or low priorities for familyfarming systems, lack of access to market, dis-placement of local agricultural practices, lack of socialorganization and financial-institutional support thatunderpin management of these systems. Thus, thedesired progress towards a sustained economicdevelopment process is compromised and therebyresulting in disparities between and among com-munities.

2. What are GIAHS?The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of theUnited Nations defines Globally Important Agri-cultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) as "remarkableland use systems and landscapes which are rich inglobally significant biological diversity evolving fromthe co-adaptation of a community with its environmentand its needs and aspirations for sustainable devel-opment" (FAO, 2002). GIAHS are classified andtypified based on its ingenuity of managementsystems, high levels of agricultural biodiversity andassociated biodiversity, local food security, biophysical,economic and sociocultural resources that haveevolved under specific ecological and socioculturalconstraints and opportunities. The examples of suchagricultural heritage systems are in the hundredsand are home to thousands of ethnic groups, indige-

57

58

nous communities and local populations with amyriad of cultures, languages and social organizations(Koohafkan and Altieri, 2010). Examples of GIAHScould fall into:I. Mountain rice terrace agro-ecosystems. These

are outstanding mountain rice terrace systemswith integrated forest use and/or combinedagroforestry systems

II. Multiple cropping/polyculture farming systems. These are remarkable combinations and/orplantings of numerous crop varieties with orwithout integration of agroforestry. They are characterized by ingenious microclimate regulation,soil and water management schemes, and adaptiveuse of crops to deal with climate variability.

III. Understory farming systems. These are agriculturalsystems using combined or integrated forestry, orchard or other crop systems with both overstorycanopy and understory environments. Farmers use understory crops to provide earlier returns,diversify crops/products and/or make efficient use of land and labour.

IV. Nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoral systems.These are the rangeland/pastoral systems basedon adaptive use of pasture, rangeland, water, saltand forest resources, through mobility and variationsin herd composition in harsh non-equilibriumenvironments with high animal genetic diversityand outstanding cultural landscapes.

V. Ancient irrigation, soil and water management systems. These are the ingenious and finelytuned irrigation, soil and water management systems most common in drylands, with a high diversity of crops and animals best adapted tosuch environments.

VI. Complex multilayered home gardens. These agricultural systems feature complex multilayeredhome gardens with wild and domesticated trees,shrubs and plants for multiple foods, medicines,ornamentals and other materials, possibly withintegrated agroforestry, swidden fields, hunting-gathering or livestock, and home garden systems.

VII.Below sea level systems. These agricultural

systems feature soil and water managementtechniques for creating arable land through drainingdelta swamps. The systems function in a contextof rising sea and river levels while continuouslyraising land levels, thereby providing a multi-functional use of land (for agriculture, recreationand tourism, nature conservation, cultureconservation and urbanization).

VIII.Tribal agricultural heritage systems. Thesesystems feature various tribal agricultural practices and techniques of managing soil,water and crop cultivars in sloping lands from upper to lower valleys using mixed and/or a combination of cropping systems andintegrating indigenous knowledge systems.

IX. High-value crop and spice systems. These systems feature management practices ofancient fields and high-value crops and spices,devoted uniquely to specific crops or with croprotation techniques and harvesting techniques that require acquired handling skills andextraordinary finesse.

X. Hunting-gathering systems. These systems feature unique agricultural practices such asharvesting of wild rice, honey gathering in the forest, and other similar unique practices.

3. Dynamic conservation of agricultural heritagesystemsIn the past decades, conventional agricultural policieshave assimilated the food security and agriculturaldevelopment largely through increased food pro-duction by energy-intensive modern agriculture,which is a fossil fuel based industry and its devel-opment is tightly linked to energy factors, trade andglobalization. While the successes in agricultureproduction over the last decades are viewed as amajor landmark, the inequitable benefits and negativeimpacts of such policies on natural resources arebecoming more evident. Undoubtedly, the accelerationof environmental degradation and climate changealso has had adverse impacts on agriculturalproductivity and food security. Such an adverse

59

impact on agricultural productivity is more andmore becoming obvious in the more fragile tropicalenvironmental situations of the developing world.The environmental degradation and linked declin-ing crop productivity that the two large Asian coun-tries, namely, India and China are facing today andthe emerging concerns for sustainable agriculture(Ramakrishnan, 2008 unpublished) are indicative ofthe emerging global food security concerns, and eq-uitable distribution of what is available so that allsections of the society are able to benefit. This is thecontext in which the still existing traditional agricul-tural systems conserved by many traditional farmingsocieties (those living close to nature and naturalresources) largely confined to the developing trop-ics have an important role to play. Rather than beingseen as an industrial activity as modern agriculturetends to be, traditional agricultural systems areorganized and managed through highly adaptedsocial and cultural practices and institutions whereinthe concerns are for food security linked with eq-uitable sharing of what is available. Equity is en-sured through locally relevant technologies that arecheap since they are based on effective utilization ofthe continually evolving traditional wisdom linkedwith locally available natural resources and theireffective management that is community participatory.Indeed, traditional agricultural and ecologicalknowledge and the derived traditional technologiesthat societies have developed through an experien-tial process form the basis for addressing productiv-ity consideration with equitability concerns in mind.In this process they manipulate natural and human-managed biodiversity in a variety of different waystowards sustainable production with concerns alsofor coping with the environmental uncertainties thatthey have to face from time to time. FAO’s GIAHS ini-tiative is seeking to identify outstanding traditionalagricultural systems and support their dynamic con-servation as well as sustainable evolution. GIAHS canbe viewed as benchmark systems for internationaland national strategies for sustainable agriculturaldevelopment and addressing the rising demand to

meet food and livelihood needs of poor and remotepopulations. Dynamic conservation implies whatthe traditional farmers have always practised,namely, adaptive management of their systemsunder changing environmental considerations, both intime and space. GIAHS have always faced manychallenges in adapting to rapid environmental andsocio-economic changes in the context of weakagricultural and environmental policies, climatevariability and fluctuating economic and culturalpressures (Altieri and Koohafkan, 2008). There is nodoubt, these threats vary from one country to another,but there are common denominators that are rap-idly emerging in the global scene: (a) “globalchange” in an ecological sense, involving land useland cover changes, biodiversity depletion, biologi-cal invasion and of course the emerging climatechange and linked global warming; and (b) economic“globalization” that would accentuate the problemof landscape homogenization arising from the im-plication that globalization implies, namely, intensivemanagement of vast areas of the land throughmonocropping practices. These global threats em-phasize the need to ensure dynamic conservation ofselected systems which could then form the basisfor conserving both agricultural and linked naturalbiodiversity, at the same time using such systemsas learning grounds towards addressing the di-verse viewpoints of “sustainable agriculture”.Once lost, the unique agricultural legacy and theassociated eco-agricultural heritage will also belost forever. Hence, there is a need to carefullyidentify agricultural heritage systems whereverthey exist, with a view to dynamically conserve themand thereby promote the basic goods and serviceshumanity needs today and for the future genera-tions. The GIAHS initiative is conceived as being in-clusive and forward looking with agriculturalpatrimony serving as models for agricultural devel-opment in similar environments, i.e. uplands, dry-lands, wetlands management etc. based on theexperience and learning from the pilot projects. TheGIAHS initiative is not just a collection of local proj-

60

ects; it has a global focus within the framework ofpolicies promoting local food security through sus-tainable systems. Thus, GIAHS, while starting ini-tially on some pilot countries in the developingand developing world, is looking forward to expandwith a more inclusive international coverage andrecognition of such evolving, living agricultural sys-tems as an important global initiative to promotesustainable development, enhance food securityand promote conservation of biodiversity of nutritional

importance for the local communities. Figure 1shows the unique features and principles of GIAHSderived from such sites that may be replicated inother farming systems to achieve sustainability andresiliency.

4. GIAHS pilot systems around the worldThe GIAHS initiative has selected pilot systemslocated in several countries of the developing world.The values of such systems not only reside in the

Figure 1. The unique features and principles of GIAHS sites that may be replicated in other farming systems to achievesustainability and resiliency.

61

fact that they offer outstanding aesthetic beauty, arekey in the maintenance of globally significant agri-cultural biodiversity, and include resilient ecosystemsthat harbour valuable cultural inheritance, but alsohave sustainably provisioned multiple goods andservices, food and livelihood security for millions ofpoor and small farmers, local community membersand indigenous peoples, well beyond their borders.Despite the fact that in most parts of the world,modernity has been characterized by a process ofcultural and economic homogenization, in manyrural areas specific cultural groups remain linked

to a given geographical and social context in whichparticular forms of traditional agriculture andgastronomic traditions thrive. It is precisely thispersistence that makes for the selection of theseareas and their rural communities a GIAHS site. Thedynamic conservation of such sites and their culturalidentity is the basis of a strategy for territorialdevelopment and sociocultural revival. Overcomingpoverty, food insecurity is not equivalent to resignationto loss of the cultural richness of rural communities.On the contrary, the foundation of regional developmentshould be the existing natural and agricultural bio-diversity and the sociocultural context that nurturesit. Brief descriptions of some of the pilot AgriculturalHeritage Systems and their features are presentedin Table 1.

Rice Fish culture in China

62

Country/Systems Main characteristics and important source of food security and nutrition diets

Chile/Chiloé AgricultureSystem

The Archipelago of Chiloé, a group of islands in southern Chile, is a land rich inmythology with native forms of agriculture practised for hundreds of years based on thecultivation of numerous local varieties of potatoes. Traditionally the indigenouscommunities and farmers of Chiloé cultivated about 800–1 000 native varieties ofpotatoes. The varieties that still exist at present are the result of a long domesticationthrough selection and conservation processes of ancient Chilotes.

Peru/Andean AgricultureSystem (The Cuzco-Puno

g

Corridor)y

Andean people have domesticated a suite of crops and animals. Of particular importanceare the numerous tubers, of which the potato is the most prominent. Generations ofAymara and Quechua have domesticated several hundred varieties in the valleys ofCusco and Puno, of which more than 400 varieties are still grown today. The maintenanceof this wide genetic base is adaptive since it reduces the threat of crop loss due to pestsand pathogens specific to particular strains of the crop. Other tubers grown includeoca, mashua, ullucu, arracacha, maca, achira and yacón.

Philippines/Ifugao RiceTerraces

The ancient Ifugao Rice Terraces (IRT) are the country’s only highland mountain riceecosystem (about 68 000 ha) featuring the Ifugao ingenuities, which has created a

g y y gg

remarkable agricultural organic paddy farming system that has retained its viabilityover 2 000 years. IRT paddy farming favours planting traditional rice varieties of highquality for food and rice wine production.

China/Rice-Fish Culture(Qingtian County)

In Asia fish farming in wet rice fields has a long history. Over time an ecologicalsymbiosis has emerged in these traditional rice-fish agricultural systems. Fish providefertilizer to rice, regulate microclimatic conditions, soften the soil, displace water andeat larvae and weeds in the flooded fields; rice provides shade and food for fish.Furthermore, multiple products and ecological services from the rice ecosystemsbenefit local farmers and the environment. Fish and rice provide high quality nutrientsand an enhanced living standard for farmers.

China/Hani Rice Terraces Hani Rice Terraces are located in the southeast part of the Yunnan Province. Hani RiceTerraces are rich in agricultural biodiversity and associated biodiversity. Of the original195 local rice varieties, today there are still about 48 varieties. To conserve rice diversity,Hani people are exchanging seed varieties with surrounding villages

China/Wannian Traditional Rice Culture

Wannian traditional rice was formerly called “Wuyuanzao” and is now commonly knownas “Manggu”, cultivated in Heqiao Village since the North and South Dynasty. Wannian

y y y

varieties are unique traditional rice varieties as they only thrive in Heqiao Village. Thistraditional rice is of high nutritional value as it contains more protein than ordinaryhybrid rice and is rich in micronutrients and vitamins. Rice culture is intimately relatedto local people’s daily life, expressed in the cultural diversity of their customs, food andlanguage.

Tunisia/Gafsa Oases The Gafsa Oases in Tunisia covers an area approximately 36 000 ha. It has numerousproduction systems, which are very diverse, unique, intensively cultivated but veryproductive. These agro-ecological production systems allow conservation andmaintenance of biological diversity of local and global significance. Over a thousandyears, the hundreds of palm and fruit tree varieties, vegetables and forage crops haveprovided the food systems and food requirements of the communities living in andaround the Tunisian oases and of the populations of the Maghreb Region.

Morocco/Oases in theHigh Atlas Mountains

In this mountain oasis, they developed their own ingenious and practical solutions formanaging natural resources which are still in place today. Their reliance on localbiodiversity for subsistence and health (aromatic and medicinal plant species) has

g g p yp y

promoted the conservation and maintenance of diverse plant genetic resources, in acomplex and stratified landscape in the green pockets of the oases and throughassociated knowledge and practices.

Tanzania/Shimbwe JuuKihamba Agroforestry

The Chagga tribe on Mt. Kilimanjaro had created a multitier agroforestry system some800 years ago. It is locally known as Kihamba and covers some 120 000 ha. Thisagroforestry system had provided food security and livelihoods for the highest populationdensities known in Africa without compromising sustainability. During colonial times

Table 1. List of pilot systems for dynamic conservation of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems.

63

coffee was adopted by farmers which allowed its adaptation to a more cash crop orientedsociety. The Kihamba cultivate combined perennial (indigenous trees with vines,

p y p p

banana, coffee, shrubs) and annual crops. y

Kenya/Maasai PastoralSystem

For more than a thousand years, the Maasai in southern Kenya and northern Tanzaniahave developed and maintained a highly flexible and sustainable mobile livestock-keepingsystem, moving herds and people in harmony with nature’s patterns. Their customaryinstitutions for collectively managing livestock, pastures, water, forest and othernatural resources, combined with vast traditional knowledge and strong culturaltraditions, treating nature with respect.

Algeria/El Oued, SoufGhout System

In an arid region such as El Oued, where rainfall is almost absent, the groundwaterreserves provide essential support to all human life, animal and plant. To overcomethe lack of surface water, the farmers irrigate their palms plantation by groundwater.The method of irrigating groves of El Oued is quite original: it is to get the roots of thepalm into the groundwater and will be continuously in contact with water. The populationcultivates their palms in the crater called Ghout, to reduce the depth between theground and the roots of the palm.

Japan/Sado Island Sado is characterized by a variety of landforms and altitudes, which have beeningeniously harnessed to create the satoyama landscape, a dynamic mosaic of varioussocio-ecological systems comprising secondary woodlands, plantations, grasslands,paddy fields, wetlands, irrigation ponds and canals. Within their complex ecosystem,the satoyama and the satoumi landscapes in Sado Island harbour a variety ofagricultural biodiversity, such as rice, beans, vegetables, potatoes, soba, fruit, grownin paddy fields and other fields, livestock, wild plants and mushrooms in forests, andseafood in the coastal areas. Rice, beef and persimmon from the Sado are among thebest in Japan.

Japan/Noto Peninsula The peninsula is a microcosm of traditional rural Japan where agricultural systemsare integrally linked to mountains and forest activities upstream and coastal marineactivities downstream. Holistic approaches to integrated human activities of fishing,farming and forestry have traditionally been practised and continue to co-exist. Hillyterrain interspersed with wide valleys and fields forming a green corridor surroundedby volcanic rock coastline typify the peninsular landscape. Noto Peninsula has beengaining recognition both locally and regionally for its traditional vegetables and ricevarieties. Over 20 varieties of indigenous aburana (rape varieties of cruciferousg g g y g y g

vegetables) families grow and are consumed by a majority of satoyama satoumig p

households in the peninsula.

(For more details, please refer to www.fao.org/nr/giahs)

64

5. Examples of dynamic conservation: The case ofthe rice-fish culture in ChinaFor more than 5 years of implementation, the GIAHSsite in China has started Longxian village, a rice-fishculture system. Fish provide nutrition and fertilizerto rice, regulate microclimatic conditions and eatlarvae and weeds in the flooded fields, reducing thecost of labour needed for fertilizer and insect control.The rice-fish culture self-sufficiency productionprovides favourable eco-environmental conditionsthat are also beneficial to conservation of other cropspecies for home gardens of importance to localfood nutrition and diets, i.e. lotus roots, beans, taro,eggplant, Chinese plums, mulberry and forest treespecies of ethnobotanical and medicinal uses.However, population emigration and moderntechnologies to intensify production are threaten-ing the rice-fish culture system in the village.Through the GIAHS initiative, rice-fish practices inChina have made a comeback and given hope tosmall farmers. FAO assisted the national and localinstitutions to develop and implement an actionplan and a supportive institutional framework.The local government of Qingtian has internalizedthe GIAHS concept and has taken steps forward topromote the conservation of their agricultural her-itage. They have issued a temporary legislation to pro-mote rice-fish conservation and development in 2010.The Qingtian Bureau of Agriculture, EnvironmentalProtection, Culture and Tourism has also madegreat effort to support and encourage local farmersto join the conservation programme. Since then,Longxian village has become popular amongtourists (local and foreign) and the number of vis-itors has increased more than threefold. GIAHShave created awareness of conservation in Longx-ian village in China, because it has helped stake-holders become aware that multiple goods andservices exist in traditional agricultural sys-tems. The system provides economic and nutritionalvalues (healthy food, nutritious rice and fish prod-ucts), social values (labour occupation), ecological(rich agricultural biodiversity, clean and healthy

farms and environment), and cultural and ecotourismvalues for humanity. Dynamic conservation of GIAHShas offered many opportunities for socio-economicand research development, such as: rice-fish sys-tem for research and education, fish and rice deli-cacies, aesthetic landscape, old mountain village,and folk-custom culture.

6. Summary and way forward for sustainableagriculture and rural developmentGlobally Important Agricultural Heritage Systemsare living, evolving systems of human communitiesin an intricate relationship with their territory,cultural or agricultural landscapes or biophysicaland wider social environment. The humans andtheir way of life have continually adapted to thepotentials and constraints of the social-ecologicalenvironments, and shaped the landscapes intoremarkable and aesthetic beauty, accumulatedwealth of knowledge systems and culture, local foodsystems and diets, and in the perpetuation of the bi-ological diversity of global significance. Many GIAHSand their unique elements are under threats andfacing disappearance due to the penetration ofglobal commodity driven markets that often createsituations in which local producers or communitiesin GIAHS have to compete with agricultural producefrom intensive and often subsidized agriculture inother areas of the world. All of these threats andissues pose the risk of loss of unique and globallysignificant agricultural biodiversity and associatedknowledge, aesthetic beauty, human culture, andthereby threatening the livelihood security and foodsovereignty of many rural, traditional and familyfarming communities. Moreover, what is not beingrealized is that, once these GIAHS unique key ele-ments are lost, the agricultural legacy and associ-ated social-ecological and cultural, local and globalbenefits will also be lost forever. Therefore, policiesare needed to support dynamic conservation ofagricultural heritage and safeguard it from the neg-ative external drivers of change. It is likewise impor-tant to protect the natural and cultural assets of

65

GIAHS sites from industrial development, which oftenextract labour and cause market distortion as well.Special attention should be given when introducingmodern agricultural varieties and inputs to avoid up-setting the balance of traditional agro-ecosystems.Success in sustainable agriculture development willdepend on the use of a variety of agro-ecologicalimprovements in addition to farm diversification,favouring better use of local resources; emphasiz-ing human capital enhancement; empowerment ofrural communities and family farmers throughtraining and participatory methods; as well as higheraccess to equitable markets, credit and income-generating activities, and all should be supported byconducive policies.

References

Altieri, M. and Koohafkan, P. 2008. Enduring Farms: ClimateChange, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities.Environment & Development. Series 6. Third World Network(TWN), Penang, Malaysia. 63 pp.

FAO (2002). Conservation and adaptive management of globallyimportant agricultural heritage systems (GIAHS), GlobalEnvironment Facility, Project Concept Note.

Koohafkan, P. and Altieri, M. 2010. Globally Important Agri-cultural Heritage Systems: a legacy for the future.

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS)webpage www.fao.org/nr/giahs

66

SUSTAINABLE CROP PRODUCTIONINTENSIFICATIONWilliam J. MurrayPlant Production and Protection Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

Abstract The green revolution led to enormous gains in foodproduction and improved world food security. Inmany countries, however, intensive crop productionhas had negative impacts on production, ecosystemsand the larger environment putting future productivityat risk. In order to meet the projected demands of agrowing population expected to exceed 9 billion by2050, farmers in the developing world must doublefood production, a challenge complicated by theeffects of climate change and growing competitionfor land, water and energy. The paper outlines a newparadigm, Sustainable Crop Production Intensification(SCPI), which aims to produce more from the samearea of land, through increasing efficiency andreducing waste, while conserving resources, reducingnegative impacts on the environment and enhancingthe provision of ecosystem services. The paperhighlights the underlying principles and outlinessome of the key management practices and tech-nologies required to implement SCPI, recognizingthat the appropriate combination will depend onlocal needs and conditions, and on the developmentof supportive policies and institutions.

1. The challengeThe world’s population is expected to grow to over9 billion people by 2050; there will be a need to raisefood production by some 70 percent globally and byalmost 100 percent in developing countries. In manydeveloping countries there is little or no room forexpansion of arable land. Virtually no spare land isavailable in South Asia and the Near East/NorthAfrica. Where land is available, in sub-SaharanAfrica and Latin America, more than 70 percentsuffers from soil and terrain constraints. An estimated80 percent of the required food production increaseswill thus need to come from land that is alreadyunder cultivation at a time when annual growth incrop productivity is decreasing from a rate of around3 to 5 percent a year in the 1960s to a projected 1percent in 2050. Increases in agricultural production

will therefore have to come in the form of yield in-creases and higher cropping intensities.

This increase must be achieved against a challengingbackdrop including the decreasing availability of andcompetition for water, resource degradation (e.g.poor soil fertility), energy scarcity (resulting inhigher costs for input production and transport) aswell as climate change where alterations in tem-perature, precipitation and pest incidence will affectfarmers’ choice of crops to grow and when, as well astheir potential yields. Changing dietary and nutritionalneeds and requirements as a result of urbanizationalso present a challenge. By 2050, some 70 percentof the world population will be urban dwellers ascompared to 50 percent today. If such trends continue,urbanization and income growth in developingcountries will lead to higher consumption of animalproducts which will further drive increased demandfor cereals to feed livestock (FAO, 2011).

2. The green revolution The green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s was aqualified success. The production model, whichinitially focused on the introduction of higher yield-ing varieties of rice, wheat and maize relied uponand promoted homogeneity: genetically uniformvarieties grown with high levels of complementaryinputs such as irrigation, fertilizers and pesticides.Fertilizer use tended to replace soil quality man-agement while herbicides provided an alternativeto crop rotation as a means of controlling weeds(FAO, 2011).

The green revolution is credited, especially in Asia,as having jump-started economies, alleviated ruralpoverty and saved large areas of fragile land frompossible conversion to extensive farming. Between1975 and 2000 cereal yields in south Asia increasedby more than 50 percent while poverty declined30 percent. Over the last 50 years world annualproduction of cereals, coarse grains, roots tubers

67

and pulses and oil crops has grown from 1.8 to 4.6billion tonnes (FAO, 2011). Growth in cereal yield andlower cereal prices significantly reduced food inse-curity in the 1970–1980s when the number of under-nourished actually fell despite rapid populationgrowth. Overall the proportion of undernourishedin the world population declined from 26 percent to14 percent between 1969–1971 and 2000–2002 (FAO,2009a; FAO, 2011).

It is now recognized that these gains in agriculturalproduction and productivity were often made at theexpense of the environment. Impacts included landdegradation, salinization of irrigated areas, overex-traction of groundwater, the buildup of pest resist-ance and loss of biodiversity, such that theproduction gains were unsustainable. In addition, inmany instances, smaller-scale farmers were unableto participate or reap the rewards of scale.

3. Increasing crop production sustainablyGiven the significant challenges to our food supplyand the environment, sustainable intensification ofagricultural production is emerging as a major pri-ority for policy-makers and their international de-velopment partners. Sustainable intensificationmeans producing more from the same area of landwhile reducing negative environmental impacts,increasing contributions to natural capital and theflow of environmental services (Godfray et al., 2010).An ecosystem approach uses inputs such as seed,fertilizer, land, water, chemical or bio-pesticides,power and labour to complement the naturalprocesses which support plant growth. Examples ofthese natural processes include: the action of soil-based organisms (that allow plants to access keynutrients; maintain a healthy soil structure whichpromotes water retention and the recharge of ground-water resources; and sequester carbon); pollination;natural predation for pest control. Farmers find thatharnessing these natural processes can help to boostthe efficiency of use of conventional inputs.

There is now widespread awareness of the importanceof taking an ecosystem approach to intensifyingcrop production. A major study of the Future ofFood and Farming up to 2050 prepared by theGovernment Office for Science in the UnitedKingdom, has called for substantial changesthroughout the world’s food system includingsustainable intensification to simultaneously raiseyields, increase efficiency in the use of inputs andreduce the negative impacts of food production(Foresight, 2011). The International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technologyfor Development (IAASTD) highlighted the need forpolicies that value, restore and protect ecosystemservices, and address the needs of the world’ssmall-scale and family farmers. It emphasized theneed for a change in paradigm to encourageincreased adoption of sustainable ecological agri-culture and food systems and called for a shiftfrom current farming practices to sustainable agri-cultural systems capable of providing significantproductivity increases and enhanced ecosystemservices (IAASTD, 2009).

Assessments in developing countries have shownhow farm practices that conserve resources improvethe supply of environmental services and increaseproductivity. A review of agricultural developmentprojects in 57 low-income countries found that moreefficient use of water, reduced use of pesticides andimprovements in soil health had led to average cropyield increases of 79 percent (Pretty et al., 2006).Another study concluded that agricultural systemsthat conserve ecosystem services by using practicessuch as conservation tillage, crop diversification,legume intensification and biological pest control,perform as well as intensive, high-input systems(Badgley et al., 2007; FAO, 2011).

Sustainable crop production intensification (SCPI),when effectively implemented and supported, willprovide the “win-win” outcomes required to meet

68

the dual challenges of feeding the world’s populationand conserving the resources of the planet. SCPIwill allow countries to plan, develop and manageagricultural production in a manner that addressessociety’s needs and aspirations, without jeopardizingthe rights of future generations to enjoy the full rangeof environmental goods and services (FAO, 2011).

4. The need for a systems or integrated approachProduction is not the only element to considerwhen looking to meet increased demand for food.Sustainable intensification of crop production ispointless if optimizing one component (food cropproduction) results in inefficiencies elsewhere ina complex system also featuring livestock, fisheries,forestry and industrial components (e.g. biofuels).Similarly, throughout the food chain, post-harvestprocessing, transportation and distribution whichdo not support the supply of nutritious food toconsumers will limit the benefit of efficiency gainsin crop production.

While the challenge is clear at the global level, therecan be no single blueprint for an ecosystem approachto crop production intensification on the ground, asit is dependent on local ecology, farming practices,markets etc. In implementing SCPI there are threeelements that need to be considered: farmers;farming practices and technologies; and policiesand institutions.

4.1 Targeted to and accessible by smallholderfarmersAlthough the principles and practices of sustainableintensification apply to both large- and small-scalefarming, smallholder farmers are key to increasingfood production sustainably. Approximately 85 percentof the farmers in developing countries are small-holders and there are about 500 million of them.They cultivate less than 2 ha of land each. Theirnumber is increasing and their farms are gettingsmaller. They produce 80 percent of the food in devel-

oping countries and support some 2.5 billion peopledirectly. Together smallholders use and managemore than 80 percent of farmland and similarproportions of other natural resources in Asia andAfrica (IFAD, 2010). They are often economicallyefficient; they create employment, reduce povertyand improve food security. Unfortunately, however,50 percent of the world’s undernourished and 75percent of the world’s poor also live on and aroundsuch farms (FAO, 2009b).

Sustainable intensification has much to offer smallfarmers and their families by enhancing theirproductivity, reducing costs, building resilience tostress and strengthening their capacity to managerisk. Reduced spending on agricultural inputscan free resources for investment in farms andfarm families’ food, health, nutrition and education.Increases to farmers’ net incomes will be achievedat lower environmental costs, thus delivering bothprivate and public benefits. Overall gross domesticproduct growth generated in agriculture has largebenefits for the poor and is at least twice as effectivein reducing poverty as growth generated by othersectors (World Bank, 2007).

Clearly, increasing smallholder productivity willhelp to reduce hunger and poverty; it is inconceivablethat Millennium Development Goal 1 can be achievedwithout addressing the needs of smallholderfarmers.

4.2 Management practices and technologies Sustainable crop production intensification mustbuild on farming systems that offer a range of benefitsto producers and society at large including high andstable production and profitability; adaptation andreduced vulnerability to climate change; enhancedecosystem functioning and services and reductionsin agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions and carbonfootprint. These farming systems will be based onthe following three technical principles:

69

I. simultaneous achievement of increased agriculturalproductivity and enhancement of natural capitaland ecosystem services;

II. higher rates of efficiency in the use of key inputsincluding water, nutrients, pesticides, energy,land and labour;

III.use of managed and natural biodiversity to buildsystem resilience to abiotic, biotic and economicstresses (FAO, 2011).

Successful approaches to SCPI will be built on thethree principles listed above and implementedusing a range of management practices and tech-nologies including: I. conservation agriculture – minimum soil disturbance

and soil cover;II. species diversification – use of high-yielding

adapted varieties from good seed;III. integrated plant nutrient management or IPNM

based on healthy soils;IV. Integrated Pest Management or IPM; andV. efficient water management.

The appropriate mix of these management practicesand technologies depends on local needs andconditions; given system complexity one size doesnot fit all. They will need to be applied in a comple-mentary, timely and efficient manner in order tooffer farmers appropriate combinations of practicesto choose from and adapt.

4.2.1 Conservation Agriculture (CA)CA can be described in terms of minimum mechan-ical soil disturbance, permanent organic cover anddiversified crop rotations. Such practices can cre-ate stable living conditions for micro- and macro-organisms, providing a host of natural mechanismssupporting the growth of crops, which result insignificant efficiency gains and decreasing needs forfarm inputs, in particular power, time, labour (atleast 25% less), fertilizer (30–50% less), agrochem-icals (20% less pesticides) and water (28% less).

Furthermore, in many environments, soil erosion isreduced to below the soil regeneration level oravoided altogether and water resources are re-stored in quality and quantity to levels that precededputting the land under intensive agriculture.

Sustainable rice-wheat productionSustainable productivity in rice-wheat farmingsystems was pioneered on the Indo-Gangetic Plainof Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan by theRice-Wheat Consortium, an initiative of the CGIARand national agriculture research centres. It waslaunched in the 1990s in response to evidence of aplateau in crop productivity, loss of soil organic matterand receding groundwater tables (Joshi et al., 2010).

The system involves the planting of wheat after riceusing a tractor-drawn seed drill, which seedsdirectly into unploughed fields with a single pass.Zero tillage wheat provides immediate, identifiableand demonstrable economic benefits. It permitsearlier planting, helps control weeds and has signifi-cant resource conservation benefits, including reduceduse of diesel fuel and irrigation water. Cost savingsare estimated at US$52 per hectare, primarilyowing to a drastic reduction in tractor time and fuelfor land preparation and wheat establishment.Some 620 000 farmers on 1.8 million ha of the Indo-Gangetic Plain have adopted the system, withaverage income gains of US$180 to US$340 perhousehold. Replicating the approach elsewhere willrequire on-farm adaptive and participatory researchand development, links between farmers andtechnology suppliers and, above all, policy supportto encourage new practices (including temporaryfinancial incentives) (IFPRI, 2010; FAO, 2011).

4.2.2 Crops and varieties well adapted to localconditionsAdopting high-yielding varieties that best fit thecropping system and switching to crops more tolerantto diseases, pests and environmental stresses

70

(including drought and increased temperatures)can help farmers to cope with less rainfall, salinity,or disease pressure and still produce a crop. Thekey is to ensure that sufficient farmers have accessto improved adapted crop varieties throughstrengthened seed systems. Conservation and sus-tainable use of plant genetic resources for food andagriculture is necessary to ensure crop productionand meet growing environmental challenges suchas climate change.

Developing improved and adapted varietiesSustainable intensification requires crop varietiesthat are resilient in the face of different agronomicpractices, respond to farmers’ needs in locallydiverse agro-ecosystems and tolerate the effects ofclimate change. Important traits will include abilityto cope with heat, drought and frost, increasedinput-use efficiency, and enhanced pest and diseaseresistance. Generally, it will involve the developmentof a larger number of varieties drawn from a greaterdiversity of breeding material.

It is unlikely that traditional public or private breedingprogrammes will be able to provide all the new plantmaterial needed or produce the most appropriatevarieties, especially of minor crops where researchis not easily justified. Participatory plant breedingcan help fill this gap, ensuring that more of thevarieties developed meet farmer needs. For example,the International Center for Agricultural Researchin the Dry Areas (ICARDA), together with the SyrianArab Republic and other Near East and North Africancountries, has undertaken a programme of partici-patory plant breeding which maintains high levelsof diversity and produces improved material capableof good yields in conditions of very limited rainfall(less than 300 mm per year). Farmers participate inthe selection of parent materials and in on-farmevaluations. In Syria, the procedure has producedsignificant yield improvements and increased theresistance of the varieties to drought stress (Ceccarelli

et al., 2001; FAO, 2011).

4.2.3 Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM)IPNM and similar strategies promote the combineduse of mineral, organic and biological resources tobalance efficient use of limited/finite resources andensure ecosystem sustainability against nutrientmining and degradation of soil and water resources.For example, efficient fertilizer use requires thatcorrect quantities be applied (overuse of Nitrogen [N]fertilizer can disrupt the natural N-cycle), and thatthe application method minimizes losses to airand/or water. Equally, plant nutrient status duringthe growing season can be more precisely monitoredusing leaf-colour charts, with fertilizer applicationmanaged accordingly. Efficient plant nutrition alsocontributes to pest management.

Urea deep placement for rice in BangladeshThroughout Asia, farmers apply nitrogen fertilizerto rice before transplanting by broadcasting ureaonto wet soil, or into standing water, and then usingone or more top-dressings of urea in the weeksafter transplanting up to the flowering stage. Suchpractices are agronomically and economically in-efficient and environmentally harmful. The riceplants use only about a third of the fertilizer applied(Dobermann, 2000), while much of the remainder islost to the air through volatilization and to surfacewater run-off (FAO, 2011).

Deep placement of urea (N) briquettes can increaserice yields, while reducing the amount of urea used.In Bangladesh the average paddy yields haveincreased 20–25% and income from paddy sales in-creased by 10% while urea expenditures decreased32% from the late 1990s to 2006 (IFDC, 2007).

4.2.4 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) IPM encourages natural predation as a means ofreducing the overuse of insecticides. In countrieslike India, Indonesia and the Philippines that

71

followed green revolution strategies, subsequentadoption of IPM approaches coupled with the re-moval of insecticide subsidies, reduced insecticideuse nationally by 50–75 percent, while rice produc-tion continued to increase annually. The ecosystemservice delivered by natural predation replaced mostchemical control, allowing other inputs and adap-tive ecosystem management by farmers to secureand increase rice yields.

Reduced insecticide use in riceMost tropical rice crops require no insecticideuse under intensification (May, 1994). Yields haveincreased from 3 tonnes per ha to 6 tonnes throughthe use of improved varieties, fertilizer and irrigation.Indonesia drastically reduced spending on pesticidesin rice production between 1988 and 2005 [Gallagheret al., 2005]. However, in the past five years, theavailability of low-cost pesticides, and shrinkingsupport for farmers’ education and field-based eco-logical research, have led to renewed high levels ofuse of pesticides with consequent large-scale pestoutbreaks, particularly in Southeast Asia (Catindiget al., 2009; FAO, 2011).

4.2.5 Water managementThere are efficiency and productivity gains in cropwater use that can be captured both “within” and“outside” the crop water system. For example, agri-cultural practice that reduces the soil evaporationreduces non-productive water consumption. Incropping systems adapted to seasonal or lowevaporative demand of the atmosphere, it may beother types of agricultural practice (fertilizer,improved varieties, weed and pest management)that result in more productive consumption of wateravailable in the root zone.

Deficit irrigation for high yield and maximum netprofitsOne way of improving water productivity is deficitirrigation, whereby water supply is less than full

requirements and mild stress is allowed duringspecific growth stages that are less sensitive tomoisture deficiency. The expectation is that anyyield reduction will be limited and additional benefitsare gained through diverting the saved water toirrigate other crops.

A six-year study of winter wheat production on theNorth China Plain showed water savings of 25 percentor more through application of deficit irrigation atvarious growth stages. In normal years, two irrigationsof 60 mm (instead of the usual four) were enough toachieve acceptably high yields and maximize netprofits. In studies carried out in India on irrigatedgroundnuts, production and water productivity wereincreased by imposing transient soil moisture-deficitstress during the vegetative phase, 20 to 45 daysafter sowing. Water stress applied during the vege-tative growth phase may have had a favourable effecton root growth, contributing to more effective wateruse from deeper soil horizons. However, use ofdeficit irrigation requires a clear understanding ofthe soil-water (and salt) budgeting and an intimateknowledge of crop behaviour, as crop response towater stress varies considerably (FAO, 2002; FAO,2011).

5. Enabling environment and policy frameworkIn preparing programmes, policy-makers needto consider issues that affect both SCPI and thedevelopment of the agricultural sector as a whole.National policies that seek to achieve economies ofscale through value chain development and consol-idation of land holdings may inadvertently excludesmallholders from the process, or reduce theiraccess to productive resources. Improving transportinfrastructure will facilitate farmers’ access tosupplies of fertilizer and seed, both critical for SCPI,and to markets. Given the high rate of losses in thefood chain – in the order of 30 percent in bothdeveloping and developed countries – investment inprocessing, storage and cold chain facilities will en-

72

able farmers to capture more value from their pro-duction. Policy-makers can also promote smallfarmers’ participation in SCPI by improving theiraccess to production and market informationthrough modern information and communicationtechnology (FAO, 2011).

Farmers’ assumptions, attitudes or cultural beliefsare often deeply ingrained. However, governmentscan create an enabling environment for the wide-spread uptake of productivity enhancing practicesby farmers with appropriate policy frameworks,encouragement through participatory research andextension, the broadcast media, and formal andnon-formal education, as well as through financial,tax and other incentives.

To encourage smallholders to adopt sustainablecrop production intensification, it is not enough todemonstrate improved sustainability. Farmingneeds to be profitable, smallholders must be ableto afford inputs and be sure of earning a reasonableprice for their crops. Some countries protect incomeby fixing minimum prices for commodities; othersare exploring smart subsidies on inputs, targeted tolow income producers. Policy-makers also need todevise incentives for small farmers to use naturalresources wisely for example through payments forenvironmental services and reduce the transactioncosts of access to credit. In many countries, regulationsare needed to protect farmers from unscrupulousdealers selling bogus seeds and other inputs; whileinputs with negative environmental consequencesneed to be priced to reflect these aspects (FAO,2011).

Production systems for SCPI are knowledge inten-sive and relatively complex to learn and implement.For many farmers, extensionists, researchers andpolicy-makers they represent new ways of doingbusiness. There is thus an urgent need to buildcapacity and provide learning opportunities and

technical support in order to improve the skills allstakeholders need. Major investment will be neededto rebuild research and technology transfer capacityin developing countries in order to provide farmerswith appropriate technologies and to enhance theirskills through approaches such as farmer fieldschools.

The shift to SCPI systems can occur rapidly whenthere is a suitable enabling environment or graduallyin areas where farmers face particular agro-eco-logical socio-economic or policy constraints includ-ing a lack of necessary equipment. While someeconomic and environmental benefits will beachieved in the short term, a longer term commit-ment from all stakeholders is necessary in order toachieve the full benefits of such systems (FAO,2011).

6. Key messagesIn conclusion there are three key messages regardingthe development and implementation of SCPI.

6.1 Sustainable crop production intensification(SCPI) requires a systems approachProduction is not the only element to consider inimplementing SCPI; sustainable livelihoods andvalue chain approaches need to underpin the increasein productivity and diversification, so that one elementis not optimized at the expense of another. SCPIharnesses ecosystem services such as nutrientcycling, biological nitrogen fixation, predation andparasitism, uses varieties with high productivity perexternal input and minimizes the use of technologiesor practices that have adverse effects on humanhealth or the environment.

SCPI represents a shift from current farming practicesto sustainable agricultural systems capable ofproviding significant productivity increases andenhanced ecosystem services. Such systems arebased on: simultaneous achievement of increased

73

agricultural productivity and the enhancement ofnatural capital and ecosystem services; greaterefficiencies in the use of key inputs, including water,nutrients, pesticides, energy, land and labour, usingthem to complement natural processes/ecosystemservices and greater use of managed and naturalbiodiversity to build system resilience in farmingsystems to abiotic (drought and temperaturechanges), biotic (pests and diseases) and economicstresses (FAO, 2011).

6.2 Smallholder farmers in developing countriesrequire special attentionThe underlying principles and approaches to achiev-ing SCPI are scale-neutral – they apply equally tolarge or small-scale farmers. However, sustainableintensification needs to be especially promotedamong smallholder farmers in developing countriesas they currently produce 80 percent of the foodand use and manage more than 80 percent of thefarmland in these countries. Increasing the produc-tivity of smallholder farmers will help to reducehunger and poverty among the 2.5 billion peopledependent on these farms.

Smallholder farmers can benefit from SCPI asincreased productivity enables them to gain fromincreased market demand for agricultural products,while making more efficient use of local resourcesand external inputs. These greater efficiencies willreduce costs leading to improved livelihoods, greaterresilience to stress and ability to manage risks.

The way in which SCPI is implemented will differmarkedly between smallholder farmers and the largemechanized farms typical of developed countries.SCPI provides a range of options that can beadapted to local needs while building on localknowledge and experience. SCPI promotes innova-tion and provides incentives for farmers to improvethe local environment. A participatory approach todecision-making empowers farmers and strength-

ens communities. Increases to farmers’ net incomeswill be achieved at lower environmental cost, thusdelivering both private and public benefits.

6.3 SCPI will not be achieved without significantlygreater investment in agricultureThere is a need for greater policy and political supportand for adequate incentives and risk mitigationmeasures to be in place for a shift to SCPI to takeplace. There is a need for large investments in infra-structure and capacity-building for the entire foodchain including enhanced infrastructure, research,development and extension. The implementation ofSCPI is knowledge intensive and will require newapproaches to farmer education and extension aswell as encouraging greater collaboration andcommunication among smallholders, researchers,government offices and the private sector to fosterinnovation, systematic approaches to agriculture andcontext focused knowledge production and sharing.

Policies and programmes for SCPI will cut across anumber of sectors and involve a variety of stake-holders. Therefore a strategy for achieving sustain-able intensification goals needs to be a cross-cuttingcomponent of a national development strategy. Animportant step for policy-makers is to initiate a processfor mainstreaming strategies for sustainable inten-sification in national development objectives. SCPIshould be an integral part of country-owned devel-opment programmes such as poverty reductionprocesses and food security strategies and invest-ments. The roll out of sustainable intensificationprogrammes and plans in developing countriesrequires concerted action with the participation ofgovernments, the private sector and civil society(FAO, 2011).

74

75

References

Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, M., Aviles-Vazquez, K., Samulon, A. & Perfect O, I. (2007).Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew Agric.Food Syst., 22: 86-108.

Catindig, J.L.A., Arida, G.S., Baehaki, S.E., Bentur, J.S., Cuong,L.Q., Norowi, M., Rattanakarn, W., Sriratanasak, W., Xia, J. &Lu, Z. (2009). In K.L. Heong &B. Hardy, eds. Planthoppers: Newthreats to the sustainability of intensive rice production systemsin Asia, (pp.191-202, 221-231). Los Baños, Philippines, IRRI.

Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Shevestov, V., Vivar, H., Yayoui, A.,El-Bhoussini, M and Baum, M. 2001. The ICARDA Strategy forglobal barley improvement. Aleppo Syria, ICARDA.

Dobermann, A. (2000). Future intensification of irrigated ricesystems. J. E. Sheehy, P. L. Mitchel and B. Hardy, eds. Re-designing rice photosynthesis to increase yield, (pp. 229 – 247).Makati City, Philippines and Amsterdam, IRRI / Elsevier.

FAO. (2002). Deficit irrigation practices. Water reports No. 32,51: 87-92.

FAO. (2009a). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Economiccrises – impacts and lessons learned. Rome, Italy.

FAO. (2009b). Food security and agricultural mitigation indeveloping countries: Options for capturing synergies. Rome,Italy

FAO. (2011). Save and Grow – A policy makers guide too thesustainable intensification of smallholder crop production. Rome,Italy

Foresight. (2011). The future of food and farming: Challengesand choices for global sustainability. Final Project Report. London,the government Office for Science.

Gallagher, K, Ooi, P., Mew T., Borromeo, Kenmore, P.E. & Ketelaar,J. (2005). Ecological basis for low-toxicity: Integrated pestmanagement (IPM) in rice and vegetables. In J. Pretty, ed. ThePesticide Detox, (pp. 116 -134). London, Earthscan.

Godfray, C., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence,D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., and Toulmin,C. 2010. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billionpeople. Science, 327: 812-818.

IAASTD. (2009). Agriculture at the crossroads, by B.D. McIntyre,H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu & R.T. Watson, eds. Washington, DC, USA.

IFAD. (2010) Rural Poverty Report 2011. New realities, newchallenges: new opportunities for tomorrow’s generation.Rome, Italy.

IFDC. "Bangladesh To Dramatically Expand Technology ThatDoubles Efficiency Of Urea Fertilizer Use." Science Daily, 25Dec. 2007.

IFPRI. (2010). Zero tillage in the rice-wheat systems of theIndo-Gangetic Plains: A review of impacts and sustainability

implications, by O. Erenstien. In D.J. Spielman & R. Pandya-Lorch, eds. Proven successes in agricultural development: Atechnical compendium to millions field. Washington, D.C, USA.

Joshi, P.K. Challa, J. & Virmani, S. M., eds. (2010). Conservationagriculture. Innovations for improving efficiency, equity andenvironment. New Delhi, India. New Delhi National Academy ofAgricultural Science.

Pretty, J.N., Noble, A.D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R.E., deVries, F.& Morison, J.I.L. (2006). Resource-conserving agricultureincreases yields in developing countries. Environ Sci. Technol.,40: 1114-1119.

World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008. Washing-ton, DC, International Bank for Reconstruction and Develop-ment and World Bank.

76

76

SUSTAINABILITY AND DIVERSITYALONG THE FOOD CHAINDaniele RossiFederalimentare, Rome, Italy

77

AbstractFood and drink products play a central and funda-mental role in daily life. Every day, some 480 millionEU citizens rely on high quality food for their nutrition,health and well-being. The food and drink industryis the largest manufacturing sector in Europe withan annual turnover of €954 billion1 and a leadingmanufacturing sector in Italy: with a turnover of€124 billion it is, along with agriculture, inducedactivity and distribution, the central element of thefirst economic sector of the country.2

There is an increasing societal awareness of theopportunities to improve the quality of life throughhealthy eating and of the contribution that sustain-able production can make to improvement of theoverall environment. The preferences of consumersfor quality, convenience, diversity and health, andtheir justifiable expectations of safety, ethics andsustainable food production serve to highlight theopportunities for innovation. As a response to these requirements Federali-mentare, while already involved in the coordinationof the European Technological Platform “Food forLife”, has started up, together with the University ofBologna, ENEA, INRAN, the National TechnologyPlatform “Italian Food for Life”.

1. The food and drink industry3

The food and drink industry is the largest manufac-turing sector in Europe with an annual turnover of€954 billion, half of which is generated by SMEs. Thesector employs some 4.2 million people and is highlyfragmented comprising some 310 000 companies,99.1 percent of which are SMEs having less than 50employees.The Italian food and drink industry is one of thepillars of our national economy, representing thesecond manufacturing industry of our country witha turnover of 124 billion euros (of which 21 in export)and 32 300 companies – of which 6 500 with morethan 9 employees and 2 600 with more than 19

employees – with over 410 000 employees.Along with agriculture, induced activity and distribution,the food and drink industry is the central element ofthe first economic sector of the country. Industry buysand processes 70 percent of the national agriculturalraw materials and is generally recognized as theambassador of Made in Italy in the world consideringthat almost 80 percent of the Italian agrofood exportis represented by high quality industry brands.

Table 1. The Italian food and drink industry. (Data and estimates Federalimentare, 2010)

The sector can claim several important factors andits image is a heritage extremely appreciated inEurope and in the world, divided in an enviable rangeof high-quality products and on a wide series ofproducts of protected or controlled designation oforigin which are leading in the international markets.It is a success due to the strict bonds of the Italianfood and drink production with land and with thecultural heritage of Italy, and due to the safetystandards, along with the ability to mix tradition andinnovation of processes and of products. This is thereason why the sector is the target of a wide rangeof actions of imitation and forgery, especially on richand demanding markets, like the American and theNorth European ones.Nevertheless, in spite of these positive figures, thefood and drink industry is penalized by somestructural gaps that hold down its growth and itscapacity to compete. The main factor that penalizesthe growth of the food and drink industry is the

1 Source: CIAA data and Trends 2010 2 Source: Data and estimates Federalimentare 2010

3 Source: Data and estimates Federalimentare 2010.

TURNOVER

EMPLOYMENT

NUMBER OF COMPANIES

EXPORT

IMPORT

TRADE BALANCE

124 bln C

410.000

32.3000 of which6.500 companies > 9 employees2.600 companies > 19 employees

21 bln C

17 bln C

4 bln C

77

78

extreme fragmentation of production that comeseven before the other bonds that restrain the wholesystem of our companies (structural lacks andlogistics, exaggerated costs of production likeenergy, low quality offer of services for the companies).The sector is characterized by an extreme frag-mentation, that sees only 20 percent of the companiesabove the threshold of 9 units and the remaining 30 000firms tied to such a small dimension (3–9 units) thatwith the global trends adopted by our competitorsit would seem unthinkable to realize any kind ofcompetition. It is clear that the dimension of thecompanies is one of the major obstacles to thecapacity to invest in research and innovation or tohave access to the processes of transfer of techno-logical innovations.Instead, a strong impulse to the transfer of processand product innovation would certainly contribute toimprove the position of competition of our food indus-try, especially of the small and medium enterprises.

2. Tradition and innovation4

About 25 percent of the turnover of the agrofoodindustry comes out from products for which innovationis an essential factor and which possess more addedvalue; we are speaking of the so-called traditionallyevolved, ready-to-eat sauces, spicy oils, fresh sea-sonings, frozen foods etc., and of the real newproducts, that are products with a high content ofwellness and of services. If we consider the trendsof the models of food consumption, this line of more“evolved” products is likely to reach more space incomparison with the so-called classic food (pasta,preserved foods, cheese, wine, oil), that at themoment reach about two-thirds of the entire turnover(65%), while the remaining 9 percent is representedby products of brand of origin and, by a smallerpercentage, by organic products. So, if the internalmarket begins to show that research and innovationare one of the incentives of progress, the interna-tional one shows us that without capacity to inno-vate the risk to stay out of the market is going to

Table 2. Italian food and drink industry: turnover by product.(Data and estimates Federalimentare 2110)

become a reality, especially for our commodities.There is no doubt, therefore, that the success of ourproducts rises from the capacity of our managers tomix tradition and innovation, giving due emphasis toapplied research. During these last years our foodcompanies, as a matter of fact have employed themost recent technologies, adapting them to the tra-ditional gastronomical recipes, in order to createproducts easy to prepare, with higher security stan-dards and a high level of quality. These results arepossible only allocating resources every year toresearch. This financial commitment would not onlymean an investment for the future but also animmediate response to the consumers’ demandswithin the Italian style.The Italian and international market of food productswill be more and more affected by the changes insociety (especially by the ageing and individualiza-tion), by the changes of the nutritional habits andby the way of life. For this reason the Italian foodand drink industry is constantly involved in meetingthe consumers’ needs supplying products adaptedto the various nutritional needs, considering aswell the different ways of consumption that enable

4 Source: Data and estimates Federalimentare 2010.

TRADITIONAL AND LOCAL FOOD 81,84 BNLEuro 66%

ADVANCED TRADITIONAL FOOD 19,84 BNL Euro 16%

TYPICAL QUALITY PRODUCTS (PDO, PGI, WINE... 11,53 BNL Euro 9,3% (of which 3 MLDEuro of EXPORT)

,

NEW PRODUCTS 9,92 bnl Euro 8%(novel, functional, healthy, ready to eat, etc...)

ORGANIC 0,87 BNL Euro 0,7%

TOTAL 124 BNL Euro 100% (of which 20 MLD Euro of EXPORT)

Organic 0,7%

New products 8%Geographical indications 9,3%

AdvancedTraditional Food 16% Traditional and

local food 66%

79

the consumer to make responsible choices and tofollow a diet suitable to his lifestyle and the physi-cal activity performed. The consumers themselves,especially the Italian and the European, are moreand more in a position to recognize the real valueof what they are buying, from the choice of the primaryproducts, the technological features, to the attentiongiven to the correct employ of natural resources,to logistics and packaging, from the point of view ofthe concept of global quality.

3. Food for Life5

As a response to these requirements Federali-mentare, while already involved in Brussels coordi-nating the European Technological Platform “Foodfor Life”, has started up, together with the Universityof Bologna, ENEA, INRAN, and with the most repre-sentative experts of the agro-industry sector in Italy,the National Technology Platform “Italian Food forLife”. It is an instrument created with the aim tostimulate research and technological innovation inthe agrofood sector at a national level in order tostrengthen the scientific and technological basis ofour food and drink industry, encouraging the devel-opment and international competition, especially tohelp the Small and Medium Enterprises. The Tech-nology Platform “Italian Food for Life” is a uniqueopportunity not only to promote the coordination ofthe research activity of primary products and nutrition,assuring whether the direction, whether enoughcritical mass, but also to guarantee transfer ofknow-how to the companies.

4. Biodiversity and sustainability6

The food and drink industry is characterized by a veryhigh diversity of different products and productionprocesses. Europe's and Italy’s traditions related tofood are an expression of its cultural diversity andrepresent a clear asset on which the sector can build. Within the platform climate change, nature and bio-

diversity, health and quality of life and managementof both natural resources and waste streams are allidentified as areas in which particular attentionneeds to be focused in future years.A sustainable food supply underpins the most basicrequirements for quality of life.

4.1 Research on scenarios of future Italian foodproduction and supply Global climate change, the heavy dependency onfossil fuels and the political boundary conditions,are some aspects that will also influence the sus-tainability of the European and Italian food supplysystem, so they should be considered when studyingscenarios.

4.2 Developing sustainable processing, packagingand distributionReduction in uses of energy, water and materialswill require close links between raw material produc-tion, primary and secondary processing, packaging,waste management and reprocessing. Identificationof improvement potentials from sustainabilityanalysis will be an important driver for innovationsthat are directed towards new and novel technologicalsolutions for food processing, packaging and trans-portation. It is necessary an integrated approach towards theidentification of the critical points of the process andthe sustainability, so as to optimize methods andtechniques that lead to an increase of competitivenessof the enterprises and to sustainable manufacturingand processing, packaging, transportation anddistribution systems.

4.3 Developing and implementing sustainableprimary food productionThe study and preservation of local plant and animalbiodiversity is a fundamental aspect for the devel-opment of sustainable production systems. While

5 Sources: Data and estimates Federalimentare 2010, National TechnologyPlatform “Italian Food for Life” Vision Document 2007, ImplementationAction Plan 2008, Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2011.6 Sources: European Technology Platform “Food for Life” Vision Document

2005, Strategic Research Agenda 2007 and Implementation Action Plan2008; National Technology Platform “Italian Food for Life” VisionDocument 2006, Implementation Action Plan 2008, Strategic Researchand Innovation Agenda 2011.

80

additional research needs to expand further knowl-edge on the interactions of biological cycles toenhance traditional food production, radicallydifferent primary food production systems may provideadditional sources of food to traditional foodproduction. Biotechnology may be used to producedesired crop biomass in a targeted way, and to provideplants with better sensory, nutritional and productionproperties. Further fine-tuning of production sys-tems through precision farming and other high-techsolutions could increase the efficiency of primaryfood production. Alternative systems for animalhusbandry should be evaluated, including thedimension of animal welfare.

4.4 Recycling and valorization of food industrysurplus, by-products and wastesFood industry raw materials, surplus, by-productsand wastes/wastewaters are mostly wasted, andthis reduces significantly the sustainability of thefood industry.The same matrices and products might become,after a proper pretreatment with biological or chem-ical/physical agents, cheap sources of fine-chemi-cals (antioxidants, vitamins etc.) and naturalmacromolecules (cellulose, starch, lignin, lipids,plant enzymes, pigments etc.). Their constituentsmight be also converted into more sophisticatedchemicals (flavours, amino acids, vitamins, microbialenzymes etc.), biofuels (i.e. bioethanol, biodiesel, bio-gas and biohydrogen) and biobased products, suchas biopolymers, fertilizers and lubricants, after tai-lored biocatalytic conversions or fermentations insuited biotech processes. The production of such alarge array of high-value biomolecules and productsfrom the currently wasted food industry surplus, co-products, by-products and wastes will markedly con-tribute to increase the overall sustainability andeconomics of several food production chains.

Conclusions Improvements in sustainability have long-rangebenefits for the food industry in terms of reduced

use of resources, increased efficiency and bettergovernance.The “Italian Food for Life” Technology Platformseeks to profitably provide citizens with safe, high-quality, health-promoting and affordable foodswhilst meeting the increasing demands for sustainablefood production as perceived from the economic,environmental and social perspectives.

82

82

ANIMAL GENETIC DIVERSITYAND SUSTAINABLE DIETSRoswitha Baumung and Irene HoffmannAnimal Genetic Resources Branch, FAO, Rome, Italy

83

AbstractThe paper describes the links between humandiets, expected changes in lifestyle and its impacton animal genetic resources for food and agriculture.Specifically, the focus is on the genetic resources ofdomesticated avian and mammalian species thatcontribute to food production and agriculture. Theactual trends in combination with the growingdemand for products of animal origin for humandiets will inevitably lead to a shift in agriculturalsystems towards more intensive systems. This willmost likely favour international transboundarybreeds instead of local breeds. At species level, theshift towards poultry and pigs will continue.Whether products from intensive systems cancontribute to a sustainable diet depends on the sys-tem’s compatibility with regard to the rather complexconcept of sustainable diets. It is concluded thatproviding sustainable diets can only be achievedwith a combination of sustainable improvement ofanimal production and a combination of policy ap-proaches integrating the full concept of sustainablediets, accompanied by awareness-raising for thevalue of animal genetic diversity and investing intoresearch as a basis for sound decisions. Numerousresearch questions still require investigation, span-ning different fields of science. With regard to live-stock diversity and in view of the uncertainty offuture developments and climate change thismeans to develop simple methods to characterize,evaluate and document adaptive and productiontraits in specific production environments.

1. IntroductionDuring the International Scientific Symposium on”Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets – United AgainstHunger” held 3–5 November 2010 at FAO head-quarters in Rome, experts agreed on a general con-cept: “Sustainable diets are those diets with lowenvironmental impacts which contribute to food andnutrition security and to healthy life for present andfuture generations. Sustainable diets are protectiveand respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems,

culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fairand affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe andhealthy; while optimizing natural and human re-sources.” With this definition, biodiversity is linkedwith human diets and with the diversity of livestockand livestock systems. However, trade-offs betweenthe different levels of sustainability are not ad-dressed. Hoffmann (2011) reviews different levels ofsustainability and the trade-offs that occur betweenthem, partly due to the high trophic level of livestockin the food web.

Agricultural biodiversity is a vital subset of biodi-versity and the result of the interaction between theenvironment, genetic resources and managementsystems and practices used by culturally diversepeoples. Agrobiodiversity encompasses the varietyand variability of animals, plants and micro-organ-isms that are necessary for sustaining key functionsof the agro-ecosystem, including its structure andprocesses for, and in support of, food productionand food security (FAO, 1999a).

The State of the Worlds Animal Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2007) describes thelink between livestock biodiversity and food security.Genetically diverse livestock populations providesociety with a greater range of options to meet futurechallenges. Therefore animal genetic resources(AnGR) are the capital for future developments andfor adaptation to changing environments. If they arelost, the options for future generations will beseverely curtailed. GTZ (2005) describes the preser-vation of diverse farming systems and high levels ofbiological diversity as a key precondition for eradi-cating hunger.

For livestock keepers, animal genetic diversity is aresource to be drawn upon to select stocks and de-velop (new) breeds. Even widely known, the term“breed” does not have a universally accepted bio-logical or legal definition. However the term “breed”is used to identify distinct AnGR populations as units

83

84

of reference and measurement. According to FAO(2007) breeds can be categorized as local (reportedby only one country) or transboundary (reported byseveral countries). The latest assessment identifies7 001 local breeds and 1 051 transboundary breeds(FAO, 2010a).

The breed concept originated in Europe and waslinked to the existence of breeders’ organizations.The term is now applied widely in developing coun-tries, but it tends to refer to a sociocultural conceptrather than a distinct physical entity. FAO uses thefollowing broad definition of the breed concept,which accounts for social, cultural and economicdifferences between animal populations and whichcan therefore be applied globally in the measurementof livestock diversity: “either a sub-specific group ofdomestic livestock with definable and identifiableexternal characteristics that enable it to be separatedby visual appraisal from other similarly definedgroups within the same species or a group for whichgeographical and/or cultural separation from phe-notypically similar groups has led to acceptance ofits separate identity” (FAO, 1999b).

The paper describes the links between human diets,expected changes in lifestyle and its impact on animalgenetic resources for food and agriculture.Specifically, the focus is on the genetic resourcesof domesticated avian and mammalian species thatcontribute to food production and agriculture.

2. Products and services provided by livestockLivestock are used by humans to provide a widerange of products and services. Over time, a varietyof breeds and types have been developed to providethese outputs in a wide range of production envi-ronments. Doubtless, foods derived from animalsare an important source of nutrients (Givens, 2010)that provide a critical supplement and diversity tostaple plant-based diets (Murphey and Allen, 2003).However, there are varied reasons for keeping livestock,which include providing manure, fibre for clothes and

resources for temporary and permanent shelter,producing power, and serving as financial instrumentsand enhancing social status (Randolph et al., 2007).This range of products and services supporting thelivelihood strategies – especially of the poor – is a keyfeature of livestock (Alary et al., 2011).

Until recently, a large proportion of livestock indeveloping countries was not kept for food. However,the growing demand for meat products is being metincreasingly through industrial systems, wheremeat production is no longer tied to a local landbase for feed inputs or to supply animal power ormanure for crop production (Naylor et al., 2005). Aspointed out by FAO (2010b), the non-food uses oflivestock are in decline and are being replaced bymodern substitutes. Not only is animal draft powerreplaced by machinery and organic farm manure bysynthetic fertilizers, but also insurance companiesand banks replace more and more the risk man-agement and asset functions of livestock.

3. Trends in consumption and production of live-stock productsAnimal source foods (ASF), mainly meat, milk andeggs provide concentrated, high quality sources ofessential nutrients for optimal protein, energy andmicronutrient nutrition (especially iron, zinc andvitamin B12). Access to ASF is believed to havecontributed to the evolution of the human species’unusually large and complex brain and its socialbehaviour (Milton, 2003; Larsen, 2003). Today, ASFcontribute a significant proportion to the food intakeof Western societies (MacRae et al., 2005), but playalso an increasing role in developing countries.Since the early 1960s, consumption of milk percapita in the developing countries has almost doubled,meat consumption more than tripled and egg con-sumption increased by a factor of five (FAO, 2010b).The growing demand for livestock products in devel-oping countries has been driven mostly by populationgrowth, while economic growth, rising per capitaincomes and urbanization were major determinants

85

for increasing demand in a limited number of highlypopulated and rapidly growing economies, a devel-opment termed the “livestock revolution” (Delgadoet al., 1999; Pica-Ciamarra and Otte, 2009). This hastranslated into considerable growth in global percapita food energy intake derived from livestockproducts, but with significant regional differences.ASF consumption has increased in all regionsexcept sub-Saharan Africa. The greatest increasesoccurred in East and Southeast Asia, and in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (FAO, 2010a). Structuralchanges in food consumption patterns occurred inSouth Asia, with consumer preference shifts towardsmilk and in East and Southeast Asia towards meat,while no significant changes could be detected inthe other developing regions (Pica-Ciamarra andOtte, 2009).

Despite global average increases, undernutritionremains a large problem for those without accessto animal source food and with food insecurity(Neumann et al., 2010) especially for poor childrenand their mothers. High rates of undernutrition andmicronutrient deficiency among the rural poor suggestthat, despite often keeping livestock, they consumevery little animal-based food. As iron, zinc andother important nutrients are more readily availablein ASF than in plant-based foods, increased accessto affordable animal-based foods could significantlyimprove nutritional status, growth, cognitivedevelopment and physical activity and health formany poor people (Neumann et al., 2003). On theother hand, excessive consumption of livestockproducts is associated with increased risk ofobesity, heart disease and other non-communicablediseases (WHO/FAO, 2003; Popkin and Du, 2003).However, the nutritional aspects of animal productsas part of human diets are not the main focus ofthis publication.

4. Trends in breed diversity and livestock productionsystemsDiversity in AnGR populations is measured in different

forms: our livestock breeds belong to different avianand mammalian species; thus species diversity cansimply be measured as the number of species. Atthe subspecies level, diversity within and betweenbreeds and the interrelationships between populationsof breed can be distinguished (FAO, 2011a). Simplymeasuring breed diversity on the basis of numberof breeds leads to biases due to the socioculturalnature of the breed concept. For example in Europeand the Caucasus (FAO, 2007), where for historicalreasons many but often closely related breeds weredeveloped, overestimation of between-breed diversityis likely. The within-breed diversity plays an importantrole for the total genetic variation of livestock; it maybe lost due to random-genetic drift and inbreedingin small populations, usually local breeds. However,within-breed diversity is also threatened in interna-tional transboundary breeds as a side effect of efficientbreeding programmes, usually focusing on rathernarrow breeding goals. Various drivers influencethe between and within diversity in AnGR. Thosedrivers overlap with drivers of change in global agri-culture and livestock systems including populationand income growth, urbanization, rising female em-ployment, technological change and the liberalizationof trade for capital and goods. Those drivers hadand have direct impact on human diets where a shiftaway from cereal-based diets is at the same timecause and consequence of change in agriculture.The composition of the global agricultural productionportfolio has changed considerably; development ofthe livestock sector was marked by intensificationand a shift from pasture-based ruminant species tofeed-dependent monogastric species (Pingali andMcCullough, 2010).

Over the past decades, agriculture has achievedsubstantial increases in food production driven bygrowing demand, but accompanied by loss of biodi-versity, including in AnGR, and degradation ofecosystems, particularly with respect to their regu-lating and supporting services (WRI, 2005; FAO,2011b). Genetic erosion in plants was reported in

86

cereals, but also vegetables, fruits and nuts andfood legumes (FAO, 2010b). According to FAO(2011b), reliance on a lesser number of crops notonly results in erosion of genetic resources but canalso lead to an increased risk of diseases when avariety is susceptible to new pests and diseases.This means increased food insecurity. The sameholds for AnGR. In this context it should be consideredthat a rapid spread of pathogens, or even small spatialor seasonal changes in disease distribution, possiblydriven by climate change, may expose livestockpopulations with a narrow genetic basis to new dis-ease challenges.

The situation in AnGR with regard to species diver-sity is alarmingly low: from the about 50 000 knownavian and mammalian species only about 40 havebeen domesticated. On a global scale just fivespecies show a widespread distribution and partic-ularly large numbers. Those species are cattle,sheep, chicken, goats and pigs, the “big five” (FAO,2007). Therefore, the majority of products of animalorigin are based on quite narrow species variabilitywith the same risks as described for plants.

The diversity of breeds is closely related to the di-versity of production systems. Local breeds are usuallybased in grassland-based pastoral and small-scalemixed crop-livestock systems with low to mediumuse of external inputs. The many purposes for whichlivestock are kept are vanishing and being replacedby an almost exclusive focus on generating food forhumans – meat, eggs and milk, and an ongoingtrend away from backyard and smallholder livestockproduction to large-scale production systems. As aresult of increased industrialization, livestockbreeds adapted optimally to their habitat, in mostcases not tailored to maximum meat or milk output,are increasingly being displaced by high perform-ance breeds – usually transboundary breeds for usein high-external input, often large-scale, systemsunder more or less globally standardized conditions.In contrast to many local breeds, transboundary

breeds provide single products for the market athigh levels of output. Holstein Friesian Cattle – oneof the most successful international dairy breeds –is spread almost all over the world and is reportedto be present in at least 163 countries. Large whitepigs are present in 139 countries; while in chicken,commercial strains dominate the worldwide distri-bution. Extrapolating the figures of FAO (2006) andassuming that the production increase between theearly 2000s and 2009 is 100 percent attributable toindustrial systems, we can now estimate that indus-trial systems which are based on a few internationaltransboundary breeds, provide 79% of globalpoultry meat, 73% of egg and 63% of global porkproduction.

5. Possible future livestock production andconsumption trends and their expected impact onAnGRWorld population is projected to surpass 9 billionpeople by 2050. Most of the additional people will bebased in developing countries, where population isprojected to rise from 5.6 billion in 2009 to 7.9 billionin 2050, while the population of developed regionsis expected to remain stable (UN, 2009). FAO projectsthat by 2050, global average per capita calorieavailability could rise to 3 130 kcal per day, accompaniedby changes in diet from staples to higher value foodssuch as fruit and vegetables, and to livestock products,requiring world agricultural production to increaseby 70 percent from 2005/07 to 2050.

Based on past trends, FAO projects that globally,meat consumption per capita per year will increasefrom 41 kg in 2005 to 52 kg in 2050. In developingcountries, the effect of the “livestock revolution”that led to fast growth of meat consumption and thatwas mainly driven by China, Brazil and some otheremerging economies, is expected to decelerate.However, annual per capita meat consumptionincreases from 31 kg in 2005 to 33 kg in 2015 and44 kg in 2050 are projected for developing countries.Annual per capita meat consumption in developed

87

countries is projected to increase from 82 kg in 2005to 84 kg in 2015 and 95 kg in 2050 (OECD-FAO 2009;Bruinsma, 2009; FAO, 2010a). Given that net tradein livestock products is a very small fraction ofproduction, the production projections mirror thoseof consumption.

Thornton (2010) gives a comprehensive overview onpossible modifiers of future livestock productionand consumption trends, listing competition for re-sources, climate change, sociocultural modifiers,ethical concerns and technological development.Satisfying the growing demand for animal productswhile at the same time sustaining productive assetsof natural resources is one of the major challengesagriculture is facing today (Pingali and McCullough,2010). At the same time as the livestock sector is amajor contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, cli-mate change itself may have a substantial impacton livestock production systems. Hoffmann (2010)gives a comprehensive overview on the consequencesof climate change for animal genetic diversity,discussing the differences between developing anddeveloped countries.

The environmental impacts of livestock productionoccur at local, regional and global levels (FAO,2006). The particularly rapid growth of the livestocksector implies that much of the projected additionalcereal and soybean production will be used for feedingenlarging livestock populations, resulting in increas-ing competition for land, water and other productiveresources. This in turn puts upward pressure onprices for staple grains, potentially reducing foodsecurity. A further concern in relation to products ofanimal origin is livestock’s contribution to climatechange and pollution. The projected need for addi-tional cropland and grassland areas implies furtherrisks of deforestation and other land-use changes,e.g. conversions of semi-natural grasslands. Thiswill not only lead to loss of biodiversity, but also togreenhouse gas and nitrogen emissions (FAO,2010a; Westhoek et al., 2011). More research is

needed related to livestock-water interactions.Such concerns are highly relevant when talkingabout sustainable diets.

Together with an increasing urbanization and glob-alization, market requirements will change. Asmarket requirements are standardized and allowfor little differentiation, some traditional and rarebreeds might face increasing marketing difficulties.Loss of small-scale abattoirs, often due to foodsafety regulation, can reduce the ability for breedsto enter niche markets or product differentiation.National strategies for livestock production do notreflect the need for a genetic pool of breeding stock.Although breeding has to focus on what the marketwants (mass or niche market), other factors alsohave to be taken into account. The choice ofbreeds/breeding used in the livestock sector needsto ensure the profitability of the farm, safeguardanimal health and welfare, focus on conservinggenetic diversity, and promote human health.

Modelling results indicate that the main points ofintervention to reduce the environmental impactsof livestock production are: changes in nutrientmanagement, crop yields and land management,husbandry systems and animal breeds, feed con-version and feed composition, reduction in foodlosses, and shifts in consumption (Stehfest et al.,2009; Westhoek et al., 2011; FAO, 2011b).

Due to the many synergies between enhancing pro-duction and reducing costs, it is already commonpractice to improve production efficiency. Thechanges in husbandry systems and animal breeds,and feed conversion and feed composition, willfavour intensive livestock systems in which goodfeed conversion efficiency leads to reduced GHGemissions per unit of meat, milk etc. produced,which can be judged positively with regard to con-tributing products to sustainable diets. However,soil and water pollution and contamination arefrequently found in intensive production areas (FAO,

88

2010a). Increasing concentrate feed efficiency willlead most likely to shift with regard to the speciesaway from ruminants towards monogastric specieslike poultry and pigs (FAO, 2010a). On the breedlevel, local breeds will more and more be replacedby transboundary breeds, leading to a further loss oflocal breeds and their manifold functions. Besidesthe loss of between-breed diversity an additionalloss of within-breed diversity can be expected dueto the further pressure on increasing yields oftransboundary breeds by applying effective breedingprogrammes focusing on rather narrow breedinggoals. Such losses due to effective breeding pro-grammes might even be faster than in the past dueto application of new biotechnologies.

Intensification of livestock production systems,coupled with specialization in breeding and theharmonizing effects of globalization and zoosanitarystandards, has led to a substantial reduction in thegenetic diversity within domesticated animal species(FAO, 2007). The risk for breed survival in the past washighest in regions that have the most highly-special-ized livestock industries with fast structural changeand in the species kept in such systems. Globally,about one-third of cattle, pig and chicken breeds arealready extinct or currently at risk (FAO, 2010a).According to the last status and trends report of AnGR(FAO, 2010a) a total of 1 710 (or 21 percent) of breedsare classified as being “at risk”.

Recent studies proposed that the consumption offarm animal products must be curtailed to reduceanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (Stehfestet al., 2009). Others propose lowering meat demandlin industrialized countries (Grethe et al., 2011)lwhich, although having only a small effect on foodsecurity in developing countries, would have positiveeffects for human health, result in a less unequalper capita use of global resources, lower green-house gas emissions, and could ease the introductionof higher animal welfare standards (see alsoDeckers, 2010).

A further option to fulfill the globally growing demandfor animal source products could be the use of“artificial” meat or in vitro produced meat. In thistrajectory, changes in food composition couldimprove health characteristics, and closed industrialproduction technology may result in more hygienicand environmental friendly characteristics than“traditional” meat (Thornton, 2010). While this maycontribute, e.g. to the health aspect of a sustainablediet, it may possibly not fulfill the criterion of “culturalacceptance”. Also, a large-scale development anduptake of in vitro meat will have severe effects onthe livestock sector and most likely a negative effecton the diversity of AnGR. In vitro meat and food for-tification also contradict the concept of sustainablediet which stresses the importance of food-basedapproaches (Allen, 2008).

Finally, the reduction of food losses will be critical,as they imply that huge amounts of the resourcesused in and GHG emissions caused by production offood are used in vain. Waste disposal releases evenmore GHG. ASF, being highly perishable and con-nected to food safety risks, incur high losses alongthe chain. Losses of meat and meat products in alldeveloping regions are distributed quite equallythroughout the chain, while in industrialized regions,about 50 percent of losses occur at the end of thechain due to high per capita meat consumptioncombined with large waste proportions by retailersand consumers. Waste at the consumption levelmakes up approximately 40–65 percent of total milkfood waste in industrialized regions. For all devel-oping regions, waste of milk during post-harvesthandling and storage, as well as at the distributionlevel, is relatively high (FAO, 2011b).

In summary, the actual trends in combination withthe growing demand for products of animal origin forhuman diets will inevitably lead to a shift in agriculturalsystems towards more intensive systems. This willmost likely favour international transboundarybreeds instead of local breeds. At species level, the

89

shift towards poultry and pigs will continue.

Whether products from intensive systems can con-tribute to a sustainable diet depends on the system’scompatibility with regard to the rather complexconcept of sustainable diets namely being protectiveand respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, cul-turally acceptable, accessible, economically fair andaffordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy;while optimizing natural and human resources.However, even if many aspects to contribute to asustainable diet might be fulfilled in more intensivesystems, a loss of AnGR appears to be quite likely atglobal level.

6. Solutions with focus on sustainable diets favouringdiversity of AnGRPast efforts to increase yields and productivity havebeen undertaken mainly within a framework thathas aimed to control conditions and make productionsystems uniform (FAO/PAR, 2010), which allows theuse of uniform breed and being therefore not bene-ficial for the diversity of AnGR. This has led to a narrowset of breeds and management practices. Inevitably,cultural and social roles of livestock will continue tochange, and many of the resultant impacts on foodsecurity may not be positive (Thornton, 2010). Thescenarios described above do not give rise to abright future for AnGR’s diversity even if sustainablediets are propagated. However, there is hope be-cause there is already a wide range of agriculturalpractices available to improve production in sus-tainable ways (e.g. FAO/IAEA 2010).

Focusing on local and regional rather than global(i.e. GHG) aspects of sustainability also has itsdrawbacks. Measures such as improved animalwelfare may lead to less efficient production,thereby may just shift the negative environmentalimpact elsewhere; other measures may lead tohigher costs for farmers. However, Westhoek(Westhoek et al., 2011) assume that, if done prop-erly, such measures would lead to lower societal

costs by reducing local environmental impacts,animal welfare problems and public health risks.Aiming for manifold objectives with regard to envi-ronmental aspects of livestock keeping like reductionof greenhouse gases, maintenance of biodiversityetc., will lead to different, locally tailored solutions.Manifold objectives might add value to AnGR’sdiversity. There exist also agricultural systems thatare reliant on biological processes and on naturalproperties of agro-ecosystems to provide provisioning,regulating, supporting and cultural services. Suchsystems are a prerequisite for production of food forsustainable diets. Besides traditional systems arange of different innovative approaches to agricul-tural production exist, seeking to combine produc-tivity and increased farmer incomes with long-termsustainability (FAO/PAR, 2011). In European countries,there is an increased emphasis on, and economicsupport for, the production of ecosystems goodsand services, with a possibly positive effect on therole of local breeds and survival chances for small-scale abattoirs.

Arguments in favour of low-input breeds are basedon the multiple products and services they provide,mostly at regional and local level. Firstly, their abilityto make use of low-quality forage results in a netpositive human edible protein ratio. Secondly, underappropriate management, livestock kept in lowexternal input mixed and grazing systems provideseveral ecosystem services. Thirdly, as a result, andlinked to local breeds’ recognition as culturalheritage, linkages to nature conservation need to befurther explored and strengthened (Hoffmann,2011). All this is in harmony with the qualities of asustainable diet.

In this context the ability of livestock, especiallyruminants, to transform products not suitable forhuman consumption, such as grass and by-prod-ucts, into high-value products such as dairy andmeat, plays a role. Permanent grasslands are animportant carbon sink and harbours of biodiversity.

90

One of the six priority targets of the 2011 EUBiodiversity Strategy is “to increase EU contributionto global efforts to avoid biodiversity loss”. The ac-companying impact assessment suggests thatapproximately 60 percent of agricultural land wouldneed to be managed in a way that supports biodi-versity to meet this target (including both exten-sively and intensively managed areas under grass,arable and permanent crops.

In Europe, so-called High Nature Value Farmlandsmake up approximately 30 percent of grasslands(EU15); they are considered to be part of Europe’scultural heritage and are mostly Natura 2000 sites.However, only an estimated 2–4 percent of dairyproduction and around 20 percent of beef produc-tion comes from high nature value grasslands. Themajority of livestock production in Europe originatesfrom intensively managed permanent or temporarygrasslands, stimulated by fertilizer application andoften sowed with high-yielding grass varieties, andfrom cropland (Westhoek et al., 2011).

At global levels, distinctions between different typesof grasslands, is even more difficult. Grasslandsoccupy about 25% of the terrestrial ice-free landsurface. In the early 2000s they harboured between27% and 33% of cattle and small ruminant stocks,respectively, and produced 23% of global beef, 32%of global mutton and 12% of milk (FAO, 2006). Thereis sufficient intensification potential in such exten-sive systems without having to change the breedbase; a recent life cycle analysis for the dairy sectoralso showed a huge potential for moderate effi-ciency gains in developing countries (FAO, 2010c).On the contrary, well adapted, hardy breeds areadvantageous in utilizing the vast areas underrangelands (FAO, 2006). In view of the uncertainty forfuture developments a wide diversity of AnGR is thebest insurance to cope with unpredictable effects.

The main criticisms of ecological approaches weresummarized during an expert workshop on biodi-

versity for food and agriculture (FAO/PAR, 2011) asfollows: (i) adoption of ecological approaches tofarming reflects a romantic and backward-lookingperspective, (ii) they will require even larger subsidies,and (iii) they are labour and knowledge intensive. Toovercome this scepticism, innovation and develop-ment for new approaches will be essential, while acritical assessment of existing research resultsmight be advisable, because most cost-benefitanalyses comparing high-input systems with sus-tainable agricultural systems tend not to account forthe manifold benefits agricultural systems canprovide (FAO/PAR, 2011).

The recognition of the value of nutritional and di-etary diversity is becoming an important entry pointfor exploring more ecologically sustainable foodsystems. A key role might be played by consumerswhen getting more access to information and controlover consumption. Undoubtedly, use of diversityrequires significant knowledge and skills. Never-theless there are questions regarding the robust-ness of consumers’ preferences regarding organicand local food, particularly in times of considerableeconomic uncertainty (Thornton, 2010). Limitedeconomic resources may shift dietary choicestowards cheap, energy-dense, convenient, andhighly palatable diets providing maximum energy(Drewnowski and Spencer, 2004). Consumptionshifts, particularly a reduction in the consumptionof livestock products, will not only have environ-mental benefits (Stehfest et al., 2009), but may alsolreduce the cardiovascular disease burden (Popkinand Du, 2003). However, changing consumptionpatterns is a slow cultural process.

7. ConclusionsThere is no question that demands for animal prod-ucts will continue to increase in the next decadesand a further push to enhance livestock productivityacross also production systems is needed that takesthe environmental footprint of livestock productioninto account. At local level, there are many agree-

91

ments between environmental sustainability goals,sustainable production and providing sustainablediets. However, many of the required new technolo-gies to increase resource efficiencies at global levelwill accelerate the structural change of the sectortowards more intensive systems and thereby thelosses of animal genetic diversity even if sustainablediets are aimed at. If the goal is providing sustainablediets, avoiding the erosion of genetic diversity mustbe more spotlighted.

Providing sustainable diets can only be achieved witha combination of sustainable improvement of animalproduction and a combination of policy approachesintegrating the full concept of sustainable diets, ac-companied by awareness raising for the value of bio-diversity and investing in research as a basis forsound decisions. Numerous research questions stillrequire investigation, spanning different fields ofscience. With regard to livestock diversity and in viewof the uncertainty of future developments and climatechange this means to develop simple methods tocharacterize, evaluate and document adaptive andproduction traits in specific production environments.The lack of such data is currently one of the seriousconstraints to effective prioritizing and planning forthe best use of animal genetic resources measuresin a sustainable development of the livestock sector.Intensifying research to develop life-cycle assess-ments and to include delivery of ecosystem servicesin the analysis recognizing and rewarding thesustainable use of biodiversity in well-managedrangelands with local breeds will also be one majortask.

The concept of sustainable diet and the essentialrole of AnGR, needs to be addressed through aware-ness and educational programmes. Eating meansnot just ingesting food, but it is also a form of en-joyment and cultural expression.

References

Alary, V., Corniaux, C., Gautier, D. (2011). Livestock’s Contri-bution to Poverty Alleviation: How to Measure It? RetrievedJune 20, 2011 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar-ticle/pii/S0305750X11000271

Allen, L.H. (2008). To What Extent Can Food-Based ApproachesImprove Micronutrient Status? Asia Pacific Journal of ClinicalNutrition, 17(S1), 103-105.

Bruinsma, J. (2009). The resource outlook to 2050: By how muchdo land, water and crop yields need to increase by 2050?. In Howto feed the World in 2050. Proceedings of a technical meeting ofexperts, Rome, Italy, 24-26 June 2009 (pp. 1-33). Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy.

Deckers, J. (2010). Should the consumption of farm animalproducts be restricted, and if so, by how much? Food Policy ,35, 6, 497-503.

Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld H., Ehui S., Courbois C.(1999). Livestock to 2020. The next food revolution. In Food,Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper, 28.Washington, USA: IFPRI.

Drewnowski, A., & Spencer, S.E., (2004). Poverty and obesity:The role of energy density and energy cost. The AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, 79 (1), 6-16.

FAO (1999a). The Multifunctional Character of Agriculture andLand: the energy function. In Cultivating our future. BackgroundPapers on “The Multifunctional Character of Agriculture andLand" (Background paper 1). Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations: Maastricht, The Netherlands.

FAO (1999b). The global strategy for the management of animalgenetic resources: executive brief. Initiative for Domestic Ani-mal Diversity. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.

FAO (2006). Livestock’s long shadow – environmental issuesand options. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations.

FAO (2007). The State of the World 2007. Rome, Italy: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2010a). Status and trends report on animal genetic re-sources – 2010, CGRFA/WG-AnGR-6/10/Inf. 3. Rome, Italy: Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2010b). The State of Food and Agriculture 2009. Livestockin the Balance. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.

FAO (2010c). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector.A Life Cycle Assessment. Rome, Italy: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011a). Draft guidelines on phenotypic characterization. Rome,Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2011b). The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011.

92

Women in agriculture. Closing the gap for development. Rome,Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO/IAEA (2010). In Proceedings of the international Symposium“Sustainable improvement of animal production and health”organized by the joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniquesin Food and Agriculture in cooperation with the AnimalProduction and Health Division of FAO. Rome, Italy: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO/PAR (2010). Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture.Contributing to food security and sustainability in a changingworld. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization & Platformfor Agrobiodiversity Research.

Givens, D.I. (2010). Milk and meat in our diet good or bad forhealth?. Animal, 4, 12, 1941-1952.

Grethe, H., Dembélé, A., Duman, N. (2011). How to feed the world’sgrowing billions? Understanding FAO world food projections and theirimplications. Heinrich Böll Foundation & WWF: Berlin, Germany.

Gustavsson, J. (Eds), Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk,R., Meyback, A. (2011b). Global food losses and food waste.Extent, causes and prevention. Rome, Italy: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

GTZ (2005). Zwischen Natur und Kultur: Mensch, Ernährungund biologische Vielfalt. Where nature and culture meet:People, food and biodiversity. Eschborn, Germany: Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit.

Hoffmann, I. (2010). Climate Change in Context: Implicationsfor Livestock Production and diversity. In N.E. Odongo, M. Garcia,G.J. Vilojen (Eds), Sustainable improvement of Animal Produc-tion and Health (pp.33-44). Rome, Italy: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.

Hoffmann, I., (2011). Contribution of low-input farming to bio-diversity conservation. In First Low Input Breeds Workshop, 15-16 March 2011. Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Larsen, C.S., (2003). Animal Source Foods and Human Healthduring Evolution. The Journal of Nutrition, 133, 11, 3893S–3897S.

MacRae, J., O’Reilly, L., Morgan P. (2005). Desirable character-istics of animal products from a human health perspective.Livestock Production Science,94, 1, 95-103.

Milton, K. (2003). The Critical Role Played by Animal SourceFoods in Human (Homo) Evolution. The Journal of Nutrition,133, 11, 3886S–3892S.

Murphey, S.P., & Allen, L.H. (2003). Nutritional importance of an-imal source foods. The Journal of Nutrition, 133,11, 3932S-3935S.

Naylor, R., Steinfeld, H., Falcon, W., Galloway, J., Smil, V., Brad-ford, E., Alder, J., Mooney, H. (2005). Agriculture: Loosing thelinks between livestock and land. Science, 310, 5754, 1621-1622.

Neumann, C.G., Bwibo, N.O., Murphy, S.P., Sigman, M., Whaley,S., Allen, L.H., Guthrie, D., Weiss, R.E., Demment, M.W. (2003).Animal Source Foods Improve Dietary Quality, MicronutrientStatus, Growth and Cognitive Function in Kenyan School Children:

Background, Study Design and Baseline Findings. Journal ofClinical Nutrition, 133, 11, 3941S–3949S.

Neumann, C.G., Demment, M.W., Maretzki, A., Drorbaugh, N.,Galvin, K.A. (2010). Benefits, Risks, and Challenges in Urbanand Rural Settings of Developing Countries. In H. Steinfeld, H.A.Mooney, F. Schneider, L. E. Neville (Eds.), Livestock in a ChangingLandscape, Vol. 1: Drivers, Consequences, and Responses(pp.221-248). Washington, Covelo, London: Islandpress.

OECD-FAO (2009). Agricultural Outlook 2009-2018. Rome, Italy:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Pica-Ciamarra, U., & Otte, J. (2009). The ‘Livestock Revolution’:Rhetoric and Reality. In Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, (pp.05-09). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations.

Pingali, P., & McCullough, E. (2010). Drivers of Change in GlobalAgriculture and Livestock Systems. In H. Steinfeld, H.A.Mooney, F. Schneider, L. E. Neville (Eds.), Livestock in a ChangingLandscape, Vol. 1: Drivers, Consequences, and Responses(pp.5-10). Washington, Covelo, London: Islandpress.

Popkin, B.M., & Du, S. (2003). Dynamics of the NutritionTransition toward the Animal Foods Sector in China and itsImplications: A Worried Perspective. Journal of ClinicalNutrition, 133, 11, 3898S–3906S.

Randolph, T.F., Schelling, E., Grace, D., Nivholson, C.F., Leroy,J.L., Cole, D.C., Demment, M.W., Omore, A., Zinsstag, J., Ruel,M. (2007). The role of livestock in human nutrition and healthfor poverty reduction in developing countries. Journal of AnimalScience, 85, 2788-2800.

Rischkowsky, B., & Pilling, D.(Eds) (2007). The state of theworld’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture.Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations.

Stehfest E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J.,Eickhout, B., Kabat, P. (2009). Climate benefits of changing diet.Climatic Change, 95, 83–102.

Thornton, P.K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, fu-ture prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci-ety, B,365, 2853–2867.

UN (2009). World Population Prospects. The 2010 Revision.Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://esa.un.org/wpp/index.htm

Westhoek, H., Rood, T., van den Berg, M., Janse, J., Nijdam, D.,Reudink, M., Stehfest, E. (2011). The Protein Puzzle. The con-sumption and production of meat, dairy and fish in the EuropeanUnion. The Hague, The Netherlands: PBL NetherlandsEnvironmental Assessment Agency.

WHO/FAO (2003). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronicdiseases. Report of a joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHOTechnical Report series 916. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

WRI (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: BiodiversitySynthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC,Washington, USA: World Resources Institute.

94

AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DIETS: THE ROLE OF AQUATIC FOODS INFOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY Jogeir Toppe, Melba G. Bondad-Reantaso, Mohammad R. Hasan, Helga Josupeit, Rohana P. Subasinghe,Matthias Halwart and David JamesFishery Resources Division, FAO, Rome, Italy

95

AbstractAquatic foods make a significant contribution toimprove and diversify diets and promote nutritionalwell-being for many people. However, fisheriesresources have been poorly managed for decadesand are fully exploited, sometimes even overex-ploited. The increasing demand for aquatic foodswill therefore be met by reducing post-harvestlosses and diversion of more fish into direct humanconsumption, but above all by an increasing aqua-culture production. Aquaculturists are optimisticthat far more fish can be produced, however, theavailability of fishmeal and fish oil, the main ingre-dients for aquaculture puts with the present tech-nology, a limit to this development. Any growth ofsector as experienced during the past decades willtherefore more likely be linked with the sustainedsupply of terrestrial feed ingredients. This develop-ment is raising concerns that aquaculture productsmight get a nutrition profile differing from their wildcounterpart, particularly in relation to the contentof the beneficial long-chained omega-3 fatty acids.The importance for biodiversity of the strong devel-opment of aquaculture is outstanding, as only ahandful of species are commercially cultivated,while the world capture fisheries includes a hugerange of species. The increasing concern for a sus-tainable use of fisheries and aquaculture resourceshas resulted in the development of principlesand standards where the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries is becoming a reference. Thishas led to frameworks, agreements and guidelinesaiming at securing both human and animal health,protecting biodiversity and promoting environmentalsustainability. An increased awareness amongconsumers about the sustainability of fisheriesresources has emerged in the Northern Hemisphereduring recent years, and the fisheries sector isresponding by developing a number of certificationschemes and labels certifying that their products aresustainable. Increased emphasis on aquatic ecosys-tems, such as rice fields, should also be mentioned,since a more intensified agriculture sector is chal-

lenging this unique source of aquatic foods.

IntroductionAquatic foods, comprising fish, other aquatic animalsand aquatic plants, have been significant sources offood and essential nutrients since ancient times.The wealth of aquatic resources has also providedemployment and livelihoods, and has been regardedas an unlimited gift from nature. However, withincreasing knowledge, we also know these resourcesare finite and need to be properly utilized and man-aged in order to secure their important contributionto diets and economic activities of a growing worldpopulation.Aquatic foods, from both cultured and capturedsources, make a significant contribution to improveand diversify dietary intakes and promote nutritionalwell-being among most population groups. Eatingfish is part of the cultural traditions of many people,and in some populations, fish and fishery productsare a major source of food and essential nutrients,and there may be no other good alternative andaffordable food sources for these nutrients.Fish has a highly desirable nutrient profile and canprovide an excellent source of high quality animalprotein that is easily digestible and of high biologi-cal value. Fatty fish, in particular, is an extremelyrich source of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids(PUFAs) that are crucial for normal growth andmental development, especially during pregnancyand early childhood (Lewin et al., 2005; Martinez,1992). It is also established that fish in the diet inmost circumstances lowers the risk that womengive birth to children with suboptimal developmentof the brain and neural system that may occur if noteating fish (FAO/WHO, 2011). Among the general adult population, consumptionof fish, and in particular oily fish, lowers the risk ofCHD mortality (Mozaffarian and Rimm, 2006). Fishand other aquatic foods are also rich in vitaminssuch as vitamin A, D and E, and also vitamins fromthe B complex. Minerals such as calcium, phosphorus,zinc, selenium, iron and iodine in marine products

are abundant in most aquatic foods, and fish canplay an extremely important role as a very goodsource of essential nutrients, particularly as asource of micronutrients, where other animalsource foods are lacking.More than one billion people, within 58 developingand low-income food-deficit countries, depend onfish as the primary source of animal protein. Fish isa unique food that could be used to address almostall the major malnutrition disorders. Beyond provid-ing food, aquaculture and fisheries also strengthenpeople’s capacity to exercise their right to foodthrough employment, community development,generating income and accumulating other assets.

Sustainability of aquatic resources as foodThe global production of marine capture fisherieswas about 80 million tonnes in 2008. The stocks ofthe top ten species account for about 30 percent ofthe world marine capture fisheries production, mostof them fully exploited (Figure 1). The widespreadfailure to manage fishery resources properly, hasresulted in a situation where some 32% of stocksare overexploited, and 53% of the stocks are fullyexploited, leaving only 15% of the stocks with a po-tential for increased capture and biodiversity infoods based on capture fisheries. There is generalscientific agreement that significantly more cannotbe produced from wild fish populations (FAO, 2011a).

Figure 1. Global trends in the state of world marine stocks since1974 (FAO, 2011a).

However, total global fish production has continuedto rise, amounting to 142 million tonnes in 2008. Thebalance is made up by production from aquaculture,which amounted to 52.5 million tonnes in 2008, con-tributing 46 percent to the total foodfish production.Although there is no association between resourcesustainability and health, the issue of sustainabilitymust be considered if proven health benefits lead toan increased demand for seafood. With the knownwide range of benefits from seafood consumption, itis pertinent to consider whether increased productionis possible.The increasing demand for fish will mainly be providedby increased aquaculture production. However,the increasing demand for fisheries products is alsoencouraging a better use of available, but limited,resources. FAO is encouraging technology andknowledge that could help the fisheries industry andfish processors to reduce waste and increase theamount of fish ending up as food.Post-harvest losses of high quality fish are also achallenge due to poor handling of fish and fisheriesproducts. In some cases 20 percent of fish landedare lost before reaching the consumer due to poorhygiene facilities and handling. Poor handling alsocauses big physical losses of fish, as well as economiclosses due to lower quality and value of the endproduct. As demand for fisheries products willincrease in the future and acknowledging theimportant role of the fisheries sector in food andnutrition security, the economy and livelihoods ofmany vulnerable populations, sharing knowledge onhandling and storing of a perishable product suchas fish should be given high priority.Increased focus on improving the utilization of fishspecies of low value, such as the Peruvian anchovetashould also be encouraged. The anchoveta hastraditionally been processed into fish oil and fishmeal,but is a good example of an excellent fish with apotential for direct human consumption; very highnutritional value, and affordable for most people. Althoughchallenges such as cultural acceptance and conflict

96

Percentage of

stocks assessed

� Underexploited + Moderately exploited

� Full exploited

�Overexploited + Depleted + Recovering

74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06 08

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

with the high demand for fishmeal and oil, directhuman consumption would in many cases be a betteruse of the limited fisheries resources. During thelast ten years the consumption of Peruvian anchovetahas actually increased significantly, but is still lessthan 5 percent of the total catches.

Feeding the aquaculture sectorIt is anticipated that an additional 27 million tonnesof aquatic food will be required by 2030 consideringthe projected population growth and maintainingthe present per capita consumption. Availability offeed will be one of the most important inputs ifaquaculture has to maintain its sustained growth tomeet the demands of aquatic foods. Total industrialcompound aquafeed production has increasedalmost fourfold from 7.6 million tonnes in 1995 to29.3 million tonnes in 2008, representing an averagegrowth rate of 10.9 percent per year (Tacon et al.,2011). Compound feeds are used both for theproduction of lower-value (in marketing terms)food-fish species such as non-filter feeding carps,tilapia, catfish and milkfish, as well as higher-valuespecies such as marine finfish, salmonids, marineshrimp, and freshwater eels and crustaceans. The aquaculture sector is now the largest user offishmeal and fish oil (Tacon et al., 2011). However, itis projected that over the next ten years or so, thetotal use of fishmeal by the aquaculture sector willdecrease while the use of fish oil will probablyremain around the 2007 level (Tacon et al., 2011).The reason for this is due to decreased fishmeal andfish oil supplies; tighter quota setting and betterenforced regulation of fisheries resources. It isprojected that over the next ten years, fishmealinclusion in diets for carnivororous species will bereduced by 10–30 percent and replaced by cost-effective alternatives to fishmeal (Rana et al., 2009;Tacon et al., 2011). Further, with increased feedefficiency and better feed management, feed con-version ratios for many aquaculture species will beimproved.

Although the current discussion about the use ofmarine products as aquafeed ingredients focuseson fishmeal and fish oil resources, the sustainabilityof the aquaculture sector is more likely to be morelinked with the sustained supply of terrestrial feedingredients of animal and plant origin. Soybeanmeal is currently the most common source of plantproteins used in compound aquafeeds. Other plantproteins deriving from pulses, oilseed meals, cornproducts and other cereals are also being increas-ingly used. If the aquaculture sector is to maintain its currentaverage growth rate of 8 to 10 percent per year to2025, the supply of nutrient and feed inputs willhave to grow at a similar rate. There are needsfor major producing countries to place particularemphasis to maximize the use of locally availablefeed-grade ingredient sources, particularly nutri-tionally sound and safe feed ingredients whose pro-duction and growth can keep pace with the growthof the aquaculture sector. Aquaculturists are optimistic that far more fish canbe produced, but there are issues of nutritionalquality using land-based feeds, particularly regard-ing alternatives to fish oil. Long chained (LC)omega-3 fatty acids are mainly found in fish oil, sofish oil is an essential feed ingredient in order toassure the nutritional quality of the end product.Intensive research is therefore required in order tofind alternatives to fish oil, such as LC omega-3production from hydrocarbons by yeast fermentation,extraction from algal sources and/or genetic modi-fication of plants to become LC omega-3 fatty acidsproducers. However, for now and probably for the newdecade, the source of LC omega-3 fats will remainmarine capture fisheries.

Trade and marketingThe share of fishery and aquaculture production(live weight equivalent) entering international tradeas various food and feed products increased from25 percent in 1976 to 39 percent in 2008, reflecting

97

the sector’s growing degree of openness to, andintegration in, international trade. High-valuespecies such as shrimp, prawns, salmon, tuna,groundfish, flatfish, seabass and seabream arehighly traded, in particular as exports to moreaffluent economies, and low-value species such assmall pelagics are also traded in large quantities.Products derived from aquaculture production arecontributing an increasing share of total interna-tional trade in fishery commodities, with speciessuch as shrimp, prawns, salmon, molluscs, tilapia,catfish, seabass and seabream (FAO, 2011a). Aquaculture continues to be the fastest-growinganimal-food-producing sector and to outpace populationgrowth, with per capita supply from aquacultureincreasing from 0.7 kg in 1970 to 7.8 kg in 2008, anaverage annual growth rate of 6.6 percent. At present,about 46 percent of world food fish supply comesfrom aquaculture, which compares to 32 percentsome ten years ago.The importance for biodiversity of this strong devel-opment of aquaculture is outstanding, as only ahandful of species are commercially cultivated, whilethe world capture fisheries includes a huge range ofspecies, some with very limited catch figures.On the marketing side, the importance of super-markets in the distribution of seafood is increasing.In some countries, both in the developed and thedeveloping world, supermarkets account for morethan 70–80 percent of seafood retailing. Thisprocess has emerged relatively quickly during thelast decade. These retailers have certain character-istics which aim at standardized sizes, product qualityand constant availability.These requirements are easily met by the aquacultureindustry, while capture fisheries has difficultiesmeeting these requests, as sizes and quality of cap-ture fisheries, principally a hunting exercise, varygreatly. Thus further concentration of the super-markets in seafood marketing will result in evenmore demand for aquaculture products, and thusin less variety of fish products available to the

consumer. This will result, in the long run, in lessbiodiversity, as the few aquaculture species,salmon, shrimp, bivalves, tilapia and catfish, willincreasingly replace the wild species traditionallyliving in the aquatic environment used for aquacul-ture production. Thus the increasing importance ofaquaculture has a negative impact on biodiversity,but might be the most sustainable option of meetingthe increasing demand of aquatic foods.

Biosecurity and biodiversity The current trend towards globalization of the aqua-culture industry, while creating new market oppor-tunities for aquaculture, has also resulted inintensified production, increased pressure toimprove production performance and the wide-spread movement of aquatic animals. This scenariohas increased the likelihood of disease problemsoccurring. Transboundary aquatic animal diseases(TAADs) are highly infectious with strong potentialfor very rapid spread irrespective of national borders.They are limiting the development and sustainabilityof the sector through direct losses, increased op-erating costs, closure of aquaculture operations,unemployment; and indirectly, through restrictionson trade and potential negative impacts on biodi-versity (Bondad-Reantaso et al., 2005).Biosecurity is a strategic and integrated approachthat encompasses both policy and regulatoryframeworks aimed at analysing and managing risksrelevant to human, animal and plant life and health,including associated environmental risks (FAO,2007). It covers food safety, zoonoses, introductionof animal and plant diseases and pests, introductionand release of living modified organisms (LMOs)and their products (e.g. genetically modified organ-isms or GMOs), and the introduction of invasive alienspecies.Effective biosecurity frameworks and aquatic animalhealth management strategies are important for safe-guarding animal health, enhancing food safety, pro-moting environmental sustainability and protecting

98

biodiversity. They play an important role at everystage of the life cycle of an aquatic animal fromhatching to harvesting and processing, and thus areessential to ensuring sustainable and healthyaquatic production. They can also stimulate increasedmarket supply and private investments, as suchframeworks support farmers’ ability for efficientproduction of healthy products that are highlycompetitive in the market, thus increasing theirincomes, improving their resilience and enablingthem to effectively respond to the impacts of pro-duction risks.While significant developments have taken place inmany countries with regard to managing aquaticanimal health, the current trend towards intensifi-cation, expansion and diversification of aquatic foodproduction continues to present many challenges.Countries should consistently carry out effectivebiosecurity measures at both farm and policy levelsto: reduce the risks from emerging threats broughtabout by expanding species for aquaculture andimproving production efficiency; prevent, controland eliminate diseases in a timely manner; andrespond to consumers' increasing concerns forhealthy and nutritious aquatic production, foodsafety, ecosystems integrity and animal welfare.

Ecosystem approachMany rural households depend heavily on aquaticecosystems as a source of essential nutrients intheir food supply. Rapidly growing populations andchanges in agronomic practices have however oftenresulted in increased use of pesticides and fertilizersin agricultural activities in order to produce morefood in less space. This development is in manycases threatening the food and nutrition security ofpopulations, as biodiversity might be reduced inecosystems affected by intensive agriculture, suchas rice cultivation. Traditional cultivation of ricecrops under flooded conditions provides an excellentenvironment for aquatic organisms such as fish(Halwart, 2007). Intensive rice farming has increased

production and reduced the price of this essentialcommodity, but at the same time the aquatic biodi-versity in the rice fields is inevitably being reduced.Poor populations, who traditionally obtained a sig-nificant part of their dietary diversity from thisaquatic environment, are threatened. The aquaticecosystem, such as rice fields, have been reportedto provide more than 100 aquatic species such asfish, molluscs, reptiles, insects, crustaceans, andplants in Cambodia (Balzer et al., 2005), many ofwhich are collected and utilized on a daily basis byrural households (Halwart and Bartley, 2007). Thesespecies are excellent sources of essential nutrients,such as proteins, essential fatty acids, vitamin A,calcium, iron, zinc and other micronutrients, defi-cient in many diets (James, 2006).

International frameworksIn order to secure a sustainable use of aquaticresources, it has been important to identify rightsand responsibilities of states who manage fisheriesresources. In the mid-1970s, exclusive economiczones (EEZs) were widely introduced, and in 1982the United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea provided a new framework for the better man-agement of marine resources. Growing populationand increasing demand for fish and fishery productshas increased investments in fishing fleets andprocessing facilities, leading to a rapid and uncon-trolled exploitation of limited fishery resources. Inorder to address the concerns related to responsibleand sustainable fisheries, FAO was requestedto prepare an international Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995). The Code was finally adopted in 1995 by the FAO Con-ference, and provides a framework for national andinternational efforts to ensure sustainable exploita-tion of aquatic living resources in harmony with theenvironment. The Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries establishes principles and standards appli-cable to tile conservation, management and develop-ment of all fisheries, in a non-mandatory manner.

99

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries hasbeen used by many governments as a basis to intro-duce policies and mechanisms in order to ensurethe sustainability and the biodiversity of their fishstocks and aquatic environment. FAO has alsodeveloped voluntary guidelines in order to helpmember countries, such as the “FAO InternationalGuidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheriesin the High Sea” (FAO, 2008), a unique internationalinstrument promoting responsible fisheries whileensuring the conservation of marine living resourcesand the protection of marine biodiversity. The increased focus on sustainability by govern-ments and environmental organizations such as theWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has increasedthe awareness among consumers of how the limitednatural resources are utilized and how it may impactthe environment and biodiversity. As a result, theprivate sector has introduced initiatives to meet thedemand from consumers, such as eco-labels, in-suring responsible fishing practices and sustainableuse of the aquatic environments.The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has one ofthe best known standards and certification pro-grammes for the fisheries sector, but many othereco-labelling schemes such as “Friends of theSea”, “KRAV” and “Naturland“ provide their serv-ice to the fisheries and aquaculture sector (Blaha,2011). On the request from member states, FAO hasproduced guidelines in order to harmonize the in-creasing number of certification schemes, such asthe “FAO Guidelines for the Eco-Labelling of Fishand Fisheries Products from Marine Capture” (FAO,2005), and the “Guidelines for Aquaculture Certifi-cation” (FAO, 2011b). With regard to the international trade in aquatic ani-mals, different obligatory international treaties/agree-ments and other voluntary guidelines are involved.Examples of binding international agreements includethe following: Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreementof the World Trade Organization, SPS Agreement(WTO, 1994), the Convention on Biological Diversity

(CBD, 1992), the Convention on International Tradeof Endangered Species and European Union relatedlegislation and directives. Examples of voluntaryagreements/guidelines include that of the Interna-tional Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES,2005), the codes of practice of the European InlandFisheries Advisory Commission (Turner, 1998) and anumber of FAO guidelines. In many instances, vol-untary international guidelines are incorporated intonational legislations and thus become mandatory atthe national level.

References

Balzer, T., Balzer P. and S. Pon 2005. Traditional use and availabil-ity of aquatic biodiversity in rice-based ecosystems. In: Halwart,M. and D. Bartley (eds.) Aquatic biodiversity in rice-basedecosystems. Studies and reports from Cambodia, China, LaoPDR and Vietnam. [CD-ROM]. Rome: FAO. Also available atftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/CDrom/AqBiodCD20Jul2005/Start.pdf

Blaha, F. (2011). EU Market Access and Eco-Labbeling for Fisheryand Aquaculture Products. Swiss Import Promotion Pro-gramme. Zurich, SIPPO. 48p.

Bondad-Reantaso, M.G., Subasinghe, R.P., Arthur, J.R., Ogawa,K., Chinabut, S., Adlard, R., Tan, Z. & Shariff, M (2005). Diseaseand health management in Asian aquaculture. VeterinaryParasitology, 132, 249–272.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (1992). Convention onBiological Diversity. Available at www.cbd.int/

FAO (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Rome,FAO. 41p.

FAO (2005). Guidelines for the Eco-Labeling of Fish and FisheriesProducts from Marine Capture.

FAO (2007). FAO Biosecurity Toolkit. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Rome, FAO. 128p.

FAO (2008). FAO International Guidelines for the Management ofDeep-sea Fisheries in the High Sea. Rome, FAO.

FAO (2010). Fishstat Plus: universal software for fishery statisticaltime series. Aquaculture production: quantities 1950–2008;Aquaculture production: values 1984–2008; Capture production:1950–2008; Commodities production and trade: 1950–2008;Total production: 1970–2008, Vers. 2.30. FAO Fisheries Department,Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. Available atwww.fao.org/fi/statist/FISOFT/FISHPLUS.asp

FAO (2011a). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010,FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome, FAO.218p.Available at www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e00.htm

100

FAO (2011b). Guidelines for Aquaculture Certification. Rome,FAO. 26p. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/aqua-culture/TGAC/guidelines/Aquaculture%20Certification%20GuidelinesAfterCOFI4-03-11_E.pdf

FAO/WHO (2011). Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on theRisks and Benefits of Fish Consumption. Rome, FAO. (in press).Halwart, M. (2006). Biodiversity and nutrition in rice-basedaquatic ecosystems. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis,19, 747-751.

Halwart, M. and Bartley, D. 2007. Aquatic biodiversity in rice-based ecosystems, pp. 181-199. In: Jarvis, D.I., Padoch, C. andCooper, H.D. (Eds.) Managing biodiversity in agriculturalecosystems. Columbia University Press. 492p.

International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES)(2005). ICES Code of practice for the introductions and transfersof marine organisms. Copenhagen, International Council forthe Exploration of the Sea. 30p.

James, D. (2006). The impact of aquatic biodiversity on thenutrition of rice farming households in the Mekong Basin:Consumption and composition of aquatic resources. Journal ofFood Composition and Analysis, 19, 756-757.

Lewin G.A., Schachter H.M., Yuen D., Merchant P., MamaladzeV., Tsertsvadze A. (2005). Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on childand maternal health Agency for Healthcare Research andQuality (AHRQ). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ), 1-11.

Martinez M. (1992). Tissue levels of polyunsaturated fatty acidsduring early human development. J Pediatr; 120:S129-38.

Mozaffarian D., Rimm E.B. (2006). Fish intake, contaminants,and human health: evaluating the risks and the benefits. JAMA,296, 1885-99.

Rana, K.J., Siriwardena, S. and Hasan, M.R. (2009). Impact ofrising feed prices on aquafeeds and aquaculture production.FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 541, 63 pp.

Tacon, A.G.J., Hasan, M.R. and Metian, M. 2011. Demand andsupply of feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans:trends and future prospects. FAO Fisheries and AquacultureTechnical Paper, No. 564. FAO (in press)

Turner, G. (ed.) (1988). Codes of Practice and Manual of Proceduresfor Consideration of Introductions and Transfers of Marineand Freshwater Organisms. EIFAC Occasional Paper, No. 23.European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. Rome, FAO.

World Trade Organization (WTO) (1994). Agreement on theApplication of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. p. 69–84.In The results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral tradenegotiations: the legal texts, General Agreement on Tariff andTrade (GATT), World Trade Organization, Geneva.

101

DIETARY BEHAVIOURS ANDPRACTICES: DETERMINANTS,ACTION, OUTCOMESPatrick EtiévantINRA, Département Alimentation Humaine, Dijon, France

102

103

AbstractThis study review summarizes the results of a sci-entific expertise which was commissioned by theFrench Ministry of Agriculture in 2010. It aims todefine the typologies of food behaviours and theirchanges in time, to establish the state of the art onthe determinants of these behaviours and theirimpact on health and finally to examine the nu-merous public or private actions or campaignsaiming to improve these behaviours and to concludeon their effects.

1. Introduction: Context and objectives of thecollective scientific expertiseThis paper reports the main conclusions of aCollective Scientific Expertise (CoSE) commis-sioned by the French Ministry of Food, Agricultureand Fisheries and conducted by INRA (FrenchNational Agriculture Research Institute) from May2010 until June 2011. Research into the linksbetween diet and maintaining good health hasgradually widened in scope, from research into therelationship between nutrients and health (e.g. therole of vitamins), to the complex nutritional effectsof food – thus recommending the consumption ofcertain foods containing more valuable nutrients(e.g. fruit and vegetables, less saturated fattyacids) – and how best to combine foods within diet.For several years, public policies based on thesefindings have led to initiatives aiming to render dietmore beneficial to health (nutritional informationcampaigns, concerted action with the food industry).But the growing number of overweight peopleshows that this action has fallen short of its objective.In order to make these public policies more effec-tive, it is important to know better how consumersmake their food choices and which are their deter-minants. How are these affected by food composition,hunger, level of education, income, advertising,accessibility and so on, depending on the con-sumer’s age. These issues led the French Ministryof Food, Agriculture and Fisheries to commission

INRA to undertake a collective scientific expertise,and thus to obtain an updated state of publishedscientific knowledge on these different determi-nants for use in guiding policy-makers.Dietary behaviours are formed by considerationsthat are not all connected with food and nutritionper se. Investigating these behaviours means makingthe connection between all the relevant disciplines –epidemiology, nutrition, food science, psychology,sociology, economics – in order to grasp how be-haviours are formed, and how levers can be used tomodify them so that they are in line with nutritionalguidelines.

2. CoSE methods and scope The CoSE is based on certified international scien-tific articles, which guarantees reliability of theinformation used. A group of about 20 scientificexperts working for various scientific institutionsin France (INRA, Institut Pasteur in Lille, Univer-sity Hospital in Lille, CIHEAM, CNRS) were involvedin this CoSE. Their expertise covered areas asdiverse as epidemiology, physiology, food sciences,economics, sociology, marketing and psychology.Their work drew upon a total of about 1 840 articles,93 percent of which were scientific, in addition tostatistical data, books and technical reports. Theexperts selected all the relevant facts in thesedocuments, then analysed and assembled them toprovide insight into the issues in hand.The CoSE gives neither opinions nor recommen-dations. It presents a thorough review of theknowledge available on the determinants of dietarybehaviour, using a multidisciplinary approachcombining the life sciences with the human andsocial sciences. It also outlines some prospectivemeasures, based on an evaluation of a number ofpublic or private initiatives. It examines humandietary behaviour overall and refers neither topathologies and eating disorders requiring medicaltreatment (malnutrition, bulimia, anorexia, etc.)nor to specific eating practices (vegetarianism,

diets prescribed by religious belief etc.), nor does itstudy the relationship between diet and physicalexercise, recently investigated by Inserm.

3. Main results of the expertise3.1 An overall approach to diet is requiredChanges in dietary practices over the past fewdecades, particularly the increase in the proportionof fat in diet, are linked with modifications in foodsupply (technological innovation, food chain) andmore generally with changes in lifestyle.Research on the relationship between diet andhealth focused primarily on the role of nutrientintake (lipids, vitamins) or individual foodstuff intake(fruit, vegetables, meat). This research, often exper-imental, has confirmed certain hypotheses linkingfood consumption to effects on metabolism whichcan be good or bad for health. Extrapolation ofthese findings, obtained in controlled trials, to reallife requires the integration of other aspects (livingconditions, income).Certain epidemiological studies, after examiningdifferent diets, have established a number of typolo-gies that are more representative for studying realdietary behaviour.Although correlations between diet typologies andhealth are clear, it is difficult to establish causalitiesbetween changing dietary practices and certainchronic illnesses (cancer, cardiovascular disease).Links are more clearly established for obesity.

3.2 The physiological mechanisms regulating foodintake are affected by environmentPhysiological regulation of food intake is based on thealternate cycle of two physiological states: hunger andsatiety. A network of internal signals, coming from thedigestive tract and from the central nervous system,alternates food intake with satiety. This mechanismallows self-regulation of energy intake, and is partic-ularly effective in young children. This regulatorysystem seems to have altered in obese people.Energy compensation can take place between one

meal and the next, in the case of temporary defi-ciency or excess. However, dietary deficiencies arecompensated far more easily than dietary excessmanaged. In a society with plenty of choice, temporaryovereating is thus more likely to be poorly managedduring the following meals, leading to weight gain.Intake is adjusted more effectively by eaters whoare attentive to the physiological signals of hungerand fullness, and who are more careful about whatthey eat. Distractions (e.g. eating in front of the TV,in a noisy place, with stress) increase the quantityingested during the meal and upset the energycompensation process from one meal to the next.Nutritional composition and food consistency deter-mine the satiation capacity of food. This means thatthese characteristics can be used for limiting theconsumption of foods not affected by physiologicalregulation (e.g. soft drinks).Eating triggers a sensation of enjoyment by activat-ing a physiological system in the brain called thereward circuit. This eating enjoyment is accentuatedby palatable foods (nice taste) which are more oftenthan not fatty or sweet high energy-dense foods.Enjoyment of sweet foods has been observed frombirth. In obese animals and humans, recent findingshave shown that addictive-type mechanisms candevelop for sweet foods.Social norms and attitudes, which vary according toage group, personal experience, and social andcultural backgrounds, shape and set dietary behav-iours for time schedules, family meals, and tablemanners. These social conventions can affect phys-iological regulation.

3.3 Generic nutritional information and preventioncampaigns have little short-term impact onbehaviour when used aloneNationwide information campaigns reach first andforemost the social groups already aware of the linkbetween diet and health. These messages couldthus increase behavioural disparities in the shortterm. For the same reasons, nutritional labelling

104

has little impact, and is used mostly by educated ornutrition-conscious people. The technical informationthat is marked on labels is rarely used by consumers,who are not always able to take advantage of it andwhose attitudes concerning food fall into simplecategories: good or bad, healthy or unhealthy.Awareness of nutritional messages and their ap-plication do not generally lead immediately to thedesired changes in behaviour. Over a longer timescale, changes in the behaviour of the wealthy,induced by preventive campaigns, may filter downinto other strata of society through adoption of theculturally more appealing model.

3.4 Dietary behaviour can be affected by informationstrategies combining different tools and targetingindividuals or specific groupsHow information is communicated is crucial. Nutri-tional information is more effective in the short-termwhen it is part of a specific campaign targeting anindividual or a cohesive group. Therapeutic education– the cognitive-behavioural approach used withobese patients or people suffering from dietarybehaviour disorders – and social marketing – whichaims to make microchanges in the individual’senvironment – have shown that the “small steps”strategy can cause apparently minor modificationsto behaviour that accumulate and last longer. Thesuccess of these initiatives depends on how support-ive the family, local contacts and social groups are.Precisely-targeted strategies are costly, hence theadvantage of combining them with more general andcheaper prevention initiatives. Costs can also belowered by using the diverse and widespread meansof communication currently available, some of whichallow information to be accessed by the individual.

3.5 The consumer is subjected to different envi-ronmental stimuli, which can bias opinion Food availability and composition are more effectivelevers on action than prices. According to economictheory, the consumer reigns over a market which

must cope with his or her nutritional needs, hedo-nistic preferences and health concerns. Nutritionalprevention policies are thus focused on the consumer(even risking guilt about food choices). However,recent findings that call on both economics andmarketing have shown that consumer opinions canbe distorted by errors of perception and environ-mental stimuli. Thus, policies have greater impactwhen they also affect food supply, and purchasingand eating contexts: availability, food composition.Altering the nutritional and energy quality of foods(through regulations, or incentives such as nutri-tional improvement charters and public/privateagreements) entails adjustments to certain foodcomponents that are deemed detrimental or ben-eficial to health (salt, type of fatty acids etc.) andimproves the satiation properties of food (addedfibre, lower energy density).Playing on food availability can have an immediateimpact: the presence of fruit baskets instead of snackmachines has proved effective in school experiments.In the United States, proximity of fast-food restaurants(particularly near schools) is known to lead toovereating.Food packaging size and clearly marked nutritionalclaims can lead to underestimation of quantity (visualbias) and/or energy content of foods or dishes.Economic simulations tend to show that taxes orsubsidies are not always effective levers in the shortterm. For a significant drop in the consumption offoods reputed to be bad for health (usually high-energy products), the tax needs to be high (thresholdeffect), which would penalize the consumers whohave no choice but to buy these inexpensive products.These interventions on supply can also have unde-sirable effects: lower nutritional quality of ingredi-ents used, move towards budget products etc.

3.6 Childhood and old age are more favourable tomodifications in dietary behaviour3.6.1 ChildhoodAlthough dietary behaviour alters with age, sensory

105

preferences are set during early childhood and aredifficult to change thereafter. Sensory learning formstaste and food spectrum, and these are shapedbefore birth from the seventh month of pregnancy.New research themes are currently investigatingthe impact of perinatal nutrition which, accordingto animal experiments, causes lasting metabolicimprinting and which can sometimes be passed down.Repeatedly offering a variety of foods without forcingthe child seems to be the best way of widening foodacceptance. School not only provides tasting oppor-tunities, but could also improve awareness ofhunger, fullness and satiety.Preventive action has proved effective for motherswhose children risk being overweight, particularly bychanging the mothers’ attitudes regarding theirtraditional responsibility for nourishment. Childobesity-control programmes increasingly call forparental learning.Dietary habits change during adolescence, andmeals eaten outside the home offer opportunitiesto experience a certain freedom (meal times, mealcomposition). These practices do however appear tobe temporary, and a return to a family type of dietis observed when couple relationships form, whenchildren are born, or when young people start working.So, except for dietary disorders (anorexia, bulimia,not dealt with here) and risky practices (bingedrinking), the diet of adolescents is not a publichealth problem. If difficulties with dietary behaviourare experienced during childhood, this phenomenoncan be accentuated upon adolescence with negativeconsequences for well-being and health.

3.6.2 Old ageDuring old age, dietary behaviour can become moreunstable. Retirement, death of a spouse, solitude,deteriorating health and less autonomy often havenegative repercussions on dietary practices andfood intake. A considerable proportion of elderlypeople suffer from malnutrition, which is recog-nized as a public health risk factor.

A positive point is that elderly people are attentive topreventive messages concerning health. Carers andthe immediate social circle of elderly people arecrucial for maintaining good dietary practices and/orimplementing nutritional preventive strategies.It should be noted that dietary behaviour could belinked to one’s generation. This hypothesis, suggestedby CREDOC findings using the Budgets survey,needs to be scientifically supported. The moststriking fact is that the more recent generationspend three times less money to buy fresh fruitsthan the generation born between 1937 and 1946.

3.7 The underprivileged are less receptive topreventive messagesDietary inequalities have continued into recent years.Food can absorb up to 50 percent of the budget of themore underprivileged households in France, whilethis figure stands at 15 percent for the populationoverall.Underprivileged people, poor and/or underedu-cated, suffer more from obesity.Their diet deviates from nutritional guidelines morethan that of wealthier populations. A greater numberof risk factors are associated with their dietarypractices: sedentary lifestyle, distraction linked toTV viewing, low self-esteem. The preventive mes-sages for nutrition and health are less well under-stood and can even make them feel at fault, giventhat these messages are on a completely differentwavelength to the attitudes they have about diet,health or body norms. They also need to cope withother worries which appear more important to them. The desire to buy foods that are promoted by intenseadvertising (high-energy-dense foods) underminestheir efforts to conform to guidelines.

4. Research needsIf detailed typologies of French consumer behavioursare to be established, large pooled longitudinalcohorts need to be recruited and which are repre-sentative of the entire population. Tools need to be

106

validated for collecting and using reliable data. If thesemethods were extended to other countries, the speci-ficities of the French dietary model would stand out.The causalities between diet and health can bedetermined in two ways: firstly by using the systemsapproach to integrate all the fragmentary knowledgeavailable about how nutrients affect physiologicalsystems; and secondly, by combining epidemiologicalstudies with systematic phenotyping and genotypingof individuals in the cohorts (requiring a biologicalsample bank). This second approach would need toinclude detailed analysis of gut flora, since its roleappears to be increasingly important.Changes in food supply (product quality, price,availability) can have major unintentional effects ondietary behaviour, necessitating further research(effects on market segmentation, market competition,consumer preferences).Consumer behaviour models need to account forthe relative weight of each determinant, particularlythe effects of social environment and spatial factorson individual diet. One priority consists of combiningeconomic mechanism models, with models of thebiological systems involved in the connectionsbetween diet and health.Another priority will be to explain through brainimaging techniques how the different signals leadingto purchasing choices function. Also, how signals offullness and satiety are related with food and mealcharacteristics (such as the role of sugar on theactivation of reward pathways) and meal context(particularly conversation and distraction).Research into the evaluation of public policiesneeds to be organized and extended. The ambivalentoutcomes of these policies (mostly positive butpotentially a source of growing inequalities, such asfor price policies) should be specifically addressedusing cost-benefit analyses, up to and includingestimation of the social costs of saved lives. Thereasons for the difference in impact between productmarketing tactics and information campaignsremain to be explored.

References

“Dietary behaviours and practices. Determinants, Action,Outcomes” Collective Scientific Expertise. P. Etiévant, F.Bellisle, J. Dallongeville, C. Donnars, F. Etilé, E. Guichard, M.Padilla, M. Romon-Rousseaux, C. Sabbagh, A. Tibi (editors)2010, INRA publisher (Paris), 280 pages.

The full report and and an executive summary (63 pages) can beaccessed at the following site:http://www.inra.fr/l_institut/expertise/expertises_realisees.

107

108

CONSERVATION OF PLANTDIVERSITY FOR SUSTAINABLEDIETSKate Gold1 and Rory P.H. McBurney2

1Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK 2Centre for Biocultural Diversity, University of Kent, UK

109

AbstractBiologically diverse diets are more likely to be nu-tritionally replete, and contain intrinsic protectivefactors. An increasing number of initiatives promotedietary diversity for improved child nutrition andprotection against chronic diseases. The agricul-tural biodiversity central to diverse diets, includingmany lesser-known and underutilized plant species,has developed over millennia through bioculturalevolution of the plant genome and associated cul-tural codes. However, the biocultural diversity offood plants is under threat from changing eatingpatterns, intensive agriculture, and climate change,resulting in a loss of local food plant diversity fromdiets and threatening food and nutrition security. Werecommend a holistic approach promoting the useof traditional food plant diversity together withconservation of genetic material and associatedtraditional knowledge.

1. IntroductionTraditional diets, containing a high proportion oflesser known and underutilized plant species, arerich in biodiversity. They are an ideal basis for sus-tainable diets and for chronic disease prevention.Traditional diets are under threat in developingcountries due to anthropogenic factors. Addressingsuch threats requires a holistic approach, wherecomplementary in situ and ex situ techniques com-bine to conserve local agricultural biodiversity andthe knowledge on how to use it. Here we explore twoprojects that have attempted to do this, and makerecommendations on best steps forward.

2. Dietary diversity, agricultural biodiversity andbiocultural evolutionAgricultural biodiversity is broadly defined by theConvention on Biological Diversity as those “com-ponents of biological diversity of relevance to foodand agriculture” and includes crops and “wildplants harvested and managed for food” (CBD,2000). Agricultural biodiversity and dietary diversity

form the basis of human health and are intrinsicallylinked through traditional food systems and foodhabits. Consuming a high level of dietary diversity isone of the most longstanding and universally acceptedrecommendations for human health at national,regional and international levels (WHO (Europe),2003; UK Food Standards Agency, 2009). It has beenrecommended that we should “eat at least 20, andprobably as many as 30 biologically distinct types offood, with the emphasis on plant food [with a weekas a time frame]” (Wahlqvist et al., 1989; Savige,2002). Dietary diversity across as many food groupsas possible ensures dietary adequacy, increasedfood security, a reduced intake of toxicants and pro-tection against chronic diseases (Slattery et al.,1997; Hatløy et al., 1998; McCullough et al., 2002;Wisemann et al., 2006).Dietary diversity is underpinned by agricultural bio-diversity. Although just 12 plant species contribute80 percent of total dietary intake (Grivetti and Ogle,2000), many more lesser-known, underutilized,semi-domesticated and wild plants are harvestedand managed for food. The figure of more than 7 000is commonly cited (Bharucha and Pretty, 2010), butthe total number of plant species that have beengrown or collected for food may be as high as 12 600.Agricultural biodiversity is selected and managedby farmers – even non-cultivated plant species aremanaged to a greater or lesser degree by the peoplewho know their uses, harvest them, and allow theircontinued survival – and the CBD recognizes “tradi-tional and local knowledge” as an important dimen-sion of agricultural biodiversity (CBD, 2000).In a globalized world of intensive agriculture andagribusiness, it is easy to forget that our food systemsare the result of thousands of years of synergisticinteraction between biological and cultural resourcesor, as one author puts it, “biocultural evolution”(Katz, 1987). The nutritional adaptation described byUlijaszek and Strickland (1993) shows how, duringthe process of biocultural evolution, genetic codesare stored in the DNA of plants and cultural codes in

the cultural beliefs and practices of people usingthem. This coded information interacts with theenvironment through plant physiology and humanbehaviour and leads, ultimately, to the end state ofplant phytochemistry (nutritional value and toxicol-ogy) and human nutritional and health status

Figure 1. Nutritional adaptation and biocultural evolution.

When these mechanisms interact with one anotherin a positive manner, there is a distinct bioculturaladvantage. Nowhere is this more apparent than inthe use of maize. In the Americas, maize flour isusually limed prior to making tortillas. Magnesiumand calcium salts are added, releasing niacin whichenhances the quality of protein. Phytate is neutral-ized, making iron and zinc bioavailable (Katz et al.,1974). African cultures, who do not lime their maizeflour, are at a biocultural disadvantage. For example,Kuito, an area in Angola where maize forms a largeproportion of the diet, is an area of endemic niacindeficiency (Golden, 2002).

3. The loss of biocultural diversity and dietarydiversityThe close relationship between agricultural biodiversity,cultural diversity and dietary diversity is no moreapparent than in farming communities in developingcountries. However, over the last century there hasbeen a loss of agricultural biodiversity and associatedtraditional knowledge, particularly for food plants,with a corresponding reduction in dietary diversity.Many attribute these losses to intensive agriculture,the nutrition transition and environmental pressuressuch as climate change (Goodland, 1997; Johns andEyzaguirre, 2006; Purvis et al., 2009). Since the green

revolution, a focus on providing high energy andhigh protein foods of plant origin to an expandingglobal population has been the main driver ofintensive agriculture. While succeeding in this, it haspushed lesser known agricultural biodiversity intokitchen gardens, fallow fields and field margins,communal land, grasslands, orchards, and roadsides,at risk from agricultural expansion, road widening,hedgerow removal, overgrazing, overharvesting,herbicides and other non-traditional agronomicpractices. Climate change is likely to become anincreasingly significant threat, particularly fornarrowly adapted endemic species (MillenniumEcosystem Assessment, 2005; Jarvis et al., 2010).lThe nutrition transition is also playing its part, asthe desire for “modern” westernized diets causes ashift from diverse traditional diets, relatively low inenergy and high in plant diversity, to modern diets,high in energy and low in plant diversity. The stigmaoften associated with traditional diets not onlysupports and encourages the intensification of agri-culture, but also exacerbates the trend towards aglobal obesity epidemic. Although the main focus of global agriculturalresearch remains the provision of calories and plantprotein, pressures on our current global food systemmean that the intensive agricultural practicesdeveloped over the last century may not be sustainablein the future, leading many to advocate the use oflesser known or underutilized plants from traditionalfood systems as part of the solution (Johns andEyzaguirre, 2006; Bharucha and Pretty, 2010).Conserving such plants, and the cultural diversitythat supports them, requires a holistic approach,based on an understanding of plant and humaninteractions.

4. The conservation of food plant diversityThe CBD cross-cutting initiative on biodiversity forfood and nutrition includes an operational objectiveto conserve and promote the wider use of biodiversityfor food and nutrition. In situ conservation and

110

Evolution

Plants

People

Codes

DNA

Culture

Strategies

Physiology

Behavior

States

Phytochemistry

NutritionalStatus

+

+

�

�

sustainable use of food plant diversity, including thedietary-diversity based interventions described inthis volume, is the preferred option and is advanta-geous for several reasons: 1) it is readily available tolocal people to use; 2) both the genetic and culturaldiversity is conserved; 3) biocultural evolution of thefood system can continue, adapting to local needsover time and 4) users have a high level of controlover their food resources.

4.1 Case study of community conservation – TATROWomen’s Group in Western KenyaTATRO Women’s Group is based in the WesternProvince of Kenya, in the Yala Division of KisweroDistrict. Since 1993, they have worked with local,national and international agricultural researchorganizations, directly impacting nearly 500 families.In 2005, in collaboration with the National Museumsof Kenya, and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, theyundertook a needs assessment for the conservationof traditional food plants (Nyamwamu et al., 2005).The study revealed that three food plant species, Osae,Obuchieni and Onunga (Aframomum angustifolium(Sonn.) K.Schum., Tristemma mauritianum J.F.Gmel.and Rubus apetalus Poir.) had been lost from thearea in recent years. A further 50 food plants, andthe knowledge on how to use them, were onlyknown by community elders. Harvesting of tradi-tional food plants had decreased on cultivated anduncultivated land, and food preferences and cashcropping were driving an increase in the cultivationof exotic cereals and pulses. In addition, wild fruitssuch as Ojuelo (Vitex doniana Sweet) were onceplentiful but were becoming harder to find as moreland came under cultivation. These findings wereunexpected, particularly to TATRO members. In re-sponse, they compiled a list of community experts,and organized activities for the sharing of seeds andtraditional knowledge of “at risk” food plants. Cur-rent activities, focused on a community resourcecentre in Yala Village, include the promotion ofgrowing traditional food plants in kitchen gardens,

on communal land and integrating their use inschool feeding projects, together with outreachwork in Western Nyanza. Despite such efforts, conservation-through-usemay not be enough to adequately protect wild foodplants for the sustainable diets of the future. Withslow-onset climate change exacerbating otherthreats, “in situ diversity needs to be collectedbefore it disappears” (FAO, 2011a). Ex situ seed banking can complement such com-munity-based activities, and has several advantages:1) a wide range of genetic diversity is conserved; 2)well maintained seed banks can conserve seeds fordecades or hundreds of years; 3) seed banks cansupport reintroduction of food plants to areas wherethey have been lost; 4) seed bank collections, sup-ported by herbarium specimens, provide a verifiedsource of material for screening for genetic diver-sity in nutritional properties and other desirabletraits; 5) germination protocols developed by seedbanks are a useful starting point for projects wish-ing to promote the use of lesser known and under-utilized food plants.The use of seed banking, as a means of conserving,and making available the genetic diversity of foodplants is well established. International centresaround the world have global mandates for the con-servation of the major food crop species. AlthoughFAO (2010) reports “a growing interest in collectingand conserving minor, neglected and underutilizedcrops” few wild food plants are conserved in seedbanks. Of the global germplasm holdings for whichthe type of accession – advanced cultivar, breedingline, landrace, wild species – is known, only 10 percentare wild species, most of them industrial andornamental or forage species (FAO, 2010).

4.2 Case study of Seed Banking – The MillenniumSeed Bank Partnership (MSBP)The MSBP is the world’s largest initiative to collect,conserve and promote the use of wild plant species,involving major collaborations with 18 countries

111

around the world, and less formal collaborationswith 123 institutions in 54 countries. The MillenniumSeed Bank (MSB) currently holds accessions of morethan 28 000 species, including more than 10 379 ac-cessions of 3 318 species with known food use. The MSBP is working to overcome constraints to theconservation and use of plants important to locallivelihoods. Germination tests have been carried outon 3 028 taxa with food uses; 2 102 of these have >75 percent germination, the current minimum MSBstandard for storage. Germination protocols aremade available via the Seed Information Database(Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, 2008). Kew’s “Difficult”Seeds project worked with African gene banks toidentify 220 species, most of them food plants, withinherent seed storage problems, seed dormancy is-sues, or poor viability due to inadequate handling andstorage. Training workshops included a two-daymini-workshop for local farmers and communityrepresentatives, with the aim of supporting and fa-cilitating gene banks to engage with farmers. Es-sential seed biology information for 160 “difficult”species, together with training materials, is availablevia Kew’s web pages (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew,2010).MSBP partners are also working with local commu-nities to document, collect, conserve and propagatethe genetic diversity of useful wild plants. The MGU-Useful Plants Project works with communities inMexico, Mali, Kenya, Botswana and South Africa toidentify the species that communities find mostuseful. Residents of Tsetseng, in the central Kalahariregion of Botswana, are undertaking trial cultivationof Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. and Nakaiand Schinziophyton rautanenii (Schinz) Radcl.-Smin community gardens. In Mexico, MSBP partnersUNAM have identified 339 species used for food inthe Tehuacán–Cuicatlán Valley (Lira et al., 2009) andare working on the propagation of species such asStenocereus stellatus (Pfeiff.) Riccob. In Tharaka,Kenya, 76 food plants prioritized by local communi-ties have been collected and conserved at the Gene

Bank of Kenya and duplicated at the MSB. Associatedethnobotanical data was collected via a multistageprocess, including a pilot survey, questionnaire,guided group discussions, interviews, transectswalks, observations and photography (Martin, 1995).This information has been shared with participatingcommunities via brochures and posters, on-farmworkshops and open days, community tree plantingdays, the sponsorship of farmers to share informationduring key cultural and medicinal day events inKenya’s Eastern Province, and the publication of afarmer’s guide to seed collection, propagation andcultivation (Muthoka et al., 2010).

5. DiscussionSeed collections of traditional food plants are of limitedvalue without the associated knowledge of how togrow the plants and/or prepare the food product(s).Likewise, traditional knowledge is of little use if acommunity no longer has any seeds or plants of aparticular species. Ex situ gene banks should seekways to work with ethnobotanists and other socialscientists to complement community based effortsto conserve traditional food plants. Hawtin (2011)suggests that the more poorly resourced nationalgene banks should focus their efforts on meetinglocal needs, rather than attempting to undertakethe whole range of sometimes costly gene bankactivities. Meeting local needs would mean themaintenance and distribution of materials of imme-diate interest, including locally important species.Crucially, materials would be distributed to farmers,as well as local breeders. Currently, local communitygroups may find it difficult to get access to national(and regional/state) seed collections (Swiderska,IIED, personal comment). Hawtin (2011) also suggests that “conserving in-digenous knowledge” should be a focus for nationalgene banks. This will be a challenge. Many genebanks document only broad categories of plant use– food, medicine, fuel – partly through lack of timeand resources but also perhaps through fear of

112

“biopiracy” accusations. Guarino and Friis-Hansen(1995) present a model for a participatory approachto documenting associated knowledge and Engelset al. (2011) discuss the ethical questions that mustlbe addressed. Argumedo et al. (2011) argue thatlIndigenous Biocultural Heritage Territories (IBCHT),such as the “Potato Park” in Cuzco, Peru, offer apractical way of protecting plant genetic resourcesand associated knowledge systems. Based on theprinciple of Community Biodiversity Registers,traditional knowledge is documented in multimediadatabases, helping to protect against any possiblefuture patent applications from commercial organ-izations. More than 400 potato varieties have beenrepatriated from the International Potato Centre(CIP) to the Potato Park. Under the agreement, CIPhas a responsibility to “provide technical assistanceto the Park for the maintenance, monitoring andmultiplication of seed and management of the repa-triated genetic materials”. The Potato Park couldprovide a model for gene banks and local commu-nities to work together on the conservation of tradi-tional food plant diversity. Community seed banksare often successful in conserving locally importantspecies and varieties, but support is needed fromextension services and national gene banks in orderto scale up and have greater impact (DevelopmentFund, 2011). The draft updated Global Plan of Actionfor the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization ofPlant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture(FAO, 2011b) includes several objectives and researchactions that could foster joint efforts to conserveand sustainably use nutritionally important wild andunderutilized plant species.

6. Conclusions• Lesser known and underutilized food plants will

be needed to contribute to the sustainable diets ofthe future.

• The biocultural diversity of these food plants(plant genetic material and cultural knowledgeassociated with it) is required if the biocultural

advantage and optimal nutritional value are to begained from them.

• A holistic approach to conservation, which combines in situ and ex situ methods, is required.

• Combining these methods is difficult and requiresthe collaborative efforts of farmers, field workers,and scientists from the social and natural sciences.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank: TATRO Women’sGroup of Yala, Western Kenya and in particular theirChairlady, Mrs Monica Ouma, and Mr Paul Okong’o.We would also like to thank Tanis Gieselman forcompiling a working list of food plants, PatrickMuthoka, Alice Kingori and Peris Kariuki at the Na-tional Museums of Kenya for the ethnobotanicalmethodology used in the MGU-UPP Kenya project,Tiziana Ulian for additional information on the MGU-UPP project, and Tim Pearce for data on MSB col-lections. This work was supported by the RoyalBotanic Gardens, Kew, an interdisciplinary researchgrant from the UK MRC and ESRC (No. G0800123)and the Scoppettuolo family.

ReferencesArgumedo, A., Swiderska, K., Pimbert, M., Song, Y. , Pant, R.(2011). Implementing Farmers Rights under the FAO Interna-tional Treaty on PGRFA. Paper prepared for the Fourth Govern-ing Body of the International Treaty on PGRFA, BALI 14-18March 2011.

Bharucha, Z., Pretty, J. (2010). The roles and values of wildfoods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of theRoyal Society B: Biological Sciences 365:2913-26

CBD (2000) Agricultural biological diversity: review of phase 1of the programme of work and adoption of a multi-year workprogramme. COP 5 Decision V/5.

Development Fund (2011). Banking for the Future: Savings,Security and Seeds. Oslo, Norway. http://www.utviklings-fondet.no/filestore/TEST_CSB_ferdigrapport.pdf_liten.pdf

Engels, J.M.M., Dempewolf, H., Henson-Apollonio, V. (2011).Ethical Considerations in Agro-biodiversity Research, Collect-ing and Use. J. Agric Environ Ethics 24,107–126.

FAO (2010). The Second Report on the State of the World’s PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.

113

FAO (2011a). Climate Change and Food Security in the Contextof the Cancun Agreements. Submission by the Food and Agri-culture Organization of the United Nations to the 14th sessionof the AWG�LCA, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the BaliAction Plan.

FAO (2011b) Draft updated global plan of action for the conser-vation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources forfood and agriculture. CGRFA/WG-PGR-5/11/2 Rev.1

Golden, M.H.N. (2002). A Report on an Investigation into Recur-rent Epidemics of Pellagra in Kuito, Angola. Food and NutritionTechnical Assistance Project, Washington, D.C.

Goodland, R. (1997). Environmental sustainability in agriculture:diet matters. Ecological Economics 23:189-200

Grivetti, L.E & Ogle, B.M. (2000). Value of traditional foods inmeeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant con-nection. Nutrition Research Reviews 13:31-46

Guarino, L., Friis-Hansen, E. (1995). Collecting plant genetic re-sources and documenting associated indigenous knowledge inthe field: a participatory approach. In: L Guarino, V RamanathaRao and R Reid (editors). Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity. CABInternational, Wallingford, UK. pp. 345–365.

Hatløy, A., Torheim, L.E., Oshaug, A. (1998). Food variety - agood indicator of nutritional adequacy of the diet? A case studyfrom an urban area in Mali, West Africa. European Journal ofClinical Nutrition 52:891-8

Hawtin, G. (2011) “Whither genebanks?” presented at To Serveand Conserve: European Plant Genetic Resources Conference2011, Wageningen, NL http://www.epgrc2011.nl/docs/5-0945-Hawtin.pdf

Jarvis, A., Upadhyaya, H., Gowda, C.L.L., Aggarwal, P.K.,Fujisaka, S., Anderson, B. (2010). Climate Change and its effecton conservation and use of plant Genetic Resources for Foodand Agriculture and associated biodiversity for food security.Thematic Background Study. FAO Rome. 27 p.

Johns, T., Eyzaguirre, P.B. (2006). Linking biodiversity, diet andhealth in policy and practice. Proceedings of the NutritionSociety 65:182-9

Katz, S.H. (1987). Food and Biocultural Evolution: A model forthe Investigation of Modern Nutritional Problems. In NutritionalAnthropology, ed. F Johnston. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc.

Katz, S.H., Hediger, M.L., Valleroy, L.A. (1974). Traditional MaizeProcessing Techniques in the New World. Science 184:765-73Kunkel, G. (1984). Plants for Human Consumption. Koenigstein,West Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books

Lira, R., Casas, A., Rosas-López, R., Paredes-Flores, M., Pérez-Negrón, E., Rangel-Landa, S., Solís, L., Torres, I., & Dávila, P.(2009). Traditional Knowledge and Useful Plant Richness in theTehuacán–Cuicatlán Valley, Mexico. Economic Botany, 63(3),271-287.

Martin, G.J. (1995) Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual. People and

Plants Conservation Manuals, Volume 1. Chapman and Hall, London.McCullough, M.L., Feskanich, D., Stampfer, M.J., Giovannucci,E.L., Rimm, E.B., (2002). Diet quality and major chronic diseaserisk in men and women: moving toward improved dietary guid-ance. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76:1261-71

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems andhuman well-being: biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC.,World Resources Institute.

Muthoka, P., Wagura, A., Kariuki, P., Kirika, P., Gaya, H., Mbithe,C., Mbale, M. (2010) Selected Useful Plant Species of Tharaka– Kenya: A Guide to Seed Collection, Propagation and Use.National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi.

Nyamwamu, B., Bosibori, E., Maundu, P., Kibet, S., McBurney,R.P. (2005). Needs Assessment with TATRO Women's Group inWestern Kenya for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilisationof Traditional Food Plants. National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi.

Purvis, G., Anderson, A., Baars, J-R., Bolger, T., Breen, J., (2009).AG-BIOTA – Monitoring, Functional Significance and Managementfor the Maintenance and Economic Utilisation of Biodiversity inthe Intensively Farmed Landscape: STRIVE Report Series No.21. Wexford, Ireland: Environmental Protection Agency.

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (2008). 'Difficult' Seeds Project.Retrieved May 16, 2011 from:http://www.kew.org/science-re-search-data/kew-in-depth/difficult-seeds/index.htm.

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (2010). Seed Information Database(SID). Version 7.1. Retrieved May 16, 2011 from:http://data.kew.org/sid/

Savige, G.S. (2002). Can food variety add years to your life? 2ndSanitarium International Nutrition Symposium, pp. S637-S41.Melbourne, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Asia

Slattery, M.L., Berry, T.D., Potter, J., Caan, B. (1997). Dietdiversity, diet composition, and risk of colon cancer (UnitedStates). Cancer Causes & Control 8:872-82

U.K. Food Standards Agency (2009). Nutrition Essentials.http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/healthydiet/nutritionessentials/

Ulijaszek, S.J., Strickland, S.S. (1993). Nutritional Adaptation.In Nutritional Anthropology Proespects and perspectives, p.176. London: Smith-Gordon & Co.

Wahlqvist, M.L., Lo, C.S., Myers, K.A. (1989). Food variety is as-sociated with less macrovascular disease in those with type IIdiabetes and their healthy controls. J Am Coll Nutr 8:515-23

WHO (Europe) (2003). Food based dietary guidelines in the WHOEuropean Region. Rep. EUR/03/5045414 E79832, World HealthOrganization, Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark

Wisemann, D., Hoddinott, J., Aberman, N-L., Ruel, M. (2006).Validation of Food Frequency and Dietary Diversity as ProxyIndicators of Household Food Security. Final report submittedto the World Food Programme, Rome., United Nations WorldFood Programme Via C.G. Viola 68/70, Parco de’ Medici, 00148,Rome, Italy

114

117

CCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAPPPPPPTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR 3333333333CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEE SSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDIIIIEEEESSSSSSSS::: BBBBBBRRRRRIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGG BBBBIIIIOOOODDDDIIVVVVEEEERRRRRSSSSSIIIIITTTTTTYYY TTOOOO TTTTHHEE PPPLLAATTTTEEEE

BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABILITYOF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ FOODS AND DIETSHarriet V. KuhnleinCentre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment (CINE),McGill University, Montreal, Canada

118

119

AbstractIndigenous Peoples living in their rural homelandsand intact ecosystems retain a vast knowledge ofbiodiversity in food resources. Living in historicalcontinuity over thousands of years implicitly rec-ognizes the sustainability of their local food sys-tem. However, recent stresses to cultures andecosystems, globalization of industrially producedfoods, and simplification of diets have createdcommonalities for Indigenous Peoples for severefinancial poverty, discrimination, disadvantage andchallenges to nutrition and health. This reportsummarizes a ten-year programme of researchand health promotion with 12 cultures of Indige-nous Peoples in different parts of the world. Fol-lowing methods development for documentationof local food systems of rural Indigenous Peoples,research highlighted a vast diversity in foodspecies and their patterns of use. Dietary meas-ures were used to evaluate improved use of localfood resources that were emphasized in pro-grammes and policy developments to sustainablyimprove diets and food and nutrition security inthese areas. Effective cross-cutting strategieswere participatory decision-making for researchand intervention activities, focus on locally avail-able cultural food species, capacity developmentand networking, educational activities with youth,and use of media to strengthen local perceptions oflocal food qualities. The interventions are on-going, and several have been successful in scalingup their activities to other communities in the re-gions. Addressing threats to cultural and ecosys-tem sustainability and improving access to localtraditional food will improve use of biodiverse foodresources by Indigenous Peoples, enhance dietaryquality, and improve sustainable food and nutritionsecurity..1. IntroductionIndigenous Peoples are recognized by the UnitedNations as having historical continuity with ances-

tral territory and society, and as stewards of vastareas of biodiversity in their rural homelands.There are more than 370 million Indigenous Peoplesin 90 countries, who speak more than 4 000 lan-guages (Bartlett et al., 2007; UNPFII, 2009). Sus-tainability of a local indigenous diet is presumed if aculture has occupied a territory for a very long timein harmony with nature, respecting and learningfrom the natural world and the bounty it provides tosustain community life and cultural ways of know-ing and doing. If a culture survived through historyto the present day, the diet was necessarily nutri-tionally complete; although recognition is given tothe constant change and evolution experienced innatural ecosystems.

Our programme has been especially significant inits recognition that Indigenous Peoples in both de-veloped and developing countries are often the mostat risk populations within nations for issues relatedto both undernutrition and overnutrition, becausethey often experience the most severe financialpoverty and disparities in health (Gracey and King,2009; Reading, 2009). The transition to oversimpli-fication of diets away from food resource diversitygenerated by healthy ecosystems is a global phe-nomenon that especially affects Indigenous Peoplesdependent on ecosystems that are under stress(UNPFII, 2009).

In this context our research has focused on under-standing the foods and diets of Indigenous Peoplesin rural territories, and the treasures of knowledgethese hold. Specifically, we focused on 12 long-evolved cultures in defined ecosystems in differentparts of the world. Our objective has been to inquireinto the food biodiversity, to understand the uniquespecies and subspecies/varieties/cultivars knownwith traditional knowledge and how these continueto be cultivated, hunted, fished or gathered and thenprepared and appreciated with cultural knowledgeand techniques. The overall goal is to guide the use

120

of this knowledge by communities for nutrition andhealth promotion activities that improve wellness.

2. MethodsUsing participatory research methods createdthrough the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutri-tion and Environment at McGill University (CINE),Canada (Sims and Kuhnlein, 2003), staff from CINEin cooperation with the Nutrition Division of the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations(FAO) developed a methodology with partners inAsian settings. This provided a framework to foodsystems documentation, structure to processes forscientific nomenclature, laboratory studies on nutri-ent composition, and qualitative methods to under-stand local food meanings and use (Kuhnlein et al.,2006). Subsequently, in cooperation with the TaskForce on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Nu-trition of the International Union of Nutritional Sci-ences (IUNS) the methodology was applied andadapted within 12 unique cultural case studies of In-digenous Peoples residing in different rural ecosys-tems in various global regions: Awajún (Peru), Ainu(Japan), Baffin Inuit (Canada), Bhil (India), Dalit(India, Gwich’in (Canada), Igbo (Nigeria), Ingano(Colombia), Karen (Thailand), Maasai (Kenya), Nux-alk (Canada), and Pohnpei (Federated States of Mi-cronesia). In each area, communities of IndigenousPeople collaborated with in-country academic part-ners and CINE for research in two phases: 1) docu-mentation of the food system including use of bothlocal traditional food and imported market-soldfood, food species and food component data; and 2)use of this knowledge to implement health promo-tion interventions using culturally sensitive and en-vironmentally relevant elements of the local foodsystems. Team members communicated electroni-cally and team leaders met annually over a ten yearperiod (2001–2010) to discuss methods, results andstrategies for implementing health promotion poli-cies and activities (Figure 1) (Kuhnlein et al., 2006).Funding from a variety of sources was obtained todevelop and implement interventions to improve

Figure 1. Case study partners meeting in Bellagio, Italy, in 2008to discuss research process, results and health promotionstrategies (kp studios).

dietary intake and health by using elements of thediverse food systems of Indigenous Peoples in sev-eral of the case studies. Interventions were createdwith participatory methods with local teams fromcase studies working with the Nuxalk, Dalit,Gwich’in, Inuit, Ingano, Awajún, Karen and Pohnpei.The Ainu developed an education intervention thatstressed cultural revival and traditional knowledgetaught to youth.

3. ResultsEach case study completed a report of their findingsand prepared a chapter for a book published anddistributed widely by FAO (Kuhnlein et al., 2009). Inaddition, several colourful food-system posters inrecognition of the International Decades of theWorld’s Indigenous Peoples were widely distributedby FAO (FAO and CINE, 2004-06). Eight 20-minutedocumentary films were created and are posted freeon the internet (KP Studios, 2009).

3.1 Diversity of species documented and variationin extent of useAs anticipated, there is an astonishing diversity ofspecies known and used, with up to 380 speciesused annually within one culture. There is also widevariation in the extent of use of these foods, varyingfrom less than 10 percent to up to 95 percent of dailyenergy provided by local species in the ecosystem

121

(Table 1).

Indigenous Group Energy % No. of species/varieties

Awajún (Peru) 93 223Bhil (India) 59 95Dalit (India) 43 329Gwich’in (Canada) 33 50Igbo (Nigeria) 96 220Ingano (Colombia) 47 160Inuit (Canada) 41 79Karen (Thailand) 85* 387Maasai (Kenya) 6 35Nuxalk (Canada) 30* 67Pohnpei (Micronesia) 27 381* Estimated for adults.

Table 1. Adult dietary energy as local traditional food and num-ber of species/varieties in the food system.(Reproduced with permission from: Kuhnlein HV, in: Kuhnlein,Erasmus, Spigelski, 2009, pg 5)

Ways of cultivating, harvesting, processing and preparingthe foods for families were shown to be fascinating.However, many species/varieties documented didnot have scientific identifications and nutrition com-position analyses completed (Kuhnlein et al., 2009).

As shown in Table 1 the locally used food speciesnumbers varied considerably depending on theecosystem. Team members reported a low of 35food species used in the arid, drought-prone zonesof Kenya where Maasai reside, and up to more than380 unique food species/varieties documented fortropical rain forests. The Karen in Thailand (387species) and Pohnpei culture of the FederatedStates of Micronesia (381 species/varieties), Dalit inZaheerabad region of India (329 species), Awajún inPeru (223 species) and Igbo of Nigeria (220 species)all had extensive, complex food systems and richcultural traditions using them. However, the extentof use of species for providing daily energy con-sumption also varied (Table 1), with up to 100 per-cent of adult energy from local food resources for

the Awajún and Igbo. Research with the Karen, Bhil,Maasai, Pohnpei and Dalit showed that commercial(or donated) refined staples replaced traditionalfoods in the diet; the Canadian Gwich’in, Inuit andNuxalk peoples were using less than 45 percent ofenergy as traditional species with the commercialfoods derived primarily from refined wheat flour, fatsand sugar. The Ainu in Japan used very little tradi-tional food in their daily diet, and could not recog-nize all the available species or record the extent ofenergy consumed from them (Kuhnlein et al., 2009).

3.2 Indigenous Peoples’ food and nutrition inter-ventions for health promotion and policyEight interventions were developed with diverseresources from within the communities as well asfrom external sources. Funding and logisticconstraints necessitated work with unique smallpopulations where meaningful control groups were notavailable. This led to before- and after-interventionresearch designs using both qualitative and quanti-tative measures. Special considerations were neededto build local cultural pride, develop cross-sectoralplanning and action, and create energetic and en-thusiastic advocates for community goodwill. All in-terventions required several years to completion withevaluation documentation, even while the interven-tions were sustained and continued to build healthydiets in communities (Kuhnlein et al., in press).

3.3 Cross-cutting themes of interventionsLeadership within the nine interventions agreed thatactivities targeting children and youth were crucial tobuild long-term change into community wellness.Not only were activities built to improve nutrition andhealth of young people, but to create the culturalmorale and knowledge based in culture and naturefor their learning in formal and informal settings.Traditional wildlife animal and plant harvest andagricultural activities based in local traditional cropswere important in youth learning in case studies con-ducted with the Baffin Inuit, Gwich’in, Nuxalk, Inga,Pohnpei, Karen and Dalit. Ainu youth experienced

122

classroom activities in traditional food preparation.

Broad-based education activities took place in inter-vention communities that stressed the local culturalfood diversity and its benefits for understanding theecosystem as well as for health in harvest, use andhuman nutrition. First steps were to use knowledgegenerated in Phase 1 to develop positive attitudesabout local traditional food so that case study lead-ers could then foster behaviours at all levels to in-crease use of these foods. In the Pohnpei casestudy, for example, agricultural leaders providedtraining in agricultural practices and providedseedlings and young trees for planting in yards ad-jacent to community homes. In the Karen casestudy, school children were taught how to harvestfrom the forest, and also how to plant, cultivate andharvest their local traditional agricultural crops invillage areas, which was followed by popular activ-ities of harvesting and preparation of meals for theirfamilies. In the Gwich’in area, youth in middleschool and high school prepared dried caribou meatand shared it with the elders in their community;and in the Inuit project elders made radio pro-grammes that were shared for learning with youthin their school classes. These are just some of theexamples showing how communities created theirown meaningful activities.

Engagement with government offices was also animportant cross-cutting theme. While some casestudy partners did not have regular communicationwith government offices, others did. When the com-munication was fruitful, it contributed a lot to the in-tervention. For example the Pohnpei case studyworked well with ministries responsible for agricul-ture, health, education, and the public media to fur-ther their goals. People knew each other andconnected easily. This was possible, in part, becauseof the pro-active leadership of the project, but alsobecause both the state and national governmentswere in the same town on the same island in theFederated States of Micronesia. Another example is

the good relationships the Karen project had withthe Ministry of Health in Kanchanaburi Province, aswell as the local border control officers who helpedwith activities in the schools. There was also goodattention given by the Thai royal family to the proj-ect, which raised project profile with governmentagencies throughout Thailand. On the other hand,government offices are not always helpful to In-digenous Peoples if there is conflict over land orother resources and if there is systematic disad-vantage based on discrimination; such discrimina-tion is often manifest in lack of access to healthcarein rural areas where Indigenous Peoples live.

Throughout all intervention projects committedcommunity leaders and academics became effectiveadvocates dedicated to the success of the projectand responsible for developing the capacity-buildingactivities and empowerment of residents to use thelocal food systems based in culture to their best ad-vantage. Capacity-building was the hallmark of theDalit project in the Zaheerabad district of Hyderabad,India, where Dalit women were given opportunitiesfor education, especially in media productions, andin finding education opportunities for their children.This resulted not only in increased literacy, but inbuilding self-worth and commitment to using andshowcasing their unique foods in many differentways, such as in culinary food fairs, computer cafes,and film festivals. All projects engaged project as-sistants to help with food activities and the researchfoundations of the interventions. A popular activityin most case studies was creation of photo-en-hanced information books on the food system toshare in schools, public places and to be distributedto village homes. Local assistants, primarily women,were leaders in networking, and in helping others to“learn by doing”, and to gain participatory agree-ments on how to best move the projects forward.The best successes occurred in bringing togetherthe community’s social capital in the form ofhunters, farmers, fishers, elders, political leaders,teachers and spiritual leaders to advance from the

123

“bottom up” the local cultural principles of what isgood food and how to harvest and best use it.

None of the interventions had focus in single nutrientsolutions to single nutrient inadequacies. Rather, thestrategies employed worked to improve food provi-sioning from local sources, and to improve dietary bio-diversity for all age groups. All projects were in ruralareas without access to large markets that stressedindustrial food products. When market (store bought)food was discussed, it was in the context of how to in-crease the demand and supply of nutrient-rich, goodquality foods with minimal processing.

4. DiscussionWith positive attitudes and confidence that the localfood is credibly healthy, local networks in these com-munities of Indigenous Peoples have developed awide range of activities to create community em-powerment for sustained use and food and nutritionsecurity. However, sustainability of these foods forIndigenous Peoples depends on cultural and ecosys-tem sustainability. It depends on continued culturalexpression; for example, to use food harvesting andappreciation as an avenue in youth education and fit-ness training, as well as guiding understanding oftheir natural surroundings. It also depends onecosystem conservation to protect the food provisioninglands, waters, forests and other essential resources.

Measures of intervention programme success withsmall populations of culturally defined IndigenousPeoples preclude measurements that depend onlarge sample sizes and control groups. With theexception of improved underweight, changes inanthropometric measures, whether to improvestunting or reduce obesity, were not found withinshort time periods, as expected. More importantly,the root causes of being “big” or “small/short” wereidentified and addressed with expectation for long-term improvements in general community well-ness. Measures of improved financial security werefound within our case studies to be less important

than perceptions of improved community wellness.In fact, in the Thai Karen case study, leaders ex-pressed that “food is a part of happiness”, and thatit is meaningless to try to measure it with money.

Many policies that fostered improved food and nu-trition security were developed, and are discussedmore fully in Kuhnlein et al. (in press). It is crucialto maintain databases of health statistics that aredisaggregated by culture and ethnic groups withinnations to identify areas of health risks and totrack change. Only by knowing the risks can theybe addressed with multisectoral governmentagencies which logically include those responsiblefor health, human rights, education, agriculture,culture, commerce, environment and its conserva-tion, energy and transportation – ministries thatneed to form cooperative partnerships to protectecosystems and cultures against degradation andloss of biodiversity in both rural and other popula-tion areas where Indigenous Peoples live. Re-specting and protecting indigenous knowledge andthe peoples who hold this knowledge can lead tobetter understanding of research policies to usethe genetic potential for crops to become resistantto pests, heat and drought.

It is well recognized that Indigenous Peoples expe-rience challenges in expressing their human rightto adequate food (Knuth, 2009). One serious chal-lenge is that of climate change, which is expected tocontinue and threaten many ecosystems where In-digenous Peoples live. This then impacts the humanrights of Indigenous Peoples who lack the physical,technological, economic and social resources tocope with resulting ecosystem damage which causesrisk to biodiversity and sustainability of the diets thatcan be provisioned from it (Damman, 2010).

5. ConclusionsIn all areas where our programme has been in effect,there are several threats to cultural sustainability andto ecosystem sustainability, which in turn threaten the

124

biodiversity of sustainable diets of the resident In-digenous Peoples. Each case study and its interventionhave impressive stories of challenges and successesthat can inspire communities of Indigenous Peopleseverywhere to become proactive in protecting theirfood systems. By documenting these unique food re-sources and their cultural and ecosystem require-ments, we recognize the imperatives to protect thesetreasures of human knowledge to benefit IndigenousPeoples and all humankind now and into the future.

Understanding the challenges and successes of im-proving access to local food and improving dietary in-takes and food and nutrition security of ruralIndigenous Peoples provides important lessons. Whileit can be supposed that strategies with any group ofdisadvantaged people will bring success within a set-ting of Indigenous Peoples, this is not necessarily sounless the issues of rural inaccessibility, serious dis-crimination, and respect and protection of culturesand ecosystems that provide wellness are addressed.On the other hand, it is very likely that health promo-tion lessons based in local food systems that resonatewith Indigenous Peoples will find a measure of mean-ing for practitioners who address public health in anycommunity of disadvantaged people.

6. AcknowledgementsThe many hundreds of scholars and communityleaders and residents who contributed to the re-search and its publications represented in this re-port are sincerely appreciated. Special recognitionis extended to Chief Bill Erasmus of the Dene Nationand Assembly of First Nations in Canada for his con-tinuing inspiration, encouragement and support.The extensive collaboration with Dr BarbaraBurlingame is acknowledged with thanks, as are thecollaborators and project leaders associated withthe International Union of Nutritional Sciences TaskForce on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems andNutrition. Special appreciation is extended to theCanadian Institutes of Health Research and TheRockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio Center.

ReferencesBartlett, J.G., Madariega-Vignudo, L., O’Neil, J.D. & Kuhnlein,H.V. (2007) Identifying Indigenous peoples for health researchin a global context: a review of perspectives and challenges.International Journal of Circumpolar Health 66(4):287-307.

Damman, S. (2010). Indigenous Peoples, rainforests protectionand climate change. SCN News No. 38: 63-68. United NationsSystem SCN, Geneva.

FAO and CINE (2004-6). Indigenous Foods Posters.www.fao.org/infoods/biodiversity/posters_en.stm

Gracey, M. & King, M. (2009). Indigenous health Part 1: Determinants and disease patterns. Lancet, 374(9683): 65-75.

Knuth, L. (2009). The right to adequate food and indigenouspeoples. How can the right to food benefit indigenous peoples?Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.56 pp. (available athttp://www.fao.org/righttofood/publi09/ind_people.pdf)

KP Studios. (2009). www.indigenousnutrition.org

Kuhnlein, H.V., Smitasiri, S., Yesudas, S., Bhattacharjee, L., Li,D.,S Ahmed, S.& Collaborators. (2006). Documenting Tradi-tional Food Systems for Indigenous Peoples: International CaseStudies. Guidelines for Procedures.http://www.mcgill.ca/cine/research/global/

Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B., Creed-Kanashiro, H., Englberger,L., Okeke, E., Turner, N., Allen, L., Bhattacharjee, L., et al.(2006). Indigenous Peoples’ food systems for health: Findinginterventions that work. Public Health Nutrition. 9(8):1013-1019.

Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B. & Spigelski, D. (2009) Indigenouspeoples’ Food Systems: the Many Dimensions of Culture,Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. UnitedNations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. Also available on line athttp://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0370e/i0370e00.htm

Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D. & Burlingame, B. (inpress, 2011). Indigenous Peoples Food Systems and Wellbeing:Interventions and Policies for Healthy Communities. UnitedNations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Reading, J. (2009). The crisis of chronic disease among Aborig-inal Peoples: a challenge for public health, population healthand social policy. Victoria, University of Victoria. 185 pp.

Sims, J. & Kuhnlein, H.V. (2003) Indigenous Peoples Partici-patory Health Research. Planning and management. Prepar-ing Research Agreements. Geneva: World HealthOrganization. 35 pp.www.who.int/ethics/indigenous_peoples/en/index1.html

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2009.State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP_web.pdf, (page 4- the concept of Indigenous Peoples; pages 155-187 Cunningham M – health)

126REVISITING THE VITAMIN A FIASCO:GOING LOCAL IN MICRONESIALois EnglbergerIsland Food Community of pohnpei Colonia, Pohnpei FederatedStates of Micronesia

127

AbstractThe term “vitamin A (VA) fiasco” refers to the globalprogramme for universal VA supplementation,which has been challenged for its validity and wisdom.The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) situationpresents an example where VA supplementationhas vied with food-based approaches for resources.The FSM has experienced many lifestyle changessince the 1970s, including a shift to imported processedfoods and neglect of traditional foods. This led toserious health problems, including VA deficiency,diabetes, heart disease and cancer. In 1998 effortswere initiated to identify FSM foods that mightalleviate VA deficiency. This led to discovering ayellow/orange-fleshed banana variety, Karat,containing 2 230 μg/100 g of the provitamin Acarotenoid beta-carotene, 50 times more than inwhite-fleshed bananas. Other Micronesian yellow-and orange-fleshed carotenoid-rich varieties of ba-nana, giant swamp taro, breadfruit and pandanuswere later identified, also containing rich contentsof vitamins and minerals. In a global health studyled by the Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutritionand Environment, the Pohnpei, FSM traditional foodsystem was documented. A two-year community-based, interagency, intervention was implemented,focused on increasing local food production andconsumption. Multiple methods were used, includ-ing awareness, workshops, horticulture, cookingclasses, mass media, posters, print materials,postal stamps, youth clubs, school activities, farm-ers’ fairs, competitions, email and slogans: “Go Yel-low” and “Let’s Go Local”. Results showed anincrease in banana and taro consumption, varietiesconsumed, and improved attitudes towards localfood. Carotenoid-rich banana varieties includingKarat, which had not previously been marketed, be-came regular market items. Local food take-outsnot previously sold became common sale items.The campaign stimulated great interest as anawareness success in FSM and throughout the re-gion, stimulating interest to applying this approachto other Pacific islands. The campaign could, how-

ever, have a greater impact with greater allocationof resources to this food-based approach.

1. Introduction1.1 Vitamin A fiascoThe term “the vitamin A fiasco” as discussed byLatham (2010) refers to the large global programmefor universal VA supplementation, which has beenchallenged for its validity and wisdom. The rationalof this programme was to decrease overall childmortality, but the article shows the weak scientificbasis for this. No study has shown the proof of suc-cess of the vitamin A supplementation programmes.The programme has utilized huge amounts of fundsin 100 countries. As funds were allocated to the vita-min A programme, this blocked food-based ap-proaches for improving vitamin A status. This hasalso taken place in Micronesia, where there are lim-ited resources plus the mentality that once the vita-min A supplements have been given, the problem hasbeen dealt with.This paper presents a success story of food. Theareas covered are:• How we first carried out food composition studies

on Micronesian foods and identified yellow-and orange-fleshed varieties of local foods rich inprovitamin A carotenoids and other nutrients thatcould be promoted to alleviate the serious problems of vitamin A deficiency and other healthproblems in Micronesia.

• How we developed our food-based “Go Local”programme with the aim to improve nutrition andhealth, and showing success in a target community.

1.2 Background to the situation in the FederatedStates of MicronesiaThe Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), totalpopulation of 102 624, comprises four states: Pohn-pei, Chuuk, Yap and Kosrae, altogether with 607 is-lands (FSM, 2010).Since the 1970s, there have been great lifestyle anddietary changes in Micronesia. The traditional localfoods include the starchy staples, including bread-

128

fruit, banana, taro, yam and pandanus, along withcoconut, fish and seafood, and various fruits. Therehas been a great diversity of these staple foods. Forexample, there are 133 breadfruit, 171 yam, banana,and 24 giant swamp taro varieties (Raynor, 1991). However in recent years there has been a shift tonutrient-poor imported processed foods, such asrefined white rice, flour, sugar, fatty meats andother processed foods (Englberger et al., 2003d). Imported white rice, which is often not enriched, hasbecome a major staple in the diet. This has changedthe nutrient intake of the population as rice alsocontains no provitamin A carotenoids and is low infibre, whereas local staples contain at least somecarotenoids and are rich in fibre. Previously therewas also little known about the differences in nutri-ent content between the many varieties of the sta-ple crops as few food composition studies had beencarried out on FSM foods.The shift from traditional foods to importedprocessed foods and lifestyle changes in FSM led toa serious problem of vitamin A deficiency, whichcauses vision problems, increased infection andmortality. The first documentation of vitamin A de-ficiency in FSM was in Chuuk (Lloyd-Puryear et al.,1989). Of 60 randomly selected children, 12 percenthad night blindness and 5 percent had Bitot’s spots,far exceeding the World Health Organization cut-offsfor a public health problem (WHO, 1995). That studymaintained that vitamin A deficiency was an emerg-ing problem as there was no term for night blind-ness in the local language and old people did notknow of the problem. Following the identification of the problem in Chuuk,studies were done in the other three states, show-ing that over half of FSM under-5-year olds had vi-tamin A deficiency (Yamamura, 2004).To alleviate the vitamin A deficiency problem, greenleafy vegetables were first promoted as these veg-etables are easy to grow and are rich in beta-carotene, the most important of the provitamin Acarotenoids. Once consumed, beta-carotene is con-verted to vitamin A in the body. However, interviews

with local members of the community revealed thatgreen leafy vegetables had not been consumed pre-viously as traditional foods, were not well acceptedand were considered as food for the pigs. It was clear that if people had not consumed greenleafy vegetables in the past and did not have vitaminA deficiency, there must have been some traditionalfoods that had protected people against that healthproblem. This question led to the study to identifythose foods that protected Micronesians from vita-min A deficiency in the past and could also alleviatethe problem currently.

2. MethodsOverall an ethnographic participatory community-based and interagency approach was taken in as-sessing the foods, documenting the traditionalfood system and gaining insight on how to improvethe situation. As vitamin A deficiency was diag-nosed in the 1990s, efforts were first made in iden-tifying local foods that are rich in provitamin Acarotenoids or vitamin A and would alleviate vitaminA deficiency. The results of the analyses were then used to pro-mote the local foods and an overall approach wasdeveloped to awaken interest in local foods and thetraditional food system. This was helped greatly bythe involvement with a global health study led bythe Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition andEnvironment. Pohnpei was selected as one of the12 case studies in the CINE programme for docu-menting and promoting traditional food systems.Specific guidelines were followed (Kuhnlein et al.,2005).

3. Results and discussion3.1 Analyses of local foodsKarat, a yellow-fleshed variety of banana, wasanalysed and found rich in beta-carotene, the mostimportant of the provitamin A carotenoids. Foodsrich in provitamin A carotenoids protect against vi-tamin A deficiency (McLaren and Frigg, 2001). Karatcontained up to 2 230 μg beta-carotene/100 g (En-

129

glberger et al., 2006). An orange-fleshed banana,Utin Iap, contained 8 508 μg beta-carotene. This com-pares to 30 μg beta-carotene for common banana. Itwas shown that the carotenoid content was greater inthose varieties with the greater yellow or orange fleshcolouration. This led to the “Yellow Varieties” cam-paign and the slogan “Go Yellow”. Both sloganshelped to brand the movement and provide further in-terest. A series of studies were conducted to analyse otherbanana, giant swamp taro, breadfruit and pandanusvarieties, with potential for rich carotenoid contentdue to the yellow or orange flesh colouration. Theresults showed that the varieties with greater yellowor orange flesh colouration did have a greatercarotenoid concentration (Englberger et al.,2003a,b,c, 2008, 2009a, 2010d). These foods werealso shown to be rich in vitamins, minerals includ-ing zinc, calcium, iron, and fibre.Epidemiological studies also show that carotenoid-rich foods protect against cancer, heart disease anddiabetes (WCRF/AICR, 2007; Kritchevsky, 1999;Coyne et al., 2005). These non-communicable dis-eases have become the major health problems in theFSM. For example, in Pohnpei, 32 percent of adultsnow are afflicted with diabetes (WHO, 2008). Thus,the yellow-fleshed, carotenoid-rich foods and vari-eties can play a double role. They can help to protectagainst vitamin A deficiency disorders and also helpagainst these non-communicable diseases.

3.2 Formation of a non-governmental organizationThe Island Food Community of Pohnpei (IFCP) waschartered as a non-governmental organization in2004, and adopted the Go Local slogan in 2005. Withthe formation of an organization devoted entirely tothe promotion and research of local foods, impor-tant progress was made in going forward with localfood promotion.

3.3 GO LOCAL sloganOne of the important parts of the intervention to in-crease production and consumption of local foods

was the reviving of the slogan “Go Local”, introducedfirst by a government officer Bermin Weilbacher inthe 1980s (Englberger et al., 2010c). As many peoplelwere already familiar with the term and it capturedthe many broad aspects of what local foods involve, itcaught on quite quickly. It provided “project brand-ing” and gave a unifying aspect to the campaign.The term refers to a food-based approach to im-proving health, and increasing food production andconsumption. The term was changed slightly to“Let’s go local” in order to soften the term andmake it a group activity. Billboards, t-shirts, songsand promotional pens were made to present theslogan and it became well known and popular.The term also refers to many other important ben-efits. This led to the development of an acronym“CHEEF” to describe the chief or many benefits oflocal food. These are Culture, Health, Environment,Economics and Food security. Thus, the campaignnot only encouraged to “go local” but also empha-sized the many reasons on why to go local.

3.4 Involvement with the CINE-led global healthprojectAs part of the global health study led by the Centrefor Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment,the traditional food system in Pohnpei, FSM, wasdocumented (Englberger et al., 2009b) and pro-moted (Englberger et al., 2010a). A target commu-nity was selected, Mand Community, along withthese criteria: around 500 in population, rural, ac-cessible and willingness to participate. The firstphase focused on the documentation (around threemonths) of the traditional food system, which isdocumented in Chapter 6 of the published book byCINE and Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (Kuhnlein et al., 2009; Englberger etal., 2009b).The second phase focused on the implementationof a two-year community-based, interagency, par-ticipatory intervention, aiming at increasing localfood production and consumption. Multiple methods were used, including awareness,

130

workshops, horticulture, cooking classes, massmedia, posters, print materials, on postal stamps,youth clubs, school activities, farmers’ fairs, com-petitions, email (Englberger et al., 2010b), slogans:“Go Yellow” and “Let’s Go Local”, and the use oflocal food policies. The second phase also included the evaluation(Kaufer et al., 2010).The project showed these successes of promotionof local food:• Increase in the frequency of consumption of

banana and giant swamp taro.• Increase in the number of banana varieties planted.• Increase in dietary diversity, in particular,

vegetables.• A positive change in attitude towards local foods

in the community.

3.5 Other documentations of island foodsTwo chapters, one on banana and one on taro, werewritten for the book titled “Ethnobotany of Pohnpei:Plants, People and Island Culture” (Balick et al.,2009), highlighting the rich content of the many va-rieties of banana and taro. The book also high-lighted our involvement in the CINE-led case studyand the “go local” campaign.

3.6 Local food policiesLocal food policies were defined broadly and in-cluded community policies to use only local foods atmeetings and workshops held by the Island FoodCommunity of Pohnpei and by the community inMand. Later this further developed into a policy thatMand Community adopted to ban soft drinks in theircommunity meetings. Other Pohnpei communitiesalso adopted bans on soft drinks in their events, in-cluding the Pingelapese Peoples’ Organization, Inc.and the Kosrae Kolonia Congregational Church. Anational policy was established with the FSM Pres-ident signing a food security proclamation that allFSM national events use local food at their events.In order to help promote rare yellow- and orange-fleshed banana varieties, a general policy was also

adopted by IFCP to buy just those varieties for theirmeetings and events, in place of the white-fleshedbanana variety that is most commonly consumed inPohnpei as a ripe eating banana.

4. Lessons learnedOur lessons learned were many. Some of these were:• Community- and interagency-based approach

was important.• Walk the Talk: To promote local foods, it was

essential to use local foods.• Repetition: Messages needed to be repeated

many times. • Mass media (radio, newspaper, email, videos,

television) helped a lot.• Face-to-face encounters were also important.• Multiple methods: It is important to use a variety

of methods.• Slogans (Go Local and Go Yellow): These are

important for branding and unity.• Scientific approach: Community people wanted

a scientific approach.• Food analysis was critical to establishing the

value of their local food.• Assessment and evaluation of the work was

important to show progress.• Acknowledgement of everyone’s involvement

increased motivation and interest.• Local food policies: These were important and are

still being further developed.

Many people were not aware of how their diet andphysical activity affected their health, and innova-tive methods were needed to help them gain thisunderstanding. On the other hand, many peoplewere more interested in the other values of localfoods. Protecting cultural identity through thepreservation of the traditional food system was veryimportant for many people. The economic, environmental and food securitybenefits were important as well to help put forth thebroad benefits that locally grown food provide. Theuse of the CHEEF acronym was very helpful for ex-

131

plaining why we should “go local”, namely for Culture,Health, Environment, Economics and Food security. In addition, and perhaps most important of all, itwas important that the leaders of the activity werepassionate about their work, that the activitiesplanned were fun and that people carrying out theactivities also be involved in planning them.

5. ConclusionsTo conclude, a food-based approach has many ad-vantages to vitamin A supplementation in alleviatingvitamin A deficiency in Micronesia. Heed should betaken of the paper by Latham et al. (2010) referringlto the universal vitamin A supplementation pro-gramme as a “fiasco” and the need to question itswisdom and validity. Vitamin supplementation pro-grammes can block food-based approaches. It should always be remembered that whole foodscan provide a wealth of nutrients, whereas supple-mentation programmes may focus only on one or afew nutrients. Food-based approaches and localfoods are important for many benefits. The “CHEEF”acronym stresses the benefits of local food, whichare: Culture, Health, Environment, Economics andFood security. So let’s support food-based ap-proaches and let’s go local!

AcknowledgementsWarm thanks are extended to our many partnersand support agencies, including the FSM Nationaland State Governments, College of Micronesia-FSM, Mand and other communities, V6AH Radio,Kaselehlie Press, local NGOs and businesses, USForestry/United States Department of Agriculture,Secretariat of Pacific Community, Center for In-digenous People’s Nutrition and Environment(CINE), GEF Small Grants Programme, Papa OlaLokahi, Pacific.German Regional Forestry Project,PATS Foundation, US Peace Corps Micronesia,Global Greengrants Fund, Bioversity International,CDC/UNICEF, Sight and Life, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Japan Embassy,Japanese JICA, Australia, New Zealand Embassy,

and German Embassy, University of Queensland,University of Adelaide, Emory University, Universityof Hawaii, University of Sydney, University of Ari-zona, Institute of Applied Sciences/University ofSouth Pacific, New York Botanical Garden, and Proj-ect Eden. Warm thanks are also given to ProfessorHarriet Kuhnlein for her review of the manuscript.

References

Balick, M.J. & Collaborators (2009). Ethnobotany of Pohnpei:Plants, People and Island Culture. Honolulu, University ofHawai’i Press.

Coyne, T., Ibiebele, T.I., Baade, P.D., Dobson, A., McClintock, C.,Dunn, S., Leonard, D., Shaw, J. (2005). Diabetes mellitus andserum carotenoids: findings of a population-based study inQueensland, Australia. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition82 (3), 685–693.

Englberger, L., Aalbersberg, W., Ravi, P., Bonnin, E., Marks,G.C., Fitzgerald, M.H., Elymore, J. (2003a) ‘Further analyses onMicronesian banana, taro, breadfruit and other foods for provi-tamin A carotenoids and minerals’, Journal of Food Composi-tion and Analysis, vol 16 (2), 219-236

Englberger, L., Aalbersberg, W., Fitzgerald, M.H., Marks, G.C.,Chand, K. (2003b) ‘Provitamin A carotenoid content of differentcultivars of edible pandanus fruit tectorius’, Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis, vol 16 (2), 237-247

Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Marks, G.C., Fitzgerald, M.H.(2003c) ‘Micronesian banana, taro, and other foods: newly rec-ognized sources of provitamin A and other carotenoids’, Jour-nal of Food Composition and Analysis, vol 16 (1), 3-19

Englberger, L., Marks, G.C., Fitzgerald, M.H. (2003d) ‘Insightson food and nutrition in the Federated States of Micronesia: areview of the literature’, Public Health Nutrition, vol 6 (1), 3-15

Englberger L, Schierle J, Aalbersberg W, Hofmann P,Humphries J, Huang A, Lorens A, Levendusky A, Daniells J,Marks GC, Fitzgerald MH (2006). Carotenoid and vitamin con-tent of Karat and other Micronesian banana cultivars. Interna-tional Journal of Food Science and Nutrition, 57, 399-418

Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Kraemer, K, Aalbersberg, W.,Dolodolotawake, U., Humphries, J., Graham, R., Reid, A.P.,Lorens, A., Albert, K., Levendusky, A., Johnson, E., Paul, Y., Sen-gebau, F. (2008) ‘Carotenoid and mineral content of Microne-sian giant swamp taro (Cyrtosperma) cultivars’, Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis, 21, 93-106

Englberger, L., Schierle, J., Hoffman, P, Lorens, A., Albert, K.,Levendusky, A., Paul, Y., Lickaneth, E., Elymore, A., Maddison,M., deBrum, I., Nemra, J., Alfred, J., Vander Velde, N., Krae-mer, K. (2009a) ‘Carotenoid and vitamin content of Micronesianatoll foods: pandanus (Pandanus tectorius) and garlic pear(Crataeva speciosa) fruit’, Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis, vol 22 (1), 1-8

Englberger L, Lorens A, Levendusky A, Pedrus P, Albert K, Hag-ilmai W, Paul Y, Nelber D, Moses P, Shaeffer S, Gallen M.(2009b) ‘Chapter 6: Documentation of the Traditional Food Sys-tem of Pohnpei’. p 109-138. In: Kuhnlein, H.V., Erasmus, B. andSpigelski,D. eds. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems: the ManyDimensions of Culture, Diversity and Environment for Nutritionand Health. FAO of the UN

Englberger, L., Kuhnlein, H.V., Lorens, A., Pedrus, P., Albert, K.,Currie, J., Pretrick, M., Jim, R., Kaufer, L. (2010a) ‘Pohnpei, FSMcase study in a global health project documents its local foodresources and successfully promotes local food for health’, Pa-cific Health Dialog, vol 16 (1), 121-128

Englberger, L., Lorens, A., Pretrick, M., Spegal, R., Falcam, I.(2010b) ‘ “Go Local” Island Food Network: Using email net-working to promote island foods for their health, biodiversity,and other “CHEEF” benefits’, Pacific Health Dialog, vol 16 (1),41-47

Englberger, L., Joakim, A., Larsen, K., Lorens, A., Yamada, L.(2010c) ‘Go local in Micronesia: Promoting the ‘CHEEF’ bene-fits of local foods’, Sight and Life Magazine 1/2010, 40-44

Englberger, L., Lorens, A. Pretrick, M., Raynor, B., Currie, J.,Corsi, A., Kaufer, L., Naik, R.I., Spegal, R., Kuhnlein, H. V.(2010d) Chapter 13: Approaches and Lessons Learned for Pro-moting Dietary Improvement in Pohnpei, Micronesia pp , in:Thompson, B. and Amoroso, L. eds. Combating MicronutrientDeficiencies: Food-based Approaches, Food and Agriculture Or-ganization of the United Nations

FSM Government, Office of Statistics, Budget and EconomicManagement. (2002) 2010 FSM-wide Census of Population andHousing. Preliminary Counts. Palikir, Pohnpei, FSM NationalGovernment.

Kaufer, L., Englberger, L., Cue, R., Lorens, A., Albert, K., Pe-drus, P, Kuhnlein, H.V. (2010) ‘Evaluation of a traditional foodfor health intervention in Pohnpei, Federated States of Mi-cronesia’, Pacific Health Dialog, vol 16, no1, pp61-73

Kritchevsky, S.B. (1999) ‘Beta-carotene, carotenoids and theprevention of coronary heart disease’, Journal of Nutrition, 129,5–8 .

Kuhnlein, H.V., Smitasiri, S., Yesudas, S., Bhattacharjee, L., Dan,L., Ahmed, S. (2005) Documenting traditional food systems ofIndigenous Peoples: International case studies. Guidelines forprocedures. Ste Anne de Bellevue, Centre for Indigenous Peo-ples’ Nutrition and Environment

Kuhnlein, H. V, Erasmus, B. Spigelski, D. eds. (2009). Indige-nous Peoples’ Food Systems: the Many Dimensions of Culture,Diversity and Environment for Nutrition and Health. Rome, Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Centreof Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and Environment.

Latham M. (2010) The great vitamin A fiasco. [Commentary]World Nutrition, May 2010, 1, 1: 12-45. Obtainable atwww.wphna.org

Lloyd-Puryear M, Humphrey JH, West KP, Aniol K, Mahoney J,

Keenum DG. Vitamin A deficiency and anemia among Microne-sian children. Nutr. Res. 1989; 9: 1007–16.McLaren, D.S., Frigg, M. (2001) Sight and Life Manual on Vita-min A Deficiency Disorders (VADD) 2nd ed., Basel, Task ForceSight and Life

Raynor, B. (1991) ‘Agroforestry Systems in Pohnpei – Practicesand Strategies for Development: RAS/86/036 Field Document4’, FAO/UNDP South Pacific Forestry Development Programme

World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute forCancer Research (AICR) (2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activ-ity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. AICR,Washington, DC

World Health Organization (WHO). Global Prevalence of VitaminA Deficiency. MDIS Working Paper #2. Micronutrient DeficiencyInformation System, WHO/NUT/95.3. Geneva: WHO, 1995.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) ‘Federated States ofMicronesia (Pohnpei) NCD risk factors STEPS report’, Suva,WHO Western Pacific Region

Yamamura C, Sullivan KM, van der Haar F, Auerbach SB, IohpKK. Risk factors for vitamin A deficiency among preschool agedchildren in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. J Trop Ped2004; 50, 16-19.

132

134

EXPLORING NEW METRICS:NUTRITIONAL DIVERSITY OFCROPPING SYSTEMS Roseline Remans,1,2 Dan F.B. Flynn,3 Fabrice DeClerck,1,4

Willy Diru,5 Jessica Fanzo,6 Kaitlyn Gaynor,1

Isabel Lambrecht,7 Joseph Mudiope,8 Patrick K. Mutuo,1,9

Phelire Nkhoma,10 David Siriri,1,8 Clare Sullivan1

and Cheryl A. Palm1

1 The Earth Institute at Columbia University, New York, NY, USA2 Leuven Sustainable Earth Research Center at Katholieke

Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium3 Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies,

University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland4 Division of Research and Development, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica5 World Agroforestry Centre, The Sauri Millennium Villages

Cluster, Kisumu, Kenya6 Bioversity International, Rome, Italy7 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Katholieke

Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium8 The United Nations Development Programme, The Ruhiira

Millennium Villages Cluster, Mbarara, Uganda9 The Millennium Development Goals Centre for East and

Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya10 The United Nations Development Programme, The Mwandama

Millennium Villages Cluster, Zomba, Malawi

* These authors contributed equally to this work.This book article is adapted from Remans et al. 2011 Assessing nutritionaldiversity of cropping systems in African villages. PLos ONE 6 (6) e21235

AbstractHistorically, agricultural systems have been as-sessed on the basis of a narrow range of criteria,such as profitability or yields. Yet, these metrics donot reflect the diversity of nutrients provided by thesystem that is critical for human health. In this studywe take a step to demonstrate how ecological toolscan play a role in addressing nutritional diversity as anoverlooked ecosystem service of agricultural systems.

Data on edible plant species diversity, food securityand diet diversity were collected for 170 farms inthree rural settings in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutri-tional FD metrics were calculated based on farmspecies composition and species nutritional com-position. Iron and vitamin A deficiency were deter-mined from blood samples of 90 adult women.

Nutritional FD metrics summarized the diversity ofnutrients provided by the farm and showed variabil-ity between farms and villages. Regression of nutri-tional FD against species richness and expected FDenabled identification of key species that add nutri-ent diversity to the system and assessed the degreeof redundancy for nutrient traits. Nutritional FDanalysis demonstrated that depending on the orig-inal composition of species on farm or village,adding or removing individual species can have rad-ically different outcomes for nutritional diversity.While correlations between nutritional FD, food andnutrition indicators were not significant at house-hold level, associations between these variableswere observed at village level.

This study provides novel metrics to address nutritionaldiversity in farming systems and examples of howthese metrics can help guide agricultural interventionstowards adequate nutrient diversity. New hypotheseson the link between agrodiversity, food security andhuman nutrition are generated and strategies for fu-ture research are suggested calling for integration ofagriculture, ecology, nutrition, and socio-economics.

1. IntroductionWhile great strides in reducing hunger through in-creases in agricultural productivity have been madeworldwide, more than 900 million people are un-dernourished (FAO, 2010), over 2 billion people areafflicted by one or more micronutrient deficiencies(WHO, 2007) and over 1 billion adults are overweight(WHO, 2003). In addition to producing sufficientcalories, a major, often overlooked challenge inagriculture and food systems is to provide an ade-quate diversity of nutrients necessary for a healthylife. A human diet requires at least 51 nutrients inadequate amounts consistently (Graham et al.,2007). It has been argued that changes in agricul-tural production systems from diversified croppingsystems towards ecologically more simple cereal-based systems have contributed to poor diet diver-sity, micronutrient deficiencies and resultingmalnutrition in the developed as well as developingworld (Graham et al., 2007; Frison et al., 2006;Negin et al., 2009; Welch and Graham, 1999). Suc-cess of agricultural systems has historically beenevaluated primarily on metrics of crop yields, eco-nomic output and cost-benefit ratios (IAASTD,2009). Yet, these metrics do not reflect the diversityof nutrients provided by the system that is criticalfor human health. In this study we take a step todemonstrate how ecological tools can play a role inaddressing nutritional diversity as an overlookedecosystem service of agricultural systems.

In nutritional sciences, several methods have beendeveloped that look beyond the single nutrient orfood item to capture the broader picture of diet di-versity (FAO-FANTA, 2008; Drescher et al., 2007;Waijers et al., 2007; Rose et al., 2008; Kennedy etal., 2010). Count measures are frequently applied toassess diet diversity, where the number of con-sumed food items and food groups is recorded(FAO-FANTA, 2008). Diet quality indices have alsobeen developed that take into account consumptionpattern and nutritional composition of food items

135

136

(Drescher et al., 2007; Waijers et al., 2007). Numer-ous studies have shown that nutritional quality ofthe diet improves as a higher diversity of food itemsor food groups is consumed (Shimbo et al., 1994;Hatloy et al., 1998; Moursi et al., 2008; Steyn et al.,2006; Kennedy et al., 2005) and increased diet di-versity has been associated with positive health out-comes such as lower rates of stunting, mortalityand incidence of cancer (Arimond and Ruel, 2004;IFPRI, 1998; Kant et al., 1993; Slattery et al., 1998;Levi et al., 1998; Bhutta et al., 2008).

Approaches to quantifying diet diversity in nutritionresearch have direct analogues to approaches toquantifying biological diversity in ecology. Countingtotal number of food items or food groups is analo-gous to counting species richness and functionalgroup richness. In ecology, there is increasing in-terest in quantitative measures of functional diver-sity, which take advantage of the wealth ofinformation available on species’ traits, particularlyfor plants, to overcome some of the drawbacks orlack of sensitivity of the simpler measures of diver-sity (Diaz and Cabido, 2001). Among these quantita-tive approaches is the functional diversity metric FD(Petchey and Gaston, 2002). FD is a metric that re-flects the trait distinctiveness of a community andthe degree of complementarity in traits of species

within a community. Here we explore a novel nutritional functional di-versity metric (nutritional FD). The nutritional FDmetric is based on plant species composition onfarm and the nutritional composition of these plantsfor 17 nutrients that are key in human diets and forwhich reliable plant composition data are available(Table 1). We use this FD metric to summarize andcompare the diversity of nutrients provided by farmsin three sites in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

The nutritional FD value increases when a specieswith a unique combination of nutrients is added to acommunity, and decreases when such a species islost. Changes in the presence or absence of specieswith identical nutritional composition do not changethe value of FD, however such redundancy providesa buffer, in case other species are lost from the sys-tem. For example, changing climate conditionscould prevent some plant species from being suc-cessfully cultivated, so having several species withsimilar nutritional composition means that such ashift in crop species composition would not neces-sarily impact the overall nutritional diversity at thefarm or community level. The nutritional FD metricthus reflects the diversity of nutrients provided bythe farm and the complementarity in nutrientsamong species on a farm or community.

Table 1. Nutrients and nutrient groups taken into account for calculation of FD metrics.

Macronutrients Minerals Vitamins

Protein Calcium (Ca) Vitamin A Carbohydrates Iron (Fe) Vitamin C

Dietary fibre Potassium (K) ThiaminFat Magnesium (Mg) Riboflavin

Manganese (Mn) Folate Zinc (Zn) Niacin

Sulphur (S)

From the 51 required nutrients for human diets, 17 nutrients that are key for human diets and for which reliable plantcomposition data were available in the literature were selected. Because plants are not a proven source for vitamin B12 and vitamin D, these were not included.

137

The three sites examined here, Mwandama inMalawi, Sauri in Kenya, and Ruhiira in Uganda, arepart of the Millennium Villages Project (MVP), wherefood insecurity and undernutrition rates are high(Sanchez et al., 2007; MVP, 2010; Nziguheba et al.,2010). A principal goal of the MVP is to improve foodsecurity and nutrition through a set of interventionsrecommended by the United Nations MillenniumProject Hunger Task Force (UN Millennium Project,2005). The sites represent distinct but representativeagro-ecosystems of SSA (Table 2), with maize(Mwandama, Sauri) or banana (Ruhiira) as the staplecrop. Subsistence farming is the main livelihoodstrategy for over 75 percent of the households inthese sites (Sanchez et al., 2007; MVP, 2010; Nziguhebaet al., 2010). On average 50 percent of food consumedin the household comes from own production and75 percent of food consumed in the village comes

from production within the village (Table 2).In this study we explore how nutritional FD metricscan provide insights in nutrient diversity of farmingsystems and can have potential to guide agriculturalmanagement. Data on plant species diversity, foodsecurity and diet diversity were collected for plotsand home gardens of 170 farms in Mwandama,Sauri and Ruhiira and iron and vitamin A deficiencywas determined from blood samples for 30 adultwomen per village. Four nutritional FD metricswere calculated: FDtotal describing diversity for all17 nutrients of Table 1, FDmacronutrients for thefour macronutrients, FDminerals for the seven min-erals and FDvitamins for the six vitamins. Differ-ences between farms and villages for speciesrichness, nutritional FD, household food and healthindicators were analysed as well as relationshipsbetween these different indicators.

Table 2. Site characteristics.Malawi, Mwandama Kenya, Sauri Uganda, Ruhiira

Farming system and Agro-ecological zone Cereal root-crops mixed Maize mixed Banana-basedSubhumid Tropical Subhumid tropical Highland perenial

Major crops Maize Maize, Beans Banana

Rainfall pattern and annual average (mm) Unimodal Bimodal Bimodal1139 1800 1050

Altitude (m above sea level) 900-1200 1400 1350 - 1850

Average area cropped per household (ha) 1.0 0.6 1.9

Average % of food consumed by the household 46% 35% 69%that comes from own production (calculated in $ values)

Average % of food consumed in the village 70% 75% 82%that comes from production in the village(calculated in $ values)

Dominant soils and fertility conditions Rhodustalfs, Rhodic Hapludox, Rhodic Hapludox andloamy to clayey clayey Acrisols, sandy clay

loam

Soil pH 5.25 (± 0.60) 5.74 (± 0.37) 5.45 (± 0.85)

Soil Effective Cation Exchange Capacity (ECEC) 5.74 (± 2.34) 7.03 (± 1.96) 13.63 (± 4.34)

Soil % Nitrogen (N) 0.079 (± 0.026) 0.121 (±0.031) 0.260 (± 0.066)

Soil % Carbon (C) 1.098 (± 0.415) 1.461 (±0.332) 3.078 (± 0.742)

Soil C/N ratio 13.91 (± 2.18) 12.39 (±2.20) 11.96 (± 1.27)

Soil values represent average scores ± standard deviation based on 60 samples [29, 65]

2. Methods2.1 Research sitesThe Mwandama village cluster is located in thesouthern Zomba district of Malawi and covers anapproximate population of 35 000 people. The regiononce characterized by native Miombo woodlands isnow intensively cultivated. Smallholders growmainly maize, pigeon peas, cassava and ground-nuts, while commercial estates produce tobaccoand maize. Livestock management is practised ona small scale and is restricted to chicken and goats.

The Sauri cluster is located in the Kenyan highlandsin the western Nyanza Province and has a farmcommunity of 63 500 people. The main occupationsare subsistence farming, consisting primarily ofmaize, sorghum and cassava, and animal husbandry,including goats, chickens and cattle.

The Ruhiira cluster is situated in the Isingiro districtin the hilly, dissected terrain of southwest Ugandaand has a population of approximately 43 056 people.The agricultural system is predominantly a mixedsystem with livestock and cultivation of annual andperennial crops. The main crop is banana, which cov-ers approximately 30 percent of the total cropland.

Further site characteristics are outlined in Table 2(Sanchez et al., 2007; MVP, 2010; Nziguheba et al.,2010).

2.2 Sample selection and data collectionA random sample of 50 to 60 farms per site was se-lected based on demographic and geographic MVPdata for 300 previously randomly selected house-holds per cluster. For Ruhiira and Mwandama datafor 60 farms were collected during June–Septem-ber of 2009. For Sauri data for 50 farms were col-lected during November of 2009. The studyprocedures, purpose, risks and benefits were ex-plained to participants during the informed consentprocess. The study received ethical approval from

the Institutional Review Board at Columbia University.

2.3 Documentation of species diversityFor each of the 170 farms, all plots, includinghome gardens, cultivated by the household, weresampled to document all crop, plant and treespecies, with different species and varieties ac-cording to local definitions. Plant species wereconfirmed with the help of local botany studies(Maundu et al., 1999; Maundu et al., 2005; Chewyaand Eyzaguirre, 1999; Smith and Eyzaguirre, 2007;NRC, 1996, 2006, 2008). In addition, it was noted ifthese plants were edible and consumed by thehousehold. Only plants that were edible and con-sumed in the village were considered for this study.

2.4 Nutritional trait data of plantsA database of plant nutritional composition datawas developed based on existing studies anddatabases. When different parts of certain plantswere consumed, both parts were listed and takeninto account in further calculations. The nutri-tional composition data were standardized andweighted by converting values to the percentageof the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) (NAS, 2009)for the specific nutrient provided by 100 g of theconsumable product. So, for each nutrient, per-centage of DRI provided by 100 g of that plantspecies were the values used to calculate the FDscores. Seventeen nutrients were selected basedon data availability and the essential role theyplay in human diets (Table 1).

2.5 Calculation of diversity metricsSpecies richness was defined by the number of iden-tified and previously described edible species perfarm. Petchey and Gaston's FD (Petchey and Gaston,2002) was used as a measure of nutritional functionaldiversity, with 17 nutrients from 77 crops (Figure 1).Functional diversity metrics begin with two data ma-trices: 1) a species by trait matrix, and 2) a farm or siteby species matrix (Petchey et al., 2009). In the method

138

Figure 1. Schematic model of how to assess nutritional func-tional diversity. Two data sets are required: a species by trait matrix (1), and afarm or site by species matrix (2). From the species x trait ma-trix, the multivariate distances between crop species are cal-culated (3), where distance is a function of distinctness innutrient composition and content. The distances betweenspecies are used to cluster species into a dendrogram (4).Based on the crop species present in a given farm, the branchlengths of the dendrogram are summed (5). Example Farms Aand C illustrate how nutritional functional diversity can differeven when species richness is identical, depending on the nu-tritional distinctiveness of the crop species present.

we used here, the species x trait matrix is used to cal-culate the multivariate distances between cropspecies, where distance between a pair of species de-termined by the distinctness in nutrient compositionand content. Then the distances between species areused to cluster species into a dendrogram, which re-duces the dimensionality of the diversity metric calcu-lation. Finally, based on the crop species present in agiven farm, the branch lengths of the dendrogram aresummed, to give the FD value (Figure 1).

In the crop nutritional data set we use here, the speciesx trait matrix is composed by the percentage of DRIfor a specific nutrient. The community compositionmatrix contains the presence or absence of eachcrop species for each of the 170 farms. We calculatednutritional FD in four ways: using all 17 nutrients,using just the four macronutrients, using the sixvitamins, and using the seven minerals (Table 1),resulting in four respective FD metrics: FDtotal, FD-macronutrients, FDminerals and FDvitamins. Re-sults were scaled by the maximum values to rangefrom 0 to 100 for each FD metric separately.

2.6 Functional redundancy and observed versusexpected FDWe assessed the degree of functional redundancy bysimulations that model observed versus expectedfunctional diversity for a given species richness(Figure 2) (Flynn et al., 2009).

Figure 2. Schematic model to assess degree of redundancy bymodelling observed versus expected functional diversity for agiven species richness.If a set of communities has a large range of species richness,but shows little variation in functional diversity, then thespecies pool in that set of communities has high functional re-dundancy. In contrast, a set of communities with low functionalredundancy may exhibit large changes in functional diversitywith only small changes in species richness.

139

Low

redundancy

High

redundancy

ExpectedNutritional Functional Diversity

Obs

erve

dN

utr

itio

na

l F

un

cti

on

al

Div

ers

ity

5. Sum branchlengths for speciespresent in community composition data.

Farm A Nutritional FD = 3

4. Cluster species into dendrogram

3. Cluster species distances

Farm B Nutritional FD = 4

Farm CNutritional FD = 2

� � �

� � �

� � �

� � �

2 � � �

��

� � �Species 2� � �-�

2 0,3 -�3 0,7 0,7 -�

1. Crop nutritional trait data 2. Crop composition data

��

Species Trait I Trait II Trait III

10� 5 0

� 5 5 0

1 0� 10

� � �Farm 2� � �A 1 1

B 1 1 1

C 1 1

To calculate “expected FD” scores, we used a sim-ulation approach to create a null distribution of FDvalues for the observed number of species. Holdingspecies richness constant for each of the 170households, we randomly selected species withoutreplacement from the species pool (the total numberof species in the study) to calculate a null FD valuefor each household. We repeated this 5 000 times toproduce a distribution of null values and testedwhether the observed FD for each household wassignificantly higher or lower than the null FD distri-bution, at α = 0.05 (Flynn et al., 2009). For this study,"expected FD" is thus the mean of the functional di-versity calculated from many possible species combi-nations for a particular number of species.

This approach allows us to determine if changes inFD across households simply reflect species rich-ness, or if species composition and trait diversityvary in other ways, e.g. with village or other fac-tors. If a set of communities has a large range ofspecies richness, but shows little variation in func-tional diversity, then the species pool in that set ofcommunities has high functional redundancy (Fig-ure 2). That is to say, many species share similartraits and the loss of a few species has little im-pact on functional diversity. In contrast, a set ofcommunities with low functional redundancy mayexhibit large changes in functional diversity withonly small changes in species richness (Figure 2)(Flynn et al., 2009).

2.7 Household food indicatorsRecommendations of the Food and Nutrition Tech-nical Assistance (FANTA) project were used to de-velop questionnaires for the months of inadequatehousehold food provisioning (MIHFP, range 0–12;adapted from months of adequate household foodprovisioning (Bilinsky and Swindale, 2007), house-hold food insecurity access scale (HFIAS, range 0–21) (Coates et al., 2007) and household diet diversityscore (HDDS, range 0–15) (FAO-FANTA, 2008) based

on a 24-hour recall for consumption of 15 foodgroups: cereals; vitamin A rich vegetables and tu-bers; white tubers, roots and plantains; green leafyvegetables; other vegetables; vitamin A rich fruits;other fruits; legumes and nuts; oils and fat; meat;fish; eggs; milk; sweets; spices and tea (FAO-FANTA, 2008). The surveys were first pre-tested andadapted to local conditions and language.

2.8 Iron and vitamin A deficiencyIndividual serum samples were collected from 30women between the ages of 13 and 49 per site (90 intotal) to determine iron and vitamin A deficiency.

Iron was measured by a colorimetric assay using theHitachi 917 analyser (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis,IN). Under acidic conditions, iron is liberated fromtransferrin. Ascorbate reduces the Fe3+ ions to Fe2+ions, which then react with FerroZine re-agent to forma coloured complex. The colour intensity is directly pro-portional to the iron concentration in the sample andis measured photometrically. Iron at the concentrationof 46, 93 and 138 ug/dL has a day-to-day variability of1.8%, 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Iron deficiency wasdefined as a level less than 15 ng/mL (FAO-WHO, 1988).The levels of vitamin A were measured by highperformance liquid chromatography (ShimadzuCorporation, Kyoto, Japan). Vitamin A is de-proteinizedfrom the serum/plasma sample using ethanol andextracted with hexane. The extract is dried, re-dissolvedwith ethanol and injected into the chromatograph.Retinyl acetate is used as the internal standard. Thisassay is standardized using calibrators from theNational Institute of Standards and Technology. Theminimum required volume for this assay is 150microlitres. Vitamin A deficiency was defined as alevel < 20 micrograms/dL (FAO-WHO, 1988).

All calculations, as well as general linear modelsand analysis of variance, were done in the statis-tical programming environment R (2.11.0,www.r-project.org).

140

141

Table 3. Indicator outcomes per siteMalawi, Mwandama Kenya, Sauri Uganda, Ruhiira p-value

Edible plant diversity in village Edible species richnessof village (number of uniquespecies for that site) 42 (11) 49 (11) 55 (13)

Edible plant diversity perhousehold farm Edible species richness 11.15 ± 3.66 15.22 ± 4.29 18.25 ± 4.82 <0.001

Nutritional FDall [0–100] 49.25 ± 17.96 64.56 ± 16.32 68.44 ± 15.82 <0.001

Nutritional FDmacronutrients [0–100] 46.73 ± 9.75 52.7 ± 13.15 72.23 ± 14.54 <0.001

Nutritional FDminerals [0–100] 32.21 ± 10.56 52.52 ± 16.14 70.88 ± 16.2 <0.001

Nutritional FD vitamins [0–100] 41.97 ± 24.48 46.91 ± 17.92 45.78 ± 18.08 0.41

Household food indicators HHDDS 7.57 ± 2.58 8.22 ± 2.05 9.2 ± 3.18 <0.001

HHFIS 11.65 ± 5.80 7.62 ± 5.01 10.27 ± 4.96 <0.001

MIHFS 4.37 ± 2.27 2.56 ± 2.18 3.97 ± 1.67 <0.001

Nutritional health indicators Vit A deficiency women 0.00% 3.30% 6.70% 0.563

Fe deficiency women 23.30% 6.70% 6.70% <0.001

Values represent total number for indicators at the village level and average scores for indicators at the household (= farm) or individual level ± standard deviation. P-values are shown for ANOVA test of village effect on farm/household/individual level indicators. HHDDS: Household Diet Diversity Score; FIS: Household Food Insecurity Score, MIHFS: Months of Inadequate Household Food Supply.

3. Results3.1 Species diversityAcross the 170 farms of the three sites, a total of 77edible, previously described plant species wereidentified. Twenty-seven of these 77 species werecommon among all three sites. The average numberof edible species per farm differs significantly be-tween villages, ranging from 11 in Mwandama to 18in Ruhiira (Table 3).

Farm species richness was found to be independentfrom farm landholding size (r2 = -0.0017, p = 0.366),also when corrected for village. The five most com-monly grown crops across all three sites are ba-nanas (on 93% of the farms), maize (91%), beans(75%), cassava (75%) and mango (69%). Examples ofunique species for one of the sites include severalgreen leafy vegetables such as Corchorus olitorius(apoth) and Crotalaria brevidens (mito) for Sauri inKenya; tamarillo or tree tomato (Solanum betaceum)

and some spices, e.g. ginger and cardamom, forRuhiira in Uganda; certain fruits such as peaches,figs and pomegranates for Mwandama in Malawi.

3.2 Nutritional FD and relationship with speciesrichnessFour nutritional FD metrics (FDtotal, FDmacronutri-ents, FDminerals and FDvitamins) were calculatedfor each of the 170 farms (Table 3). This approach al-lows us to investigate the nutritional diversity acrossall nutrients and within each of the major nutrientgroups. For three out of these four FD metrics, av-erage values for farms differ significantly betweenthe sites (p<0.001) (Table 3), with equivalent valuesonly for FDvitamins (p=0.41). Similar to species rich-ness, all FD metrics were found to be independentfrom farm landholding size (p>0.1).

Figure 3 plots FD values against species richnessfor each of the 170 farms.

142

Figure 3. Nutritional functional diversity values are plottedagainst species richness for 170 household farms. A: Nutritional FD = FDtotal, summarizing functional diversityfor all 17 nutrients listed in Table 1; B: Nutritional FD = FD-macronutrients for the four macronutrients; C: Nutritional FD= FDminerals for the seven minerals; D: Nutritional FD = FDvi-tamins for the six vitamins (Table 1). Farms in Mwandama areshown as triangles, farms in Sauri as squares, and farms inRuhiira as circles.

Regression of FDtotal (Figure 3A) against speciesrichness reveals several patterns. First is a strongpositive correlation (p<0.001; r2=0.68) between FD-total and species richness, independent of village.Thus, as the number of edible species increases,the diversity of nutrients that farm provides also in-creases. Second, at a level of around 25 species perfarm, the relationship between FDtotal and speciesrichness starts levelling off, meaning that additionalspecies to a farm, with around 25 or more species,increases nutritional diversity very little. Third, al-though species richness and FDtotal are correlated,farms with the same number of species can havevery different nutritional FD scores.

For example, two farms in Mwandama (indicatedby arrows on Figure 3A) both with 10 species showan FDtotal of 23 and 64, respectively. The differ-ence in FD is linked to a few differences in speciesnutritional traits. Both of these example farmsgrow maize, cassava, beans, banana, papaya, pi-

geon pea and mango. In addition, the farm withthe higher FD score grows pumpkin, mulberry andgroundnut, while the farm with lower FD score hasavocado, peaches and black jack (in Malawi, blackjack leaves are consumed). Trait analysis showsthat pumpkin (including pumpkin leaves, fruitsand seeds which are all eaten) adds diversity tothe system by its relatively high nutritional con-tent in vitamin A, Zn and S-containing amino acids(methionine and cysteine) compared to otherspecies; mulberry by its levels of vitamin B com-plexes (thiamin, riboflavin) and groundnut by itsnutritional content for fat, Mn and S. The blackjack, avocado and peaches found in the lower FDfarm add less nutritional diversity to the systemthan pumpkin, mulberry and groundnut since theydo not contain the vitamin B or S complexes, andthus are less complementary to the other plants inthe system for their nutritional content. This exam-ple shows how different crop species compositionscan result in very disparate nutritional FD even withidentical numbers of crops planted in a field.

When considering the FD values based on the nu-trient subgroups, i.e. macronutrients, mineralsand vitamins, the pattern of the relationship be-tween species richness and FD differs among sub-groups (Figure 3B, C and D).

While FDmacronutrients increases nearly linearlywith increasing species richness, FDvitaminsshows abrupt changes and is highly dependent onthe presence of few species. For example, additionof mulberry or guava species strongly increasesthe FDvitamins value of the farm because of theirunique high values for vitamin B complexes and vi-tamin C, respectively. This uniqueness attributedto a few key species results in a stepwise pattern ofdifferent FDvitamins levels instead of a gradual in-crease with number of species and indicates highspecies sensitivity (see also below). For FDminer-als, the group of farms in Mwandama differs sig-nificantly from the Ruhiira and Sauri farms, by

Crop Species Richness5 10 15 20 25 30

A. All Nutrients

C. Minerals D. Vitamins

0

5

0

100

0

5

0

100

5 10 15 20 25 30

Nut

ritio

nal F

unct

iona

l Div

ersi

tyB. Macronutrients

� Sauri

�MwandamaO Ruhiira

143

lower FDminerals values and a lower slope in theFDminerals – species richness relationship(p<0.001). This suggests that the species on theMwandama farms are not contributing as muchmineral diversity to the system as species in theKenya or Uganda village (see also below).

3.3 Functional redundancy A crucial component of FD is functional redundancy(Petchey et al., 2007), which reflects the degree ofoverlap in the traits of species in a community. Weassessed the degree of functional redundancy bysimulations that model observed versus expectedfunctional diversity for each of the 170 farms andthe four nutritional FD metrics (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Observed values for nutritional diversity are plottedagainst simulated expected nutritional FD values for 170household farms.Farms that have observed FD values significantly different fromexpected FD values are marked in bold. Farms in Mwandamaare shown as triangles, farms in Sauri as squares, and farms inRuhiira as circles.

When observed FD is higher than expected, it indi-cates low functional redundancy, or that species aremore distinct from one another than expected bychance (Figure 2) (Flynn et al., 2009).

Figure 4 illustrates that functional redundancy pat-

terns differ among nutrient groups. For FDtotal andFDmacronutrients no strong redundancy patternsare observed (Figure 4A, B). For FDminerals, agroup of farms (in bold in Figure 3C) with an ob-served FD significantly lower (at α=0.05) than theexpected FD was identified, meaning there is highfunctional redundancy, with several species havingsimilar nutrient traits. Most of these farms are ofthe Mwandama site, and in contrast to other farms,they are entirely lacking a set of species identifiedas most influential for mineral diversity includingSesamum calycinum (onyulo) which is particularlyrich in Fe, Eleusine coracana (finger millet) withhigh Ca and Mn levels, Glycine max (soybean) rich inFe, Mg and Mn, Helianthus anuus (sunflower) whichseeds have high levels of Zn, Mg and S, and Solanumnigrum (black nightshade) rich in Fe and Mn.

In contrast to the pattern of high redundancy for FD-minerals, for FDvitamins a group of farms (in bold inFigure 4D) can be identified with significantly higherobserved FD than expected FD, meaning there islow functional redundancy on those farms as only afew species provide certain combinations of vita-mins (Figure 4D). What these farms have in com-mon is that they all contain the species Morus alba(mulberry). As mentioned above, mulberry, espe-cially the leaves, contain vitamins B complex and C,in higher levels than most other plants. Addition orloss of mulberry as one of the few species in thecommunity providing vitamin B complex, can in-crease or reduce FDvitamins significantly.

3.4 Linking to food and health indicatorsIn addition to agrobiodiversity data, data on house-hold food indicators including a household food in-security access scale (HFIAS), number of months ofinadequate household food provisioning (MIHFP)and household diet diversity scores (HHDDS) wereobtained for each of the 170 farms (Table 3). Signif-icant differences between villages for these indica-tors reflect different levels in food security and dietdiversity, with lower food security and diet diversity

D. Vitamins

B. Macronutrients

C. Minerals

A. All Nutrients

Obs

erve

d Fu

nctio

nal D

iver

sity

Expected Functional Diversity

0

5

0

100

0 50 100 0 50 100

0

5

0

100

144

in Mwandama as compared to Ruhiira and Sauri(Table 3). Average village data indicate that lowspecies richness and FD scores at the village levelare paired with low diet diversity, high food insecu-rity and number of months of inadequate food pro-vision of the village community (Table 3).

Analysis of correlations between these householdfood indicators and farm species richness and nu-tritional FD metrics indicate that for each of the foodindicators, correlation coefficients are slightlyhigher for FD metrics than for species richness. Butnone of these correlations are significant and sig-nificance does not change when corrected for vil-lage and/or land size (data not shown).

The patterns for iron and vitamin A deficiencies at thevillage level (Table 3) are similar to patterns for FD-minerals and FDvitamins respectively: while Mwan-dama shows significantly higher rates of Fedeficiency than Ruhiira and Sauri, average FDminer-als of Mwandama farms is significantly lower com-pared to FDminerals in Ruhiira and Sauri. Nosignificant differences between sites are found for vi-tamin A deficiency and similarly, FDvitamins is theonly FD metric for which the three sites score equally.

4. DiscussionSub-Saharan Africa faces pressing challenges, with40 percent of children chronically undernourishedor stunted (UNICEF, 2009). As new investments andattention galvanize much-needed action on Africanagriculture, a vigorous debate is required to ensurethat agricultural progress is evaluated based onmetrics that go beyond economic cost/benefit ratiosand calories per person and that can also addressthe complexity of nutritional diversity required forhuman health. In this study, we demonstrate howan ecological concept, the FD metric, has potentialto summarize nutritional diversity of cropping systemsand thereby provide new insights on provisioningecosystem services across farms and villages insub-Sahara, Africa.

The strengths of the study lie in the development ofa systems approach that is able to consider thelarge variety of species available in the system to-gether with their nutritional composition and in thestep it takes towards integrating agriculture, nutri-tion and ecology studies (Deckelbaum et al., 2006;Remans et al., 2011). By applying the FD metric onlnutritional diversity, it was possible to identify vari-ability in nutritional diversity across farms and vil-lages (e.g. low diversity for minerals in theMwandama cluster compared to Sauri and Ruhiira)as well as to identify species that are critical for en-suring the provisioning of certain nutrients (e.g.mulberry for vitamin B complexes). The results alsoemphasize that the species nutritional compositionand redundancy available in the system determine ifintroduction or removal of certain species will havecritical impacts on the nutritional diversity of thecommunity (e.g. addition of species to farms witharound 20 species does not cause much change toFDtotal, high species sensitivity for FDvitamins, highredundancy for FDminerals).

While in the past, food-based interventions in de-veloping countries have focused mostly on a singlenutrient (Frison et al., 2006), the approach de-scribed in this study can help guide agricultural in-terventions towards diversity of nutrients and/ortowards nutrient redundancy or resilience of thesystem. In particular, this work provides means toidentify potential crops, varieties or groups of plantsthat add nutritional value (diversity or redundancy)and can be introduced, promoted or conserved tak-ing into account the functional diversity of speciesalready available in the system. The single nutrientapproach of the past, varying from various recom-mendations for high-protein diets (Brock et al.,1955) and later for high-carbohydrate diets(McLaren, 1966, 1974), to more recent efforts di-rected at the elimination of micronutrient deficien-cies, was in part linked to a lack of knowledge inearlier years about the interactions among nutri-ents in human physiology and metabolism (Frison

145

et al., 2006). The roles of micronutrients in healthand well-being and the synergies in their physio-logic functions are now being increasingly recog-nized, supporting the notion that nutrientdeficiencies rarely occur in isolation and calling fordietary diversification (Frison et al., 2006; Latham,2010; McLean et al., 2009). These advances in nu-tritional sciences also create a demand for apply-ing a more holistic approach to the nutritionaldiversity of agricultural systems as described here.

This study is, however, limited and offers room forimprovement on several fronts. First, no data werecollected on the quantities produced or on speciesevenness. Cropping area or yield data would furtherstrengthen the study by allowing calculation of anabundance-weighted FD metric, several of whichhave been developed in community ecology(Mouchet et al., 2010; Laliberté and Legendre,2010). While this is planned as a next step in futurework, presence/absence-based FD metrics arevaluable as predictors of ecosystem functioning(Flynn et al., 2011). The nutritional FD metric of thisstudy gives thereby valuable insights on the diver-sity of nutrients provided by the cropping system,particularly on the complementarity and redundanceof species in the system and on the potential ofspecies to contribute nutritional traits to the existingcomposition of species (on farm or in the village).

Second, the nutritional composition data and FDmetric calculations were based on available specieslevel data. It is known that a large diversity in nutri-tional composition exists among different varietiesof species as well as among different environmentsin which plants are cultivated (Bates, 1971; Kennedyand Burlingame, 2003; Davey et al., 2009). For ex-ample, certain varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris L.(common bean) are significantly higher in iron andzinc than other P. vulgaris varieties (Graham et al.,2007; Blair et al., 2010), and addition of zinc fertil-izer to the soil can further increase the concentra-tion of trace elements in edible parts (Graham,

2008). Also, the FD calculation used here does nottake into account the level of neutriceuticals andphytochemicals, that play a beneficial role forhuman health, nor the level of antinutritional fac-tors (e.g. phytate, oxalate, tannins) that reduce thebioavailability of certain nutrients (e.g. Ca, Fe, pro-teins). Efforts to acquire more data at the speciesand subspecies level on nutritional compositionacross different environments, will allow fine-tun-ing of the proposed FD metrics. In addition, includ-ing livestock diversity and number will provide amore complete picture of the nutritional diversityavailable on farm.

No significant correlations at the farm level werefound between nutritional FD of crops grown andhousehold food consumption indicators. This mightbe partly due to limitations of the proposed FD met-rics or the relatively simple household food indica-tors used in this study, but also to the complexpathway between agricultural production and foodconsumption (World Bank, 2007; Rose et al., 2009).While most households in the studied villages areconsidered subsistence farmers, farm householdsare not closed systems.

Food consumption and expenditure data (Table 2)show that the average proportion of food consumedcoming from own production is around 50 percent.Also, a significant correlation was found betweenthe number and value of food items bought and soldon local markets and the household food indicatorsat each of the three sites (FIS, HHDDS, MHIFS)(Lambrecht, 2009). These findings emphasize theimportance of local markets and support the notionthat these farm households are not closed systems.The most appropriate scale to link nutritional FDmetrics to food consumption and nutrition indica-tors, would be the “foodshed”, defined as the geo-graphic area that supplies a population centre withfood (Peters et al., 2008). Village level data showthat for example for Ruhiira 82 percent of food con-sumed is derived from production within the village

146

(Table 2). This indicates that in the case of these vil-lages, the foodshed, largely overlaps with the vil-lage. It is therefore interesting to note that certainassociations between nutritional FD and food andnutrition indicators were observed at the villagelevel: the correspondence in patterns between FD-minerals and Fe deficiency, FDvitamins and vitaminA deficiency and FDtotal and diet diversity, food in-security and number of months of insufficient foodsupply. These findings generate new hypotheses onthe link between nutritional diversity of the farmingsystem and nutrition outcomes at the village or inparticular the foodshed level such as: Can the highrate of Fe deficiency among adult women in Mwan-dama be due partly to a lack of species that con-tribute more significantly to mineral diversity,particularly those high in Fe? Also, does the highcrop species richness in Sauri and Ruhiira play a

role in their relatively lower level of food insecurity? In addition, the study triggers new questions as towhat are the determinants or filters of nutritionaldiversity on farms, villages and agro-ecologicalzones. For example, it is clear that mineral diversityof species in the Mwandama village is lower than inSauri and Ruhiira, and even when species richnessincreases, FDminerals in Mwandama remains rela-tively low. Several potential barriers for growingspecies that add more to FDminerals can be hy-pothesized and could be categorized under ecolog-ical (e.g. climate, soil, altitude, water availability),dispersal (large distance to origin of seeds) or an-thropogenic determinants (e.g. cultural preference,limited economic access to seeds, lack of knowl-edge). In this context, it is interesting to note thatsoil fertility measures in the Mwandama village(Table 2) show very low values for effective cation

Figure 5. Suggested strategy for future research on nutritional functional diversity. The overall objective of the strategy is to guide agricultural and landscape interventions towards more balanced nutritional outcomes.Three major fronts for research are suggested: study of potential determinants and barriers of nutritional FD and identify the onesthat can be controlled (1); collection of new and mobilization of existing data that enable a more comprehensive calculation ofnutritional FD and this at a landscape and village level (2); establishing linkages with consumption and human health outcomesof agricultural systems through integrated data sets that include health and socio-economics (3); and integrated modelling andanalysis of potential synergies and trade-offs between nutritional diversity and other outcomes from agriculture (4).

1. POTENTIAL DETERMINANTS OR FILTERS OF NUTRITIONAL FD

2. INPUT DATA FOR FD

NUTRITIONAL FDat farm, village and foodshed

scale over different seasons

3. LINK TO FOOD AND NUTRITION INDICATORS

Agro-ecological

ClimaticSoil types and conditionsNative species diversity anddistribution of species

Food indicatorsDiet diversity & quality

Food insecurity

Biodiversity dataEdible species and varietiesof cultivated and wild plants

Livestock diversitySurface area grown and/oramounts produced per year

Nutritional composition dataNutritional composition at

subspecies level and for givenenvironmental conditions

Community use and knowledgeWhat plants and plant parts

are consumed and how?

Confounding factors

Nutrition indicatorsAnthropometry

Nutrient deficiencies

Socio-ecologic

Access to diversity of seedsAccess to fertilizersAccess to knowledgeAccess to markets

Socio-cultural

Cultural preferencesfor species and subspeciesMultiple purposes and advantages of crops

4. INTEGRATED MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF SYNERGIESAND TRADEOFFS WITH OTHER AGRICULTURAL OUTCOMES

Nutritional FD

IncomeTime saving

Soil conservation Yield

Carbon sequestration

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

At different spatial and time scales

147

exchange capacity (ECEC) and percentage of totalnitrogen (N), two factors that are critical for soil fer-tility. It can be hypothesized that the soil conditionsin Mwandama restrict successful cultivation ofcrops to only those adapted to lower soil fertilityconditions or it might be that farmers’ preferencefor certain crops or soil management strategy hasimpacted soil fertility over time.

Based on the findings and new questions raised, astrategy for future research is outlined in Figure 5,with an overall objective to guide more balanced nu-tritional outcomes from agricultural systems.

The strategy emphasizes four major fronts for ex-panding the research presented here: 1) study onpotential determinants and barriers of nutritionalFD in different settings; 2) collection of new and mo-bilization of existing data that enable a more com-prehensive calculation of nutritional FD acrossdifferent villages; 3) establishing linkages betweennutritional diversity of farming systems and con-sumption and human health outcomes, particularlyat the foodshed scale (Peters et al., 2008; Niles andRoff, 2008); and 4) integrated modelling and analy-sis of potential synergies and trade-offs betweennutritional diversity and other outcomes from agri-culture, e.g. income generation, risk reduction,greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, labour in-tensity and social well-being. Such modelling can bedone at different scales (farm, village, country, region,global) and across agro-ecological zones to identifyhow complementary different agro-ecosystems arefor providing the necessary nutritional diversity.

In conclusion, this study delivers novel work on ad-dressing nutritional diversity of agricultural sys-tems. We show that applying the ecologicalfunctional diversity metric on nutritional traits ofplants in agricultural systems gives insights on thediversity of nutrients provided by cropping systems.Application of this metric can help guiding man-

agement decisions towards increased nutrient di-versity for a given number of species, as well as to-wards increased redundancy or buffer of species fora specific set of nutrients.

In addition, new hypotheses on the link betweenagrobiodiversity and nutrition are generated and across-disciplinary research framework is suggested.Nutritional FD is thereby a tool that bridges agricul-ture, human nutrition and ecology studies and offersan entry point for integration of other scientific dis-ciplines (economics, anthropology, human health,landscape ecology) (Remans et al., 2011; Rumbaitisdel Rio et al., 2005; DeClerck et al., 2006). Assessingthe multiple outcomes of agricultural systemsacross agro-ecological zones is critical for makingprogress towards more sustainable and nutritiousfood systems (Sachs et al., 2010).

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the Millennium Villages Proj-ect staff and villagers for their efforts and partici-pation in project implementation and research.

References

Arimond M, Ruel MT (2004) Dietary diversity is associated withchild nutritional status: evidence from 11 demographic andhealth surveys. J Nutr 134: 2579-2585.

Bates TE (1971) Factors affecting critical nutrient concentrationsin plants and their evaluation: A review. Soil Science 112: 116-130.

Bhutta ZA, Ahmed T, Black RE, Cousens S, Dewey K, et al.(2008) What works? Interventions for maternal and child un-dernutrition and survival. Lancet 371:417-40.

Bilinsky P, Swindale A (2007). Months of Adequate HouseholdFood Provisioning (MAHFP) for Measurement of HouseholdFood Access: Indicator Guide. Food and Nutrition Technical As-sistance Project, Academy for Educational Development. Wash-ington, D.C.

Blair MW, González LF, Kimani PM, Butare L (2010) Genetic di-versity, inter-gene pool introgression and nutritional quality ofcommon beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) from Central Africa.Theoret Appl Genetics 121: 237-248.

Brock JF, Hansen JDL, Howe EE, Pretorius PD, Daval JGA, Hen-dricks RG (1955) Kwashiorkor and protein malnutrition. A di-etary therapeutic trial. Lancet 2: 355–60.

Chewya JA, Eyzaguirre P (1999) The biodiversity of traditionalleafy vegetables. IPGRI, Rome.

Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P (2007) Household Food InsecurityAccess Scale (HFIAS) for measurement of Food Access: IndicatorGuide (v. 3). Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Acad-emy for Educational Development, Washington, D.C.

Davey MW, Saeys W, Hof E, Ramon H, Swennen R, et al. (2009)Application of visible and near-infrared reflectance spec-troscopy (Vis/NIRS) to determine carotenoid contents in banana(Musa spp.) fruit pulp. J Agric Food Chem 57: 1742–1751.

Deckelbaum RJ, Palm C, Mutuo P, DeClerck F (2006) Econutri-tion: Implementation models from the Millennium VillagesProject in Africa. Food Nutr Bull 27 (4): 335-342.

DeClerck F, Ingram JC, Rumbaitis del Rio CM (2006) The role ofecological theory and practice in poverty alleviation and envi-ronmental conservation. Front Ecol Environ 4: 533–540.

Díaz, S, Cabido M (2001) Vive la différence: plant functional di-versity matters to ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology &Evolution 16:646-655.

Drescher LS, Thiele S, Mensink GBM (2007) A new index tomeasure healthy food diversity better reflects a healthy dietthan traditional measures. J Nutr 137: 647-651.

Flynn DFB, Gogol-Prokurat M, Nogeire T , Molinari N ,Traut-man Richers B, et al. (2009) Loss of functional diversity underland use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecology Letters12: 22-33.

Flynn DFB, Mirotchnick N, Jain M, Palmer M, Naeem S (2011)Functional and phylogenetic diversity as predictors of biodiver-sity-ecosystem function relationships. Ecology. In press.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010).The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2010. FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization and Food and Nutrition Tech-nical Assistance Project (2008) Guidelines for MeasuringHousehold and Individual Dietary Diversity. FAO, Rome.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations andWorld Health Organization (1988). Human vitamin and mineralrequirements.

Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (2010)Global forum on food security and nutrition. Knowledge sharingfor improved food security and better nutrition. FAO, Rome.

Frison E, Smith IF, Johns T, Cherfas J, Eyzaguirre PB (2006)Agricultural biodiversity, nutrition, and health: Making a differ-ence to hunger and nutrition in the developing world. Food NutrBull 25: 143-155.

Graham RD, Welch RM, Saunders DA, Ortiz-Monasterio I, BouisHE, et al. (2007) Nutritious subsistence food systems. AdvancesAgronomy 92: 1-72.

Graham RD (2008) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Crops and

Their Global Significance. In Alloway BJ (eds) Micronutrient De-ficiencies in Global Crop Production. Springer, pp. 41-62.

Hatloy A, Torheim L, Oshaug A (1998) Food variety - a good indi-cator of nutritional adequacy of the diet? A case study from anurban area in Mali, West Africa. Eur J Clin Nutr 52: 891–898.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development (2009) Island Press, Washing-ton D.C.

International Food Policy Research Institute (1998) Commer-cial Vegetable and Polyculture Fish Production in Bangladesh:their Impacts on Income, Household Resource Allocation andNutrition, Volumes 1 and 2. IFPRI, Washington, DC.

Kant A, Schatzkin A, Harrris T, Ziegler R, Black G (1993) Dietarydiversity and subsequent mortality in the First National Healthand Nutrition Examination Survey Epidemiologic Follow-upStudy. Am J Clin Nutr 57: 434–440.

Kennedy G, Berardo A, Papavero C, Horjus P, Ballard T, et al.(2010) Proxy measures of household food consumption for foodsecurity assessment and surveillance: comparison of thehousehold dietary diversity and food consumption scores. Pub-lic Health Nutr 13: 2010-2018.

Kennedy G, Islam O, Eyzaguirre P, Kennedy S (2005) Field test-ing of plant genetic diversity indicators for nutrition surveys:rice-based diet of rural Bangladesh as a model. J Food CompAnalysis 18: 255–268.

Kennedy G, Burlingame B (2003) Analysis of food compositiondata on rice from a plant genetic resources perspective. FoodChemistry 80: 589-596.

Laliberté E, Legendre P (2010) A distance-based framework formeasuring functional diversity from multiple traits. Ecology91:299-305.

Lambrecht I (2009) Linking agro-diversity and nutrition: A casestudy in two Millennium Villages. Master thesis, Katholieke Uni-versiteit Leuven.

Latham M (2010) The great vitamin A fiasco. World Nutrition 1:12-45.

Levi F, Pasche C, La Vecchia C, Lucchini F, Franceschi S, et al.(1998) Food groups and risk of oral and pharyngeal cancer. IntJ Cancer 77: 705–709.

Maundu PM, Ngugi GW, Kabuye CHS (1999) Traditional foodplants of Kenya. IPGRI, Rome.

Maundu PM, Tengnèas B, Birnie A, Muema N (2005) UsefulTrees and Shrubs for Kenya. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.

McLaren DS (1966) A fresh look at protein calorie malnutrition.Lancet 2: 485–488.

McLaren DS (1974) The great protein fiasco. Lancet 2: 93–96.

McLean E, Cogswella M, Eglia I, Wojdylaa D, de Benoista B

148

149

(2009) Worldwide prevalence of anaemia, WHO Vitamin andMineral Nutrition Information System, 1993–2005. PublicHealth Nutr 12:444-454.

Millennium Villages Project (2010) Harvests of Development inRural Africa: The Millennium Villages After Three Years. MVP,New York.

Mouchet MA, Villeger S, Mason NWH, Mouillot D (2010) Func-tional diversity measures: an overview of their redundancy andtheir ability to discriminate community assembly rules. Func-tional Ecology, 24, 867-876.

Moursi MM, Arimond M, Dewey KG, Trèche S, Ruel MT, et al.(2008) Dietary diversity is a good predictor of the micronutrientdensity of the diet of 6- to 23-month-old children in Madagas-car. J Nutr 138: 2448-2453.

National Academy of Sciences (2009) Dietary Reference In-takes: Recommended Intakes for Individuals. Washington, D.C.

National Research Council (1996) Lost crops of Africa Volume I:Grains. National academy press, Washington D.C.National Research Council (2006) Lost crops of Africa Volume II:Vegetables. National academy press, Washington D.C.

National Research Council (2008) Lost crops of Africa VolumeIII: Fruits. National academy press, Washington D.C.

Negin J, Remans R, Karuti S, Fanzo JC (2009) Integrating abroader notion of food security and gender empowerment intothe African Green Revolution. Food Sec 1: 351–360.

Niles D, Roff RJ (2008) Shifting agrifood systems: the contem-porary geography of food and agriculture; an introduction. Geo-Journal 73: 1-10.

Nziguheba G, Palm CA, Berhe T, Denning G, Dicko A, et al.(2010) The African Green Revolution: Results from the Millen-nium Villages Project. Advances Agronomy 109: 75- 115.

Petchey OL, Gaston KJ (2002) Functional diversity (FD), speciesrichness, and community composition. Ecology Letters 5: 402-411.

Petchey OL, O'Gorman EJ, Flynn DFB (2009) A functional guideto functional diversity measures. In Biodiversity, EcosystemFunctioning, & Human Wellbeing (eds Naeem S, Bunker DE,Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C). Oxford University Press, Ox-ford pp. 49-59.

Petchey OL, Evans, KL, Fishburn IS, Gaston KJ (2007) Low func-tional diversity and no redundancy in British avian assem-blages. J Animal Ecology, 76: 977-985

Peters CJ, Nelson L. Bills NL, Wilkins JL, Fick GW (2008) Food-shed analysis and its relevance. Ren Agr Food Systdoi:10.1017/S1742170508002433

Remans R, Fanzo J, Palm C, DeClerck F (2011) Ecology andhuman nutrition. In DeClerck (eds) Ecology and poverty.Springer. In press.

Rose D, Chotard S, Oliveira L, Mock N, Libombo M (2008) A

comparative evaluation of dietary indicators used in food con-sumption assessments of at-risk populations. Food Nut Bull29: 113-122

Rose D, Burgos G, Bonierbale M, Thiele G (2009) Understand-ing the role of potatoes in the Peruvian diet: An approach thatcombines food composition with household expenditure data.J Food Compos Anal 22: 525-532.

Rumbaitis del Rio CM, Ingram JC, Declerck F (2005) Leveragingecological knowledge to end global poverty. Front Ecol Environ3: 463-463.

Sachs JD, Remans R, Smukler SM, Winowiecki L, Andelman S,et al. (2010) Monitoring World’s agriculture. Nature 466: 558-560.

Sanchez P, Palm C, Sachs JD, Denning G, Flor, R, et al. (2007)The African Millennium Villages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104:16775–16780.

Shimbo S, Kimura K, Imai Y, Yasumoto K, Yamamoto K, et al.(1994) Number of food items as an indicator of nutrient intake.Ecol Food Nutr 32:197–206. Slattery M, Berry T, Potter J, Caan B (1997) Diet diversity, dietcomposition and risk of colon cancer. Cancer Causes Control 8:872–882.

Smith IF, Eyzaguirre P (2007) African Leafy Vegetables: theirrole in the World Health Organization’s Global Fruit and Veg-etables. Afr J Food Agr Nutr Vol 7, No. 3.http://www.ajfand.net/Vol7No3.html

Steyn NP, Nela JH, Nantela G, Kennedy G, Labadariosa D (2006)Food variety and dietary diversity scores in children: are theygood indicators of dietary adequacy? Public Health Nutrition 9:644-650.

United Nations Children’s Fund (2009) Tracking progress onchild and maternal nutrition. UNICEF, New York.

UN Millennium Project (2005) Investing in Development. APractical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals.Earthscan, London.

Waijers PMCM, Feskens EJM, Ocke MC (2007) A critical reviewof predefined diet quality scores. Br J Nutr 97: 219–231.

Welch RD, Graham RD (1999) A new paradigm for world agri-culture: meeting human needs. Productive, sustainable, nutri-tious. Field Crops Research 60: 1-10

World Bank (2007) From Agriculture to Nutrition. Pathways,Synergies, and Outcomes. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Health Organization (2007). Joint statement by the WorldHealth organization, the World Food Programme and the unitednations children’s Fund: Preventing and controlling micronu-trient deficiencies in populations affected by an emergency.WHO, Geneva.

World Health Organization (2003). Obesity and Overweight.WHO, Geneva.

150

NUTRIENT DIVERSITY WITHIN RICE CULTIVARS(ORYZA SATIVA L) FROM INDIAThingnganing Longvah, V. Ravindra Babub,a BasakanneyyaChanabasayya Vikaktamathb

a National Institute of Nutrition, Jamai Osmania PO, Hyderabad –500 007, AP, India

b Directorate of Rice Research, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 030, AP, India

151

Abstract Rice research in India has focused mainly on in-creasing yield and little is known of the nutrientcomposition of many of the country’s rice varieties.This study investigates the variations in the nutrientcontent of 269 high-yielding Indian rice cultivars.Protein content ranged from 6.92 to 12.98 g/100 gwith a mean of 9.43 ± 1.22 g/100 g. The majority ofthe samples (51%) had protein content between 9and 12 g/100 g. Mean crude fat content was 2.38 ±0.46 g/100 g and as many as 30 cultivars had morethan 3 g/100 g. Moderate levels of total dietary fibre(3.99–4.71 g/100 g) were observed in the brown ricesamples. Mean ash content was 1.39 ± 0.18 g/100 gand 36 percent of the samples had ash content be-tween 1.5 and 2.0 g/100 g indicating mineral abun-dance in many rice varieties. High concentrations ofmacro-elements such as phosphorus (330 ± 81mg/100 g), potassium (253 ± 27.81 mg/100 g) mag-nesium (129 ± 16 mg/100 g) and calcium (13.12 ±2.66 mg/100 g) were observed. Grain iron contentranged from 0.57 to 4.04 mg/100 g with an averageof 1.36 ± 0.59 mg/100 g. The coefficient of variationobserved for grain iron content was as high as 43percent. Grain zinc content ranged from 1.46 to 3.87mg/100 g with a coefficient of variation of 19 per-cent. Essential amino acids made up 39 percent ofthe total amino acids. The amino acid score rangedfrom 59 to 73 (mean 65 ± 3.42) and Lysine was thelimiting amino acid. Palmitic (range 20–26%), oleic(30–37%) and linoleic acids (33–42%) accounted formore than 92 percent of the total fatty acids in rice.The study has revealed diverse rice varieties withwide-ranging nutrients that can be utilized in breed-ing programmes to effectively increase protein andmicronutrient content in rice.

1. IntroductionRice is rich in genetic diversity with thousands of va-rieties cultivated in more than 100 countries aroundthe world. Nearly all cultivated rice is Oryza sativa L.with a small amount of O. glaberrima grown inAfrica. It is estimated that there are 120 000 differ-

ent cultivars ranging from traditional rice varietiesto the commercially bred elite cultivars (Londo etal., 2006). In its natural state, rice comes in manydifferent colours prized for their nutrient and healthproperties. Rice is tied to cultures and livelihoodssymbolizing life and prosperity for billions of peo-ple playing a fundamental role in the world food se-curity and socio-economic development. Toemphasize the importance of rice, the UN GeneralAssembly declared 2004 the International Year ofRice under the slogan “Rice is Life” (FAO, 2004).India is the largest rice-growing country accountingfor one-third of the world acreage under rice culti-vation. Rice is grown in almost all the Indian statescovering more than 30 percent of the total cultivatedarea in the country. India’s food production is pro-jected to touch 235 million tonnes during 2010–11,of which rice will account for 94.5 million tonnes(Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2010).Each year an estimated 408 661 million tonnes ofrice is consumed across the globe accounting for 20percent of the world’s total calorie intake. Thebiggest public health challenge both globally and inrice-consuming countries comes from micronutri-ent deficiencies of iron, zinc, vitamin A and iodineaffecting more than 3 billion people worldwide(WHO, 2002). The proportion of the global popula-tion suffering from micronutrient deficiencies hasincreased over the last four decades largely due tothe increase in acreage under rice and wheat culti-vation at the expense of pulse crops (a much richersource of micronutrients) and to changing dietaryhabits (Graham et al., 2007). India has the highestincidence of undernutrition in the world, and of themicronutrient deficiencies, iron deficiency anaemiais the most serious public health problem in thecountry (NNMB, 2006).In the past, generic food composition data were con-sidered sufficient for most purposes but today theusefulness of cultivar-specific composition data isbecoming increasingly acknowledged for under-standing diet-related morbidity and mortality. Sig-nificant cultivar-specific differences have been

152

observed in the nutritional content of rice (Kennedyand Burlingame, 2003). Many factors, such as cli-mate, geography and geochemistry, agriculturalpractices, post-harvest conditions and handling, aswell as genetic composition of the cultivar areknown to affect the nutrient composition of rice.Among these factors cultivar-specific differenceshave received the least attention. Rice research in India has traditionally focused onways of increasing yield to match the country’s bur-geoning population and trade. The importance ofenhancing nutritional quality to improve humanhealth through rice breeding is only now coming infocus. In 2002, the International Rice Commissionrecommended that the existing biodiversity of ricevarieties and their nutritional composition neededto be explored and that nutrient content must beamong the main criteria used for selection of ricecultivars for use in areas of food insecurity. Rice isan important source of nutrients and breeding ricecrops with particularly enhanced nutrient concen-tration requires knowledge of the variation in thetrait among the available germplasm. Therefore thisstudy was initiated in order to document the nutri-ent composition of 269 high-yielding rice cultivarscultivated in India. Nutrient analysis was carried outusing brown rice, the raw material for white rice.

2. Methodology2.1 Sample processingAll varieties (indica subspecies) of rice were sup-plied by the Directorate of Rice Research (ICAR), Ra-jendranagar, Hyderabad in the form of brown rice.Samples were powdered using cyclone mill (UDYCorporation, USA) and stored in clean polyethylenebottles from where aliquots were taken for analysis.

2.2 Proximate compositionMoisture, ash and dietary fibre content were as-sayed using the Association of Official AnalyticalChemists (AOAC, 2006) methods 934.01, 942.05 and985.29, respectively. Protein content (N X 5.95) wasdetermined by the AOAC Kjeldahl method (984.13).

Total fat was determined by the AOAC method afteracid digestion (996.01). Carbohydrate content wasdetermined by calculating the difference (100 –moisture+fat+protein+ash+total dietary fibre).

2.3 Mineral analysisApproximately 0.5 g of sample was accuratelyweighed into a Teflon PFA digestion vessel to whichhigh purity acid mixture (3.0 mL HNO3 and 1.0 mLH2O2) was added. Each sample was taken in dupli-cate, sealed and digested in a microwave digestionsystem (CEM, Corp. MARSXpress). After completionof the digestion, vessels were cooled, carefully re-moved and transferred to a 25 ml volumetric flask.Analysis of calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, man-ganese, potassium and zinc was carried out afterappropriate dilutions in an Atomic Absorption Spec-trometer (iCE 3300 Thermo Scientific). Phosphoruswas estimated by the Fiske and Subbarow methodas described in AOAC method (931.01).

2.4 Quality controlFor mineral estimation a blank and a Certified Ref-erence Material (NIST 1568a or 1547) were includedin each digestion batch for quality assurance. Acomparison of the mean content values for each ofthe analyte in this study and that given in the CRMcertificate is presented in Table 1. The precisiondata shows good agreement reflecting good dataquality.

Table 1. Analysis of Certified Reference Material

Minerals CRM No. Sample Measured Certified Value (mg/kg) Value(mg/kg)

Fe NIST-1568a Rice Flour 7.57 ± 0.16 7.4 ± 0.9

Zn NIST-1568a Rice Flour 19.22 ± 0.35 19.4 ± 0.5

Cu NIST-1568a Rice Flour 2.4 ± 0.155 2.4 ± 0.3

Mn NIST-1568a Rice Flour 18.52 ± 0.376 20.0 ± 1.6

Ca NIST-1568a Rice Flour 118 ± 2.3 118 ± 6

Mg NIST-1568a Rice Flour 560 ± 3 560 ± 20

K NIST-1568a Rice Flour 1280 ± 3.2 1280 ± 8

P NIST-1547 Peach Leaves 1360 ± 16 1370 ± 70

153

2.5 Amino acid compositionAmino acid analysis was carried out by hydrolysingthe samples in sealed ampoules in vacuo with 6 NHCl and incubated at 110ºC for 22 hours (Darragh,2005). Excess acid was removed in a flash evapora-tor under reduced pressure at a temperature of lessthan 40ºC. The sample was then dissolved in a cit-rate buffer (pH 2.2) and loaded into an automaticamino acid analyser (Biochrom-30, Cambridge, UK).Methionine and cysteine was determined separatelyafter performic acid oxidation (Moore, 1963). Tryp-tophan was quantified after barytic hydrolysis of thesamples according to the method described byLandry and Delhaye (1992). Each amino acid wasidentified and quantified using authentic standards(National Institute of Standards and Technology,SRM 2389). The amino acid score was calculatedusing the FAO/WHO/UNU suggested pattern ofamino acid requirement for pre-school children (2–5 years) (FAO/WHO/UNU, 1985).

2.6 Fatty acid compositionThe fatty acid composition was determined after di-rect methylation of the samples according to themethod of O’ Fallon et al. (2007). The fatty acidmethyl esters were analysed in a Shimadzu 2010 GCequipped with Flame Ionization Detector (FID) andSP2560 column (100 m x 0.25 mm x 0.2 mm). Injec-tion was achieved by splitless mode and the injec-tion port and detector were maintained at 250°C.Nitrogen was used as carrier gas and the tempera-ture programme was from 140°C to 230°C with aramp rate of 4°C/min. Individual peaks were identi-fied by retention time using SupelcoTM37 compo-nent FAME MIX. Fatty acid composition wasexpressed as a percentage of total fatty acids.

2.7 Statistical calculationsData analysis was carried out using SPSS (Version18: Chicago, IL). Descriptive statistics, namelymean, range and standard deviation, were calcu-lated. Pearson correlation coefficients were carriedout among the different nutrients of interest. P val-

ues were two-tailed and two significant levels(P<0.05 and 0.01) were used.

3. Results and discussions3.1 Proximate compositionThe macronutrient composition of all the rice vari-eties is listed in table 2.

Table 2. Proximate composition and dietary fibercontent of 269 high yielding Indian rice varieties

Parameter N Mean ± SD Range

Moisture (g/100g) 269 9.69 ± 1.37 6.15 – 12.66

Protein (g/100g) 269 9.47 ± 1.22 6.92 – 12.98

Fat (g/100g) 269 2.36 ± 0.46 1.23 – 3.77

Ash (g/100g) 269 1.39 ± 0.18 0.90 – 1.99

Insoluble dietary fibre (g/100g) 205 3.62 ± 3.64 3. 13.90

Soluble dietary fibre (g/100g) 105 0.79 ± 0.06 0.66 – 0.92

Total dietary fibre (g/100g) 105 4.41 ± 0.17 3.99 – 4.71

Carbohydrate (g/100g) 105 71.79 ± 1.37 68.04 – 75.77

Energy (kcal) 105 347 ± 3.64 340 - 356

All samples had moisture content varying between6.15 and 11.91 g/100 g within the limit of 12 g/100 gnormally recommended for safe storage ofprocessed rice. Brown rice protein content in 269 cul-tivars studied ranged from 6.92 to 12.98 g/100 g. Thewidth between the highest and the lowest proteincontent was 6 g/100 g. The average rice protein con-tent of 9.43 g/100 g found in the present study wasmuch higher than the reported value of 6.88 g/100 gin the Indian Food Composition Tables (Gopalan et al.,1989) indicating a general increase of protein contentin Indian rice varieties. Factors such as environmen-tal condition, soil fertility, fertilizer use and post-har-vest processing can influence the protein content ofrice; however, the present study examines only thevarietal difference and not the other factors that caninfluence protein content in rice. Protein content in rice due to varietal differences hasbeen reported to be in the range of 4.5 to 15.9 g/100g (Juliano and Villareal, 1993). Compared to the pres-ent study, Chandel et al. (2010) has reported lower

154

protein content ranging from 6.95 to 10.75 g/100 gwith an average of 8.07 g/100 g while Basak et al.(2002) reported a much lower protein content of 6.6–7.3 g/100 g in Indian rice genotypes. Chinese andNorth American wild rice samples had a relativelyhigher protein content of 12–15 g/100 g (Zhai et al.,2001). Frequency distribution showed that 45.2 per-cent of the samples had protein content below 9g/100 g while only 3 percent of the samples wereabove 12 g/100 g. The highest protein content of 12.98g/100 g was observed in Phoudum, a traditional high-yielding variety. The majority of the samples (51%)had a protein content of between 9 and 12 g/100 g.Brown rice crude fat content in 269 Indian rice culti-vars ranged from 1.23 to 3.77 g/100 g with a mean of2.38 ± 0.46 g/100 g which is comparable to that re-ported by other investigators (Juliano, 1985; Scherzet al., 2000). Similar fat content ranging from 1.81 to2.24 g/100 g and from 2.1 to 3.2 g/100 g has been re-ported in Italian rice varieties (Brandolini et al., 2006).The highest fat content of 3.77 g/100 g found in Kavyavariety is substantially high even though it is withinthe range of 1 – 4 g/100 g reported for brown rice (Ju-liano, 1985). Frequency distribution of brown rice fatcontent showed that the 73 percent of the sampleshad fat content between 2 and 3 g/100 g while asmany as 30 cultivars had more than 3 g/100 g.Though rice is not a rich source of fat, the study re-vealed that considerable variations exist within ricecultivars with some cultivars having substantiallyhigher content that can be utilized to marginally in-crease fat intake.The total dietary fibre content analysed in 105 rice va-rieties ranged from 3.99 to 4.71 g/100 g, with MLT-ME6 having the highest content. The averageinsoluble fibre and soluble fibre content was 3.62 ±0.16 g/100 g and 0.79 ± 0.06 g/100 g, respectively. Inall varieties, the content of insoluble dietary fibre wassignificantly greater (p<0.001) than that of solubledietary fibre. Compared to the present study, Cheng(1983) has reported a much lower total dietary fibrecontent of 1.36 – 2.83 g/100 g in brown rice. Rice ap-pears to be a moderate source of dietary fibre; how-

ever, milling or polishing to produce white rice dras-tically reduces the dietary fibre content in rice. InAsian countries where higher intake of white rice hasbeen associated with increased risk of metabolic dis-eases and type 2 diabetes, substitution with brownrice has shown to lower the risk of type 2 diabetes,CVD and mortality (Katcher et al., 2008; Villegas etal., 2007). Therefore using brown rice to overcomecurrent physiological effects in human health due toits high fibre and other bioactive compounds appearsto be an advantage.Brown rice ash content in 269 rice cultivars rangedfrom 0.9 g/100 g in Pantdh to 1.99 g/100 g in IR36 va-riety. Mean brown rice ash content was 1.38 g/100 g,comparable to brown rice from Brazil (1.21 g/100 g)and wild rice varieties from China (Heinemann et al.,2005; Zhai et al., 2001). Frequency distributionshowed that 64 percent of the samples had ash con-tent between 0.9 and 1.5 g/100 g, while 36 percenthad ash content between 1.5 and 2.0 g/100 g reflect-ing mineral abundance in many rice varieties.

3.2 Mineral ContentThe concentration of elements in 269 brown ricegenotypes is summarized in table 3.

Table 3. Mineral content of high yielding Indian ricevarieties (mg/100g)

Min. N PRESENT STUDY Juliano and Marr etal Scherzetal Bechtel (1995) (2000)

Mean ± SD Range (1985)

Fe 236 1.23 ± 0.53 0.52 – 3.75 0.2 – 5.2 0.5 – 5.7 2 – 3.6

Zn 236 2.38 ± 0.45 1.01 – 3.46 0.6 – 2.8 1.3 – 2.1 0.8 – 2

Cu 236 0.31 ± 0.10 0.13 – 0.78 0.1 – 0.6 0.14 – 1.3 0.24 – 0.30

Mn 236 1.41 ± 0.31 0.75 – 2.46 0.2 – 3.6 2.5 – 6 3.74

Ca 236 12.27 ± 2.59 8 – 19 10 – 50 3 – 11 11 – 39

Mg 236 116 ± 14.04 69 – 150 20 – 150 100 – 130 110 – 166

P 236 297 ± 71.18 113 – 4987 170 – 430 240 – 310 250 – 383

K 104 253 ± 27.81 162 - 347 60 - 280 210 – 300 150 – 260

The sum of nutritionally important minerals as-sayed in this study represents 36 percent of the total

155

ash content. In general, high concentrations ofmacro-elements such as phosphorus (330 ± 81mg/100 g), potassium (253 ± 27.81 mg/100 g), mag-nesium (129 ± 16 mg/100 g) and calcium (13.12 ±2.66 mg/100 g) was observed in the Indian rice cul-tivars. The levels of macro-elements found in thepresent study was comparable with the values ob-tained by Zeng et al. (2009) in 28 indica brown ricefrom China. Phosphorus content was highest in T.Basmati (465 mg/100 g) and lowest in Aathira (195mg/100 g). More than 80 percent of the total phos-phorus content in rice occurs as phytate that func-tions in chelating and storing phosphorus in theseed (Oatway et al., 2001). Magnesium contentranged from 86 mg/100 g in MLT-E-2 to 149 mg/100g in Chageli variety. The variation in calcium contentwas from 6.8 mg/100 g in Aanashwara to 17.11mg/100 g in Pantdhan-12. Mean ± SD content ofmanganese and copper was 1.56 ± 0.35 and 0.34 ±0.11 mg/100 g respectively. Copper content was lowranging from 0.14 to 0.84 mg/100 g. Manganesecontent was lowest in Aathira (0.77 mg/100 g) andhighest in MLT-M-11 (2.13 mg/100 g). Elementtransfer from soil to brown rice has been studiedand inter-regional differences in the concentrationof various elements were not found to be substan-tial in many cases (Jung et al., 2005). The order ofthe concentrations of elements in brown rice in thisstudy was phosphorus > magnesium > calcium >zinc > manganese > iron > copper. Similartrends have been observed by other investigatorsconducting studies on different rice varieties(Ogiyama et al., 2008).

Grain iron content ranged from 0.57 mg/100 g inAathira to 4.04 mg/100 g in MLTE-5 with an averageof 1.36 ± 0.59 mg/100 g on dry weight basis. Fre-quency distribution of iron content showed that 46percent of the samples had less than 1 mg/100 g,48 percent had 1 – 2 mg/100 g and 6 percent hadmore than 2 mg/100 g. Rice grain iron content hasbeen reported to be in the range of 0.2 – 5.2 mg/100g by Juliano and Bechtel (1985). A much lower iron

content has been reported in wild rice accession(1.25 – 2.27 mg/100 g), advance breeding lines (0.81– 1.28 mg/100 g) and landraces (0.48 – 1.62 mg/100g) in 46 Indian rice genotypes by Chandel et al.(2010). Compared to the present study higher ironcontent in the range of 0.70 – 6.35 mg/100 g with anaverage of 2.28 mg/100 g on dry matter basis wasreported for 95 Chinese varieties (Wang et al., 1997).Similarly high iron content in the range of 0.5 – 6.7mg/100 g has been reported in 90 Australian ricevarieties (Marr et al., 1995) while Korean rice vari-eties showed low content of 0.16 – 1.4 mg/100 g(Kim et al., 2004). Interestingly high iron content of5.06 ± 1.05 mg/100 g has been reported in improvedindica cultivar from China (Zeng et al., 2009). On theother hand low iron content of 1.2 mg/100 g was re-ported in Vietnamese rice (Phuong et al., 1999). Thecoefficient of variation observed for grain iron con-tent in the present study was as high as 43 percentwhich indicates ample room for improving rice ironcontent.Grain zinc content ranged from 1.46 mg/100 g inLalat to 3.87 mg/100 g in MLT-M-14 with a coeffi-cient of variation of 19 percent. Frequency distribu-tion showed that 73 percent of the samples had zinccontent in the range of 1 – 2 mg/100 g and 14 per-cent had more than 2 mg/100 g. Varying grain zinccontent in 46 rice genotypes from India was foundto be 2.96 – 4.17 mg/100 g in wild rice accession,1.67 – 3.01 mg/100 g in advance breeding lines and2.07 – 2.96 mg/100 g in landraces (Chandel et al.,2010). Zeng et al. (2009) found zinc content of 2.57± 0.67 mg/100 g in improved Indian cultivars whichis comparable to 2.64 ± 0.50 mg/100 g found in thepresent study though higher zinc content of 3.34mg/100 g has also been reported in 57 Chinese ricevarieties (Wang et al., 1997). Increased nitrogen fer-tilizer application did not produce significant in-creases in grain iron and zinc content in rice(Chandel et al., 2010). The width between the lowestand highest zinc content in the present study was2.41 mg/100 g while that of iron was much higher at3.47 mg/100 g. Rice is not a rich source of iron and

156

zinc but it remains the major source of intake forthese micronutrients in the rice-eating population.

3.3 Correlations among the contents of ash andeight mineral elements in brown riceResults of the Pearson’s correlation performedamong eight mineral element content and ash inbrown rice is given in table 4.

Table 4. Correlation among eight mineral contentsin 269 high yielding Indian rice cultivars

El. Ash Fe Zn Cu Mn Ca Mg P

Fe 0.192**

Zn 0.235** 0.187*

Cu 0.71 0.432** 0.209**

Mn -0.097 0.058 -0.120 0.167*

Ca -0.018 0.159* -0.148* 0.057 0.135*

Mg 0.286** 0.166* 0.410** 0.191** -0.008 -0.226**

P 0.152* 0.205** -0.159* 0.010 0.287** -0.103 0.156*

K 0.212* 0.082 0.108 0.118 0.103 0.292** 0.215* -0.100

* Significant at 0.05 probability level** Significant at 0.01 probability level

Ash correlated positively with Fe or Zn or Mg or P or

K but showed no correlation with Cu or Mn or Ca in-dicating that all the mineral content in rice is not pos-itively correlated with its ash content. Among theminerals, close positive correlation was observed be-tween the contents of Zn and Fe, Cu and Fe or Zn, Mnand Cu, Ca and Fe or Mn, Mg and Fe or Zn or Cu, Pand Fe or Mn or Mg, K and Ca or Mg, while negativecorrelation was observed between the content of Caand Zn, Mg and Ca, P and Zn. Jiang et al. (2007) alsoobserved positive correlation between Fe and Zn sug-gesting that high iron content is accompanied by highzinc content in rice. There were differences in the cor-relations among other elements between the Chineserice genotypes and the present study which may bedue to the fact that Jiang et al. (2007) used polishedrice whereas brown rice was used in the presentstudy. Significant positive correlation was observedbetween Mg and all other elements studied exceptMn. This may be explained by the fact that Mg regu-lated the uptake of all other essential elements andthus the Mg content of rice grain assumes importance(Tucker, 1999). The mineral contents in the Indian ricevarieties are very diverse which can be explained bythe genetic characteristics of varieties and other agri-

Figure 1. Box plot showing the distribution of various amino acids in 42 high Yielding Indian rice varieties

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Asp

art

ate

Th

reo

nin

e

Se

rin

e

Giu

tam

ate

Pro

line

Gly

cin

e

Ala

nin

e

Cys

tin

e

Valin

e

Me

thio

nin

e

Iso

luci

ne

Le

uci

ne

Tyro

sin

e

Ph

en

ylal

anin

e

His

tid

ine

Lysi

ne

Arg

inin

e

/g/10

0g p

rote

in

157

cultural practices that can influence its contents.

3.4 Amino acid content and Amino acid scoreBox plot showing distribution of various amino acidsin 42 high yielding rice cultivars is shown in Figure 1.The total essential amino acids made up 39% of thetotal amino acids. Lysine content ranged from3.42g/100g in AP 41 Kanchana to 4.2g/100g in AP 71Pratap with a mean of 3.76 ± 0.20 g/100g protein.Shekar and Reddy (1982) has also reported wide vari-ation in lysine content (2.82 to 4.86g/100g protein) inscented rice varieties. In contrast low lysine content(2.8g/100g protein) was observed in Mexican andMalaysian rice varieties (Roohinejad et al 2009; Soteloet al, 1994). In the present study besides AP71 Pratapanother two varieties AP 85 Sarala and AP106 alsohad lysine content above 4 g/100g protein. Wide ge-netic variability for lysine content in Indian rice vari-eties has been reported (Banerjee et al, 2011). Themean ± SD of threonine content, the second limitingamino acid in rice was 3.45 ± 0.21 g/100g protein. Thelowest threonine content of 3.03 g/100g protein wasobserved in IR 64 while the highest content of 3.86g/100g protein was found in AP 85 Sarala. After lysine

and threonine, isoleucine is the only amino acid thatcan sometimes be limiting in rice protein. Isoleucinecontent ranged from 3.02 – 4.59 g/100g protein withmean content of 3.91 ± 0.39 g/100g protein. Thesavoury amino acids glutamate and aspartate was themajor amino acids constituting 19.36 ± 0.39 and 8.91± 0.38 g/100g protein respectively. The sweet aminoacids glycine and alanine was as high as 4.51±0.20and 6.01±0.29 g/100g protein respectively. The rangeof the different essential amino acids expressed ing/100g protein was 1.32 – 1.54 for tryptophan, 1.51 –3.04 for cysteine, 4.05 – 6.92 for valine, 1.11 – 2.40 formethionine, 7.23 – 8.73 for leucine, 5.12 – 5.75 forphenylalanine, 2.23 – 2.73 for histidine and 7.53 – 8.62for arginine. There was reasonable level of variationfor all the amino acids indicating that genetic gain bymeans of selection is likely.Compared to the WHO/FAO/UNU (1985) amino acid re-quirement for 2-5 years old child the amino acid scoreranged from 59 to 73 with a mean of 65 ± 3.42. Com-pared to lysine content in rice varieties from otherstudies (Hegsted and Julaino 1974; Sotelo et al 1994;Tobekia et al, 1981), generally higher lysine contentwas observed in the present study. Despite observing

Table 5. Correlation among amino acids and protein content in 42 high yielding Indian rice cultivars

Try Asp Thr Ser Glu Pro Gly Ala Cys Val Met Ile Ley Tyr Phe His Lys Arg

Asp 0.368*

Thr 0.175 0.800**

Ser 0.215 0.756** 0.845**

Glu 0.126 0.137 0.146 0.390*

Pro 0.222 -0.076 -0.054 0.115 0.264

Gly 0.199 0.742** 0.816** 0.581** 0.009 -0.214

Ala 0.149 0.711** 0.832** 0.681** 0.227 -0.224 0.794**

Cys 0.466** 0.513** 0.412** 0.455** 0.147 0.042 0.332* 0.412**

Va -0.033 -0.549** -0.490** -0.521** 0.060 0.211 -0.357* -0.391* -0.143

Met 0.329* 0.558** 0.524** 0.446** 0.141 0.200 0.512** 0.450** 0.330* -0.264

Ile 0.145 -0.274 -0.249 -0.488** -0.155 -0.012 -0.040 -0.090 0.060 0.735** -0.042

Ley 0.012 0-.503** -0.487** -0.375* 0.280 0.261 -0.474** -0.381* 0.002 0.905** -0.309* .564**

Tyr 0.434** 0.313* 0.169 0.228 0.373* 0.120 0.139 0.264 0.313* -0.208 0.286 0.138 -0.073

Phe 0.303 0.022 -0.071 -0.067 0.347* -0.025 0.150 0.102 -0.011 0.453** 0.049 0.420** 0.416** 0.364*

His 0.190 0.430** 0.486** 0.193 -0.123 -0.200 0.570** 0.403** 0.277 0.094 0.336* 0.435** -0.012 0.032 .0208

Lys 0.044 0.343* 0.333* 0.081 -0.354* -0.075 0.413** 0.199 0.257 0.234 0.278 0.419** 0.041 -0.134 0.127 0.603**

Arg 0.242 0.204 0.241 0.200 -0.025 0.159 0.357* 0.047 0.101 0.108 0.353* 0.188 -0.010 0.248 0.186 0.251 0.405**

Protein -0.281 -0.789** -0.676** 0-.475** 0.173 0.225 -0.658** -0.620** -0.310 0.843** -0.557** 0.286 0.881** -0.452** 0.206 -.0332* -0.169 -0.174

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

158

increased lysine content in some cultivars, this aminoacid still remains the first limiting amino acid in all va-rieties. Milling does not induce any dramatic changesin the amino acid composition of rice and thus theamino acid score is unlikely to change significantly dueto polishing (Sotelo et al, 1994; Tobekia et al, 1981). Table 5 shows the correlation among the differentamino acids including protein content. Significantnegative correlations was observed between proteincontent and Asp or Thr or Ser or Gly or Ala or Met orTrp or His indicating that increase in protein contentwill result at the expense of these amino acids. Apositive correlation was observed between Lys andAsp or Thr or Gly or Iso or His while a negative cor-relation was seen between Lys and Glu. The secondlimiting amino acid threonine showed significantcorrelation with Ser or Gly or Ala or Cys or Met orHis or Lys. Negative correlation was also observedbetween Thr and Val or Leu. Significant correlationswas observed between many combinations of aminoacid in the Indian rice cultivars. The results suggestthat many Indian rice varieties possess better aminoacid profiles and exhibit superior nutritional quali-

ties which could be utilized in breeding varietieswith improved amino acid composition.

3.5 Fatty acids compositionBox plot showing the distribution of various fattyacids in 85 Indian rice cultivars is presented in Figure 2.The major fatty acids were palmitic (range 20 –26%), oleic (range 30 – 37%) and linoleic acids (33 –42%) which accounted for more than 92% of thetotal fatty acids. Studies on non-glutinous rice cul-tivars from Japan also showed similar content ofthe major fatty acids palmitic, oleic and linoleicacids (Kitta et al, 2005). The Mean ± SD content ofmyristic , stearic and α-linolenic acids was 0.32 ±0.06, 2.63 ± 0.50 and 1.52 ± 0.23 respectively. α-li-nolenic content ranged from low of 0.93 to as highas 2.19%. Capric acid was detected at very low lev-els ranging between 0.02 – 0.32 % in the presentstudy. There is no report on the presence of Capricacid in rice and this is the first report of the kind. Asample chromatogram of one rice fatty acid profileshowing distinct peak of capric acid is depicted inFigure 3. Detection of capric acid was achieved by

Figure 2. Box plot showing the distribution of various fatty acids in 85 high yielding Indian rice cultivars

Cap

ric

Myr

isti

c

Palm

itic

Ste

ari

c

Ara

chid

ic

Be

he

nic

Lig

no

ceri

c

Palm

ito

leic

Ole

ic

Eic

ose

no

ic

Ne

rvo

nic

Lin

ole

ic

Lin

ole

nic

Tsfa

Tmu

sfa

Tpu

sfa

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Per

cent

fatt

y ac

id

159

using direct fatty acid methylation of samples andusing SupelcoTM SP2560 column which providedclear separation of the fatty acids including Cis andTrans isomers. Low levels of arachidic (0.45 ± 0.07),behenic (0.19 ± 0.06), lignoceric (0.27 ± 0.12), ner-vonic (0.07 ± 0.02) and eicosenoic (0.32 ± 0.06) acidswere also observed in all the rice samples studiedhere. Most studies on fatty acids composition in rice(Khatoon and Goapalakrishna, 2004; Mano et al,1999; Taira and Chang 1986; Yhoshida et al, 2010;

Zhou et al, 2003) failed to detect and report theseminor fatty acids which together accounts for about1.6% of the total fatty acids. The wide range of individ-ual fatty acids in the diverse rice varieties shows thatrice breeding can be designed to increase individualfatty acid of interest for improved health benefits.Correlations were observed between many combi-nations of fatty acids is shown in table 6. The majorfatty acid palmitic showed significant correlationwith capric or myristic acids while oleic showed sig-

Figure 3. Fatty acids chromatogram of rice sample

Table 6. Correction among the fatty acids is high yielding Indian rice varieties

Capric Myristic Palmitic Stearic Arachidic Behenic Lignoceric Palmitoleic Oleic Eicosenoic Nervonic Linoleic

Myristic 0.659**

Palmitic 0.503** 0.454**

Stearic 0.627** 0.493** 0.424**

Arachidic 0.60 0.056 0.139 0.494**

Behenic 0.348** 0.267* 0.120 0.589** 0.598**

lignoceric 0.486** 0.206 0.057 0.473** 0.208 0.640**

Palmitoleic 0.617** 0.858** 0.288** 0.393** -0.061 0.330** 0.342**

Oleic -0.212 -0.215* -0.316** 0.052 0.212 0.096 0.011 -0.0113

Eicosenoic 0.323** 0.008 0.097 0.313** 0.187 0.358** 0.633** 0.138 0.184

Nervonic 0.024 -0.318** 0.076 0.155 -0.023 0.057 0.397** -0.251* -0.047 0.407**

Linoleic -0.524** -0.524** -0.566** -0.690** -0.396** -0.430** -0.306** -0.458** -0.478** -0.339** 0.20

Linolenic -0.084 -0.102 -0.083 -0.0355**-0.243* -0.211 -0.169 -0.117 -0.368** -0.143 -0.137 0.352**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level) 2 tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the level (2 – tailed).

75000

50000

25000

010 20 30

160

nificant negative correlation with myristic acid.Negative significant correlation was observed be-tween linoleic acid and all other fatty acids exceptlinolenic and nervonic acid. Palmitic acid alsoshowed significant negative correlation with Oleicand linoleic acids. The data exhibited negative cor-relations between polyunsaturated fatty acids andsaturated or monounsaturated.Many important rice landraces with diverse geneticcomposition are grown and consumed all over theworld. However, modern hybrid rice varieties havereplaced the more nutritious and diverse rice vari-eties leading to a decline in nutrient diversity withinrice species. Decline in rice diversity can adverselyaffects the nutrient security of the people in riceconsuming populations where nutrient diversity inrice has been fundamental to the food and nutrientsecurity of the people.Modern biotechnology is being explored for im-provement of nutrients and its bioavailability in rice,however, the purpose of using genetic engineeringfor food purpose is still being debated. Fortificationof foods with micronutrients may have short termgains but for long term, biofortification strategy tak-ing advantage of the consistent daily consumption oflarge amount of rice by all family members providesa feasible means of reaching the malnourished pop-ulations in remote areas. Increasing protein and mi-cronutrient content like iron and zinc content inbrown rice by 20% would mean a substantial in-crease in the protein and micronutrient intake espe-cially in rice consuming country like India.

ConclusionThe study has revealed diverse rice varieties withwide range of nutrients within rice cultivars inIndia. The various agro climatic regions in India of-fers immense opportunity for proper selection ofrice cultivars for certain regions which combinehigh mineral levels with low levels of inhibitors forimproved bioavailability in order to combat mi-cronutrient deficiencies in the country. The impor-tance of nutrient diversity in rice is being

understood now with the realization that biodiver-sity is fundamental to food and nutrient security ofthe people. With the sharp increase in lifestyle-re-lated health issues and diseases, scientists shouldlook at quality traits that place greater focus ontheir antioxidant properties, glycemic index, andmineral content in the vast pool of indigenous ricevarieties available in the country.

AcknowledgementsThe technical assistance of K. Subhash, P.S.Prashanthi and O. Kiran Kumar are gratefully ac-knowledged.

References

AOAC. (2006). Official Methods of Analysis, 18th edition, Asso-ciation of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD.

Banerjee, S., Chandel, G., Mandal, N., Meena, B.M. & Saluja, T.(2011). Assessment of nutritive value in milled rice grains ofsome Indian rice landraces and their molecular characteriza-tion. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 36: 369–380.

Basak, S., Tyagi, R.S. & Srivastava, K.N. (2002). Biochemicalcharacterization of aromatic and non aromatic rice cultivars.Journal of Food Science Technology (Mysore), 39: 55–58.

Brandolini, V., Coisson, J.D., Tedeschi, P., Barile, D., Cereti, E.,Maietti, A., Vecchiati, G., Martelli, A. & Arlorio, M. (2006) Chemo-metrical characterization of four Italian rice varieties based ongenetic and chemical analyses. Journal of Agricultural andFood Chemistry, 54: 9985–9991.

Chandel, G., Banerjee, S., See, S., Meena, R., Sharma, D.J. &Verulkar, S.B. (2010). Effects of different nitrogen fertilizer lev-els and native soil properties on rice grain Fe, Zn and proteincontents. Rice Science, 17: 213–227.

Cheng, H. (1983) Total dietary fiber content of polished, brownand bran types of Japonica and Indica rice in Taiwan: Resultingphysiological effects of consumption. Nutrition Research Inter-national, 13: 93–101.

Darragh, A.J. (2005). The effect of hydrolysis time on amino acidanalysis. Journal of AOAC International, 88: 888–893.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2010). Agriculture Sta-tistics at a glance. Department of Agriculture and cooperation,Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.

FAO (2004). International year of rice 2004. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO/WHO/UNU Expert consultation (1985). Energy and proteinrequirements. WHO Technical Report Series No. 724. WorldHealth Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

161

Gopalan, C., Rama Sastri, B.V. & Balasubramanian, S.C. (1989).Nutritive value of Indian Foods, National Institute of Nutrition,Hyderabad – 500 007, India.

Graham, R.D., Welch, R.M., Saunders, D.A., Ortiz-Monasterio, I.,Bouis, H.E., Bonierbale, M., de Haan, S., Burgos, G., Thiele, G.,Liria, R., Meisner, C.A., Beebe, S.E., Potts, M.J., Kadian, M.,Hobbs, P.R., Gupta, R.K. & Twomlow, S. (2007). Nutritious sub-sistence systems. Advance in Agronomy, 92: 1–74.

Hegsted, M. & Juliano, B.O. (1974). Difficulties in assessing thenutritional quality of rice protein. Journal of Nutrition, 104: 772–781.

Heinemann, R.J.B., Fagundes, P.L., Pinto, E.A., Penteado,M.V.C. & Lanfer-Marquez, U.M. (2005). Comparative study ofnutrient composition of commercial brown, parboiled andmilled rice from Brazil. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis, 18: 287–296.

Jiang, S.l., Wu, J.G., Feng, Y., Yang, X.E. & Shi, C.H. (2007). Cor-relation analysis of mineral element contents and quality traitsin milled rice (Oryza sativa L). Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry, 55: 9608–9613.

Juliano, B.O. (1985). Polysaccharides, proteins and lipids ofrice. In B.O. Juliano (Ed.) Rice. Chemistry and terminology (p.59–174). St Paul, Minnesota: American Association of CerealChemist.

Juliano, B.O. & Bechtel, D.B. (1985) The rice grain and its grosscomposition. In Juliano, B.O. (Ed.) Rice Chemists and Technol-ogy, Second Ed. The American Association of Cereal Chemists,St Paul, MI, USA,

Juliano, B. & Villareal, C. (1993). Grain quality evaluation ofworld rices. Los Baños, Philippines, International Rice Re-search Institute.

Jung, M.C., Yun, S., Lee, J.S. & Lee, J.U. (2005). Baseline studyon essential and trace elements in polished rice from SouthKorea. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 27: 455–464.

Katcher, H.I., Legro, R.S., Kunselman, A.R., Gillies, P.J., De-mers, L.M., Bagshaw, D.M. & Kris-Ethuton, P.M. (2008). The ef-fects of a whole grain-enriched hypocaloric diet oncardiovascular disease risk factors in men and women withmetabolic syndrome. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,87: 79–90.

Kennedy, G. & Burlingame, B. (2003). Analysis of food compo-sition data on rice from a plant genetic resources perspective.Food Chemistry, 80: 589–596.

Khatoon, S. & Gopalakrishna, A.G. (2004). Fat soluble nu-traceutical and fatty acid composition of selected Indian rice va-rieties. Journal of the American Oil Chemist Society, 81:939–943.

Kim, M., Yang, H.R. & Jeong, Y. (2004). Contents of phytic acidand minerals of rice cultivars from Korea. Journal of the Ko-rean Society of Food Science and Nutrition, 2: 301–303.Kitta, K., Ebihara, M., Lizuka, T., Yoshikawa, R., Isshiki, K. &

Kawamoto, S. (2005). Variations in lipid content and fatty acidcomposition of major non glutinous rice cultivars in Japan.Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 18: 269–278.

Landry, J. & Delhaye, S. (1992). Simplified procedure for the de-termination of tryptophan of foods and feedstuffs from barytichydrolysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 40:776–779.

Londo, J.P., Chiang, Y.C., Hung, K.H., Chiang, T.Y. & Schaal, B.A.(2006). Phylogeography of Asian wild rice, Oryza rufipogon, re-veals multiple independent domestications of cultivated rice,Oryza sativa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.USA, 103: 9578–9583.

Mano, Y., Kawaminami, K., Kojima, M. & Ohnishi, M. (1999).Comparative composition of brown rice lipids (Lipid fractions) ofindica and japonica rices. Bioscience Biotechnology and Bio-chemistry, 63: 619–626.

Marr, K.M., Batten, G.D. & Blakeney, A.B. (1995). Relationshipsbetween minerals in Australianbrown rice. Journal of the Sci-ence of Food and Agriculture, 68: 285–291.

Moore, S. (1963). On the determination of cystine as cysteicacid. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 238: 235–237.

NNMB (2006). Diet and nutrition status of populations andprevalence of hypertension among adults in rural areas. Na-tional Nutrition Monitoring Bureau Technical Report No. 24.National Institute of Nutrition, ICMR, Hyderabad, India.

Oatway, L., Vasanthan, T. & Helm, J.H. (2001). Phytic acid. FoodReviews International,17: 419–431.

O’Fallon, J.V., Busboom, J.R., Nelson, M.L. & Gaskins, C.T.(2007). A direct method for fatty acid methyl ester synthesis:Application to wet meat tissues, oils, and feedstuffs. Journal ofAnimal Science, 85: 1511–1521.

Ogiyama, S., Tagami, K. & Uchida, S. (2008). The concentrationand distribution of essential elements in brown rice associatedwith the polishing rate: Use of ICP-AES and micro-PXE. NuclearInstruments and Methods in Physics Research, 266: 3625–3632.

Phuong, T.D., Chuong, P.V., Tong Khiemc, D. & Kokot, S. (1999).Elemental content of Vietnamese rice. Part 1. Sampling, analy-sis and comparison with previous studies.The Analyst, 124:553–560.

Roohinejad, S., Mirhosseini, H., SaariNazamid, Mustafa, S.,Alias, I., Hussin, A.S.M., Hamid, A. & Manap, M.Y. (2009). Eval-uation of GABA, crude protein and amino acid composition fromdifferent varieties of Malaysian’s brown rice. Australian Journalof Crop Science, 3: 184–190.

Scherz, H., Senser, F. & Souci, S.W. (2000). Food compositionand nutrition tables, 6th ed. CRC Press/Medpharm, Boca Raton,FL, USA, 1182 pp.

Shekar, B.P.S. & Reddy, G.M. (1982). Amino acid profiles insome scented rice varieties. Theoretical Applied Genetics, 62:35–37.Sotelo, A., Sousa, V., Montalvo, I., Hernandez, M. & Hernandez-

Aragon, L. (1990). Chemical composition of differentfractions of12 Mexican varieties of rice obtained during milling. CerealChemistry, 67: 209–212.

Taira, H. & Chang, W.L. (1986). Lipid content and fatty acid com-position of indica and japonica types of nonglutinous brown rice.Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 34: 542–545.

Tobekia, M.M., Toma, R.B. & Luh, B.S. (1981). Crude protein andamino acid composition of three California rice varieties. Nu-trition Reports International, 23: 805–811.

Tucker, M.R. (1999). Essential plant nutrients: their presencein North Carolina soils and role in plant nutrition. N.C. Dep.Agric. Consumer serv. Agron. Div 9.

Villegas, R., Liu, S., Gao, Y.T., Yang, G., Li, H., Zheng, W. & Shu,X.O. (2007). Prospective study of dietary carbohydrates,glycemic index, glycemic load, and incidence of type 2 diabetesmellitus in middle-aged Chinese women. Archives of InternalMedicines, 26: 2310–6.

Wang, G., Parpia, B. & Wen, Z. (1997). The composition of Chi-nese foods. Institute of Nutrition and Food Hygiene ChineseAcademy of Preventive Medicine. Washington DC: ILSI Press.

WHO (2002). The World Health Report 2002. Reducing Risks,Promoting Healthy Life. World Health Organization, Geneva,Switzerland.

Yoshida, H., Tomiyama, Y. & Mizushina, Y. (2010). Lipid compo-nents, fatty acids and triacylglycerol molecular species of blackrice and red rices. Food Chemistry, 123: 210–215.

Zeng, Y., Wang, L., Du, J., Liu, J., Yang, S., Pu, X. & Xiao, F. (2009)Elemental content in Brown Rice by Inductively Coupled PlasmaAtomic Emission spectroscopy Reveals the Evolution of AsianCultivated Rice. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 2009, 51:466–475.

Zhai, C.K., Lu, C.M., Zhang, X.Q., Sun, G.J. & Lorenz, K.J. (2001).Comparative study on the nutritional value of Chinese andNorth American wild rice. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis, 14: 371–382.

Zhou, Z., Blanchard, C., Helliwell, S. & Robards, K. (2003). Fattyacid composition of three rice varieties following storage. Jour-nal of Cereal Science, 37: 327–335.

162

164

CANARIUM ODONTOPHYLLUM MIQ.:AN UNDERUTILIZED FRUIT FORHUMAN NUTRITION ANDSUSTAINABLE DIETSLye Yee Chew,1 Krishna Nagendra Prasad,1 IIsmail Amin,1, 2

Azlan Azrina1 and Cheng Yuon Lau3

1 Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Medicine andHealth Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

2 Laboratory of Halal Science Research, Halal Products ResearchInstitute, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang,Selangor, Malaysia

3 Agriculture Research Centre, Department of Agriculture,Sarawak, Malaysia

165

AbstractCanarium odontophyllum Miq. or locally known as“dabai”, is one of the popular underutilized fruitsof Sarawak, Malaysia. Local community consumesa significant amount of dabai during the fruitingseason without much knowledge about its nutri-tional composition and health-promoting proper-ties. Nutritional composition and antioxidantproperties of dabai fruits from different growingareas in Sarawak were investigated. Lipid was themajor macronutrient in dabai fruit, while the pre-dominant minerals were magnesium and calcium.The fruit is a source of unsaturated fatty acids,with 38–42% oleic acid, 15–18% linoleic acid andtraces of linolenic acid. The total anthocyanin con-tent in dabai fruit (2.05–2.49 mg/g dried weight)was comparable to blackberry, blueberry andgrape. Fifteen types of phenolic compounds havebeen identified from this fruit. Several productslike mayonnaise, sauces, chips, pickles and soaphave been developed from this fruit. This fruit hasalso been used by local restaurants as an ingre-dient in their dishes.

1. IntroductionThe Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) in its effort working with its membersand the entire international community for achieve-ment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),has declared year 2010 as the International Year ofBiodiversity. The integration of biodiversity and nu-trition is important for the achievement of MDGs.With this, the conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity for food and agriculture play a criticalrole in the fight against hunger, by ensuring envi-ronmental sustainability while increasing food pro-duction.Sarawak has the richest diversity of flora inMalaysia and offers an excellent source of indige-nous fruits and vegetables to the rural communi-ties. Canarium odontophyllum Miq. is one of thepopular indigenous fruits potentially to be devel-

oped as a speciality fruit of Sarawak. The fruit isknown as “dabai” among the local community andhas been dubbed “Sibu olive” because of its physi-cal appearance, smooth texture and rich flavour(Lau and Fatimah, 2007). Dabai fruits are similar inappearance to olive fruits and turn dark purplewhen they are fully ripe. The fruits are ovoid drupes,weigh 10.0–18.0 g, 3.0–4.0 cm long and 2.2–3.0 cmin diameter. Dabai fruit contains a single seed withhard and thick endocarp (2.5–3.5 cm long and 1.6–2.0 cm in diameter). The seed is sub-triangular withthree chambers. The purple peel and pale yellowfleshy pulp of this fruit (3.0–5.0 mm thick) is edible,while the seed is discarded. The whole ripe fruit issoaked in warm water for 3–5 minutes to soften thepulp and eaten as such or with sugar, salt, pepperor sauce. Dabai fruits are traditionally consumed ashighly nutritious fruit rich in energy and fat by localcommunity during fruiting season.Dabai fruits are rarely eaten, unfamiliar and un-known elsewhere apart from Sarawak. They aresometimes viewed by outsiders as nutritionally in-ferior fruit. The current usage of dabai fruits is stilllimited to human consumption. Therefore, there isan urge for scientific evidence to realize the fullpotential of dabai fruits. To the best of our knowl-edge, only few reports on nutritional compositionand antioxidant properties of dabai fruits are avail-able. Voon and Kueh (1999) has reported the prox-imate composition including mineral and vitamincontent of dabai fruit, while oils extracted from thefruit pulp and kernel were studied for their fattyacids composition and vitamin E content by Azlanet al. (2010). Carotenoids profiles of peel, pulp andseed of the fruit and their related antioxidant ca-pacities have been studied by Prasad et al. (2011).Extracts of peel, pulp and kernel of dabai fruit haveconsistently shown antioxidant capacities (Azrinaet al., 2010; Prasad et al., 2010; Shakirin et al.,2010). Previous studies have indicated that geographicalconditions and botanical aspects such as variety

166

can significantly affect nutritional values andhealth beneficial attributes of fruits qualitativelyand quantitatively. Influence of geographical con-ditions on the nutritional composition and antiox-idant properties of dabai fruits is unknown.Moreover, apparently there are two varieties ofdabai fruits found: the commonly available purpledabai fruit and the less common red dabai fruit.This study was therefore designed to determineand compare the nutritional composition and an-tioxidant properties of dabai fruits from differentdivisions of Sarawak, as well as between the twovarieties. Thus, this study plays a significant partin the achievement of the MDGs, especially toeradicate extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1)and to ensure environmental sustainability (Goal7) in developing countries like Malaysia. Thisstudy contributes to the enhancement of liveli-hood and income of the rural poor. Scientific evi-dence for the health benefits of dabai fruits in

addition to their nutritional quality will provideadded value to the fruits. Moreover, this studycontributes to the mitigation of environmentaldegradation by conserving and safeguarding thegenetic resources with sustainable use of the nat-ural resources.

2. Proximate compositionProximate composition (g/100 g FW) of dabai fruitsfrom different growing areas is given in Table 1.Lipid was the major macronutrient of dabai fruitsand did not differ among fruits from different grow-ing areas (21.16–25.76 g/100 g FW). Moisture ac-counted for 50.44–51.91 percent by FW while ashcontent was 1.66–1.89 g/100 g FW. Both moistureand ash contents did not differ among dabai fruitscollected from different growing areas. Results alsodemonstrated that the red variety showed no differ-ence from the purple variety in terms of their lipid,moisture and ash contents.

Table 1. Nutritional composition of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsNutritionalcomposition* Kanowit Kapit Song Sarikei

Moisture 51.30±0.93a 51.11±1.10a 50.44±0.76a 51.91±0.88a(50.13–52.97) (49.26–53.08) (48.78–51.70) (50.92–52.60)

Total availablecarbohydrate 4.45±0.83b 5.07±0.82b 8.97±2.21a 9.16±0.15a

(3.57–5.50) (3.89–5.84) (6.11–12.51) (8.99–9.27)

Protein 5.20±0.87a 4.56±0.87a,b 4.35±1.15a,b 3.45±0.64b(3.75–6.22) (3.08–5.65) (2.69–6.68) (2.78–4.04)

Lipid 25.76±3.03a 21.16±4.71a 24.47±2.76a 23.72±1.11a(22.30–29.51) (14.57–26.01) (20.91–29.04) (23.08–25.01)

Ash 1.89±0.08a 1.88±0.42a 1.66±0.26a 1.78±0.17a(1.77–1.95) (1.46–2.42) (1.34–2.00) (1.66–1.90)

*g/100 g fresh weight. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range). Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.

167

Protein content varied to a greater extent among dabaifruits. While the highest protein content was found inpurple dabai fruits from Kanowit (5.20 g/100 g FW),the lowest was in red dabai fruits from Sarikei(3.45 g/100 g FW). It was observed that total avail-able carbohydrate content in the red variety and inpurple dabai fruits from Song (9.16 and 8.97 g/100g FW, respectively) were almost twofold higherthan purple dabai fruits from Kapit and Kanowit(5.07 and 4.45 g/100 g FW, respectively). Red dabaifruits were richer in available carbohydrate butwith reduced amount of protein as compared tothe purple variety.

3. Mineral compositionMineral composition of dabai fruits varied consid-erably from one division to another, as well as vary-ing between the red and purple varieties (Table 2). Thepredominant minerals in dabai fruits were magne-sium (62.72–80.31 mg/100 g FW), calcium (28.47–43.72 mg/100 g FW), sodium (8.77–12.05 mg/100 gFW) and potassium (5.02–6.93 mg/100 g FW). Iron,zinc and copper were detected in appreciableamounts in dabai fruits of the present study. It wasnoted that dabai fruits from Kapit distinguishablyhad the highest contents of sodium, potassium andiron in every 100 g FW of fruits.

Table 2. Minerals composition of dabai fruits from different growing area.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsMinerals* Kanowit Kapit Song Sarikei

Magnesium 80.31±3.97a 74.67±15.36a 76.09±24.07a 62.72±0.38a(76.51–84.51) (56.26–93.23) (50.04–102.07) (62.38–63.25)

Calcium 28.47±1.56a 40.52±16.66a 43.72±22.72a 40.60±0.11a(26.87–30.08) (22.90–61.94) (16.00–67.88) (40.50–40.74)

Sodium 8.77±0.34b 12.05±3.45a 10.77±0.31a,b 9.36±0.05b (8.47–9.50) (7.26–15.91) (10.13–11.19) (9.28–9.41)

Potassium 6.80±0.21a,b 6.93±1.71a 5.29±1.10b,c 5.02±0.13c(6.50–7.19) (4.84–9.06) (3.64–6.76) (4.85–5.16)

Iron 3.10±0.49a 3.14±0.26a 2.10±0.09b 2.80±0.04a(2.58–3.60) (2.76–3.44) (1.93–2.18) (2.76–2.84)

Zinc 0.78±0.18b 0.81±0.05a,b 0.77±0.09b 0.92±0.01a(0.61–0.95) (0.74–0.86) (0.66–0.87) (0.91–0.93)

Copper 0.47±0.06a 0.35±0.14 0.39±0.04aa 0.21±0.00b(0.42–0.53) (0.24–0.55) (0.32–0.44) (0.20–0.21)

*mg/100 g fresh weight. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.

168

4. Amino acids compositionThe amino acids composition of dabai fruits is given

in Table 3. Considerable variation was observed fromone growing area to another; similarly, variation was

Table 3. Amino acids composition of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruits

Amino acids* Kanowit Kapit Song SarikeiEssentialIsoleucine 2.64±0.13a 2.39±0.29a 2.55±0.07a 2.75±0.11a

(2.51–2.75) (1.99–2.69) (2.43–2.63) (2.67–2.83)

Leucine 7.40±0.30a 7.24±1.07a 7.29±0.42a 8.23±0.29a(6.95–7.62) (6.13–8.80) (6.64–7.78) (8.02–8.43)

Lysine 5.61±0.22a 5.43±0.78a 5.86±0.28a 5.77±0.16a(5.38–5.91) (4.32–6.14) (5.49–6.41) (5.65–5.88)

Methionine 0.90±0.01b 0.91±0.09b 0.95±0.07a,b 1.09±0.08a(0.89–0.92) (0.81–1.04) (0.85–1.04) (1.03–1.15)

Phenylalanine 4.82±0.16a 4.64±0.65a 5.16±0.35a 5.09±0.44a(4.65–4.95) (3.61–5.29) (4.71–5.64) (4.78–5.40)

Threonine 3.39±0.06a 3.24±0.34a 3.84±0.55a 3.64±0.17a(3.30–3.43) (2.69–3.64) (3.35–5.04) (3.52–3.76)

Valine 3.66±0.21a 3.07±0.34a 3.57±0.39a 3.60±0.24a(3.41–3.84) (2.70–3.62) (2.73–4.02) (3.43–3.77)

Non-essentialAlanine 4.93±0.21a 4.82±0.51a 5.12±0.56a 4.89±0.30a

(4.79–5.25) (4.21–5.55) (4.56–6.13) (4.68–5.10)

Arginine 2.54±0.17a 3.15±0.54a 2.87±0.05a 2.82±0.07a(2.31–2.66) (2.52–3.83) (2.81–2.95) (2.77–2.87)

Aspartic acid 27.18±1.33a 30.91±6.05a 26.37±1.93a 25.34±0.11a(26.24–29.06) (25.43–40.14) (22.65–28.83) (25.26–25.41)

Cystine 0.60±0.19a 0.75±0.27a 0.63±0.50a 0.32±0.45a(0.40–0.76) (0.44–1.09) (0.10–1.55) (0.10–0.63)

Glutamic acid 19.58±0.34a 18.32±1.18a 19.01±0.65a 19.61±0.55a(19.29–19.90) (16.64–19.44) (18.18–19.89) (19.22–20.00)

Glycine 4.32±0.17a 3.94±0.46a 4.44±0.39a 4.32±0.16a(4.10–4.52) (3.25–4.55) (4.05–5.21) (4.20–4.43)

Histidine 2.37±0.14a 2.02±0.21b 2.28±0.13a,b 2.39±0.17a(2.16–2.46) (1.76–2.31) (2.12–2.48) (2.27–2.51)

Proline 4.29±0.17a 4.40±0.55a 4.68±0.37a 4.73±0.23a(4.12–4.52) (3.57–4.99) (4.21–5.30) (4.57–4.89)

Serine 2.89±0.43a 2.41±0.14a 2.62±0.30a 2.72±0.01a(2.49–3.26) (2.23–2.57) (2.31–3.04) (2.71–2.72)

Tyrosine 2.90±0.10a 2.38±0.31b 2.79±0.11a 2.73±0.17a,b(2.79–2.98) (1.96–2.64) (2.63–2.97) (2.61–2.85)

*% of total amino acids. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.

169

noted between the two varieties investigated. Seven-teen amino acids were detected, including seven es-sential (isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine,phenylalanine, threonine and valine) and ten non-es-sential (alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, cystine, glu-tamic acid, glycine, histidine, proline, serine andtyrosine) amino acids. Fruits were especially rich in as-partic and glutamic acids, constituting 44.95–49.23percent of total amino acids. Essential aminoacids

were present at lower concentrations (26.9–30.2%), ofwhich methionine was the limiting amino acid (0.90–1.09%).

5. Fatty acids compositionDabai fruit pulp oil contained mainly palmitic (37.1–39.5%), stearic (1.3–3.7%), oleic (38.1–42.4%) andlinoleic (15.3–18.4%) acids (Table 4). The oil was asource of unsaturated fatty acids (57.94–59.08%).

Table 4. Fatty acids composition of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsFatty acids* Kanowit Kapit Song Sarikei

C14:0 0.23±0.03a,b 0.20±0.01b 0.21±0.04b 0.28±0.00aMyristic acid (0.21–0.26) (0.20–0.21) (0.17–0.27) (0.28–0.28)

C16:0 38.15±0.76a 37.12±0.45a 38.11±3.18a 39.48±0.01aPalmitic acid (37.48–38.82) (36.54–37.48) (34.39–42.67) (39.47–39.48)

C17:0 0.03±0.00a 0.03±0.00a 0.03±0.00a 0.04±0.01aMargaric acid (0.03–0.03) (0.03–0.03) (0.03–0.04) (0.03–0.04)

C18:0 2.72±0.26b 3.51±0.15a,b 3.68±0.63a 1.33±0.00cStearic acid (2.50–2.95) (3.41–3.70) (3.19–4.68) (1.33–1.33)

C24:0 0.03±0.01b 0.05±0.01a 0.03±0.01a,b 0.04±0.02a,bLignoceric acid (0.02–0.03) (0.04–0.06) (0.01–0.05) (0.02–0.05)

SFA 41.16±0.53a 40.92±0.54a 42.06±2.69a 41.16±0.04a(40.69–41.63) (40.23–41.36) (39.29–46.13) (41.13–41.18)

C16:1 0.76±0.12b 0.76±0.07b 0.62±0.12b 1.69±0.00aPalmitoleic acid (0.66–0.86) (0.67–0.80) (0.48–0.79) (1.69–1.69)

C18:1 n9c 41.04±0.70a,b 42.36±0.22a 40.88±3.06a,b 38.06±0.01bOleic acid (40.43–41.65) (42.10–42.61) (36.78–44.79) (38.05–38.07)

C20:1 0.03±0.00a,b 0.04±0.01a 0.04±0.01a 0.02±0.00bEicosenoic acid (0.03–0.03) (0.03–0.04) (0.03–0.05) (0.02–0.02)

MUFA 41.83±0.58a 43.15±0.28a 41.54±3.02a 39.77±0.01a (41.32–42.34) (42.81–43.45) (37.47–45.32) (39.76–39.78)

C18:2 n6c 16.40±0.01b 15.30±0.34b 15.73±1.24b 18.40±0.04aLinoleic acid (16.38–16.41) (14.96–15.72) (14.55–17.60) (18.37–18.43)

C18:3 n6 0.58±0.05a 0.60±0.03a 0.64±0.12a 0.67±0.01aLinolenic acid (0.54–0.62) (0.57–0.64) (0.49–0.80) (0.66–0.67)

C18:3 n3 0.03±0.00a 0.03±0.01a 0.03±0.00a 0.02±0.00bLinolenic acid (0.03–0.03) (0.02–0.03) (0.03–0.03) (0.02–0.02)

PUFA 17.01±0.06b 15.93±0.32b 16.40±1.13b 19.09±0.04a(16.95–17.06) (15.62–16.33) (15.38–18.12) (19.06–19.11)

*% of total fatty acids. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.

y p gy p g

170

Almost even proportion of saturated fatty acids(40.9–42.1%) and monounsaturated fatty acids(39.8–43.2%) was observed. Results of the presentstudy are in good agreement with that of Azlan et al.(2010) which the ratio of saturated (SFA): monoun-saturated (MUFA): polyunsaturated (PUFA) fattyacids reported was 44.4: 42.8: 12.8. A notable findingwas that the percentage of PUFA in red dabai fruitsfrom Sarikei (19.1%) was higher than the purplevariety (15.9–17.0%).

6. Phenolic constituentsTotal phenolics content and TFC of dabai fruits werefound to be varied from one growing area to another;and significantly different between the red and pur-ple varieties. Purple dabai fruits collected from Kapithad the significantly highest TPC and TFC (p < 0.01),

while the significantly lowest TPC and TFC (p < 0.01)were found in red dabai fruits. The TPC of purpledabai fruits from Kapit was three times higher thanred dabai fruits. Purple dabai fruits from Kapit alsohad the TFC which was five times higher than reddabai fruits. It was observed that cooking the fruitsat 60°C for 3–5 minutes resulted in increases of TPCand TFC (Tables 5 and 6).Dabai fruits from Kapit, Kanowit and Song were all ofthe purple variety, formed a homogeneous groupwith no significant difference in their TAC, ranged2.05–2.49 mg anthocyanins pigment/g DW.In contrast, red dabai fruits from Sarikei had the sig-nificantly lowest TAC (0.08 mg anthocyanins pig-ment/g DW) (p < 0.01). Contrarily to the previous twoobservations, cooking of dabai fruits at 60°C for 3–5minutes resulted in decreases of TAC (Table 7).

Table 5. Total phenolics content of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsTPC Kanowit¥ Kapit¥ Song¥ Sarikei

Cooked fruit 19.44±2.90b 33.21±6.11a 22.81±5.91b 9.50±0.42c(15.40–22.01) (27.25–42.57) (15.11–32.13) (9.17–9.97)

Uncooked fruit 13.79±1.18b 27.02±5.20a 14.12±3.97b 9.10±1.20b(12.38–15.59) (22.24–33.97) (10.95–21.02) (8.18–10.46)

TPC, total phenolics content expressed as mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g dried weight. Results are expressed inmean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.¥ indicates significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.

Table 6. Total flavonoids content of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsTFC Kanowit¥ Kapit Song¥ Sarikei



TFC, total flavonoids content expressed as mg rutin equivalent (RE)/g dried weight. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.¥ indicates significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.

171

7. Antioxidant capacitiesTrolox equivalents antioxidant capacities were founddifferent among fruits from different growing areas;and between the red and purple dabai fruits. Dabaifruits collected from Kapit exhibited the highest TEAC(p < 0.01). The significantly lowest TEAC (p < 0.01) wasfound in red dabai fruits. The TEAC of fruits increasedafter fruits were cooked at 60°C for 3–5 minutes

(Table 8). The FRAP values of dabai fruits indicateddifferences among fruits from different divisions; anddiffered between the red and purple varieties. Whilethe significantly highest FRAP value (p < 0.01) wasfound in purple dabai fruits from Kapit, the signifi-cantly lowest (p < 0.01) was of red dabai fruits. Similarly, cooking of the fruits at 60°C for 3–5 minutesresulted in increases of FRAP values (Table 9).

Table 7. Total anthocyanins content of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsTAC Kanowit Kapit¥ Song¥ Sarikei¥

Cooked fruit 2.06±0.53a 2.49±0.60a 2.05±0.30a 0.08±0.00b(1.49–2.74) (1.73–3.41) (1.55–2.51) (0.08–0.09)

Uncooked fruit 2.54±0.25a 3.54±0.94a 3.20±0.83a 0.18±0.01b(2.32–2.81) (2.29–4.61) (2.45–4.69) (0.17–0.18)

TAC, total anthocyanins content expressed as mg anthocyanins pigment/g dried weight. Results are expressed inmean±SD and (range).

yy

Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.¥ indicates significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.

Table 8. Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsTEAC Kanowit¥ Kapit¥ Song¥ Sarikei¥


Uncooked fruit 0.21±0.04b,c 0.32±0.04a 0.25±0.03b 0.18±0.01c(0.17–0.24) (0.28–0.39) (0.20–0.30) (0.18–0.19)

TEAC, trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity expressed as mmol trolox equivalent (TE)/g dried weight. Results are expres-sed in mean±SD and (range).

q

Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.¥ indicates significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.

Table 9. Ferric reducing ability of dabai fruits from different growing areas.Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruits

FRAP Kanowit¥ Kapit¥ Song¥ Sarikei¥



FRAP, ferric reducing ability expressed as mmol of Fe2+/g dried weight. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.¥ indicates significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.

172

All dabai fruits exhibited high DPPH free radicalsscavenging activities of more than 88 percent, indi-cating good potential as free radicals scavengers.The hierarchy of dabai fruits with respect to theirabilities to scavenge DPPH free radicals was reddabai fruits > purple dabai fruits from Kanowit >purple dabai fruits from Kapit > purple dabai fruitsfrom Song. Cooking of fruits at 60°C for 3–5 min-utes also resulted in increases of DPPH free radi-cals scavenging activity (Table 10). Interestingly, reddabai fruits from Sarikei with lowest TEAC andFRAP value demonstrated the greatest DPPH freeradicals scavenging activity.Purple dabai fruits from Kapit that were found topossess significantly the highest TPC, TFC and TACexhibited significantly the greatest TEAC and FRAP.Similarly, significantly the lowest TEAC and FRAPwere observed in red dabai fruits from Sarikeiwhich had significantly the least TPC, TFC and TAC.These data suggest that phenolic compounds (in-cluding flavonoids and anthocyanins) in dabaifruits provide substantial antioxidant activities. Itis strongly believed that the antioxidant propertiesof purple dabai fruits from Kapit are intimately re-lated to the geographical location of Kapit. It is aremote division of Sarawak, with less exposure topollutants which could have a positive effect on thephytochemical properties of dabai fruits cultivatedin Kapit.

Further data analysis indicated very strong linearcorrelations between TPC and TEAC (r = 0.958), andbetween TPC and FRAP (r = 0.999). Similarly, verystrong linear correlations between TFC and TEAC(r = 0.991), and between TFC and FRAP (r = 0.983)were noted. Strong linear correlations between TACand TEAC (r = 0.870), and between TAC and FRAP(r = 0.906) were also observed. Due to the lowercorrelations of TAC with TEAC and FRAP values, wecould say that anthocyanins did not play a majorrole in antioxidant mechanisms with these tests.Moderate to strong negative correlations werefound between TPC and DPPH (r = -0.898), betweenTFC and DPPH (r = -0.794) and between TAC andDPPH (r = -0.912).

8. Phenolic compoundsIn the present study, the chromatographic profilesof phenolic acids and flavonoids in dabai fruits werequalitatively similar for the two varieties (purple andred dabai fruits). However, they differed in theamount of phenolic compounds identified. The chro-matographic profile of anthocyanidins and antho-cyanins in dabai fruits revealed marked differencesbetween varieties, with more phenolics in purpledabai fruits. Anthocyanidins and anthocyanins wererelatively more abundant in purple dabai fruits. Catechin was the major phenolic compound in dabaifruits. Catechin in red dabai fruits (0.33 mg/g DW)

Table 10. DPPH radicals scavenging activity of dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsDPPH Kanowit¥ Kapit¥ Song¥ Sarikei

Cooked fruit 89.45±0.50a,b 88.14±1.21b 88.12±1.09b 90.96±0.22a(88.85–90.08) (85.84–89.57) (85.80–88.94) (90.80–91.21)

Uncooked fruit 71.22±3.34b 58.96±7.89c 64.59±8.30b,c 91.03±0.03a(66.74–74.84) (51.44–70.91) (49.27–72.35) (91.01–91.0

DPPH, DPPH radicals scavenging activity expressed as percentage of inhibition. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.¥ indicates significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same column.

173

was significantly lower than purple dabai fruits (3.01to 4.00 mg/g DW) (p < 0.01); while the content ofother identified phenolic compounds was compara-ble in both varieties. Epigalocatechin gallate, epicat-echin, epicatechin gallate, apigenin and ellagic acidwere all present in appreciable amounts, whilevanilic acid and ethyl gallate were relatively lower(Table 11). Cyanidin-3-O-rutinoside was the majoranthocyanin with its content been 16 and 26 timeshigher in purple variety than red variety. Cyanidinand its glycosides (cyanidin-3-O-glucoside andcyanidin-3-O-rutinoside) were the main anthocyani-dins and anthocyanins detected in both varieties;with trace amount of pelargonidin. In addition, del-phinidin, malvidin-3,5-di-O-glucoside at appreciableamount and trace of peonidin-3-O-glucoside were

also detected in purple dabai fruits (Table 12).Within the same variety, in purple dabai fruits,considerable variability in the content of all iden-tified phenolic compounds from one division to an-other was noted. Tura et al. (2007) reported alsimilar observation that the phenolic compoundscontent of olive fruits was influenced by site of cul-tivation/growing environment. Dabai fruits collectedfrom Kapit clearly exhibited the highest content ofalmost all the identified phenolic acids andflavonoids. Similarly, dabai fruits possessed thehighest content of all identified anthocyanidins andanthocyanins were collected from Kapit. It is notedthat the total flavanols content of purple dabai fruitswas much higher than apple, blackberry, blueberry,black grape, raspberry and strawberry (Arts et al.,

Table 11. Contents of phenolic acids and flavonoids in dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsPhenolic compound Kanowit Kapit Song Sarikei

Catechin 3.01±0.06b 4.00±0.58a 3.22±0.29a,b 0.33±0.02c(2.93–3.08) (3.31–4.69) (2.84–3.64) (0.31–0.34)

Epigalocatechin gallate 0.28±0.01a 0.25±0.06a 0.24±0.04a,b 0.16±0.01b(0.27–0.29) (0.16–0.30) (0.21–0.29) (0.15–0.16)

Epicatechin 0.09±0.01a 0.10±0.04a 0.08±0.01a 0.07±0.00a(0.08–0.10) (0.05–0.14) (0.06–0.10) (0.07–0.07)

Epicatechin gallate 0.04±0.01a,b 0.05±0.01a 0.03±0.01a,b 0.03±0.00b(0.04–0.05) (0.03–0.06) (0.02–0.04) (0.03–0.03)

Apigenin 0.09±0.01a,b 0.12±0.02a 0.08±0.02b 0.08±0.00b(0.08–0.10) (0.11–0.14) (0.05–0.10) (0.08–0.08)

Ellagic acid 0.09±0.02a 0.21±0.11a 0.16±0.07a 0.10±0.01a(0.07–0.11) (0.08–0.34) (0.10–0.27) (0.09–0.10)

Vanilic acid 0.01±0.00a,b 0.02±0.01a 0.01±0.00a,b 0.01±0.00b(0.01–0.01) (0.01–0.02) (0.01–0.02) (0.01–0.01)

Ethyl gallate 0.02±0.00b 0.03±0.01a 0.01±0.00b 0.01±0.00b(0.01–0.02) (0.02–0.03) (0.01–0.02) (0.01–0.01)

mg/g DW. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.

174

2000; de Pascual-Teresa and Sanchez-Ballesta,2008; Tsanova-Savova et al., 2005) while the totalanthocyanins content was comparable among them.

9. ConclusionsAll data obtained revealed that dabai fruit was a verynutritious fruit. While the proximate, amino acidsand fatty acids compositions of dabai fruits variedto a lesser extent among fruits from different grow-ing areas as well as between the red and purple va-rieties; total phenolics (TPC), flavonoids (TFC) andanthocyanins (TAC) contents of fruits were foundvaried greatly among growing areas and especiallybetween the two varieties. Dabai fruit had high nu-tritional values and great antioxidant properties; ex-hibiting huge potential of extrapolation. It ispostulated that, in addition to the beneficial effectsconferred by its unsaturated fatty acids on blood

lipids profile by lowering blood cholesterol andtriglyceride levels, phenolic compounds of dabaifruit give positive effects against oxidative stress. The numerous potential biological capabilities of dabaifruits based on the specific phenolic compounds iden-tified, such as the cardioprotective effects of antho-cyanins and antidiabetic effects of flavanols deservemore precise and specific further investigations. Con-sidering that little or no information is available aboutthe four divisions under investigation including theirsoils, rainfall and other important variables, furtherstudies to achieve this purpose need to be conductedespecially in Kapit, a division where dabai fruits col-lected distinguishably having great antioxidant prop-erties. Moreover, based on the knowledge obtained inthis study on the variability between the purple and redvarieties, further investigation is needed to make thebest use of the two varieties.

Table 12. Contents of anthocyanidins and anthocyanins in dabai fruits from different growing areas.

Purple dabai fruits Red dabai fruitsPhenolic compound Kanowit Kapit Song Sarikei

Cyanidin 0.06±0.01a 0.07±0.01a 0.06±0.01a 0.03±0.00b(0.06–0.07) (0.05–0.08) (0.05–0.08) (0.03–0.03)

Cyanidin-3-O- 0.34±0.02a 0.39±0.07a 0.32±0.07a 0.03±0.00bglucoside (0.31–0.37) (0.29–0.46) (0.25–0.41) (0.03–0.03)

Cyanidin-3-O-rutinoside 1.16±0.03b 1.85±0.34a 1.41±0.13b 0.07±0.00c

(1.13–1.19) (1.49–2.27) (1.31–1.63) (0.07–0.07)

Delphinidin 0.02±0.00b 0.11±0.03a 0.04±0.03b ND(0.01–0.02) (0.08–0.16) (0.01–0.08)

Malvidin-3,5-di- 0.07±0.02b 0.20±0.07a 0.09±0.04b NDO-glucoside (0.05–0.10) (0.12–0.28)(0.03-0.15)

Pelargonidin Tr Tr Tr Tr

Peonidin-3-O-glucoside Tr Tr Tr ND

Tr, trace; ND, not detected (< 10 ng/injection (20µl)).mg/g DW. Results are expressed in mean±SD and (range).Values with different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 within the same row.

175

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the Agriculture Re-search Centre (ARC), Semongok, Sarawak for pro-viding funding and the dabai fruits from Sarikei andKanowit; and the laboratory facilities of UniversitiPutra Malaysia.

References

Arts, I. C. W., van de Putte, B., Hollman, P. C. H. (2000). Catechincontents of foods commonly consumed in the Netherlands. 1.Fruits, vegetables, staple foods, and processed foods. Journalof Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48, 1746-1751.

Azlan, A., Prasad, K. N., Khoo, H. E., Abdul-Aziz, N., Mohamad,A., Ismail, A., Amom, Z. (2010). Comparison of fatty acids, vita-min E and physicochemical properties of Canarium odonto-phyllum Miq. (dabai), olive and palm oils. Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis, 23, 772-776.

Azrina, A., Nurul Nadiah, M. N., Amin, I. (2010). Antioxidantproperties of methanolic extract of Canarium odontophyllumfruit. International Food Research Journal, 17, 319-326.

de Pascual-Teresa, S., & Sanchez-Ballesta, M. T. (2008). Antho-cyanins: from plant to health. Phytochemistry Reviews, 7, 281-299.

Lau, C. Y., & Fatimah, O. (2007). Cold storage of dabai fruit (Ca-narium odontophyllum Miq.): Effect of Packaging methods andstorage duration on quality. In Proceedings of the TechnicalSession, Research Officers’ Conference. Department of Agri-culture: Sarawak, Malaysia.

Prasad, K. N., Chew, L. Y., Khoo, H. E., Bao, Y., Azlan, A., Amin,I. (2011). Carotenoids and antioxidant capacities from Canariumodontophyllum Miq. fruits. Food Chemistry, 124, 1549-1555.

Prasad, K. N., Chew, L. Y., Khoo, H. E., Kong, K. W., Azlan, A., Is-mail, A. (2010). Antioxidant capacities of peel, pulp, and seedfractions of Canarium odontopyllum Miq. fruit. Journal of Bio-medicine and Biotechnology, 2010, 871379.

Shakirin, F. H., Prasad, K. N., Ismail, A., Yuon, L. C., Azlan, A.(2010). Antioxidant capacity of underutilized Malaysian Ca-narium odontophyllum (Dabai) Miq. fruit. Journal of Food Com-position and Analysis, 23, 777-781.

Tsanova-Savova, S., Ribarova, F., Gerova, M. (2005). (+)-Cate-chin and (–)-epicatechin in Bulgarian fruits. Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis, 18, 691-698.

Tura, D., Gigliotti, C., Pedò, S., Failla, O., Bassi, D., Serraiocco,A. (2007). Influence of cultivar and site of cultivation on levels oflipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidants in virgin olive oils (OleaEuropea L.) and correlations with oxidative stability. ScientiaHorticulturae, 112, 108-119.

Voon, B. H., & Kueh, H. S. (1999). The nutritional value of in-digenous fruits and vegetables in Sarawak. Asia Pacific Journalof Clinical Nutrition, 8(1), 24-31.

IMPROVED MANAGEMENT, INCREASED CULTURE AND CONSUMPTION OF SMALL FISHSPECIES CAN IMPROVE DIETS OF THE RURAL POORShakuntala Haraksingh ThilstedThe WorldFish CenterConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research(CGIAR), Dhaka, Bangladesh

176

Photo credit: Finn Thilsted

177

AbstractIn many low-income countries with water re-sources, small fish species are important for thelivelihoods, nutrition and income of the rural poor.The small size of fish favours frequent consump-tion by and nutrition of the rural poor, as these fishare captured, sold and bought in small quantities;used both raw and processed in traditional dishes;and are nutrient-rich. All small fish species are arich source of animal protein, and – as they areeaten whole – have a very high content of bioavail-able calcium. Some are rich in vitamin A, iron, zincand essential fats. Measures to improve manage-ment and increase culture and consumption ofsmall fish include community-based managementof common water bodies; culture of small fish inponds and rice fields; use of small marine fish fordirect human consumption, especially in vulnerablepopulation groups; and improved handling, trans-portation, processing – especially drying – and mar-ket chains to reduce loss and increase accessibility,especially in hard to reach population groups. Recentintegrated initiatives such as Scaling Up Nutrition(SUN) Framework and Roadmap: 1,000 Days GlobalEffort, focusing on the linkages between agricultureand nutrition give good opportunities for promotingimproved management, and increased culture andconsumption of small fish species.

1. IntroductionIn many low-income countries, with water resources,fish and fisheries are an integral part of the liveli-hoods, nutrition and income of the rural poor. Inthese population groups, a large proportion of thefish caught, bought and consumed is from capturefisheries, and made up of small fish species. However,as national statistics on fish production and con-sumption fail to capture data on these small fishspecies, their importance in diets is neglected (Rooset al., 2006). Very few consumption surveys have re-ported on fish intake at species level. InBangladesh, data from some rural surveys showthat small freshwater fish species make up a large

part of total household fish consumption; fish is atraditional and common food; the frequency of fishintake is high; and the amounts consumed aresmall. These surveys also show that fish is an irre-placeable animal source food for the rural poor;adding diversity to a diet dominated by one grainstaple, rice. In addition, survey data show that thetotal fish consumption among the rural poor hasdecreased, as well as the proportion of small fishspecies of total fish consumption (Thompson et al.,2002). In Bangladesh, small indigenous fish speciesare characterized as species growing to a maximumof 25 cm or less. In some African countries, for ex-ample, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia, the im-portance of small fish species, for example kapenta(Limnothrissa spp.) as a major animal source foodin the diets of rural populations, living close to lakesis recognized (Haug et al., 2010). In coastal commu-nities, small marine fish species are also importantin the diets of the poor.

2. Factors related to the small size of fish whichbenefit consumptionThere are many factors related to the small size offish species, which make them especially favourablefor inclusion in the diets of the rural poor. InBangladesh, the diversity of small fish species is large;and a large proportion of the over 267 freshwaterand 400 species from the mangrove waters in theSundarbans is of small size (Islam and Haque, 2004;Rahman, 1989). Capture fisheries continue to be animportant source of fish. In the monsoon and post-monsoon periods (June–November), the floodplainsare inundated, providing an ideal habitat for themany fish species, and people have access to thesefor consumption as well as local sale. Much of thesmall fish is sold in small rural markets, and this isthe major source of fish for consumption by therural population. Small fish are sold in small heapsof mixed species, can be bought in quantities whichare affordable, and can be cooked for one meal orfor daily consumption, favouring a high frequency ofconsumption (Roos, 2001). This is important, taking

into consideration that fish is highly perishable andthe rural population does not have the possibility tokeep foods cold or frozen. In northern Zambia,heaps of around 20 g raw chisense (many small fishspecies, dominated by Poecilothrissa moeruensis)are sold and bought. Fish capture and productionare highly seasonal with peak and lean seasons, andprocessing of fish, especially sun-drying gives thepossibility to make good use of small fish specieswhich are plentiful and affordable in the peak season,reduce weight which eases transportation andstorage, as well as extend the length of storage timeand duration of intake. Traditional products suchas dried, smoked, salted and fermented small fish,as well as fish paste and fish sauce are made athousehold level and bought in small quantities fromlocal markets. Raw and processed small fish arenormally cooked as a mixed curry or stew dish, withlittle oil, vegetables and spices. It is reported thatthese dishes are well-liked, easy to prepare, addtaste and flavour to meals made up of large quantitiesof one staple, for example rice or maize, as well ascontribute to dietary diversity. A dish with small fishand vegetables can be shared more equitablyamong household members, including womenand young children (Roos et al., 2007b). Surveys ofperceptions of small fish species in rural Bangladeshshow that many are considered beneficial for well-being, nutrition and health, and women rankedsmall fish as the second most preferred food to buy– after fruits – if they had more income to spend onfood (Deb and Haque, 2011; Nielsen et al., 2003;Thilsted and Roos, 1999).

3. Intake and nutritional contribution of small fishspeciesSome rural surveys have shown the effect of location,seasonality, year and household socio-economicstatus on fish consumption. In a survey conducted in1997–98, in an area in northern Bangladesh withrich fisheries resources; the average fish intake in thepeak fish production season (October), 82 g raw, ed-

ible parts/person/d was more than double that inthe lean season (July); and five common smallspecies made up 57 percent of the total intake (Rooset al., 2003). The nutritional contribution of small fishspecies is high. It is well recognized that fish are a richsource of animal protein, and some marine fish havea high content of total fat and essential fats. Recently,some small freshwater fish species have beenreported as being rich sources of fat and essentialfats. Trey sloeuk russey (Paralaubuca typus) fromCambodia has a high fat content (12 g/100 g dried fish)(Roos et al., 2010). Dried usipe (Engraulicyprissardella) from an area around Lake Malawi contains1 700 mg docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) per 100 g driedfish, comparable to salmon. The DHA concentrationin the breast milk of women from this area wasfound to be about 0.7 percent of fatty acids; abouttwice the global average (K. Dewey, personalcommunication, 7 April 2011). However, the contribution of small fish species as arich source of vitamins and minerals has not beenwidely documented and is overlooked. In the above-mentioned study from Bangladesh, small fish con-tributed 40 percent and 31 percent of the totalrecommended intakes of vitamin A and calcium, re-spectively, at household level, in the peak fish pro-duction season (Roos et al., 2006). Some commonsmall species, mola (Amblypharyngodon mola),chanda (Parambassis spp), dhela (Ostreobramacotio cotio) and darkina (Esomus danricus) havehigh content of vitamin A. As most small fishspecies are eaten whole, with bones, they are also avery rich source of highly bioavailable calcium.Darkina, as well as trey changwa plieng (Esomuslongimanus) from Cambodia have a high iron andzinc content (Roos et al., 2007a). A traditional dailymeal of rice and sour soup made with trey changwaplieng can meet 45 percent of the daily iron re-quirement of a Cambodian woman. In addition, fishenhances the bioavailability of iron and zinc fromthe other foods in a meal (Aung-Than-Batu et al.,1976).

178

4. Measures to increase the availability andconsumption of small fish speciesWith fast-growing populations in low-income coun-tries, changing trends in use of land and water,overfishing, degradation of fish habitats and lack ofmanagement of water and fisheries resources, theavailability of freshwater fish, especially small specieshas decreased. In some Asian countries, aquacultureof large, fast-growing fish species has been vigorouslypromoted in response to declining fish availability.In Bangladesh, pond polyculture of carps, and recently,monoculture of the introduced species, Nile tilapia(Oreochromis niloticus) and pangas (s Pangasius sutchi),imainly for urban markets, have been very success-ful. The intake of silver carp (Hypophthalmichthysmolitrix) – a large fish which is not well liked andxmakes up a large proportion of aquaculture pro-duction – has increased among the poor, as totalfish intake has decreased. Due to species differencesin nutrient content, as well as large fish not eatenwhole as small fish – for example, the bones areplate waste – this production technology of largefish does not favour increased fish consumption bythe poor or contribution to micronutrient intake(Roos et al., 2007b).

Recognizing the decline in biodiversity of indigenousfreshwater fish species in Bangladesh, as well asgrowing attention to the nutritional importance ofsmall species, some measures have been taken toconserve, manage and culture indigenous fish.

Conservation and management of common fisheriesresources and fish migration routes through com-munity-based and community-managed fisheriesapproaches have proved successful in increasingtotal fish production many times, the diversity of fishspecies, as well as the proportion of small fishspecies captured and consumed by landless andsmall farming households (Center for Natural Re-source Studies, 1996). Similar positive results havebeen achieved in the Management of Aquatic

Ecosystems through Community Husbandry(MACH) projects (1998–2003) which included inter-ventions to restore three major wetlands habitats,ensure sustainable productivity and improve thelivelihoods of the poor who depend on these wet-lands, through community based co-management(Anonymous, 2003).

Pond polyculture of carps with the vitamin A richsmall fish, mola was introduced in Bangladesh in thelate 1990s. No significant difference in total fish pro-duction was seen between ponds stocked with carpsand mola, and those with carps alone. However, thenutritional quality of the total fish production im-proved considerably in the ponds with mola. In thisproduction system, the eradication of indigenous fish,the majority being small species, by repeated netting,dewatering, and the use of a piscicide, rotenone; pre-stocking of carp fingerlings – based on the rationalethat competition exists between native and stockedfish – was stopped. As small fish species breed inponds, frequent partial harvesting must be practised,and this favours home consumption. In addition tothe production of carps, a small mola production of10 kg/pond/y, in the estimated four million small,seasonal ponds in Bangladesh can meet the annualrecommended vitamin A intake of six million children(Roos et al., 2007b). This production technology ofcarp-small fish pond polyculture has gained wide ac-ceptance by the Government of Bangladesh and de-velopment partners, and is also being practised inSundarbans, West Bengal and Terai, Nepal. Carp pro-duction and management of indigenous fish speciesin beels (floodplain depressions and lakes) have alsoresulted in large increases in total fish production(over 0.6 tonnes/ha, in 6 months, of which 45 percentwere non-stocked fish, mainly small species) (Rah-man et al., 2008). Depending on geographical locationand season, different culture practices with fish andrice have shown to increase fish diversity, as well asthe nutritional quality of the combined rice and fishproduction (Dewan et al., 2003; Kunda et al., 2009).

179

A central issue regarding the availability of smallfish species for direct human consumption is thevast amounts of small marine fish (about 23.8million tonnes in 2006) used to produce fish mealand fish oil, primarily for aquaculture (Tacon andMetian, 2009). There is growing concern of thedwindling supplies and population collapse ofsmall marine fish species (Pinsky et al., 2011).More focused advocacy and awareness, as well asdevelopment and implementation of policies, reg-ulations and interventions are needed in order tosignificantly reduce this trend. Fish powder madefrom small marine fish can be used as an excellentsource of essential nutrients in feeding pro-grammes for pregnant and lactating women, youngchildren, school children, the sick and elderly. In theWINFOOD project presently being conducted inCambodia and Kenya, complementary foods foryoung children with powdered, nutrient-rich smallfish species have been developed, and efficacy stud-ies are being carried out (Roos et al., 2010).

Improving handling and transportation, process-ing and market chains to reduce the largeamounts of fish lost due to spoilage and waste cangreatly increase the accessibility of small fish andfish products to the poor and population groupswhich are hard to reach. Recognizing that im-provements in transportation and storage systemsfor raw fish can be difficult to achieve in low-in-come countries, much more efforts should bemade to improve traditional sun-drying methods.In Mali, a simple, robust mobile fish dryer hasbeen developed which eliminates contaminationcaused by spreading the fish on soil, and the useof insecticides to keep away flies during sun-dry-ing. In addition, the time needed for drying isshort, and the temperature used is controlled andlower than that reached from direct exposure tothe sun, resulting in a product of high nutritionaland food safety quality (Heilporn et al., 2010).l

5. Conclusion Recent attention to linkages between agriculture,human nutrition and health gives new possibilitiesto focus on management and culture of small fishspecies for improved diets. There are initiativessuch as the CGIAR Research Programmes; USAIDfunded Feed the Future; Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN)Framework and Roadmap: 1,000 Days Global Effort;Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Grand Chal-lenges Explorations Rounds 7 and 8: Explore Nutri-tion for Healthy Growth of Infants and YoungChildren; and CIDA funded Grand ChallengesCanada: Saving Brains focus on integrated ap-proaches to improve nutrition. For implementingSUN: 1,000 Days Global Effort, recommendationsfor the increased availability, accessibility and in-take of fish as a rich source of essential fats, cru-cial for cognitive development have beenhighlighted.

References

Anonymous (2003). MACH completion report: management ofaquatic ecosystems through community husbandry. Volume 3:Fish catch & consumption survey report. Retrieved July 1,2011 from: http://www.nishorgo.org/nishorgo2/pdf/march_re-port/Volume%203%20Fish%20Consumption.pdf

Aung-Than-Batu, Thein-Than, Thane-Toe (1976). Iron absorp-tion from Southeast Asian rice-based meals. American Jour-nal of Clinical Nutrition, 29, 219-225.

Center for Natural Resource Studies (CNRS) (1996). Commu-nity-based fisheries management and habitat restoration proj-ect. Annual report. July 1995-June 1996. Dhaka, Bangladesh:CNRS.

Deb, A. K. & Haque, C. E. (2011). ̒Every mother is a mini-doctor:̓ethnomedicinal use of fish, shellfish and some other aquaticanimals in Bangladesh. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 134 (2),259-267.

Dewan, S., Chowdhury, M. T. H., Mondal, S., Das, B. C. (2003).Monoculture of Amblypharyngodon mola and Osteobrama cotiocotio in rice fields and their polyculture with Barbodes go-nionotus and Cyprinus carpio. In Md. A. Wahab, S. H. Thilsted,Md. E. Hoq (Eds.), Small indigenous species of fish inBangladesh: culture potentials for improved nutrition and liveli-hood (pp.23-35). Mymensingh, Bangladesh: Bangladesh Agri-cultural University.

Haug, A., Christophersen, O. A., Kinabo, J., Kaunda, W., Eik, L.O. (2010). Use of dried kapenta and other products based on

180

181

whole fish for complementing maize-based diets. African Jour-nal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 10 (5)2478-2500.

Heilporn, C., Benoît, H., Debaste, F., van der Pol, F., Boey, C.,Nonclercq, A. (2010). Implementation of a rational dryingprocess for fish conservation. Food Security, 2, 71-80.

Islam, Md. S. & Haque, M. (2004). The mangrove-based coastaland near shore fisheries of Bangladesh: ecology, exploitationand management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14,153-180.

Kunda, M., Azim, M. E., Wahab, M. A., Dewan, S., Majid, M. A.,Thilsted, S. H. (2009) Effects of including catla and tilapia in afreshwater prawn-mola polyculture in a rotational rice-fish cul-ture systems. Aquaculture Research, 40 (9), 1089-1098.

Nielsen, H., Roos, N., Thilsted, S. H. (2003). The impact of semi-scavenging poultry production on intake of animal foods inwomen and girls in Bangladesh. Journal of Nutrition, 133,4027S-4030S.

Pinsky, M., Jensen, O. P., Ricard, D., Palumbi, S. R. (2011). Un-expected patterns of fisheries collapse in the world’s oceans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America, 108 (20), 8317-8322.

Rahman, A. K. A. (1989). Freshwater fishes of Bangladesh.Dhaka, Bangladesh: Zoological Society of Bangladesh.

Rahman, M. F., Barman, B. K., Ahmed, M. K., Dewan, S. (2008).Technical issues on management of seasonal floodplains undercommunity-based fish culture in Bangladesh. In Proceedingsof the CGIAR Challenge Programme on Water and Food (Vol. II,pp. 258-261). 2nd International Forum on Water and Food, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia.

Roos, N. (2001). Fish consumption and aquaculture in ruralBangladesh: nutritional contribution and production potentialof culturing small indigenous fish species (SIS) in pond poly-culture with commonly cultured carps. PhD Thesis, The RoyalVeterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark.

Roos, N., Islam, M., Thilsted, S. H. (2003). Small fish is an im-portant dietary source of vitamin A and calcium in ruralBangladesh. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutri-tion, 54, 329-339.

Roos, N., Nurhasan, M., Bun Thang, Skau, J., Wieringa, F.,Kuong Khov, Friis, H., Michaelsen, K. F., Chamnan, C. (2010).WINFOOD Cambodia: Improving child nutrition though im-proved utilization of local food. Poster presentation. Biodiversityand sustainable diets: united against hunger. Symposiumhosted by Bioversity International and FAO, 3rd-5th November2010, Rome, Italy.

Roos, N., Wahab, M. A., Chamnan, C., Thilsted, S. H. (2006). Fishand health. In C. Hawkes & M. T. Ruel (Eds.), 2020 vision: un-derstanding the links between agriculture and health: Focus 13(Brief 10 of 16) Washington D. C., U.S.A.: International Food Pol-icy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Roos, N., Wahab, M. A., Chamnan, C., Thilsted, S. H. (2007a).The role of fish in food-based strategies to combat vitamin Aand mineral deficiencies in developing countries. Journal ofNutrition, 137, 1106-1109.

Roos, N., Wahab, M. A., Hossain, M. A. R., Thilsted, S. H. (2007b).Linking human nutrition and fisheries: incorporating micronu-trient dense, small indigenous fish species in carp polycultureproduction in Bangladesh. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 28 (2)Supplement, S280-S293.

Tacon, A. G. J. & Metian, M. (2009). Fishing for feed or fishing forfood: increasing global competition for small pelagic foragefish. Ambio, 38 (6), 294-302.

Thilsted, S. H. & Roos, N. (1999). Policy issues on fisheries andfood and nutrition. In M. Ahmed, M., C. Delgado, S. Sverdrup-Jensen, R. A. V. Santos (Eds.), Fisheries policy research in de-veloping countries. Issues, policies and needs. (60, pp.61-69)ICLARM Conference Proceedings.

Thompson, P., Roos, N., Sultana, P., Thilsted, S. H. (2002).Changing significance of inland fisheries for livelihoods and nu-trition in Bangladesh. Journal of Crop Production, 6, 249-317. Also in P. K. Kataki & S. C. Babu (Eds.), Food systems for im-proved human nutrition: linking agriculture, nutrition and pro-ductivity. New York, NY, USA: Howard Press.

TRADITIONAL FOOD SYSTEMS IN ASSURING FOOD SECURITY IN NIGERIAIgnatius OnimawoPresident, Nutrition Society of Nigeria, Nigeria

182

IntroductionTraditional food systems refer to the human man-aged biophysical systems that are involved in theproduction, distribution and consumption of food ina particular environment. Food systems are a natu-ral locus for improving nutrition security in societiesbecause agriculture is the primary employmentsector for the extremely poor and because food con-sumes a very large share of the expenditures of thisgroup of people. The causal mechanisms underpin-ning the poverty trap in which the poor, unhealthyand undernourished rural Africans too often findthemselves remain only partially understood, butare clearly rooted in the food system that guidestheir production, exchange, consumption and in-vestment behaviours.

The most basic thing we know is that ill health, mal-nutrition and extreme poverty are mutually rein-forcing states. The links are multidirectional. Lowreal incomes are the primary cause of chronic andacute hunger, as a vast literature spawned by Sen(1981) emphasizes. Even when food availability isadequate – which is not the case in large portions ofSSA today – low incomes impede access to suffi-cient and appropriate food to maintain a healthylifestyle. But causality runs the other way as well.The WHO (2002) reports that undernutrition, in-cluding micronutrient deficiencies, is the leadingrisk factor for disease and death worldwide, account-ing for over half the disease burden in low-incomecountries. Undernutrition also impedes cognitiveand physical development, thereby depressing edu-cational attainment and adult earnings.

Disease, in turn, impedes the uptake of scarce nu-trients, aggravating hunger and micronutrient mal-nutrition problems and hurting labour productivityand earnings. Indeed, recent research suggests thatmajor health shocks are perhaps the leading causeof collapse into long-term poverty (Gertler and Gru-ber, 2002; Barrett and Swallow, 2006). And a large

literature amply demonstrates the corollary that im-proved nutrition and health status increase the cur-rent and lifetime productivity of individuals, therebyincreasing incomes and assets and contributing topoverty reduction (Dasgupta, 1997). Food systemsare the natural locus for developing an integratedstrategy for addressing hunger, ill health and povertyjointly and thus assuring nutrition security.

Nutrition security is the access to adequate diet byevery member of the household. Access to food istied to production of enough food by the agriculturalsystem, importation of food, income, cooking meth-ods and household food-sharing formula. Each ofthese factors is multifaceted such that an attempt toindividually discuss them will be impossible withinthe scope of this write-up.

What are these traditional food systemsThese involve the methods and types of foods pro-duced within the given community or state or coun-try. In Nigeria the traditional foods available are manyand varied depending on climate/agro-ecologicalzone. Traditional foods are foods produced locallywhich form part of the food culture inherent in the lo-cality. The local climate enables the cultivation ofsuch crops either for subsistence or for cash or both.

Food plants are traditional in the sense that they areaccepted by rural communities by custom, habit andtradition as appropriate and desirable food. Peopleare used to them; they know how to cultivate andprepare them and enjoy the dishes made fromthem. They are grown for food within the farmingsystems operating in any particular locality or gath-ered as wild or semi-wild products. There are twogroups of foods: those consumed in the areas wherethey are grown as traditional dietary staples, for ex-ample, cassava, yam, cocoyam, sweet potatoes (Ipo-moea batatas), plantains (Musa paradisiaca) andmaize. The second group is made up of those con-sumed as a component of accompanying relishes

183183n-n-

184

and sauces. These include oilseeds, fruits and veg-etables. There is no universally accepted shortlist ofsuch plants. Communities have evolved their ownpreferences and food habits (Okeke et al., 2008).

Improvement in the food systems have been foundto greatly reduce hunger, improve income and re-duce malnutrition and the related disease condi-tions in so many countries.

Child mortality is 88 deaths per 1 000 live births,overall under-five mortality rate is 138 deaths per1 000 live births and there is a drop in exclusivebreastfeeding (EBF) from 17 percent to 13 percent(NDHS, 2008).

Food security is closely linked to nutrition security.In Nigeria malnutrition contributes to unacceptablyhigh maternal, newborn and child mortality rates. Awoman’s chance of dying from pregnancy and child-birth is 1 in 13. Other data show that infant mortal-ity rate (IMR) is 75 deaths per 1,000 live births. Over50 percent of the underlying causes of these deathsis undernutrition.

Figure 1.

A few questions naturally arise at this point1. What is the nature of the Nigerian traditional

food system?2. What are the methods of food production in Nigeria?3. What are the traditional foods in Nigeria?

4. What are the nutrient compositions of traditionalNigerian foods?

5. Can the traditional food systems and the nutrientcompositions assure nutrition security?

The Nigerian traditional food system is characterizedby low return on investments, crude and ineffectivefarm implements, low irrigation, expensive inputssuch as fertilizers, improved planting materials, lowyielding plants and livestock etc.

Classification of traditional foods Traditional foods in Nigeria can be classified into thefollowing:a. Roots and tubersb. Cereals and legumesc. Vegetables and fruitsd. Herbs and spicese. Livestock and game

a. Roots and tubersExamples of roots and tubers include cassava,yams, coco yams – these are mainly produced andconsumed in the humid savannah and rainforestagro-ecological zones. These stretch from the middlebelt to the southern part of Nigeria.

b. Cereals and legumesExamples include maize, sorghum, millet, acha,rice, beni seed (cereals), and cowpeas, pigeon pea,African yam bean, bambara nuts.

Food products from cereals include boiled rice,jollof and rice pudding, e.g. tuwo shinkafa, cornfood,pap, eko/agidi, “maize–rice”, African bread fruitjollof, toasted bread fruit seeds, beni seed soup,acha, tuwo masara, boiled or roasted corn. Legumeproducts include boiled beans, mashed beans, riceand beans, jollof beans, moin, akara, gbegiri soup,bean pottage, roasted groundnut, groundnut soup.Products from roots and tubers include the follow-ing: pounded yam, amala (yam flour paste), garri,boiled yam, akpu, tapioca, abacha flakes.

Neonatal 37%

Pneumonia 19%

Diarrhea 17%

Malaria 8%

Measles 4%

HIV/AIDS 3%

Injuries 3%

Other 10%

185

Millet Different types of legumes

Unshelled groundnuts

A woman and two children peeling cassava and tubers of yamon display for sale

Tubers of yam

186

c. Fruits and vegetablesFruits are described as the ripened seeds of plantsand the adjoining tissues which house them (Oni-mawo and Egbekun, 1998). They are commonlyused as desserts.

Vegetables are the leafy outgrowth of plants or partof plants that are used in making soups or eatenwith the principal part of a meal. In southern Nige-ria, leafy vegetables are grouped into: i cultivated leafy vegetables such as pumpkin,

green (spinach), bitter leaf, ewedu, water leaf; ii semi-wild vegetables which grow wild in the bush

but are now protected to grow in the home garden,e.g. utazi, uziza, atama (Ibos) okpai (Edo);

iii wild vegetables – okazi, edikan (Ibibio and Efik).

Many useful fruit trees which are exploited from

semi-wild conditions include breadfruit (Treculia sp.),African pear (Dacroydes sp.), Irvingia sp. andPentaclethra macrophylla (oil bean seed), Dialiumsp., Parkia vitex and Chrysophyllum sp. Wild andsemiwild leaf vegetables of importance includePterocarpus sp., Pergularia sp. and Gnetum sp.

Several fruits exist in Nigeria. These fruits are dis-tributed across the agro-ecological zones. In thehumid savannah several of the fruits include paw-paw (Carica papaya), oranges, guava, lime, grapes,African star apple (udara), mangoes, velvet tamarin(Vitex doniana), bananas, tangerine, cashew, gardeneggs. In the northern part of Nigeria, particularly inthe Plateau State axis there are different types ofvegetables such as carrots, cabbage, water melon,garden eggs. About 294 species and over 400varieties of foods were documented in the south-

A bunch of bananas

Tomatoes

Mango

Pawpaw

187

eastern part of Nigeria alone (Okeke et al., 2008).Twenty-one species of starchy roots and tubers, 20legumes, 21 nuts/seeds, 116 vegetables, 12 mush-rooms and 36 fruits have been documented insouthern Nigeria. Cereals, starchy roots and tubersare important food groups for the majority of Nige-rians. The foreign rice syndrome has in the recentpast overtaken many households, especially in theurban areas.

Generally, plant foods are available all year roundbut are more abundant during the harvest season.The most commonly consumed legume in Nigeriais the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Local varieties ofcowpea and other species of legumes are also avail-able but not produced in very large quantities in-cluding bambara nut, African yam bean, groundnut.Mushrooms are also consumed though in relatively

small quantities. Fruits are not main parts of the dietbut are eaten outside regular meals. Two types of oil(red palm oil and vegetable oil – mainly ground nutoil) are commonly used. A total of 21 condimentsand spices were identified. Some of these condimentsare soup thickeners and are high in dietary fibre.

Animal foods were about 27 species for meat/poul-try/eggs, 12 species of fish and 3 species of in-sect/larvae were documented (Okeke et al., 2008).The most popular game meats are grasscutter, rab-bit and antelope. Milk and milk products are notcommon food items except in the northern part ofNigeria but rare in the usual diets of most house-holds in the southern part of Nigeria. In most com-munities, foods are eaten not only for theirnutritional values but also for their medicinal andsociocultural significance.

Green amaranthus

Okra

188

Table 1. Some Nigerian traditional foods.

Scientific name English/ Local name Preparation Fruits common name

1 Abelmoschus esculenta Lady’s finger okwulu npiene Used for soups2 Anacardium occidentalis Cashew mkpuru cashew Roasted and eaten as a snack3 Anonas comosus Pineapple Akwuolu Fruit eaten when ripe 4 Anonas muricarta Soursop Fruit eaten when ripe 5 Artocarpus communis Breadfruit ukwa bekee -6 Azadirachta indica Neem Dogoyaro Used for malaria7 Canarium schweinfurthii Pear ube okpoko Soften in hot water and pulp eaten8 Carica papaya Pawpaw okwuru ezi Fruit eaten when ripe9 Chrysophyllum albiduim Bush apple udala nkiti Fruit eaten when ripe

(African star apple) pppp

10 Citrus aurantifolia Orange Oromankiti -11 Citrus aurantium Orange Oroma Fruit eaten when ripe 12 Cocos nucifera Coconut Akuoyibe Eaten raw with corn/maize13 Cola spp. `kola oji ogodo Chewed raw, medicinal 14 Curcurbita pepo (2 var.) Pumpkin anyu, ugboguru Used to cook yam or cocoyam. Soften on

cooling, boiled and eaten as snack15 Curcurbita pepo (1 var.) Pumpkin nkpuru anyu Boiled, milled and used for soup 16 Dacryodes edulis (2 var.) Pear ube Igbo Soften in boiled water or roasted

and used to eat maize,corn or alone 17 Dennettia tripetala Pepper fruit Mmimi Hot pepper eaten alone or with garden eggs18 Dialium guineense Velvet tamarind Icheku Eaten raw19 Elaeis guineensis Palm fruit Aku Major source of cooking oil 20 Garcinia kola Bitter cola aki ilu -21 Grewia spp. Jute plant Ayauma -22 Husolandia opprosita Mint Aluluisinmo Used for upset stomach23 Icacemia spp. - Urumbia Eaten as a fruit24 Irvingia spp. Bush mango Ugiri Fruit eaten when ripe25 Landolphia owariensis Rubber plant utu npiwa Fruit eaten when ripe 26 Landolphia spp. (4 var.) Rubber plant akwari, ubune Fruit eaten when ripe

utu mmaeso, utu mmaenyi,

27 Lycopersicum Tomatoes tomatoes Used for stews and other preparationsesculentum (4 var)

y p

28 Magnifera indica (4 var.) Mabgo mangoro Fruit eaten when ripe29 Myrianthus arboreus Ujuju fruit ujuju Fruit eaten when ripe30 Pachystela breviceps Monkey apple udala nwaenwe F ruit eaten when ripe 31 Persia Americana Avocado pear ube oyibo English pear is ripened and eaten alone32 Piper umbellate Sand pepper njanja Dry leaves used for soup during the dry season33 Psidium guajava Guava gova Eaten when ripe 34 Senna occidentalis Nigero plant sigbunmuo Used for cooking yam pottage35 Solanum macrocarpum Garden egg fruit anyara A fruit eaten with peanut butter or alone36 Sterculia spp. Kola (wild) nkpuruamun Wild fruit

wa ebunne37 Uraria chamae - okpaokuku Used for soup, tuber used for insect bite38 - utabe efi Wild fruit

Okeke et al. (2008), Onimawo and Egbekun (1988).

189

Table 2. Chemical composition of some tropical roots and tubers (100 g).

Dry Crude Crude Total Energy Ascorbic Calcium Phosphorus Ironmatter protein fat ash acid

Commodity(g) (g) (g) (g) (kcal) (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg)

Cassava 31.94 2.71 0.53 2.66 390.0 35.0 10.0 35.0 0.50(Manihotutilissima)

Yam 26.17 5.87 0.46 4.30 385.9 17.0 18.9 40.7 0.48(Dioscorearotundata)

Cocoyam 26.52 8.66 0.71 4.83 376.4 14.0 24.0 53.6 0.72(Taro)(colocasiaesculenta)

Cocoyam 2 24.89 7.85 0.70 5.22 382.6 10.0 6.0 360.0 0.70(Tannia) (XanthosomaSagittifolium)

Sweet Potato 28.08 5.36 0.33 3.15 391.0 26.2 16.6 31.0 0.83(Ipomoeabatatas)

FAO (1968); Onimawo and Egbekun (1988).

Nutrient content of some Nigerian traditional foodsEvery community in Nigeria has its own food pref-erences and over the years has developed the tastefor such foods. The communities also have their pe-culiar ways of preparing their traditional foods.

These cultural practices contribute to the nutrientcontent and nutrient retention in traditional foods.Nutrient content of some of these Nigerian foodsare shown in Tables 2–8 below.

190

Table 3. Nutrient composition of selected Nigerian traditional foods (per 100 g fresh edible portion).

Food Moisture Energy Protein Fat CHO Fibre Ash Vit A Thia Ribofl Niacin FolateVit C Calcium Phos Iron Zinc(RE) min avin phorus

g kcal kj g g g g g µg mg mg mg µg mg mg mg mg mg

Legumes nuts and seeds

Black pepper seed 10.5 324 1 354 3.4 0.2 77.1 4.2 4.6 38.6 0.08 2.3 1.0 3 14.4 254.6 533.2 5.7 3.7

Castor oil seed 39.7 337 1 409 27.4 18.9 14.3 0.3 1.2 54.1 0.14 1.83 1.7 5 25 517.5 450.1 15.3 4.2

Ehulu seed 15.6 321 1 342 3.8 0.2 76.0 1.3 3.1 - - - - - - 55.8 549 13.3 2.8

Olima seed 29.2 272 1 137 14.7 0.1 53.1 1.1 1.8 - - - - - - 5.4 21.6 12.0 1.8

Pumpkin seed 60.3 121 506 4.8 2.6 19.6 2.1 0.6 29.9 0.37 1.94 1.7 12 1.6 170.5 626.1 3.7 1.4

Seeded herb 56.7 140 585 3.9 0.1 30.8 4.4 4.1 44 0.24 0 3.8 7 4.7 166.8 125.3 3.4 2.4

Uda seed 42.7 247 1 032 3.6 12.4 30.2 6.8 4.3 53.8 0.27 0.34 0.9 10 1.8 - - - -

Vegetable and mushroom

Black pepper leaf 67.6 114 477 16.9 1.3 8.7 3.1 2.4 19.4 0.14 0.91 0.7 5 11.7 245.8 13.7 6.4 1.2

Bitter leaf 62.1 154 644 14.6 2.1 19.2 0.4 1.6 31.2 0.13 0.56 0.6 4 8.6 278.3 228.4 3.4 2.2

Cam wood 56.3 144 602 3.5 0.8 30.8 4.8 3.8 29.9 0.37 1.94 1.7 12 1.6 5.3 126.2 9.0 0.9

Ero awaga 67.4 130 543 4.6 1.6 24.2 1.6 0.6 4.1 0.22 0.42 4.5 7 2.3 2.5 240.9 11.2 1.7

Water leaf (wild) 56.7 163 681 22.7 0.1 17.9 1.2 1.4 31.2 0.39 0.28 2.0 13 38.4 114.4 152.9 1.6 114

Water leaf 70.2 74 309 2.4 0.8 14.2 1.0 1.8 - - - - - - 89 128.2 1.6 114

Uncommon vegetables

Agbolukwu 71.1 107 447 7.9 0.4 18.0 1.7 0.9 18.9 0.28 0.36 3.0 0 4.48 529.0 188 2.0 1.3

Agili ezi 57.9 160 669 6.4 0.3 33.0 0.7 1.6 - - - - - - 4.1 15.7 5.4 1.1

Alice mose 65.7 121 506 14.8 0.7 13.9 2.1 2.9 - - - - - - 380.9 127.8 11.1 1.6

Aluluisi 36.0 319 1333 4.6 1.2 72.4 1.6 3.4 55.5 0.09 0.93 1.2 3.0 18.0 657.6 338.3 9.5 3.3

Anya-azu 66.4 131 548 12.8 1.3 17.1 0.6 1.8 25.7 0.18 1.1 1.5 6 22.9 166.2 134.6 14.6 1.0

Awolowo weed 47.3 192 803 9.6 0.4 37.4 2.1 3.2 69.5 0.17 0.52 2.4 6 30.8 582.1 326.2 5.8 2.5

Azei 60.8 117 489 4.2 0.4 24.1 6.3 4.2 6.9 0.18 0.36 1.1 6 2.9 43.4 85.0 11.9 1.0

Bush marigold 52.9 181 757 6.8 0.6 37.0 0.9 1.8 - - - - - - 473.4 235.6 5.4 2.4

Flame tree 44.0 212 886 8.6 0.3 43.7 0.8 2.6 28.3 1.3 0.54 2.0 44 31.5 76.1 33.8 5.4 2.4

Hog weed 65.9 121 506 8.6 0.2 21.3 1.6 2.4 19.4 0.69 0.86 1.1 23 16.4 65.7 233.8 2.1 1.8

Ifulu nkpisi 46.0 192 803 6.8 0.2 40.7 2.1 4.2 69.5 0.32 0.54 3.7 11 54.4 260.4 131.5 9.4 1.1

Illenagbelede 32.9 210 878 16.4 1.4 32.9 4.6 1.4 32.7 0.36 0.94 1.2 12 16.1 367.4 405.2 9.9 3.3

191

Table 3 contd. Nutrient composition of selected Nigerian traditional foods (per 100 g fresh edible portion).

Food Moisture Energy Protein Fat CHO Fibre Ash Vit A Thia Ribofl Niacin Folate Vit C Calcium Phos Iron Zinc(RE) min avin phorus

g kcal kj g g g g g µg mg mg mg µg mg mg mg mg mg

Uncommon vegetables (continued)

Ikpo kpo 61.6 130 543 2.8 0.4 28.7 2.8 3.7 28.3 0.29 0.43 2.6 1 3.6 263.3 84.0 2.7 2.3

Inine 77.8 109 456 15.4 1.2 9.1 1.5 1.2 64.5 0.15 0.04 13 20 1.2 91.1 137.7 2.0 0.8

Isii osisii 59.3 135 564 3.4 0.9 28.3 4.3 3.8 33.5 0.22 0.13 0.8 7 1.7 32.7 252.8 1.9 0.8

Isi-udele 44.6 211 882 4.8 0.2 47.6 2.1 1.3 4.1 0.22 0.42 4.5 7 2.3 330.9 267.1 10.3 1.8

Lemon grass 47.7 204 853 4.3 0.4 45.8 0.4 1.4 18.2 0.21 0.9 1.2 7 16.1 118.5 154.1 2.7 2.7

Local onion 56.4 142 594 3.8 0.6 30.4 5.2 3.6 41.8 0.57 0.3 2.0 20 2.9 56.9 145.6 6.5 1.2

Mgbidi mgbi 69.7 113 472 2.9 0.1 25.2 1.2 0.9 - - - - - - 584 127.3 2.3 3.7

Mint 56.7 147 614 7.3 0.7 27.8 3.9 3.6 - - - - - - 488.7 18.8 1.0 1.5

Nghotoncha 49.9 166 694 4.7 0.8 35.1 3.6 5.9 - - - - - - 471.6 171.6 7.3 1.2

Nigero plant 56.7 146 610 8.9 0.5 26.4 3.9 3.6 - - - - - - 42.7 143.5 5.0 0.8

Obi ogbene 69.5 106 443 4.8 1.2 18.9 1.0 4.6 44.0 0.28 1.10 2.0 9 30.3 326.5 122.0 3.2 1.4

Obu aka enwe 38.4 230 961 6.9 0.3 50.0 1.6 2.6 18.9 0.28 0.36 3.0 0 4.48 42.3 431.1 4.9 1.8

Ogbunkwu 18.6 249 1041 2.1 0.1 60.0 12.3 6.9 0.0 0.12 0.0 1.0 0 0.00 110.6 198.1 3.5 2.0

Ogume okpe 41.2 230 961 6.8 0.8 49.0 1.1 2.1 20.5 0.35 1.7 3.8 16 58.0 162.3 332.9 7.7 2.7

Onunu gaover 35.4 248 1037 3.3 0.1 58.5 0.9 1.8 6.8 0.42 0.32 1.6 0 10.6 152.4 389.8 8.6 3.1

Onunu iluoygbo 69.3 102 426 2.4 0.6 21.8 1.4 4.5 30.9 0.62 0.11 1.6 0 3.6 117.5 88.2 2.4 1.7

Otulu ogwai 42.5 206 861 6.9 0.4 43.7 3.1 3.4 35.9 1.62 0.58 1.8 0 22.8 198.4 417.1 5.75 2.6

Pumpkin 69.0 125 523 22.8 2.8 2.2 1.8 1.4 - - - - 7 - 147.4 130.2 0.3 0.8

Senna plant 58.4 159 665 6.8 0.6 31.5 0.9 1.8 51.7 0.45 1.4 1.3 15 18.6 314.3 307.3 6.2 1.5

Ugbfoncha 57.2 140 858 8.6 1.1 23.8 2.4 6.9 30.4 0.24 0.6 1.4 0 26.4 295.5 231.5 4.5 1.9

Ujuju 58.1 148 619 8.3 1.2 25.9 2.1 4.4 16.0 0.23 0.87 1.3 8 18.4 3.3 176.0 1.6 0.8

Utazi 56.7 172 719 18.0 4.8 14.2 3.6 2.7 20.4 0.3 0.82 0.2 0.0 0.3 258.6 204.9 8.1 1.4

Meat

Canda (skin) 38.4 320 1338 28.3 16.8 13.9 0.0 2.6 30.9 0.62 0.11 1.6 0 3.6 8.15 160.0 5.4 2.0

Snail 65.7 126 527 10.6 1.2 18.2 0.0 4.3 - - - - - - 204.8 161.6 5.8 1.0

192

Table 4. Key micronutrient-rich traditional foods by food groups/species.

Food group/species Local name Scientific name Major micronutrient(s)CerealsYellow maize Oka Zea mays β-carotene

Starchy roots/tubersSweet potatoes Ji nwannu Ipomaea batatas Iron, β-caroteneThree leaf yam Ona Dioscorea dumentorum Iodine, Yellow yam Ji Oku/Okwu Dioscorea cayenensis β-carotene, iodine, iron

Starchy fruitsBanana Unele, Ogede Musa sapientum Zinc, folate, iron, β-carotenePlantain Nba/jiono Musa paradisiacal Zinc, folate, iron

ObughunuAfrican bread fruit Ukwa Treculia Africana Iron, zincLegumes/nuts and seeds All legumes/nuts All legumes/nuts Iron, zinc, copperCashew Mkpuru/ Anacardium occidentalis Iron, zinc

Mkpulu cashewAll fruits Mkpulu osisi All fruits Iron, zinc, carotenoids, copper,

selenium, vitamin C, vitamin EPalm fruit Aku Elaeis guineensis β-caroteneAll vegetables Akwukwo nni All vegetables Iron, zinc, carotenesMushroom Ero/elo Not yet properly identified Iron, copper, zinc

All animal foods See Table 3 See Table 3 Iron, zinc, vitamin A

Adapted from Okeke et al. (2008); Oguntona and Akinyele (1995).

Table 5. Recommended curing and storage conditions for roots and tubers.

Commodity Temperature Relative °C humidity %

Curing Storage Duration of Curing Storage Duration of curing (days) storage

(weeks)gg

Cassava 25–40 32.38 4–9 80–85 58–90 8Yam 25–40 13–16 5–10 55–62 70 21–28Cocoyam (Taro) 11–13 30–35 18–21 85–90 70–80 4Cocoyam (Tannia) 11–13 30–35 18–21 85–90 70–80 4Sweet Potato 30–32 13–16 13–20 90 85–90 21–28

Okaka (1997).

193

Table 6. Some fruits and vegetables.

Fruits Vegetables Avocado Beans Banana PeasBreadfruit Carrot Pineapple Cucumber Mango Eggplant Guava Onions Pawpaw GarlicOranges PepperGrapefruit Melon Lemon fruit Tomatoes Tangerine Pumpkin leaf Plantain Lettuce Cashew apple Spinach Passion fruit Cabbage Pears AmaranthsSour sop Bitter leaf

Table 7. Typical composition of some fruits and vegetables per 100 g edible portion.

Commodity Water(%) Energy Protein Fat(%) Carbo Ascorbic Calcium Phospho Vit. A (cal) (%)

gygyhydrate acid (%) (mg) rus(mg) (I.U.)

pp

(%) yy

Fruits Banana 75 86 1.1 0.2 24 10 8 26 190Pineapple 85 65 0.4 0.4 15 110 20 11 30Mango 83 63 0.6 0.1 15 30 10 10 180Guava 80 58 1.0 0.4 13 200 15 33 200Orange 86 49 1.0 0.2 12 50 41 20 200Lemon 85 58 1.0 0.9 11 43 40 22Cashew apple 85 0.7 13 250 10 150Pawpaw ripe 81 40 0.5 0.6 10 110 16 8 2 200

Vegetables Onions 89 38 1.5 0.1 9 10 27 56 40Carrot 88 42 1.1 0.2 10 51 37 36 11 000Spinach 91 26 3.2 0.3 5 51 93 51 8 100Cabbage 92 24 1.3 0.2 4 47 49 29 130Pepper 92 22 1.2 0.2 4 125 9 22 420Tomato 93 22 1.1 0.2 5 30 13 27 190

194

Table 8. Nutrient composition of some protein foods per 100 g.

Food Moisture Protein Fat Ash Dietary CHO Calcium Iron (g) (g) (g) (g) fibre (g) (g) (mg) (mg)

Legumes

Cowpea (black eye pea) 0 27 2.0 4.1 17.1 50 83 7.4

Pigeon pea 0 22 1.8 3.9 23.8 48 110 5.0

African yam bean 0 22 2.1 3.1 19.1 54 46 4.7

Bambara nut 10 19 6.0 3.4 61 62 12.0

Lima bean 12.7 21 1.4 3.4 61 11 4.9

Soya bean 9.5 34 18.0 5.0 34 183 6.1

Groundnut (dried) 6.5 23 45 2.5 23 49 3.8

Groundnut (roasted) 1.8 23 51 2.4 22 42

Groundnut (boiled) 44.6 17 8.5 4.0 26 45 5.1

Oil bean seed 8 26 40 20 190 16.0

Pumpkin 5 28 52 3.6 8 53 7.3

Animal foods (meat)

Beef (moderate fat) 63 18 17.7 1.0 11 3.6

Egg 79 11.8 9.6 1.0 1 45 2.6

Goat Meat (moderate fat) 68 18.0 11.0 1.1 11 2.3

Intestine (cattle) 76 14.5 9.3 0.8 1 10 3.4

Liver (cattle) 70 19.0 4.7 1.3 5 8 10.0

Pork (moderate fat) 46 12.4 40.5 1.0 11 1.8

Chicken 72 20.5 6.5 1.0 10 1.1

Fish and other sea foods

Crayfish 26 69.5 4.5 13.6 660 155

Mackerel (raw) 64 19.0 16.3 24 1.0

Smoked fish (whole) 5 70.4 10.2 14.2 1 696 25

Crab (meat cooked) 12 31.2 77.0 39.5 10 1 280

Periwinkle (dried) 14 55 1.4 11.8 733 38.8

Prawn (dried) 16 70.8 6.0 2.5 4 1 740 8.0

Stockfish (raw) 70 21.8 5.4 3.0 1 696 25

Snail 78 12.0 2.0 4 1 500 8.0

Okeke et al. (2008); Onimawo (1995); Oguntona and Akinyele (1995).

195

Contribution of traditional foods to assuring nutritionsecurityThe detailed work carried out by Okeke et al. (2008)showed that traditional Nigerian foods fed to children3–5 years supplied adequate energy (101.24%),protein (149.8%), iron (228.43%), vitamin A (307.9%),thiamin (275.71%), niacin (141.59%) and ascorbicacid (440.05%), which were higher than FAO/WHOrequirement intakes. Their intake was adequatefor calcium (88.5%) and riboflavin (81.0%) only.Traditional foods contributed over 90% of the en-ergy, protein, thiamin, niacin and ascorbic acid andover 70% of vitamin A and iron intakes of these chil-dren.

Among the traditional foods, cereals made the mostsignificant contribution to energy (31.1%) and niacin(39.9%). Legumes made the highest contribution toprotein (49.1%). The calcium intake came mainlyfrom vegetables (16.8%) and legumes (16.0%).About 26.5% of the iron came from cereals. This wasfollowed by legumes (26.3%). Only 6.8% of thevitamin A came from vegetables. The rest (71.8%)came from red palm oil. Thiamin and riboflavincame mainly from nuts and seeds (33.9% and29.9%). The bulk of the ascorbic acid came fromstarchy roots and tubers (58.1%).

Studies involving school age children 6–12yr(Onimawo et al., 2008) indicated low protein andmicronutreints intake particularly iron and zinc.However when meals were prepared from tradition-ally available foods with appropriate combinations forchildren 3–5yr, the results showed adequate in-take of energy, protein and most of the micronutri-ents in some cases.

The results from these studies carried out in thesouthern geopolitical zone in Nigeria show clearlythat when properly prepared and combined, Niger-ian traditional foods can assure nutrition securityeven in all segments of the society including theunder-fives and school age children.

Figure 2. Vegetable consumption pattern of school age childrenprior to nutrition education.

Figure 3.Improvement in vegetable consumption pattern of school agechildren after nutrition education.

Following nutrition education, school age childrengradually increased vegetable intakes leading to im-provement in micronutrient intake of the children.This study further proved that Nigerian traditionalfoods can support nutrition security if nutrition ed-ucation is properly carried out.

Summary of the findings on Nigerian traditional foodsSeveral other studies indicated the following:• Traditional foods are rich in all the required nutrients.• Poor combination of the various foods is the bane

of adequate nutrient intake.• Poor processing and culinary methods contribute

significantly to nutrient losses.• Underexploitation of traditional foods undermine

their rich nutritional value.• Lack of nutrition education contributes to the

inappropriate uses of traditional foods.

Vegetables taken2-3 days in a week

7%

Vegetables takengy other dayat least every%79%

No response1%

Frequency of fruits taken

Fruits taken morethan 3 days in a week

22%

Fruits taken 2-3 days in a week

22%

Fruits taken at leastevery other day

7%No response12%

Vegetables taken morethan 3 days in a weeks in a week

29%%

• Low consumption levels of traditional fresh fruitsand vegetables contribute significantly to micronutrient deficiency.

• Wrong choice of food and age-long food/dietary habits affected adequate nutrient intake.

There are community variations in the contributionof specific food groups.• In the southern states in Nigeria, starchy roots

and tubers, legumes, nuts and seeds madesubstantial contributions to energy intake.

• In northern Nigeria, legumes and cerealssignificantly contribute to the intake of energy.

Conclusion• Malnutrition characterized by undernutrition is

prevalent in Nigeria.• Undernutrition can be reduced significantly when

the traditional Nigerian food system is improvedusing a combination of strategies including nutritioneducation.

• One of the main areas that need attention if our traditional food system will assure food security isencouragement of vegetable and fruit consumption.Figures 2 and 3 above show that vegetable and fruit consumption improved significantly afternutrition education of the school children.

• Poverty causes and aggravates malnutrition.• Need to draw attention to traditional foods that

are almost forgotten in preference to westernizeddiets that invaded our food system.

References

Barrett C B and Brent M. Swallow (2006) Fractal poverty traps.World Development.Vol.34 (1), 1-15

Dasgupta (1997). Nutritional Status, capacity work and povertytraps. Journal of Econometrics.Vol. 77 (1), 5-37

Ene-Obong, H.N. and E. Carnovale, (1992). Nigerian SoupCondiments: Traditional Processing and Potential as DietaryFibre Sources. Food Chem., 43:29-34.

FAO, 1968. Food Composition Table for Use in Africa. Food andAgricultural Organization, Rome.

Gertler P and Gruber J (2002) in : Paul Gertler , David I. Levine

and Enrico Moretti (2005). Do microfinance programs help fam-ilies insure consumption against illness? John Wiley and Sons.

NDHS (2008). Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey.2008.National Population Commission Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Oguntona, E.B. and I.O. Akinyele, (1995). (Eds.) Nutrient Compo-sition of Commonly Eaten Foods in Nigeria -Raw, Processed andPrepared. Food Basket Foundation Publication Series, Ibadan.

Okaka J C (1997) Cereals and legumes: Storage and processingtechnology - Data and Microsystems Publishers, Nigeria.

Okeke E.C H.N. Eneobong1, A.O. Uzuegbunam1 and A.O.Ozioko1 and H. Kuhnlein (2008). Igbo Traditional Food System:Documentation, Uses and Research Needs Pakistan Journalof Nutrition 7 (2): 365-376.

Onimawo I A and Egbekun M. K (1988). Comprehensive Foodand Nutrition. Ambik Publishers, Benin-City.

Onimawo I A (1995). Seasonal variations in energy intake, ex-penditure and body composition of students in a Nigeria Col-lege of Agriculture – Ph.D. Thesis, university of Ibadan..

Onimawo I A, Asumugha V U, Chukwudi N K, Echendu C A,Nkwoala C, Nzeagwu O C, Okudu H and Anyika J U(2008). Bodycomposition and nutrient intake of children suffering fromworm infestation and malaria parasites. Nig. J. Nutr. Sci. Vol.29(1): 111-117, 2008.

Sen A (1981). On ethics and economics. Blackwell publishing.350 Main Street, Malden, MA, USA.

WHO (2002). World Health Organization: United Nations. Geneva.

196

EDIBLE INSECTS IN EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA:CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIESMuniirah MbabaziMakerere University, Kampala, Uganda

198

199

AbstractInsects have for a long time been known only aspests and pollinators, recent studies show theyactually offer more ecological, economic and socialbenefits to man. On the contrary, entomophagy, theeating of insects has been part of African indigenousdiets for as long as the African race has existed.Therefore, edible insects are culturally accepted inmany African societies as food. They are a goodsource of proteins, minerals and essential fats. Ed-ible insects are not used to cope with food scarcity,but are rather an integral part of cultural dietsplanned for throughout the year. As entomophagygains popularity in the western world; it is importantto closely look at the practice. The potential ofinsects as food remains poorly understood andtaped in Africa with some insects threatened withextinction from unsustainable harvesting,ecosystems destruction and effects of climatechange. Insects are one group of foods from the wildthat would ensure dietary diversity among manypoor people and communities. Incorporating biodi-versity in nutrition will go a long way to ensuringfood security and sustainable development. Thispaper explores the challenges and opportunities forwider use of edible insects in traditional diets of thepeople of eastern and southern Africa.

1. IntroductionEdible insects continue to play a great and significantrole in nourishing Africa’s indigenous communities.The practice of entomophagy is an age-old one inmany African cultures, with many communitiespaying attention to this aspect in their indigenousknowledge. However, little attention has been paidto this aspect of traditional African diets in westernliterature until recently. In the past western literatureplayed a great role in labelling them pests creatingan apparent contradiction on whether to conservethem for dietary purposes or destroy them as pests.

Studies in entomophagy indicate that consumption

of insects is gaining ground not only in Africa but inmany parts of western societies (Ayeiko et al., 2010).It has now been realized that entomophagy canmake significant contributions to diets as an alter-native protein source and to insect conservationthrough sustainable harvesting in conjunction withappropriate habitat management hence reducingadverse environmental impacts of livestock pro-duction (Yen, 2008). The world today is confrontedwith a larger problem; supplying adequate nutrientsin a sustainable way to its growing population aswell as protecting the environment. As the world’spopulation continues to grow, great pressure is ex-erted on land; some edible insects are feared to be-come endangered or extinct.

According to FAO, more than one billion of the world’spopulation was hungry in 2010, the highest everregistered since 1970. Two hundred and sixty-fivemillion of the world’s hungry lived in sub-SaharanAfrica and the numbers were likely to increase.Sub-Saharan Africa however, also has the largestprevalence of undernourishment (32%) in the worldrelative to its population size. Such numbers areunacceptable given that Africa is rich in naturalresources among which are forests that contributeabout 40% of the world’s natural resources and 80%of resources for the world’s poor (FAO, 2010),among these resources are highly nutritious foods.

There is a current increase in demand for foodproduction as a result of Africa’s rapidly growingpopulation; hence Africa is marred with constantfood shortages alongside poverty, these two factorsaggravate the nutrition status of many poor familiesand communities. With the realization of pendingfood shortage particularly in developing countries,the consumption of edible insects is sure to increase(Meyer-Rochow et al., 2007). Agriculturalists andnutritionists the world over are calling for diversi-fication of diets. Dietary diversification is a priorityfor improving nutrition and health of the rural and

urban poor. Entomophagy contributes to dietary di-versification to household diets.

Entomophagy is well accepted in Africa and is amajor component in many traditional cultures. Asthe world becomes a global village, entomophagy isfaced with several challenges like land degradation,climate change, globalization and commercializationof agriculture. This paper explores the challengesand opportunities for wider use of edible insects intraditional diets of the people of eastern and southernAfrica.

1.1 Edible insects of eastern and southern AfricaInsects possess enormous biodiversity and formgreat biomass in nature. Insects have played animportant role in the history of human nutrition inAfrica, Asia and Latin America (Bodenheimer, 1951).They also offer ecological benefits (in pollination,biomass recycling), economic (apiculture, sericulture)and social benefits (in medicine, human and animalnutrition religion, art and handicrafts) (JharnaChakravorty, 2009). Detailed information regardingthe diversity, mode of consumption and economicvalues of the edible insects in many tropical andsubtropical regions of the world is compiled byDe Foliart (2002). In eastern and southern Africa,insects are not only pests like it is thought in manyparts of the world, they are food items too. In placeswhere animal protein sources are rare or expensive,insects have filled the gap as a major source ofprotein and animal fat. Insects have been used aslivestock feed, human feed and medicine in manyAfrican cultures. Huis (2003) reported that there areapproximately 250 known edible insect species insub-Saharan Africa that are high in nutritive value.Preference for which species are utilized dependson their taste, nutritional value, and ethnic customs,preferences or prohibitions. Common edible insectorders in eastern and southern Africa include;Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), Hymenoptera(bees), Isoptera (termites, queen and reproductives),

Coleoptera (beetles), Hemiptera (true bugs),Orthoptera (locusts and grasshoppers), and Odonata(dragon fly). Insects are eaten at different stages oftheir life cycles; eaten as either larvae or nymphsor adults depending on the insect of interest.

Studies show that arthropods of class insecta arerich in protein especially in the dry form in which theyare frequently stored or sold in village markets of de-veloping countries. Some insects are high in fat, andhence energy and many are rich sources of mineralsand vitamins (Deforliart, 1995). Illgner and Nel (2000),argue that the importance of entomophagy in Africais more due to “necessity than choice”, because ofthe climate and small-scale nature of animal hus-bandry which reduces the amount of meat con-sumed; the diets have been broadened to includeinsects. Though, worth noting is, entomophagy is nota coping strategy in the times of crisis as was earlierthought (Bodenheimer, 1951), but rather an integralpart of cultural diets in many societies depending onseasonal availability. Entomophagy has been prac-tised for as long as man has lived on the African con-tinent and for that it is incorporated in the indigenousknowledge systems of societies that practise ento-mophagy. There is a wide base of knowledge that re-mains undocumented in communities on culinarypractices, special traditional harvesting technologiesand conservation methods for different and variousspecies of edible insects.

Insect collection and gathering practices are ves-tiges of the gathering trait seen in our forefathersand therefore it is common to find that many edibleinsects are collected in the wild. Major gatheringspots are woodlands, grasslands and forests. In-sects form part of the biodiversity in these ecosys-tems. It is on this premise, the role of non-woodforest products in food security and developmentshould not be underestimated. Non-wood foodproducts are important in the provision of importantcommunity needs that are known to improve rural

200

livelihoods, household food security and nutrition.They help generate additional employment and in-come, offer opportunities for processing enterprisesand more so support biodiversity conservation.Studies show that African diets though lacking inmeat proteins, natives still remain healthy and fit.This observation is attributed to edible insects fill-ing in the gaps. Attaining such benefits howevercomes with various challenges.

2. Challenges2.1 Climate changeClimate change affects ecosystems and their com-ponents with its effects aggravated by uncheckedhuman activities. There is increasing evidence thatthe earth’s climate is undergoing change largely dueto human activities. It is estimated that global cli-mate change will have a profound impact on allecosystems and hence biodiversity (Ayeiko et al.,2010). It is also feared that climate change will leadto loss of biodiversity in many places around theworld. The importance of biodiversity in food secu-rity, nutrition and sustainable livelihoods cannot beneglected. According to FAO (2010), biodiversity con-tributes directly to food security, nutrition andhuman well-being by providing a variety of plant andanimal foods from domesticated and wild sources.Environmental integrity is therefore critical formaintaining and building positive options for humanwell-being.

Insects are an integral part of all ecosystems andwill therefore not be spared by the change in a num-ber of ways not yet determined by scientists. Stud-ies point out that insect populations are likely toincrease with changing climate (Saunders, 2008).Increased temperature and moisture that are prod-ucts of climate change are known to affect insectpopulations. High temperatures stimulate high fe-cundity in female insects and hence large numbersof individuals at emergency (Rattle, 1985). Ayeiko etal. (2010) reported large quantity harvests of ter-l

mites on the shores of Lake Victoria in westernKenya. They also noted moisture variability andavailability in the recent past kept insect moundsmoist much longer in certain areas than in otheryears. Insects respond to change in thermal envi-ronment through migration, adaptation or evolution(Dunn and Crutchfield, 2006). This enables them toadapt faster to other areas to survive the climatechanges and thereby increase their availability tohuman consumption and predators. However, con-fronted with both low quantity and large quantityharvests for some insects is Africa ready to take onthe challenge. Insects are highly perishable, if supplyis to be maintained there is need to look at pro-cessing methods and storage to cut down on post-harvest losses.

2.2 Globalization As Africa positions itself for globalization many unde-sired outcomes are observed. Globalization has seenadoption of a universal cultural system largely basedon western values, customs and habits includingchanges in food customs. It has resulted in the use ofmore fast foods and pre-prepared foods and the lossof traditional ways of life (Illgner and Nel, 2000). Peo-ple opt for simple diets as they become busier aban-doning dietary practices that are perceived as time-wasting and archaic. Entomophagy is one such prac-tice requiring a lot of time, women and children spenda lot of time in the wild looking for insect delicacies.Diet simplification negatively impacts on human foodsecurity, nutritional balance and health.

2.3 Population growth and commercialization ofagricultureA rapidly growing human population commands in-creased demand for food production along withchanging food production and consumption pat-terns. Africa’s population is growing at a rate of 3percent and the population is expected to be 2 bil-lion by 2050 (FAO, 2010). Population pressures in therecent past have led to the evolution of agriculture

201

from traditional to modern intensive systems. In-creased globalization and urbanization has led tomore arable land being lost for food production (Yen,2009). As the human population grows and environ-mental degradation continues, the world faces amajor problem in providing adequate animal-basedprotein. Consequently forests are cleared to createland for agriculture and infrastructural development.Such systems have a big bearing on biodiversity loss.Many edible insects are becoming scarce, for exam-ple, in Uganda termites are not common in urbanareas. The reason behind the low occurrences is theperception about termites, the worker termite isknown to destroy furniture and crops, and hence is apest. It is therefore regarded as a menace and ter-mataria are destroyed as soon as they show up. Inlarge-scale agriculture they are destroyed as the landis prepared for cultivation. This compromises thequantities produced and sustainable harvest of the in-sects. Grasshoppers and palm weevil breed in forestsand thick vegetation like forests whereas termites willbreed in both dense and sparse vegetation areas. Con-sequently, these insects are lost and biodiversity dam-aged.

2.4 Pollution and use of insecticidesPopulations continue to soar and industrializationbecomes a viable option. As a result more green-house gases are produced. There is more carbondioxide in the atmosphere and consequently in thewater bodies. This means that the waters are moreacid than ever before, consequently affecting theflora and fauna in water bodies. Ayeiko et al. (2010)also noted that the harvests of lake flies in westernKenya was lower than in the previous years. Thiswas as a result of increased acidity of the water.Lake flies breed at the bottom of the lake, and there-fore the change in PH of the water grossly affectsthe breeding cycle. Coupled with increased temper-ature, oxygen availability is compromised leading todeath of the larvae. In the quest to control diseasesand increase yields insecticides, pesticides and

herbicides are used extensively in cities and farms.Pesticide, herbicide and fungicide use can makeinsects unsuitable for human consumption aspesticides accumulate in insect bodies.

3. Opportunities Faced with several challenges, Africa can convertthese challenges to opportunities. Insects in the dietclearly show the meeting point of nutrition and bio-diversity in food security and sustainable development.For Africa to meet her food security and environmentprotection targets of the MDGs, then it is importantto look at opportunities that entomophagy avails uswith; however, the achievement of food securityshould not be at the expense of the environment.Insects present a link; they are ecofriendly as food.They consume relatively little and do not requiregrazing land and antibiotics like our conventionallivestock (Yen et al., 2008). Today livestock is one ofthe major contributors to greenhouse gases. As de-mand for animal protein increases the world over, itis probable that levels of pollution will reach theirhighest limits.

3.1 Cultivation of insectsThe mass production of insects has great potentialto provide animal proteins for human consumption,either directly, or indirectly as livestock feed. Thelatter could reduce energy requirements in livestockproduction. The use of insects as an additionalsource of protein could result in increased conversionefficiencies and a smaller environmental footprintin our livestock production, especially if closedsystems can be developed at the village or farmlevel (Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Insects are easy to raise and to harvest, and theyare highly nutritious to eat. They have higher foodconversion efficiency than more traditional meats.When reared at 30°C or more, and fed a diet of equalquality to the diet used to rear conventional livestock,house crickets show a food conversion twice as

202

efficient as pigs and broiler chicks, four times that ofsheep, and six times higher than steers when lossesin carcass trim and dressing percentage are counted(Jharna Chakravorty, 2009). Protein production forhuman consumption would be more effective andcost fewer resources than animal protein. It is there-fore important to rear or cultivate the most preferrededible insects, especially those with high nutritionvalue in home gardens with application of moderntools and techniques. Success stories of insectrearing are seen in the Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic and Japan, where crickets, bugs and manyother insects are harvested in home gardens (FAO,2010; Toms and Nonaka, 2005). For this to be possibleit is important to understand different cultures andindigenous knowledge.

3.2 Promote indigenous knowledge systems (IKS)Communities that practise entomophagy haveingrained traditional knowledge and practices onhow to harvest and use food insects. With changingfood habits communities lose valuable traditionalknowledge as such knowledge and practices areconsidered outdated and primitive by the youngergenerations. Incorporated in this knowledge systemare elements that promote and favour responsibleand respectful use of nature. Transmitting traditionalvalues and wisdom to children and teenagers isimportant; experience shows that across manyfields a combination of customary knowledge andapproaches has tremendous benefits and valuestowards understanding science and modern trends.South Africa has taken on promoting indigenousknowledge of diets and harvesting insects into theclassrooms. In their outcome-based educationsystem, children are taught at an early stage theimportance of consuming insects and sustainableharvesting for food security. They are taught aboutcomplex life cycles of the common edible insectslike the mopane worms and the stink bugs (Toms andNonaka, 2005). It is important for the harvesters tounderstand the complex life cycles as many insects

are consumed at different stages of the life cycle.Understanding that if a particular stage is overlyconsumed it will lead to loss of a particular insectfrom the ecosystem is very important. Understandingthat destruction of termataria or palm trees (forests)will lead to no harvest of white ants or palm weevilrespectively is grossly important in sustainable useof resources. In northern Uganda, termataria areowned by families in grazing grounds and are jealouslyguarded from intruders who are considered thieves.Therefore promotion of sustainable harvesting forfood security and complex life cycles of insectsthrough the use of IKS should be adopted.

In east Africa for example, natives will tell the type ofedible white ants by the type of termatarium andtherefore different species of edible white ants areharvested in different ways. Great care is taken toensure that the termataria are not destroyed. Suchknowledge is not documented but is passed on byword of mouth from generation to generation.However some methods involve destroying thevegetation around the termataria and in the case ofpalm weevil, palm trees are destroyed. Promotingsustainable use and harvesting methods is key inIKS as well as enabling the harvesters to harvestlarge quantities. Traditional knowledge along withnutrition education are therefore essential founda-tions for advancing entomophagy, but it also has toaddress food security and food safety issues (Yenet al., 2009).

3.3 Trade and value addition Collection of food insects is a good source of incomeespecially for the women as they require little capitalinput if gathered by hand. Insects are widely offeredin local village markets, while some preferred specieslike grasshoppers in east Africa, mopane worms insouthern Africa reach urban markets across borders.Agea et al. (2008) noted that grasshoppers in Kampalaand Masaka, were a major source of income to theharvesters who were mainly women. Many of the

203

harvesters noted that trade in insects had actuallyimproved their livelihoods. However, the harvesterstarget is always to sell the day’s catch, sometimesat lower prices because edible insects are highlyperishable. It is important to add value and improvepreservation methods in order to fetch more revenueand also cater for all year availability.

Elsewhere in the world, as the popularity of ento-mophagy grows, restaurants have opened that caterspecifically to those who enjoy entomophagy.Restaurants in Singapore serve larvae and scorpi-ons and seat sell-out crowds nightly. In some coun-tries insects are canned, exported and sold inforeign supermarkets all year round. Thereforethere should be an effort to increase the insects’commercial value as food and feed for livestock es-pecially chicken and availability on demand in a sus-tainable manner. This will in the long run serve atwin purpose of insect (natural resource) use asfood (food products and feed) and conservation(Jharna Chakravorty, 2009).

4. Conclusion Insects form a large form of biodiversity in diets. It istherefore important to note that nutrition biodiversityalso serves as a safety net to vulnerable householdsduring times of crisis, presents income opportunitiesto the rural poor and sustains productive agriculturalsystems. Therefore maintenance of biodiversity isessential for the sustainable production of food andother agricultural products and provides benefits tohumanity like food security, nutrition and livelihoods.

AcknowledgementsThe author acknowledges Bioversity Internationalfor sponsoring her to attend the International Sci-entific Symposium on Biodiversity and SustainableDiets; United Against Hunger in Rome, Italy in 2010.Thanks to Prof. Thomas Omara-Alwala (LincolnUniversity, Missouri) for his assistance, friendshipand helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

Agea, G., Biryomumaisho, D., Buyinza, M., and Nabanoga, N. G.,2008. Commercialisation of Ruspolia nitidula (Nesnenegrasshoppers) in Central Uganda. African Journal of Food, Agri-culture Nutrition and development 8 (3): 319-332.

Ayieko, M. A., Ndong’a M. F. O and Tamale, A., (2010). Climatechange and the abundance of edible insects in the Lake Victo-ria Region. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology Vol. 4 (7), pp.112-118.

Bodenheimer. F.S., (1951). Insects as human food. The Hague,Netherlands. W. Junk Publishers, 1951.

Dunn. D, and Crutchfield, J.P., (2006). Insects, Trees, and Cli-mate: The bioacoustic ecology of deforestation and ento-mogenic climate change. Santa Fe Institute Working paper NewMexico, 06: 12-30.

FAO. (2010) Nutrition and biodiversity, Agriculture for biodiver-sity for agriculture.

Huis, Van A., (2003). Insects as food in Sub-Saharan Africa. In-sect Science and its application; 23 (3): 163-185.

Illgner P, and Nel E (2000). The geography of edible insects inSub-Saharan Africa: a study of the Mopane caterpillar. The Ge-ographical Journal 166: 336–351.

Jharna Chakravorty., (2009). Entomophagy, an ethnic culturalattribute can be exploited to control increased insect popula-tion due to global climate change: a case study.

Meyer-Rochow, V.B., Kenichi, N., and Somkhit, B., (2007).More feared than revered: Insects and their impact on humansocieties (with some specific data on the importance of ento-mophagy in a Lotian setting). Entomol. Heute; 191-23.

Rattle, H.T., (1985). Temperature and insect development. En-vironmental Physiology and Biochemistry of insects. (HoffmanKH Ed.), Springer-Varlag, Berlin, pp. 33-65.

Saunders, A., (2008). FAO serves up edible insects as part offoodsecurity solution. Mediaglobal, (February, 2008), UnitedNations Secretariat, New York, FAO Rome.

Steinfeld, H., Gerber. P., Wassenaar, T., Castel. V., Rosales. M.,and de Haan, C., (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmen-tal Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.

Toms. R., and Nonaka. K., (2005). Harvesting of insects in SouthAfrica and Japan-Indigenous Knowledge in the Classroom.http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2005/july/edibleinsects.htm

Yen A., 2008. Entomophagy and insect conservation: somethought for digestion. Journal of insect conservation.

Yen, L. A., (2009). Edible insects: Traditional knowledge or west-ern phobia? Entomological Research 39 (2009) 289–298.

204

BIOACTIVE NON-NUTRIENTCOMPONENTS IN INDIGENOUSAFRICAN VEGETABLES Francis Omujal,1 Nnambwayo Juliet,2 Moses Solomon Agwaya,1

Ralph Henry Tumusiime,1 Patrick Ogwang Engeu,1

Esther Katuura,1 Nusula Nalika and Grace Kyeyune Nambatya1

1 Natural Chemotherapeutics Research Institute, Ministry of Health, Kampala, Uganda

2 Department of Biochemistry, Makerere University, Kampala,Uganda

206

AbstractIn many African cultures, vegetables form an im-portant part of a healthy traditional diet because oftheir nutritional and health benefits. Vegetableshave been reported to have many health protectingproperties, thus illustrating the relationship be-tween nutrition and medicine which has long beenrecognized in African cultures. This study evaluatedthe phytochemical composition of selected indige-nous vegetables in Uganda. The crude extracts ofdiethyl ether, 96 percent ethanol and distilled waterindicated that Amaranthus hybridus L., Amaranthuscruentus L., Solanum aethiopicum L., Cleome gy-nandra L. and Vigna unguiculata L. contain alka-loids, tannins, flavonoids, saponins, carotenoids,coumarin derivatives and glucides phytochemicals.Another phytochemical, steroid glycoside, was de-tected in the distilled water extract of A. cruentus, S.aethiopicum and V. unguiculata. The quantitativeanalysis of the total flavonoid content in A. hybridus,A. cruentus, S. aethiopicum, C. gynandra and V. un-guiculata showed 8.7, 12.0, 15.2, 26.4 and 10.6 g per100 g dry weight, respectively, while the total alka-loid content showed 2.7, 3.3, 4.0, 3.8 and 1.7 g per100 g dry weight, respectively. The phytochemicalcomposition in the respective indigenous Africanvegetables justifies their therapeutic activity againsta wide range of diseases. These phytochemicalshave anti-oxidant, antihypertensive, antidiabetic andanti-ulcer properties that can prevent a number ofdiseases. With these health benefits, there is needto emphasize a diet rich in indigenous green leafyvegetables to promote health and prevent diseasesin the population. There is also need for further re-search and value addition to indigenous African veg-etables as a potential source of drugs or medicines.

1. IntroductionIn many African cultures, vegetables are widely con-sumed together with starchy staple foods such as ba-nanas, millet, sorghum, maize, cassava and sweetpotatoes. Vegetables form an important part of a tra-

ditional African diet, since they have enormous nutri-tional and health benefits, besides adding taste andpalatability to food (Akubugwo et al., 2008; Rubaihayo,1997). Consumption of vegetables is believed to playa significant protective role against degenerative dis-eases such as cancer, chronic cardiovascular dis-eases and high cholesterol levels (Adefegha andOboh, 2011; Agudo et al., 2002).

In fact, it is reported that consumption of fruits andvegetables lowers total cholesterol (Dragsted et al.,2006), while consumption of 400 g of fruits and veg-etables per day is recommended by WHO/FAO forprevention of chronic cardiovascular diseases (Ka-nungsukkasem et al., 2009). However, consumptionlof vegetables in sub-Saharan Africa still lags behindother regions, yet it is endowed with a high diversityof edible vegetables (Habwe and Walingo, 2008). Ofthe 1 000 edible green vegetables species in sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda has about 600 local veg-etable species (Ssekabembe et al., 2003).

A study carried out by Bukenya-Ziraba et al. (1999)reported 38 different types of vegetables sold in dif-ferent major markets of Kampala, Uganda. Of thereported vegetable species, Amaranthus sp.,Solanum sp., Capsicum sp. and Cleome gynandraare identified as the most commonly consumedvegetable species (Ssekabembe et al., 2003). Al-though vegetables are consumed widely, they areprepared differently, depending on preferences andindigenous knowledge of the local communities.

In Uganda, vegetables are prepared by steaming,mashing or boiling with staple food to make a localdish (Katogo), frying with edible oil and pasting withgroundnuts or sesame (Musinguzi et al., 2006). Fry-ing is the most popular method of vegetable prepa-ration for eating in urban centres of Uganda and hasbeen adopted in rural areas as well. Vegetables areeaten as food in form of sauce, raw as snack and sal-ads or even side dishes of the main meal (Musinguzi

207

et al., 2006). The nutrition and bioactive compositionof vegetables make them very important in thehousehold, especially during times of food shortage.

Vegetables have been found to improve nutrition,boost food security, foster rural development, sup-port sustainable land care and offer health protect-ing properties (Agea et al., 2010). This illustrates therelationship between nutrition and medicine that isrecognized in African cultures. Epidemiologicalstudies indicate a relationship between consump-tion of vegetables and prevention of chronic dis-eases such as cancer, hypertension and heartdiseases (Katt, 2005; Pierini et al., 2008). Phyto-chemicals found in vegetables such as flavanoidsexert a protective effect against these chronic dis-eases (Franke et al., 2004)

Although many of the indigenous vegetables areavailable and consumed in Africa, little is knownabout their phytochemical composition that con-tributes to their therapeutic effects. Recent trendsshow that public health experts are interested toknow the composition of vegetables to provide proofof their health benefits. This study evaluated thephytochemical composition of selected indigenousvegetables in Uganda.

2. Materials and methods2.1 Sample collectionAbout 5 kg of fresh, sorted and disease-free veg-etable leaf samples that included: Amaranthus hy-bridus, Amaranthus cruentus, Cleome gynandra,Solanun aethiopicum and Vigna unguiculata, werepurchased from a market vendor in Kampala,Uganda in June 2009. These vegetable species areamong the most grown and consumed vegetablesin Uganda (Bukenya-Ziraba et al., 1999; Ssekabe-mbe et al., 2003). The vegetable species were sci-entifically identified by a taxonomist. Voucherspecimens were prepared and deposited at theherbarium of the Natural Chemotherapeutics Re-

search Institute, Ministry of Health, Kampala,Uganda for future reference.

2.2 Sample preparationThe vegetable samples were cleaned with distilledwater and dried to a constant weight in vacuum oven(40–50°C). The dry leaves were pulverized into pow-der and kept in a cool dry place until extraction wascompleted.

2.3 Extraction and analysisThe leaf powder of each vegetable sample was di-vided into two portions. One portion was used forqualitative phytochemical screening and anotherportion for quantitative determination of total fla-vanoids and total alkaloids. The sample portion forphytochemical qualitative screening (200 g) wasanalysed using standard methods reported by Culei(1982) and Idu et al. (2006). In brief, diethyl ether and96 percent ethanol solvents were used in soxhlet ap-paratus extraction of the samples in a successivemanner. The residue of soxhlet extraction was thenboiled in distilled water to extract with water. Theextracts of diethyl ether and ethanol were thenconcentrated under reduced pressure with rotaryevaporator, while the water extract was filtered. Allthe extracts of diethyl ether, ethanol and water werethen subjected to qualitative phytochemical screening.

The other vegetable sample portion was used fordetermination of total flavanoids and total alkaloidsusing standard method reported by Edeoga et al.(2005). For determination of total flavanoids, 10 g ofvegetable leaf powder was put into a round bottomflask and repeatedly extracted with 80% aqueousmethanol (100 ml) at room temperature for 4 hourswith regular shaking. The solution was then filteredusing whatman filter paper no. 1 and the filtrateconcentrated under reduced pressure with rotaryevapourator at 50°C. The concentrate was thenevaporated to dryness in a vacuum oven at 50°C andtotal flavanoids were determined gravimetrically.

208

209

All analyses were done in triplicate.

In determination of total alkaloids, 5 g of dry veg-etable leaf powder was weighed, carefully trans-ferred into a beaker and 10 percent acetic acid (200ml) in ethanol added. The mixture was covered andallowed to stand for 4 hours and filtered. The filtratewas concentrated on a hot water bath to one-quarterof the original volume. The concentrate was allowedto cool at room temperature and concentratedammonia added dropwise until precipitation wascomplete. The solution was allowed to settle and theprecipitates collected by filtering using whatmanfilter paper no 1. The precipitate on the filter paperwas washed with dilute ammonia and a residuedried in a vacuum oven at 50°C and weighed. Thetotal alkaloids were determined gravimetrically. Allanalyses were also done in triplicate.

3. Results and discussionThe results of the phytochemical composition of se-lected indigenous African vegetables are presentedin Table 1. The phytochemical components in the dryvegetable leaf crude extracts included alkaloids,tannins, flavonoids, saponins, carotenoids,coumarin derivatives and glucides. Phytochemicalshave therapeutic properties such as anti-allergic,anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive, antidiabetic,anti-oxidant, anti-ulcer, anti-cancer activity which

are beneficial to human health (Dembinska-Kiec etal., 2008; Issa et al., 2006 ). Specifically, tannins, fla-vanoids and coumarins are known anti oxidantswhich are essential in the prevention of complicateddegenerative diseases such as cancer, cardiovas-cular, alzheimers and parkinson (Ahmad et al.,2006; Tungjai et al., 2008).

Dietary anti-oxidants prevent production of free rad-icals by chelating reactive species produced in thebody that are responsible for causing degenerativediseases (Adedayo et al., 2010; Adefegha and Oboh2011; Okigbo et al., 2009). It is also known that al-kaloids, flavanoids, tannins, reducing compound,sterols and triterpenes have good antimicrobialproperties that are essential in the management ofdiseases such as malaria, fever, diarrhea and res-piratory tract infection (Adebayo-Tayo and Adegoke,2008; Kubmarawa et al., 2007).

Therefore, consumption of A. hybridus, A. cruentus,S. aethiopicum, C. gynandra and V. unguiculataprovides a diet with health benefits. It is necessaryfor policy-makers to consider indigenous Africanvegetables as important resources for human nu-trition and improved health of the population. Thisemphasizes the need to sensitize the population onbenefits of a vegetable diet in disease prevention,thus reduce morbidity.

210

Apart from preventing diseases, vegetables can be asource of drugs for treatment. Several drugs havebeen developed from plant extract. An alkaloid (qui-nine) and a sesquiterpene (artemesinin) that is usedin the treatment of complicated malaria have beendeveloped from the bark of Cichona tree andArtemisia annua plants, respectively. This thereforemeans that vegetables can also be a potential source of

phytochemicals that can be developed into drugs forprevention or treatment of diseases (Table 2). There isalso need to understand the chemical compounds inindigenous African vegetables that can be scientifi-cally investigated and developed into potential drugs.Further research is needed to isolate and determinespecific chemical compounds in the identified alka-loids and flavanoids that can be developed into drugs.

Table 1. Phytochemical composition of selected African edible vegetables.

Species of vegetableA. hybridus A. cruentus S. aethiopicum C. gynandra V. unguiculata

Diethyl ether extractSterols and triterpenes (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)Carotenoids (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Basic alkaloids (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Flavanoid aglycones (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Emodols (+) (–) (–) (–) (–)Coumarins (–) (–) (+) (+) (+)

96% ethanol extractTannins (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Reducing compounds (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)Alkaloids (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Coumarin derivatives (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Anthracenosides (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)Steroid glycosides (–) (+) (+) (–) (+)Flavonosides (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Saponins (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)

Water extractPolyuronides (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)Reducing compounds (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)Glucides (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Starch (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)Saponins (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Tannins (+) (+) (+) (+) (+)Alkaloid salts (–) (–) (–) (–) (–)

Key: (+) present or detected (–) not present or not detected

211

4. Conclusion and recommendationsBased on the findings of this study, it can be concludedthat a diet rich in some indigenous African vegetablescan be of therapeutic use for prevention and treatmentof diseases as well as a potential source of drugs.Therefore, policy-makers need to promote vegetableconsumption and conduct further scientific researchon indigenous African vegetables to isolate chemical

compounds that can be developed into drugs.

AcknowledgementsWe thank the Government of Uganda through theNatural Chemotherapeutics Research Institute,Ministry of Health for funding this research and thevegetable market vendor in Kampala for providingvegetable samples.

Table 2. Total flavanoids and alkaloids in selected African edible vegetables.

Vegetable species Total flavanoids (%) Total alkaloids (%)

A. hybridus 8.7±0.1 2.7±0.3A. cruentus 12.0±0.3 3.3±0.0V. unguiculata 10.6±0.1 1.7±0.1C. gynandra 15.2±0.2 4.0±0.3S. aethiopicum 26.4±0.6 3.8±0.2

212

ReferencesAdebayo-Tayo, B. C., & Adegoke, A. A.(2008). Phytochemical andmicrobial screening of herbal remedies in Akwa Ibom State,South Southern Nigeria. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research.2(11), 306-310

Adedayo, B.C., Oboh, G and Akindahunsi, A.A. (2010). Changesin the total phenol content and antioxidantproperties of pep-perfruit (Dennettia tripetala) with ripening. African Journal ofFood Science 4(6),. 403 - 409,

Adefegha, S.A., & Oboh, G. ( 2011). Cooking enhances the an-tioxidant properties of sometropical green leafy vegetables.African Journal of Biotechnology 10 (4), 632-639

Agea, J.B., Kimondo J.M., Okia, C. A., Abohassan, R.A.A., Obua,J., Hall, J., Teklehaimanot, Z. (2010). Contribution of wild andsemi food plants to overall house hold diet in Bunyoro-KitaraKingdom, Uganda . Agricultural Journal 6 (4), 134-144

Agudo, A., Slimani, N., Ocke,´ M.C., Naska, A., Miller, A.B.,Kroke, A., Bamia, C., Karalis, D., Vineis, P., Palli, D., Bueno-de-Mesquita, H.B., Peeters, P.H.M., Engeset, D., Hjartaker, A.,Navarro, C., Martınez, G.C., Wallstrom, P., Zhang, J.X., Welch,A.A. (2002). Consumption of vegetables, fruit and other plantfoods in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer andNutrition (EPIC) cohorts from 10 European countries. PublicHealth Nutrition: 5(6B), 1179–1196

Ahmad, I., Aqil, F., Owais, M. (2006). Modern Phytomedicine.Turning medicinal plants into drugs pp 247-353

Akubugwo, I. E., Obasi, N.A., Chinyere, G.C., Ugbogu, A. E.(2008). Mineral and phytochemical contents in leaves ofAmaranthus hybridus L and Solanum nigrum L. subjected todifferent processing methods. African Journal of BiochemistryResearch 2 (2), 040-044

Bukenya-Ziraba, R., Tabuti, J.R.S., Schippers, R., Ssenteza, J.,Feredy N.(1999). Socio economic importance of indigenous veg-etables in peri urban areas of Kampala (Uganda). Lidia 4 (5),121-132

Culei, I. (1982). Methodology for the analysis of vegetable drugs.Practical Manual on the industrial Utilisation of Medicinal andAromatic Plants Center Building, Romania pp. 67-81

Dembinska-Kiec, A., Mykkanen, O., Kiec-Wilk B., Mykkanen,H. ( 2007).Antioxidant phytochemicals against type 2 diabetes.British Journal of Nutrition , 99, (E-Suppl. 1); ES109–ES117

Dragsted, L.O., Krath, B., Ravn-Haren, G., Vogel, U.B., Vinggaard,A.M., Jensen, P.B., Loft, S., Rasmussen, S.E., Sandstrom, B-M.,Pedersen, A. (2006). Symposium on ‘Phytochemicals’ Biologi-cal effects of fruit and vegetables. Proceedings of the NutritionSociety , 65, 61–67

Edeoga, H.O., Okwu, D.E., Mbaebie, B.O. (2005). Phytochemicalconstituents of some Nigerian medicinal plants. AfricanJournal of Biotechnology Vol. 4 (7), 685-688

Franke, A.A., Custer, L.J., Arakaki, C., Murphy, S.P. (2004).Vitamin C and flavonoid levels of fruits and vegetables consumed

in Hawaii. J. Food Comp. Anal. 17, 1-35.

Habwe, F.O., & Walingo, K.M. (2008). Food Processing andPreparation Technologies for Sustainable Utilization of AfricanIndigenous Vegetables for Nutrition Security and Wealth Creationin Kenya. International Union of Food Science & Technology.Pp 1-9

Idu, M., Oronsaye, F.E., Igeleke, C.L., Omonigho, S.E.,Omogbeme, O.E., Ayinde, B.A. (2006) Prelimary Investigation onthe phytochemical and Antimicrobial Activity of Senna alata L.,leaves. Journal of Applied Sciences 6 (11), 2481-2485.

Issa, A.Y.,Volate, S.R, Wargovich, M.J. (2006).The role of phyto-chemicals in inhibition of cancer and inflammation:New direc-tions and perspectives. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis. 19, 405–419

Kanungsukkasem, U., Ng, N., Minh, H.V., Razzaque, A., Ashraf,A., Juvekar, S., Ahmed, S.M., Bich, T.H. (2009). Fruit andvegetable consumption in rural adults population in INDEPTHHDSS sites in Asia. NCD supplement.COACTION.2,10.3402/gha.v2i0.1988

Katt , W. (2005). Effect of production and processing factors onmajor fruits and vegetables antioxidants. Journal of FoodScience. R. Concise reviews/hypotheses in food science. 70 (1),NR11-19.

Kubmarawa, D., Ajoku, G.A., Enwerem, N.M., Okorie D.A.(2007).Preliminary phytochemical and antimicrobial screeningof 50 medicinal plants from Nigeria. African Journal of Biotech-nology 6 (14), 1690-1696

Musinguzi, E., Kikafunda, J.K., Kiremire, B.T.(2006). Utilizationof indigenous food plants in uganda: a case study of south-western Uganda . African Journal of Food Agriculture Nutritionand Development, 6 (2), 1-21.

Okigbo, R.N., Anuagasi, C.L., Amadi, J.E. (2009). Advances inselected medicinal and aromatic plants indigenous to Africa.Journal of Medicinal Plants Research 3(2), 086-095.

Pierini, R., Gee, J.M., Belshaw, N.J., Johnson, I.T. ( 2008).Flavonoids and intestinal cancers. British Journal of Nutrition,99 (E-Suppl. 1), ES53–ES59.

Rubaihayo, E. B. (1997). The Contribution of Indigenous Veg-etables to the household food security in Uganda. African CropScience Conference Proceedings. 1, 1337-1340.

Ssekabembe, C.K., Bukenya, C., Nakyagaba, W. (2003). Tradi-tional knowledge and practices in local vegetable production incentral Uganda. Afr. Crop Sci. Conf. Proc. 6, 14-19.

Tungjai, M., Poompimon, W., Loetchutinat, C., Kothanand, S.,Dechsupa, N. (2008). Spectrophotometric Characterization ofBehavior and the Predominant Species of Flavonoids in Physi-ological buffer: Determination of solubility, lipophilicity and an-ticancer efficacy. Open Drug Deliv. J., 2, 10-19.

ACHIEVEMENTS IN BIODIVERSITYIN REGARD TO FOOD COMPOSITIONIN LATIN AMERICALilia Masson SalaueUniversidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

214

AbstractBiodiversity in food composition supplies human be-ings with both macro-and micronutrients as well asthe bioactive compounds they require to maintain op-timum physiological conditions throughout life. LatinAmerica has a high level of natural food biodiversity,but at the same time obesity and malnutrition in chil-dren are present. The foods a community consumesis an excellent tool to be used for learning about itshistory and culture. Before Christopher Columbus’strip in 1492, there were many different cultural groupsin Latin America, including three great empires fromthe north to the extreme south: the Mayas, the Aztecsand the Incas. A retrospective view of the native foodscultivated by these ancient cultures will be presentedconsidering their biodiversity and composition. Threefoods, which maintain their importance until today,were basic in these three empires: corn (Zea mays),syuca (Manihot esculenta, Manihot utilissima) and po-tatoes (Solanum tuberosum). These were wisely com-plemented with other native foods with high proteincontent, such as beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), othersseeds, vegetables and many fruits. After 1492, Span-ish and Portuguese navigators carried at least 22foods back to Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania, trans-forming previously colourless and monotone diets,and contributing to better health while saving manylives with their nutrients and bioactive compounds.Other traditional foods have been forgotten or under-utilized, and it is time to rediscover them. These foodscan help restore a healthy life to “developed society”,which is suffering from inadequate management of itsdaily diet, leaving many children in the world still lack-ing the minimum levels of nutrients needed for sur-vival. Latin American governments and LatinAmerican branches of LATINFOODS through FAO TCPprojects have made important efforts towards gener-ating new food composition data focused on the twinpriorities of biodiversity and nutrition.

1. IntroductionBiodiversity in food composition supplies human

beings with both macro- and micronutrients and thebioactive compounds they require to maintain opti-mum physiological conditions throughout life. Dis-tortions in diets in some Latin American andCaribbean countries lead to obesity and malnutri-tion in children, indicating that opportunities opento different sectors of the population are not equal,even as statistics say that food production in eachindividual country is sufficient (FAOSTAT, 2010; FAO,2010a).According to the FAO Declaration (2010b), effortsmust be made by government agencies, interna-tional institutions, the food industry and academiatowards generating food composition data for na-tive components and sustainable diets. INNFOODSthrough LATINFOODS Net and their Latin Americanbranches are the best technical platforms availablefor the development of programmes and policiesthat individual governments can use in this regard.

2. Culture and foods and their social impactThe foods a community consumes is an excellenttool to be used for learning about its history and cul-ture. One or two basic foods should be rich in car-bohydrates to guarantee primary energyrequirements, with these complemented by otherfoods belonging to the country’s local ecology.These basic foods represent emblematic meals, al-ways present at all social activities, and they mustbe maintained and protected as they are part of theculture and in some cases of the religious traditionsof these societies. This harmonious link betweenman and food reflects a people’s actions, cultureand life. In Latin America, there are many examplesof the strong relationship between man and his en-vironment, foods and divinities. Before ChristopherColumbus’s arrival in 1492, many different culturalgroups were settled in this large land mass, includingfrom the north to the south the three powerfulempires of the Mayas, Aztecs and Incas, representingcultures that were more than 3 000 years old. Theyhad well-structured civil organizations, advanced

215

knowledge in science, arts, architecture, astronomy,agriculture and irrigation, active commerce, andnatural laws directing daily life according to theirdivinities. Total population was estimated to be atabout 60 000 000 inhabitants, with the Aztec Empirethe largest at close to 20 000 000; Tenochtitlan, whereMexico City now stands, had more than 500 000inhabitants. More than 200 languages were spoken,and native people had deep contact with and knowl-edge of nature. They “domesticated” the best linesthey could obtain from their wild plants, taking careof their own natural biodiversity (Lucena, 2005).Three foods, which maintain their importance andwide biodiversity until today, were basic for feeding thelarge populations in these three empires: corn (Zeamays), yuca (s Manihot esculenta, Manihot utilissima)and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Corn (Zea mays),sthe “sacred” food, was basic for the Mayan, Aztec andIncan populations, and its importance is maintaineduntil today as it continues to be the basic food for manytypical meals in Latin America. The oldest evidence ofits cultivation is found in the Tehuacán valley, Mexico,from about 7 000 years ago. Corn means “support ofthe life”, and it had great importance in religious cer-emonies, celebrations and nutrition.The Aztecs said that “corn is our body, our bloodand bones”. Corn was the first Latin Americaspecies introduced to Europe at the end of the fif-teenth Century. It maintains its great biodiversityin grain colour: white, yellow, deep yellow, brown-ish, deep violet (FAO, 1993; Tapia, 1997), and is agood source of Zeaxantina and Luteina (Kimura etal., 2007). “Nixtamalization” is an ancient proce-dure still used in Mexico to improve the availabilityof minerals, vitamin B and protein in corn flour,giving the Aztecs a sustainable diet based mainlyon nixtamal, plus beans, pumpkin, hot chili,tomato, prickly pears etc., and it is considered nu-tritionally satisfactory (FAO, 1993). Corn germ oilis a good source of linoleic acid (close to 60%), to-copherols, and phytosterols (Moreau et al., 2009). Yuca root, cassava or manioc was the basic food in

the middle tropical region. One variety was sweet(Manihot utilissima), and one bitter (Manihot esculenta).The latter variety is detoxified for human consumption,and is the base for preparing “tapioca“ flour. Itshistory starts in around the year 2700 BC. Thesweet variety is found from the Pacific to Mexicoand Central America, and the bitter one fromParaguay to northeast Brazil. Portuguese naviga-tors introduced yuca to Africa in the seventeenthcentury, after corn, and yuca then expanded to theIndian Ocean Islands, India, Asia and the Pacific Is-lands. Yuca is one of the more widely cultivatedplants in the world. With its low costs for produc-tion and processing, high yield, and low commer-cial importance, it is a food dedicated mainly toprivate consumption in the local communities indeveloping countries. In Paraguay and in Brazil,one of the largest producers of yuca, this nativeroot is still a food consumed daily in differentforms. In Brazil, it is the principal ingredient in twosymbolic foods, “farofa” and “pirão”. In Colombiaand Venezuela, yuca also has great importance(Ospina and Ceballos, 2002; Cartay, 2004). Yuca isa high source of carbohydrates, some minerals,and vitamins (TACO, 2006).Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) are the third basicfood. Originating in South America, high in the LakeTiticaca region of the Andes Mountains at an alti-tude of 3 800 m, the potato has been consumed inthe Andes for about 8 000 years. Maintaining itsleadership position in the Andes valleys togetherwith corn (Tapia, 1997), Andean potatoes have greatbiodiversity, with different shapes, sizes and skincolours: green, yellow, pink, red and violet. Potatoesare an important source of energy, vitamin C, min-erals, carotenoids, anthocyanins in the peel andflesh (Schmidt-Hebbel et al., 1992; Andre et al.,2007a; Andre et al., 2007b; Moenne-Locoz, 2008;Burmeister et al., 2011). There are more than 5 000varieties in the Andes region and more than 200 An-dean potato varieties in Jujuy northwest of Argen-tine 26–28° parallel latitude south. Seven varieties

216

217

have been analysed, (Jimenez et al., 2009a, b), withthe best in regard to carbohydrates and proteinbeing the “Imilla Colorada” variety (Figure 1).

Another old native source of potatoes is located in theextreme south of Chile, in the Chiloe Island at the41– 43° parallel latitude south. These also presentgreat biodiversity in shape, peel colour, and flesh,and are a good source of vitamin C, flavonoids, andanthocyanin pigments (Moenne-Locoz, 2008) (Figure 2).The two varieties analysed, “Bruja” and “Michuñe

negro”, have dark skins and violet flesh, and theyprovide more protein, ash, vitamin C, total flavonoidsand anthocyanin, and fewer carbohydrates thanthe normal Chilean commercial variety potato(Schmidt-Hebbel et al., 1992). Sixteenth centurySpanish navigators picked large amounts of potatoesin the Chiloe Island for food for their long voyages,and while they did not know it, the potatoes’ vitaminC content saved the lives of many mariners bypreventing scorbutic disease. Chiloe potatoes are now in the Chilean market as“Rainbow potatoes” from the South of the World(Figure 3).

Figure 1. Native potatoes from Andean northwest Jujuy,Argentine, parallel 26 – 28º latitude south, cultivated at 3000 maltitude.

Figure 2. Native potatoes from Chiloe Island, Chile, parallel 41 – 43° latitude south, cultivated at sea level, raw, halved andpotato chips home made.

Figure 3. Commercial native potatoes “Arco Iris” (Rainbow) fromthe “South of the World”, Chiloe Island, Chile, raw and boiled.

The book “International Year of the Potato” is dedi-cated to this old and nutritious food which today cansolve hunger problems in the world and containsquite extensive information. History tells us that theSpanish carried it to Europe in the sixteenth cen-tury, and it quickly spread across the globe fromChina's Yunnan plateau to the steppes of theUkraine, changing the history of food in the OldWorld. It is the world’s number one non-grain foodcommodity, production reached a record 325 milliontonnes in 2007, China is the world’s principal pro-ducer (FAO, 2008). Our native potato is unique in theworld, and represents a real treasure that needs tobe appreciated in Latin America and taken care of.These three basic native foods that are rich in car-bohydrates were wisely complemented with othernative foods with a high content in protein, such asbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris). With evidence of culti-vation from 500–8 000 years ago, beans are stillpresent in daily diets from North to South America.They also present a high level of biodiversity in peelcolour, shape and composition, and are a source ofbioactive components, their oil 2 percent, a goodsource of linolenic acid, about 40 percent (TACO,2006). In the Andes Region, other native seeds comple-mented the Incan diet, such as quinoa (Chenopodiumquinoa), with more protein and fat than cereals. Thefour limiting amino acids in a mixed human diet, ly-sine, sulphurs (methionine and cystine), threonineand tryptophan, are present in higher amounts thanin wheat, confirming the high quality of its biologicalprotein (Bascur and Ramelli, 1959; Tapia, 1997;Schmidt-Hebbel et al., 1992), the 7.4% oilseed con-tent is 7.8% linolenic, 50% linoleic, 23% oleic, and11% palmitic, good n-6:n-3 ratio of 6.4:1 according tocurrent recommendations (FAO, 2010c; Masson andMella, 1985). “High Plateau” quinoa, a whole plantfood, is a good source of vitamins and minerals andneeds more research. Its plants and seeds presentgreat biodiversity, and they grow at a high altitude,3 000–4 000 m above sea level, in very aggressive

conditions, including low temperatures, strongwinds, high sun irradiation, salty soil. They develop bioactive compounds, such asflavonoids and anthocyanin, as defence mecha-nisms. Quinoa leaves and seeds are pink, green,yellow, brownish, deep black colour, and they arehighly valued in external markets (Tapia, 1997).Tarwi or lupine seeds (Lupinus mutabilis), the bittervariety, have their alkaloids taken out for humanconsumption (Tapia, 1997). The composition of tarwiseeds is close to that of soybeans. Their fatty acidsare a good source of linolenic acid 9%, and linoleicacid 21%, with a n-6:n-3 ratio of 2.2:1. Between 200m and 4 000 m in altitude, other tubers were alsogrown, such as oca (Oxalis tuberose) (Tapia, 1997).Six varieties, with different shapes and peel coloursof pink, yellow, deep violet and white, were analysed(Jimenez and Sammán, 2009). The pink peel variety has the best composition.Some roots other than yuca have also been impor-tant in Andean and Central American diets, such assweet potato (Hipomea batata). With its rustic culti-vation and high productivity, it saved the lives ofmany people in catastrophic situations in Europeand Asia. It is a good source of carbohydrates, fibre,and β-carotene (Schmidt-Hebbel et al., 1992;lKimura et al., 2007).Amaranto or kiwicha (Amaranthus caudatus) alsocomplemented the protein in the Andean diet (Tapia,1997). Fourteen samples of genetic material fromfour amaranto seed varieties (A. mantegazzianus,A. caudatus, A. cruentus , A. hipochondriacus ) wereanalysed, including the fatty acid composition ofthe seed oil, before reintroducing them in Jujuy,Argentina. The best variety was A. caudatus CT 10,which is highly resistant to extreme drought (Acuñaet al., 2007). The fatty acid groups were 24% satu-rated, 29% monounsaturated and 44% polyunsatu-rated. Squash or pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima), agood source of β-carotene (Kimura et al., 2007;Azebedo-Melero and Rodriguez-Amaya, 2007),together with corn and beans continues to be a part

218

of the basic diet in Latin American cultures. Incan,Mayan and Aztec diets were balanced in quantityand quality in carbohydrates, protein, fibre, fats andgood n-6:n-3 ratios, which is now difficult to attain,as well as in terms of micronutrients such as min-erals, vitamins, and bioactive compounds. It was amore vegetarian diet, animal protein was not so im-portant, in the north it came from native Mexicanturkey (Gallopavo meleagis) or Guajalote, in the An-dean Region from lama (Lama glama) and cuy(Cavia porcellus) and in general, from rivers, lakesand the sea (Tapia, 1997; Bengoa, 2001).

3. Latin American food biodiversity related to foodcomposition and healthFrom ancient times, Latin America has been a goodexample of food biodiversity. PACHAMAMA, theMother Earth to the Incan culture, opens up eachyear offering all kinds of fruits, roots, tubers, leaves,flowers, seeds and species, each one maintainingits biodiversity unchanged over the centuries. Nowit is our turn to do research and to discover the se-crets of their healthy components. A brief commenton 22 native foods cultivated by these ancient cul-tures and introduced to the whole globe by Spanishand Portuguese navigators after 1492 now follows,all of which have high biodiversity, and havechanged the colourless and monotone diet of theOld World. Like a rainbow that settled overseas for-ever, they are present on the tables of millions offamilies around the world on a daily basis, bright-ening them with their attractive colours: deep reds,oranges, yellows, pinks, deep greens, deep violets,black, white and browns. They not only enhance taste and flavour, but offerhealth and life to consumers through their contri-butions of vegetable proteins, carbohydrates, fats,vitamins, minerals and natural antioxidants(Hoffmann-Ribani et al., 2009; Rodriguez-Amayaet al., 2008). Corn (Zea mays), beans (Phaseolusvulgaris), yuca (Manihot esculenta, Manihot utilis-sima), potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), sweet potato

(Hipomea batata) and squash or pumpkin (Cucurbitamaxima) have been commented on. Tomato (Ly-copersicum esculentum Mill.), the best source of ly-copene, conquered Italy, and became a dailyingredient of Italian meals. Ají or hot chili and sweetchili (Capsicum annuum), changed gastronomy inAsian countries, capsaisina is responsible for hottaste. Exotics fruits from the tropical zone, includeavocado (Persea americana Mill.), cherimola (An-nona cherimola Mill.), papaw (Carica papaya),pineapple (Ananas sativus (Lindl) Schult.), guayaba(Psidium guajava), maracuyá, (Passiflora edulis,Pasiflora edulis flavicarpa).From the Chilean forest come white strawberries(Fragaria chiloensis), and from Mexico, prickly pear(Opuntia ficus-indica) representing many options fordifferent attractive and good tasting formats. FromBrazil, two seeds, the peanut (Araquis hypogaea)and the cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale L.),can be found in the pockets of people of all agesaround the world, and are high in protein and fatcontent. From Mexico, sunflower seeds (Heliantusannus) are a source of one of the most importantvegetable oils produced in the world. Also fromMexico, come two spices: vanilla (Vanilla planifolia),a delicate natural flavouring and source of the pow-erful antioxidant vanillin, and rocu seeds (Bixa orel-lana) with natural red-orange bixina carotenoid fooddye. From Ecuador, cocoa seeds (Theobroma cacao)“Food for Gods”, from the Mayan word “Ka'kaw”, animportant beverage for the Mayans and the Aztecs,was domesticated more than 2 000 years ago andintroduced to Africa and Oceania. Its seeds containthe most delicious fat in the world, impossible toduplicate, and a source of natural antioxidants (Vi-sioli et al., 2009). The composition of most of theselfoods is in the cited literature.New data has been generated and published in recentyears in Food Composition Tables: Centro America(2006), Costa Rica: Alfaro et al. (2006), Blanco-Metzlerlet al. (2006), Monge-Rojas and Campos (2006),lBrazil: TACO (2006), Rodriguez-Amaya et al. (2008),l

219

México: Villalpando et al. (2007), other updated Lajoloet al. (2000), Tablas de Composición de AméricaLatina (2009 rev.), Schmidt.-Hebbel et al. (1992). Datalof seeds from native Latin America fruits cultivated inChile and their extracted fatty acid oil composition,tocopherols and phytosterols has been published:cherimola (Annona cherimola), papaw (Caricapubescens), prickly pear (Carica ficus-indica) (Mas-son et al., 2008a) and native Chilean palm seeds(Jubaea chilensis Molina, Baillon) (Masson et al.,2008b). These special oils have their own fatty acidcomposition and bioactive compounds, offering newraw material for food and cosmetic purposes, andthey represent a real possibility to extract morevalue from agro waste materials that are currentlynot utilized.

4. Final remarksSome traditional Latin American foods have been“forgotten” or “underutilized”, it is time to rediscoverthem. Their great biodiversity represents an excellentsource of bioactive components which can contributeto the restoration of the poor health of “developed so-ciety”, which is suffering from the inadequate man-agement of its daily diet, while also offering healthyfoods to many children, who today still do not have theminimum levels of nutrients for survival.Latin American countries must strengthen effortsto establish government policies for the generationof food composition data, including those “forgotten”or “underutilized” ancient foods high in naturalbiodiversity.Project TCP/RLA/3107 (D) (2008–09), has contributedto strengthening food composition activities inArgentina, Chile and Paraguay, together with theirrespective governments’ support, in Chile, foodcomposition is now a part of government policy.Efforts in this direction must be supported throughagreements between the international agenciesinvolved in food resources, nutrition, health and biodi-versity, together with INNFOODS through LATIN-FOODS NET and their national branches, thegovernments involved and the private industrial sector.

References

Alfaro, T.C., Salas, M.T.P., Ascencio, M.R.(2006). Tabla deComposición de Alimentos de Costa Rica, ácidos grasos. ISBN9968-843-172. Ed. INCIENSA. San José, Costa Rica.http://www.inciensa.sa.cr/files/refs/alimentos%20alimentosfortificados

Andre, M.C., Ghislain, M., Bertin, P., Oufir, M., Herrera, M.delR., Hoffmann, L., Haussman, J-F., Larondelle, Y., and Evers, D.(2007a). Andean Potato Cultivars (Solanum tuberosum L.) as aSource of Antioxidants and Mineral Micronutrients. J. Agric.Food. Chem, 55, 366-378.

Andre, M.C., Oufir, M., Guignard, C., Hoffmann, L., Haussman,J-F., Evers, D., and Larondelle, Y. (2007b). Antioxidant Profiling ofNative Andean Potato Tubers (Solanum tuberosum L.) RevealsCultivars with High Levels of β-Carotene, α-Tocopherol, Chloro-genic Acid, and Petanin, J. Agric. Food. Chem, 55, 10839-10849.

Azebedo-Melero, and Rodriguez-Amaya, D. (2007). Qualitativeand Quantitaive Differences in Carotenoid Composition amongCicurbita moschata, Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita pepo.J.Agr.FoodChem, 55, 4027-4033.

Bascur, L. Ramelli, T. (1959). Estudio bromatológico y biológicode la quínoa. Anales de la Facultad de Química y Farmacia, Uni-versidad de Chile. Tomo XI, pp 43-50.

Bengoa, J.M. (2001). América Latina en la alimentación y nu-trición mundial. An. Venez.Nutr. 14, 103 -108, ISSN 0798-0752.

Blanco – Metzler, A., Montero – Campos, M.A., Fernández –Piedra, M. (2006). Tabla de Composición de Alimentos de CostaRica, ácidos grasos. ISBN 9968-843-15-D. Ed. INCIENSA. SanJosé, Costa Rica. http://www.inciensa.sa.cr/files/refs/alimen-tos%20macronutrientes y fibra dietética

Burmeister, A., Bondiek, S., Apel, L., Künhe, C., Hillebrand, S.,Fleischmann, P. 2011. Comparison of carotenoid and antho-cyanin profiles of raw and boiled Solanum tuberosum andSolanum phureja tubers. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis, Article in press.

Cartay, F. (2004). Difusión y Comercio de la yuca (Manihot es-culenta) en Venezuela y en el mundo. Agroalimentaria , 18, 13– 22. ISSN 1316 – 0354.

FAO (1993.) El maiz en la nutrición humana. PublicaciónN°TO395 ISBN 9253030135. Ed. Departamento de Agricultura.

FAO (2008). Año Internacional de la Papa. Nueva luz sobre untesoro enterrado. Roma ISBN 978-92-5-306142-6.

FAO (2008-2009). PROYECTO FAO TCP/RLA/3107 (D) Desarrollode Bases de Datos y Tablas de Composición de Alimentos deArgentina, Chile y Paraguay para fortalecer el comercio inter-nacional y la protección de los consumidores.

FAO (2010a). Technical Workshop Report Biodiversity in Sus-tainable, Rome, 31 may-1 june. http://www.fao.org/ag/human-nutrition/24994-064a7cf9328fbe211363424ba7796919a.pdf

FAO (2010b). Final Document International Scientific Symposium

220

221

Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets, United Against Hungry, 3-5Nov., FAO Headquarters, Rome.http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/23781-0e8d8dc364ee46865d5841c48976e9980.pdf

FAO (2010c). Foods and Nutrition Paper. 91 Fats and fatty acidsin human nutrition. Report of an expert consultation, 10-14November Geneve. FAO Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome. ISBN 0254-4725.

FAOSTAT (2010). www.fao.org/corp/statistics/es/Hoffmann-Ribani, R., Huber. L.S., Rodriguez-Amaya , D. (2009).Flavonols in fresh and processed Brazilian fruits. Journal ofFood Composition and Analysis, 22, 263-268.

Jiménez, M.E., Rossi, A., Sammán, N. (2009a). Phenotypic, agro-nomic, nutritional characteristics of seven varieties of Andeanpotatoes Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 22, 613-616.

Jiménez, M.E., Sammán, N. (2009b). Caracterización Nutri-cional de 6 Variedades de Oca (Oxalis tuberosa)”. XV CongresoLatinoamericano de Nutrición, Noviembre de 2009, Santiagode Chile. Revista Chilena de Nutrición, 36, Supl. Nº 1, 674.

Kimura, M., Kobori, C.R., Rodriguez-Amaya, D., Nestel, P.(2007). Screening and HPLC methods for carotenoids in sweetpotato, cassava and maize for plant breeding trials. Food Chem-istry, 100, 1734–1746.

Lajolo, F.M., Menezez,W.E., De Vuono, M.C., Penteado, T.C.C.,Filsetti, V.M., Lanfer, M. (2000). Tabela Brasileira de Com-posição de Alimentos, Ed. Universidade de São Paulo. Brasil.http://www.fcf.usp.br

Lucena, S.M. (2005). La América Precolombina. Primera edición.Editorial Amaya, Madrid, España, ISBN (10): 84-207-3420-9.

Masson, L. & Mella, M.A. (1985). Materias Grasas de ConsumoHabitual y Potencial en Chile. Composición en Ácidos Grasos.Pp 23. Universidad de Chile. Santiago. Chile. Editorial Universi-taria. Inscripción N° 60.867.

Masson, L., Camilo, C., González, K., Cáceres, A., Jorge, N., andTorija, ME. (2008a). New Sources of Oilseeds from Latin Amer-ican Native Fruits”. Natural Product Communication, 3, 357-362.

Masson, L., Camilo, C. y Torija, M.E., (2008b). Caracterizacióndel Coquito de Palma Chilena, Grasas y Aceites, 59: 31-36.

Moenne-Locoz, D. (2008). Potencial antioxidante de Papas yHarina de Papas nativas de Chiloé. Tesis para optar al Título deIngeniero en Alimentos. Facultad de Ingeniería, Ciencias y Ad-ministración, Departamento de Ingeniería Química, Universi-dad de la Frontera, Temuco, Chile.

Monge-Rojas, R., Campos,N.H., (2006). Tabla de Composiciónde Alimentos de Costa Rica, ácidos grasos. ISBN 9968-843-19-9.Ed. INCIENSA. San José, Costa Rica.http://www.inciensa.sa.cr/files/refs/alimentos%20acidos grasos

Moreau, R.A., Singh, V., Powell, M.J., and Hicks, K.V., (2009).Corn Kernel Oil and Corn Fiber Oil. In R.A. Moreau & A. Kamal-Eldin (Eds) . Gourmet and Healthy-Promoting Specialty Oils.(First ed.) (pp.409-431). Urbana, Illinois, USA: AOCS Press.

Ospina, B. & Ceballos, H. (2002). La Yuca en el tercer Milenio.Cali, Colombia, Publicación CIAT N° 327, ISBN 958-694-043-8,Impreso en Colombia.

Rodriguez-Amaya, D., Kimura, M., Amaya-Farfan, J. (2008).Fontes Brasileiras de Carotenoides. Tabela Brasileira deComposicao de Carotenoides en Alimentos. Ministerio delMedio Ambiente, MMA, Ed. Brasilia, Brazil. IBNJ 978-85-7738-11

Schmidt.Hebbel, H., Pennachiotti, I., Masson, L., Mella, M.A.(1992). Tabla de Composición Química de Alimentos Chilenos.pp 16. (Octava Ed.) Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.Imprenta Universitaria.

Tabla de Composición de Alimentos de Centro América. (2006).Ed. Instituto de Nutrición de Centro América y Panamá, INCAP,OPS, ciudad de Guatemala. Impreso. Guatemala, CentroAmérica. http://www. Tabla de alimentos.org

Tablas de Composición de Alimentos de América Latina (2009rev.). http://www.fao.org/infoods/tables_latin_es. stm

TACO. (2006). Tabela Brasileira de Composicao de Alimentos.Versao 2. Segunda Edicao. Campinas , SP. Nucleo de Estudios epesquisas em Alimentacao-NEPA, Universidade Estadual deCampinas-UNICAMP. http//unicamp.br/nepa/taco/tabela.php

Tapia, M.E. (1997). Cultivos Andinos Sub explotados y su aporte ala Alimentación, Segunda Edición. FAO, Organización de lasNaciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. OficinaRegional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe, Santiago,Chile.

Villalpando, S., Ramírez, I., Bernal, D., de la Cruz, V. (2007).Grasa, Dieta y Salud –Tablas de composición de ácidos grasosde alimentos frecuentes en la dieta mexicana. Instituto Nacionalde Salud Pública, Cuernavaca, México, ISBN 978-970-9874-38-9.

Visioli, F., Bernaert, H., Corti, R., Ferri, C., Heptinstall, S., Molinari,E., Poli, A., Serafini, M., Smit, H.J., Vinson, J.A., Violi, F., andPaoletti, R. (2009). Chocolate, Lifestyle, and Health. CriticalReviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49, 299-312.

222

CHAPTER 4AN EXAMPLE OF A SUSTAINABLE DIET:THE MEDITERRANEAN DDIIEETTTT

BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITYAND THE MEDITERRANEAN DIETPier Luigi PetrilloUniversity of Rome Unitelma SapienzaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policy, Rome, Italy

224

AbstractThe Mediterranean diet constitutes a set of skills,knowledge, practices and traditions ranging fromthe landscape to the table, including the crops, har-vesting, fishing, conservation, processing, prepara-tion and, particularly, consumption of food. TheMediterranean diet is characterized by a nutritionalmodel that has remained constant over time andspace, consisting mainly of olive oil, cereals, freshor dried fruit and vegetables, a moderate amount offish, dairy and meat, and many condiments andspices, all accompanied by wine or infusions, alwaysrespecting the beliefs of each community. However,the Mediterranean diet encompasses more thanjust food. It promotes social interaction, since com-munal meals are the cornerstone of social customsand festive events. It has given rise to a consider-able body of knowledge, songs, maxims, tales andlegends. From 15 to 19 November 2010, the FifthSession of the Intergovernmental Committee of theConvention will adopt the final decision over thenominations of new elements to be inscribed in theRepresentative List of the Intangible Cultural Her-itage of Humanity. Between these nominations, there will be thetransnational nomination of the Mediterraneandiet that already obtained in May 2010 a positiverecommendation from the Subsidiary Body of theCommittee. This decision of UNESCO will be amilestone in the path of the global recognition ofthe cultural values of food, agriculture and sus-tainable diet. The Mediterranean diet emphasizesthe development of a relatively new concept: thebio-cultural diversity. This concept encompassesbiological diversity at all its levels and cultural di-versity in all its manifestations. Biocultural diver-sity is derived from the countless ways in whichhumans have interacted with their natural sur-roundings. Their co-evolution has generated localecological knowledge and practices: a vital reser-voir of experience, methods and skills that helpdifferent societies to manage their resources.

1. Not just biodiversity: towards the biocultural di-versitySince the 1980s of the twentieth century the need toprotect and preserve biological diversity has been aglobal priority, becoming a pillar of the United Na-tions Conference on Environment and Developmentheld in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 when it was agreed aclearer notion of “biodiversity”, also developing anintegration between biodiversity, climate changeand desertification.At the same time, however, it appeared clear thatthe biological diversity of ecosystems could not beprotected without preserving cultural diversity inthat same context at the same time. This awarenessis clear from Article 8 of the Convention on Biolog-ical Diversity in which the primary objective of theStates Parties to the Convention is not only to safe-guard the biological diversity of living species, butto “respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, in-novations and practices of indigenous and localcommunities, which refer to traditional lifestylesrelevant for the conservation and sustainable use ofbiological diversity”.Ten years after Rio, even though first in the scientificcommunity, the concept of “biocultural diversity”was born (Maffi, 2001, 2005, 2010).Integrating biological diversity and cultural diversityis becoming the mantra of the new century, the newcommitment of States Parties and of the numerousUnited Nations conventions.Since this concept it has been affirmed through dif-ferent years, several legal instruments were estab-lished to protect on the one hand biological diversityin a strict sense (the CBD, for example, but also theFAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food Agriculture in 2001 and the MABProgramme – UNESCO Man and Biosphere), on theother hand cultural diversity (UNESCO, first, withthe conventions on cultural heritage and naturalmaterial of 1972, the intangible cultural heritage of2003 on Cultural Diversity of 2005).Over the years, the need to integrate the various in-

225

226

ternational legal instruments of protection in orderto preserve the biological and cultural diversity (i.e.the biocultural diversity) emerged.“The inextricable link between biological and cul-tural diversity” is for the first time spelled out in theDeclaration of Belem, which was adopted by theFirst International Congress of Ethnobiology in 1988.The discussion around this issue became even moreintense at the end of the last century. In 2001, UN-ESCO unanimously adopted in Paris, during the 31stSession of the General Conference, the UniversalDeclaration on Cultural Diversity, which, in additionto affirming the fundamental human rights in termsof intellectual, moral and spiritual integration withinthe concept of cultural diversity, gives some ideasand concepts related to biological diversity.In 2005, for the first time, the Tokyo Declaration wasadopted with the aim of creating a link between cul-tural diversity of religious or sacred sites protected byUNESCO and the biological richness of those contexts.In June 2010, in Montreal, many governments,NGOs and associations participated in the Interna-tional Conference on Cultural and Biological Diver-sity for Development organized by UNESCO and theCBD, and a Final Declaration was adopted which,after recognizing the need to develop actions so asto preserve biological diversity and cultural diver-sity, established a ten-year work programme thatwill, inter alia, create a link between the differentlegal instruments. This declaration (which is actu-ally much more than just a statement) was approvedat COP 10 of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

2. A new challenge for world legislators: preservingthe biocultural diversitySpeaking of biocultural diversity instead of biodi-versity is not just a matter of terminology. It means,in fact, being aware of the close correlation betweenthe loss of cultural and linguistic diversity and lossof biological and genetic diversity, and vice versa(Harmon, 2002). This implies, for anyone who wantsto develop a legal discourse, perhaps in order to in-troduce measures to safeguard or enhance, learn-

ing to think in interdisciplinary terms.This same approach should be used to define the con-cept of biocultural diversity which includes “diversity oflife in all its forms: biological, cultural and linguisticdiversity, inter- (and probably co-evolved) within asocio-ecological complex adaptive system”.In order to safeguard the biocultural diversity it istherefore necessary to integrate knowledge fromdifferent fields: anthropology, linguistics, ethnobi-ology, etnoecology, biology, agronomy, ecology andmany others (Maffi and Woodley, 2010). But wemust, above all, realize that “the diversity of life isnot constituted only by the diversity of plant andanimal species, habitats and ecosystems on theplanet, but also by the diversity of cultures andhuman languages, these differences do not developin separate and parallel worlds, but are differentmanifestations of a single whole and complex rela-tionships between diversity have been developedover time through the cumulative effects of globalmutual adaptation – probably coevolutionary nature– between human beings and the local environ-ment” (Maffi, 2010, p. 298).The starting point that the lawyer must consider isthat human beings do not live in an abstract andisolated context but they always have a close rela-tionship with the environment that surroundedthem. This environment has always been changedin order to respond to the needs of the humanbeings; at the same time, they become influencedand shaped by the same environment (Posey, 1999):“This implies that the organization, the vitality andthis resilience of human communities are closelylinked organization, the vitality and resilience ofecosystems” (Maffi, 2010, p. 298).In industrialized societies the perception of identitylinked to the bond between humans and their envi-ronment is getting lost; in indigenous societies, bycontrast, the link between the languages, traditions,land and ecosystem is still very strong (Blythe andMcKenna Brown, 2004).Among others, linguistic diversity is, therefore, therepresentative indicator of cultural diversity (Stepp

227

et al., 2003). According to data provided by Terralin-gua, in the world there are from 6 000 to 7 000 dif-ferent languages, of which 95 percent is the mothertongue of less than one million people. However,linguistic diversity cannot be regarded as the onlybenchmark. Other factors that relate to the culturallife of a community, such as traditions, folk festi-vals, events, rituals, social practices, all that intan-gible cultural heritage referred to in the 2003UNESCO Convention on World Heritage IntangibleHeritage need to be analysed.

3. The world of agriculture and biocultural diversityThe close relationship between biological diversityand cultural diversity is evident especially if you lookat global food trends. In other words this relation-ship can be emphasized as the c.d. agrobiodiversitythat can be considered, in itself, an effective indexfor understanding both the causes and conse-quences of the loss of biocultural diversity.According to FAO (1998 data) the plant species usedfor food production are about 7 000, but today only 30are under cultivation, and of these, rice, wheat andcorn alone cover 50 percent of needs World Food. Theloss or abandonment of these crops can be explainedby several factors, primarily cultural, in a globalizedworld, the food seems to be the main victim of the“trend” diet, and it is not just a matter of “appeal”.The disappearance of some traditional food is closelyrelated to non-transmission, from parents to children,of the methods of production or storage or handlingof food. With a further consequence: the loss ofknowledge related to the cultivation of the plantspecies, which is the prelude to their ultimate demise.The available data are alarming in this respect: justafter the Second World War, China, for example, had10 000 cultivated varieties of wheat, in the 1970s justunder 1 000, today about 200. In Mexico, over thepast fifty years, 80% of maize varieties, the productsymbol of Mexican cuisine, have been lost. In theUnited States, 95% of the varieties of cabbage, 86%of apples, peas 94%, 81% of tomatoes have disap-peared at the same time (Buiatti, 2007, p. 109).

4. The role of UNESCO: 2003 Convention and theMediterranean dietUNESCO stands internationally as the only globalorganization that within its conventions and pro-grammes embraces the concepts of nature and cul-ture, biological and genetic diversity and culturaland linguistic diversity.Cultural diversity, as it has been mentioned, was, infact, subject to specific conventions adopted by UN-ESCO: the Convention on Cultural Heritage in 1972,the Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage of2003, the Convention on Cultural Diversity of 2005.Even before the adoption of these international con-ventions, within UNESCO in 1971 was launched, theProgramme MAB – Man and Biosphere, which im-mediately turned his attention to the protection ofbiodiversity in the traditional sense and conserva-tion and strategic management of biodiversity.Founded in the wake of the UNESCO Declaration ofPrinciples of International Cultural Cooperation in1966, the need to identify and ensure protectionmeasures for the so-called “Intangible Heritage” inits various cultural forms and in the interaction be-tween human activity and both physical and socialenvironment, was clear since 1972, the adoption ofthe best known UNESCO Convention for the Protec-tion of Cultural Heritage and World Heritage.Since then, concepts such as folklore, oral expres-sions, traditional techniques of land managementand artistic representations of identity and creativ-ity have been revised several times over severalsessions until the adoption, during the 32nd Gen-eral Conference in 2003, of an ad hoc instrument,the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangi-ble Cultural Heritage, signed on 17 October 2003.The intangible heritage, according to the list pro-vided by Article 2, para. 2, is detectable in 5 areas(oral traditions and expressions, including languageas a vehicle of intangible cultural heritage, perform-ing arts, social practices, rituals and festive events;the knowledge and practices concerning nature anduniverse, traditional craftsmanship). This list doesnot appear, however, mandatory in nature; espe-

228

cially because of the difficulty of assigning preciseclassification schemes to the concept of culture, butalso because of the intersectoral nature of someoral traditions also when the practices are inte-grated with food as an integrated system of socialrelations and shared meanings. Practices related tofood are in fact connected to the oral traditions andexpressions, to performing arts, to social practices,to some rituals and festivals, to knowledge andpractices concerning nature and to the know-howlinked to traditional crafts.Following this approach, in November 2010 on theoccasion of the Fifth Session of the Intergovern-mental Committee of the 2003 Convention, ele-ments concerning food practices, including theMediterranean diet were entered for the first timein the Representative List.In 2008, four countries, namely Italy, Spain, Greeceand Morocco, decided to share their own culturalheritage represented by a common way of life and tobegin the path of recognizing it as part of the UN-ESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. TheMediterranean diet constitutes a set of skills,knowledge, practices and traditions ranging fromthe landscape to the table, including the crops, har-vesting, fishing, conservation, processing, prepara-tion and, particularly, consumption of food. TheMediterranean diet is characterized by a nutritionalmodel that has remained constant over time andspace, consisting mainly of olive oil, cereals, freshor dried fruit and vegetables, a moderate amount offish, dairy and meat, and many condiments andspices, all accompanied by wine or infusions, alwaysrespecting the beliefs of each community. However,the Mediterranean diet (from the Greek “diaita”, wayof life) encompasses more than just food. It pro-motes social interaction, since communal mealsare the cornerstone of social customs and festiveevents. It has given rise to a considerable body ofknowledge, songs, maxims, tales and legends. Thesystem is rooted in respect for the territory and bio-diversity, and ensures the conservation and develop-

ment of traditional activities and crafts linked to fish-ing and farming in the Mediterranean communities. The decision to inscribe the Mediterranean Diet inthe UNESCO list is a milestone in the path of theglobal recognition of the cultural values of food,agriculture and sustainable diet. The Mediterraneandiet is a unique lifestyle of a particular territory andits sustainability is recognized as a common cul-tural heritage of Mediterranean communities.The Mediterranean diet, as an example of sustain-able diet, makes clear and evident the link betweencultural and biological components, between the en-vironment and human sustainable activities such astraditional agriculture and fishery. The Mediter-ranean diet emphasizes the development of a rela-tively new concept: biocultural diversity. This conceptencompasses biological diversity at all its levels andcultural diversity in all its manifestations. Biocul-tural diversity is derived from the countless ways inwhich humans have interacted with their naturalsurroundings. Their co-evolution has generatedlocal ecological knowledge and practices: a vitalreservoir of experience, methods and skills that helpdifferent societies to manage their resources.This is an example of how, thanks to the so-called“UNESCO system” (Petrillo, Di Bella, Di Palo, 2012),thereby indicating that set of conventions and pro-grammes that protect the tangible and intangiblecultural diversity and biological diversity, and to thepersistence of local populations, we may now beable to protect and preserve an area in the culturaland biological diversity, in Italy this area is theCilento.The National Park of Cilento and Vallo di Diano, infact, was inscribed in 1997 to UNESCO’s World Net-work of biosphere reserves recognized by the MABProgramme: it is, therefore, recognized as a uniqueecosystem, a high concentration of biodiversity. Inaddition, since 1998 it has been inscribed in theUNESCO World Heritage list being considered byUNESCO as a unique cultural landscape, the resultof centuries of human labour and processing of

229

natural resources. In addition, since 2010, theCilento is one of the four communities identified bythe nomination of the Mediterranean diet IntangibleHeritage of Humanity: UNESCO has recognizedCilento has handed down traditions and expressions,ancient food practices, cultural diversity, unique andpreserved over the centuries. Cilento, thus, repre-sents a unique identification of the concept of biocul-tural diversity: in this context, in fact, the originalcharacteristics of ecosystems and the knowledge andtraditions of local people and their artefacts, are thewitnesses of the inextricable link between culture andnature, that go together here, in a close co-evolution.

5. For a new awareness: it is useless to protect bio-diversity without preserving cultural diversity From this picture it is clear that the challenge thatthe legislators all over the world are facing is to in-troduce mechanisms to protect, preserve and en-hance the set of biological and cultural diversityrepresented in a community. Unique approaches tothis subject will, in the long term, avoid a furtherloss of biodiversity. In the world, where the beatingof a butterfly in China produces an economictsunami in the United States, it is no longer possi-ble to think and act locally and compartmentalized.We could also start from a fact: in the last 20 yearsthe world has lost so much of its richness in genetic,biological and cultural that if we do not do some-thing to counter this loss in a coordinated and com-prehensive way, in another two decades we will behappily doomed to extinction (UNEP, 2010). For ex-ample: in 2100 will disappear about 80 percent ofthe languages spoken today.But then, who “governs” biocultural diversity? Whohas the authority to act to redress the loss in a maybetoo much polycentric institutional context too?The challenge to counter the loss of biocultural di-versity collides with the increasingly federal structureof the states, so that we can draw a curve that showshow more fragmented institutional contexts (or “ex-ploded” or “polycentric”), the lower capacity for ac-

tion to tackle environmental and cultural damage.The real challenge of the legislative branch is pri-marily a challenge to themselves, to challengethemsleves and deal with different sciences, tryingto find a common language. It is a legal challenge tothe traditional object of study, because now lawyersshould try to analyse it in a diachronic and interdis-ciplinary way individual rules and then put them ina different context.

References

Blythe, J., McKenna Brown, R. (2003). Making the Links:Language, Identity and the Land. Papers from the 7th Foundationfor Endangered Languages conference, Bath: Foundation forEndangered Languages, Broome, Western Australia.

Harmon, D. (2002). In Light of Our Differences: How Diversity inNature and Culture Makes Us Human. Washington: Smithson-ian Institution Press.

Maffi, L. Woodley, E. (2010). Biocultural diversity conservation:a global sourcebook. London: Earthscan.

Maffi, L. (2001). On biocultural diversity: linking language,knowledge, and the environment. Washington: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

Maffi, L. (2005). Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity. InThe annual review of anthropology, 34, 599-617.

Maffi, L. (2010). Language: A Resource for Nature. Nature andResources. In The UNESCO Journal on the Environment andNatural Resources Research, 34, Paris, 12-21.

Petrillo P. L., Di Bella O., Di Palo N. (2012), La convenzione UN-ESCO per il patrimonio mondiale e la valorizzazione dei paesaggirurali, ed. G. M. Golinelli “Patrimonio culturale e creazione di val-ore”, CEDAM, Roma

Posey, D. (1999). Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity. Acomplementary contribution to the global biodiversity assessment.In Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity, ed. D.A. Posey,UNEP and Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 1–19.

Stepp, J.R. et al. (2003). Ethnobiology and biocultural diversity:proceedings of the Seventh International Congress ofEthnobiology. International Society of Ethnobiology, Athens:University of Georgia Press.

UNEP (2010). Rapporto sullo stato dell’Ambiente. UnitedNations Environment Programme.

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE FOODCHAIN FROM FIELD TO PLATE:THE CASE OF THE MEDITERRANEAN DIETMartine Padilla,1 Roberto Capone2 and Giulia Palma1

1CIHEAM-IAMM, Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier2CIHEAM-IAMB, Istituto Agronomico Mediterraneo di Bari

231

AbstractThe Mediterranean diet is considered as a paragonamong the world's diets. The reference is the dietof Crete in the late 1960s. Is it provided sustainable?

Various authors have commented on the design ofsustainable food. Some emphasize healthy food andalternative agriculture, while others focus on thelink between health and welfare, or environmentalpractices on consumers. For us sustainable food isthe one that combines the protection of nutrients,environmental conservation, community develop-ment through social aspects.

The traditional Mediterranean diet may be consid-ered as sustainable in part because of (i) a greatdiversity that ensures food nutritional quality of dietand biodiversity, (ii) a variety of food practices andfood preparation techniques, (iii) main foodstuffsdemonstrated as beneficial to health as olive oil, fish,fruits and vegetable, pulses, fermented milk, spices,(iv) a strong commitment to culture and traditions,(v) a respect for human nature and seasonality, (vi) adiversity of landscapes that contribute to the well-being, (vii) a diet with low environmental impact dueto low consumption of animal products. However,trends in plant breeding on an economic base, inten-sive modes of production and greenhouse produc-tion, higher consumption of meat, industrialization offood, endanger the sustainability of food systems. Noanalysis of social impact has been achieved. Wecannot conclude on this aspect of sustainability, noron the environmental impact of the food chain.

In conclusion, the Mediterranean diet has numerousvirtues. We must ensure that modernity and globaliza-tion do not alter its characteristics of sustainability.

IntroductionThe Mediterranean diet has enjoyed a high reputa-tion over many years, both for its nutritional qualityand its health benefits. The traditional Mediterranean

diet of the 1960s is considered a model of nutritionalbenefits (Padilla, 2008). Its multifunctional nature,encompassing the entire range of ecological, nutri-tional, economic and social functions, puts food atthe heart of the concept of sustainable development.

Sustainable food is a concept that has been devel-oped as a key factor to reduce negative externalitiesof the global food supply chain. Beyond the preser-vation of the environment, sustainable food includesalso moral and health aspects of eating (ethic andnutrition), satisfaction of consumer expectations,and improved product accessibility at geographicand economic level. Faced with fossil energy ex-haustion, soil limited capacity, ecosystem degrada-tion, climate change and global warming,unbalanced diets and population increase, we won-der if the Mediterranean current food system canbe considered as sustainable. Is the Mediterraneandiet consistent with sustainable development? Theaims of this paper are (i) to characterize the differ-ent aspects of sustainability of the traditionalMediterranean diet (ii) to analyse what are the prin-cipal hot spots of food systems today in the Mediter-ranean area with regard to sustainability.

Material and methods The definitions of sustainable diets show that theyaffect various dimensions (agricultural, food, nutri-tional, environmental, social, cultural, economic)that interact with one another, either inseparably orseparately and distinctly. From this point of view, theMediterranean is the area where more than anyother many issues (biodiversity loss, soil erosion,water scarcity etc.) directly or indirectly related toMediterranean food consumption patterns shouldbe addressed. We have summarized the criteria ofsustainable food in Table 1. It is a combination ofpreservation of the environment, nutrition, and de-velopment of the local territory by social and eco-nomic aspects all along the food chain, fromagriculture to the consumer.

232

From our previous works and experience of theMediterranean area, we will develop our thinkingabout each element of sustainability.

Results and discussionI. Is the traditional Mediterranean food chain linkedwith the traditional diet sustainable?Environment: the uniqueness of the Mediterraneanarea, one of 25 "hot spots" of biodiversity on the planetThe importance of the Mediterranean area as re-gards crop diversity can be judged by the fact thatabout one-third of the foodstuff used by humankindcomes from the Mediterranean climatic region (Harlan,1995). The Mediterranean basin was one of the eightcentres of cultivated plant origin and diversityidentified by Vavilov (1951). He listed over 80 maincrops and the most important of these are cereals,pulses, fruit trees and vegetables. There were alsomany herbs, spice-producing plants, horticulturalcrops, and ornamentals (Heywood, 1998). Severalsociopolitical, agroclimatic, ecological and genetic

factors have contributed to this remarkable crop di-versity in the Mediterranean (Jana, 1995).Approximately 30 000 plant species occur, and morethan 13 000 species are endemic to the hot spot; yet,many more are being discovered every year(Plantlife International, 2010). The MediterraneanBasin is 1.6% of world land with 10% of known flow-ering plants and 18.4% of mammal species; 0.7% ofthe world ocean, with 8–9% of known marine or-ganisms (Sundseth, 2009). The hot spot has roughlythe same plant diversity as all of tropical Africa, al-beit in a surface area one-fourth the size of sub-Sa-haran Africa (CEPF, 2010). There are more plant species in the EuropeanMediterranean region than all the other Europeanbio-geographical regions combined. The Mediter-ranean forests are diverse and harbour up to 100different tree species. In the Mediterranean Basinthere is huge topographic, climatic and geographicvariability giving rise to an astounding array ofspecies and habitat diversity.

Table 1. The grid of sustainable food system.

Agriculture

Food Production

Consumption

Environment

Follow sustainableagriculturalpractices

Enhance resilienceof production systems

Deploy and maintain diversity

Reduce impact ofproduction, processing, commercialization

Reduce the environmental impact of feedingpractices

Nutrition

Promote diverse food

Produce nutritionallydense product

Preservenutrientsthroughout thefood chain

Promote dietarydiversity, foodbalance and seasonality

Economic

Deploy affordablecultivationpractices

Promote self reliance throughlocal produce

Strengthen localfood systems

Produce affordable food

Promote accessto dietary diversity

Socio-cultural

Maintaintraditionalagriculture practicesand promote localvarieties

Produce culturallyacceptable foood

Safeguard foodtraditions and culture

Meet localpreference & taste

A diverse landscapeA large diversity of landscapes was shaped by thepractices of agriculture and livestock. This con-tributes to well-being and environmental protection.Cereal, fruit trees, olive groves, vineyards, horticul-ture, gardening, were cultivated on small perime-ters. Agricultural lands and grasslands occupy 40percent of the Mediterranean region and vary be-tween large intensive olive or citrus groves to moremixed farming systems (Elloumi and Jouve, 2010).The low intensity and localized nature of thousandsof years of subsistence farming activities has had aprofound effect on the landscape, creating a com-plex mosaic of alternating semi-natural habitatsrich in wildlife. Vineyards and ancient olive grovesare also still a characteristic feature of the Mediter-ranean landscape. On flatter land and in the plainsvarious forms of sustainable agro-sylvo-pastoralfarming systems have evolved that make best useof natural resources (Sundseth, 2009). Ranching isalso practiced on the land fallow or wasteland orvast semi-desert lands.

Agriculture practices preserving the environment?We see the continuation of small-scale family farm-ing (17 million family farms with two-thirds orthree-quarters less than 5 ha in Turkey, Morocco,Italy, Greece, for example (Elloumi and Jouve, 2010).They practise traditional agriculture-intensivelabour and low use of capital. This agriculture islikely to solve the food crisis, according to Olivier deSchutter, Rapporteur on the right to Food at the UN.It is also an agriculture that preserves the earth, byincreasing local productivity, reducing rural poverty,contributing to improved nutrition and facilitatingadaptation to climate change. The richness of Mediterranean agriculture is its di-versity of cropping patterns. We distinguish fiveforms of agriculture in the Mediterranean, espe-cially on the outskirts of towns: (1) An entrepre-neurial agriculture, innovative, with high addedvalue. It is an innovative farming vegetable specu-

lative, capital intensive, growing thanks to the avail-ability of capital in the current conditions. (2) An op-portunistic agriculture in extension due to theconstraints of access to land. It is practiced on largefarms consisting of clusters of plots, left short-termleases, usually oral. (3) Family farms in the subur-ban area specialized in local productions to be solddirectly in farmers markets. (4) Agriculture need,practiced by the rural exodus from the city and re-cently installed, because of economic crises; it tendsto perpetuate. (5) Pleasure agriculture: the tradi-tional Mediterranean cultivation has an interest inlandscape and identity, such as vineyards and olivetrees; they are renewed in European countrieswhere they receive aid from the CAP. The aim of poli-cies related to territory quality (AOC) is to ensure thesustainability of these local productions (Jouve andPadilla, 2007).

Another aspect of land preservation is the commit-ment to organic farming. Mediterranean organicagriculture is growing, but covers a very smallpercentage of agricultural land: 4.5% in Italy,between 2 and 3% in Spain and Greece, 6.2% inSlovenia, less than 2% in France, 1.5% in Tunisiaand less than 1% in other countries (Plan Bleu,2006). If organic agriculture does not meet marketdemand in the North, it does not have a local marketin the South. This greatly limits its expansion.

The environmental impact of the dietDuchin (2005), who studied diets from multiplepoints of view of sustainability, showed that aMediterranean diet, which consists mainly of plant-origin foods but not excluding a small proportion ofmeat and other animal products, is closer to publichealth recommendations issued by the WorldHealth Organization and has a lower environmentaleffect than the current average United States diet.If, for reasons of public health, the plant-basedMediterranean diet is adopted throughout theUnited States, not only major structural changes

233

234

would be needed in agriculture, but the farmland ded-icated to food would decrease. Indeed, Duchin arguesthat the typical Mediterranean diet differs from thecurrent dietary recommendations in the United Statesby including a much lower meat consumption. Thischoice would also benefit the environment and thatfood choice is all the more commendable that the en-vironment would benefit too. Among the various dietstested by Duchin, in a global economy model that in-corporates Life Cycle Analysis of 30 foods, plant-dom-inated diet type emerges as the Mediterranean diet,can meet both nutritional and environmental require-ments, and for a growing world population while re-ducing the pressure of food and agricultural systemson the environment.

Nutrition sustainability: few animal products in thedietThe east Mediterranean diet of the early 1960s hasinteresting qualities for the development of optionsto create more sustainable, healthy diets. The envi-ronmental impacts of animal production vary with themethod of production (e.g. extensive grazing, graz-ing-based production) (MFAF-DK, 2010).Meat production has a higher environmental impactthan fruit and vegetables production. The global live-stock sector contributes about 40 percent to globalagricultural output. Meat and dairy animals now ac-count for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animalbiomass (Steinfeld et al., 2006). According to the Live-stock, Environment and Development initiative, thelivestock industry is one of the largest contributorsto environmental degradation, at local and globalscale, contributing to deforestation, air and waterpollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climatechange, the overuse of resources including oil andwater, and loss of biodiversity. The use of large in-dustrial monoculture, common for feed crops (e.g.corn and soy), is highly damaging to ecosystems. Theinitiative concluded that the livestock sector emergesas one of the most significant contributors to themost serious environmental problems. A person ex-isting chiefly on animal protein requires ten times

more land to provide adequate food than someoneliving on vegetable sources of protein (MFAF-DK,2010) which means a much higher ecological footprint

Table 2. Ecological Footprint of different food diets.Source: FAO.

The Mediterranean variety is major. It helps tomeet diverse nutritional needs and to limit theenvironmental impactThere is growing evidence of the impact of diet onhealth, including increased risk of obesity, cardio-vascular diseases and cancers, and also of its role asa social indicator (Reddy et al., 2009; Hawkesworthet al., 2010). Dietary diversity that characterizes theMediterranean diet explains the disease preventionrelated to diet. A study of the index of food variety inseveral countries has shown that France has a veryhigh rate (90%) compared to the United States (33%).In Morocco, the dietary diversity score was 10.2 forages 12 to 16 years (Aboussaleh and Ahami, 2009).Other surveys in 2006 for adults (Anzid et al., 2009)also showed high levels of dietary diversity in urbanareas only.Beyond the diversity in terms of different categoriesof food and in terms of different foods within a cat-egory, it should be noted the peculiarity of theMediterranean diet for the variety of flavours: acid,sweet and sour, salty-sweet, bitter, pungent. Thepreparation techniques are also very diverse:flavoured, breaded, chopped, into batter, stuffedpastry, salads; the techniques of preservation also:sun-drying, salting, fermentation, vinegar, oil, can-died (we find all these technical approaches in theMune in Lebanon). The diversity can be found also in

Type of Food Area required

Vegetarian food 500 m2

Dominant vegetarianfood 700 m2

Western diet 4 000 m2

Mainly meat diet 7 000 m2

235

cooking techniques: boil, simmer, roast, broil, fry,steam. People eat structured meals taken in afriendly way. Families and friends eat together tapasin Spain, tramessi in Italy, kemia in Tunisia, meze inLebanon, mézélik in Turkey.The recommended Mediterranean food pyramid ex-presses such diversity (Figure 1).

.

Figure 1. The double pyramid.Source: Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition

It not only offers considerable health benefits to in-dividuals but also respects the environment and hasless impact. Barilla Center for Food and Nutritiondemonstrated that the foods that are recommendedto be consumed more frequently, are also thosewith minor environmental impacts (per kg). In otherwords, the inverted environmental food pyramid il-

lustrates how the most environmentally-friendlyfoods also tend to be the healthiest (Barilla Center,2010). As a matter of fact, the various food groupscan be evaluated in terms of their environmentalimpact. Reclassifying foods no longer in terms oftheir positive impact on health, but on the basis oftheir negative effect on the environment, producesan upside-down pyramid which shows the foodswith greater environmental impact on the top andthose with lower impact on the bottom. When thisnew environmental pyramid is brought alongside thefood pyramid, it creates a food-environmental pyra-mid called the “Double Pyramid”. It shows that foodswith higher recommended consumption levels arealso the ones with lower environmental impact. Thisunified model illustrates the connection between twodifferent but highly relevant goals: health and envi-ronmental protection. In other words, it shows that ifthe diet suggested in the traditional food pyramid isfollowed, not only do people live better (longer andhealthier), but there is a decidedly lesser impact – orbetter, footprint on the environment.

Respect of human natureMediterranean people have benefited from the influ-ence of Hippocras about the categorization of foodand eating behaviours: hot, cold, wet or dry properties.There is an adaptation to natural conditions in respectof the seasons and a necessary balance among dif-ferent kinds of products according to the seasons,metabolism and health of individuals.

Social and economy sustainability: strengthenlocal food systemsHistorically, in Europe, the Mediterranean countrieshave the largest number of initiatives of geographicalindications (GI). Locally, they are indicative of a strongconnection to the land, the notoriety, the history andthe quality of the product. Nearly 80 percent of GIs inthe European Union are from Mediterranean countries.France represents alone 20 percent followed by Italy,Portugal, Greece and Spain. In southern countries, thisprocess is beginning in Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon.

100

50

25

10

5

FOOD PYRAMID

ENVIRONMENTALPYRAMID

236

In Mediterranean countries, there is a strongattachment to traditions and culture and food is anintegral aspect of human culture. The culinarytradition is still transmitted from mother to daughter,although the cookingprocess is often simplified.Festive occasions around food are common: cele-brations, religious rituals. Modern life leads tostrong ambivalent practices between acculturationand transmission of a cultural identity. To preservethe Mediterranean food culture, UNESCO has recentlyrecognized the Mediterranean diet as an intangibleheritage of humanity (2010) in four countries: Spain,Greece, Italy and Morocco. It will be included in atransnational Mediterranean inventory in preparation.

II. The principal hot spots of food systems todayThe risks on biodiversityBiodiversity is threatened because pollution, overex-ploitation, natural disasters, invasive alien species,tourism, intensive agriculture. The change in eatinghabits combined with the pursuit of profitable vari-eties led to the abandonment of local varieties andcultural degradation of specific products. There is aglobalization of the food market with absurd trans-port costs, an organization of the food chain in func-tion of economic considerations, without taking intoaccount the environmental impact: 30 percent ofgreenhouse gas emissions are linked to the food inFrance. Specialization in agriculture and the chang-ing patterns of farming techniques deplete biodi-versity and have a negative impact on greenhousegas emissions. For instance, there are more andmore greenhouses in the south of Spain: 40 000 haof vegetables in Almería, 7 500 ha of strawberry inHuelva. A majority of the workforce is composed ofillegal immigrants.We are in an era of unprecedented threats to biodi-versity: 15 out of 24 ecosystems are assessed to bein decline (Steinfeld et al., 2006). The genetic diver-sification of food crops and animal breeds is dimin-ishing rapidly. At the beginning of the twenty-firstcentury it was estimated that only 10 percent of thevariety of crops that had been cultivated in the past

were still being farmed, with many local varietiesbeing replaced by a small number of improved non-native varieties (Millstone and Lang, 2008). Onlyabout 30 crop species provide 95 percent of food en-ergy in the world while 7 000 species, that are partlyor fully domesticated, have been known to be usedin food including many of the so-called underuti-lized, neglected or minor crops (Williams and Haq,2002). Humanity depends on ecosystems and theirlife-sustaining goods and services.WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) has listed 32ecoregions in the Mediterranean hot spot. There arethree broad vegetation types: maquis, forests andgarrigue (CEPF, 2010). Nowadays, the most wide-spread vegetation type is the maquis. Many of theendemic and restricted-range plants depend on thishabitat; thus, several species are threatened(Tucker and Evans, 1997).However, whilst small-scale farming is still prac-tised in many parts of the region, the last 50 yearshave seen a massive change in agricultural prac-tices across large parts of the Mediterranean. An-cient vineyards, orchards and olive groves have beenripped out to make way for industrial-scale fruit orolive plantations and mixed rotational farming hasbeen replaced by intensive monocultures. This hasnot only caused the loss of wildlife-rich habitats buthas also had a major socio-economic impact onlarge parts of the region as many small-scale farm-ers have been forced to abandon their land to go andsearch for jobs elsewhere.

Farming systemsThe global changes affecting the Mediterranean re-gion have effects on farming systems and process-ing of food derived from them. Overall, we canexpect a widening of the social and economic dividebetween industry and family agriculture, namely inthe South, because the region is highly dependenton of agricultural imports and therefore subject tothe hazards of world agricultural production and its"crisis"; an integration of food to better control pricevolatility of primary production, while promoting the

237

internationalization of production.These trends are consistent with the reconstructionof territories: concentration of population in urbanand coastal areas; concentration of large farms,competition for use of space between rural andurban areas, and risk of a progressive disqualifica-tion of small farming. These changes are associatedwith the degradation of agro-ecosystems due to cli-mate change, to intensifying production and a de-valuation of traditional knowledge, withconsequences: a recurring emergence of diseasesof various origins, increasing pressure of invasivespecies, and degradation of biodiversity; stress oncrop yields associated with an increase in agricul-tural water demand coupled with lower ground andunderground flows, tensions to share water betweenuses. In this context of strong pressure on resources(water, land), and increased concentration of popu-lation, and environmental degradation, the majorhealth crises, affecting animals or plants, are likely(international trade increasingly important to pro-mote migration of invasive species and pathogens).

Use of waterModern farming practices through their high demandfor pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation water alsoput excessive pressure on the environment. Morethan 26 million ha of farmland are now under irriga-tion in the Mediterranean Basin and in some areasup to 80 percent of the available water is used for ir-rigation. The exceptionally rapid growth in tourismand urban development in coastal areas combinedwith the abandonment of small-scale farming prac-tices puts immense pressure on the Mediterraneanregion’s rich biodiversity (Sundseth, 2009).The Mediterranean population is particularly af-fected by water scarcity: it represents 60 percent ofthe population of water-scarce countries in the worldwith less than 1 000 m3/inhabitant/year (PlanBlue,2006). Water demand doubled during the secondhalf of the twentieth century to reach 280 billion m3

per year for all riparian countries: 64% is for agri-culture (82% in southern countries), 13% for

tourism. Moreover, the complexity of the food chainincreases the use of virtual water. In the Mediter-ranean region, water resources are limited, fragileand unevenly distributed over space and time wheresouthern rim countries are endowed with only 13percent of the total resources (Plan Blue, 2006). Ac-cording to the projections of the Plan Blue baselinescenario and compared to the year 2000, water de-mands may increase by a further 15 percent by2025, especially in the southern and eastern coun-tries where an increase of 25 percent is expected.Furthermore, Mariotti et al. (2008) predicted by2070–2099 an average decrease of 20 percent inland surface water availability, with a decrease insoil moisture and river runoff, and a 24 percent in-crease in the loss of fresh water over the Mediter-ranean due to precipitation reduction andwarming-enhanced evaporation. Thus, improvingthe water demand management, water saving andrational water use, especially for agriculture, is ofparamount importance in the Mediterranean region.

A surge of supermarketsAccording to expert estimates, the agro-industrialservice model, characterized by mass consumptionof industrialized products driven by hyper- and su-permarkets, may locate in any region where the av-erage revenue per capita is above US $ 5 000 perhead. In 2008, in all Mediterranean countries this limitwas reached except in Morocco. For some ten yearsMediterranean countries have been facing the devel-opment of modern food distribution. If it holds 75 per-cent of the food market in the north, it remainsmodest in the south with 5–10 percent, but is growingstrongly. In Egypt, it is estimated that around 90–95percent of the food outlets can be categorized assmall grocery stores. The modern retail food servicehas tripled in five years. In Morocco, like in Tunisia,the modern distribution has duplicated the numberof establishments in the last five years. We can count32 Auchan /Marjane, Metro, Label’Vie, Casino/AsmakAssalam (Chaabi group) in Morocco; 1 Carrefour, 44super Champion et Bonprix, 1 Géant Casino, 39

238

Monoprix et Touta, 44 super Magasin Général inTunisia; and only 1 Carrefour, Blanky/Promy, Cevi-tal in Algéria.An indicator of each country potential for retail de-velopments is provided by AT Kearney. They classifyevery year the 30 more promising emerging coun-tries, according to an index based on a set of 25 vari-ables including economic and political risk, retailmarket attractiveness, retail saturation levels, mod-ern retailing sales area and sales growth. Accord-ing to the classification for 2010, there were 10Mediterranean countries ranked in the followingplaces: Tunisia (11), Albania (12), Egypt (13), Mo-rocco (15), Turkey (18), Bulgaria (19), Macedonia(20), Algeria (21), Romania (28) and Bosnia-Herze-govina (29). The problem is that this method of dis-tribution extends distribution channels, massivepurchases and sells a wide range of products highlyindustrialized and not always conducive to health.Thus we are seeing the explosion of soft drinks con-sumed at any time of the day.

A Food Quality Index of food in regressionBased on the recommendations of the National Re-search Council, the American Health Association,and the latest proposals of the joint committee of FAO/ WHO (2003), we see that the Food Quality Index isdecreasing in the main Mediterranean countries.

Figure 2. FQI evolution within the Mediterranean countries(1960-2007).Source: Based on FAO data.

Major concerns relate to the aggravation of satu-rated fat (meat, dairy and industrial foods), a verysharp increase in sugars (sodas, cookies, desserts),a reduced consumption of starches (bread, pota-toes), and micronutrient deficiencies.The mirror of the new eating behaviours is the in-creasing overweight and obesity. The main causesare: the lifestyle, the type and frequency of physicalactivity, the type and quality of food consumed andtime spent on food related activities (shopping,cooking, etc.).

A negative balance of the total ecological footprintin the Mediterranean regionWith modern diets and food consumption patternsthere is a trend to have a greater flow of food com-modities over long distances, and highly processedand packaged foods that contribute to increasedemissions of greenhouse gases and non-renewableresources depletion. Alteration of the ecosystem oc-curs if an area’s ecological footprint exceeds its bio-capacity. Balance of the total ecological footprint inthe Mediterranean is shown in Figure 4 based ondata of the global footprint network for the year2007. The results put in evidence an ecologicaldeficit in the Mediterranean region and an alterationof the ecosystem is therefore occurring. The ecologicaldeficit is more pronounced in the Balkans and northernMediterranean even if they have a higher biocapacitywith respect to North Africa and the Near East.

Conclusions The grid of sustainable diet: what should be done?For the immediate future, we recommend a bettersynergy between environmental and health educa-tion to obtain agreement for a dietary change forthe general public. A lot of researchers explainedthe health benefits that a plant-based diet wouldhave on health and environment, and this knowledgecould be translated into information campaigns.Further research is needed to understand barriersand why changes in diets have not been a mainissue on the climate agenda until now. It is there-

FQI Evolution � FQI 1960

� FQI 2007Score

18

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Spain

Portuga

l

Greec

eIta

ly

Leban

on

Tunisi

a

Turk

ey

Algeria

Moroc

co

Egypt

Albania

Fran

ceMalt

a

239

Figure 3. Overweight and obesity in Mediterranean countries.Source: WHO, 2009.

fore necessary to act urgently to implement a strat-egy that promotes the use of the concept of "sus-tainable diets" in different contexts worldwide, inindustrialized as well as developing countries.The Mediterranean diet was proven as good forhealth; it has nutritional virtues, diversity, season-ality, freshness, culture, skills. The south Mediter-ranean countries should avoid reproducing aWestern pattern of which we perceive the limitstoday and should incorporate sustainable develop-

ment goals into their policies Our objective is notto cultivate the past, but to become aware ofabuses of food systems in the Mediterranean. Tra-ditional knowledge and experience are wiped out inthe name of modernity. Don’t we have to learn fromour past to ensure a sustainable modernity? It isstill possible to build our future on the triad of tra-ditional food, food industry and sustainable devel-opment including nutrition, environment andbiodiversity.

Figure 4. Balance of the total ecological footprint in the Mediterranean region.Source: Global footprint network, 2007.

Middle-East North Africa Balkans North of theMediterranean

� Ecological Footprint of Consumption � Total Biocapacity � Ecological (Deficit) or Reserve

Glo

bal h

ecta

res

per

capi

ta 6

4

2

0

-2

-4

Overweight and Obesity NORD Mediterranea

F-FR M-FR F-GR M-GR F-IT M-IT F-POR M-POR F-MAL M-MAL F-ESP M-ESP F-TUN M-TUN F-ALG M-ALG F-EGY M-EGY F-LIB M-LIB F-TUR M-TUR F-MAR M-MAR F-SYR M-SYR

Overweight and Obesity SUD Mediterranea

� BMI/Overweight/Obesity BMI> 25 kg/m2 � BMI/Overweight/Obesity BMI> 30 kg/m2

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00

References

Aboussaleh, Y. and Ahami, A. 2009. Dietary determinants ofstunting and anaemia among preadolescents in Morocco.African Journal of Food Agriculture and Development, 9: 2.

Anzid, K., Elhamdani, F.Z., Baali, A., Boëtsch, G., Levy-Desroches, S., Lôpez, P.M. Cherkaoui, M. 2009. The effect ofsocio-economic status and area of residence on household foodvariety in Morocco. Annals of Human Biology, 36: 6.

Barilla Center (2010). Double pyramid: healthy food for peoplesustainable food the planet. Barilla Center for Food & Nutri-tion, Parma, Italy. http://www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1277731651_Posi-tionPaper-BarillaCFN_Doppia-Piramide.pdf .

CEPF (2010). Ecosystem Profile - Mediterranean Basin Biodi-versity Hotspot. For submission to the CEPF (Critical Ecosys-tem Partnership Fund) donor council.

Duchin F. Sustainable consumption of food: a framework foranalysing scenarios about changes in diets. J Ind Ecol2005;9:99–114.

Elloumi M. & Jouve A.-M. (2010). Extraordinary farm diversity.In: International Centre for advanced Mediterranean AgronomicStudies (CIHEAM); Mediterra Atlas: Mediterranean agriculture,food, fisheries and the rural world. Presses de Sciences Po,Paris; 132 p

Harlan, J.R. (1995). Agricultural Origins and Crop Domestica-tion in the Mediterranean Region. Diversity, 11: 14-16.

Hawkesworth S., Dangour A.D., Johnston D., Lock K., Poole N.,Rushton J., Uauy R. & Waage J. (2010). Feeding the worldhealthily: the challenge of measuring the effects of agricultureon health. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Sociely, B-Biological sciences, 365, 3083-3097.

Heywood V.H. (1998). The Mediterranean region. A major centreof plant diversity. In: (Heywood VH, Skoula M eds) “Wild food andnon-food plants: information networking”. Proceedings of the IIMEDUSA Regional Workshop (1-3 may 1997, Port El-Kantaoui,Tunisia). Cahiers CIHEAM, Options Méditerranéennes 38: 5-15.

Jana S. (1995). Factors Contribution to Crop Diversity in theMediterranean. Diversity, 11:15.

Jouve AM, Padilla M (2007). Les agricultures périurbainesméditerranéennes à l'épreuve de la multifonctionnalité: com-ment fournir aux villes une nourriture et des paysages de qual-ité, Cahiers de l'Agriculture, Vol 16, 4, juillet-août 2007 pp311-318.

MFAF-DK (2010). Food�s carbon footprint. Ministry of Food,Agriculture and Fisheries, Danemark DKhttp://www.fvm.dk/Foods_Carbon_Footprint.aspx?ID=42268

Mariotti A., Zeng N., Yoon J., Artale V., Navarra A., Alpert P. and Millstone E. & Lang T. (2008). The Atlas of Food. Earthscan, sec-ond edition, London.

Padilla M. (2008). Dietary patterns and trends in consumption. In

Mediterra 2008 - The future of agriculture and food in Mediter-ranean countries. International centre for advanced Mediter-ranean studies – Paris; Presses de Sciences Po. Pp: 149- 170.

Plan Bleu (2006). Executive summary on “A Sustainable Futurefor the Mediterranean: The Plan Blueì�s Environment and De-velopment Outlook”, edited by Guillaume Benoit and AlineComeau 2005. 464 p. Earthscan.

Plantlife International (2010).

Reddy Sh., Lang T., Dibb S. (2009). Setting the table - Advice toGovernment on priority elements of sustainable diets. Sustain-able Development Commission, UK.

Steinfeld H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M. &de Haan C. (2006). Livestock�s long shadow: Environmentalissues and options-FAO Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations (FAO), Rome.

Sundseth, K. (2009). Natura 2000 in the Mediterranean Region.European Commission; Environment Directorate General, Lux-emburg.

Trichopoulou A. & Lagiou P. (1997). Healthy traditional Mediter-ranean diet: an expression of culture, history, and lifestyle. Nutr.Rev.; 55: 383–389.

Tucker G.M. & Evans M. (1997). A Conservation Strategy for theWider Environment. BirdLife Conservation Series 6, 464 pp.

Vavilov N.J. (1951). Phytogeographic basis of plant breeding -The origin, variation, immunity and breeding of cultivatedplants. Chronica Bot., 13: 1-366.

Williams J.T. & Haq N. (2002). Global research on underutilisedcrops – An assessment of current activities and proposals forenhanced cooperation. International Centre for Underutilisedcrops, Southampton, UK.

240

BIODIVERSITY AND LOCAL FOODPRODUCTS IN ITALYElena Azzini, Alessandra Durazzo, Angela Polito, EugeniaVenneria, Maria Stella Foddai, Maria Zaccaria, Beatrice Mauro,Federica Intorre and Giuseppe MaianiINRAN - National Institute for Research on Food and Nutrition,Rome, Italy

242

243

AbstractThe role of biodiversity for food quality and healthystatus is well recognized. The question is whether en-vironmental changes could affect the compositionand bioavailability of bioactive and other food compo-nents and in what way the production of local and tra-ditional foods in the various Italian countries can beimproved by applying advanced technologies. Thegreat progress in technological processes (advancedtechnologies, innovative food equipment manufactur-ers), agricultural practices (food production, trans-port and processing) and so the changes in lifestyleled to take attention towards both local foods andfunctional foods as principal elements for improvingfood product quality and in the meantime supportinglocal agrobiodiversity. The main aim of this researchis to identify the many different local and traditionalfoods in Italy, their production methods, domesticcooking and the environmental factors that may af-fect food quality addressing towards a healthy status.Our study has been focused on quantification of bioac-tive molecules (vitamins, polyphenols, carotenoids)and evaluation of ferric-reducing antioxidant power(FRAP) of selected foodstuffs, representing Italianagricultural ecotypes. FRAP value, measured onAprica‘s cherries, was 18.55 mmolkg-1 (SD 1.91) andvitamin C concentration was 0.22 gkg-1 (SD 0.76).Wild strawberries presented more efficiency in thetotal value then literature data 62.85 mmolkg-1 (SD3.32). In the selected agricultural ecotypes of carrots,α-carotene and β-carotene reached highest values.The antioxidant levels and their bioactivity could indi-cate a better potential for health for the artisanniches improving their quality and biodiversity.The conservation and valorization of local/traditionalproducts could increase the adoption of more sus-tainable agricultural systems together with the adop-tion of practices more respective of the environmentsand the natural habitats.

IntroductionThe great progress in technological processes (ad-vanced technologies, innovative food equipment

manufacturers), agricultural practices (food pro-duction, transport and processing) and so thechanges in lifestyle led to take attention towardsboth local foods and functional foods as principal el-ements for improving food product quality and in themeantime supporting local agrobiodiversity. Qual-ity should be identified as valorization of traditionalagricultural patrimony, peculiarity of cultivation anduniqueness of typical products. The high qualityfood products have significant nutritive and excel-lent biological properties and so they have a crucialrole in the productive process and the manufactur-ing system in the agro-alimentary industry. Nowa-days, several researches emphasize benefits thataccrue to the small-scale producer and to the con-sumer, due to the linkage between food quality andagricultural biodiversity.The artisan niches production, founded on qualityand agricultural biodiversity and intended for localand regional use, seems to meet requirements ofconsumers about safety and genuineness. The localsmall production (niche) represents a system basedon support of agricultural ecotypes cultivated bytechniques based on the historical and cultural tra-dition of a specific territory and occurring only in theirnative place. Through buying locally grown produce,consumers could give their support to local produc-ers as well as helping to revitalize rural economies.Our study represents a step within a research pro-gramme aiming to improve the valorization of dif-ferent agricultural ecotypes as artisan niches, inparticular their nutritional and health value. The ge-ography influences the variation in crop growth andso the nutrient/micronutrient content varies consid-erably by species, genotype and ecotype and by therange of crop management practices employed. Theenvironmental and agricultural specification couldcontribute to further valorization of local agriculturalproducts by adding market value to a specific basketof products, and then can be a tool for the promotionof local products and varieties in the frame of sus-tainable rural development, with the adoption ofpractices more respective of the environments and

244

the natural habitats. It will be clear that local andtraditional foods play an important role in the foodpattern of many population groups in several coun-tries. Their nutritional quality and safety are essen-tial elements in dealing with those foods. Over thelast 15 years, several researchers have shifted to-wards quality that is related to antioxidants that areactive in preventing widespread human diseases.Much epidemiological and experimental evidence hasshown the correlation between diet and degenerativediseases in humans such as cancer and cardiovascu-lar disease (1,2,3,4). The contents of antioxidant sub-stances, mainly phenolic compounds, carotenoids,tocopherol and ascorbic acid have been determinedin many species of fruits, vegetables, herbs, cereals,sprouts and seeds (5,6). Particular attention is givento fruits, as rich sources of phenolic compounds.Changes in antioxidant composition of the selectedvegetables were linked to agricultural practices andenvironmental factors. The potential antioxidant ef-fects and the high phytochemical content representan essential tool for obtaining high quality andhealthy products.The main aim of this research was to investigate the an-tioxidant properties and bioactive molecules contentsof selected local and traditional foods in Italy, their pro-duction methods, domestic cooking and the environ-mental factors that may affect food quality addressingtowards a healthy status. In addition the bioactivity ofpolyphenolic extracts obtained from cultivated and wildchicory in human epithelial colorectal adenocarcinomacell (caco-2) models were studied.

Material and methodsSelected foodstuffs. The foods, selected to representItalian agricultural ecotypes, were taken from differentregions of Italy: strawberry, cherry “Aprìca” fromLombardia; potato “Rotzo”, raspberry “Cansiglio”from Veneto; potato “Val Belbo”, pear “Madernassa”from Piemonte; apple “Limoncelle”, purple carrots“Fucino” from Abruzzo; chicory, strawberry “Mara desBois” from Calabria; chicory and plums from Lazio(Table 1).

Table 1. Selected local Italian agricultural ecotypes.

Species Ecotypes Origin

Fragaria vesca strawberry LombardiaPrunus padus cherry LombardiaSolanum tuberosum potato VenetoRubus idaeus raspberry VenetoSolanum tuberosum potato Val Belbo PiemontePyrus communis pear Madernassa PiemonteMalus domestica apple Limoncella AbruzzoDaucus carota purple carrot AbruzzoChicorium intybus chicory Calabria,

LazioFragaria ananassa strawberry “

Mara des Bois” CalabriaPrunus domestica plum Lazio

We have analysed some of these products cookedbecause our aim was to study the food as it used tobe consumed. Chicory, potatoes and carrots areused also as cooked vegetables. In addition, for po-tatoes, we analysed potatoes cultivated following twotypes of cultural practices, organic and integrated,in the same region.

Chemicals and standards. The organic solventsused for the separation of carotenoids, ascorbic acidand polyphenols were of HPLC grade and purchasedfrom Carlo Erba, Milan, Italy. Other organic solventsand chemicals used in the extraction procedureswere of analytical grade (Sigma). Standard regres-sion lines pure were purchased from Sigma.

Sample preparation. A representative sample fromeach treatment was homogenized in a Waringblender for 1 minute. Two replicates were preparedfrom each sample. Aliquots of the samples werestored at -80°C until the polyphenols, carotenoids,vitamin C analysis were conducted.

Methodologies. The total antioxidant activity wasmeasured by ferric-reducing antioxidant power asproposed by Benzie and Strain (8). The obtained su-pernatants were combined and used directly for

assay (9). The absorbance was recorded through theuse a Tecan Sunrise® plate reader spectrophotometer.Total ascorbic acid (AA+DHAA) was extracted andquantified by HPLC system according to the methodof Margolis et al. (10), with some modifications (11).Chromatographic separation was carried on a 250 x4.6 mm Capcell Pak NH2 column (Shiseido, Tokyo,Japan), using ESA series HPLC, equipped an eight-channel coulometric electrode array detector and anESA coularray operating software that control theequipment and perform data processing (ESA,Chemsford, MA, USA). Phenolics were hydrolyzed toobtain total free forms, and extracted as described byHertog et al. (12). Quantitative analysis was per-lformed using an ESA series (MODEL 580) of HPLCsolvent delivery module, an ESA 5600 eight-channelcoulometric electrode array detector and an ESAcoularray operating software that control the equip-ment and perform data processing (ESA, Chemsford,MA, USA).Carotenoids were determined as described by Sharp-less et al. (13). The extracts were analysed by alPerkin-Elmer ISS 200 series HPLC system. The elu-ents were methanol/acetonitrile/tetrahydrofuran(50:45:5). The peaks were detected with a variablespectrophotometric detector (Perkin-Elmer LC-95,Norwalk, CO, USA) connected to a personal computerPe Nelson mod 1020 (Perkin-Elmer). The detectionwavelengths was 450 nm for carotenoids (14).

MTT test to evaluate cytotoxicity of phenolic chicoryextracts on Caco-2 cells was used. The MTT colori-metric assay determines the ability of viable cells toconvert a soluble tetrazolium salt (MTT) into an insol-uble formazan precipitate. The ability of cells to reduceMTT provides an indication of mitochondrial integrityand activity which, in turn, may be interpreted as ameasure of viability and/or cell number. The assay hastherefore been adapted for use with cultures of expo-nentially growing cells such as the human epithelialcolorectal adenocarcinoma cells. Determination oftheir ability to reduce MTT to the formazan productafter exposure to test compounds, enables the rela-tive toxicity of test chemicals to be assessed.

StatisticsData are given as the mean and standard deviation(SD). Statistical analysis was performed using stu-dent's t-test.

Results and discussionOur study has been focused on quantification ofbioactive molecules (vitamins, polyphenols,carotenoids) and on evaluation of antioxidant powerof local selected foodstuffs (Table 1). It is importantnot only levels of phytochemicals in foodstuffs, butthe contribution of foodstuffs to dietary intake (7).Detailed consumption data for fruit and vegetablesin Italy are in Table 2.

245

Table 2. The contribution of selected foodstuffs to dietary intake.

Total Northwest Northeast Centre South and islandsFood Average SD % cons.a Average SD % cons.a Average SD % cons. Average SD % cons.a Average SD % cons.a

Raw carrots 9.24 16.45 53.08 12.36 19.17 50.09 12.50 18.64 66.11 6.62 14.72 49.37 6.26 12.12 50.85Potatoes 38.59 38.58 78.01 34.51 35.74 73.48 35.21 35.67 75.63 41.18 41.42 78.84 42.51 40.21 82.84Vegetables 19.91 32.63 47.62 19.05 30.80 46.10 15.69 29.84 45.38 24.05 34.52 54.91 20.47 34.14 45.75Apples 52.88 73.82 60.67 62.59 82.33 62.74 58.04 82.82 66.39 45.27 59.47 60.71 46.05 66.95 55.64Pears 16.87 34.13 30.69 18.09 35.86 29.81 12.28 29.46 25.77 16.19 31.94 30.73 18.75 35.96 34.16Cherries 3.88 16.08 8.95 1.71 10.40 5.37 1.73 9.91 4.20 5.12 19.03 11.08 6.25 20.11 13.45Strawberries 3.51 14.00 10.72 3.93 16.55 10.92 3.71 16.28 8.96 3.66 11.84 12.59 2.94 11.05 10.36Berries 0.61 6.28 1.77 0.26 2.28 1.91 0.31 3.16 1.12 0.14 1.79 0.76 1.39 10.37 2.63

a % of people who consumed food in study week.Data from A. Turrini, A. Saba, D. Perrone, E. Cialfa and A. D’Amicis, Food consumption patterns in Italy: the INN-CA Study 1994-1996.European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55:571-588 (2001), adapted by Aida Turrini.

246

In an accurate evaluation of the total antioxidant ca-pacity, the antioxidant properties of single moleculespresent in a single product, but also the synergic ef-fects of interactions between the different bioactivecompounds may be considered. In addition, we havestudied the relative contributions of vitamin C andphenolic compounds to the antioxidant potential offruits and vegetables. In Table 3, the FRAP valueshave been shown and have been compared to valuesderived from literature data (9, 15).The antioxidant capacity often could be linearly cor-related with the phenolic content. So we have eval-uated the content of most representative moleculesin every selected product (Table 4) and we have re-lated it to literature data (16,17, 18, 19, 20).

FruitsApple polyphenols have been widely observed; cin-namic acid derivatives, flavonols and anthocyanins,compounds with strong antioxidant activity, havebeen found mainly in cortex and in skin (21). TheFRAP values for apple with peel was 7.65 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.49) and for apple without peel was 4.15mmolkg-1 (SD 0.07). In particular, the contribution oflipophilic fraction was more than hydrophilic frac-tion for both apple with peel and apple without peel.According to our results, the value of the total an-tioxidant power, obtained for apples, should be dueto contribution of flavonoids such as quercetin, epi-catechin and procyanidin B(2) rather than vitamin C. In addition we have calculated that the percentage

Table 3. Ferric-reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) of selected food extracts.

Mean totalRegion Food

(mmol kg-1) SD Literature dataAbruzzo Raw carrot 0.93 0.12 1.06c

Cooked carrot 0.8 0.02Apple with peel 7.65 0.49 7.4c

Apple without peel 4.15 0.07 3.23c

Calabria Chicory 20.36 0.08Strawberry (cultivated) 17.79 0.43 22.74c

Lazio Chicory (cultivated) 4.61 0.38Chicory (wild) 7.33 0.36Plums (cultivated) 9.80 0.89Plums (wild) 83.86 14.73

Lombardia Strawberry (wild) 62.85 3.23 28.00c

Cherry 18.55 1.91 8.10c

Piemonte Pear with peel 2.9 0.28 5.00c

Pear without peel 1.35 0.07Raw potatoa 2.6 0 3.67c

Cooked potatoa 3.95 0.21Raw potatob 2.6 0.14 3.67c

Cooked potatob 4.4 0.71Veneto Raw potato Rotzo 3.05 0.64 3.67c

Cooked potato Rotzo 4.3 0.14Raspberry 57.7 6.2 43.03c

a Organic cultivation.b Integrated cultivation.c Data from Pellegrini et al. Mol Nutr Food Res 50:1030 – 1038 (2006).ld Data from Khanizadeh et al. JFAE 5: 61-66 (2007).

247

of decreasing from apple with peel to apple withoutpeel was 46 percent. For example, in the study ofChinnici et al. (22), a strong divergence between theflavonol values obtained for apple peels and pulpwas noticed: quercitrin (94.00 mgkg-1 (SD 36.00) offresh wt peels to 7.76 mgkg-1 (SD 1.95) of fresh/wtpools), reynoutrin (48.9 mgkg-1 (SD 16.20) of freshwt peels to 1.98 mgkg-1 (SD 0.50) fresh/wt pools),avicularin (110.00 mgkg-1 (SD 32.90) of fresh/wtpeels to 2.27 mgkg-1 (SD 0.46 fresh/wt pools).For Aprica‘s cherries, the FRAP value 18.55mmolkg-1 (SD 1.91) was higher than the literaturedata (16). In addition the contribution to value oflipophilic fraction and hydrophilic fraction were re-spectively 8.69 mmolkg-1 (SD 1.12) and 9.87

mmolkg-1 (SD 0.81).For Aprica‘s cherries vitamin C concentrationreached 0.22 g kg-1 (SD 0.76). The activities of phe-noloxidase and ascorbic acid oxidase enzymes dur-ing storage contributed to the total content ofascorbic acid (23). Relevant levels of anthocyaninsand ascorbic acid (AA) were found in the juice pro-duced from blackcurrants, elderberries, sour cher-ries (24). Therefore, it is interesting to compare thevitamin C content to the values found for total an-tioxidant capacity. The percentage contribution of AAto the total antioxidant capacity (FRAP value) was 14percent. TAC of cherry should be tightly correlated tovitamin C content.Wild strawberries presented more efficiency in the

Table 4. More representative bioactive molecules of selected local food extract.

Mean Literature dataRegion Food Target molecule (mg kg-1) SD mean (mg kg-1)

Abruzzo Raw carrot α-carotene 47.88 9.28 26.60a

β-carotene 116.83 3.97 85.21a

Cooked carrot α-carotene 30.63 3.56 28.38a

β-carotene 81.09 7.50 88.31a

Calabria Chicory chlorogenic acid 24.1 2.31Strawberry (cultivated) coumaric acid 12.4 0.2 7–27 b

quercetin 31 0.04 22.0-57.11c

kaempferol 15.6 0.59 4.72-21.8c

Lazio Chicory (cultivated) vitamin C 4.43 0.69Chicory (wild) vitamin C 9.21 0.95

Lazio Plums (cultivated) β-carotene 5.28 1.02vitamin C 34.09 4.37 30-100f

Plums (wild) β-carotene 7.54 1.11vitamin C 56.09 2.69 30-100f

Lombardia Strawberry (wild) coumaric acid 8 0.31 7–27 b

quercetin 24.6 0.45 22.0-57.11c

kaempferol 33.8 0.97 4.72-21.8c

Cherry vitamin C 229.2 0.76 184d

Veneto Raspberry vitamin C 222.1 1.34 152.9e

a Data from Hart and Scott, Food Chemistry 54 (1):101–111(1995).b Data from Prior, et al. J. Agric Food Chem 46: 2686–2693 (1998).c Data from Cordenunsi et al. J Agric Food Chem 50:2581–2586 (2002).d Data from Jacob et al. J Nutr 133: 1826–1829 (2003).le Data from Oregon Raspberry and Blackberry Commission.f Data from GIL et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 50: 4976–4982 (2002).

248

FRAP value than literature data 62.85 mmolkg-1(SD 3.32), while for cultivated strawberries 17.79mmolkg-1 (SD 0.43) (Table 3), FRAP values are lessthan literature data (9). Recent studies have shownthe correlation between the phenolic constituentsand antioxidative (25) and anticarcinogenic (26)properties of berries, as strawberries and berriesof the genus Vaccinium. p-Coumaric acid deriva-tives, ellagic acid, quercetin 3-O-glycoside, andkaempferol 3-O-glycoside were detected (27,28,29).The occurrence of p-coumaroylglucose, quercetin3-glucoside, quercetin 3-glucuronide, kaempferol3-glucoside, and kaempferol 3-glucuronide was re-ported in strawberries and ellagic acid was also de-scribed as an important phenolic constituent of thisfruit (30). These bioactive molecules were selectedfor their proposed health promoting effects as an-tioxidants and anticarcinogens (31). Compared to lit-erature data, wild strawberries (from Lombardia)show an antioxidant power higher and p-Coumaric,quercetin and kaempferol content, too. So, the highcontent of bioactive molecules and the high antiox-idant power value demonstrated as strawberries of“Aprìca” should be seen as ecotype representing aquality cultivation. Moreover, in the study of Häkki-nen (32), varietal differences were observed in thecontents of flavonols and phenolic acids among sixstrawberry and four blueberry cultivars studied.Scalzo et al. (33), analysing both wild and cultivatedstrawberries, as indicated by the Trolox EquivalentAntioxidant Capacity (TEAC), found antioxidant ac-tivities of wild strawberries higher than cultivatedstrawberries (34). From elucidation of specificflavonol glycosides in cranberry, quercetin-3-arabinoside was found in both furanose and pyra-nose forms in cranberry (35). Strawberries containhigh levels of antioxidants. Phenolic phytochemicalsprobably play a large role than previously thought intotal antioxidant activity (36).Wild plums (from Lazio) showed significantly higherFRAP value (83.36±14.73 mmol kg-1) than cultivatedones (9.08±0.89 mmol kg-1). In recent years antiox-idant activity and the content of total phenolic com-

pounds of several plum cultivars have been investi-gated in order to suggest plum varieties rich in an-tioxidants, which may possibly exert beneficialeffects on human health. Gil et al. (2002) have foundlclose correlations between antioxidant capacitiesand both the anthocyanins and total phenolics con-tent (37). The contributions of phenolic compounds to antiox-idant activity were much higher than those of vita-min C and carotenoids. In Table 4 observedβ-carotene content was 7.54 mg kg-1 (SD 1.11) and5.2 mg kg-1 (SD 1.02) in wild and cultivated plumsrespectively, while ascorbic acid content was 56.96mg kg-1 (SD 2.69) and 34.09 mg kg-1 (SD 4.37) re-spectively for wild and cultivated plums. From our data reported in Table 3, FRAP value forpear with peel was 2.90 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.28) and forpear without peel was 1.35 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.07). Inaddition we have calculated that the percentage ofdecreasing from pear with peel to pear without is 53percent. Leontowicz et al. observed a strong diver-lgence between pear skin and pear pulp (38). In fact,in several studies, the antioxidant levels were foundto be higher in the skin than in the pulp. Finally, themain phenolics found in pear are leucocyanidin, cat-echin, epicatechin, chlorogenic acid, quercitrin andquercetin (39). The total antioxidant activity ex-pressed as FRAP value was found to be 57.70mmol/kg (SD 6.20); in particular, the contribution tovalue of lipophilic fraction and hydrophilic fractionwere respectively 43.00 mmol/kg (SD 7.55) and14.64 mmol/kg (SD 1.36). The high contribution toantioxidant activity is attributed to higher content oftotal phenolics, flavonoids, and anthocyanins in redraspberry fruits (40). Vitamin C contributes only 4.3percent of the total antioxidant activity (41).

VegetablesComparing the results obtained in this work withthose found in literature, no differences for antioxidantcapacity were recorded in raw and cooked carrots(8). The percentage of decreasing was found to be14 percent. Carotenoids are the main representa-

249

tive antioxidant molecules of this vegetable: β-carotene (60–80%), α-carotene (10–40%), lutein (1–5%) and the other minor carotenoids (0.1–1%)(42).α-carotene and β-carotene levels decreased afterboiling: the percentages of decreasing were foundto be 0.36% and 0.31% for α-carotene and for β-carotene respectively. In these agricultural ecotypesα-carotene and β-carotene values are higher thanthose shown in literature data (17). In addition β-carotene values were higher than α-carotene forboth raw and cooked carrots (43). Chicory represents a main source of micronutrients:in fact, it easily grows year-round, due to its ability toresist to high temperatures. It should be an interest-ing and cheap source of antioxidant phenolic extracts.The chicory (from Calabria) FRAP value observedwas higher 20.36 mmolkg-1 (SD 0.08), than thevalue 6.72 mmolkg-1 reported in literature and theobserved value in chicory from Lazio (4.43 and 9.21mmolkg-1 respectively for wild and cultivatedchicory): this could suggest a better benefit powerfor the human health. The results obtained indicatethat chicory could be a remarkable source of anti-oxidants (44). The main representative compound ofchicory was found to be the chlorogenic acid 24.1mg kg-1 (SD 2.31). To improve the quality of chicoryecotypes, the phenolic content and composition ofdifferent chicory varieties have been previously in-vestigated considering the influence of variety, pro-cessing and storage on this composition (45). Inaddition differences between the way of cookingwere observed in chicory from Lazio (Figure 1):

lutein and β-carotene values were significant higherin pan-fried product than fresh product (P<0.02and P<0.05 respectively) for cultivated chicory,while significantly higher values of β-carotene wereobserved in boiled wild chicory than wild fresh(P<0.05) and lutein was significantly higher in wildfresh than wild pan-fried chicory (P<0.02). Thiscould be due to the greater extractability ofcarotenoids after cooking, while their their low con-tribution to total antioxidant capacity is enhanced byhigher values of TAC in both wild and cultivatedfresh chicory.In potatoes, a slight increase in the FRAP valueswas observed after cooking. The percentage rangeof increasing was found to be 41–70 percent. Indeedthe increase of reducing power may be correlatedto release of glucosydes from food matrix aftercooking (Table 3). After cooking, potato varieties dif-fer in antioxidant values from each other, while anti-oxidant levels do not change in fresh potatoes. Thevery low values of antioxidant activity were found inwatery vegetables such as potato, marrow and cu-cumber. In addition, the chemical components ofthe potato and interactions occurring during cook-ing, influenced the quality of potatoes and the tex-ture of the cooked tubers (46). No remarkabledifferences were found in antioxidant activity be-tween the several varieties of potatoes.

Bioactivity testRegarding potential bioactivities, the chicory ex-tracts seem to cause a high cytotoxicity in humanepithelial colorectal adenocarcinoma cells (caco-2)by reducing cell viability to values lower than 10percent. The results indicate that the polyphenolicextract of wild chicory possesses a marked cytotox-icity compared to cultivated chicory reducing cell vi-ability lower than 10 percent using 50 ml/l of theextract (Figure 2).

ConclusionOur findings show that local products have a distinc-tive and unique nutritional value. Their antioxidant

Figure 1. Effect of cultivated and wild chicory extractson CaCo-2 viability.

cultivated chicory

wild chicorywild chicory

()

cell

via

bilit

y (%

)

0 0,5 1 5 10 50 100

ml/l

140120100

80604020

0

��

250

levels and their bioactivity could indicate a betterpotential for health. Several antioxidant capacitiesfor Valtellina typical foodstuffs appear to havehigher values compared to literature data. A strongdifference has been obtained for cherries of“Aprìca”. Chicory (from Calabria and Lazio) repre-sents an important source of micronutrients, thatgive to this vegetable a resistance to cold tempera-tures, consenting growth of the plant during all year.It needs to be underlined that wild chicory appearsto have higher phytochemicals and its extractsseem to exert cytotoxicity in human epithelialcolorectal adenocarcinoma cell (caco-2) and so pro-moting good health and preventing or modulatingdiseases.

Our data highlight the direct linkages between bio-physical attributes of location and agricultural po-tential to improve crop growth models. On this basisthe typical local production mostly in terms of qual-ity and safety of the products should become a basefor maintaining a correct nutritional plane. In addi-tion, the conservation and valorization of local/tra-ditional products could increase the adoption ofmore sustainable agricultural systems togetherwith the adoption of practices more respective of theenvironments and the natural habitats.

AcknowledgementsThis study was performed within the “Food Quality”and “Biovita” projects supported by MiPAF.

Figure 2. Effect of way of cooking on bioactive molecules and total antioxidant capacity in cultivated and wildchicory from Lazio.

Way of cooking

Lutein content (mg/kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiledproduct

Fresh product

� chicoryWild� ivated chicoryCulti

0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00

i

Way of cooking

FRAP (mmol/kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiledproduct

Fresh product

� chicoryWild � vated chicoryCulti

0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00

v

Way of cooking

β--carotene (mg/kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiledproduct

Freshproduct

� chicoryWild � vated chicoryCultiv

0 50 100 150

v

Way of cooking

TEAC (mmol /kg)

Pan-friedproduct

Boiledproduct

Freshproduct

� chicoryWild � vated chicoryCultiv

0 1 2 3 4

cv

251

References

Etminan M, Takkouche B and Caamano-Isorna F, The role oftomato products and lycopene in the prevention of prostate can-cer: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Cancer EpidemiolBiomark Prev 13:340-34 (2004).

Thompson LU, Antioxidants and hormone-mediated health ben-efits of whole grains. Crit Rev Food Sci Tech 34:473-497 (1994).

Aruoma OI, Antioxidant actions of plant foods: use of oxidativeDNA damage as a tool for studying antioxidant efficacy. FreeRadic Res 30:419-27 (1999).

Allen RD, Dissection of oxidative stress tolerance using trans-genic plants. Plant Physiol 107: 1049-1054 (1995).

Beecher GR, Overview of dietary flavonoids: nomenclature, oc-currence and intake. J Nutr 133:3248S-3254S (2003).

Kahkonen MP, Hopia AI, Vuorela HJ, Raucha JP, Pihlaja K, Ku-jala TS and Heinonen M, Antioxidant activity of plant extractscontaining phenolic compounds. J Agric Food Chem 47: 3954–3962 (1999).

Turrini A, Saba A, Perrone D, Cialfa E, and D’Amicis A, Foodconsumption patterns in Italy: the INN-CA Study 1994-1996. Eu-ropean Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55:571-588 (2001).

Benzie IFF and Strain JJ, The ferric reducing ability of plasma(FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: the assay. AnalBiochem 239:70-76 (1996).

Pellegrini N, Serafini M, Colombi B, Del Rio D, Salvatore S,Bianchi M and Brighenti F, Total antioxidant capacity of plantfoods, beverages and oils consumed in Italy assessed by threedifferent in vitro assays. J Nutr 133:2812-2819 (2003).

Margolis SA and Schapira R, Liquid chromatographic meas-urement of L-ascorbic acid e D-ascorbic acid in biological sam-ples. J Chromatogr 690: 25-33 (1997).

Serafini M, Bugianesi R, Salucci M, Azzini E, Raguzzini A andMaiani G, Effect of acute ingestion of fresh and stored lettuce(Lactuca sativa) on plasma total antioxidant capacity and an-tioxidant levels in human subjects. British Journal of Nutrition88: 615-623 (2002).

Hertog MGL, Hollman CH and Vanema DP, Optimization of aqualitative HPLC determination of a potentially anti-carcenogenic flavonoids in vegetables and fruits. J Agric FoodChem 40:1591-1598 (1992).

Sharpless KA, Arce-Osuna M, Thoma JB and Gill ML, Value as-signment of retinyl palmitate, tocopherol and carotenoid con-centrations in standard reference material 2383 (Baby foodcomposite). J AOAC Int 82: 288-296 (1999).

Maiani G, Pappalardo G, Ferro-Luzzi A, Raguzzini A, Azzini A,Guadalaxara A, Trifero M, Frommel T and Mobarhan S. Accu-mulation of beta-carotene in normal colorectal mucosa andcolonic neoplastic lesions in humans. Nutr Cancer 24: 23-31,(1995).

Khanizadeh S, Tsao R, Rekika D, Yang R and DeEll J, Phenoliccomposition and antioxidant activity of selected apple geno-types. JFAE 5: 61-66 (2007).

Jacob RA, Spinozzi GM, Simon VA, Kelley DS, Prior RL, Hess-Pierce B and Kader AA, Consumption of cherries lowersplasma urate in healthy women. J Nutr 133:1826-1829 (2003).

Hart DJ and Scott KJ, Development and evaluation of an HPLCmethod for the analysis of carotenoids in foods, and the meas-urement of the carotenoid content of vegetables and fruits com-monly consumed in the UK. Food Chemistry 54(1):101-111(1995).

Oregon processors

Cordenunsi BR, do Nascimento JR, Genovese MI and Lajolo FI,Influence of cultivar on quality parameters and chemical com-position of strawberry fruits grown in Brazil. J Agric Food Chem50 :2581 -2586 (2002).

Prior RL, Hoang H, Gu L, Wu X, Bacchiocca M, Howard L,Hampsch-Woodill M, Huang D, Ou B and Jacob RA. Assays forhydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidant capacity (oxygen radicalabsorbance capacity (ORACFL) of plasma and other biologicaland food samples. J Agric Food Chem 51:3273–3279 (2003).

Ju Z and Bramlage WJ, Phenolics and lipid-soluble antioxidantsin fruit cuticle of apples and their antioxidant acivities in modelsystems. Post Biol Techn 16:107–118 (1999).

Chinnici F, Bendini A, Gaiani A and Riponi C, Radical scaveng-ing activities of peels and pulps from cv. Golden Delicious ap-ples as related to their phenolic composition. J Agric FoodChem 52:4684-4689 (2004).

Salunkhe DK, Boun HR, Salunkhe DK, Boun HR, Reddy NR,Storage, processing and nutritional quality of fruits and veg-etables: fresh fruits and vegetables. CRC Press Inc., Boston,vol. 1 (1991).

Rababah TM, Ereifej KI, Howard L, Effect of ascorbic acid anddehydration on concentrations of total phenolics, antioxidantcapacity, anthocyanins, and color in fruits. J Agric Food Chem53:4444-4447 (2005).

Netzela M, Strass G, Kau l, Bitschc I, Dietrich H and Bitsch, Invivo antioxidative capacity of a composite berry juice. Food Resint 35:213–216 (2002).

Bomser J, Madhavi DL, Singletary K, Smith MA, In vitro anti-cancer activity of fruit extracts from Vaccinium species. PlantaMed 62:212-216 (1996).

Mosel HD and Hermann K, The phenolics of fruit. III. The con-tents of catechins and hydroxycinnamic acids in pome andstone fruits. Z. Lebens. Unters-Forsch 154:6-11 (1974).

Rommel A and Wrolstad RE, Ellagic acid content of red rasp-berry juice as influenced by cultivar, processing, and environ-mental factors? J Agric Food Chem 41:1951-1960 (1993)a

Mabry TJ, Markham KR and Thomas MB, The aglycone andsugar analysis of flavonoid glycosides. In the systematic iden-

tification of flavonoids. Springer-Verlag, New York (1970).

Rommel A and Wrolstad RE, Influence of acid and base hydrol-ysis on the phenolic composition of red raspberry juice. J AgricFood Chem 41:1237-1241 (1993).

Williamson G, Plumb GW, Uda Y, Price KR and Rhodes MJC, Di-etary quercetin glycosides: antioxidant activity and induction ofthe anticarcinogenic phase II marker enzyme quinone reduc-tase in Hepalclc7 cells. Carcinogenesis 17:2385-2387 (1996).

Häkkinen S, Flavonols and phenolic acids in berries and berryproducts. Kuopio University Publications D. Medical Sciences.(shared supervision with University of Kuopio), (2000).

Scalzo J, Politi A, Pelligrini N, Mezzetti B and Battino M, Plantgenotype affects total antioxidant capacity and phenolic con-tents in fruit. Nutrition 21 : 207–213 (2005).

Proteggente AR, Pannala AS, Paganga G, Van Buren L, WagnerE, Wiseman S, van de Put F, Dacombe C and Rice-Evans CA,The antioxidant activity of regularly consumed fruit and veg-etables reflects their phenolic and vitamin C composition. FreeRadic Res 36:217-233 (2002).

Vvedenskaya IO, Rosen RT, Guido JE, Russell DJ, Mills KA andVorsa N, Characterization of flavonols in cranberry (Vacciniummacrocarpon) powder. J Agric Food Chem 52:188-95 (2004).

Meyers KJ, Watkins CB, Pritts MP and Liu RH, Antioxidant andantiproliferative activities of strawberries. J Agric Food Chem51: 6887-6892 (2003).

Gil M. I., Tomaa S-Barberaa N F., A Betty Hess-Pierce, and A.A. Kader Antioxidant Capacities, Phenolic Compounds,Carotenoids, and Vitamin C Contents of Nectarine, Peach, andPlum Cultivars from California J. Agric. Food Chem 50: 4976-4982 (2002).

Leontowicz M, Gorinstein S, Leontowicz H, Krzeminski R, LojekA, Katrich E, Milan i, Martin-Belloso O, Soliva-Fortuny R, Haru-enkit R and Trakhtenberg S, Apple and pear peel and pulp andtheir influence on plasma lipids and antioxidant potentials inrats fed cholesterol-containing diets. J Agric Food Chem 51 (19),5780 -5785 (2003).

Schieber A, Keller P and Reinhold C, Determination of pheno-lic acids and flavonoids of apple and pear by high-performanceliquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 910:265–273 (2001).

Liu M, Li XQ, Weber C, Lee CY, Brown J and Liu RH, Antioxidantand antiproliferative activities of raspberries. J Agric FoodChem 50:2926-2930 (2002).

Kalt W, Forney CF, Martin A and Prior RL, Antioxidant capacity,vitamin C phenolics, and anthocyanins after fresh storage ofsmall fruits. J Agric Food Chem 47:4638-4644 (1999).

Chen BH, Peng HY and Chen HE, Changes of carotenoids, color,and vitamin A contents during processing of carrot juice. JAgric Food Chem 43:1912–1918 (1995).Alasalvar C, Grigor JM, Zhang D, Quantick PC and Shahidi F,Comparison of volatiles, phenolics, sugars, antioxidant vita-

mins, and sensory quality of different colored carrot varieties.J Agric Food Chem 49:1410–1416 (2001).

Llorach R, Tomas-Barberan FA and Ferreres F, Lettuce andchicory byproducts as a source of antioxidant phenolic extracts.J Agric Food Chem 52:5109-5116 (2004).

Stratil P, Klejdus B and Kuban V, Determination of total contentof phenolic compounds and their antioxidant activity in vegeta-bles evaluation of spectrophotometric methods. J Agric FoodChem 54:607-616 (2006).

Jarvis MC, Mackenzie E and Duncan HJ, The textural analysis ofcooked potato. 2. Swelling pressure of starch during gelatini-sation. Potato Research 35: 93–102 (1992).

252

254

ORGANIC FARMING: SUSTAINABILITY, BIODIVERSITYAND DIETSFlavio PaolettiINRAN - National Institute for Research on Food and Nutrition,Rome, Italy

AbstractThe current agrofood system is one of the most re-sponsible for the ecosystem degradation, in partic-ular, the biodiversity loss. Moreover, it has provedto be unable to addres hunger and malnutrition.Biodiversity in the food systems is absolutely cru-cial for both a sustainable food production and foodsecurity. Diets based on different food species pro-mote health by addressing the problem of micronu-trient and vitamin deficiencies. Therefore, it seemsthat the transition towards sustainable forms ofagriculture cannot be deferred further.The organic food production is seen having the po-tential to contribute substantially to the global foodsupply and reduce the environmental impact of theconventional agriculture.This paper summarizes the evidence present in thescientific literature on these subjects and offers in-sights into the links between organic food produc-tion, sustainability, biodiversity and healthy diets.

IntroductionThe current globalized food system is one of the mostresponsible for the ecosystem degradation. Agricul-ture alone contributes about 13 percent to the globalhuman-induced greenhouse gas emissions, but thisrate increases ranging from 17 to 32 percent if theindirect emissions (fertilizers production and distri-bution, farm operations, land conversion to agricul-ture) are included (Bellarby et al., 2008). Therefore,lthe so-called “industrial agriculture” based on theadoption of large-scale farming systems, on themassive use of fertilizers, that needs high energy in-puts to have high yields and to maintain a constantlevel of production, is widely considered no longersustainable. Overall, if one takes into account that itfailed to address hunger and malnutrition.Currently, it is widely accepted that facing the dualchallenge of achieving food security and reducingthe environmental impact of food production, it isnecessary to take steps of transition towards sus-tainable forms of agriculture (Hoffmann, 2011).

Organic farming and sustainabilityInterest in organic production has grown appreciablyover the last few decades in the world (Willer andKilcher, 2011). According to EC Reg. No. 834/2007,organic production is defined as: “…an overall sys-tem of farm management and food production thatcombines the best environmental practices, a highlevel of biodiversity, the preservation of natural re-sources, the application of high animal welfare stan-dards and a production method in line with thepreferences of certain consumers for products pro-duced using natural substances and processes”.Organic management practices exclude such con-ventional inputs as synthetic pesticides and fertiliz-ers, instead putting the emphasis on building up thesoil with compost additions and animal and greenmanures, controlling pests naturally, rotating cropsand diversifying crops and livestock.Organic agriculture is generally considered as hav-ing a lower environmental impact than conventionalagriculture. According to Hoffmann (2011), a con-version to organic agriculture could significantly re-duce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions(reduction of the use of industrial nitrogen-fertilizerand of the soil-based N2O emissions). However, anexamination of the scientific literature demon-strates that the lower environmental impact of or-ganic agriculture is true for many foods but not forall, and not for all the classes of environmental im-pact. (Foster et al., 2006). An energy analysis car-lried out at the Rodale Institute showed a 33 percentreduction in fossil-fuel use for organic farming sys-tems in comparison with the equivalent conven-tional ones (Pimentel, 2005). Fewer energy inputrequirements have been observed for the organicproduction of wheat, beef, sheep and pork meat, oilseed rape, milk (Foster et al., 2006; Williamsl et al.,2006); whereas the energy inputs were higher fororganic poultry meat and eggs. No difference wasobserved, instead, between organic and conven-tional potato production (Foster et al., 2006).lIn terms of land use, organic production generally

255

requires substantially more farmland than the con-ventional one (Cederberg and Mattsson, 2000; Fos-ter et al., 2006).lOn the other hand, organic agriculture has a signif-icant ability to sequester large amounts of atmos-pheric carbon into the soil (Hepperly et al., 2007),lthus contributing to counteracting greenhousegases. Therefore, carbon sequestration of organicfarming is crucial in assessing the environmentalimpact (Niggli et al., 2008).lLeaching of nutrients, nitrogen in particular, is re-sponsible for much of the environmental damagecaused to many ecosystems by intensive agriculture(Hansen et al., 2001). In organic production only or-lganic fertilizers can be used to supply the soil withnitrogen. From the scientific literature, the nitrogenleaching in organic farming results lower than thatoccurring in conventional agriculture (Knudsen etal., 2006; Hansenl et al., 2001). However, nitrogenlleaching depends not only on the type of fertilizerused, but also on the management practices (Knud-sen et al., 2006). In fact, the mineralization of or-lganic fertilizers is slow and problems with thesupply of nitrogen can occur, particularly when thedemands of the plants are high (Kelderer et al.,2008).The lower yields generally observed in the organiccrop production are ascribed to the limited avail-ability of nitrogen in the organic systems (Doltra et al.,2011). By an efficient and careful management ofthe nutrient supply to the plants, it is possible tocounterbalance the negative effects on the yields(Doltra et al., 2011; Crews and Peoples, 2004;lHansen et al., 2001; Pang and Letey, 2000). Maderlet al. (2002) reported a reduction of only 20 percentlof the yield of grain crops in organic systems, al-though the fertilizer input was reduced by 34–53percent. Pimentel et al. (2005) reported yields inlorganic maize and soybean comparable to those ofconventional production, suggesting that organiccrop production can be competitive with conven-tional faming.

Organic farming and biodiversityAgricultural biodiversity (agrobiodiversity) is funda-mental to agricultural production, food security andenvironment conservation. Agrobiodiversity, in fact, in-cludes a wide variety of species and genetic resourcesand also the ways in which the farmers can exploitthem to produce and manage crops, land, water, in-sects and biota (Thrupp, 2000). Agricultural biodiver-sity, moreover, provides ecosystem services on farm,such as pollination, fertility enhancement, insect anddisease management. Over the last 40 years themodel and patterns of industrial agriculture havecaused serious degradation of natural resources and,in particular, biodiversity: loss of plant genetic re-sources, livestock, insect and soil organisms. The ero-sion of biodiversity is manifested both within farmingsystems and off farms, in natural habitats.A principal objective of organic farming is to main-tain, to enhance the natural fertility of the soil. Or-ganic farming systems which involve the use of catchcrops, the recycling of crop residues, the use of or-ganic fertilizers and perennial crops, are assumed topromote higher levels of organic matter and biologi-cal activity in the soil (number and variety of soil or-ganisms). Microorganisms, like bacteria or fungi,play a central role in maintaining the fertility of thesoil through the decomposition of organic matter.Several studies have demonstrated an increase in thebiodiversity, biological activity and fertility in the soilmanaged by organic systems (Bengtsson et al., 2005;lPimentel et al., 2005; Mader l et al., 2002). Moreover,lin organic farms it has been observed a higher diver-sity and abundance of birds, pollinator, insect andherbaceous plants (Holzschuh et al., 2008; Rundlöflet al., 2008a; Rundlöf l et al., 2008b; Holzschuh l et al.,2007) than in conventional ones.However, Gabriel et al. (2010) have demonstratedlthat within a farm biodiversity is influenced by bothmanagement within the farm and management ofsurrounding farms, thus highlighting the crucialrole of the landscape. Belfrage et al. (2005) com-lpared diversity and abundance of birds, butterflies,

256

bumblebees and herbaceous plants between or-ganic and conventional farms of different sizes.They found more bird species, butterflies, herba-ceous plant species, and bumblebees on the smallfarms compared to the large farms. The largest dif-ferences were found between the small organic andlarge conventional farms. However, differenceswere also noted between small and large organicfarms: This study introduces the aspect of the farmsize as a co-factor contributing to the higher biodi-versity in organic farms, and the small size farmsseem to behave better in terms of biodiversity thanthe larger ones.Clearly, the farm size per se does not affect biodi-versity. However, it is possible to state that the bio-diversity results are affected by the different farmregimes and management practices that differentfarm sizes require.

Organic farming and sustainable dietsFruit and vegetables contain health-related com-pounds, such as vitamins, dietetic fibre, antioxidants(ascorbic acid, phenolic compounds, carotenoids)whose consumption can positively contribute to humanhealth by reducing the risk of cardiovascular and de-generative diseases (Béliveau and Gingras, 2007; Baz-zano et al., 2002; Ness and Powles, 1997). For theselreasons, the dietary patterns grounded on scientific ev-idence encourage the consumption of fruit and veg-etables and suggest to reduce the frequency of theconsumption of meat. One of the most known dietarypatterns is the so-called “Mediterranean diet”, that re-cently has been recognized by UNESCO as an intangi-ble heritage of humanity. The Mediterranean dietpromotes the consumption of plant products typical ofthe countries of the Mediterranean Basin such as oliveoil, cereals, legumes, fruit and vegetables.It has been demonstrated that encouraging individu-als to consume less meat and more plant-basedfoods may be also a measure to increase the sus-tainability and reduce the environmental costs of foodproduction systems. In fact, the production of animal

food has a higher global warming potential (GWP)than that of plant food (Moresi and Valentini, 2010;Duchin, 2005; Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003; Rejin-lders and Soret, 2003) and needs higher arable sur-face than plant food production (Brandão, 2008).From a comparison between different dietary pat-terns combined with different production systems itresulted that: i) within the same method of produc-tion, a greater consumption of animal productstranslates to a greater impact on the environment; ii)within the same dietary pattern, conventional pro-duction methods have a greater environmental im-pact than organic methods (Baroni et al., 2006).lOn the whole, the evidence seems to support theopportunity of educating people, mainly in westerncountries, to shift their eating habits towards the in-crease of direct consumption of plant foods to pro-tect their own health and the environment.Consumer awareness of the environmental impactof the food system has increased in recent decades,thus leading to an expansion of the organic foodsector (Willer and Kilcher, 2011). Consumers pur-chasing organic food demonstrate to have an atti-tude towards health (Tjärnemo and Ekelund, 2004),environment quality, food safety (Loureiro et al.,2001), ethical values (animal rights) (Honkanen etal., 2006). It has been suggested the existence of alpotential relation between organic food and vege-tarianism. The ecological motivations underlyingorganic food choice and vegetarian diet choice arequite similar (Honkanen et al., 2006).lConsumer studies have shown that among the mul-tiple reasons for organic preference, the belief thatthe organic foods are healthier than the conven-tional ones is one of the most important (Shepherdet al., 2005). A number of studies have been pub-llished during the last two decades comparing thenutritional quality of conventionally and organicallyproduced fruit and vegetables. It is known that cropmanagement can affect the composition of plant ma-terial (Bourn and Prescott, 2002). Different theorieshave been put forward to describe the mechanisms

257

on which the organic production system could affectthe nutritional value and the content of health-re-lated compounds (Brandt and Molgaard, 2001). How-ever, the research on this aspect is not conclusiveand only some trends have been individuated: ahigher content of vitamin C, dry matter, phosphorus,titratable acidity, phenols (antioxidant) and less of ni-trates in organic fruit and vegetables in comparisonwith conventional ones (Lairon, 2009; Bourn andPrescott, 2002; Brandt and Molgaard, 2001). The in-terpretation of the results of the investigations pub-lished in the scientific literature is difficult, becauseof methodological differences related to cultivar se-lection, growing conditions, sampling and analyticalmethods.Most of these studies fail in describing the field ex-periment design and represent only one seasonalharvest. In a recently published systematic review, inwhich the authors adopted a series of criteria to se-lect the comparative studies conducted over the past50 years, only a higher content of phosphorus andvalues of titratable acidity in the organic productswere confirmed (Dangour et al., 2009). This showslthat further research is needed on this subject be-fore conclusively stating if differences exist in the nu-tritional quality between organically andconventionally grown fruit and vegetables.In the decade 1999–2009 the organic agricultural landhas increased from 11 million to 37.2 million ha. Aus-tralia, Argentina, the United States, China and Brazilare the countries with the most organic agriculturalland. However, if the share of the organic agriculturalland out of the total agricultural land is considered,small countries such as Falkland, Liechtenstein, Aus-tria, Switzerland hold the first positions in the world.The countries with the largest numbers of organic pro-ducers are India, Uganda, Mexico, Ethiopia, Tanzania.In these countries the average farm size is low, andthe conversion to organic agriculture could representa quite easy option to the small farmers, because theyare used to producing more or less “organic”, with lit-tle or no application of chemical inputs.

The role of small-size farms is fundamental in pre-serving and enhancing biodiversity. Worldwide smallfarmers are those who generally practise high-diver-sity agriculture, both in terms of cultivated crops andvarieties of a single crop. This practice is necessaryalso to increase food security, because it providesmore options to cope with pests and diseases. Gen-erally, the small farmers cultivate local varieties of acrop, because well adapted to local conditions andable to resist or tolerate the typical diseases of thecrop. Promoting this high diversity of crops and varietieshas doubtless positive effects on human health. Fruitand vegetables have a fundamental role in diet, be-cause they are the main natural sources of micronu-trients, dietary fibre, bioactive compounds. Manyfactors can affect the nutritional content of horticul-tural crops, including climate, geography, soil, fertil-ization, but the differences between varieties are oftenby far more relevant. Interestingly, the nutrient con-tent of the less-known cultivars and wild varieties hasoften resulted higher than that of the widely-culti-vated cultivars, thus suggesting the need of composi-tional researches to characterize these products andproviding data useful for their protection and use (Lu-taladio et al., 2010). The market where small farmerslcan sell their products is different from that of thelarge-size farms.These latter select the crop and varieties to cultivate ina way to match the standards fixed and the amount de-manded by the organized distribution chains. Instead,the final destination of the products from small-sizefarms is mainly represented by the local markets orthe so-called short food supply chain, such as farmers’markets or other forms of direct selling from the pro-ducer to the consumer. These short supply chains aregaining more and more interest among consumers inwestern countries, thus creating a new relationshipbetween agricultural and urban worlds. The organicsmall farms often find the commercial outlet for theirproducts in this kind of market (Böhnert and Nill,2006).

258

References

Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., Berati, M. (2006). Evaluat-ing the environmental impact of various dietary patterns com-bined with different food production systems. European Journalof Clinical Nutrition, 61, 279-286.

Bazzano, L. A., He, J., Ogden, L. G., Loria, C. M., Vupputuri, S.,Myera, L., Whelton, P. K. (2002). Fruit and vegetable intake andrisk of cardiovascular disease in U.S. adults: the first NationalHealth and Nutrition Examination SurveyEpidemiologic Follow-up Study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 76, 93-99.

Belfrage, K., Björklund, J., Salomonsson, L. (2005). The effectsof farm size and organic farming on diversity of birds, pollina-tors, and plants in a Swedish landscape. Ambio, 34, 582-588

Béliveau, R. and Gingras, D. (2007). Role of nutrition in pre-venting cancer. Canadian Family Physician, 53, 1905-1911.

Bellarby, J., Foereid, B., Hastings, A., Smith, P. (2008). CoolFarming: Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation poten-tial. Greenpeace International from:http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/re-ports/cool-farming-full-report

Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., Weibull, A. C. (2005). The effects oforganic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 261-269.

Böhnert, E. and Nill, D. (2006). Value Chains for the Conserva-tion of Biological Diversity for Food and Agriculture. DeutscheGesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Es-chborn, Germany from: www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biodiv-value-chains-2006.pdf

Bourn, D. and Prescott, J. (2002). A comparison of the nutri-tional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organicallyand conventionally produced foods. Critical Reviews in FoodScience and Nutrition, 42, 1-34

Brandão, M. (2008). Food systems revisited: their evolution andsustainability implications from an interdisciplinary perspec-tive. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Food Security andEnvironmental Change Linking Science, Development and Pol-icy for Adaptation: University of Oxford, UK, fromwww:gecafs.org/documents/PP10Brandao.pdf.

Brandt, K., Molgaard, J. P. (2001). Organic agriculture: does itenhance or reduce the nutritional values of plant foods. Jour-nal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 81, 824-831.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Ekströmm, M. P., Shanahan, H. (2003).Food and life cycle energy inputs: consequences of diet andways to increase efficiency. Ecological Economics, 44, 293-307.

Cederberg, C., Mattsson, B. (2000). Life cycle assessment ofmilk production – a comparison of conventional and organicfarming. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 49-60

Crews, T. E., Peoples, M. B. (2004). Legume versus fertilizerssources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 102, 279-297.

Dangour, A. D., Dodhia, S. K., Hayter, A., Lock, K., Uaury, R.(2009). Nutritional quality of organic foods: a systematic review.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90, 680-685.

Doltra, J., Laegdsmand, M., Olesen, J. E. (2011). Cereal yield andquality as affected by nitrogen availability in organic and con-ventional arable crop rotations: A combined modelling and ex-perimental approach. European Journal of Agronomy, 34, 83-95.

Duchin, F. (2005). Sustainable consumption of food: a frame-work for analyzing scenarios about changes in diets. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology, 9, 99-114

Foster, C., Green, K., Bleda, M., Dewick, P., Evans, B., Flynn, A.,Mylan, J. (2006). Environmental Impacts of Food Production andConsumption: A report of the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs. Manchester Business School. Defra,London.

Gabriel, D., Sait, S. M., Hodgson, J. A., Schmutz, U., Kunin, W.E., Benton, T. G. (2010). Scale matters: the impact of organicfarming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Let-ters, 13, 858-869.

Hansen, B., Alroe, H. F., Kristensen, E. S. (2001). Approaches toassess the environmental impact of organic farming with par-ticular regard to Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Envi-ronment, 83, 11-26.

Hepperly, P. R., Seidel, R., Pimentel, D., Hanson, J., Douds, D.(2007). Organic farming enhances soil carbon and its benefits.In J. Kimble, C. Rice, D. Reed, S. Mooney, R. Follet, R. Lal (Eds.),Soil Carbon Management Economic, Environmental, and Soci-etal Benefits (pp. 129-153). Boca Raton, CRC Press

Hoffmann, U. (2011). Assuring food security in developing coun-tries under the challenges of climate change: key trade and de-velopment issues of a fundamental transformation. UnitedNations Conference on Trade and Development (UCTAD), Dis-cussion Papers No. 201, February 2011.

Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2008). Agri-cultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollina-tor diversity. Oikos, 117, 354-361.

Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Klejin, D., Tscharntke, T.(2007). Diversity of flower visiting bees in cereal fields: effectsof farming system, landscape composition and regional con-text. Journal Applied Ecology, 44, 41-49.

Honkanen, P., Verplanken, B., Olsen, S. O. (2006). Ethical val-ues and motives driving organic food choice. Journal of Con-sumer Behaviour, 5, 420-430.

Kelderer, M., Thalheimer, M., Andreaus, O., Topp, A., Burger,R., Schiatti, P. (2008). The mineralization of commercial organicfertilizers at 8°C temperature. In Proceedings of the 13th In-ternational Conference on Cultivation Technique and Phy-topathological Problems in Organic Fruit-Growing (pp.160-166). Weinsberg, Germany.

Knudsen, M. T., Kristensen, I. S., Berntsen, J., Petersen, B. M.,

259

Kristensen, E. S. (2006). Estimated N leaching losses for or-ganic and conventional farming in Denmark. Journal of Agri-cultural Science, 144, 135-149.

Lairon, D. (2009). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food.A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 1, 1-9.

Loureiro, M. L., McCluskey, J. J., Mittelhammer R. C. (2001).Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labelled, andregular apples. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Econom-ics, 26, 404-416.

Lutaladio, N., Burlingame, B., Crews, J. (2010). Horticulture,biodiversity and nutrition. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis, 23, 481-485.

Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gnst, L., Fried, P., Niggli,U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Sci-ence, 296, 1694-1697.

Moresi, M., Valentini, R. (2010). Dieta Mediterranea e impattoglobale. Industrie Alimentari, 49, 9-20.

Ness, A. R. and Powles, J. W. (1997). Fruit and vegetables, andcardiovascular disease: A review. International Journal of Epi-demiology, 26, 1-13.

Niggli, U., Fliessbach, A., Hepperly, P., Scialabba, N. (2008). Lowgreenhouse gas agriculture: Mitigation and adaptation potentialof sustainable farming systems. Rome, FAO.

Pang, X. P., Letey, J. (2000). Organic farming: Challenge of tim-ing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Sci-entific Society American Journal, 64, 247-253.

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., Seidel, R.(2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisonsof organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55,573-582;

Rejinders, L., Soret, S. (2003). Quantification of the environ-mental impact of different dietary protein choices. AmericanJournal of Clinical Nutrition, 78 (Suppl.), 664S-668S.

Rundlöf, M., Nilsson, H., Smith, H. J.(2008a). Interacting effectsof farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees. Bi-ological Conservation, 141, 417-426.

Rundlöf, M., Bengtsson, J., Smith, H. G. (2008b). Local and land-scape effects of organic farming on butterfly species richnessand abundance. Journal Applied Ecology, 45, 813-820.

Shepherd, R., Magnusson, M., Sioden, P. O. (2005). Determi-nants of consumer behaviour related to organic foods. Ambio,34, 352-359.

Thrupp, L. A. (2000). Linking agricultural biodiversity and foodsecurity: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustainableagriculture. International Affairs, 76, 265-281.

Tjärnemo, H., Ekelund L. (2004). Consumers choice of organicversus conventional fruit and vegetables – The role of the gro-cery store. W. Bokelmann (Ed.) ISHS Acta Horticulturae 655:

Proceedings of the XV International Symposium on HorticulturalEconomics and Management. Germany, Berlin (pp. 115-120)

Willer, H., Kilcher, L. (2011). The World of Organic Agriculture – Sta-tistics and Emerging Trends 2011. IFOAM, Bonn, and FiBL, Frick.

Williams, A.G., Audsley, E. and Sandars, D.L. (2006). Determin-ing the environmental burdens and resource use in the pro-duction of agricultural and horticultural commodities. MainReport. Defra Research Project IS0205. Bedford: Cranfield Uni-versity and Defra. From: www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk, andwww.defra.gov.uk

260

MEDITERRANEAN DIET:AN INTEGRATED VIEWMauro Gamboni,1 Francesco Carimi2 and Paola Migliorini3

1 CNR, National Research Council, AgroFood Department,Rome, Italy

2 CNR, National Research Council, Institute of Plant Genetics,Section of Palermo, Italy

3 University of Gastronomic Sciences, Bra (Cn), Italy

263

AbstractMalnutrition, in its two contradictory aspects con-cerning undernutrition and unbalanced overnutri-tion, is becoming one of the main threats to theworldwide population. This calls for a radicalchange on how food is daily produced, thought andmanaged. New food behaviours are to be developed,proposed and disseminated in order to actively com-bat both hunger and the growing phenomenon ofobesity in the framework of sustainable food sys-tems. In this context, the Mediterranean diet repre-sents a very effective model of sustainable diet.Characterized by a healthy nutritional model, richin olive oil, whole grains, fish, fruits and vegetablesand (a little) wine, the Mediterranean diets arebased on respect for the territory and on activitiesperformed by local communities including crop har-vesting, fishing, conservation, processing, prepara-tion and consumption of food. One of the mainpeculiarities of the Mediterranean diets is the rele-vance of biodiversity. The Mediterranean Basin hasa high heterogeneity of cultures and a high biodi-versity. Epidemiological studies have drawn atten-tion to certain traditional Mediterranean diets whichpresent a high variety of plant- and animal-derivedfoods that favour better nutritional conditions. Sci-entific investigation on this kind of diet and moregenerally on sustainable food systems and diet re-quires a new holistic vision of research and innova-tion, based on a pro-active and very participativeapproach involving stakeholders. This also requiresto strongly support independent and transparent re-search and innovation, open to the public and notsubject to economic speculation in order to appro-priately respond to the big worldwide questionsabout the food.

1. IntroductionFood security represents a multifaceted issue grip-ping the world, intimately linked to the big chal-lenges humanity faces in the coming years. Properfood production and supply as well as correct and

balanced diets for all are crucial and closely asso-ciated to a new ecological vision of developmentbased on sustainability principles. Malnutrition, inits two contradictory aspects concerning undernu-trition and unbalanced overnutrition, is dramaticallyrising, becoming one of the main threats to theworldwide population. Often coexisting in the samegeographical area, it is the result of different foodhabits, among different social status and betweenold and new generations. The World Health Organ-ization refers that 35 million of the 43 million over-weight children live in developing countries, mainlyin Asia but the fastest growth rates are registeringin Africa (De Onis et al., 2010). The contradictionmore shocking is that, at the same time, hungry andundernourished are rising worldwide. According tothe recent estimate of the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO, 2009; UNEP, 2009), between1990 and 2000, the number of people that live withinsufficient food has increased by 34 million only insub-Saharan Africa. In this way, food insecurity andundernourishment are now present in differentcountries in the world as well as conditions of over-weight and obesity and vitamin and mineral defi-ciencies. It should be noted that, over the past twodecades, food trade liberalization policy has gener-ated dramatic implications for health, facilitatingthe “nutrition transition” towards unsustainablemodels (Kearney, 2010). Going back in the time, itshould also highlight that the so-called "green rev-olution", while helping to reduce world hunger, hasalso produced significant negative impacts on theenvironment. The productivity of the main agricul-ture crops increased up to 4–5 times (Conway, 1997;Tilman et al., 2002; Pimentel and Pimentel, 2008),but the consequences were very high on soil (Shiva,2002), biodiversity, energy input use (Pimentel andPimentel, 2008), water use (Molden, 2007), nega-tively impacting, among others, traditional rurallivelihoods, indigenous and local cultures, acceler-ating indebtedness among millions of farmers andseparating them from lands that have historically

fed communities and families. In more recent years,the fluctuations and increases in oil and commodi-ties prices have increased food insecurity and in-equalities, with a progressive lack of access to landor to agricultural resources. Meanwhile, the actualintensive production system is also increasing alien-ation of peoples from nature and the historical, cul-tural and natural connection of farmers. Finally, it isto consider that, over the next decades, the world’spopulation is expected to grow from 6.8 billion in2008 (medium estimates) to 8.3 billion by 2030, andto 9.2 billion by 2050 (UNEP, 2009). The question ishow to feed a growing population in a world havingless soil, less water and energy. The answer can onlybe found in a sustainable model of production anddistribution and in an appropriate public policy thatmakes it possible. This includes prioritizing the pro-curement of public goods in public spending; invest-ing in knowledge providing adequate support toresearch and innovation; fostering forms of socialorganization that encourage partnerships, includingfarmer field schools and farmers’ movements inno-vation networks; sustaining empowering women andcreating a macro-economic enabling to connect sus-tainable farms to fair markets (UN, 2010). All theabove considerations call for a radical change onhow food is daily produced, thought and managed(Worldwatch Institute, 2011). New dietary behavioursare to be developed, proposed and disseminated(Nestlè, 2006; Pollan, 2010) in order to actively com-bat both hunger and the growing phenomenon ofobesity. At the same time, it is to strongly emphasizethe indissoluble linkage between ecosystems pro-tection and fairness issues in the world. Environ-mental justice necessarily requires social equity andrespect to the human rights among all the socialgroups and societies, from present and future gen-erations. The most political act we do on a daily basisis choosing what to eat.

2. Towards sustainable food systemsThe whole food chain has to be considered for mov-

ing to a real sustainable food system, starting fromprimary producer for arriving to the final consumer,assuring any health precaution in each step. The in-timate connection among food, health and sustain-able development has been well formulated by theAmerican Public Health Association in a major pol-icy statement (American Public Health Aassocia-tion, 2007). Similarly, the American DieteticAssociation, in its position statement, encouragesenvironmentally responsible practices for support-ing ecological sustainability of the food system(American Dietetic Association, 2007). A “sustain-able food system” is “one that provides healthy foodto meet current food needs while maintaininghealthy ecosystems that can also provide food forgenerations to come with minimal negative impactto the environment. A sustainable food system alsoencourages local production and distribution infra-structures and makes nutritious food available, ac-cessible, and affordable to all. Further, it is humaneand just, protecting farmers and other workers, con-sumers, and communities” (American Public HealthAssociation, 2007).In this regard, it has to be remarked the convergenceof the "food security" concept with that of "sustain-able food system", proposed by the Sustainable De-velopment Commission (SDC) of the United KingdomGovernment that suggested a new definition of foodsecurity in terms of “genuinely sustainable food sys-tems where the core goal is to feed everyone sus-tainably, equitably and healthily; which addressesneeds for availability, affordability and accessibility;which is diverse, ecologically-sound and resilient;which builds the capabilities and skills necessary forfuture generations” (Sustainable Development Com-mission, 2009). Within the framework of a sustain-able food system, sustainable diets assume a centralrole. According to FAO, sustainable diets are definedas “those diets with low environmental impactswhich contribute to food and nutrition security and tohealthy life for present and future generations.Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of

264

biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable,accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutri-tionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizingnatural and human resources” (FAO, 2010). Closelylinked to the mentioned issues, the cultural aspectsof food are highly significant. Unfortunately, foodsystems and related diet are facing a process of cul-tural homogenization and standardization. Foryears, indeed, conservation of different traditionalcultures and knowledge were not enough consid-ered in public policies. Mainly in urban places, people rarely know culturaland environmental meaning of what they eat and donot usually think about the food chain and how foodis produced and prepared. On the contrary, it shouldbe affirmed that eating cannot be relegated to themere act of taking food but it also represents theway that populations spread their selves throughthe environment (Murrieta et al., 1999). In otherwords, it has to be recognized the close connectionof food with space and time with a proper specificidentity. Sustainable diet calls also for following healthylifestyle and reassigning to the food its close link-age with seasonality. Local ways of livelihood havebeen viewed as possible solutions, like using localproduction, spreading regional culinary culturesand traditions, supporting traditional trades (e.g.fishermen, shepherds, butchers, sausage makers,bakers) and encouraging people in re-dignifying theact of eating. In a global perspective, this representsa valid contribution to face the challenge of food se-curity. It is indeed not thinkable ensuring global ac-cess to food without supporting peoples in choosingtheir own production and farming systems. For a world with environmental and social justice,one should foster the capacity of governance inbasal communities, leading to assert the impor-tance of “food sovereignty” defined as the right ofpeoples and sovereign states to democratically de-termine their own agricultural and food policies (In-ternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,

Science and Technology for Development, 2008).Another aspect to be considered is the occasion ofconviviality connected with the eating act. Convivi-ality is described as being synonymous with empa-thy “which alone can establish knowledge of otherminds” (Polanyi, 1958), sharing of a certain kind offood and/or drink, reinforcing the positive feeling oftogetherness on which the community’s awarenessof its identity is based (Schechter, 2004).The mentioned very interconnected considerationsneed to be assembled and recomposed in a well-ordered coherent way, for defining and implementingsuitable policies addressed to support sustainablefood systems. Similarly, effective sustainable foodsystems and diet models are useful for transposingin practice the above conceptual schemes.

3. The global value of the Mediterranean dietmodel

3.1 General remarksUNESCO inscribed in 2010 the Mediterranean dieton the Representative List of the Intangible CulturalHeritage of Humanity, being recognized the impor-tance of maintaining the healthy aspects, the goodpractices and traditions related to this diet as wellas its peculiar cultural diversity in the face of grow-ing globalization. This helps intercultural dialogue,and encourages mutual respect for other ways oflife, taking into account that the importance of in-tangible cultural heritage lies in the wealth ofknowledge and skills that is transmitted through itfrom one generation to the next. The reason why the Mediterranean diet can be ac-tually considered as a very effective model is that itproposes a food system scheme based on sustain-ability, collecting the mentioned aspects and able tocontribute in pursuing real food security.The system is characterized by a healthy nutritionalmodel, which consists mainly of olive oil, cereals,fruit, fresh or dried, and vegetables, moderateamounts of fish, dairy products and meat, whole

265

266

grains, many condiments and spices accompaniedby wine or teas, always respecting the traditions ofeach community (Figure 1). These are common characteristics, but there aremany different Mediterranean diets. A famous cook-book, “Eat well and stay well” by Ancel and Mar-garet Keys makes it known to the United Stateswhich is exported to Europe and worldwide (Keysand Keys, 1959). Prof. Keys, after a long-term studyin seven countries concluded that we should cutdown drastically on saturated fat and meat and turnto vegetable oils and fresh fruit and vegetables in-stead in order to have lower rates of heart disease,diabetes and depression. His fortune in the secondhalf of the twentieth century is explained by the gas-

tronomic tourism and the development of olive cul-tivation and production in California and Australia. Itis the effect of habits, tastes, knowledge that is con-fronting scramble and recompose transposed (Ca-patti et al., 2003). The Mediterranean diets arebased on the respect for the territory and biodiver-sity (Figures 2, 3 and 4) and on activities performedby local communities including crop harvesting,fishing, conservation, processing, preparation andconsumption of food, following traditional recipesand the way and context of eating them (Serra-Majem et al., 2006). They promote social interactionby communal meals and emphasize the relevant po-sition of women that play an important role in trans-mitting expertise and traditional gestures as well as

Figure 1. g Mediterranean Diet Pyramidy

267

Figure 2. ( )Secular olive cultivation in Mallorca Island (Spain). Photo by Migliorini.

Figure 3. Organic cultivation of old varieties of com-mon wheat. Photo by Migliorini.

Fi 4Figure 4. Viti i ifVitis vinifera (Zibibb ) lti t d i P(Zibibbo cv.) cultivated in Pan-telleria Island. Photo by Carimi.

in safeguarding ancient techniques. For confirmingits global value, it is also to consider that Mediter-ranean does not represent only a geographic di-mension but a build-up of knowledge that tracehistorical human events. In this context at Europeanand global level, Italy appears as an ideal referencecountry for the sustainable diet model because ofits production of high quality and typical in all re-gions, its climate, the richness and diversity of itsecosystems, the type and variety of its products, itslarge agro-food and gastronomic traditions.

3.2 The crucial role of biodiversity conservationDuring the past decade the concept of biodiversityhas passed from the sphere of academic authoritiesto the growing attention of public opinion that con-siders its defence as an important issue for sus-tainable development. A promising approach fordealing with this theme, is to identify “biodiversityhot spots”, or areas featuring exceptional concen-trations of endemic species and experiencing ex-ceptional loss of habitat. One key hot spot, theMediterranean Basin, should be considered as ahyper-hot candidate for conservation support inlight of its exceptional total (13 000) of endemicplants (Myers et al., 2000). There is growing atten-ltion to the implications of cultivated biodiversityloss, affecting the livelihoods of resource-poorfarmers and threatening the future prospective ofagricultural developments (Tripp and van der Heide,1996). The replacement of traditional landraces ofmajor crops with modern cultivars had practicallybeen completed when, in the 1970s, the green rev-olution in the developing world started (van deWouw et al., 2009). It is estimated that over 7 000lplant species used for food can be found across theworld (Bioversity International, 2009). Harlan (1975)assesses around 360 cultivated crops and severalthousand species are also collected in their wildhabitats for food, fibre or medicine. However, thehuman diet is based on very few crops. In fact, about20 crops play a major role in human nutrition; cere-

als (wheat, maize, rice, barley, sorghum and millet,Table 1), root and tuber crops (cassava, potatoes,yams and sweet potatoes) are the main starch com-ponent of the human diet (Vigouroux et al., 2011). l

Table 1. Land used to grow the main cereal cropsin 2008. The area is based on data fromFAOSTAT 2010

Crop(s) Cultivated land in millions of hectares

Wheat 224Maize 161Rice, paddy 159Barley 57Sorghum 45Millet 37

In addition to conventional strategies addressing theconservation and use of plant genetic resources,farmer-participatory plant breeding is flanked today(Tripp and van der Heide, 1996). Recent studies onfarmer-participatory plant breeding indicate thatdecentralized participatory plant breeding is impor-tant to increase and stabilize productivity and main-tain genetic diversity as each pocket area isoccupied by the best and different genotypes. In re-gions characterized by high genetic diversity, lan-draces often evolve through crossing with wildrelatives, and farmers play an important role in se-lecting and adapting new genotypes (Tripp and vander Heide, 1996). Farmers should be encouraged todiversify and not all select the same cultivars andspecies, while breeders need to guarantee thatfarmers can choose from a wide range of locallyadapted genotypes with a different genetic base (vande Wouw et al., 2009). Conservation and sustainableluse of genetic resources is strategic to meet the fu-ture demand of farmers and consumers. Mainte-nance and survey of traditional germplasm typicalof the different regions as well as its wild or semi-domesticated relatives can be of strategic impor-

268

269

Table 2. Examples of nutrient composition within varieties (per 100 g edible portion, raw).

Species Protein (g) Fibre (g) Iron (mg) Vitamin C (mg) Beta-carotene (mcg)Rice 5.6–14.6 0.7–6.4Cassava 0.7–6.4 0.9–1.5 0.9–2.5 25–34 <5–790Potato 1.4–2.9 1–2.29 0.3–2.7 6.4–36.9 1–7.7Sweet potato 1.3–2.1 0.7–3.9 0.6–14 2.4–35 100–23 100Taro 1.1–3 2.1–3.8 0.6–3.6 0–15 5–2 040Breadfruit 0.7–3.8 0.9 0.29–1.4 21–34.4 8–940Eggplant 9–19 50–129Mango 0.3–1.0 1.3–3.8 0.4–2.8 22–110 20–4 320Banana 0.1–1.6 2.5–17.5 <1–8 500Pandanus 0.4 5–10 14–902GAC 6 180–13 720Apricot 0.8–1.4 1.7–2.5 0.3–0.85 3.5–16.5 200–6 939

(beta-carotene equivalent)

Source: Burlingame et al., 2009.l

tance to ensure a gene pool useful for future breed-ing programmes. Moreover, recent studies showthat there is great variability in nutrient contentamong varieties (Table 2), demonstrating significantnutritional differences (Burlingame et al., 2009).Transition from traditional to intensive farming, inaddition to recent phenomena of degradation, frag-mentation and loss of habitat, pollution, wildfires,non-sustainable exploitation of natural resourcesand climate changes, involved genetic erosion bothin cultivated and wild taxa. The Council Regulation(EC) N° 870/2004 promotes ex situ and in situ con-servation of genetic resources in agriculture, in-cluding forest species, as well as the use of for along time ignored and therefore underutilized vari-eties. Thus, there is an urgent need to identify pri-ority wild species and areas for conservation and todevelop integrated in situ and ex situ preservationstrategies, to ensure that the rich genetic diversityof crop wild relatives is protected and the biodiver-sity loss is halted. The Mediterranean Basin has ahigh heterogeneity of cultures and a high biodiver-sity. Epidemiological studies have drawn attentionto certain traditional Mediterranean diets. However,

wild gathered food species, which are an important,but fast disappearing element of these diets, so farhave been largely neglected in scientific studies(Leonti et al., 2006). Wild harvested plant foods in-clude: roots and other underground parts; shootsand leafy greens; berries and other fleshy fruits;grains, nuts and seeds; and mushrooms, lichens,algae and other species (Turner et al., 2011). Theuse of non-cultivated leaves in Mediterranean cui-sine is inextricably embedded with cultural con-cepts describing the traditional management ofnatural resources and the spatial organization ofthe natural/cultural landscape (Pieroni et al., 2005).Better conservation and use of wild food plants willbe crucial to help farmers adapt to current and up-coming challenges. In the light of these considera-tions, the traditional use of non-cultivated foodplants may represent a valuable supplementaryfood source for present and future generations, andthus preservation of knowledge of plant identitiesand uses is of major concern (Pasta et al., 2011).

3.3 The importance of research and innovationThe above-cited food-related problems call for very

270

intensive, global dimensioned and well targeted re-search and innovation actions. They play a funda-mental role to generate new knowledge andeffectively face the main obstacles in a prospect ofwell balanced, healthy and sustainable food sys-tems worldwide. In this context, “social innovation”has to be recognized “as an important new fieldwhich should be nurtured” (European Commission,2010). Results derived from research and innovationare, in a framework of sustainability, key factors fora fair growth that is, at the same time, able to com-bine the conservation of natural resources, publicwelfare and social equity. Putting more importancein dealing with social issues by research and inno-vation is clearly supported in the recent issuedGreen paper “From Challenges to Opportunities: To-wards a Common Strategic Framework for EU Re-search and Innovation Funding” (EuropeanCommission, 2011), in which it is evidenced that theEurope 2020 strategy calls for future EU fundingprogrammes to focus more on societal challenges.A multi- and interdisciplinary approach is alsoneeded, involving all the actors including academicand scientific institutions, public authorities, farm-ers, different economic operators and citizens, fo-cusing on the grand challenges, going beyond thecurrent rigid thematic setting (Lund Declaration,2009). The investigation area of sustainable foodsystems and diet needs to overcome disciplinarybarriers and requires a new vision of research andinnovation, based on a proactive stakeholders in-volvement. This also requires supporting inde-pendent and transparent research and innovationprocesses, open to the public and not subject toeconomic speculation. Therefore, public researchin this field should assume a central role in orderto appropriately respond to big worldwide ques-tions in a very balanced manner according to thegeneral public interest. The systemic nature of theMediterranean diet model represents its hallmark.Consequently, research in this field cannot be lim-ited to separate study of individual elements but

calls for investigating, as well as on single "ob-jects" (food composition, quality, safety, ...), alsoon the relationships between "objects" (food andenvironment, food and culture, food and culinarytradition, food and territorial specificities, ….). Thisleads to innovative research, that should devotegreater emphasis to system interactions and com-parisons. This is a pillar of the methodological ap-proach that has to be pursued. Moreover, thisgenerates a change in the way of looking at re-search. The researchers have to deal with multi-ple objectives that, in addition, are not solely tracedback to traditional criteria with productivity and ef-ficiency. Similarly, the related research resultsallow consumers to have the opportunity to choosefood with awareness, not depending on a short-term economic assessment. They are motivated,not only by the protection of health and that of theirloved ones, but also by ecological reasons as wellas ethical and social solidarity considerations. Theguiding principle should be the sustainability in itsfullest meaning, which implies long-term re-search, which can combine with the immediateneeds "practice" of farmers and traditional culturewith those of a better understanding of natural bi-ological processes that underlie each agro-ecosys-tem. Such an approach can only be founded inincreasing knowledge and ability to criticallyanalyse the world around us, which is also thefoundation for scientific research. This concept isdirected towards research and innovation which in-volves, beyond the traditional agricultural scienceand in a very comprehensive manner, different in-vestigation areas, including modeling, sustainabil-ity and complexity sciences, system engineering,managing sciences, economic and social sciences.The difference – compared to conventional re-search – is in how to mix and combine the variousskills in a holistic, interdisciplinary and very partic-ipative approach directly involving farmers thathave to regain the importance that has been pro-gressively removed from them.

271

4. ConclusionsOne of the main global threats in the next years isthe transition to unsustainable diets that are oc-curring in different developing countries, leadingthem to adopt diet habits mainly existing in thericher countries and based on energy-dense foods.This leads to the emergence, also in those coun-tries, of an increase in diet-related diseases, thatare coexistent with still present problems of un-dernutrition that urgently call for being faced ef-fectively within the framework of food security(Alexandratos, 2006). At the same time, climatechanges and other worldwide environmental issueshave to be dealt with, through efficient internationalcooperation. In this context, proper food productionand supply as well as correct and balanced dietsfor all, closely associated to a new ecological visionof development based on sustainability principlesare crucial. The adoption of sustainable food sys-tems and diets in their broadest and comprehen-sive meaning should be the right way to go. Theyshould include a revision of the current develop-ment model and related food trade liberalizationpolicies. Sustainable food policies should consider,in a coherent manner, both agriculture and thehealth sector, as well as new challenges repre-sented by ageing, globalization and urbanization,with the aim to ultimately benefit agriculture,human health and the environment. To be really ef-fective, these policies should be more locallybased, self-reliant food economies in which sus-tainable food production, processing, distributionand consumption are integrated to enhance eco-nomic, environmental and social health (Kearney,2010). Apart from the need to better assemble andrecompose the conceptual aspects connected tosustainable food systems and diets, their transpo-sition in practice through helpful and replicablemodels is essential. The Mediterranean diets, fortheir intrinsic characteristics can represent validmodels to address the main issues concerning thesustainable food system worldwide.

References

Alexandratos, N. (2006). The Mediterranean diet in a world con-text. Public Health Nutrition: 9(1A), 111–117.

American Dietetic Association (2007). Position of the AmericanDietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Professionals Can Im-plement Practices to Conserve Natural Resources and SupportEcological Sustainability. J Am Diet Assoc, 107, 1033–1043.

American Public Health Association (2007). Toward a Healthy,Sustainable Food System. American Public Health Association,Policy Statement 200712. Washington, DC: APHA. Retrieved 15may 2011 from: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policy-search/default.htm?id=1361

Bioversity International, (2009). Neglected and UnderutilizedSpecies - Overview. Retrieved 15 may 2011 from:http://www.bioversityinternational.org/scientific_information/themes/neglected_and_underutilized_species/overview.html.

Burlingame, B., Charrondiere, R., Mouillè, B. (2009). Food com-position is fundamental to the cross-cutting initiative on biodi-versity for food and nutrition. Journal of Food Composition andAnalysis 22, 361–365.

Capatti, A., Montanari, M., O'Healy, A. (2003) - Italian cuisine: acultural history - Columbia University Press, 2003 - 348 pages

Conway, G. (1997). The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All inthe Twenty-First Century. Penguin, London.

De Onis, M., Blössner, M., Borghi E. (2010). Global prevalenceand trends of overweight and obesity among preschool chil-dren. Am J Clin Nutr 92, 1257–64.

European Commission (2010). Communication from the Com-mission to the European parliament, the Council, the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Re-gions: Europe 2020 Innovative Flagship Initiative - InnovationUnion. SEC (2010) 1161 – COM (2010) 546 final

European Commission (2011). Green paper “From Challengesto Opportunities: Towards a Common Strategic Framework forEU Research and Innovation funding”. COM(2011) 48 Final

FAO (2009). The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO,Rome. Retrieved January 2011 from:http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i0876e/i0876e00.HTM.

FAO (2010). International Symposium on Food-based Approachfor Improving Diets and Raising Levels of Nutrition. FAO, Rome,7-9 December 2010

Harlan, J.R. (1975). Crop and man. American Society of Agron-omy and Crop Science Society of America, Madison.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development - IAASTD (2008). Global Sum-mary for Decision Makers Retrieved 12 May 2010 from:http://www.agassessment.org/docs/Global_SDM_060608_Eng-lish.htm.

Keys, A. and Keys, M. (1959) - Eat well & stay well; foreword byPaul Dudley White, M.D Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday & C., 1959.

Kearney, J. (2010). Food consumption trends and drivers. Phi-los Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 365(1554), 2793-2807.

Lund Declaration (2009) issued in July 2009. Retrieved 16 May2011 from: http://www.epsoweb.org/news/lund-declaration

Leonti, M., Nebel, S., Rivera, D., Heinrich, M. (2006). Wild gath-ered food plants in the European Mediterranean: a compara-tive analysis. Economic Botany 60, 130-142.

Molden, D. (Ed.) (2007). Water for Food, Water for Life. A Com-prehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture.Earthscan, London. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from:http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/books.ht.

Murrieta, R. S. S., Dufour, D.L, Siqueira, A. D. (1999). Food Con-sumption and Subsistence in Three Caboclo Populations onMarajó Island, Amazonia, Brazil. Human Ecology, 27(3), 455-475.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca,G. A. B., Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservationpriorities. Nature 403, 853-858.

Nestlè, M. (2006). What to eat? North Point Press, NY.

Pasta S., Garfì G., La Bella F., Rühl J., Carimi F. (2011). AnOverview on the Human Exploitation of Sicilian Native EdiblePlants. In: Davis RE (Ed.), Wild Plants: Identification, Uses andConservation. Nova Science Publishers, New York. In press.

Pieroni, A., Nebel, S., Santoro, R. F., Heinrich, M. (2005). Foodfor two seasons: culinary uses of non-cultivated local vegeta-bles and mushrooms in a south Italian village, Int. J. Food Sci.and Nutr. 56, 245–272.

Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2008). Food, Energy, and Society.3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Criti-cal Philosophy,Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London.

Pollan, M. (2010). Food Rules: An Eater's Manual. New York,Penguin Press.

Schechter, M. (2004). Conviviality, gender and love stories:Plato’s symposium and Isak Dinesen’s (K. Blixen’s) Babette’sfeast. Trans, Internet Journal for Cultural Sciences, No. 15.

Serra-Majem, L., Bach, A. and Roman, B. (2006). Foreword.Recognition of the Mediterranean diet: going at the step fur-ther. Public Health Nutrition: 9(1A), 101–102.

Shiva, V. (2002). The Violence of the Green Revolution. ZedBooks, New York, USA.

Sustainable Development Commission (2009). Food securityand sustainability- the Perfect Fit. Position paper UK Govern-ment 2009. Retrieved 12 May 2010 from: http://www.sd-com-mission.org.uk/presslist.php/101/sdc-stop-decline-in-uk-food-production.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., Polasky,S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive productionpractices. Nature 418, 671–677.

Tripp, R., van der Heide, W. (1996). The erosion of crop geneticdiversity: Challenges, strategies and uncertainties. Natural Re-source Perspectives, No 7, March 1996. London: ODI.

Turner, N. J., Łuczaj, Ł. J., Migliorini, P., Pieroni, A., Dreon, A. L.,Sacchetti, L. E., Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Edible and Tended WildPlants, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Agroecology, Crit-ical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1), 198-225.

UN (2010). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on theright to food, Olivier De Schutter. General Assembly, HumanRights Council, Sixteenth session, GE.10-17849 A/HRC/16/4920 December 2010.

UNEP (2009). The environmental food crisis the environment’srole in averting future food crises a UNEP rapid response as-sessment. UNEP, GRID-Arendal, Retrieved 12 May 2010 from:http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/food-crisis.

van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., Visser,B. (2009). Genetic erosion in crops: concept, research resultsand challenges. Plant Genet Resour Charact Util 8(1), 1-15.

Vigouroux, Y., Barnaud, A., Scarcelli, N., Thuillet, A.C. (2011).Biodiversity, evolution and adaptation of cultivated crops.Comptes Rendus Biol. In press.

Worldwatch Institute (2011). The State Of The World: Innova-tions that Nourish the Planet. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,New York, N.Y. ISBN 978-0-393-33880-5.

272

FOOD AND ENERGY: A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH Massimo Iannetta, Federica Colucci,Ombretta Presenti and Fabio VitaliSustainable Development and Innovation of the Agro-Industrial System Technical Unit, ENEA, Rome, Italy

274

275

AbstractThe question of food production implies social, ethical,economic and environmental aspects that in recenttimes have become increasingly important and rel-evant. The global food production heavily relies onfossil resources, among which the most importantis oil. Up to now, the modern food system has beenbased on the assumption of an unrestricted avail-ability of low-cost fossil resources. Moreover, its ex-pansion contributes to global warming due to theemission of greenhouse gases. From an energy efficiency standpoint, the modernfood system is the least effective industrial system:it consumes more energy than it produces. A studyon the environmental impact of the products andservices used in the EU-25 has evidenced how thefood and drink, tobacco and narcotics are collectivelyresponsible for 22–31 percent of the global warming.Recently, owing to problems linked to the food systemsustainability, it was considered how changes inlifestyles could influence greenhouse gas emissions.Consumer choices could play a leading role. Dietarychoices could give their contribution not only tohealth, but also to the sustainability of the agriculturalsystem. In recent years, some indicators were devel-oped in order to evaluate the environmental perform-ance of food production systems like food miles andLife-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the food supply chain.The challenge is to develop and exploit the tools nec-essary to better understand the sustainability of foodchains, optimize sustainable primary production andidentify consumer attitudes towards sustainable foodproduction. In this context, the Mediterranean dietwould represent a key resource for sustainable de-velopment around the Mediterranean Basin andworldwide. The diet is grounded in respect for the en-vironment and biodiversity, and ensures the preser-vation and development of traditional activities andcrafts related to the fishing and farming communities.

The energy issueThe continuing world population growth, rapid eco-nomic development (even if interspersed with peri-

ods of stagnation and recession) and – above all –the request of emerging countries to benefit fromthe economic boost, inevitably imply the need forgreater energy requirements. Global food produc-tion heavily relies on fossil resources, among whichthe most important is oil. As a consequence, everythreat to the regular supply of oil is a threat to foodsecurity, that is to the availability of and access tosafe food, adequate for a nutrient diet. Our modernagro-industrial food system is comparable to theother industrial systems for its complex structureand the amount of energy used. Furthermore, it canalso be considered as part of the same industrialeconomic system which is traditionally thought tooperate like a bubble floating in the space, benefit-ing from an unlimited supply of natural resources,bolstering economic activities and pouring waste inthe environment. The environment is therefore theonly one to pay, in the form of waste, the environ-mental costs of the entire economic system.Up to now, the modern food system has been basedon the assumption of an unrestricted availability oflow-cost fossil resources. Moreover, its expansioncontributes to global warming due to the emissionof greenhouse gases. As Herman E. Daly has as-serted for a long time, modern economies must beconsidered as subsystems of larger ecosystems andhave to function within those constraints. That is tosay, modern economies must be able to managelimited resources and create sustainable develop-ment at the same time. The entire food system usesenergy, both directly and indirectly, and depends onfossil resources: chemical industry products, mainlyfertilizers and pesticides, farming machines andtheir fuel, energy for water supply and its distribu-tion, for the transport of agricultural products, fortheir transformation and packaging and, finally, forthe distribution to the final consumers. In the lastcentury, in the western countries, the progress ofgenetics, mechanics and chemistry (the green rev-olution) as well as the low cost of energy, have de-termined the development of the food system,ensuring copious and good quality food production.

276

In the last 50 years, the global production of cerealstripled (from 631 million tonnes in 1950 to 2 029 mil-lion tonnes in 2004) and the current situation forcesus to pay attention to the adoption of sustainableagricultural practices and natural resources (en-ergy, climate, water, soil and biodiversity).

The energy efficiency of the food systemFrom an energy efficiency standpoint, the modernfood system is one of the least effective industrialsystems: it consumes more energy than it produces.One indicator of the unsustainability of the modernfood system is the Sustainability Index (SI), the ratioof energy inputs (the energy required to produce afood divided by the energy content of a food product,evaluated in calories). In the last century (1910–2010), this indicator hasincreased from close to 1 for traditional pre-indus-trial societies at the beginning of the last century toa value close to 9 in the 1970s, to arrive, today, to avalue equal to, and sometimes higher than 100.

The food system and global warmingA study on the environmental impact of the productsand services used in the EU-25 (cited in Moresi andValentini, 2010) has evidenced how the food anddrink, tobacco and narcotics are collectively re-sponsible for 22–31 percent of global warming.Among these products, meat and meat productshave the largest environmental impact of the totalconsumption, their estimated contribution to globalwarming (GWP1) being close to 12%, 24% of Eu-trophication Potential (EP2) and 10% of Photochem-ical Ozone creation potentials (PCOP3). Dairyproducts contribute some 5% to GWP, some 10% to

EP and some 4% to PCOP. Cereal products (bread,pasta, flours) contribute some more 1% to GWP andPCOP, and close to 9% to EP. Finally, fruits and veg-etables (including frozen ones) give a contributionclose to 2% to GWP, EP and PCOP.

Consumer choices Consumer choices could play a leading role. In 1986,J. Gussow and K. Clancy introduced the term “sus-tainable diet”: dietary choices could give their con-tribution not only to health, but also to thesustainability of the agricultural system. Their stud-ies showed the strong link that exists between di-etary choices and land use and conservation, watermanagement and energy resources. Recently,owing to problems linked to the food system sus-tainability, it was considered how changes inlifestyles could influence greenhouse gas emis-sions. In the United Kingdom, it has been calculatedthat the CO2e emissions per capita due to dairyproducts and meats consumption equal 2 194 kgCO2e, whereas those due to vegetable productsconsumption (cereals, fruits and vegetables) corre-spond to 450 kg CO2e. A diet with a 30% decrease inanimal products and a 15% increase in vegetableswould allow a reduction of emissions of 590 kg CO2eper capita per year. This reduction would be equiv-alent to a total decrease of 5% of the global emis-sions per capita, equal to 10.3 Mg CO2e expected in2008. Dietary choices aimed at reducing CO2e emis-sions must however be formulated guaranteeingnutritionally balanced menus.

Sustainability indicatorsIn recent years, some indicators were developed in

1 Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a givenmass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming.The global warming potential is calculated in carbon dioxide equiva-lents (CO2-Eq.). This means that the greenhouse potential of an emis-sion is given in relation to CO2. Since the residence time of the gasesin the atmosphere is incorporated into the calculation, a time rangefor the assessment must also be specified. A period of 100 years iscustomary.

2 Eutrophication Potential (EP): Eutrophication is the enrichment of nu-trients in a certain place. Eutrophication can be aquatic or terrestrial.

Air pollutants, waste water and fertilization in agriculture all contributeto eutrophication. The eutrophication potential is calculated in phos-phate equivalents (PO4-Eq).

3 Photochemical Ozone creation Potential (PCOP): photochemical ozonecreation potential (POCP) is measured in ethylene-equivalents (C2H4-Eq.). Despite playing a protective role in the stratosphere, at ground-level ozone is classified as a damaging trace gas. Photochemical ozoneproduction in the troposphere, also known as summer smog, is sus-pected to damage vegetation and material. High concentrations ofozone are toxic to humans.

277

order to evaluate the environmental performance offood production systems. In the 1990s, Tim Lang(Professor of Food Policy, City University, London)coined the term “food miles”. Food miles is a termthat refers to the distance that a food item travelsfrom the place where it is produced to the placewhere it is eaten. The idea behind food miles was tohighlight the hidden ecological, social and economicconsequences of food production to consumers in asimple way. In recent years, food miles have in-creased very rapidly. Between 1978 and 2002, theamount of food trucked increased by 23 percent.And the distance for each trip increased by over 50percent. In 2002, food transport accounted for anestimated 30 billion vehicle kilometres. The originalidea behind the food miles concept was that the dis-tance that farm produce travelled before consump-tion was a good indicator of the amount of CO2 thathad been emitted.That idea has been seriously challenged, becausetransport accounts for only a very small proportion ofthe CO2 emissions from farm produce. In some cases,carbon emissions are much lower for items producedin tropical countries rather than in temperate coun-tries. In other cases, emissions are much lower whenthey come from the most efficient source. Consider-ing these limits, it seems more appropriate to con-sider how food is produced and with what kind ofenergy. A suitable strategy is the Life-Cycle Assess-ment (LCA) of the food supply chain. LCA is a method-ology used for analysing and assessing theenvironmental impacts of a material, product or serv-ice throughout its entire life cycle, from the extractionof raw materials and their processing, through man-ufacturing, transport, use and final disposal: ananalysis from cradle to grave. Recently, Life-Cycle As-sessments have been utilized to evaluate and improvethe environmental performance of food productionsystems. In order to find the possible directions tosustainable food production and consumption, LCAhas been applied for more than 15 years to agricul-tural and food systems, identifying their environmen-tal impacts throughout their life cycle and supporting

environmental decision-making. A variety of data-bases and methodological approaches have been out-lined over this period to support the applications ofLCA to food systems. LCA results have been used inthe development of eco-labelling criteria with the aimof informing consumers of the environmental char-acteristics of products. However, most analyses arelimited to case studies of either a single food or a lim-ited set of items. The challenge is to develop and ex-ploit the tools necessary to better understand thesustainability of food chains, optimize sustainable pri-mary production and identify consumer attitudes to-wards sustainable food production.

Mediterranean dietThe Mediterranean diet is an example of sustain-able food production. It is a dietary pattern that cancombine taste and health, environmental protec-tion, biodiversity protection and consumption oflocal and seasonal products. The concept of aMediterranean diet was developed for the first timein 1939, by Lorenzo Piroddi, a nutritionist who un-derstood the connection between diet and diabetes,bulimia and obesity, as confirmed by the studiesconducted by Ancel Keys and his school afterwards.The main features of the Mediterranean diet are: • a high intake of vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts

and cereals, mostly wholemeal; • the prevalence of the use of olive oil, compared with

a modest intake of saturated fats;• a moderate intake of fish, also as a function of

distance from the sea; • a regular but limited intake of dairy products

(mainly in the form of yogurt and cheese);• a moderate consumption of meat and poultry;• a moderate intake of ethanol and active ingredients

such as resveratrol, mainly in the form of wineconsumed during meals.

"The Mediterranean Diet is a set of skills, knowl-edge, practices and traditions that range from land-scape to the table, including crops, harvesting,fishing, preservation, processing, preparation and,

278

in particular, the consumption of food. [...]. How-ever, the Mediterranean diet (from the Greek diaita,or lifestyle) is more than just a set of foods. It pro-motes social interaction, because the common mealis the basis of social customs and festivities sharedby a given community, and resulted in a consider-able body of knowledge, songs, maxims, tales andlegends. The Diet is grounded in respect for the en-vironment and biodiversity, and ensures the preser-vation and development of traditional activities andcrafts related to the fishing and farming communi-ties of the Mediterranean ". For these reasons, re-lated to both nutritional and social, cultural andenvironmental aspects, on 17 November 2010 inKenya, the Mediterranean diet was declared part ofthe intangible heritage of humanity by the Intergov-ernmental Committee of the Convention on intan-gible heritage of humanity of UNESCO. Thecharacteristics of the diet can be graphically repre-sented by the food pyramid, whose first version wasdrawn in 1992 by the United States Department ofAgriculture. The food pyramid shows in a conciseand effective way how to adopt a healthy and bal-anced type of diet. As part of Expo 2015, having thetheme "Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life", amongthe project proposals is a proposal on the Mediter-ranean diet. The Expo will be an extraordinary in-ternational context in which to recognize andpromote the Mediterranean diet as a key resourcefor sustainable development around the Mediter-ranean Basin and worldwide. The ability to inspirethrough food a sense of continuity and identity forlocal people may represent, now and even more inthe future, a factor of sustainable growth.

Conclusions The current production of food in our society is ex-tremely complex. This complexity has led to a grad-ual loss of knowledge and awareness on how thefood that every day we put on our tables is producedand prepared. The question of food production im-plies social, ethical, economic and environmental

aspects that in recent times have become increas-ingly important and relevant. Food, especially in acountry like Italy, must regain its importance notonly nutritionally but also socially. Significantly inthis context is the consumer behaviour and the vir-tuous changes that it can promote in the food sys-tem. The inclusion of the Mediterranean diet intothe intangible heritage of humankind by UNESCOand the project application on the Mediterraneandiet as part of Expo 2015 are clear indications of adifferent way of looking at food production and nu-trition. All of the above must be linked to the need tofeed an increasing world population. The global gov-ernance could achieve the necessary objectives: 1.increase international trade in order to balance thesurplus production in OECD, former Soviet andSouth American countries with Asian and Africandeficits; 2. increase agricultural production, adopt-ing technological and organizational progressesthat promote sustainability; 3. change consumptionpatterns, starting from developed countries, aim-ing at a consumption of about 2 000 kilocalories perday (of which only 500 kilocalories derived from an-imals) and reducing waste (presently, 800 kilocalo-ries per day go in the garbage); 4. reduce thebioaccumulation of toxic substances within foodmatrices, through a mapping of the major sourcesof pollution. If international policies to promote bet-ter nutrition are successful, rich countries will ex-perience reduced diseases from overweight and adiet that is more environmentally sustainable. Ifgovernments manage to agree on a stable tradingsystem to compensate the deficit and the surplusfood production in the different parts of the world,a structural problem of social injustices on theplanet will be healed, reducing now evident socialtensions. If science and technology once again dotheir job, the quantity and quality of food produc-tion will make a leap forward. Everyone should dohis part and then the world of tomorrow will befairer and more virtuous than that of today in termsof food security.

References

Barclay C. (2010) Food Miles Standard Note SN/SC/4984 Sci-ence and Environment Section House of Commons Library UK

Clancy K., Gussow J.(1986) Dietary guidelines for sustainability.Journal of nutrition Education 18, 1-5, USA.

Daly H.E. (1999) Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Eco-nomics Northampton, Mass: Edward Elgar, Maryland, USA.

“La Dieta Mediterranea è patrimonio immateriale dell’Uman-ità” (17-11-2010), website referenceshttp://www.unesco.it/cni/index.php/news/174-la-dieta-mediterranea-e-patrimonio-immateriale-dellumanita.

Moresi M., Valentini R. (2010), “Dieta mediterranea e impattoambientale”, Rivista Industrie Alimentari XLIX, maggio, 9-20,Chirotti Editore, Torino.

Pirrodi L. (1993). “Cucina Mediterranea. Ingredienti, principi di-etetici e ricette al sapore di sole”, Mondadori, Milano.

279

DOUBLE PYRAMID: HEALTHYFOOD FOR PEOPLE ANDSUSTAINABLE FOR THE PLANETRoberto Ciati and Luca RuiniBarilla Center for Food & Nutrition, Parma, Italy

280

AbstractMan has long been aware that correct nutrition isessential to health. Development and modernizationhave made available to an increasing number ofpeople a varied and abundant supply of foods. Without a proper cultural foundation or clear nutritionalguidelines that can be applied and easily followedon a daily basis, individuals risk following unbalanced– if not actually incorrect – eating habits. Proof ofthis is the recent, prolific spread of pathologiescaused by overeating and accompanying reductionin physical activity (including obesity, diabetes andcardiovascular disease) in all age brackets of thepopulation, including children and young people.The Mediterranean diet, recognized by UNESCO in2010 as an “Intangible Cultural Heritage” and inter-nationally recognized as a complete and balanceddiet pattern, proves to be a sustainable model forthe environment.The Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition is offeringthe Food Pyramid in a double version, positioningfoods not only following the criteria nutritional sci-ence has long recommended on the basis of theirpositive impact on health, but also in terms of theirimpact on the environment. The result is a “DoublePyramid”: the familiar Food Pyramid and an envi-ronmental Food Pyramid. The latter, placed along-side the Food Pyramid, is shown upside-down:foods with higher environmental impact are at thetop and those with reduced impact are at the bottom.From this “Double Pyramid” it can be seen thatthose foods with higher recommended consumptionlevels, are also those with lower environmental im-pact. Contrarily, those foods with lower recom-mended consumption levels are also those withhigher environmental impact. In other words, thisnewly-elaborated version of the Food Pyramid il-lustrates, in a unified model, the connection be-tween two different but highly-relevant goals: healthand environmental protection.The Environmental Pyramid was constructed on thebasis of the environmental impact associated with

each food estimated on the basis of the Life CycleAssessment (LCA), an objective method for evalu-ating energy and environmental impact for a givenprocess (whether an activity or product). Morespecifically, process assessment underscores theextent to which the main environmental impacts areseen in the generation of greenhouse gas (CarbonFootprint), consumption of water resources (WaterFootprint) and Ecological Footprint “land use”. Inorder to provide a more complete and effective com-munications tool, only the Ecological Footprint wasused as a reference index in creating the Environ-mental Pyramid.This work, far from being conclusive, aims to en-courage the publication of further studies on themeasurement of environmental impacts of food,which will be considered in future editions of thisdocument.In this sense the most innovative element of theupdated Double Pyramid is represented by its co-herence with the needs of those who are still grow-ing. Since food needs during the age of developmentdiffer from those of adults, it was decided to designa specific nutritional pyramid. The same approachused to design the “adult version” of the pyramidwas employed to realize the “Double Pyramid forthose who are still growing” and its environmentalimpact has been calculated according to the samecriteria.The objective is to increase the coverage of statisti-cal data and examine the influence that may havesome factors, such as, for example, geographicalorigin or food preservation.Finally the technical aspects, data and considera-tions are highly summarized in order to provideproper scientific information and conclusions. Thetechnical document, on the contrary, is for “expertsonly” and presents detailed data and elaborations

1. The Food Pyramid modelThe Pyramid was created using the most currentnutrition research to represent a healthy, traditional

281

282

Mediterranean diet. It was based on the dietary tra-ditions of Crete, Greece and southern Italy in the1960s at a time when the rates of chronic diseaseamong populations there were among the lowest inthe world. From the first “Seven Countries Study”to the current days, many other studies haveanalysed the characteristics and the relationshipsbetween dietary habits adopted and the onset ofchronic disease. Starting in the 1990s, there hasalso developed a line of study into the relationshipbetween diet and longevity. In general, whatemerges is that the adoption of a Mediterranean, orsimilar, diet, provides a protective factor against themost widespread chronic diseases. In other words,high consumption of vegetables, legumes, fruits andnuts, olive oil and grains (which in the past wereprevalently wholemeal); moderate consumption offish and dairy products (especially cheese and yo-ghurt) and wine; low consumption of red meat,

white meat and saturated fatty acids. The interestof the scientific and medical community in theMediterranean diet is still extremely active, and, infact, the current specialist literature often publishesinformation about the relationship betweenMediterranean-style dietary habits and the impacton human health. The beneficial aspects of theMediterranean diet are backed by increasing evi-dence in terms of both prevention and clinical im-provement regarding specific pathology areas.These publications present the results of clinical orepidemiological research in which adherence to theMediterranean diet translates into measurable ben-efits in numerous areas of human health, which in-clude, for example, cardiovascular disease,metabolic conditions, neurological or psychiatricpathologies (e.g. Alzheimer’s), respiratory diseaseor allergies, female and male sexual disorders (e.g.erectile dysfunction) and certain oncological

FOOD PYRAMID

SweetsBeef

CheeseEggs

PoultryFish

Cookies

MilkYogurt

Olive oil

Bread, PastaPotatoes

Legumes

FruitVegetables

LOW

HIGH

283

pathologies. In terms of this last point, of particularinterest are the recent conclusions of a broad-rang-ing EPIC European study which examined 485 044adults over the course of nine years; EPIC showedthat increased adherence to the Mediterranean dietis connected to a significant reduction (-33%) in therisk of developing gastric cancer. Finally, it is inter-esting to note that the scientific literature demon-strates a positive impact of the Mediterranean dietacross all age brackets, starting from pre-natal tochildhood, adulthood and old age.

Its adoption is especially pronounced in the moreeducated segments of the population (not Europeonly) which, moreover, it perceived consistency withthe current sociocultural trends, such as attentionto the welfare, the fight against obesity, the promotionof typical products, the search for natural productsand natural attention to environmental protection.

The value of the Food Pyramid is twofold: first it isan excellent summary of the main knowledgegained from studies on medicine and nutrition, es-sential for anyone who pays attention to theirhealth, second it is a powerful tool for consumer ed-ucation, thanks also to its effective graphic form andits undoubted simplicity, it plays an important pro-motional role for the benefit of all those foods (fruitsand vegetables in particular) that are almost always“unbranded” and not advertised by manufacturers.

2. The environmental impact of food productionand Double PyramidsThe estimated environmental impact for each singlefood item was calculated on the basis of the infor-mation and public data which was measuredthrough the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): an objec-tive assessment methodology to detect energy andenvironmental loads in a process (either an activityor a service). This kind of assessment includes theanalysis of the whole value chain, starting fromgrowing or extraction practices, raw material pro-cessing, manufacturing, packaging, transportation,

distribution, use, re-use, recycling and final dis-posal. On the one hand, the LCA approach has theadvantage of offering a fairly objective and completeassessment of the system; on the other hand, thedisadvantage lies in a difficult transmission of theresulting complex outcome.

Synthetic indicators are then used to fully understandthis outcome. These indicators are meant to pre-serve the scientific basis of the analysis as much aspossible; they are selected according to the kind ofsystem analysed and must simply and correctly rep-resent the relations with the main environmentalcategories. The process analysis, more specificallyand focusing our attention on food production, high-lights the main environmental loads: greenhousegas generation, the use of water resources and theability to regenerate local resources. According tothis input, and considering this work’s aim to pro-vide valid results in an initial analysis, the followingenvironmental indicators were chosen:

• Carbon Footprint, representing and identifyinggreenhouse gas emissions responsible for climatechange: measured through the CO2 equivalent. By“Carbon Footprint” is meant the impact associatedwith a product (or service) in terms of emission ofcarbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-equiv), calculatedthroughout the entire life cycle of the system underexamination. It is a new term utilized to indicate theso called Global Warming Potential (GWP) and, there-fore, the potential greenhouse effect of a system calcu-lated using the LCA – Life Cycle Assessment method.

In calculating the Carbon Footprint are always takeninto consideration the emissions of all greenhousegases, which are then converted into CO2 equiva-lent using the international parameters set by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),a body operating under the aegis of the United Na-tions. Correctly calculating the Carbon Footprint ofa good or service must necessarily take into accountall the phases of the supply chain starting with the

284

extraction of the raw materials up through disposalof the waste generated by the system on the basis ofLCA methodology. Clearly, this requires the creationof a “working model” that can fully represent the sup-ply chain in order to take into account all aspectswhich actually contribute to the formation of the GWP.

• Water Footprint or virtual water content, meas-ures the use of water resources in terms of volume(expressed in m3) of water consumed and/or pol-luted by the entire chain – from production to directconsumption of goods/services.

The indicator is closely linked to the concept of vir-tual water (virtual water), theorized in 1993 by Pro-fessor John Anthony Allan of King's College LondonSchool of Oriental and African Studies, which indi-cates the volume of freshwater consumed to pro-duce a product (a commodity, good or service) bysumming all phases of the production chain. Theterm "virtual" refers to the fact that the vast major-ity of water used to produce the product is not phys-ically contained in the same product, but has beenconsumed during its entire life cycle.The methodology used for the measurement of theindicator was developed by the Water Footprint Network(www.waterfootprint.org), a non-profit organizationof reference that operates at international level tostandardize the calculation and use of this impactindicator. According to the protocol published in aversion updated in 2011, the Water Footprint of asystem is the sum of three specific components both

geographically and in terms of time and which cor-responds to a different impact on the environment.When looking at the details of agrifood chains, themost characteristic item, but also the most complexto evaluate, is the green water component given itsclose ties to the local climatic conditions and speciescultivated as well as its productive yield. Thiscomponent is particularly important for agriculturalcultivations (it encompasses plant transpiration andother forms of evaporation). The following formulais used to calculate green water:

where:• ET0 is a factor that represents the volume of rainwater

and depends on local climatic characteristics; • Kc depends on the plant species cultivated;• Yield depends on the crop cultivated and climatic

conditions of the cultivation area.

As one might easily suppose, the value of greenwater of a product can vary greatly both from regionto region and from year to year, as much dependson the value of ET0. The availability of public data-bases and tools, made available by FAO (Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations), al-lows simple retrieval of the necessary factors forthe calculation of this contribution.The blue water component is represented by boththe quantity of water used during industrial produc-tion and that consumed for irrigation in the agricul-tural phase.Lastly, the evaluation of the grey water componenttakes into account both the characteristics of waterreleased from the system and the natural conditionsof the receiving body in which it is released.

• Ecological Footprint, measuring the quantity ofbiologically productive land (or sea) needed toprovide resources and absorb the emissions produced

Component Description

Green waterVolume of rainwater evapotranspired from theground and cultivated vegetation.

Blue water

Volume of freshwater, which originated from surfaceor groundwater sources, used throughout the entirechain under observation that is not repleneshed intothe basin or origin. This footprint includes both irri-gation and process water consumption.

Grey water

Voume of polluted water associated with the produc-tion of goods or services measured as the amountof water (theoretically) required to dilute the pollutantsto a degree as to ensure the quality of the water.

Green waterETO (mm) * Kc * 10

yeld

=t

haha

l

gkg

285

by a manufacturing system: measured in m2 orglobal hectares.The Ecological Footprint is an indicator used to esti-mate the impact on the environment of a given popu-lation due to its consumption; it quantifies the totalarea of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems requiredto provide in a sustainable manner all the resourcesutilized and to absorb (once again in a sustainableway) all the emissions produced. The Ecological Foot-print measures the quantity of biologically productiveland and water required to both provide the resourcesconsumed and absorb the waste produced.

The calculation methodology is identified by the GlobalFootprint Network and includes the following com-ponents in the calculation:• Energy Land, represents the forest area required to

absorb the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel burning and power for the production of that good;

• Cropland, represents the area of cultivated land

necessary for the production of food and other non-edible resources of plant origin (cereals, fruit,vegetables, tobacco, cotton etc.);

• Grazing Land, represents the area required toproduce food and non-edible resources of animalorigin (meat, milk, wool etc.);

• Forest Land, represents the land, either cultivatedor wild,utilized for the production of wood-basedproducts;

• Built-up Land, represents the land occupied forthe construction of roads, homes and other infra-structures;

• Fishing Ground, represents the marine and freshwater surface area required for fisheries.

The Ecological Footprint is thus a composite indicatorwhich, through conversion and specific equivalences,measures the various ways in which environmentalresources are utilized through a single unit of meas-ure, the global hectare (gha).

GlGlG obobbalal F Foooootptppririr ntnt N Netetwoworkrk

InIn 220004 MaMaththisis WWaca kernrnagagel a andn hiss aassssoco iaiatet s fooununded d tht e GlGlobobal FFooootpriintnt NNetetwoworkk,a a a nenen twtworork k ofof rreseseaearcrch h isistititutuutetes,s s scicienentitiststs s anand d ususerers s ofof t tthihis s inindidicacatotot r r whwhicich h aiaimsms t toofufurtrtheher r immprprovove e itits s cacalcculululatatioion n mem ththododd a andnd b bbriringng i it t toto hhigigheh r r ststs anandadardrds,s, wwhihilelel a at t ththeesasameme ttimime e guguararanantetee enenhahancnceded sscicienentitifific c “r“robobusstntnesess”s” fforor thehe i indnddicicatattoror aas s wewelllll aassprpromomototinng g itits s spsprereadad.ToTogegeththerr wwitith ththe LiL viv ngng Plaanenet t InIndeex x itit repprereses ntntnttssonone e ofof tthehe ttwowo i iindndicicatatorors s ththrorougughtht w whihichch, , onona a twtwo-o-yeyearars s babab sisis,s,s t thehe W WWFWF i in n cocc llllababo-o-oraratitionon wwitth h ththe e GlGlobobala FFooootptpririntntNeNetwtworork anand d ththe e ZoZoolo ogogiccala SoSocic etety y of LLonondodon,n, aassesessesesththhe e cococ nsnserervavatitiononn s statatutus s ofoff thththe e plplp ananetet: : ththe e e reresusultlts s arareeprpresesenenteted inin tthehee L Liviving g PlPlanantttReRepoportrt.

ENENERERGYGY LLANANA D

FOFOF RERESTT

BUBUILILT-UPUP LLANNDDD

GRGROPOPLALAANDNDN

FIFISHHINI G G GRGROUOUNDND

GRGRAZAZINING G LALANDND

286

Carbon Footprint impactCarbon Footprint impact

It is, nevertheless, important to notice that the impactsthis research takes into consideration are not just theones generated by a food production chain; they canbe the most relevant ones in terms of real impact andcommunication. Even though the environmentalpyramid has been represented through the ecological

footprint, for synthetic reasons the food environmentalimpact was measured by water and carbon footprintindicators, to avoid partial and sometimes misleadingideas of the phenomena. The pyramids concerningthe three environmental impact indicators and theEnvironmental Pyramid are displayed below.

Water Footprint or virtual water contentWater Footprint or virtual water contentWater Footprint or virtual water contentW t F t i t i t l t t t

287

Ecological Footprint

The BCFN environmental pyramid. Its layout is based on the re-classification of the foods’ environmentalimpact, represented through their ecological footprints.

BBeef

CheeseFish

Olive oilPork

Poultry

LegumesSweets

YogurtEggs

BreadMilkPasta

RiceCockies

FruitPotatoes

Vegetables

100 global m2

50 global m2

25 global m2

15 global m2

5 global m2

0

Glob

al m

2pe

r kilo

or l

iter

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NTA

L IM

PA

CT

288

In the same way it has been developed the sameconcept for children and adolescents: if the mainconnections are changed between macro- andmicronutrient intake and proper development atdifferent stages of growth in an average diet whichis adequate for meeting the requirements identified

by pediatricians and nutritionists, it is possible toachieve the definition of a weekly composition offood eaten by children and adolescents that – as awhole – is both correct and balanced, in terms oftype of food ingested and the distribution of dailycalories.

The Double Food-Environmental Pyramid is obtainedby comparing the two pyramids (one in its correct po-sition and the other one upside down). It is clear that,in general, the more recommended foods have alower impact on the environment as well. Conversely,

foods which are recommended for a lower con-sumption are also the ones that have the greatestimpact on the environment.In practice, two differentbut equally relevant goals – people’s health and envi-ronmental protection – fit into one single food model.

Breakfast 20%

Mid-morning snack 5%

Lunch 35%

Dinner 30%

Afternoon snack 10%

Source The European House-Ambrosetti elaboration of data from the Italian Society of Human Nutrition

ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID

FOOD PYRAMID

289

As in the case of adults, the diet of children andadolescents, too, should be based mainly on plantfoods, particularly the various cereals, especiallywholegrains, which are very important for their fibrecontent and protective components, and fruits andvegetables. Slightly above, we find milk and dairyproducts, preferably low-fat versions, as well asmeat and fish; while higher up we get to products

with a higher fat and sugar content, for which wesuggest a relatively low frequency of consumption.The necessary intake of unsaturated fats should becovered by fish and dried fruit, preferably by usingvegetable oils for condiments. The combination ofan environmental and a nutritional pyramid for childrenhas allowed us to create the BCFN Double Pyramid,dedicated to those who are growing.

3. The impact of dietary habitsUsing the ecological footprint – the indicator that wasused for the Double Pyramid – as a point of reference,this chapter examines how the eating habits of peo-ple have an environmental impact. Significant reduc-tions can be achieved both by changing eating habits(as demonstrated by some examples of menus) andby reducing waste.According to recent statistics published by the GlobalFootprint Network (GFN), a citizen who lives in acountry with a high income, in order to maintain thedesired level of well-being, requires an ecologicalarea of about 6.1 gha (1gha is approximately 170square feet total per day), more than twice the global

average (2.7 gha). Analysing the data in its compo-nents, one finds that food consumption is the firstentry in terms of impact, with a significant EcologicalFootprint totaling around 30–40 percent, which cor-responds to about 1.8/2.4 gha per year. Referring tothe average consumption (2.1 gha) and the reporteddaily impact, one can assume that every individualneeds approximately 60 square meters to meet theirglobal needs for food. The estimate takes into ac-count the fact that, on average, a citizen who lives ina high-income country follows a diet of 2 650 kcal perday, considering the consumption of both food anddrink, including food waste (unfortunately, a verycommon phenomenon). As an example, we can also

ENVIRONMENTAL PYRAMID

FOOD PYRAMID

290

cite the case of the average Italian citizen, 42 squareglobal metres exploited for food compared to 137total, and that of a citizen of London with a global im-pact of 75 square metres out of 180. At this point, it isinteresting to see to what extent the eating habits ofindividuals affect the Ecological Footprint.In order to estimate the extent to which the foodchoices of individuals affect the Ecological Footprint,two different daily menus were analysed: both arebalanced from anutritional point of view, both interms of calories and nutrients (proteins, fats and

carbohydrates), but in the first one, the protein is ofplant origin (“vegetarian menu”), while in the sec-ond, it is mainly of animal origin (“meat menu”). Themeat menu has an environmental impact that is twoand a half times higher than the vegetarian one: 42square global metres compared to 16; that is, a dif-ference of at least 26, which represents a very sig-nificant share in the daily impact of an individual.Based on this data, we can hypothesize what thereduction of environmental impact of an individualmight be if he or she simply changes eating habits.

Composition of a vegetarian menu and its environmental impact

Composition of a meat menu and its environmentalimpact

Variations in the ecological footprint depending on food choicesimpact

Breakfast

1 portion of fruit (200 gr)

4 rusks

1 global m2

Snack

1 portion low-fatyougurt

1 packet of unsaltedcrackers

1 global m2

Mid-morning snack

1 portion low-fat yogurt

1 fruit

3 global m2

Dinner

1 portion of vegetables:steamed green beans(200 g)and potatoes (400 g)with grated cheese (40 g)

7 global m2

Lunch

1 portion of pasta with fennel

1 portion of squash and leek quiche

4 global m2

Breakfast

1 cup of low-fat milk

4 cookies

3 global m2

Snack

1 portion low-fat yogurt

2 global m2

Mid-morning snack

1 portion of fruit (200 g)

1 global m2

Dinner

1 portion of vegetablesoup/pasta with peas

1 grilled beef steak (150 g)

1 slice of bread

20 global m2

Lunch

1 portion of cheese pizza,mixed green salad

16 global m2

Source: BCFN, 2011

Source: BCFN elaboration of data from the ecological footprint network.

WEEKLY DIETWEEKLY IMPACT

[GLOBAL m2]

AVERAGE DAILY IMPACT [GLOBAL M2]

MEATMENU

7TIMES

5TIMES

7TIMES

2TIMES

294

164

116

42

23

16

MEATMENU

VEGETARIANMENU

VEGETARIANMENU

+

VEGETARIAN MENU

203016

TOTALKCAL

GLOBAL m2

MEAT MENU

214042

TOTALKCAL

GLOBAL m2

PROTEIN FATS CARBOHYDRATES

15% 25% 60%

PROTEIN FATS CARBOHYDRATES

14% 30% 56%

291

Taking the example of a week’s worth of food, we canhypothesize having three different diets on the basisof how many times a vegetarian menu is eaten andhow many times the menu is based on meat: limitinganimal protein to just twice a week, in line with therecommendations of nutritionists, you can “save” upto 20 square global meters per day.

Conclusions and suggestions for further researchThe present study represents a further step in theinvestigation of the relationships between people’seating habits and food environmental impact. Theanalysis of main publicly available data lets us makesome considerations about the impact on soil use(ecological footprint), water consumption (waterfootprint) and greenhouse gas emissions (carbonfootprint) of foodstuffs included in the traditionalfood pyramid.Indicators have been chosen in order to achieve theright balance between simplicity of the message tocommunicate and scientific rigour. The most interesting result that emerges from themodel is the strong correlation between environ-mental impact of foodstuffs and their nutritionalcharacteristics. Specifically, it turns out that thefoodstuffs of which we suggest a moderate con-sumption are also those that have a greater impactin terms of soil use, water consumption, and CO2emissions. And vice versa.In the future, in addition to the enlargement of thesample, that will enable the investigation of a highernumber of product categories, two further limita-tions of the research have to be addressed. (a) thelack of references both to seasonality issues (con-sidering that the environmental impact increasesconsistently when foodstuffs are consumed out ofseason) and (b) to logistics needed for transporta-tion, with particular reference to the food cold chain.Therefore, further research by BFNC, that will bepublished in the third edition of the paper, will takeinto account data relative to the geographical vari-able in terms of both food production (i.e. origin) andplace of consumption.

Bibliography

NutritionBarilla Center for Food and Nutrition “Double Pyramid: healthyfood for people, sustainable food for the planet” – 2010

Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition “2011 Double Pyramid:Healty food for people, sustainable for the planet” - 2011

Butte, N .F. et al., Nutrient Intakes of US Infants, Toddlers andPreschoolers Meet or Exceed Dietary Reference Intakes, BaylorCollege of Medicine, Houston, TX, 2006.

De L orgeril, M . et al., Mediterranean Diet, Traditional Risk Fac-tors, and the Rate of Cardiovascular Complications after My-ocardial Infarction: Final Report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study, in“Explorations Fonctionnelles Cardiorespiratoires etMétaboliques”, Saint-Etienne, 1999.

European Union, EU Platform on Diet Physical Activity on Health,2005.

Ewing, B. et al., The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, GlobalFootprint Network, Oakland, CA, 2010.

Farchi, G . et al., Relationship Between Eating Patterns MeetingRecommendations and Subsequent Mortality in 20 Years, in“European Journal of Clinical Nutrition”, # 49, pp. 408-419,1995.

Fox, M .K. et. al., Food Consumption Patterns of YoungPreschoolers: Are They Starting off on the Right Path?, BaylorCollege of Medicine, Houston, TX, 2010.

Frankel, S ., D .J. G unnel and T.J. P eters, Childhood Energy In-take and Adult Mortality from Cancer: The Body Orr CohortStudy, in “British M edical Journal”, vol. cccxvii, n. 7155, A ugust1998, p. 414.

Gonzalez-Gross, M . et al., The Healthy Lifestyle Guide Pyramidfor Children and Adolescents, Universidad Politécnica deMadrid, Madrid, 2007.

Haskell, W .L. et al., Physical Activity & Public Health UpdatedRecommendations for Adults, American College of Sports Med-icine & the American Heat Association, S tanford U niversity School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 2007.

Huijbregts et al., Dietary Pattern and 20 Year Mortality in ElderlyMen in Finland, Italy and the Netherlands, in “British MedicalJournal”, vol. CCCXV, # 7099, July 1997, p. 13.

International A gency for R esearch on Cancer, Weight Controland Physical Activity in Cancer Prevention, Lyon, 2002.

Istituto della S cienza dell’Alimentazione, La Piramide italianadell’attività fisica, U niversità La Sapienza, Rome, 2005.

Kant, A .K. et al., A Prospective Study of Diet Quality and Mor-tality in Women, in “Journal of the American Medical A ssocia-tion”, # 283, pp. 2109-2115, 2000.

Keys, A . et al., Seven Countries. A Multivariate Analysis ofDeath and Coronary Heart Disease, Harvard University Press,

292

Cambridge, MA/London, 1980.

Kouris-Blazos et al., Are the Advantages of the MediterraneanDiet Transferable to Other Populations? A Cohort Study in Mel-bourne, Australia, in “British Journal of Nutrition”, # 82, 1999,pp. 57-61.

Lasheras, C., S . F ernandez e A .M. P atterson, MediterraneanDiet and Age with respect to Overall Survival in Institutional-ized, Nonsmoking Elderly People, in “American Journal of Clin-ical N utrition”, # 71, pp. 987-992, 2000.

Michels K.B. and A .A. W olk, A Prospective Study of Variety ofHealthy Foods and Mortality in Women, in “International Jour-nal of Epidemiology”, A ugust 2002.

Must, A . and R .D. L ipman, Childhood Energy Intake and Can-cer Mortality in Adulthood, in “Nutrition Reviews”, vol. LVII , #1, January 1999, pp. 21-24.

OMS R egional O ffice for E urope e UNI CEF, Feeding and Nu-trition of Infants and Young Children, OMS Regional Publica-tions, European Series, # 87, 2000 (updated reprint in 2003).

Osler, M . and M . S chroll, Diet and Mortality in a Cohort of Eld-erly People in a North European Community, in “InternationalJournal of Epidemiology”, # 26, pp. 155-159, 1997.

Osler, M . et al., Dietary Patterns and Mortality in Danish Menand Women: A Prospective Observational Study, in “BritishJournal of Nutrition”, # 85, pp. 219-225, 2001.

Ramic, E . et al., Influence of Lifestyle on Overweight and Obe-sity in School-age Children, P rimary Health Care Center, Tuzla,2008.

Scaglioni, S . et al., Early Macronutrient Intake and Overweightat Five Years of Age, in “International Journal of Obesity”, # 24,pp. 777-781, 2000.

Trichopoulou et al., Diet and Overall Survival in Elderly People,in “British M edical Journal”, vol. CCCXI, # 7018, Dicember1995, pp. 1457-1460.

Victoria J. et al., Generation M2. Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-olds, Kaiser F amily F oundation Study, January 2010.

World Health Organization (WHO), Global Strategy on Diet Phys-ical Activity on Health, Geneva 2004.

EnvironmentalBaldo, G .L., M . M arino and S . R ossi, Analisi del ciclo di vitaLCA, E dizioni A mbiente, M ilan, 2008 (new updated edition).

Barilla Center for F ood & N utrition, Doppia piramide: alimen-tazione sana per le persone, sostenibile per il pianeta, Parma,2010.

Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition, Water Economy, Parma,2011.

Baroni, L . et al., Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Vari-ous Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production

Systems, in “European Journal of Clinical Nutrition”, 2006, pp.1-8.

City L imits, A Resource Flow and Ecological Footprint Analysisof Greater London, Best Foot Forward, IWM (EB), 2002.

Ewing, B. et al., The Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010, GlobalFootprint Network, Oakland, CA, 2010.

Global F ootprint N etwork, Zoological Society of London, LivingPlanet Report 2010, WWF , Gland, 2010.

Hoekstra, A .Y., A .K. Chapagain, M .M. A ldaya and M .M. Mekonnen, The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting theGlobal Standard, Earthscan, London, 2011.

Nikos, A . et al., World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050 – In-terim Report, Prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture andmajor commodity groups, Global Perspective Studies Unit, FAO, Rome, June 2006, pp. 3-8.

Segrè, A . and L . Falasconi, Il libro nero dello spreco alimentarein Italia, Edizioni Ambiente, Milan, 2011.

Tiezzi E., Tempi storici tempi biologici. Vent’anni dopo, Donzelli,Rome, 2001.

Allen, Pereira, Raes, Smith (1998), Crop Evapotranspiration -Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - Fao irri-gation and Drainage Paper 56. Andersson K., 2000, LCA of FoodProducts and Production Systems, International Journal of LCA5 (4) pp. 239 – 248; Andersson K., Ohlsson T., 1999,

Life Cycle Assessment of Bread Produced on Different Scales,International Journal of LCA pp. 25 – 40; Avraamides M., FattaD., 2008

Resource consumption and emissions from olive oil production:a life cycle inventory case study in Cyprus, Journal of CleanerProduction 16 pp. 809-821; Bagliani M., Carechino M., MartiniF., 2009,

La contabilità ambientale applicata alla produzione zootecnica,l’impronta ecologica dell’allevamento di bovini di razza piemon-tese, IRES (Istituto Ricerche Economico Sociali del Piemonte,Regione Piemonte, Collana ambiente 29;Bagliani M., Contu S., Coscia I., Tiezzi E., “The evaluation of theEcological Footprint of the Province of Siena (Italy)”, in TiezziE., Brebbia C.A., Uso J.L. (eds.), “Ecosystems and SustainableDevelopment: Volume 1”, pp. 387-396, Wessex Institute of Tech-nology Press, Southampton (2003)

Baldo, Marino, Rossi, Analisi del Ciclo di Vita LCA, nuova edi-zione aggiornata, Edizione Ambiente;

Baroni L., Cenci L., Tettamanti M., Berati M., Evaluating the en-vironmental impact of various dietary patterns combined withdifferent food production systems, European Journal of ClinicalNutrition (2006), 1–8;

Basset-Mens, C. & van der Werf, H., 2003, Scenario-based en-vironmental assessment of farming systems – the case of pigproduction in France, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environ-

293

ment 1005, pp. 127-144;

Beccali M., Cellura M., Ludicello M., Mistretta M., ResourceConsumption and Environmental Impacts of the Agrofood Sec-tor: Life Cycle Assessment of Italian Citrus-Based Products,Environmental Management (2009) 43:707–724

Berlin, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Swedishsemi-hard cheese - International Dairy Journal 12 (2002) pp.939– 953;

Best, Aaron, Stefan Giljum, Craig Simmons, Daniel Blobel,Kevin Lewis, Mark Hammer, Sandra Cavalieri, Stephan Lutterand Cathy Maguire. 2008. Potential of the Ecological Footprintfor monitoring environmental impacts from natural resourceuse: Analysis of the potential of the Ecological Footprint and re-lated assessment tools for use in the EU’s Thematic Strategy onthe Sustainable Use of Natural Resources. Report to the Euro-pean Commission, DG Environment

Blengini GA, Busto M., The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternativeagri-food chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy), Journalof environmental management (2008);

Busser S., Jungbluth N., 2009, The role of flexible packaging inthe life cycle of coffee and butter, International Journal of LCA14 (Suppl 1) pp. S80 – S91

Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006, GHG emissions from con-ventional, agri-environmental and organic Irish suckler beefunits, Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 231-239;

Casey, J.W. & Holden, N.M., 2006a, Quantification of GHG emis-sions from sucker-beef production in Ireland. Agricultural Sys-tems 90, 79-98;

Cederberg C. & Darelius, K., 2000, Livscykelanalys (LCA) avnötkött - en studie av olika produktionsformer (Life Cycle As-sessment (LCA) of beef – a study of different production forms,in Swedish), Naturresursforum, Landstinget Halland, Halm-stad;

Cederberg C. & Darelius, K., 2001, Livscykelanalys (LCA) avgriskött (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of pork, in Swedish),Naturresursforum Halland, Halmstad, Sweden;

Cederberg C. & Flysjö A., 2004, Environmental assessment offuture pig farming systems – quantifi cation of three scenariosfrom the FOOD 21 synthesis work, SIK Report 723, SIK – TheSwedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göteborg,ISBN91-7290- 236-1;

Cederberg C. and Stadig M., 2003, System Expansion and Allo-cation in Life Cycle Assessment of Milk and Beef Production,International Journal of LCA 8 (6) pp. 350 -356;

Cederberg C., Berlin j., Henriksson M. & Davis, Jennifer, 2008,Utsläpp av växthusgaser I ett livscykelperspektiv för verk-samheten vid livsmedelsföretaget Berte Qvarn (Emissions ofgreenhouse gases in a life cycle perspective from the food com-pany Berte

Quarn, in Swedih), SIK-Report 777, ISBN 978-91-7290-270-1,

SIK – The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, Göte-borg, Sweden References 22;

Cederberg C., Meyer, D. & Flysjö, A., 2009a, Life Cycle Inven-tory of greenhouse gas emissions and use of land and energy ofBrazilian beef exported to Europe, SIK-Rapport 792, SIK – In-stitutet för Livsmedel och Bioteknik, Göteborg, ISBN 978-91-7290-283-1;

Cederberg C., Sonesson, U., Davis, J. & Sund, V., 2009b, Green-house gas emissions from production of meat, milk and eggs inSweden 1990 and 2005, SIK-Rapport 793, SIK – Institutet förLivsmedel och Bioteknik, Göteborg, ISBN 978-91-7290-284-8;Cerelia, Dichiarazione ambientale di prodotto dell’acqua min-erale naturale Cerelia imbottigliata in: PET da 1,5l e vetro da 1l,Rev.0 - Data: 30/07/2008, Registrazione N°: S-P-00123;

Chambers N., Simmons C., Wackernagel M., Sharing Nature’sInterest, Ecological Footprints as an indicator of sustainability,Earthscan,2007, chapter 5, pp.79 – 105;

Colombo, “Manuale dell’Ingegnere”; 83° Edizione; Hoepli, 1997

SitographyGlobal Footprint Network: www.footprintnetwork.orgLa piramide alimentare italiana (The Italian food pyramid):www.piramideitaliana.it

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: www.ghgprotocol.orgWater Footprint Network: www.waterfootprint.org26. Nikos,2006.

294

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUM

BIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS UNITED AGAINST HUNGER

FINAL DOCUMENT

3–5 NOVEMBER 2010FAO HEADQUARTERS, ROME

DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE DIETSSustainable Diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contributeto food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations.Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, cul-turally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally ade-quate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.

PLATFORM FOR ACTION1.The participants of the Symposium recommend that FAO, Bioversity Internationaland the CBD Secretariat, in collaboration with other relevant organizations and in-stitutions at international/regional/national/local level should establish a TaskForce to promote and advance the concept of sustainable diets and the role of bio-diversity within it, in the context of the CBD Cross-cutting Initiative on Biodiversityfor Food and Nutrition, as contributions to the achievement of the MDGs and beyond.

2. FAO and Bioversity International should encourage the UN System, govern-ments, international organizations, international food security and nutrition initia-tives and other relevant bodies to finance and support research and developmentprojects and programmes on biodiversity and sustainable diets.

3. Decision-makers should give priority to and promote sustainable diet conceptsin policies and programmes in the agriculture, food, environment, trade, educationand health sectors. Nutrition should be given more emphasis by plant and animalbreeders and research on nutrient content of food biodiversity should be encour-aged. Food composition data should be compiled by FAO in the INFOODS databasesand by regional and national institutions.

4. New projects and case studies should be encouraged to demonstrate the syn-ergies between biodiversity, nutrition and socio-economic, cultural and environ-ment sustainability as well as to gather evidence about the potential of greater useof biodiversity for better nutrition and health and for poverty alleviation and im-proved livelihoods. The evidence gathered from these research efforts should becompiled by FAO and Bioversity International and made available on an open ac-cess web-based platform.

5. Food-based dietary guidelines and policies should give due consideration to sus-tainability when setting goals aimed at healthy nutrition. A guidance document onhow to develop such guidelines and policies at national level could be elaboratedby FAO, in collaboration with Bioversity International and other partners.

6. Governments, UN Agencies, civil society, research organizations and the privatesector should collaborate in the development of programme activities and policies topromote sustainable diets in order to achieve sustainable food production, processingand consumption, and to minimize environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.

7. The development of a Code of Conduct for Sustainable Diets is strongly recommended.

Annex I

295



DRAFT PROPOSAL FORA “CODE OF CONDUCT FOR SUSTAINABLE DIETS”based on the model of the Code of Conduct for Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes

CONTENTS INTRODUCTIONArticle 1. Aim of the CodeArticle 2. Scope of the CodeArticle 3. Relationship with other international instrumentsArticle 4. DefinitionsArticle 5. Information and educationArticle 6. ConsumersArticle 7. Health Sector, Agriculture Sector, Environmental Sectors,

Food Industry SectorArticle 8. Special Requirement of Developing CountriesArticle 9. ResearchArticle 10. Implementation and monitoring

PREAMBLE INTRODUCTIONAffirming the right of every human being to be adequately nourished, to attain andmaintain [as a means of attaining and maintaining] health;

Acknowledging that malnutrition is part of the wider problems [including] poverty,social injustice, lack of education;

Recognizing that the health of humans cannot be isolated from the health ofecosystems;

Conscious that food is indispensible for [an unequalled way of] providing ideal nu-trition throughout life [for all ages and life cycles/stages];

Recognizing that the conservation and sustainable use of food biodiversity is animportant part of human and (ecosystem) well-being;Conservation should support the right to food [sustainable diet] and vice versa.Conservation should recognize the right for local populations to benefit from theirtraditional resources;

Recognizing that when ecosystems are able to support sustainable diets, nutritionprogrammes, policies and interventions supporting the use of supplements, RUTF,fortificants, and infant formulas are inappropriate and can lead to malnutrition,and that the marketing of these food substitutes and related products can con-tribute to major public health problems;

[Considering that when] (In periods when) ecosystems are not able to support sus-tainable diets, there is a legitimate use of supplements, RUTF (ready-to-use ther-apeutic foods) and fortificants; that all these products should accordingly be madeaccessible to those who need them through commercial or non-commercial dis-tribution systems; and that they should not be marketed or distributed in ways thatmay interfere with sustainable diets;

Appreciating that there are a number of social and economic factors affecting sus-tainable diets; [and that, accordingly] governments should develop [social] sup-

Annex II

296

port systems to protect, facilitate and encourage them. [and that] governmentsshould create an environment that fosters sustainable diets, provides appropriatefamily and community support and protection from factors that inhibit it;

Affirming that healthcare systems, and the health professionals and other healthworkers serving in them, have an essential role to play in guiding sustainable dietpractices, encouraging and facilitating sustainable diets, and providing objectiveand consistent advice to families, communities and governments about the supe-rior value of sustainable diets;

Affirming further that educational systems and other social services should be in-volved in the protection and promotion of sustainable diets;

Aware that families, communities, women's organizations and other non-govern-mental organizations have a special role to play in the protection and promotion ofsustainable diets, particularly for pregnant and lactating women and infants andyoung children;

Affirming the need for governments, organizations of the United Nations system,non-governmental organizations, experts in various related disciplines, consumergroups and industry to cooperate in activities aimed at the improvement of humanand environmental health through sustainable diets;

Considering that manufacturers and distributors of food substitutes have an im-portant and constructive role to play in relation to sustainable diets, and in the pro-motion of the aim of this Code and its proper implementation;

Affirming that governments are called upon to take action appropriate to their so-cial and legislative framework and their overall development objectives to give ef-fect to the principles and aim of this Code, including the enactment of legislation,regulations or other suitable measures;

Believing that, in the light of the foregoing considerations, and in view of the vul-nerability of ecosystems, and the human health risks involved in inappropriatefeeding practices, including the unnecessary and improper use of food substitutes,the marketing of substitutes requires special treatment, which makes usual mar-keting practices unsuitable for these products.

297

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC SYMPOSIUMBIODIVERSITY AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS UNITED AGAINST HUNGER

PROGRAMME

WEDNESDAY, 3 NOVEMBER

08.30-9.30 RegistrationSign the Petition 1billionhungry.org

9.30-10.00 SESSION 1

OPENING SESSIONWelcoming and Opening Addresses

Changchui He, Deputy Director-General, FAO Emile Frison, Director-General, Bioversity International

10.00-10.30 KEYNOTE SPEECHSustainable diets and biodiversity: the challenge for policy, evidence and behaviour changeTimothy Lang, Centre for Food Policy, City University, London

10.30-11.30 MAINSTREAMING NUTRITION AND BIODIVERSITYFOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTChair: Ezzeddine Boutrif, Director Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Biodiversity and sustainable diets for improved livelihoodsfor all Kwesi Atta-Krah, Chairperson, Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition

Global biodiversity outlook 3Kalemani Jo Mulongoy, Principal Officer, Scientific, Technical and Technological Matters Convention on Biological Diversity-CBD

The cross-cutting initiative on biodiversity for food andnutrition: the common pathBarbara Burlingame, Senior Officer,Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Opportunities and challenges for nutrition societies to redress malnutrition through food-based approachesRekia Belahsen, General Secretary, International Union of Nutritional Sciences

Contribution of agricultural heritage to food and livelihoodsecurityParviz Koohafkan, Director, Natural Resources Management and Environment Division, FAO

11.30-13.00 SESSION 2

FEEDING THE PLANET: THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTIONChair: Ezzeddine Boutrif, Director, Nutritionand Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Annex III

298

Expo 2015 Milan: feeding the planet-energy for lifeAlberto Mina, Director, Institutional Relations EXPO 2015, Milan

Sustainable crop production intensification around the worldWilliam Murray, Senior Officer, Plant Production and Protection Division, FAO

The Dualine project: food sustainability - towards new issuesLouis Georges Soler, Research Director, INRA, France

Animal genetic diversity and sustainable diets - desire versus realityRoswitha Baumung, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO

Sustainability and diversity along the food chainDaniele Rossi, Director General, Federalimentare, Italy

Economic implications of sustainable diets Gianluca Brunori, Agronomy and Agro-Ecosystem ManagementDepartment, University of Pisa

13.00-14.30 LUNCH BREAK

14.30-16.00 SESSION 3

SUSTAINABLE FOOD CONSUMPTIONChair: Florence Egal, Senior Officer, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Ensuring agriculture biodiversity and nutrition remain central to addressing the MDG One hunger targetJessica Fanzo, Senior Officer, Bioversity International, Rome

Cities as drivers of sustainable food systemsJulien Custot, Facilitator, Food for the Cities Initiative, FAO

Food typologies, food behaviour determinants and actions aiming at improving behaviours for better health Patrick Etievant, Head, Nutrition, Chemical Food Safetyand Consumer Behaviour Division, INRA, France

The contribution of forest biodiversity to sustainable dietsPaul Vantomme, Senior Officer, Forest Economics, Policy andProducts Division, FAO

Fish Biodiversity for Sustainable DietsHelga Josupeit, Officer, Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Economics Division, FAO

16.00-16.15 REPORT ON TECHNICAL WORKSHOP “BIODIVERSITY INSUSTAINABLE DIETS”Sandro Dernini, Consultant, Nutrition and Consumer ProtectionDivision, FAO

16.30-18.00 ETHIOPIA ROOM/PHILIPPINES ROOMWorking groups on recommendations

299

THURSDAY, 4 NOVEMBER

9.00-12.00 SESSION 4

BRINGING BIODIVERSITY TO THE PLATE: CASE STUDIES AND PRACTICES PROMOTING FOOD BIODIVERSITYChair: Harriet V. Kuhnlein, Founding Director, Professor of HumanNutrition, CINE, Canada

Nutrient diversity within species in major food crops consumed in IndiaThing-Nga-Ning Longvah, Deputy Director & Head, Food ChemistryDivision, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India

Nigerian traditional food system and nutrition securityIgnatius Onimawo, President, Nutrition Society of Nigeria, Nigeria

Canarium odontophyllum Miq.: an underutilized fruit for humannutrition and sustainable dietsIsmail Amin, Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences University Putra,Selangor, Malaysia

Assessing nutritional diversity of cropping systems in African villagesRoseline Remans, Tropical Agriculture and Rural Environment Programme, The Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York

Edible insects in Eastern and Southern Africa: challenges and opportunitiesMuniirah Mbabazi, Department of Food Science and TechnologyMakerere University, Kampala, Uganda

Comparing study of antioxidant activities of sea buckthorn/Hippophae rhamnoides/, cowberry /Vaccinium vitis-idaea/ /,aand carrots species, adopted in MongoliaEnkhtaivan Gombosuren, Head, Department of Nutrition and FoodServices, Mongolian University of Science and Technology, Mongolia

Fruit trees in home gardens of the Nuba mountains, CentralSudan, and their contribution to household nutrition and incomeKatja Kehlenbeck, World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF, Kenya

Conservation of plant biodiversity for sustainable dietsKate Gold, International Projects Coordinator, Millennium SeedBank Partnership, Seed Conservation Department, Royal BotanicGardens, United Kingdom


13.00-14.30 LUNCH BREAK

14.30-16.00 SESSION 5

BIODIVERSITY AND NUTRITION, A FOOD-BASED APPROACHChair: Rekia Belahsen, General Secretary, International Unionof Nutritional Sciences

300

Opening remarksDenis Lairon, President, European Federation of Nutrition Societies

Food, nutrition security and biodiversity in West African countries:Opportunities and challengesIsmael Thiam, West African Health Organization, Burkina Faso

Revisiting the vitamin A fiasco: going local in Micronesia Lois Englberger, Island Food Community of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia

The challenges of overcoming rural poverty and malnutrition throughlocal foods in West Africa Amadou Tidian Guiro, Department of Animal Biology, University of Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, Senegal

Bioactive components in indigenous African vegetablesFrancis Omujal, Natural Chemotherapeutics Research Laboratory,Ministry of Health, Uganda

Aquaculture with small fish species has the potential to improve nutrition and combat micronutrient deficienciesShakuntala Thilsted, The World Fish Center, Bangladesh

Nutrition indicators for biodiversityRuth Charrondière, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

16.00-17.30 SESSION 6

BIODIVERSITY, FOOD COMPOSITION AND SUSTAINABLE DIETSChair: Barbara Burlingame, Senior Officer, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

AFROFOODS call for action from the door of returnIsaac Akinyele, Elected Coordinator, AFROFOODS, Nigeria

Recent achievements in Europe through EuroFIR and BaSeFoodprojectsPaul Finglas, Coordinator, EuroFIR & EUROFOODS, United Kingdom

Research projects and activities on biodiversity, food compositionand sustainable diets among SAARCFOODS membersThing-Nga-Ning Longvah, Elected Coordinator, SAARCFOODS,India

Research projects and activities on biodiversity, food composition and sustainable diets among ASEANFOODS membersPrapasri Puwastien, Coordinator, ASEANFOODS, Thailand

Achievements on biodiversity in relation to food composition inLatin AmericaLilia Masson, Professor Emeritus, University of Chile, Chile


301

FRIDAY, 5 NOVEMBER

9.00-11.30 SESSION 7

THE MEDITERRANEAN DIET AS AN EXAMPLE OF ASUSTAINABLE DIETCoordinated by the National Institute of Food and NutritionResearch (INRAN), Italy.Chair: Carlo Cannella, Director, International Interuniversity Studies Center on Mediterranean Food Cultures (CIISCAM), Italy

Keynote AddressPietro Sebastiani, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Italy to FAO

The Mediterranean diet as intangible world heritagePier Luigi Petrillo, Director, Task Force UNESCO, Cabinet of the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Policies (MiPAAF), Italy

The Mediterranean diet at the beginning of the 3rd millenniumCosimo Lacirignola, Director, CIHEAM-IAMB, Italy

MiPAAF Biovita project: Biodiversity and Mediterranean dietGiuseppe Maiani, Program Director, INRAN, Italy

MiPAAF Bioqualia project: Organic farming, sustainability andbiodiversityFlavio Paoletti, Programme Director, INRAN, Italy

Mediterranean diet: an integrated viewMauro Gamboni, Head, Technical Scientific Planning Unit, Agro-Food Department, CNR, Italy

Is the Mediterranean diet, world paragon, sustainable from field to plate?Martine Padilla, Scientific Director, CIHEAM-IAMM, France

Food and energy: a sustainable approachMassimo Iannetta, Head, Sustainable Development and Innovationof Agro-industrial System Unit, ENEA, Italy

Double Pyramid: Healthy food for people, sustainable food for the planetAndrea Poli, Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, Italy

11.30-12.30 A PLATFORM FOR ACTION ON BIODIVERSITY ANDSUSTAINABLE DIETSMAIN RECOMMENDATIONSChair: Barbara Burlingame, Senior Officer, Nutrition and ConsumerProtection Division, FAO

12.30-13.00 CLOSING REMARKS

Ezzeddine Boutrif, Director, Nutrition and Consumer ProtectionDivision, FAOEmile Frison, Director-General, Bioversity International

302



LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Isaac AKINYELECoordinator AFROFOODSProfessor, Department of Human Nutrition, University of IbadanIbadan, Oyo State, Nigeria

Rekia BELAHSENGeneral Secretary, International Union of Nutrition SocietiesProfessor, Training and Research Unit on Nutrition and Food SciencesChouaib Doukkatli UniversityEl Jadida, Morocco

Carlo CANNELLADirector,International Inter-university Centre for Mediterranean Food-Culture Studies,Professor University “La Sapienza”Rome, Italy

Lois ENGLBERGERResearch Advisor, Island Food Community of Pohnpei Colonia, Pohnpei Federated States of Micronesia

Patrick ETIEVANTHead, Nutrition, Chemical Food Safety and Consumer Behaviour DivisionInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueSt Genès Champanelle, France

Paul FINGLASCoordinator, EuroFIR and EUROFOODS Head Food Databanks and Exploitation Platform, Institute of Food Research Norwich Research Park,Colney – Norwich, United Kingdom

Mauro GAMBONIHead, Scientific Activity Planning UnitAgro Food Department National Research CouncilRome, Italy

Kate GOLDCoordinator, International Projects Millennium Seed Bank PartnershipSeed Conservation Department Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Wakehurst Place,Ardingly, Haywards Heath,West Sussex, United Kingdom

Amadou Tidiane GUIROProfessor, Food and NutritionDepartment of Animal Biology University Cheikh Anta DiopDakar, Senegal

Massimo IANNETTAHead, Sustainable Development and Innovation of Agro-Industrial

Annex IV

303

System Technical Unit, ENEARome, Italy

Amin ISMAILAssociate Professor, Department of Nutrition and DieteticsFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences University Putra MalaysiaSelangor, Malaysia

Katja KEHLENBECKAssociate Scientist, World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAFNairobi, Kenya

Harriet V. KUHNLEINProfessor, Centre for Indigenous Peoples’ Nutrition and EnvironmentMcGill University, Montreal, Canada

Cosimo LACIRIGNOLADirector, International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean AgronomicStudies of BariValenzano, Bari, Italy

Denis LAIRON (Video Speaker)President, European Federation of Nutrition SocietiesMarseille, France

Timothy LANGProfessor, Centre for Food Policy, City University LondonNorthampton Square, London, United Kingdom

Thingnganing LONGVAHCoordinator, SAARCFOODSDeputy Director/ Head Food Chemistry Division National Institute of NutritionJamai Osmania POHyderabad , AP India

Giuseppe MAIANIDirector, Nutrition Programme National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition,Rome, Italy

Lilia MASSONProfessor, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Chile Providencia - Santiago, Chile

Muniirah MBABAZIHuman Nutritionist, Department of Food Science and TechnologyMakerere UniversityKampala, Uganda

Alberto MINADirector, International Relationship Theme Development and EventsExpo 2015, Milan, Italy

Jo Kalemani MULONGOYPrincipal Officer, Scientific, Technical and Technological Matters Division

304

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological DiversityMontreal, Canada

Francis OMUJALResearch Officer, Natural Chemotherapeutics Research InstituteMinistry of Health, Kampala, Uganda

Ignatius ONIMAWOPresident, Nutrition Society of NigeriaProfessor, Biochemistry Department Ambrose Alli University Ekpoma, Edo State, Nigeria

Martine PADILLAPrincipal Officer, International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies of MontpellierMontpellier cedex 5, France

Flavio PAOLETTIDirector, Program Production and Technological Systems:Quality of Vegetable ProductionNational Research Institute on Food and NutritionRome, Italy

Pier Luigi PETRILLODirector, Task Force UNESCOCabinet of the Minister of Agricultural Food and Forestry PoliciesRome, Italy

Andrea POLIProfessor, Barilla Center for Food and NutritionParma, Italy

Prapasri PUWASTIENAssociate Professor, Institute of Nutrition Mahidol University SalayaNakhon Pathom, Thailand

Daniele ROSSIDirector General, FederalimentareRome, Italy

Pietro SEBASTIANIPermanent Representative of the Republic of Italy to FAORome, Italy

Louis Georges SOLERSenior Researcher, INRA-ESRIvry sur Seine Cedex, France

Shakuntala THILSTEDSenior Nutrition Adviser, The WorldFish Centre Consultative Group on International Agriculture ResearchDhaka 1213, Bangladesh

305

FAO PARTICIPANTS

Changchui HEDeputy Director-General FAO

Roswitha BAUMUNGAnimal Production Officer,Animal Production and Health Division, FAO

Ezzeddine BOUTRIFDirector, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Barbara BURLINGAMEGroup Leader, Nutrition Assessment and Nutrient Requirements GroupNutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Ruth CHARRONDIÈRENutrition Officer, Nutrition Assessment and Nutrient Requirements GroupNutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Sandro DERNINIConsultant, Nutrition Assessment and Nutrient Requirements GroupNutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

Helga JOSUPEITFishery Industry Officer,Fisheries and Aquaculture Policyand Economics Division, FAO

Parviz KOOHAFKANDirector, Natural Resources Management and Environment Division, FAO

Stefano MONDOVIConsultant, Nutrition Assessment and Nutrient Requirements GroupNutrition and Consumer Protection Division, FAO

William MURRAYSenior Programme Officer, Plant Production and Protection Division, FAO

Paul VANTOMMESenior Forestry Officer, Forest Economics, Policy and Products Division, FAO

FROM BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL

Emile FRISONDirector-General, Bioversity InternationalMaccarese - Rome, Italy

Jessica FANZOSenior Scientist, Nutrition and Biodiversity Diversity for Livelihoods ProgrammeBioversity InternationalMaccarese - Rome, Italy

306



LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

1) Framework for a Cross-cutting Initiative on Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition,Decision VIII/23A, 8th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, Curitiba, Brazil, 2006; http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11037

2) Toledo, A. and Burlingame, B., Biodiversity and nutrition: A common pathtoward global food security and sustainable development. Journal of FoodComposition and Analysis. 19 (2006) 477-483

3) John, T. and Eyzaguirre, P., Linking biodiversity, diet and health in policy andpractice. Proceeding of the Nutrition Society. 65 (2006) 182-189

4) Herrin, M. and Gussow, JD., Designing a Sustainable Regional Diet, Journal Nutrition Education. 21 (1989) 270-275

5) The CIHEAM Watch Letter, The Mediterranean Diet, Spring 2010, N. 13

6) Sustainable Development Commission. Setting the Table, Advice to the Governmenton priority elements of sustainable diets. 2009

7) Lang, T., What is a sustainable diet for planet earth? paper non published, 2009

8) FAO and SINER-GI. Linking People, Places and Products. A guide for promotingquality linked to geographical origin and sustainable geographical indications. 2009

9) Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition. Double Pyramid: Healthy Food for People,Sustainable Food for the Planet,www.barillacfn.com/uploads/file/72/1277905159_PositionPaper_BarillaCFN_Double-Pyramid.pdf

10)AFROFOODS Call for Action from the Door of Return, Dakar, 10 December 2009,http://www.fao.org/infoods/AFROFOOD%20CALL%20and%20APPEL.pdf

11)CIISCAM. The Mediterranean Diet Today, A Model of Sustainable Diet. ConferenceBrochure, Parma, Italy, 3 November 2009, http://www.ciiscam.org/files/download/Convegni%20ed%20Eventi/parma_brochure_en.pdf

Annex V

307

AFROFOODS CALL FOR ACTION FROM THE DOOR OF RETURNFOR FOOD RENAISSANCE IN AFRICA

House of the Slaves, Goree, Dakar, Senegal10 December 2009 – Human Rights Day

We, the participants at the Fifth AFROFOODS Sub-regional Data Center Coordina-tors Meeting held in Dakar, Senegal, on 9–11 December 2009,

• Note that the degradation of ecosystems and the loss of food biodiversity is contributing greatly to the increases in poverty andmalnutrition in Africa;

• Recognize that returning to local crops and traditional food systemsis a prerequisite for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversityfor food and nutrition;

• Acknowledge that local foods are the basis for African sustainablediets;

• Urge that food composition data be emphasized as the fundamentalinformation underpinning almost all activities in the field of nutrition;

• Call upon the sectors of public health, agriculture, and environmentand food trade to help reinforce and assist with the improvement offood composition data, particularly on local foods;

• Request that the contribution of food composition be credited as oneof the most important components for action in nutrition and foodquality, food safety, and food and nutrition security.

We invite all sectors to place AFROFOODS on the national, regional and interna-tional agenda for all food and nutrition activities in Africa through interdisciplinarystrategic plans for achieving the relevant MDGs; and therefore, from the Door ofReturn of the House of the Slaves of Gorée-Dakar, we accept the challenge our-selves and send this call for action to our colleagues, as well as to governments, theprivate sector and financial entities, to strengthen AFROFOODS activities in a re-newed commitment to an African food renaissance.

Annex VI


This book presents the current state of thought on the common path of sustainable

diets and biodiversity. The papers contained herein address the linkages among

agriculture, health, the environment and food industries.

The alarming pace of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and their negative

impact on poverty and health makes a compelling case for re-examining food

systems and diets. Thus, there is an urgent need todevelop and promote strategies

for sustainable diets, emphasizing the positive role of food biodiversity in human

nutrition and poverty alleviation.

Sustainable Diets are those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute

to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations.

Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems,

culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally

adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.

The contents of this book represent the presentations given at the International

Scientific Symposium on Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets, organized by FAO

and Bioversity International and held at FAO, Rome, from 3 to 5 November 2010.

sustainable diets and biodiversity

Documents