Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

Comments on the Priorities in Nutrition for the Next Five Years

The tentative suggestions offered seem to have some undesirable attributes. Vagueness and the more or less explicit inclusion of at least four domains without an apt liaising mechanism to ensure an effective coordination of their actions appear to be the most significant. Although very worthy as an intention, role assigned to health services as related to nutrition, does not reflect an awareness of the reality as it is. Perhaps, these comments might induce some to decide on actions with a greater sense of proportion.

The first three proposals under the first section are well taken. They could have been of real benefit had they specified the following means of achieving them:

• Extensive, appropriate technical and financial support to family farmers, village fishermen, small holders, etc.
• Intensive expansion of cooperative food systems; this should receive tangible international and national assistance.
• Active and appropriate steps to prevent food waste in every sub-system in food systems.
• Creation of a UN inter-organisational liaising unit with sufficient authority to compel all members to harmonise their policies, regulations and ordinances so that none of them would undertake actions that would hinder the others from attaining their objectives. For instance, some of WTO’s policies have a deleterious effect on nutrition and health.
• A similar compulsory inter-departmental coordination at the national level.
• ‘Food chains’ is a term from Zoology; smaller things are eaten by bigger animals while still bigger ones feed on them and so on. It is time man unchained himself from trader’s jargon and thought of nutrition in human terms i. E., as a fundamental need. It is satisfied with the use of food systems of varying technical complexity.

Mr. Claudio Schuftan in his second contribution and M. Anthony Fardet have already suggested several other significant measures which will not be repeated here. Instead, vagueness of the tentative suggestions will be considered:

• Precisely how would food and agriculture authorities ensure adequate nutrition of the people from birth to death? Do they propose to procure such a mandate, if so, how?
• The same question may be raised about the other social aspects mentioned among the above proposals.

Emphasis on the use of health personnel for dietary education has two major disadvantages. First, it would be impractical in a considerable number of areas where even primary health care is scant or inadequate while the number of people seeking health care is very great. There the health personnel are overwhelmed by the number of patients that they hardly have time to under take discourses on nutrition. This is not to deprecate the link between nutrition and good health, but rather a criticism of the proposed method.

Secondly, even under ideal conditions, their reach is limited to the number of patients. Even in affluent countries, health personnel are overloaded with ‘paper work’ resulting in fairly long waiting periods to those who want to consult their GP’s. This proposal would exacerbate the situation, and is seen with disfavour by most health personnel. Moreover, the present education of the health personnel does not qualify them for this task.

It is curious that the drafters of the tentative proposals have overlooked the obvious; until not so long ago, school education in many countries included basic health and hygiene, which could be carried out further. Re-introduction of this subject with chapters on balanced diet, food and beverages injurious to health, etc., is a more effective action that the education authorities could undertake. This must accord with the local food culture, and does not require specialist teachers, for they could learn from the books they will use.

Environment, legal, trade and industry, finance and labour are some of the other domains whose cooperation at international and national levels would be essential to achieve not only SDG-2, but also all the others. One of the key roles education could play has been already noted. Dietary education is not concerned with mechanical calorie and micro-nutrient count in food eaten like number of litres of petrol pumped into a car, for civilised humans derive a culinary enjoyment from their meals as multifarious traditions of cuisine illustrate.

The proposed plan would be much benefited by appropriate action in the following areas:

• Preservation and active regeneration of the environment; strictly enforced regulations for this is urgently needed. Extensive restoration of world’s green cover with endemic species, world-wide expansion of biodiversity in agriculture, rapid introduction of agricultural techniques that promote it etc. These would be insufficient unless accompanied by comparable actions undertaken in trade and industry, legal systems, etc.
• Ban on audio and graphical propaganda to increase the sale of mass-produced comestibles and beverages.
• Understanding that halting of population growth is critical not only to environmental sustainability, but also for the survival of civilised life. It is crucial to understand that reductive scientism i.e., a belief in that ‘science’ could solve all human problems is a mere reactive response categorically identical to any undertaken by a Neanderthal. The difference between the new and old are only technological; ‘novel foods’ today and in Neander valley would have been eaten merely because of hunger, hardly with enjoyment. Consider how many so-called ‘poor man’s food now fetches high prices in food shops and restaurants in affluent countries while the modern poor have to subsist on mass-produced stuff. Simply compare the prices of once poor man’s dark rye bread and rich man’s white loaf today; generally, the former is five to six times more expensive at present.
• It is hoped that human culinary enjoyment will enter into the proposed scheme; naturalists have observed that even animals display food preferences and seem to enjoy their preferred food. A cursory perusal of the literature will show that most societies have evolved a food culture to promote social and personal enjoyment civilised life affords one’s meal times. This is not something confined to the affluent, but it is universally valued as a cultural good. Its exclusion from nutrition can not be justified.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.