The current system is failing billion
Food, we can't live without it, and
fortunately most of us never have to. Yet every day 842
million people in the world do not have enough to eat with 52
million children under the age of 5 suffering from acute malnutrition.
In addition to the people who suffer from food shortages are the 2
billion people who suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, including
the 165 million children under the age of 5 who are stunted (an
indication of chronic malnutrition).
The majority of these people have enough food to satiate their appetite, but lack the food quality and dietary diversity required to provide all of the essential nutrients required for growth and good health, a condition called hidden hunger. The manifestation and consequences of chronic malnutrition are less striking and visible than those of acute food shortage, nevertheless, the consequences remain severe, no more so than for the 165 million stunted children.
The majority of these people have enough food to satiate their appetite, but lack the food quality and dietary diversity required to provide all of the essential nutrients required for growth and good health, a condition called hidden hunger. The manifestation and consequences of chronic malnutrition are less striking and visible than those of acute food shortage, nevertheless, the consequences remain severe, no more so than for the 165 million stunted children.
At odds with the picture this paints
are the 1.46 billion
people on the planet who are overweight and obese. But in fact
these are 2 parts of the same puzzle. Malnutrition in all its forms
encompasses both over and under nutrition, and in fact many of the
1.46 billion overweight and obese people also make up the 2
billion suffering from hidden hunger. The linkages between under and
over nutrition are proving to be far more fundamental than many of us
first thought.
We know now low and middle income
countries bear the brunt not only of under nutrition, but also over
nutrition. The number of overweight and obese people in developing
countries is currently
around 904 million, and rising rapidly. This phenomenon has given
rise to the term 'double burden of malnutrition'.
So the question is how do we change
this? While reducing hunger is often seen as the imperative, I think
we need to go much further, and ensure that people not only that people have
enough food to eat, but enough of the right foods. As with many things,
the first step to action is showing the
consequences and cost of inaction.
The consequences of malnutrition
It has been estimated that poor
nutrition is the cause of 45% of all deaths in
children under the age of 5, that is 3.5 million children annually. Both as a direct result of
acute food shortage, but in the majority of cases, as the indirectly
result of chronic undernutrition compromising immune function. The
impact of chronic malnutrition in childhood has lasting implications
for those who survive into adulthood. The effects of stunting are
largely irreversible after a child's second birthday, with
implications for their schooling and later earning potential. It has
been estimated that malnourished
children are at risk of losing 10% of their lifetime earning
potential, while at a larger scale it could be costing some nations
as much as 3% of their GDP.
The consequences of being overweight
and obese are equally vast; resulting in increased
risk for many non-communicable diseases such as type 2
diabetes, hypertension and some cancers. The disease burden these
NCDs place on many low and middle income countries is now greater
than that of the traditional communicable and infectious diseases.
The
economic impact of obesity and the associated chronic diseases are
equally staggering at both an individual, national and global
level.
Linking under and over nutrition with chronic disease?
I'm certainly not going to suggest that
obesity and overweight are simply a result of poor nutrition in
childhood - it is far more complex than that - but there are
linkages. With chronic disease being a major health challenge all
over the globe, and under nutrition remaining a significant problem
in certain areas, it is essential to understand these linkages so to
inform prevention strategies that address these issues in conjunction.
David Barker was the first to associate low birth weight with chronic
disease in later life in the 1990s, something
that later became known
as the 'Barker Hypothesis'. We are building our knowledge around this topic, and
evidence now suggests that those who are exposed to undernutrition -
in there mother womb and throughout childhood - have
an increased risk of developing metabolic disorders,
hypertension and other NCDs in later life. However, there is
currently a lack of understanding of the mechanism for these
associations; disciplines such as epigenetics are emerging as central
to future advancements in this area. As we develop our understanding
of these linkages we will be better able inform policies and have an
impact on all aspects of malnutrition.
Solutions: short and long term
I said at the
outset that people eat food, and that is certainly true. However,
changing a global food system will take time, but there are children
and mothers been who suffer the consequences of the current systems
failings today. We need to seek both short and long term solutions to
tackle these issues.
In the short term
Many people have spoken of the landmark series of paper on maternal and child nutrition published in the Lancet in 2008 (And more recently the 2013 series). The 2008 series was a
turning point that largely galvanised the nutrition community, movements
such as Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) have since provided a platform from which action can be taken. We have a strong evidence base for importance of
nutrition from conception to a child's second birthday
– known
as the 1000 day window.
This is a vital window for both child survival, growth and
development and also to reduce the risk of various non-communicable
diseases in later life. We also, and just as importantly, have a number of evidence based interventions
– such as micronutrients interventions – that when delivered to
those in need not only save lives, but also improve quality of life and
earning potential. There
are equally economic
incentives for nations to invest in nutrition, with significant
returns on investment to be gained.
In the long term
We should realise that while direct nutrition interventions have
massive potential, they should only be seen as a stopgap while the
food system develops into one that can feed and nourish the world, how long this will take I'm really not sure.
Top of the list has to be investing in women, it is simply a must.
Women
produce more than half of the worlds food, yet own a fraction of
the land and receive very little investment. Not only does it make
sense from an equity perspective, but also an economic and political
one. While i say this is a long term solution, I mean it from a sustainability perspective, rather than meaning it is something to consider for the future. We should invest in women now, and reap the rewards this brings.
The other while I was reading a
blog by Richard Smith, there was a fact that I found surprising. In many African
countries agricultural yields are similar to those of Roman England.
This is striking and speaks volumes of the global inequity.
Increasing the yields through sustainable and simple technology could
make a major difference, while equally
reducing the vast amount of food that is wasted would also go someway to solving the problem.
There
are examples of countries that have significantly decreased the
burden of under nutrition through the right mix of policy and
investment in recent years. Brazil
is one example, where economic development and social safety nets
have helped to reduce under nutrition. However, this is somewhat of a conundrum,
because while economic growth has been shown to reduce
undernutrition, it may also increase the prevalence of obesity. Such data warns of the need for careful policy implementation to ensure that economic growth is not a double edged sword for nutrition and health.
Take home message
The global food system is askew, billions of people are impacted by
not having enough to eat or the right food to eat, the consequences
of which resonate not only at a public health level, but also at an
ethical, political and economic one. The solutions are not easy or
quick, but the benefits of striving for them are numerous, while the
consequences of not are dire. This should make fixing the global
food system a priority for all.
Thanks for reading
Henry
No comments:
Post a Comment