Invest in Nutrition

Eden, a young boy of 3 years old, was just diagnosed with speech delay. This is one more illness that is affecting him. He also suffers from immune deficiency and deafness. All are related to his first year of life when he has faced severe chronic malnutrition. He looks normal, but the consequences are detrimental; this lack of food (hunger), at a critical moment in his early life, will hamper his ability to learn and hinder opportunities later in life.

This disturbing story may be the intolerable reality of children living in India or Ethiopia; but in fact, this story happens next door to us in America. Eden is one among other protagonists of a provoking documentary launched last month – A Place at the Table.

This documentary is thought-provoking mainly because it shows us that obesity and hunger are neighbours, our neighbours. Access to affordable nutritious foods in a world of plenty seems an unacceptable challenge for too many. In fact, this is increasingly the reality for many children living in both the developing and developed world, mainly because hunger and obesity are globally interconnected. We cannot pretend that it is not visible; it is in fact in our backyard. The burden of malnutrition is one major challenge in the context of the post-MDGs if we really want to achieve sustainable human development for every child in the world.

It is true that we have made significant progress over the past 50 years in the sector of population health. Life expectancies for men and women have increased. A greater proportion of deaths are taking place among people older than 70 years. The burdens of HIV and malaria are falling. Far fewer children younger than five years are dying. But this encouraging picture is being challenged by old and new threats. Africa remains the most afflicted continent, where maternal, newborn, and child mortality, along with a broad array of vaccine-preventable and other communicable diseases, are still urgent concerns. Malnutrition and stunting continue to be a long-term damaging stigma for children in Africa and South East Asia, with an estimated 75% of the world’s 165 million stunted children living there.

The link to extreme poverty is incontestable – as children in the poorest communities are more than twice as likely to be stunted, particularly in rural areas where as many as one third of children are affected.

On the other hand, more young and middle-aged adults in low and middle-income countries are suffering from obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases (diabetes, hypertension, stoke and cardiovascular disease…). These diseases are driven primarily by phenotypic predisposition and high consumption of ultra-processed foods. With increasing urbanization and shifts in diet and lifestyle, the result could be an escalating epidemic of such conditions in many low- and middle-income countries. This would create new economic and social challenges, especially among vulnerable groups.

Fighting stunting is the emerging battle in the context of optimal human development. It is the irreversible impact of not receiving enough nutrient dense foods within the first 1000 days of life, from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday. But stunting is more than a problem of stature; this lack of nutritious food also impacts the overall physical (organ as well as immune cell function) and cognitive development, and determines the susceptibility to obesity and food-related non communicable diseases later in life.

During the first 1000 days, nutritional requirements to support rapid growth and development are very high, and the baby is totally dependent on others for nutrition, care and social interactions. For example, the first year of life is a time of astonishing change during which babies in normal conditions, on average, grow 55% in length, triple their birth weights and increase head circumference by 40%. Between 1 and 2 years age, an average child grows about 12 cm in length and gains about 3.5 kg in weight. During these crucial days as well as during fetal life, the body is putting together the fundamental human machinery (similar to hardware and software for computer). This process is done over a very short period of time and requires specific nutrients like vitamin A, iron, folic acid, zinc but also protein, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and choline. The immune-system and brain-synapse development are particularly vulnerable. As a result, any disturbance of this frantic activity leaves a terrible mark. Smaller than their non-stunted peers, stunted children are more susceptible to sickness. In school, they often fall behind in class. They enter adulthood more likely to become overweight and more prone to non-communicable diseases. When they start work, they often earn less than their non-stunted co-workers. The drama of this situation is the fact that an undernourished mother is more likely to give birth to a stunted child, perpetuating a vicious cycle of high prevalence of premature death (an estimated 60-80% of neonatal deaths occur among low birth weight babies), undernutrition and poverty.

It is imperative to focus on the first 1000 days of a child’s life as the crucial window of opportunity for change. It is during this time that proper nutrition has the greatest impact on a child’s health and potential future wellbeing and opportunities. A recent publication in Lancet has reinforced this idea, and has showed that attaining optimal growth before 24 months of age is desirable; becoming stunted but then gaining weight disproportionately after 24 months is likely to increase the risk of becoming overweight and developing other health problems. UNICEF’s latest publication “Improving Child Nutrition: The achievable imperative for global progress” is closing the loop. It shows that there are proven low cost solutions for reducing stunting and other forms of undernutrition. These simple and proven nutrition activities need to be integrated together. They include improving women’s nutrition, early and exclusive breastfeeding, providing additional vitamins and minerals as well as giving appropriate nutrient dense foods, especially in pregnancy and the first two years of a child’s life.

Investing in children’s and women’s nutrition is not only the right thing to do from a human right point of view; it is also a cost-effective investment. It can increase a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by at least 2-3% annually. Every US$1 spent on nutrition activities to reduce stunting will have a return on investment of US$30. This integrated nutritional strategy as proposed by UNICEF and other international stakeholders is the locomotive that can accelerate economic growth and pull millions of people out of poverty.

Let’s work all together to be sure that every children around the world has a place at the table. This is our responsibility!

This article was publish in the Ottawa Citizen last week. This is the link:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/04/26/francoise-briet-invest-in-nutrition/

Advertisements

Don’t bring me the food that western people love!

Over the past few months, I was busy writing articles for different magazines and newspapers.

This is one of them: Don’t bring me the food that western people love!

OCIC article

This is part of a series of articles on food in the context of global development.

All the articles are really interesting. It will give you a different perspective on some key issues. But not only this, there is more. 

This is the link:

http://content.yudu.com/A24lyd/iAMVol4/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl=http%3A%2F%2Focic.on.ca%2Fiam

Hope you will enjoy the voyage…  

Focusing on linear growth and relative weight gain during early life – a winner ticket for human capital development and future adult health

We have seen in the previous blog that the children who are suffering from stunting (short stature) may look normal but the consequences of becoming and remaining stunted can be detrimental. In fact, we can observe an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, but also delays in cognitive (ability to think and understand) and physical development, which result in a decreased ability to learn and capacity to work.

In fact, stunted height (and not underweight) is a dreadful marker of multiple deprivations regarding food intake, care and play, clean water, good sanitation and health care. It is an important indicator of child well-being – not only physical growth but also cognitive and socio-emotional development.

These days, not only in the context of post Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) but also because of the importance to focus on sustainable human development, the key questions for nutritionists, pediatricians and policy makers are:

  • What is the optimum age for promotion of growth for enhanced survival and human capital?
  • Will this promotion necessarily lead to an increase in cardio-metabolic disease later in life?  

These aspects have their importance knowing that a lot of feeding programs in developing countries are aimed at older children, at a time where optimal linear growth is already compromise. For example, traditional school feeding programs that increase BMI with little effect on height might be doing more harm than good in terms of future health.

Why?

According to a study published in Lancet last month (see reference below), patterns already observed in the Western world are starting to be seen in low- and middle-income countries: i.e. putting on too much weight in relation to height in middle and late childhood (after 2 years old) can increase the risk for chronic diseases, such as diabetes, in later life.

This scientific analysis that involved five prospective birth cohort studies from Brazil, Guatemala, India, the Philippines, and South Africa showed that it is important to focus on improved nutrition in the first few years of life, i.e. the 1,000 days from the start of a woman’s pregnancy until her child’s 2nd birthday.

Their analysis showed that:

  • Higher birth weight is associated with an adult BMI of greater than 25 kg/m² (mostly lean body mass – muscle, which is good), and a reduced likelihood of short stature and of not completing secondary school,
  • Fast linear growth during the first 2 years of life is associated with increased adult height and amount of schooling,
  • Weight gain earlier in infancy is not associated later with any increased risk of chronic disease. In fact, it is good for the child, good for survival, giving some protection from adult chronic disease and better educational attainment,
  • Faster relative weight gain after the age of 2 years has little benefit for human capital, and weight gain after mid-childhood could lead to large adverse effects on later cardiovascular risk factors like elevated blood pressure. Notably, this is particularly true for weight gain that is not accompanied by height gain,
  • In fact, rapid weight gain should not be promoted after the age of 2–3 years in children who are underweight (weight for age) but not wasted (weight for height)

This study shows the importance to promote nutrition and linear growth during the first 1,000 days of life (from conception to age 2 years), and also reinforces the importance of prevention of rapid relative weight gain after age 2 years.

These findings have implications for present practices in low-income and middle-income countries, particularly emphasizing the need to monitor linear growth as well as weight, and to avoid promotion of excess weight gain in children older than 2 years. Optimum growth patterns in early life are likely to lead to less undernutrition, increased human capital, and reduced risks of obesity and non-communicable diseases, thus addressing both components of the double burden of nutrition.

According to one of the authors, Dr Fall: One of the challenges we are facing is the fact that we need to find ways to get very small children to be taller, and we don’t really know how to do it. More work is needed on imaginative interventions to specifically promote height growth, instead of weight gain. These could include exclusive breast-feeding, long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids like DHA, high-quality protein, and micronutrients.

Mortality and undernutrition are falling substantially in most parts of the world, except for Sub-Saharan Africa, and new targets are being formulated to replace the present set of 2015 MDGs. A new goal for optimum linear growth that is expressed as a reduction in stunting can replace the present target of a reduction in underweight alone, which is one of the indicators for the first MDGs towards the eradication of extreme poverty. This new target can be associated with the assessment of developmental functioning using a set of indicators based on the Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) and Mental Development Index (MDI) of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. This integrated approach will help to evaluate appropriately physical as well as cognitive and socio-emotional development, which is so important when building human capital.

 

References:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/781535

Associations of linear growth and relative weight gain during early life with adult health and human capital in countries of low and middle income: findings from five birth cohort studies. Adair LS et al, Lancet 28th March 2013 (http://download.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140673613601038.pdf?id=a02f57d1811fcb77:524f7ce2:13db1412973:-60f11364479623359)

 

Quinoa Year aims to ease food insecurity and transform the global diet

2013 is the International Quinoa Year: http://www.rlc.fao.org/en/about-fao/iyq-2012/

This is an interesting article published by the UN news Centre…. and I would like to share with you some of the key points and highlight why quinoa is an interesting staple in the global context of food security. However, quinoa’s success starts to initiate problems and challenges that need to be addressed if we want to make this food revolution sustainable locally as well as globally. 

Quinoa farmed on the Bolivian antiplano ranges in colour from white to pink to orange. Photo: Claudio Guzmán/FAO

Quinoa, a highly nutritious grain-like crop that has made its entry into the food basket of culinary connoisseurs has been a staple for centuries in South America, among pre-Columbian Andean farming communities from Colombia to Ecuador. In fact, most of the world’s quinoa is grown on the altiplano, a vast, cold, windswept, and barren 14,000-foot Andean plateau spanning parts of Peru and Bolivia.

By declaring 2013 the ‘International Year of Quinoa’, the United Nations is hoping to popularize a life-sustaining seed that could help promote food security and poverty eradication, cut malnutrition and boost biodiversity in support of the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It is also a way to recognize the indigenous peoples who preserved quinoa through traditional knowledge and practices passed down through the ages.

Quinoa famers in Bolivia show off their latest crop which could help promote food security and eradicate poverty. Photo: Claudio Guzmán/FAO

In Resolution 66/221, the General Assembly declared the International Year of Quinoa in recognition of the Andean indigenous people “who have managed to preserve quinoa in its natural state as food for present and future generations, through ancestral practices of living in harmony with nature.” Hence the theme for this year: “A future sown thousands of years ago.”

Pronounced ‘keen-wah’, quinoa is not really a grain, not really a vegetable. It is a pseudo-cereal, part of the chenopodium family related to beets and spinach. Quinoa seeds are gluten-free and have all the essential amino acids, trace elements and vitamins needed to survive. Due to its high nutritional value, indigenous peoples and researchers call it “the golden grain of the Andes.”

One cup of quinoa (a single serving size) brings:
  • 220 calories (70 % carbs, 15 % fat, 15 % protein)
  • 40 grams of carbohydrates (13 % daily value)
  • 8 grams of protein (16 % of daily value)
  • 3.5 grams of fat (5 % daily value with no saturated fat)
  • A glycemic load (blood sugar spike) of only 18 out of 250
  • 5 grams of fiber (20 % of daily value)
  • 20 % of daily value of folate (various forms of Vitamin B)
  • 30 % of magnesium daily value; 28 % daily value of phosphorous; iron (15 %); copper (18 %); and manganese (almost 60 %)

Quinoa’s link to food security

Cautioning that the crop is “still in the experimental phase” in some areas, Mr. Bojanic, who is the Deputy Regional Representative at the FAO Regional Latin America and the Caribbean Office and also serves as the Secretary for the International Year of Quinoa’s Secretariat, said that quinoa “is beginning to be taken up by countries that would not have thought of having it a few years ago.” Those include Canada, China, Denmark, Italy, India, Kenya, Morocco and the Netherlands, which are already producing or undertaking agronomic trials towards commercial production of quinoa.

Bolivia and Peru account for more than half of the annual 70,000 tons produced of quinoa, with the United States responsible for about 7,000 tons and France close behind, FAO reports. Quinoa is hardy. It thrives in temperatures from -8 degrees Celsius to 38 degrees Celsius, at sea level or 4,000 metres above, and is not impacted by droughts or poor soils.

This crop can be grown under very difficult conditions like semi-arid, at high altitudes, sea level, with no fertilizer. It’s an amazing crop in terms of the adaptability that it has to stressful environments,” Mr. Bojanic said.

Researcher from the University de Valparaiso with quinoa farmers in Chile. Photo: Didier Bazile/CIRAD

This adaptability makes quinoa potentially viable for areas with regular droughts, such as the Sahel Region – which includes Senegal, Chad, Niger and Mauritania – where million of people are in need of emergency food aid and malnutrition is rampant.

The latest figures in FAO’s State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 Report show that despite significant progress, almost 870 million people – or one in eight – are still suffering from chronic malnutrition.

UN officials say there is still time to reach the Millennium Development Goal for reducing the proportion of hungry people around the world by half by 2015, but countries need to step up their efforts and quinoa offers hope.

The quinoa quandary

Agronomical and nutritional attributes aside, quinoa’s global success relies on making it affordable. Consumers will not buy what they cannot afford, and farmers will not grow large quantities of a crop that is not financially viable.

Such is the so-called quinoa quandary that as the demand for quinoa has grown in recent years, so has its price. Less than $70 per ton a decade ago, quinoa now sells for more than $2,000, according to FAO figures.

In Bolivia, quinoa farmers near Lake Titicaca, the world’s highest body of water, carry waist-high stalks covered with purple, yellow, green and orange flowers to harvest. This is considered the cradle of great civilizations for the Tiahuanaco and the Incas, and is the origin of quinoa.

“Now people everywhere are buying quinoa. In La Paz, they sell it in the markets. It’s everywhere. For that reason we are also able to sell small quantities. With that money we sustain our families,” Elias Vargas, a farmer, told the United Nations.

Mr. Vargas and his neighbours sell their crops to a Bolivian coffee chain, Alexander Coffee, which uses quinoa in its salads, sandwiches and desserts. The company bakery turns out more than 1,000 quinoa chocolate chip cookies per day.

In the beginning it was hard to change the mentality,” recalled Pamy Quezada Velez, CEO of Alexander Coffee. Quinoa used to be known as ‘poor man’s food’ with Bolivians preferring to eat wheat and rice. “More people are opening up to the idea, and we’re doing well with quinoa.”

The partnership between small farmers and small businesses is part of a project supported by the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). While farmers like Mr. Vargas do not grow enough to sell to foreign markets, increased domestic consumption provides them with new opportunities.

Almost all of the estimated 250,000 acres of quinoa farmland is in the hands of small farmers and associations around the world. FAO estimates that at least 130,000 small quinoa growers from South America alone will benefit this year from increased sales, higher prices for their crops and a return to indigenous practices in a sustainable manner.

“In the traditional markets, it is still rather accessible to poor people but when you find it in the supermarket it tends to be rather expensive,” Mr. Bojanic said.

The rapid expansion of quinoa farming in the last years has been a double-edged sword. As prices rise, farmers are more likely to sell the quinoa crops they would have consumed, sparking concerns of malnutrition. About one-third of children under the age of five in the Andean countries are already chronically malnourished, according to figures from the World Health Organization (WHO).

Quinoa fields on the Bolivian altiplano. Photo: Claudio Guzmán/FAO

The change in food choices as a result of higher income is also causing some farmers to turn from traditional staples to more caloric, processed foods. The change is particular among youth who would prefer a sugary soda to a home-made drink of boiled water, sugar and quinoa flour.

In addition, the increased incentives to produce more quinoa are also contributing to land disputes. “Land that had barely any use in the past and small farmers who were not in conflict are starting to – now that the land has more value – struggle among themselves so they can claim such lands to produce quinoa,” Mr. Bojanic said.

Property disputes are further aggravated by reverse migration, as the high prices for quinoa are motivating residents who moved to cities to return to plots, and by not giving the soil enough time to rest between harvests.

The push for increased production is seemingly at odds with the traditional life of the quinoa farmers, a main reason quinoa was selected for the honour. But UN officials stress that boosting the importance of developing sustainable production systems for quinoa consumption and food security are among the main objectives for the year.

Boosting sustainable agricultural practices and partnerships

The International Year of Quinoa, is overseen by the IYQ- International Coordination Committee composed of the ministries of agriculture of Andean countries and France. Bolivia has the presidency of the Committee, with Ecuador, Peru and Chile sharing the vice-presidency.

“The reaction is very enthusiastic,” said Mr. Bojanic. “Governments are looking at a coordinated approach to increase production nationally and regionally.”

Experimental quinoa plants at the Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias in Ecuador. Photo: INIAP

In the public sector, the UN is looking to engage with international agricultural research centres and national research centres on a global research network and gene bank database to maintain the crop’s 120 variations. The idea is that experts will test the crops and show farmers how they can best be grown under different conditions.

Professor Luz Gomez Pando is one of the local experts and scholars working with the UN in Lima, Peru. Based at La Molina University, she uses nuclear radiation to develop new varieties of quinoa that have a higher yield. The gamma rays speed up the evolution process that would take millions of years in nature. She then gives her seeds to the women farmers and at harvest time, cooks quinoa with them.

“I am from the highland above 3,000 metres and I was the daughter of two farmers,” Ms. Gomez told UN Radio and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “What we need right now is to have these crops very fast in big fields.”

The majority of quinoa is produced using traditional technologies that result in low yields. A hectare normally results in 600 kg of quinoa. FAO wants to raise the production to a ton of quinoa per hectare. That would help raise the overall production from 70,000 tons per year to 200,000 tones annually by 2018 through improved technologies and engagement with businesses already processing quinoa, including large importers and exporters.

02-20-2013quinoa

References:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44180#.US1C3jCR98E

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/10352/2

“Is organic food more nutritious or safer? This is definitively not the right question.”

Stanford University researchers conducted a meta-analysis* of seventeen studies in humans and 230 field studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in unprocessed foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, grains, milk, eggs, chicken, pork, and meat). The study, published in The Annals of Internal Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875), concluded that “the published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.” 

This conclusion has received vast media coverage – announcing that this meta-analysis demonstrates clearly that organic foods might not have more nutritious value than conventional foods and questioning the “value add” of producing and eating organic. Is organic food little more than a made up marketing scheme, another way for affluent consumers to waste money? This was the kind of questions that came to my mind when reading the articles from influential newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

In fact, there are major issues and gaps when reading both the scientific article as well as the media coverage.

One of them is the simplistic way that the media has used to report on this study. They mainly focused on the conclusion that summarized two results as a key statement. However, when reading the article, each of us can appreciate all the results (or non-results) as well as the limitations of this study and can conclude that things in nutrition science are not so simple.

The fact that the journalists have not done a critical analysis of the study and available scientific publications on the subject, or have not highlighted its limitations that are quite substantial or have not offered a fair presentation of what the study’s critics have to say is intriguing and disconcerting because a good scientific investigation can minimize the impact that this “single” study can have on our choice to eat or not organic foods. In fact, more clinical long-term investigations are needed to answer the question: “is organic food more nutritious or safer?” It will bring an important component – tangible outcomes to validate its real value in prevention and promotion. The challenges associated to scientific research of the benefice of eating organic foods will be discussed in another blog.

This is a very hot topic and we would like in this blog to ask some pertinent questions and answer them, when possible. This will help to clarify why it is important to continue to develop organic farming as well as to eat and promote organic foods not only at the local but also at the global levels.

What are the advantages of doing organic farming – locally and globally?

There are many explanations and definitions for organic agriculture but all converge to state that it is a system that relies on ecosystem management rather than external agricultural inputs. This is a system that begins to consider potential environmental and social impacts by eliminating the use of synthetic inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, veterinary drugs, genetically modified seeds and breeds, preservatives, additives and irradiation. These procedures are replaced with site-specific management practices that maintain and increase long-term soil fertility and prevent pest and diseases.

According to the FAO/WHO (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1999):”Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, agronomic, biological, and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfill any specific function within the system.”

When doing organic farming, a variety of crops and livestock are cultivated in order to optimize competition for nutrients and space between species. This results in less chance of low production or yield failure in all of these simultaneously. This diversity in production can have an important impact on local food security and resilience. In rain-fed systems, organic agriculture has demonstrated to outperform conventional agricultural systems under environmental stress conditions. Under the right circumstances, the market returns from organic agriculture can potentially contribute to local food security by increasing family incomes.

At nowadays, the organic agricultural movements can be seen as tangible efforts to create a more sustainable development. However, these efforts are challenged by globalization, which strongly influences and impacts organic agriculture and food chains. In fact, global agriculture and food systems hold large differences between, on the one hand, industrialized farming and consumption based on global food chains and, on the other, smallholder farmers and resource poor people primarily linked in local food markets in low-income countries. This potential more sustainable development in opposition to the more conventional farming/food system gives rise to a number of questions such as:

Does global trade with organic products support a sustainable development?

Can organic agriculture contribute to global food security?

Does organic certification safeguard natural resources and improve working conditions?

Can fair trade with organic products be realized?

These questions need answers if we really want to impact the current and future food insecurity and demonstrate the viability of a sustainable global agriculture system based on organic farming.

Why are we eating organic food (or local food)? …

Because it is safe, nutritious as well as socially responsible and it allows us to reconnect with the essence of “good and tasty eating behaviors”! This is our vision at Challenged Kids International.

The discussion of these different points comes next.

Isn’t reducing exposure to pesticides and antibiotic use precisely what organic production is supposed to do?

Today, agricultural contaminants such as inorganic fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides as well as hormones and antibiotics used in conventional agriculture are a major concern all over the world. These chemicals have accumulated up the food chain where top predators (e.g. humans) can consume toxic quantities. Organic agriculture restores the environmental balance and organic foods are far safer in terms of pesticide content, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and GMOs.

And the Stanford University study corroborated partially this conclusion by finding that organic food had 30% less pesticide residue (see Wayne Roberts’ Blog for this specific point  – http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/citywatch-getting-to-the-right-question-on-the-nutrient-benefits-of-organic-food/). Even though the pesticide levels in conventional foods in this study fall within the safety guidelines set by different environmental protection agencies, it is important to note that the health effects of the pesticides are cumulative, and that what we would consider safe at one time point might not be anymore the same over a period of 20 to 40 years of accumulation.

For example, it is well documented that:

• Herbicide residue on GMO crops may be causing fertility problems,

• Organophosphate exposure can lead to pre-term births, and both attention deficit hyperactivity disorders and lower IQs in children

This is quite scary!

Moreover, the Stanford study also noted that the risk for ingesting antibiotic-resistant bacteria was 33% higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork but did not discuss at all the potential health outcome of this kind of results.

Why this result is so important?

Let me take one recent example to show you the potential link between ingestion of antibiotic resistant bacteria, and clinical morbidity and mortality.

As highlighted recently in the Huffington Post (as well as in other newspapers and magazines), superbugs (drug-resistant E. coli) in chickens could be an underlying cause of antibiotic-resistant bladder infections in 8 million women (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/chicken-bladder-infection-superbug-uti_n_1668255.html).

In fact, chickens are injected with antibiotics from day one to help them grow bigger and faster and protect them from diseases. The problem is that these are the same antibiotics sold in the U.S. for humans to treat bladder infections, among other conditions, which means our bodies eventually become resistant to the drugs because we’re getting so much of it. McGill University researchers who have published this interesting result, had previously reported that the E. coli in the chicken was much more genetically related to those of human urinary tract infections, compared with the E. coli in the beef and pork. An interesting but implacable demonstration!

More importantly, from a public health safety point of view, this kind of results has led the USDA to routinely sterilize commercially harvested meat, a practice not necessary in organically raised animals.
Is organic food more nutritious than conventional food?

…. Yes, may be, perhaps…. It all depends on what you mean by nutritious food and its relation to seasonal food.

This Stanford University study has also showed that organic foods may have higher levels of anti-oxidants – plant phytochemicals thought to be important to human health as well as omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk and chicken, and vaccenic acid (potential anticancer effect) in organic chicken.

These results corroborate our reading of other scientific articles that have already proved some benefits of organic food and farming. To reinforce this statement, six articles have been published just this year on the nutritional value of organic foods showing interesting results like:

(1) Organic broccoli maintained higher concentrations of bioactive compounds (ascorbic acid and phenolics) and antioxidant potential during storage than conventional broccoli, with higher potential health beneficial effects (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936597),

(2) Organic cropping systems result in spinach with lower levels of nitrates and higher levels of flavonoids and ascorbic acid (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22393895),

(3) Organic growing increased the level of antioxidant compounds such as carotenoids, phenolic compounds and vitamin C in sweet bell pepper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22368104),

(4) The organic growing system affects tomato quality parameters such as nutritional value and phenolic compound content (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22351383),

(5) The concentrations of several nutritionally desirable compounds in milk (β-lactoglobulin, omega-3 fatty acids, omega-3/omega-6 ratio, conjugated linoleic acid and/or carotenoids…) decreased with increasing feeding intensity (organic outdoor ≥ conventional outdoor ≥ conventional indoors) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22737968; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22430502)

Evaluating the health benefits of eating organic foods is a relatively new research focus (less than 10 years of investigation). The number of publications is increasing significantly each year and we can expect more sophisticated research projects and as a result, more and more interesting results will be available to demonstrate the benefit of eating organic foods.

Moreover, the long term health impact of eating organic foods is not currently appropriately addressed. The duration of the human studies ranged from two days to two years. Most of the health effects will take a lot longer than that to show up.

According to the Stanford University article, this kind of clinical investigations won’t be possible because it is too expensive. Past (the SUVIMAX 1 study in France) and current experiences (the SUVIMAX 2 and Nutrinet studies in France, the Raine study in Australia and the Ontario Birth Study here in Toronto, Canada) to name some of them show that this is possible to investigate long-term effects if there is the political will to go in this direction.

Finally, the interface between food, nutrition and health is a complex issue. It depends from where you come from, your education and how you value the importance of good foods and/or health as well as the tradition and culture around food and culinary practices.

For CKi, nutritious food is more than the number of calories or the quantity of macro- (protein, carbohydrate…) and/or micronutrients (minerals and vitamins), it also relates to its social component (eating together, discussing and sharing food), the taste of food, the use of our five senses and finally, the impact that colorful and tasty foods can have on our brain and ultimately on our overall well-being.

Nutrition is a complex phenomenon, like an interactive game where pleasure can play a significant role. Unfortunately, we have lost this dimension in our “super speed” world.

A few years ago, I switched to organic and/or local food because I wanted to reconnect with my roots (French culture around food). The result has been more than positive. I have rediscovered the taste of foods: seasonal fruits and vegetables where I am sure to find the best nutritional value as well as locally produced meat, eggs, cheese and bread. As a result, I am eating less meat and refined carbohydrates but more grains, fruits and vegetables; I also cut completely junk foods. When I am cooking real foods and I am eating good cuisine, I have a lot of pleasure and I feel full not only in my stomach but also in my mind – a great sensation of satiety. I also know that I contribute socially to the sustainability of the global food security. This is also why it is important to eat organic and/or local foods!

Over time, we can expect that unbiased analysis coupled with modern-day science is likely to show with increasing clarity that growing and consuming organic food, especially in conjunction with healthy diets rich in fresh, whole foods and seasonal fruits and vegetables is one of the best health-promotion investments we can make today as individuals, families, and a society.

* In statistics, a meta-analysis refers to methods focused on contrasting and combining results from different studies, in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies.

References:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22944875

http://www.anh-usa.org/new-junk-science-study-dismisses-nutritional-value-of-organic-foods/

http://grist.org/food/organic-food-may-not-have-a-big-nutritional-edge-but-how-much-does-that-matter/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12094634

http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/environmental_benefits/environmental_benefits_main_page.html

http://www.icrofs.org/pdf/darcofIII/globalorg.pdf

http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq1/en/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/chicken-bladder-infection-superbug-uti_n_1668255.html

 

THANK YOU

THANK YOU to all who attended and contributed to our Rainwater Harvesting System Fundraiser on Saturday November 26th, 2011 for making it a GREAT success!

We hope you enjoyed the evening and we look forward to seeing you at future events.

Subscribe to this blog to keep posted on upcoming CKi events, initiatives, and the progress we are making in Ghana. We will also be featuring the latest news about nutrition, agriculture, food security, food diversity, food development, and international food issues.

~~Stay tuned for updates about the wonderful things happening around the world~~