Trading in soil carbon stocks

Soil carbon has become a hot topic, with carbon sequestration in soil a possible method for reducing atmospheric CO2. But this isn’t an easy task, and there’s a lot more to soil carbon than just sequestration. Here, we provide an overview of soil carbon flows and what they mean in the context of the global food system.

The term soil carbon refers to carbon stocks, in various forms, present in the world’s soil. Soil carbon can be organic (e.g. living or decomposing organisms, humus) or inorganic (e.g. carbon-containing minerals such as calcite).

The amount of carbon in the world’s soils is estimated in the region of 2500 gigatons, more than three times that present in the atmosphere and more than four times that in all living organisms. Organic matter in the soil, including soil carbon, is vital to good soil health, improving water and nutrient retention, maintaining soil structure and as nutrient sources for plant and microbial life.

Soil carbon content can be understood as the balance between carbon inputs and carbon losses. A major contributor to soil carbon inputs is photosynthesis. Plants capture atmospheric CO2, which is transferred below the soil surface via the roots. As well as contributing to the structure of the plant, some carbon is passed to rhizobial microorganisms, the microbial populations that live in close association with plant roots. As root structures and microbial populations in the soil grow, so too does the bound soil carbon.

Carbon can also be added to the soil through decomposing plant and animal material. The process of decomposition involves microbial respiration, which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, but some of the carbon in the decomposing material remains in the soil. The net balance between carbon inputs and losses to the atmosphere determine whether the soil carbon concentration increases or decreases.

However, further complexity is added to the system by other, abiotic factors. Soil composition, temperature, water content and erosion all influence soil carbon cycling. Naturally, this means that soil carbon stocks vary enormously between different parts of the world, from less than 1 tonne of carbon per hectare in desert environments to several hundred tonnes in tropical forests. Even within local regions, soil type can result in significant differences in soil carbon concentrations. This variation makes quantifying soil carbon challenging.

Agriculture directly influences soil carbon stocks. Clearing of land for agriculture, and tillage and cropping are generally considered to reduce soil carbon concentrations. However, this is not always the case: in certain systems, conversion of forest to grassland results in increased soil carbon concentrations, but it is uncertain how permanent this change is.

A number of activities exist that can increase carbon sequestration in the soil, or decrease the rate of carbon loss incurred by agriculture. Reducing tillage and soil erosion minimises carbon loss to the atmosphere or to waterways, while organic fertiliser application can add to the carbon input on agricultural land. The use of cover crops, which prevent leaving the soil bare between cropping cycles, can also help to maintain or even increase soil organic carbon.

The benefits of such practices are both local and global. Increased soil carbon benefits soil health, increasing crop yields in some systems. The benefits to soil structure of high soil carbon also allow for better retention of micronutrients, such as iron and zinc. This can result in higher concentrations of these mineral in crops, and thus in our own nutrition.

However, there are challenges in increasing agricultural soil carbon stocks in many areas. It is far easier to add to soil carbon in areas where the current concentration is low than in areas with relatively high existing stocks, which may be close to saturation with carbon. Moreover, it is easier for agricultural interventions to increase carbon concentrations in the upper layers of soil than the deeper layers.

Perhaps the greatest driver of recent interest in soil carbon is for its potential in sequestering atmospheric carbon emissions from human activity. Atmospheric carbon, in the form of CO2, is well known as a greenhouse gas. Thus, the possibility of using soil as a carbon sink is gaining momentum.

The potential of this possibility has recently been demonstrated in Australia. Australia has an existing Carbon Farming Initiative that provides the legislation for obtaining carbon credits by demonstrating increases in soil carbon on owned land. Recently, an Australian cattle farm sold carbon credits to Microsoft to the value of $500,000, obtained entirely from soil carbon sequestration from the management of the farm’s grazing land.

Schemes like the Carbon Farming Initiative have the potential to spread. However, in order to quantify changes in soil carbon stocks, it is essential to measure changes in soil carbon over time. This can be done by taking soil samples from a number of representative sites and quantifying the carbon present. These measurements can then be repeated to establish changes in soil carbon concentration over time. However, the wide variation in soil carbon even within a small area makes generalisation of carbon concentrations difficult. Currently, work is underway to benchmark New Zealand soil carbon concentrations, with a view to tracking changes in the future. This work will have to contend with the difficulties of varied concentrations, but may ultimately lead to some form of soil carbon credit system in New Zealand.

Study of soil carbon is benefiting from the interest sparked by the need to reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations. However, its importance to the global food system reaches beyond carbon sequestration. Healthy soils play a role in reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture by retaining nutrients and structure, and enabling optimum crop yield and nutrient content. In the future, the drive for carbon sequestration may also influence land management and provide another source of income for food producers.

Glossary

Photo by Dylan de Jonge on Unsplash

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020 – 2025 published

Read the guidelines

The USDA has released their latest dietary guidelines document, with a new emphasis on the importance of considering different life stages when designing guidelines.

A new set of dietary guidelines are designed for the US population every five years, based on the recommendations of a scientific advisory committee who review the latest nutrition and health research, ensuring up-to-date advice.

In this document, specific dietary recommendations for infants and toddlers appear, where before this advice was absent. These recommendations cover breastfeeding and infant formula use, as well as complementary foods. Strong emphasis is placed on food variety for toddlers, as well as on the importance of iron and zinc intake.

The guidelines recommend that Americans should eat more whole fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, while limiting added sugars and saturated fat to less than 10% of daily calories each. While this largely chimes with the advisory committee’s scientific report, they had suggested that only 6% of daily calories be from added sugar, due to the negative health outcomes of high dietary sugar intake. The committee were also cautious on the contentious subject of saturated fat, not recommending any change to the current guidelines and mentioning that replacement of these fats with carbohydrates is not advised.

Nutrient density and dietary patterns were pulled out as important terms in the report. Nutrient dense foods are recommended throughout, and listed as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, seafood, eggs, beans, peas, lentils, unsalted nuts and seeds, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and lean meats and poultry. However, the recommendations put emphasis on dietary patterns rather than on individual foods or food groups to enable adaptations that fit cultural, personal and individual needs and preferences. The three food patterns of the guidelines are the Healthy U.S-Style Pattern, the Healthy Vegetarian Pattern and the Healthy Mediterranean-Style Pattern. All three patterns provide most of their energy from plant-based sources, provide protein and fat from nutrient rich sources and limit intakes of added sugars, solid fats and sodium.

This is consistent with the results of the DELTA Model which illustrates that most of our energy should come from nutrient rich foods to ensure all nutrient requirements are met. Nutrient poor foods such as sugar should be minimised, and it is essential to consider the different needs of different demographic groups.

Interestingly, the guidelines make no mention of the environmental sustainability of different foods or diets. Several countries already make this inclusion, with this number likely to increase, but it will be at least 2025 before any such recommendations appear in the US dietary guidelines.

Read the guidelines

Glossary

Photo by Louis Hansel @shotsoflouis on Unsplash

WWF encourage planet-based diet

Read the report

The WWF report Bending the Curve: The Restorative Power of Planet-Based Diets joins other efforts to demonstrate the negative health and environmental consequences of our current way of producing and consuming food, while proposing ways to turn this around.

The report opens with the assertion that our food system must provide healthy, safe, affordable and nutritious diets for all, with reference to the UN Food Systems Summit later this year and the Sustainable Development Goals. This is completely in line with the principles of SNI: nutrition must come first when considering the global food system. The report then goes on to define planet-based diets as win-wins: healthy and with low environmental impacts and explores how these can be achieved.

A major recommendation of the report is that national dietary guidelines need to be more ambitious. This echoes a results of a previous WWF model. Currently, these guidelines largely reflect a healthier version of current consumption patterns and do not consider environmental impacts. The report argues that guidelines could be simultaneously healthier and more sustainable.

The main health recommendation of the report is to increase the plant-based proportion of the diet and decrease overconsumption. This is supported by the Global Burden of Disease study findings, indicating that low wholegrain and fruit intake, as well as high sodium intake, were the greatest dietary risk factors.

Beyond these overarching directions, recommendations for dietary and production change vary on a regional level. This is due to the difference in dietary, health and environmental factors seen in different parts of the world.

Countering biodiversity loss also requires a nuanced approach. For example, the report finds that most of the biodiversity loss associated with the Danish diet is due to imports of coffee, tea, cocoa and spices. Contrastingly, red meat holds this place for Latin American countries.

Similarly, the report states that we must feed our population on existing agricultural land and not further expand, but again the implications vary by region. Countries suffering from widespread undernutrition may need to expand their agricultural land to ensure healthy diets for their population, while more developed countries may need to contract.

The same regional variability is true for the planting of trees for carbon sequestration, conversion of grazing land to arable or optimising water use. The results of the report emphasise careful consideration of actions at a national level, as healthier diets can lead to increased environmental damage of one kind or another in vulnerable regions. A one-size-fits-all approach will not lead to a sustainable food system.

Read the report

Glossary

Photo by Tomas Tuma on Unsplash

FAO Statistical Yearbook 2020 shows big changes

Visit the yearbook

The latest global statistics from FAO show large increases in both crop and animal-sourced food production, but also reductions in cropland and agricultural employment.

Since 2000, there has been a drop of just over 1 billion people from the agriculture workforce, going from 40% of global employment to just 27% in recent years.

Countering this, use of agricultural pesticides increased sharply between 2000 and 2012, before levelling off. Increases were also seen for fertiliser, contributing to the 50% increase in crop production since 2000. Sugar cane, maize, wheat and rice dominate crop production, and the production of each is dominated by two or three countries.

The total agricultural land these crops are grown on showed reduction since 2000, decreasing by 75 million hectares, with a similar decrease of 89 million hectares of forest land.

In terms of animal-sourced foods, chicken showed the greatest increase of the meats, growing by 47% and reaching similar production quantities to pork, the highest producing meat sector. Milk production increased by 45%, while egg production increased by 50%.

Fisheries production showed a similar increase of 42% and is still dominated by marine fish. However, the expansion of aquaculture led to a 131% increase in freshwater fish since 2000. Aquaculture now represents 46% of total fisheries production, compared to 26% in 2000, with China largely responsible for the increase.

The increased food production coupled with decreased agricultural land and employment emphasise the increased efficiency, intensity and automation in food production. However, it should be noted that this is a global picture and that insights at a regional level are also necessary to fully understand the global food system.

Visit the yearbook

Glossary

Photo by Nick Fewings on Unsplash

GMO crops in the global food system

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are already major contributors to the global food system since their commercial introduction in the 1990s. For example, over 90% of US corn and soy acreage is planted with GMO seeds. Despite this, the use of GMO is still controversial, with many individuals against their use and many authorities strictly regulating their production and consumption. Here, the arguments for and against GMO use in crop production are presented. 

GMO are defined as organisms, and products thereof, that are produced through techniques in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination. 

The process in which GMO are created differs depending on the degree of modification required but generally, a desirable trait is identified in one organism that could be of benefit in another. The trait is studied and, if possible, the gene(s) responsible for the trait are isolated. These genes are then introduced to the target organism, either via bacterial or viral infection, where the microorganism carries the target gene into the organism for uptake, or by bombarding the organism with particles coated in the target gene. 

The outcome of the process is a GMO that expresses the desired trait isolated from the original organism. 

Advantages of GMO  

The ability to transfer desirable traits between distantly related crops that cannot be interbred has obvious benefits. Examples of GMO use include the ability to increase photosynthetic rate, develop crops that are drought-tolerant with increased yields, and produce crops with disease resistance, such as blight-resistant potatoes

Moreover, crops can be developed that have greater nutritional value than conventional varieties. There exists a long list of such biofortified crops, including cassava with increased zinc, iron, protein and vitamin A content, high lysine maize, high provitamin A rice, and corn with increased provitamin A and folate. These crops are of particular value in global regions where nutrient deficiencies are a high priority public health issue. 

One widely used GMO is Bt-maize. This crop takes its name from Bacillus thuringiensis, the bacterium that donated to the maize plant the trait of producing an insecticidal toxin. Thus, Bt-maize is more resistant to pest insects than conventional maize, leading to higher yields and reduced pesticide use. As a result, 82% of the crop grown in the US in 2020 was the Bt variety. 

Disadvantages of GMO  

The arguments against GMO are largely based on health and environmental risks. The approval process for GMO is nationally administered, so differs between countries. Largely, these processes are more rigorous than for conventional foods and assess both the health and environmental risks of the GMO. 

The World Health Organisation states that no negative health consequences of approved GMO have been shown to date. However, concerns and risks do exist. One health concern raised is the possibility of allergenicity being unintentionally transferred between organisms. An example of this was when early GMO researchers, hoping to increase methionine content, found that the main allergen from Brazil nuts retained its allergenicity after transfer into a GMO soybean. As a result, the GMO soybean was never released commercially and allergenicity is now an important consideration when selecting donor crops. 

From an environmental perspective, there is the possibility that the GMO crop itself, or the introduced gene via cross-breeding or gene transfer, could escape the farmed environment and become a pest. The implications of this would depend entirely on the nature of the GMO crop; for example, transfer of a herbicide resistance gene to a non-target organism could lead to difficulties in controlling its growth. Alternatively, GMO crops could outcompete other plants due to the introduced trait, resulting in decreased biodiversity with unknown downstream implications. While the risk of these unintended consequences is low, they should be considered in the design and management of GMO. 

Finally, some express the opinion that GMO are morally wrong, as they involve too great an interference with living organisms. Such a decision can only be weighed by the individual but will likely mean that a proportion of the population will continue to avoid foods containing GMO products. 

This avoidance is challenging given the ubiquity of GMO products in many foods and by the difficulty for a consumer in identifying GMO foods. Different authorities take different stances on GMO labelling. For example, GMO are not specifically labelled in the US, rather foods that contain ‘bioengineered’ ingredients must be labelled as such. However, specific food labelling for certain types of GMO is on the horizon. The EU has stricter rules, with a requirement for GMO ingredients to be listed on food packaging. However, major food retailers have previously been forced to change their GMO policies due to the increasing “risk of finding GM material in non-GM food”. 

Conclusion 

GMO are widespread in the global food system, but not equally distributed.  

Moreover, regulation of GMO production varies and is not always clear and explicit. There are countries, like the US, where GMO crop production is widespread. Contrastingly, 19 member countries of the European Union have previously voted to either partially or fully ban the use of GMO. In New Zealand, no GMO crops are commercially grown. These variations in use and acceptance will certainly limit investment and development of future GMO. However, there is the opportunity for countries that have a GMO-free stance to use this status to market their products at a premium. 

GMO crops generally result in decreased pesticide use, coupled with increased yields and profitability. Moreover, there are those that believe that GMO will be necessary to adequately nourish a growing population and to adapt production to changing climates. The risks of GMO largely relate to unintended and uncertain consequences that must certainly be properly managed if GMO use and development is to increase. 

This Thought for Food was written by Cody Garton, a summer intern from Pūhoro STEM academy

Glossary

Photo by Bill Oxford on Unsplash

Peas please

Read the article

Food Foundation in the UK are gaining traction with their ‘Peas Please: Making a pledge for more veg’ initiative, the results of which were recently described in Nutrition Bulletin. 

Despite a historically growing UK market for fruit, which has increased by around 50% since 1970, vegetable purchasing was seen to slowly decline over the same period. The common perceptions of vegetables as boring or not that tasty was likely not helped by minimal publicity, with only 1.2% of the UK food advertising spend used to market vegetables. On top of this, there are questions around the environmental impacts of the average UK shopping basket, and ample evidence that field-grown vegetables have small environmental footprints. 

Most of the UK public do not meet dietary guidelines for vegetables, particularly those with lower incomes. On top of low purchase rates, 40% of purchased vegetables in the UK are wasted at home. This matches the global trends of food waste shown by the DELTA Model, where most of the nutrient waste is from plant-sourced foods. Altogether, the nutritional and health implications of low vegetable intake due to consumer choice and waste needs to be tackled. 

The ‘Peas Please’ initiative aims to make eating vegetables more healthy, affordable, sustainable and pleasurable. Organisations, such as supermarkets and restaurants, pledge to follow these directives, in the hope of changing the way the country treats vegetables. Their website features ways in which individuals, communities and businesses can engage with the initiative and forge better relationships with vegetables. 

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Artem Kostenko on Unsplash

Comparing apples with potatoes: the Vego-guide

Read the article

Researchers in Sweden have designed a tool for comparing the environmental impacts of different plant foods. The tool is designed for interested consumers who want to know more about the environmental implications of these foods in their diets. 

Using life-cycle analysis data for 90 plant foods, the Vego-guide considers the climate, biodiversity, water use and pesticide use impacts of each food. This information is used to generate a traffic light rating for each food, from orange (greatest negative impacts) to green star (least negative impacts). 

The tool is currently in further development for application to the Swedish market, but we can expect to see similar tools becoming available worldwide as consumer desire to make food choices based on their environmental impacts increases. 

Currently, the only nutritional consideration in the model is to group plant foods together based on their main role, e.g. carbohydrate source, protein source and so on. This is important, as the carbohydrate sources (such as pasta and potatoes) receive better Vego-guide ratings than fruits. Care must be taken to ensure that these higher ratings do not influence consumers to choose energy dense foods over nutrient dense foods, a choice that would be detrimental from nutrition and health perspectives. 

Read the article

Glossary

Photo by Charles Deluvio on Unsplash

Calcium comparisons between dairy, soy and almond beverages

Read the article

Research in the journal Current Developments in Nutrition has found that almond beverages were inferior to both milk and a calcium-fortified soy drink for bone health. 

The New Zealand researchers fed rats diets supplemented with either milk, or a soy-based or an almond-based drink. They analysed the amount of the liquid and feed consumed, as well as indicators of bone health and body composition. Fortified with calcium, the soy drink had the highest calcium (181 mg Ca/100 mL) and energy content (66 kcal/100 mL), while the almond drink had the lowest for both (105 mg Ca/100 mL; 29 kcal/100 mL). Milk lay in between for both energy and calcium (127 mg Ca/100 mL; 65 kcal/100 mL). 

The animals given the almond drink showed the least weight increase and the lowest body fat content. In terms of bone health, these animals showed the least bone growth, the lowest bone calcium content and the weakest bones. The fortified soy drink had results similar to those for milk, which is interesting given that the difference in calcium content between the almond drink and milk was far less than the difference between the fortified soy drink and milk. 

Many people, due to personal choice or health reasons, replace milk with plant-based beverages. The authors emphasised the need to consider more than just the energy or protein content of these replacements, which is particularly pertinent for elderly people prone to poor bone health. 

Read the article


Glossary

Photo by Mehrshad Rajabi on Unsplash

Saturated facts

For nearly 50 years it has been believed that saturated fat is linked to heart disease. However, the scientific evidence does not universally support this assertion and recommendations are being made to change dietary guidelines and public knowledge around saturated fat. 

In response to increasing rates of heart disease in Western populations in the mid-20th century, the results of epidemiological studies comparing diets in different countries suggested that saturated fat intake could be a risk factor. Minimising the intake of saturated fat-containing foods such as red meat, dairy and chocolate was advised as a result. Currently, the NZ and UK dietary guidelines recommend reducing saturated fat intake, while the US and Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend the restriction of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) to less than 10% of total calorie intake in order to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). 

Saturated fatty acids (SFA), colloquially termed saturated fat, are molecules found in many common foods, especially animal fats and certain plant oils. Saturated refers to the molecular structure of the fatty acids, which have only single bonds between the carbon atoms, which cannot bond with any more hydrogen: thus, saturated with hydrogen. 

The claim that saturated fats were linked to negative health outcomes was accepted by public health institutes such as the World Health Organisation and the American Heart Association, and quickly caught on as a widespread belief. This has become so ingrained that, despite evidence to the contrary, it is proving difficult to change nutritional guidelines and the opinions of medical professionals, nutritionists, and consumers.  

A recent study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies on saturated fat. It was found that there were no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease and total mortality. While it was found that SFAs do increase cholesterol in most individuals, they increase concentrations of large particles of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which is less correlated with CVD risk than the small, dense particles.  

An important finding of this study was that health effects could not be predicted from the SFA nutrient group alone; consideration of the overall macronutrient distribution and food matrix was necessary. Different SFAs have different physiological effects, which are further influenced by the foods they are found in and the carbohydrate content of the diet. Several foods relatively rich in SFAs but also rich in other nutrients, such as whole-fat dairy, dark chocolate, and unprocessed meat, were not associated with increased CVD or diabetes risk. 

There are calls to examine the overall risks of foods containing SFA, rather than SFA themselves. Likewise, the replacement of SFA-containing foods with those containing other fatty acids, often recommended in nutritional guidelines, was found unlikely to reduce CVD events or mortality. The authors of this last publication warned that current recommendations to replace SFA with alternative fatty acids may hinder efforts to get people to adopt more beneficial lifestyle changes, thinking that this single dietary change may be sufficient to reduce their CVD risk. 

One of the studies included in the JACC meta-analysis was the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological) study of 135,000 people from 18 countries on five continents. It found all types of fat (saturated, mono-unsaturated and polyunsaturated) were not associated with CVD, and saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Additionally, fat intake was associated with lower risk of total mortality. In contrast, a diet high in carbohydrates was associated with higher overall mortality risk.  

The claims around the negative consequences of fat intake may themselves have caused health problems. Reduction of saturated fat in the diet can lead to excessive consumption of carbohydrates as a replacement. Prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes has exploded in recent years, as seen in the chart below. Dr James Muecke, 2020 Australian of the Year, wrote in the Canberra Times“A flawed dietary guideline, which we have obediently and blindly followed for 40 years, is literally killing us. We’ve been encouraged to eat less fat and consume more carbs and yet we’ve never been fatter, our teeth never more rotten, and type 2 diabetes and its complications never more prevalent.” Dr Mueke makes clear the far greater need to prioritise reductions in excess carbohydrate consumption, rather than reductions in fat, to reduce the rate of non-communicable diseases in developed nations like Australia.

Rapidly increasing prevalence of obesity globally over the last 40 years. Source: World Health Organisation

In addition, advice to reduce consumption of nutrient-rich foods such as dairy and meat risks limiting the intake of nutrients such as calcium, iron, zinc, riboflavin and Vitamin B12. The Global Burden of Disease study shows that in the main, global health problems are caused more by what people do not eat – either through poor choice or through lack of choice – rather than an excess of certain foods. With the exception of excess sodium, the highest association of mortality and disability-adjusted life years globally was with insufficient intake of nutrient-rich foods. The study also showed the problems of consuming excess sugars. Consuming calorie-rich but nutrient-poor foods (e.g., sugary drinks) can displace nutrient-rich foods in the diet. The Global Burden of Disease study demonstrates that diets low in nutrient-rich foods are correlated with higher mortality. Importantly, saturated fat intake did not appear with any link to higher burden of disease. 

Number of deaths per 100 000 population attributable to individual dietary risks at the global level in 2017. Reproduced from the Global Burden of Disease study.

It is important for policy makers and health institutes to take all evidence into account when- designing nutritional guidelines. Arbitrary recommended intake levels for saturated fat will be less useful for the prevention of CVD or reduced mortality than targeting excess consumption, particularly of carbohydrates, and micronutrient deficiencies. Foods containing saturated fat, such as meat and dairy, can contribute to a nutritious balanced diet. They certainly should not be removed from the diet due to their saturated fat content, which has inconsistent links to modest impacts on CVD. Replacing these foods with carbohydrates will likely cause greater damage. 


Glossary

Photo by Anna Onishchuk on Unsplash

SNI in spotlight at Primary Industries NZ summit

Representatives from industry, policy and research came together last week to attend presentations on trade, sustainability, consumer science and future trends for the primary sector in New Zealand at the Primary Industries Summit in Wellington. The summit, organised by Federated Farmers of New Zealand, was held at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (23rd – 24th November). Delegates heard a selection of world class, global and local experts delivering insights that will support and enable the sector to plan and prepare for its transition and adaptation to a sustainable future.

On the second day of the summit, over 400 delegates heard from the Riddet Institute’s Dr Nick Smith, who discussed the research being undertaken by the Institute’s Sustainable Nutrition Initiative (SNI). SNI focuses on how global food production will need to adapt to adequately and sustainably meet the nutritional requirements of the world’s population, now and in the future.

After the opening keynote from the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, Nick gave an overview of the global food system, which encompasses far more than our common perception of farm, processing, distribution and consumption. Professor Warren McNabb, deputy director of the Institute and leader of SNI, comments “our research investigates many aspects of the global food production system, including food waste, international trade, environmental impacts and governance. We incorporate this into a working model (the DELTA Model) to assess scenarios for delivering sustainable and adequate nutrition for all”.

Nick’s talk struck a chord with the audience as he discussed micronutrient availability (what is often called ‘hidden hunger’) and his contention that a global food production system that fails to nourish people can never be considered sustainable. Although macronutrient production is currently more abundant than many people think, our current global food production system paints a chilling picture when the supply of micronutrients is considered. For example, the world doesn’t produce enough calcium or Vitamin E for its current population, and these deficiencies will grow as the population increases. Other micronutrients, including those sourced predominantly from animal foods, like Vitamin B12, will likely be problematic in the future. Nick reiterated that any proposed changes to food production must consider the nutritional consequences to people, alongside environmental considerations, if our global food production system is to be truly sustainable.

Sustainable nutrition is a key research topic for the Institute, given our vision to support the primary industries with their adaptation to a sustainable future and underpinning their products with world class fundamental science. Nick outlined to the assembly SNI’s key findings in the area and also discussed the work of Distinguished Professor Paul Moughan. Paul and his team recently demonstrated that a US citizen could purchase a nutritionally adequate diet for US$1.98 a day (NZ$2.83). Nutritionally adequate means a diet that is able to supply all the nutrients needed by the consumer.  An adequate, but entirely plant-based diet would cost US$3.61 (NZ$5.15). This emphasised the role of nutrient dense animal-sourced foods in a nutritious and affordable diet.

The DELTA Model allows current and future global food production system scenarios to be analysed for their ability to supply sustainable and adequate nutrition to the world’s population. Our work with DELTA demonstrates that sufficient macronutrients (i.e. energy, protein, fat) are produced today to nourish the world’s population. In fact, from a macronutrient perspective, we already produce enough food to feed the forecast 2030 world population of 8.6 billion. The issues are really around the supply of the aforementioned micronutrients and trace elements. 


Glossary

Photo courtesy of PINZ2020