Discussion: Nutrition and Food Science Implications

A previous speaker has noted that there were only thirty agricultural economists involved in the World Food and Nutrition Study (WFNS). Even though "Nutrition" is half of the title, there were only five and a half nutritionists involved and, incidentally, only six women. Our study team 9 had two and a half nutritionists (one did double duty as an anthropologist) and half of the total women involved in the study. It is no wonder, then, that issues relating to women received little attention and that, apart from team 9's efforts, neither did nutrition. Nutritionists must assume much of the responsibility for the fact that issues concerning food and its relation to human sustenance have been neglected by other professionals. Nutrition scientists have tended to remain in their laboratories, developing basic information on what substances are essential in the diet, what amount must be taken daily, and what metabolic purpose is served. "Basic research" workers have not spoken out on the societal consequences of failure to meet nutritional needs and, in fact, many may not even be aware of them (any more than an organic chemist, for example, might know about and speak to issues stemming from the use of pesticides). People working in applied nutrition might be expected to know these things, but applied nutritionists have for the most part been women who are often shy of speaking or whose remarks go unheard by those in a position to act, to make change. More recently, the most prevalent form of malnutrition--that due to inadequate food intake, to limitation of food energy-has been seen to be unnecessary and capable of elimination. Many people have urged that a concerted effort be made to do so, and the United Nations is committed to this effort. Economists have looked to justify it as economic, not simply humanitarian. Assessment of economic costs relates to present views that short of death severe malnutrition leads to permanent impairment of physical and mental development so that society is burdened with the u derproductive survivors. Sadly, the nutritionist is unable as yet to give definitive answers as to the individual and social consequences of less than severe malnutrition. Sadly for the economist, it is difficult for him o justify increasing the productive capability f omeone who, in fact, will be unemployed and unproductive. Yet there is no doubt that these consequences are profoundly undesirable. Even our mutual security is threatened by the existence of malnutrition elsewhere. Study team 9 was drafted to be interdisciplinary, with the sanction of the Academy but largely under advisement of Alan Berg, our chairman. His stance was consistent with a view that has been emerging among international and bilateral agencies (under the urging of a handful of key professionals, mainly economists) that sustained improvement in nutritional state of deprived people will not result from conventional nutrition/health sector interventions but will, rather, require that g neral governmental policies and programs be designed specifically with nutrition objectives in mind. Team 9 took a new view of nutrition research, seeing it as needing to provide the information required to indicate what the policy choices are, to provide the criteria for selecting among alternatives, and to suggest measures of effectiveness. This new k d of nutrition research obviously requires th involvement of many specialists, notably agricultural economists and nutritionists. Foo scientists should review their research priorities in the same light. Five research profiles in nutrition and food science have been selected by the Academy Steering Committee as deserving immediate attention. These are the functional significance of malnutrition or nutrition-performance relaDoris Howes Calloway is a professor and chairman of the Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of California, Berkeley.