Under­lying Determinants of and Solutions for Malnutrition in Low-­and Middle-­Income Countries

The text provides a much-needed resource for established researchers and practitioners of public health nutrition. Each chapter is authored by preeminent experts in the field, and the book includes aids for classroom learning, including case studies, learning objectives, and review questions. A rigorous introduction to foundational knowledge, Public Health Nutrition concludes with a discussion of current and future solutions for pressing health issues

The importance of food systems and the environment for nutrition

Global and local food system transformation is necessary in order to ensure the delivery of healthy, safe, and nutritious foods in both sustainable and equitable ways. Food systems are complex entities that affect diets, human health, and a range of other outcomes including economic growth, natural resource and environmental resiliency, and sociocultural factors. However, food systems contribute to and are vulnerable to ongoing climate and environmental changes that threaten their sustainability. Although there has been increased focus on this topic in recent years, many gaps in our knowledge persist on the relation between environmental factors, food systems, and nutritional outcomes. In this article, we summarize this emerging field and describe what innovative nutrition research is needed in order to bring about food policy changes in the era of climate disruption and environmental degradation. Am J Clin Nutr 2020;00:1–10

When increasing vegetable production may worsen food availability gaps: A simulation model in India

Translating agricultural productivity into food availability depends on food supply chains. Agricultural policy and research efforts promote increased horticultural crop production and yields, but the ability of low-resource food supply chains to handle increased volumes of perishable crops is not well understood. This study developed and used a discrete event simulation model to assess the impact of increased production of potato, onion, tomato, brinjal (eggplant), and cabbage on vegetable supply chains in Odisha, India. Odisha serves as an exemplar of vegetable supply chain challenges in many low-resource settings

Conceptualizing Community Buy-in and Its Application to Urban Farming

Supporters of urban farming — a type of urban agriculture that emphasizes income generation — view it as a productive use of vacant land, increasing access to fresh produce and contributing to local economies. Yet its viability depends on gaining "community buy-in" (i.e., the acceptance and active support of local residents). While recognized as important to the success of socially oriented programs, information is lacking regarding effective processes for gaining community buy-in. Through participant observation at urban farms and interviews with urban farmers, neighborhood leaders, city residents, and key stakeholders in Baltimore, Maryland, we explored the perceived importance of community buy-in for urban farming, as well as the barriers, facilitators, and strategies for gaining such buy-in. Findings reveal consensus regarding the importance of buy-in, justified by farms' vulnerability to vandalism and the need to align farm services with local residents' desires. Barriers to buy-in include unfamiliarity of residents with urban farming, concerns about negative impacts on the neighborhood, and perceptions of urban farms as "outsider projects." Buy-in is facilitated by perceived benefits such as access to fresh produce, improvement of degraded lots, employment and educational opportunities, the creation of community centers, and community revitalization. Strategies urban farmers use to gain community support followed three main phases: (1) gaining entry into a neighborhood; (2) introducing the idea for an urban farm; and (3) engaging the neighborhood in the urban farm. We make recommendations based on these three phases to assist urban farmers in gaining community buy-in and discuss themes that can be applied to community buy-in processes more broadly

Wasted Food: U.S. Consumers' Reported Awareness, Attitudes, and Behaviors

<div><p>The U.S. wastes 31 to 40% of its post-harvest food supply, with a substantial portion of this waste occurring at the consumer level. Globally, interventions to address wasted food have proliferated, but efforts are in their infancy in the U.S. To inform these efforts and provide baseline data to track change, we performed a survey of U.S. consumer awareness, attitudes and behaviors related to wasted food. The survey was administered online to members of a nationally representative panel (N=1010), and post-survey weights were applied. The survey found widespread (self-reported) awareness of wasted food as an issue, efforts to reduce it, and knowledge about how to do so, plus moderately frequent performance of waste-reducing behaviors. Three-quarters of respondents said they discard less food than the average American. The leading motivations for waste reduction were saving money and setting an example for children, with environmental concerns ranked last. The most common reasons given for discarding food were concern about foodborne illness and a desire to eat only the freshest food. In some cases there were modest differences based on age, parental status, and income, but no differences were found by race, education, rural/urban residence or other demographic factors. Respondents recommended ways retailers and restaurants could help reduce waste. This is the first nationally representative consumer survey focused on wasted food in the U.S. It provides insight into U.S. consumers’ perceptions related to wasted food, and comparisons to existing literature. The findings suggest approaches including recognizing that many consumers perceive themselves as being already-knowledgeable and engaged, framing messages to focus on budgets, and modifying existing messages about food freshness and aesthetics. This research also suggests opportunities to shift retail and restaurant practice, and identifies critical research gaps.</p></div

Salvageable Food Losses from Vermont Farms

For a variety of reasons, farms cannot sell or donate all the food they produce, and some food crops are lost from the food supply. Food lost at the farm level represents a substantial environ­mental, economic, and nutritional cost to the food system. Few studies have estimated amounts of food lost at the farm level in the U.S. We present a survey-based method for estimating crop loss quantities based on four estimates by farmers: percent available crops that are harvested, percent unharvested crops they would consider edible, percent harvested produce sold, and percent harvested produce donated. We applied the method in an online survey administered to 58 Vermont vegetable and berry farms. Within the sample, an estimated 16% of vegetables and 15% of berries were considered lost but salvageable in 2015. If these farms are representative of farms across the state, this would amount to approxi­mately 13,684,000 lbs. (6,207,000 kg) of salvageable vegetables and 589,000 lbs. (267,000 kg) of salvage­able berries. This lost produce contains substantial nutrients. For example, the amount of lost fiber is equivalent to the gap between actual and recom­mended fiber intake for 36,000 adult U.S. women. Most estimates are based on recall. While many farmers reported keeping records of crops har­vested (67%) and sold (69%), few had records of other quantities needed for tracking losses. Sixty percent of farmers expressed interest in a state program that would compensate farmers for dona­tions and nearly half expressed interest in one or more strategies to involve community groups in reducing losses. While not all produce that is lost can realistically be provided to consumers in a timely and cost-effective manner, this research highlights a high magnitude of loss and potentially, a considerable nutritional and economic opportu­nity. Further research is needed to confirm and add depth to these estimates and to evaluate potential solutions

Survey results (selected) and chi-square tests ^a.

<p>* p<0.05</p><p>^a For each chi-square test, the percentages shown represent column proportions.</p><p>^b Household Income Quintiles: Q1: less than $29,000; Q2:$30,000 to $59,999; Q3:$60,000 to $84,999; Q4:$85,000 to $124,999; Q5:$125,000 or more.</p><p>Survey results (selected) and chi-square tests <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881#t002fn002" target="_blank">^a</a>.</p

Respondent Demographics, Unweighted⁺.

<p>^<b>+</b>Due to rounding, some categories do not sum to 100 percent.</p><p>^a percentage is based on population age 18, not total population.</p><p>^b refers to percentage of households with members under age 18</p><p>^c refers to percentage of foreign-born individuals</p><p>Sources for US data: 1–2012 CPS ASEC; 2–2014 CPS ASEC; 3–2013 CPS ASEC.</p><p>[<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881#pone.0127881.ref024" target="_blank">24</a>–<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881#pone.0127881.ref026" target="_blank">26</a>]</p><p>Respondent Demographics, Unweighted<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0127881#t001fn001" target="_blank">⁺</a>.</p

Reported Frequency of Food Preparation Behaviors.

<p>Responses to three-point Likert-type questions about the frequency of performing nine behaviors related to food preparation. Percentages indicate the proportion of respondents who chose each response. Behaviors classified as “food waste reducing” are italicized; behaviors classified as “food waste promoting” are non-italicized.</p

Reported Importance of Motivations to Reduce Food Discards.

<p>Responses to four-point Likert-type questions about eight possible motivations for reducing the amount of food discarded. Percentages indicate the proportion of respondents who chose each response, adjusted to 100%.</p