Prakash Shetty’s article “Nutrition Transition in India” brings up a very interesting issue that we haven’t yet encountered in such clarity: development isn’t always good. Of course we’ve seen examples of progress that benefits one sector but degrades another, like economic versus environmental concerns. The environmental side effects, though, would never be misread as development in their own right. I think “Nutritional Transition” broaches a qualitatively different subject; one where the perils actually look like benefits to the inexperienced eye. These sorts of issues, while rarely the most urgent, are definitely the most difficult to overcome.
The specific profile of a person’s caloric intake may seem insignificant in the face of so much poverty, but it warrants attention even in the midst of much more dire crises. The issue of obesity still plagues the most advanced societies in the world, and carries serious consequences for the future. As a nation moving towards the largest population on earth, India would do well to attack this issue early. Especially since eating habits are largely a socio-cultural phenomenon, the momentum of the world’s largest nation will be exceedingly difficult to redirect if it drifts in a problematic direction.
The article’s data is not altogether surprising. It indicates a trend of urbanization, which was on track to exceed thirty percent in 2001, so is probably significantly higher by now. Urbanization often implies increasing income, which carries with it the luxury of reduced manual labor and increased leisure time. The leisure time is generally devoted to sedentary activity, which, coupled with reduced exertion at work, translates to greatly reduced daily caloric expenditure. With more funds available for food, developing families will buy more and pricier ingredients, which causes a shift from vegetable to animal products. As daily calorie intake grows, so does the relative contribution from fats. Dietary and lifestyle changes combine to raise incidence of non-communicable disease and obesity[1].
India’s demographic trends accentuate the potential issues with an excessively fatty diet. Non-communicable diseases often manifest themselves later in a person’s life. India’s elderly population is slated to increase not just in absolute terms, but also in its relative size by roughly five percent by 2026[2]. An aging population of any type will place great strain on the working class supporting them, but the emergence of chronic, nutrition-related diseases will certainly increase this burden. Therefore, the country would do well to invest in any possible early prevention, as it will definitely cost more to deal with health issues later.
I also find it worth questioning the sustainability of a meat-focused diet. The environmental impacts of the meat industry are numerous, but a recent New York Times article lists just a few of them succinctly: “Assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests [3].”
The developed world uses significantly more of the earth’s resources per capita than the developing world. In light of the resource shortages that are already occurring with respect to land, food and water, we should consider the consequences of converting hundreds of millions of people to a highly consumptive lifestyle. As we have discussed at length, India is already feeling backlash from the demand it puts on its own resources, especially in the realm of agriculture. As the same article mentions, “an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production[4].” This number includes the land used for growing feed grain. Considering the large caloric loss with each step up the food chain, it might make more sense to feed people the grains directly, greatly reducing the nutrient and space demands of meeting our collective caloric needs.
Wasteful use of grain also looks bad in light of global malnourishment. Admittedly, food shortages generally result from inequalities in distribution rather than inadequacies of global production levels. Perhaps, however, the reduction of the meat industry would reduce demand sufficiently to lower world grain prices. Many of the world’s poor work in agriculture, but more commonly for subsistence purposes than for profit in the global markets. Lowered commodity prices should therefore have a net positive effect on their access to food.
The problem of nutrient transition holds special relevance for us because it isn’t unique to India or even the developing world. In fact, since it accompanies development, it may be more our responsibility than anyone else’s. We live in a society at the peak of global development, and we’ve had more time to encounter and understand the associated issues than a nation like India. We should therefore have an advantage in finding a solution. Some might argue (as with similar issues like CO2 emissions), that it isn’t our responsibility to fix. In reality, however, we have assumed the position of a global role model. People looking for prosperity and happiness will strive for a lifestyle similar to ours. Like it or not, we need to set an example that will be sustainable for everyone to emulate. Otherwise, considering the globalized nature of climate, health, and economics, we will definitely share in the consequences.
The specific profile of a person’s caloric intake may seem insignificant in the face of so much poverty, but it warrants attention even in the midst of much more dire crises. The issue of obesity still plagues the most advanced societies in the world, and carries serious consequences for the future. As a nation moving towards the largest population on earth, India would do well to attack this issue early. Especially since eating habits are largely a socio-cultural phenomenon, the momentum of the world’s largest nation will be exceedingly difficult to redirect if it drifts in a problematic direction.
The article’s data is not altogether surprising. It indicates a trend of urbanization, which was on track to exceed thirty percent in 2001, so is probably significantly higher by now. Urbanization often implies increasing income, which carries with it the luxury of reduced manual labor and increased leisure time. The leisure time is generally devoted to sedentary activity, which, coupled with reduced exertion at work, translates to greatly reduced daily caloric expenditure. With more funds available for food, developing families will buy more and pricier ingredients, which causes a shift from vegetable to animal products. As daily calorie intake grows, so does the relative contribution from fats. Dietary and lifestyle changes combine to raise incidence of non-communicable disease and obesity[1].
India’s demographic trends accentuate the potential issues with an excessively fatty diet. Non-communicable diseases often manifest themselves later in a person’s life. India’s elderly population is slated to increase not just in absolute terms, but also in its relative size by roughly five percent by 2026[2]. An aging population of any type will place great strain on the working class supporting them, but the emergence of chronic, nutrition-related diseases will certainly increase this burden. Therefore, the country would do well to invest in any possible early prevention, as it will definitely cost more to deal with health issues later.
I also find it worth questioning the sustainability of a meat-focused diet. The environmental impacts of the meat industry are numerous, but a recent New York Times article lists just a few of them succinctly: “Assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests [3].”
The developed world uses significantly more of the earth’s resources per capita than the developing world. In light of the resource shortages that are already occurring with respect to land, food and water, we should consider the consequences of converting hundreds of millions of people to a highly consumptive lifestyle. As we have discussed at length, India is already feeling backlash from the demand it puts on its own resources, especially in the realm of agriculture. As the same article mentions, “an estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production[4].” This number includes the land used for growing feed grain. Considering the large caloric loss with each step up the food chain, it might make more sense to feed people the grains directly, greatly reducing the nutrient and space demands of meeting our collective caloric needs.
Wasteful use of grain also looks bad in light of global malnourishment. Admittedly, food shortages generally result from inequalities in distribution rather than inadequacies of global production levels. Perhaps, however, the reduction of the meat industry would reduce demand sufficiently to lower world grain prices. Many of the world’s poor work in agriculture, but more commonly for subsistence purposes than for profit in the global markets. Lowered commodity prices should therefore have a net positive effect on their access to food.
The problem of nutrient transition holds special relevance for us because it isn’t unique to India or even the developing world. In fact, since it accompanies development, it may be more our responsibility than anyone else’s. We live in a society at the peak of global development, and we’ve had more time to encounter and understand the associated issues than a nation like India. We should therefore have an advantage in finding a solution. Some might argue (as with similar issues like CO2 emissions), that it isn’t our responsibility to fix. In reality, however, we have assumed the position of a global role model. People looking for prosperity and happiness will strive for a lifestyle similar to ours. Like it or not, we need to set an example that will be sustainable for everyone to emulate. Otherwise, considering the globalized nature of climate, health, and economics, we will definitely share in the consequences.
[1] Shetty, P. S. (2002). Nutrition transition in India. Public Health Nutrition,
5(1A), 175-182. doi:10.1079/PHN2001291
5(1A), 175-182. doi:10.1079/PHN2001291
[2] Shetty, P. S. (2002). Nutrition transition in India. Public Health Nutrition,
5(1A), 175-182. doi:10.1079/PHN2001291
5(1A), 175-182. doi:10.1079/PHN2001291
[3] Bittman, M. (2008, January 27). Rethinking the meat-guzzler. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/
27bittman.html
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/
27bittman.html
[4] Bittman, M. (2008, January 27). Rethinking the meat-guzzler. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/
27bittman.html
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/
27bittman.html
No comments:
Post a Comment