Cereals and nutrition: Are we focused on the wrong grains?
July 16th, 2012 | by Gawain KripkeEditor’s note: Curtis Weller responded to the questions raised in Gawain’s blog post here. Curtis’s response also appears in the comment section below.
I took an hour to listen to a presentation on cereals and nutrition by Curtis Weller, a professor at the University of Nebraska, working as a science fellow at USAID. The lecture is part of an excellent series hosted by Agrilinks, a website and information resource for agriculture and food security hosted by USAID. I recommend noodling around on their website—there’s a ton of interesting stuff there.
I was especially taken with this slide from Professor Weller’s powerpoint:
The slide shows that the “big three” global cereals—corn, wheat and rice—rate lower on nutrition compared to alternatives like millet, fonio, or even barley. [Note that other crops, like quinoa and buckwheat aren’t included because they aren’t technically cereals.]
If nutrition were our only goal, we’d likely select grains from the right side of the table. But, for whatever reason, global production of the big three is orders of magnitude bigger than the others. And global production of the big three has grown consistently over decades, while production of the other cereals has stagnated.
One reason global production and trade of the big three is so much bigger is that the overwhelming majority of investment has been towards these crops; research on new varieties, pest control, productivity improvements, market development, commercial, industrial, and food applications, etc. etc. etc. The neglect of other cereals and staples has inspired some to call them “orphan crops” although that term has fallen out of favor.
Many of these “minor crops” play major roles in local and regional markets and for consumers in specific regions. So, this kind of information raises questions for policy-makers and development programmers about whether to focus efforts away from the big three and toward other crops. But it’s complex stuff – because the nutritional value of the cereal has to be balanced against other factors. And many questions, like whether it’s even possible to increase production of alternatives; does the technology even exist? Are there disadvantages to shifting production; do the minor cereals create increased require higher labor burdens or more difficult processing and storage? Is there a market for increased production? Etc.
Still answering these are questions is increasingly important as the world faces continued high food prices, continued high levels of malnourishment, and increased interest in agriculture from development donors and the investors alike.
If I have one criticism of Professor Weller’s presentation, it’s that he launched us into these questions, but didn’t offer much insight into how he would answer them. A few questions:
1. It would be useful to know whether it’s actually true that people who eat these alternative grains have better nutrition and better health. That’s implied, but before taking any action, we should know that increasing production and consumption of these grains will actually deliver benefits.
2. It’s easy to see that teff and fonio could be neglected by researchers and traders even if they are superior to other grains, given they are grown in poor countries with limited consumer base. But, not so for barley, rye, and oats. So why have these grains been comparative “losers” despite having nutritional advantages? Is there something intrinsic to them that makes them less competitive or attractive?
3. It doesn’t seem reasonable to do this kind of analysis for nutrition or for agriculture potential—without including other kinds of starchy staples, like quinoa, potatoes and cassava.
4. Large portions of some of these cereals—especially maize and sorghum—are used for animal agriculture globally rather than human consumption. If we’re thinking about investing in these, does that change how we should think about them?
Comments
One Response to “Cereals and nutrition: Are we focused on the wrong grains?”
Join the discussion
Author
Gawain Kripke
Gawain Kripke is the director of policy and research at Oxfam America and has more than 20 years of experience working on public policy and advocacy issues. He has testified before congressional committees and is a frequent news commentator on foreign aid, human rights, humanitarian issues, and agriculture policies.
See more posts from Gawain Kripke
Thank you for covering the USAID/Agrilinks Ag Sector Council Seminar and continuing the conversation on cereals and nutrition. After reading your questions, presenter Curtis Weller, Jefferson Science Fellow at USAID, posted a response on the Agrilinks blog here: http://ow.ly/cFg9v
Take a look!
The text is also below.
Having a meaningful discussion around the past, present and future of cereals is good for us all. Securing enough food is a basic concern for everyone on the face of the earth, so collectively figuring out how do it better is beneficial for all. If along the way, “better nutrition” and “better health” result, so much the better. Nevertheless, this assumes we agree on what currently constitutes “good nutrition” and “good health,” and on what cereals offer to the diet besides just starch.
Cereals in the diet alone do not meet all nutritional needs nor do they guarantee health. But evidence suggests they need to be a part of a well-balanced diet. Whole-grain cereal-based products contain more nutrients and fiber than products containing select cereal fractions. Whole-grain products and type of cereal in products are now being studied for their influence on diabetes and inflammatory diseases (e.g., arthritis, atherosclerosis and diverticulitis) and gut health (i.e., optimal mix of microorganisms in intestines and colon tailored to individual for optimal metabolism and nutrient absorption).
If we just look at an end goal of providing enough food for 9-10 billion people by 2050 given limited land and water in a climate that in the near future will become on average warmer, additional sources for supplying a portion of that food need to be considered. Must maize, wheat and rice be the only cereals upon which we depend? There are many more than three types of fruits or vegetables in diets around the globe. Are we putting too much focus on just three cereals by concentrating on maize, wheat and rice?
Looking at cereals, which are of academic interest to me, there are several aspects of cereals to consider when deciding which are worthy of cultivation and use. Aspects I believe to be of greatest importance to be considered are those related to agricultural productivity, growing season, carbon storage, salt tolerance, water use efficiency, nutrient use efficiency, drought resistance, pest resistance, soil fertility, standability, seed size, seed nutrient content, ease of seed handling, and post-harvest seed stability. Some of these aspects were highlighted to a greater extent than others in my Agrilinks presentation as time was limited.
At the end of the last major glacial period, a shift towards more intentional cultivation of cereals began. Since then, we as humans have slowly been limiting the types of cereals grown and used in the diet. Does this limitation leave us vulnerable to making future adaptions in cereals grown and used due to shifts in climate and resources? Are we in position to make the adaptions with minimal constraints?
While I am not trying to promote other cereals at the expense of the big three, I am advocating for more discussion on what may have been and may still exist as political and economic drivers for adaption for maize (in the US), wheat (in the EU) and rice (in Asia) being the big three. At one time in history, more rye was used in breads in Europe than wheat. What were drivers in this change? Was it only changes in consumer preferences? Was it related to subsidy policies related to the EAC? Has it been driven by the private seed industry? Are policies and subsidies being set for cereals used for human food or animal feed or liquid fuels?
As an academic researcher, I am with you on your points: “but before taking any action, we should know that increasing production and consumption of these grains will actually deliver benefits” and that it “doesn’t seem reasonable to do this kind of analysis for nutrition or for agriculture potential—without including other kinds of starchy staples, like quinoa, potatoes and cassava.” I trust you are going to become a voice advocating for more funding to be made available so that research on such topics can be conducted by the public sector of the scientific community. Your questions can not be answered at the moment and the private sector may not have the interest or inclination to help do so.
One of the intents of my presentation was to draw awareness to potential crops that may have something to offer if more time and effort was expended to study and adapt them. A small fraction of what is spent on public and private R&D for the big three cereals is spent on the other cereals. What adaptions might have taken place for cereals other than maize, wheat and rice if comparable time, money and effort had been spent on them? Furthermore, it would seem judicious to explore the potential to “improve” cereals indigenous to a region of the world used to warm temperatures and water limitations.