Environmental Impacts of Fortification Process - Dissertation Example

?2.3. Environmental impacts of fortification process: Our eating habits one way or the other is changing the ecological balance of the globe. As the population of the world is growing so is the demand in food. Hence therefore providing and fulfilling the food requirements is causing various environmental aspects from local to global levels. These impacts are getting severe day by day as people are using fortified food sources more than ever before (Frey, and Barrett, 2007). However environmental impacts of fortification process can be very much understood by considering the example of livestock industry. As livestock industry being the single largest user of land is affecting the eco system directly or indirectly (directly by cultivation of crops for the animals on large areas and indirectly from feedstock productions). Moreover predictions were given earlier by Grigg (1995) regarding increase in environmental impacts because of more agriculture trading and global trends in the market with reference to food. Furthermore environmental impacts with reference to agriculture are analysed, fortified food or functional foods productions, then these are the findings: Almost one third of the world’s cultivated land over the time of forty years has resulted in soil erosions and degradation of land. One way or other almost 80% shedding of forest is because of agriculture (Pimentel, 1994) High consumption of water in the agriculture sector and in livestock production is another main environmental impact. For instance in some cases crops consume 500 to 2000 liters of water and in case of beef almost 150,000 to 200,000 water is consumed to produce it (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) However in general live stock is mainly responsible for providing proteins to masses of today. According to a report in order to gain one kg of high quality meat 6 kg of high quality plant is required. Moreover an interesting fact regarding US which has been revealed that the population of U.S over the last sixty years has almost doubled. This trend is more likely to continue and will result in doubling of population again in next seventy years. The proportion that food producing system of US is using goes like this 50% of the total land of US, 17% fossil energy supply and 80% of fresh water. Moreover the consumption of grain in US live stock industry is 7% more than what its population directly eats. This over production has caused lands to erode. So this is another important environmental factor with reference to function food productions (Frey, and Barrett, 2007). Moreover different researches have been carried out with reference to environmental impacts in which different input and output and extended research methods have been used. However meat along with dairy products is considered to be the main contributor in terms of impacting the environment which even includes production change and distributors (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). According to the Swedish study, food consumption is one of the most important players in creating pollution. Beside pollution, another important concept which by Macdiarmid, et al., 2011 as “virtual water”. Or in other words it is the amount of water that is used in the production of food is known as virtual water or embedded water (Hoekstra, & Chapagain, 2008). Since water is a diminishing source of energy and it has no replacements unlike oil if that runs out then it can be replaced with other sources of energies. However the term virtual water or embedded water means that the water consumed by products during the time of creating product and that water is not present physically but it has consumed water is known as embedded water or virtual water for instance it takes 140 liters of water for making one cup of coffee and 15000 liters for 1kg of beef (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) Likewise according to the statistic report shows that almost 12,000 billion liters of water is taken out from rivers and other sources in UK which is about 9% of the total actual renewable water available in the UK. Keeping in view that almost 35,000 billion liters of green water is not included in it which comes as a result of evaporation of soil moisture. However if gross volume of virtual water is added then it would come as imported water from other parts of the world (in shape of different products) the total water consumption will become 102,000 billion liters per year (Chapagain and Orr, 2008) Similarly 4,645 liters of water is consumed by average ordinary person of UK per day (virtual or embedded water). In which 65% of this virtual water is entitled in the food that those people eat. Moreover UK is amongst the list of top importers of virtual water and is placed number 6th on the standings (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). The consequence of this virtual water import raises an ethical issue as the water that comes in UK is somehow taken from the countries which have scarce of water. For example water that is used in production of fruits, vegetables and other items for export (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). Another environmental impact because of our eating pattern is seen in Cerrado Savannah. A place which was considered by many a heaven for different animal and plants is facing a threat from humans because of the growing demand of food products. A quarter of Brazil is almost covered by this Cerrado , which nowadays is disappearing rapidly as according to many experts it has already lost two third of the area. This loss area according to experts has an area size of Belgium, Germany, France, Denmark, Netherland, United Kingdom and Switzerland combined (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) The main reason for this loss is the harvesting of Soya beans fields as large amount of forest have been cut down in order to prepare fields for soya beans as directly or indirectly soya beans are used in order to cook food. Moreover large amount of soya beans are used in livestock sector as a feed. So because of too much consumption and demand it is planted in different places of the world consequences are overall destruction of ecological system and environment (Frey, and Barrett, 2007). Another impact on environment can be seen from the case study of Mediterranean Basin. Since ages Mediterranean diet is considered to be one of the seductive and the healthiest diets of world. Usually tomatoes, sweet pepper, fish, bread and olive oil and various other components are used as ingredients in order to prepare this diet. So overall this increase use of the above mentioned ingredients have leaded towards more demands. As a result more intensive farming and fishing is done which as a result is impacting on the regions ecological and environmental cycle (Jackson, 2011). As for farming and fishing large area of the Mediterranean lands were converted into agriculture lands. Because of this much intense farming there has also been an increase need of water (Chamberlain, 2011). So as a result water demand in the Mediterranean basin doubled from 1950 and 2000. Furthermore deforesting means lack of space for animals and plants as well. As a result ecological system is disturbed because of humans. Similar case can be found with Mediterranean Sea where different fishes are also under pressure because of human consumption and ecological imbalance (International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation). Santucci (2006) in sub regional workshop on the trade and environment dimensions in the food and food processing industries in the pacific highlighted that “every human activity has an impact on the environment”. Moreover these impacts can be positive or negative and the question regarding how they will affect long term sustainability is dependent upon the management of these problems. Furthermore because of too much demand of food in terms of human needs and feed for animals is creating extra burden on agriculture sector. For answering these issues various different ways are being developed in order to cater the masses. Agriculture sector therefore has also some major impacts on environment. For instance the first and foremost impact is consumption of water, as almost all crops need fresh and plain water in order to grow. So in most cases where irrigation of land is not dependent upon rainy system instead agriculture is dependent upon canal system, usually farmers tends to use more water on crops which one way or other is causing scarcity of water. Furthermore energy consumption is another main issue (Santucci, 2006). Similarly use of pesticides and fertilizers on crops is also resulting in creating issues like soil erosion and degradation (Santucci, 2006) as different companies are offering different pesticides and fertilizers for different kind of crops depending upon the area they are located in and the climate condition. However farmers from under developing countries usually have no idea about what kind of fertilizer is best fit for their land. Consequences are overall crop reduction and degradation of land. Moreover chart given below will further elaborate the environmental impacts of fortification process in terms of agriculture sector: (Santucci, 2006) Moreover this is not only restricted to agriculture sector as the effluents also impacting seas and rivers consequences, destroying, and hampering of sea life and overall ecological system. 2.4. UK Dietary Intake: 2.4.1. Analysis of overall intake: Different people have different perception about the food that they intake on a daily basis. Some believe functional foods are healthier than dietary supplements and others vice versa. For instance in Spain the consumption of functional food is high as compared to its neighboring country France where people are more focused and concerned on having pleasure rather than health while consuming food (Stein, A., and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2008). Similarly in Germany functional foods have captured a large market whereas its neighboring country Poland is still following the footsteps. However different countries follow different kinds of attitudes towards food consumptions, which vary because of the eating habit and preferences given to food by people of these countries. For instance emphasis is given on making and creating low cholesterol products and diets in Finland because of relatively high heart related issues and diseases in this country. Moreover some fortified cereals were banned by Denmark in 2004 because of the fact that they were likely to cross the necessary required safe limit as they were already consuming more than their normal diets. In general different trends regarding eating are followed by different countries for example Japanese are fond of functional foods rather than food supplements. This trend shows in the Japanese expenditures on functional foods as per capita expenditure is twice as high as in America in terms of functional foods and beverages (Stein, A., and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2008). (Stein, A., and Rodriguez-Cerezo , 2008) RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE DIFFERENT PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS (Stein, A., and Rodriguez-Cerezo, 2008) 2.4.2 Overview of the UK intake: The National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) has conducted a survey regarding dietary habits of UK in 2000-2001. Respondents of the survey were adult aging between 19-64 years (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). The purpose for conducting this survey was to determine the dieting habit and the nutritional status of respondents. Keeping in mind that these dietary habits were measured and recorded by the participants themselves as they were asked to take note of all the food they consume and drinks they intake during the day whenever they can till seven days. A total of 1724 respondents participated in this survey out of which 833 were male and rests 891 were female. The main reason for considering this survey is that the current survey conducted by NDNS in 2008 is still ongoing. Though few results have been announced but sample size is small as compared to this survey (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). Following table shows the overall findings that came from the NDNS survey of 2000/01. (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) Intakes of Energy and nutrient per day of the UK population, based on the NDNS (2000/01) (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) According to this survey report, the average mean of the respondents of survey were found below the estimated average requirements for this age group which suggests that respondents have not reported correctly or in other words under reported the amount of food they consume and the drinks they intake. 53% women and 66% men respondents of the survey were found to be overweighed which give the idea of under reporting. However under reporting in dietary studies is a common problem in terms of self reported studies (Garrow, 1995). Moreover if one will try to make correction in this data than possibilities are that average energy consumption of the respondents may exceed from the required or recommended energy intakes. However the survey also highlights shortages in terms of recommended energy levels of UK people. This shortage is for both kinds of nutrients as UK population have high saturated fats and sugar in their food intakes habits and have low fibre usage in comparison with dietary plans. 2.4.3. UK Diet In Comparison With The Eatwell Plate: The food standard agency‘s Eatwell plate is designed to elaborate the necessary food consumption one should intake in order to remain fit and healthy. This Eatwell plate consists of five different parts or segments which give further understanding about what proportion one should consume as per the standards and guidelines. These proportions were then further used in the national food guidelines devised in 1994 for the original plate called “the balance of good health” (Hunt, Rayner, and Gatenby, 1995) However the main purpose of this plate is to give consumer better understanding about the food that he should intake by giving him scientific knowledge using pictures and data and comparing them. The reason behind this approach is to give consumers knowledge by providing a single source of dietary plan so that one can know in what ways he or she can achieve healthy diet. Moreover, Eatwell plate was launched in 2007 and it was previously known as the balance of good health. Given below is the division of food groups in balance plate: Fruits and vegetables 33% Bread, rice, potato, pasta, and other starchy food 33% Meat, fish, eggs, beans and other non dairy sources of proteins 12% Milk and dairy 15% Food and drink high in fat and/or sugar 8% Total 101% (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) Due to rounding off percentages the result is crossing hundred by one percent. The size of each portion of the plate was calculated in terms of food consumption by each portion, to ensure consistency between national average diet and dietary reference values (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). These parts were judged and are based on the weight of the food and not on frequency of servings, portion size or any other specification. (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) In order to evaluate and understand the eating habit of people of UK and what kind of food they consume and how far away it is from healthy diet comparison (with reference to Eatwell food group) is done. Given below are the images by which one can easily understand and compare the eating habits of UK people with reference to Eatwell plate model: (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) By considering the above figure one can clearly have the idea that people of UK are away from healthy diet patterns in terms of different segments. For instance after analysing the situation it has been found that the meat, fish, eggs segment are almost eating double the prescribed or healthy value. The prescribed healthy value for this segment is 12%, whereas people of UK intake 22%. Similar pattern is for food and drinks which have high sugar/fats. The recommended value is 8% while people of UK are consuming almost double i.e. 15% (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). However in terms of fruits and vegetables segment and bread, rice and other starchy foods segments the people of UK are eating less in this regard as compared with the recommended percentages by Eatwell plate. Keeping in view the findings of NDNS survey, the situation can become worse as there are possibilities that people tend to hide or under report regarding unhealthy food (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011). Moreover given below is the list of top ten food contributors to each of the Eatwell segments from the UK diet: (Macdiarmid, et al., 2011) Therefore to summarise this part, it is clear that people of UK are over consuming in terms of meat, fish segment and food and drink segment. On the other hand they are consuming less than the recommended value of fruits and vegetables segment and bread, rice and other starchy foods segment. 2.5. CONSUMER AWARENESS TOWARDS FUNCTIONAL FOODS: To understand and judge the knowledge of consumers regarding functional foods and their awareness about the impacts of these functional foods a survey has been conducted. In this survey grocery shoppers were interviewed who were from four different countries of Europe namely Spain, Germany, UK and Poland. However when interviewees were asked regarding the term “functional foods” in Spain only one third of the respondents knew about it. Similarly when the same question was asked from respondents of Germany and Poland and the findings were that one fifth of the respondents knew about the term functional foods. On the other hand, only one out of ten respondents knew about functional foods in UK. Moreover when question was asked regarding name of the functional products almost 30% could name a product in Spain whereas 15% for Poland and 10% for Germany named the functional food product or brand. However in case of UK less than 2% were able to name which shows that people of UK are not aware of the term functional foods. Furthermore explanation was given to respondents of all countries regarding functional products and even brands were mentioned as well. Upon revealing only 2 to 5 % of respondents from UK, Germany and Spain have said that they never heard about the term functional food or product or even brand. However, this ratio is way greater in Poland as the ratio of respondents was 47%. 2.6 Sustainability of functional foods: 2.6.1 Defining Sustainability of Food System: Sustainability of food system is broadly elaborated and its roots extend beyond the status of resources to the communities seeking health, empowerment of consumers and equity of access to material resources. Nevertheless besides these developments consumers and producers do have some differences regarding their overall understanding and applying of the concept of sustainability towards supplying of food (Aiking and Boer, 2004). Therefore sustainability of food or food related things usually have loads of problems or their practices usually are problematic. Moreover the sustainability of food system can be categorised in functional foods and the conventional foods. In general the definition of sustainability of food system will follow these main steps. Food must provide all the necessary ingredients required to remain healthy and fit and also to reduce risks to physical health (Katan, and Roos, 2004). Further individual should have opportunities of having food and later sharing it (social dimension). The affordability and availability of food is another step in this regard (Sibbel, 2007). 2.6.2 Assessing Risk To Social And Physical Health: Sustainable food supply has to play an important role in contributing towards public health. However considering the risks related to physical health sustainability of functional foods have various issues involved in it. For instance, security and safety of food are the two main concepts which play important roles towards defining risk. Moreover these concepts are not understood in consistent ways which further leads towards variety of safety endpoints in consideration with functional foods (Taylor, 2004). Functional foods are unlikely to represent local culture’s expression as overall failure in acknowledging different cultural ways that community will meet all the basic necessities which also includes food as this is in most cases is recognised as a global problem. Consequences are that functional foods tend to compromise health issues provided that replacement of traditional foods is done. However this change is likely to reduce opportunities in order to recognise, reinforce and express as a part and parcel of community. 2.6.3 Assessing Resource Consumption: Margaret Mead decades ago emphasised on the relationship between the use of land, resource consumption and the pattern of food choices. However this relationship is widely accepted and an evidence of this is that this policy is in practice by many countries for instance Australian food and Nutrition Policy (Sibbel, 2007). Sustainability of foods has various important issues for instance non-sustainability of food production. As this is associated with the methods and procedures which cause change in environment keeping in view that these changes are irreversible. These changes in environment are usually done by depletion of raw materials by using high energy processing, distribution and storage of products which generally fails to reflect seasonal variation in terms of availability of fresh food and views regarding ethics of producing animal products (Sibbel, 2007). References Aiking, H., & de Boer, J. (2004). ‘Food sustainability—Diverging interpretations’, British Food Journal, vol. 106, no. 5, pp. 359–365. Chamberlain, A. (2011). ‘Fishmeal and Fish Oil – The Facts, Figures, Trends, and IFFO’s Responsible Supply Standard’, International Fishmeal & Fish Oil Organisation. Available at http://www.iffo.net/downloads/Datasheets%20Publications%20SP/FMFOF2011.pdf[ Accessed 4th September 2012] Chapagain, A. & Orr, S. (2008). ‘UK Water Footprint: the impact of the UK’s food and fibre consumption on global water resources’, WWF-UK, Available at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_uk_footprint.pdfwater resources [Accessed 12th September 2012] Frey, S. and Barrett, J. (2007). ‘Our health, our environment: The Ecological Footprint of what we eat’, International Ecological Footprint Conference, Cardiff, Available at http://www.brass.cardiff.ac.uk/uploads/Frey_A33.pdf [ Accessed 2nd September 2012] Garrow, S. (1995). ‘Human nutritionist’s guilty secret’, BNF Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 20, pp. 103-8. Grigg, D. (1995). ‘The pattern of world protein consumption’, Geoforum, vol. 26, no. 1, pp.1-17. Hoekstra, A. Y., & Chapagain, A. K. (2008). Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Hunt, P., Rayner, M., and Gatenby, S. (1995). ‘A national food guide for the UK? Background and development’, Journal of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, vol. 8, pp. 315-322. International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organisation. The Production Of Fishmeal And Fish Oil From Gulf Menhaden. Jackson, A. (2011). ‘The future of fishmeal and fish oil in aquaculture diets’, International Fishmeal & Fish Oil Organisation, Available at http://seatglobal.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Stirling-Inst-Aqua-Sep-20111.pdf[ Accessed 3rd September 2012] Katan, M. and Roos, N. (2004). ‘Promises and Problems of Functional Foods’, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 369-377. Macdiarmid, J., Kyle, J., Horgan, G., Loe, J., Fyfe, C., Johnstone, A. and McNeill, G. (2011). ‘Livewell: A Balance Of Healthy And Sustainable Food Choices’, WWF Report, Available at http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/livewell_report_jan11.pdf[ Accessed 7th September 2012] Pimentel, D. (1994). ‘Global population, food and the environment’, TREE, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 239. Santucci, L. (2006). ‘Environmental Impacts In Food Production And Processing’, United Nations Economic And Social Commission For Asia And The Pacific (UNESCAP), Available at http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/cap/meeting/pacific/presentations/Session%204%20-%20Environmental%20impacts.pdf [Accessed 15th September 2012] Sibbel, A. (2007). ‘The sustainability of functional foods’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 64, pp. 554–561. Stein, A., and Rodriguez-Cerezo , E. (2008). Functional Food in The European Union’, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Luxemberg, Available at http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC43851.pdf[ Accessed 5th September 2012] Taylor, C. (2004). ‘Regulatory frameworks for functional foods and dietary supplements’, Nutrition Reviews, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 55–59. Read More