Skip to content

Measuring the diversity of a food supply gets tricky fast.

Do we measure the diversity of the farms products come from? How is that done? There are ways of measuring land cover with satellites, but that doesn't say a huge amount about the species or varieties on a farm. So that means doing surveys of farms. Then you have to wonder if the farmers call the same varieties by the same names, and if what's in the field is what they grow year-round - some fields have crop rotations within the same year, and cover crops in the off season. Is the farming style of the region changing? Are there notable extension efforts in the area that are promoting polyculture or monoculture?

If you want to know about the diversity in a diet, that can get thornier still. A lot of measures of dietary diversity rely on 24-hour recalls, in which a person lists everything they ate the day before. There are a few problems with this: they may forget something they ate (having done this myself, it is very easy to 'blank' on a food), there's no easy way to show the amounts of what they ate, and the day that they describe may not be a typical day. These foods are often clumped into different 'functional groups,' which can change depending on who the survey is of and who it's for; but there are often groups of vitamin A-rich food, protein, carbohydrates, leafy vegetables, et cetera. If you want to talk about varieties in a diet, you have to rely on the consumer knowing what the varieties are called, which will often restrict you to farming families or to hunting down labels on packets.

On top of all of this, are they telling you what you want to hear, or what actually happens? Are they fudging the truth to maintain their dignity? (Imagine that a foreigner comes to your home and asks if you eat insects: if you live in a culture where eating bugs is a low-caste thing to do, you may not want to tell an outsider the truth.)

Agro biodiversity Fest, Huanuco - Peru
Corn varieties in Peru. Source of image: iucn.org

There is an astonishing amount of variation of measurements that are taken; one of the main gripes of meta-analyses is that studies are incredibly difficult to compare, making it really hard to make overall statements about agrobiodiversity and diet diversity.

Considering that this is what the next phase of my thesis is about, I'm in deep water. However, there are a number of examples that have been done successfully which look at agrobiodiversity, diet diversity, and system sustainability. For example, there's the Agrobiodiversity Index, which measures 'commitment,' 'action,' and 'status:' the political will, what is being done, and the current level of agrobiodiversity. These three categories are examined through the lenses of policy, species and varietal diversity, pollinator and soil biodiversity, landscape matrices, seed access, and others. Nutrition is included in the Index through functional diversity, both when it is mentioned in policy documents and in terms of "functional group richness of consumed foods," the number of functional groups the study participants are eating. It's not clear from the Methodology Report exactly how many functional groups there are, or if this varies between countries.

The Agrobiodiversity Index has been a massive undertaking which has spanned years of work; if you would like to see the results of the Index, it has analyzed ten countries worldwide for their levels of agrobiodiversity: Australia, China, Ethiopia, India, Italy, Kenya, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, and the USA. Feel free to pick a couple of countries or to skim the whole thing; it's a fascinating read.

Of course, if you also want to measure other kinds of sustainability (water, greenhouse gas emissions,...), that can involve a whole other set of measures, picking and choosing what you need to know in order to be able to draw the type of conclusions you need. It's easy to see how different measures of similar things can become so different so fast, and it's easy to see why people would complain about how difficult it is to compare these approaches. I'm starting to see this kind of diversity as a necessary evil in order to adequately measure agrobiodiversity in each context.

Bettering school nutrition has obvious benefits that no one can deny; however, if someone were to play devil's advocate, they might just ask whether diversifying the food and local sourcing for school meals really does that much good.

Image result for devil's advocate
xkcd, "The Sake of Argument"

I can answer that in a couple of ways: one, feeding children a diverse diet teaches them in a way that whiteboards and lectures never could, and two, that enhancing local markets does a better job of improving dietary diversity than having a lot of species grown on any one farm.

Shibhatu & Qaim (2018) and Jones (2017) both came to similar conclusions. Jones conducted a review of 21 studies and found that in 19 of them there was only a slight positive association between on-farm diversity and dietary diversity. Shibhatu & Qaim examined dietary diversity and on-farm species diversity of 1,482 households in Indonesia, Kenya, and Uganda and found that market access was a better determinant of dietary diversity than diversity on the farm.

This is because what is grown on the farm isn't necessarily what is eaten, which makes sense, even though it's not the first conclusion we might jump to. But when you think about it, you can think up any number of plausible scenarios where this happens: think of cocoa farmers in west Africa who have never had chocolate. They grow chocolate not for their own consumption but to make money for their families, and the amount of money they make depends on their access to markets.

The challenge for agrobiodiverse ecosystems is that having an incredibly diverse farm can be economically disadvantageous, as it can foster subsistence livelihoods, lower income, and lower diet quality, running against one of the main goals of agrobiodiversity: food security (Shibhatu & Qaim 2018). The key, then, is to support diverse farms by giving them a market for their production that enables them to buy food that helps them eat well.

If someone's still playing devil's advocate they could say - the point of school meals is to feed children nutritious meals, not to save whole communities of vulnerable farmers, so why not just fortify food?

I'll return to my first point. If you feed children fortified foods (like the biscuits that are given to Afghan children), you're not teaching them what they will need to know later in life when they no longer are participating in a school meal program. If you show a child that the school approves white rice, cookies, and sugary drinks, they aren't learning habits that will benefit them for their rest of their lives, and you can't guarantee that they will buy fortified foods in the future. (For that matter, one of the things I learned when I was in Capilla was that the children don't like the texture of fortified rice.)

On top of this, if you buy local food for school meals - if it has the full and proud support of the school and the planners of the program - you are also sending a powerful message to the children that the food produced by the community has real value, and that there could be possibilities for them if they stay in that community.