The role of agriculture in the nutrition of children

Abstract

Data from across the developing world show consistently that a fundamental cause of poor nutrition is low agricultural productivity and consequent low incomes, especially amongst poor rural households. Conventionally, technical solutions have been sought to contribute to greater household food security, and thus better childhood nutrition. A more holistic approach is required. This paper draws from field examples, mainly in southern and east Africa, to illustrate the implementation and effectiveness of what is termed a 'green evolution' approach which emphasizes the efficient use of available resources of land, labour and inputs, thus allowing food to be sold profitably at low prices. With low food prices, the poor can use their limited funds to invest in better housing, education and health care. This is achieved through building thoughtful, farmer demand-led initiatives, backed by high quality science to deliver widespread improvements in nutrition for the poor.

Researcher Perspectives on Publication and Peer Review of Data

“…Although this survey was international in scope, most of the respondents were affiliated with institutions in the United States. The respondents here (84% North American) resemble those of the DataONE survey [ 17 ] (73% North American); many of the previous surveys were conducted entirely in the US [ 1 , 2 , 19 ]. The in-depth reports prepared by EAGDA [ 3 ] and the RIN [ 18 ] were carried out in the UK, where a single assessment framework, the REF dominates, creating a significantly different environment in terms of credit.…”

“…The bulk of our responses (85%) came from academic institutions, which is similar to DataONEs 81% [ 17 ]. Ceci’s initial survey was academic [ 1 ], and Scaramozzino’s was conducted entirely at a single teaching-oriented university [ 2 ]. In this respect, the population here is quite comparable to previous surveys.…”

“…In 1985– almost 30 years ago– Stephen Ceci surveyed 847 scientists and concluded “it is clear that scientists in all fields endorse the principle of data sharing as a desirable norm of science” [ 1 ]. This endorsement has not weakened over the decades; more than 65% of faculty at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) affirmed the importance of data sharing in 2010 [ 2 ], as did 94% of the researchers in the United Kingdom (UK) surveyed by the Expert Advisor Group on Data Access (EAGDA) in 2013 [ 3 ].…”

“…This endorsement has not weakened over the decades; more than 65% of faculty at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) affirmed the importance of data sharing in 2010 [ 2 ], as did 94% of the researchers in the United Kingdom (UK) surveyed by the Expert Advisor Group on Data Access (EAGDA) in 2013 [ 3 ]. The respondents in 1985 survey endorsed data sharing “to allow replication and extension of one’s own findings” [ 1 ], and enabling replication and (re)use is still the principal motive behind data sharing. The reproducibility problem plaguing science in the scholarly [ 4 – 6 ] and mainstream [ 7 – 9 ] press could be addressed, in part, by opening underlying data to scrutiny [ 10 , 11 ].…”

“…Researchers themselves agree that this is a problem. In 1985, 59% of scientists surveyed by Ceci complained that their colleagues were disinclined to share data [ 1 ]. Twenty-five years later, 67% of respondents to an international survey by the Data Observation Network for Earth (DataONE) affirmed that “[l]ack of access to data generated by other researchers or institutions is a major impediment to progress in science” and 50% felt that their own research had suffered [ 17 ].…”