NEWS POST: Even Poor Countries End Up Wasting Tons Of Food

Editor’s note: This is not a sponsored post; naijaGRAPHITTI simply wishes to point attention to an area of urgent need in food security:  technologies and processes which would aid food refrigeration for the transportation and storage in developing countries. We are used to news food waste in the developed countries, however less developed countries waste an equally astonishing amounts of food. But with the invention of technologies and processes which would aid food refrigeration for the transportation and storage in developing countries, the wastage could be highly reduced.

A fruit dealer in the Kashmir region of India separates rotten apples from freshly harvested apples. Yawar Nazir/Getty Images

The fact that a huge amount of food is wasted each year will be no surprise to anybody in the West. What might come as a surprise is that a large percentage of global food waste occurs in developing countries — primarily because of poor infrastructure and dysfunctional distribution networks.

As much as half of the food grown or produced in the developing world simply never makes it to market. And that loss is costing billions of dollars and blighting countless lives.

That's one of the issues raised in the book Food Foolish: The Hidden Connection Between Food Waste, Hunger and Climate Change by John Mandyck and Eric Schultz. Mandyck, who's the chief sustainability officer at United Technologies Building & Industrial Systems, and Schultz detail the causes and consequences of the US$1 trillion mountain of food that is wasted around the world each year.

In the developing world, says Mandyck, some fixes can be as simple as getting farmers in places like Kenya to use crates instead of burlap bags to transport their tomatoes to prevent them from bruising on the way to market. In Afghanistan, a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization project to provide farmers with grain silos, made by local tinsmiths, reduced losses to insects and rot from 20 percent to less than 2 percent. In Nigeria, a program that provided the millions of small farms with access to loans, seeds, fertilizer, warehouses and transportation saw maize yields triple and put money in the pockets of farmers.

We spoke to Mandyck about the problem of food waste. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How big a problem is food waste worldwide?

The impact of food waste on hunger, climate change, natural resources and food security is enormous. More than 1 billion metric tons of food is lost or wasted each year, never making it from the farm to fork. To put that into perspective, imagine 1.3 billion healthy Indian elephants standing on top of each other in one pile. That's the size of the mountain of food going to waste each year — and all of it perfectly good food.

Meanwhile, more than 800 million people are chronically hungry — a population equivalent to the United States and European Union combined. Food waste also has a devastating impact on the environment, from the water wasted to grow the food we never eat to greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.N.'s new goals talk about wiping out hunger by 2030. Is that possible?

Some estimates show that we will need to increase our global food production by 70 percent to meet the needs of our growing population. It doesn't make sense to continue with the current paradigm, which is to grow more — and throw more away — to try to feed more people. Instead, we should implement readily available strategies to avoid food loss. Even saving a portion of what is wasted can have a dramatic impact on reducing hunger, malnutrition, poverty, political instability, water shortages and carbon emissions.

You mention in your book that the monetary cost of all this wasted food exceeds $1 trillion every year. What about the hidden costs?

If you look at food waste as an environmental problem you'll find that the energy we put into growing this food that nobody ever eats contributes 3.3 billion metric tons of annual carbon dioxide every year. That's including fuel for tractors used for planting and harvest, electricity for water pumps in the field, the power for processing and packaging facilities and more. Viewed another way, if food waste were a country by itself, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind China and the United States.

Food is essential to life. Why are we so inefficient at getting it from farm to table?

There are two very different kinds of problems associated with food loss and waste. One is structurally based: bad weather, poor roads, improper packaging and an inadequate refrigeration distribution system. Many of these issues can be addressed through careful planning, political will and sufficient investment.

Then there are problems that are economic and culturally based. Food too expensive to be purchased will rot in the warehouse. Food too unprofitable to harvest will be lost in the field. Meal servings that are twice what a person can eat will be partially discarded. A perfectly edible apple with harmless spots or a misshapen carrot might be tossed in a landfill. The elements of supply and demand, pricing, tradition and culture all play an important role in food loss and waste.

How is food wasted in the developing world?

Often in developing countries, food decays in fields or farms before harvest or else spoils while it's being transported. In fact, food loss at the production and distribution level accounts for two-thirds of global food waste. Being able to keep fresh food chilled during storage and transport would make a huge difference, but many places do not yet have the technology, infrastructure or the money to set up a sophisticated "cold chain" — the network of refrigerated trucks and storage facilities you need to bring fresh food from the farm to the market.

If developing countries had the same level of refrigeration for the transportation and storage of food as developed countries, approximately one-quarter of food loss would be avoided.

Originally published in NPR

Antibiotic Resistance 'Could End Modern Medicine' Warns UK Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies

The huge problem of antibiotic resistant germs will 'finish' modern medicine unless confronted, the Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, warned

Research published today revealed that public understanding of antimicrobial resistance is still lacking. Most people, if they had heard of antibiotic resistance at all, thought it was their body which becomes resistant to antibiotics, rather than the bacteria that cause drug-resistant infections

Modern medicine is' finished' if the problem of antibiotic resistant germs is not confronted, the Chief Medical Officer warned today.

Dame Sally Davies said prescribing antibiotics for conditions for which they will do no good only made the problem worse.

She has called before for the development of new antibiotics as the current ones get increasingly less effective.

She told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: 'Modern medicine as we know it - if we don't halt this rise of resistance - will be finished.

'It's a very powerful statement and it is true.

'Take cancer: most modern cancer treatments result in reducing your immunity and getting infections. 

'If those are bugs that are resistant to antibiotics then you are going to have a choice of do I take my chance the antibiotics won't work, or do I do my bucket list?'

Dame Sally has called before for the development of new antibiotics as the current ones get increasingly less effective against bacteria such as clostridium (pictured)

Dame Sally was reacting to the publication of new research by the Wellcome Trust which shows that public understanding of antimicrobial resistance is still lacking.

She added: 'We have got to help GPs in every way. If they tell me by giving them a rule that will help the discussion with patients, we can do that.

'But actually what they need is time with patients and patients being receptive.

'That's where this research is helpful - how do we get our community, our public, to understand antibiotics are most frequently not needed but when they are, treat them with respect?'

The researchers conducted a series of interviews and focus groups in London, Manchester

and Birmingham.

They found that that most people, if they had heard of antibiotic resistance at all, thought that it was their body which becomes resistant to antibiotics, rather than the bacteria that cause drug-resistant infections.

This misconception often makes people feel like antibiotic resistance is someone else’s problem. 

Few of those interviewed think they overuse or misuse antibiotics so therefore they mistakenly think resistance will not be a problem for them. 

One person interviewed during the research said: 'The more you take, the more your body becomes resistant to it. They stop working, but I don’t take them very often.'

Mark Henderson, of the Wellcome Trust, told the programme: 'People had heard about (over prescription) by and large but interestingly they had picked up antibiotics resistance was a problem which had occurred in people's bodies.

'That is not in fact what happens. What happens is it is actually the germs, the bacteria, that acquire the resistance through normal evolution.

'One of the problems with antibiotic resistance is people not completing courses they have been prescribed. If you think it is your body that is becoming intolerant, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.' 

The research suggested people understand the concept more readily when doctors, the media and other communicators talk about “drug-resistant infections” or “antibiotic-resistant germs”, rather than “antibiotic resistance”. 

This makes it easier to understand that it is bacteria that acquire resistance, not people’s bodies.

The misconception could help to explain why many people who are prescribed antibiotics fail to complete the course, believing that this will prevent their bodies from becoming resistant.

In fact, failure to complete a course of antibiotics can be a major factor in the development of drug-resistant infections.

This is because it exposes germs to enough of the drug to promote resistance, but not enough to kill them. 

And people were much more receptive when they were presented with real examples of how antibiotic resistance could affect them or their families, or with reference to specific bacterial infections that they might have had.

The scale of the problem was best explained when researchers showed people pictures of six common resistant bacteria which are becoming harder to treat. 

Understanding that the issue was about infections like strep throat, urinary tract infections (UTIs) or E-coli made the problem seem common, as most interviewees had had at least one of these illnesses and been treated with antibiotics. 

Explaining that antibiotic resistance could make routine operations like hip replacements or caesareans deadly was also effective.

Another consistent finding was that people have a positive relationship with antibiotics.

Interviewees felt that getting them was validation that they were ill, both for themselves and others, and that they hadn’t “wasted the doctor’s time or my own”. 

This means that in many cases people want to be prescribed antibiotics, whatever the nature of the illness they have, and will deploy a series of tactics to ensure they do, which may contribute to antibiotic overuse.      

The study comes after research published in April predicted that a new generation of superbugs resistant to antibiotics could kill up to 80,000 Britons in a single outbreak.

It warned that in the next 20 years, surgery could become too risky because of an increased risk of infection, while catching flu could have a ‘serious’ impact on individuals.

The figures, issued by the Cabinet Office, showed that previously effective drugs will become useless in the face of resistant bugs, causing a surge in the number of sufferers of illnesses such as tuberculosis and pneumonia.

And for the first time the annual National Risk Register of Civil Emergencies, which assesses the challenges posed by terrorism, natural disasters, disease and industrial strife, has included the dangers of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). 

The report says: ‘Without effective antibiotics, even minor surgery and routine operations could become high-risk procedures, leading to increased duration of illness and ultimately premature mortality.

‘Much of modern medicine, for example organ transplantation, bowel surgery and some cancer treatments, may become unsafe due to the risk of infection.

‘In addition, influenza pandemics would become more serious without effective treatments.

‘The number of infections complicated by AMR are expected to increase markedly over the next 20 years. If a widespread outbreak were to occur, we could expect around 200,000 people to be affected by a bacterial blood infection that could not be treated effectively with existing drugs, and around 80,000 of these might die.

‘High numbers of deaths could also be expected from other forms of antimicrobial resistant infection.’

Around 25,000 people die annually across Europe because of infections that are resistant to antibiotic drugs. Scientists have forecast the potential fatalities from an increasing resistance to drugs in HIV, tuberculosis, malaria.

Culled from Dail Mail UK