User:Raeganloheide/sandbox

Module Assignment: Article Choice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofortification#Problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Fortified_foods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A_deficiency#Treatment

I picked these articles because I'm broadly interested in the uninformed push to feed a growing population and solve malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies in the process. I picked these three articles because they all have to do with the nutrition conflicts that people around the world face and also mention they attempts to solve these problems such as biofortification. I'm partcularly interested in the glamorization of solutions such as biofortification because it's often presented as a silver bullet solution, when in fact communities have their own accessible and culturally appropriate mechanisms to deal with this strife.

I initially searched Wikipedia and Google along the lines of my interests, and at first it was hard to find articles that encompassed all of the aspects of the issue. What was most helpful was looking at key words and topics from articles from the World Health Organization and also looking at the referenced articles at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.

I was surprised that the article on biofortification had listed so many of the qualms that people have with the process, because it seems like a very under the radar issue. What wasn't surprising is that none of the articles mentioned agroecology as a method for addressing these issues, which I've learned is a prominent and powerful tool. All three of these articles could use a more in depth discussion of the cultural and socioeconomic consequences of this issue and the impact of the solutions themselves.

Reflist for module assignment
Bouis, Howarth E.; Welch, Ross M. (2010-03-01). "Biofortification—A Sustainable Agricultural Strategy for Reducing Micronutrient Malnutrition in the Global South". Crop Science. 50 (Supplement_1): S–20–S–32. doi:10.2135/cropsci2009.09.0531. ISSN 1435-0653.

"Recent developments in modifying crops and agronomic practice to improve human health". Food Policy. 36: S94–S101. 2011-01-01. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.011. ISSN 0306-9192.

Kimura, Aya Hirata (2013). Hidden Hunger: Gender and the Politics of Smarter Foods. Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/j.ctt1xx5n3. ISBN 9780801451645.

Haselow, Nancy J.; Stormer, Ame; Pries, Alissa (05 2016). "Evidence-based evolution of an integrated nutrition-focused agriculture approach to address the underlying determinants of stunting". Maternal & Child Nutrition. 12 Suppl 1: 155–168. doi:10.1111/mcn.12260. ISSN 1740-8709. PMC 5084820 . PMID 27187913.

Under 'Genetic Modification' or 'Problems'
Biofortification methodologies must be examined in all lights when being promoted as a potential strategy to address micronutrient deficiencies. Golden Rice and subsequent crops of its nature didn’t start with the goal of mitigating Vitamin A deficiency, but have instead ended at this point as a result of institutions and corporations looking to re-frame agriculture in terms of nutritional needs that biotechnology can fix. Golden Rice is promoted in terms of yield, micronutrient value, and seed viability and resilience. The crop has subsequently been pushed into communities and tasked to tackle the perceived desperate needs of the poor. There is a mismatch between locally voiced needs and the needs contrived by biotech researchers. The push for integration of such biofortified crops ignores the solutions people already have and are struggling to be empowered to share among each other. Rice is also a very culturally sensitive commodity that many don’t agree with being disrupted. The technology consequently fails to address the cultural, symbolic, and political significance of food. Biofortified crops in many cases prove to be a conceptual innovation rather than offering products for meaningful consumption by the poor. In examining these methodologies and their present products as viable options to address micronutrient deficiencies, it's clear that the decisions on the future of the food system shouldn't be based off misleading claims by corporate stakeholders.

Under 'Problems' potential addition of subheading 'Neoliberalism'
Research consistently shows that micronutrient deficiency is best fought with diet diversification rather than fortification and supplementation programs that require national infrastructures and individual economic agency and access. However, the idea that biofortification is the type of progress needed is reinforced by neoliberal policies and implementation strategies. The development and dissemination of biofortified foods then imposes expert instruction and behavioral changes on communities. The introduction of crops whether genetically modified or selectively bred requires changing farming techniques and dietary choices for the crops to serve their purpose. In this process, dissemination programs frequently target women to convince and teach about the products due to their influence on child feeding and household decisions. This is telling of a suspicion of their innate ability to feed their children correctly and has helped to legitimize market and corporate centered strategies. Framing women and their nutritional choices is a scapegoat to avoid direct engagement with these communities.

Under 'Problems'
Biofortification methodologies and dissemination strategies to the rural poor are framed as a more accessible tool than other modification practices. This is due to some initial successes of biofortified crops that increased yields for farmers, reduced costly pesticide applications, saved time, and allowed for increased childcare and schooling. Many farmers don't experience this reality today as modification has spread to many different kinds of crops that require more monetary, pesticide, fertilizer, and practical inputs. Fertilizers and adoption of new farming practices are needed to maintain biofortified crops and this can be a barrier for resource-poor communities. Fertilizer costs may indeed be outweighed by higher crop yield; however, yield emphasis feeds directly into the mentality of 'feeding the world' that biofortification’s focus on micronutrients attempts to refute. The strategy continues to benefit solely more privileged farmers and areas. This is shown by the adoption of genetically modified biofortified crops as consistently taken up by large scale commodity farms rather than peasants who practice subsistence agriculture. The correct institutional infrastructure must be in place for rural farmers to benefit from any technological innovation.