4.6 Review

Can common dietary assessment methods be better designed to capture the nutritional contribution of neglected, forest, and wild foods to diets?

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1186707

Keywords

biodiversity; diet quality; nutrition; planetary health; food system; diet assessment method; food biodiversity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Food systems are identified as the main cause of global biodiversity loss. The role of wild, forest, and underutilised species (NUS) foods in improving diet quality is gaining attention. However, there is limited evidence quantifying the nutritional contribution of these biodiverse foods. A scoping review found 37 relevant articles from 22 different countries, mainly in Africa, the Americas, and Asia. The review highlights the need for more comprehensive and standardized methods to assess the contribution of wild, forest, and NUS foods to human diets.
Food systems are the primary cause of biodiversity loss globally. Biodiversity and specifically, the role that wild, forest and neglected and underutilised species (NUS) foods might play in diet quality is gaining increased attention. The narrow focus on producing affordable staples for dietary energy has contributed to largely homogenous and unhealthy diets. To date, evidence to quantify the nutritional contribution of these biodiverse foods is limited. A scoping review was conducted to document the methods used to quantify the contribution of wild, forest and NUS foods. We found 37 relevant articles from 22 different countries, mainly from Africa (45%), the Americas (19%), and Asia (10%). There were 114 different classifications used for the foods, 73% of these were specifically related to wild or forest foods. Most dietary assessments were completed using a single day qualitative or quantitative 24 h open recall (n = 23), or a food frequency questionnaire (n = 12). There were 18 different diet related indicators used, mainly nutrient adequacy (n = 9) and dietary diversity scores (n = 9). Often, no specific nutritionally validated diet metric was used. There were 16 studies that presented results (semi) quantitatively to measure the contribution of wild, forest or NUS foods to dietary intakes. Of these, 38% were aggregated together with broader classifications of 'traditional' or 'local' foods, without definitions provided meaning it was not possible to determine if or to what extend wild, forest of NUS foods were included (or not). In almost all studies there was insufficient detail on the magnitude of the associations between wild, forest or NUS foods and dietary energy or nutrient intakes or the (qualitative) diet recall methodologies that were used inhibited the quantification of the contribution of these foods to diets. A set of six recommendations are put forward to strengthen the evidence on the contribution of wild, NUS, and forest foods to human diets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available