On values and food choices

Last week, the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health (ANH) Academy hosted a webinar on the implications of changing values and food choice to demand creation in low- to middle-income countries. It is an interesting topic because policies to improve the nutrition status of populations most vulnerable to malnutrition will see limited success if these policies are based on the assumption that consumers will just follow their recommendations blindly. Policy-makers must understand that consumers' food choices are affected by various factors, which include consumers' values.

I watched the webinar recording—albeit a few days after the event—because I was involved in the early stages of IRRI's Drivers of Food Choice project. Three country-specific projects were presented, covering Malawi, India (I was involved in this one), and Kenya.

"Value" is all about a person's sense of goodness and rightness. In the food choice context, these values are the hows and whys of consumer food choice. Many of the anecdotes provided by the webinar's resource persons centred on mothers and what they should and shouldn't eat while they are pregnant or while they breastfeed their infants. For example, there were anecdotes from Kenya stating that pregnant women should not eat meat because these are fatty and breastfeeding women shouldn't eat fish because these stop breastmilk production. Eggs were also on the do-not-eat list because these could make childbirth more difficult and can cause speech delays in children. I found that some of these beliefs border on ridiculous based on my own values but I know that these could be totally valid for other people. Also, one of the featured projects discussed how women view body shape in Malawi. Many of the project's survey participants regarded obese body shapes as healthy (obesity is known to be linked with several diseases).

Some of these values need to change so that consumers in these countries demand healthier diets. In the project I was involved in, behaviour change communication was used as a means of nudging survey participants towards healthier food choices. These participants prepared a week's meal plan under simulated budget constraints (in real life, everyone sets aside funds for food; the simulation attempted to put participants in situations where they need to make trade-offs as they design their meal plans). The social scientists observed that behaviour change communication was associated with changes in food diversification and in when different ingredient types (e.g., meat, vegetable, cereal) are consumed. For example, the information communicated was linked with the shift from the consumption of animal proteins to plant proteins (e.g., pulses).

As I was listening to the presentations and to the discussion that followed, I realised how important social, cultural, and economic contexts are in any attempt to change values. For instance, in the India project presentation, I got the impression that plants are being promoted as better (more sustainable and nutritious, perhaps) protein sources. In contrast, the Kenya project presentation appeared to be promoting the advantages of consuming animal-source food. The question then becomes: which recommendation leads to better nutrition outcomes, that from the India project or the Kenya project? In the Malawi project presentation, the proponents seemed to think that their survey participants did not have information about healthy body shapes, leading to viewing obese body shapes as healthy. However, the thin body shape is promoted as healthy by western scientists. Also, I didn't get the impression that the project dug deeper into the meaning of the body shape of an obese person within the participants' cultural context. If I may speculate: in a poor country, perhaps having a fuller body shape is a symbol of prosperity (e.g., I have money to buy food), health (e.g., I am not hungry), and beauty.  

How do scientists reconcile the different pieces of conflicting information? 

I think the best way to avoid conflicting recommendations is (1) by avoiding generalisations and (2) by making recommendations that are specific to, and based on, a deep understanding of the environment and the culture of the target population. The gastronomic systems research framework, the research tool I co-developed, will aid scientists and policy-makers dig deep into consumers' contexts and prepare culturally sensitive and relevant recommendations that may see more acceptance with consumers.