SCN News No 36 - UNSCN

2
SECRETARY’S ROUND-UP
www.unsystem.org/scn
ners of nutrition science. Indeed the facility with which the nutrition community takes "either-or" positions is quite
remarkable. While some for example advocate in favour of doing more research on the "what" of nutrition or in
improving knowledge about outcomes, there are those that insist on the need to invest more in the "how", or in improving
the processes of nutrition programmes. Similarly there are those that advocate for the need for a better evidence
base at the immediate causality level, and others that argue instead of an improved evidence base on programmes
aiming at the underlying family and community level of causality, including the importance of food security.
Surely none of these are "either-or" scenarios, but instead ones where both are right and both are needed. We need
to be continually improving the evidence bases both for the process as well as the outcomes being pursued.
Far greater recognition is needed that nutrition is not an "either-or" science. There are some forty nutrients that are
each essential but alone insufficient elements needed for optimal growth and development of the human body.
The conceptual framework of nutrition causality accepted by one and all, teaches us that resolving the problems of
"food" "health" and "care" at the underlying causality level are each essential but alone insufficient conditions that
all need to be fulfilled in order to achieve successful nutrition outcomes. But unfortunately discussions of nutrition
science and practice rarely seem to get beyond the level of "either-or". Somehow or other we need to better
embrace the "all of the above" mentality.
The recommendations from the 35 th SCN Session (p.51) are therefore a real advance, because they recognize
that package of nutrition interventions coming from the LNS for example are not "either-or", but instead are needed
"on top" of the underlying cause interventions, especially those related to income and food security. This is a truly
encouraging situation, because as the paper of David Pelletier (p.38) reminds us, it is these "either-or"
disagreements, repeated by middle level technicians, that are the greatest block to moving the nutrition agenda
forward at the national level. In order to facilitate the work of those at country level, we also have added the
references and links for the relevant policy and programme guidance for each of the recommendations from the
35 th Session. This is done, recognizing the difficulty to find this in any one place as described by the LNS papers.
It is also increasingly recognized that a new way of building the evidence base for nutrition programming is
required, and that randomized controlled trials alone don’t fit the bill for nutrition programmes, which are essentially
multisectoral. This is not to belittle the contribution of the LNS to an improved evidence base for nutrition
programming in the health sector for example, i.e. this is not an "either-or" situation. But it is the lack of an "eitheror"
nature of nutritional science that demands a new type of "translational science" that builds on the plausibility
approach proposed by Habicht et al (1999) and Victoria et al (2004), and creates evidence of the effectiveness of
packages of interventions, operating at various levels of causality, as referred to by Marie Ruel (p.21) in her
symposium paper. Such translational science must also look at effects across different stages of the life cycle, with
special attention on the period of foetal and infant growth looking for effects later in the life course. The SCN Task
Force on Assessment Monitoring and Evaluation could provide a vehicle for trying to carry forward such ideas, and
indeed the SCN Action Plan does envisage the need for such an approach.
The Global Food Price Crisis which has broken on the scene since the 35 th Session, provides an important new
context for the recommendations from the Session. In late April the Chief Executives Board (CEB) of the UN
established a High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis headed by the Secretary General 1 .
Furthermore at the High Level Conference on World Food Security held at FAO in Rome in early June, 2 and
attended by some 40 heads of state, nations committed US$ 11.7 billion of new funds for agricultural development
and the fight against hunger over the next few years. They further pledged to carry out a series of immediate shortterm
as well as medium and long-term measures to seek ways of achieving world food security. A Comprehensive
Framework for Action of the CEB Task Force is also being developed and a draft widely shared for comments. 3 To
be successful the Framework for Action, must contemplate both food security and nutrition security, and
incorporate the recommendations from the 35 th Session.
The current food price crisis is different in many ways to the one in 1974, that led to the establishment of the SCN.
The previous crisis, although similarly provoked by an increase in oil prices and a shortage of fertilizers, was
relatively short lived with oil production being normalized and prices falling again within a year. But the perspective
1. A website has been established for the Secretary General's High Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis
at http://un.org/issues/food/taskforce
2. Conference documents, reports and declaration on World Food Security area available from www.fao.org/foodclimate/hlc-home/en
3. The High Level Task Force on The Global Food Crisis (2008) Elements of a Comprehensive Framework for Action.
Draft For Informal Distribution at Rome High Level Conference on Food Security is available online at
www.un.org/issues/food/taskforce/Documentation/Framework_for_action_on_Food_Security.pdf
SCN NEWS # 36 back to contents