Lower Diet Diversity Threatens Crops and Us
More of the world's population is eating the same stuff, meaning more monocultural crops at risk for disease and less gut microbial diversity, a health problem for humans. Cynthia Graber reports
By Cynthia Graber
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Diets all around the world have become increasingly similar. That’s not good news for either human health or for crop health, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Colin K. Khoury et al, Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security]
Scientists analyzed diet trends over the past 50 years. Overall, people are eating more, and are getting more of those calories from meat, oil and grains.
But the diversity has gone down. Wheat, rice and corn have gotten even more important. Soybeans and sunflower and palm oil have also become larger players. Meanwhile, crops such as sorgum, rye and cassava have dropped in relative importance.
The authors say the trend towards the Western diet contributes to obesity and heart disease—as well as a diminished diversity in oral and gut microbes, which is harmful to health.
Perhaps equally important, the reliance on a small group of foods puts the crops themselves at risk from diseases or climate change.
Study co-author Andy Jarvis says that a more diverse global food system is critical. Quote, “This is the best way, not only to combat hunger, malnutrition, and over-nutrition, but also to protect global food supplies against the impacts of global climate change.”
—Cynthia Graber
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
