Aplicación del modelo al grano cometario

There were no significant differences in wealth and monthly food expenditure between households who were consuming wild foods and those who were not. This could be because wild foods can be consumed by everyone whether of high or low income but are more important in low income households in keeping with Jansen van Rensburg et al. (2007), Vorster et al. (2007), Vorster et al. (2008), FAO (2009) and Mavengahama et al. (2013). Findings from the study revealed that wild foods had no influence in reducing household food insecurity as there were no significant

differences in food security indicators between households who consumed wild foods and those who did not in Dundee. Although significant differences were observed in HFIAS between households who were consuming wild foods and those who were not in Richards Bay, households who consumed wild foods had limited access to food. Moreover, households who consumed wild foods in Harrismith had lower HDDS than those who did not. Therefore, the consumption o f wild foods had no influence in reducing household food insecurity for those who consumed them in Richards Bay and Harrismith. This is inconsistent with Bharucha and Pretty (2010), Legwaila et al. (2011) and Mavengahama et al. (2013) who reported that wild foods can reduce food insecurity in poor households through increasing dietary diversity as they provide nutrients to a diet. Hunter et al. (2007) and Kepe (2008) also reported that wild foods can increase household food access as they may allow one to supplement diets since they can be a substitute for purchased goods especially for many poor households who struggle to buy food.

However, findings from this study have shown that wild foods are consumed as a coping strategy by households with challenges of food access (in Richards Bay) and low dietary diversity (in Harrismith) echoing Mojeremane and Tshwenyane (2004), Redzic (2007), Quaye (2008), Fentahun and Hager (2009) and Arnold et al. (2011). W ild foods could be acting as ‘safety net’ in these households (Cavendish, 2002; Modi et al., 2006; Paumgarten, 2006; Shackleton et al., 2006).

5.5.

Conclusion

The study has shown that although a small proportion (25 %) o f the sampled households were receiving social grants, the grant had no influence in alleviating food insecurity for the poor households as no significant differences were observed between households who had a grant and those who were not receiving a grant. However, further research needs to be done to fully understand how much of the grant cash is used for the food for the entire household or if it is used to buy food for the children who are recipients o f the grant. For example, in a study designed to estimate the impact o f child support grants (CSG) on child nutrition as measured by child height-

for-age, it became evident that the availability of grants early in life were shown to significantly boost child height as children who were receiving the CSG were significantly taller than other children (Aguero et al., 2006). Thus, the CSG payments have bolstered early childhood nutrition as signaled by height-for-age. There is statistically significant evidence that receipt of the Child Support Grant (CSG) reduces child hunger, both over time and compared to similarly poor households that do not receive the grant (Devereux, 2010). This could be because the recipients of CSG cash are almost always women, and although the income elasticity o f nutrition is generally low, it is higher for wom en’s income than for m en’s income (Devereux, 2010).

Also, it is evident from the findings that wild vegetables are mostly consumed in Richards Bay and infrequently consumed in Harrismith thus following the agro-ecological gradient. For the households who were consuming wilds foods, findings have shown that their HDDS were lower and their HFIAS scores were higher than those who were not consuming wild foods. Since dietary diversity is associated with households’ socio-economic status and HFIAS shows households’ food access level, findings have therefore highlighted that wild foods are mostly consumed by the poor and may act as a ‘safety net’ for these poor households. The study has shown that the consumption of wild foods had no influence in reducing food security in the study sites as was reported in studies by Bharucha and Pretty (2010), Legwaila et al. (2011) and Mavengahama et al. (2013). However, the study did not list and analyse the species which were consumed by households in each wild food group therefore further research needs to be done.

Chapter Six

Quantification and reasons for household food waste in South

African towns

6.1. Introduction

The world faces a food security challenge with approximately 868 million people undernourished and about two billion people suffering from the negative health consequences of micronutrient deficiencies (FAO et al., 2012) due to starvation. Yet, it is believed that at least 33 % o f food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted along the food chain between farm and fork (Bloom and America, 2007; Lundqvist et al., 2008; Meeusen and Hagelaar, 2008; Ridoutt et al., 2010; Gustavsson et al., 2011; FAO, 2013). According to Gustavsson et al. (2011), this wasted food amounts to approximately US$ 680 billion and US$ 310 billion annually in industrialised and developing countries, respectively. About 40 % o f all the food produced in the United States is never eaten, in Europe 100 million tonnes o f food are thrown away every year and in South Africa, it is estimated that close to one and a half million tonnes o f food are wasted per annum (Nahman et al., 2012). A food waste study by WRAP (2008) showed that consumers in the United Kingdom throw away about one-third of the purchased food and 61 % of this food would still be suitable for human consumption.

Food waste occurs all along the food chain at the stages of production, processing, distribution, acquisition, preparation and consumption (Griffin at al., 2009). The stages at which food is lost or wasted and the quantities differ between regions. In developed countries food is to a significant extent wasted at the consumption stage as it is discarded even if it is still suitable for human consumption and this is mainly due to consumers’ behavior (Gustavsson et al., 2011). For example, Griffin et al. (2009) reported that o f all the food that was wasted in one United States county, 20 % was production waste, 1 % was lost through processing, distribution comprised 19 % and 60 % o f food waste was generated by consumers. This is consistent with what was reported for European

Union countries where household food waste constituted the greatest percentage of food wasted (European Commission, 2010). This is different to low income countries where most food is lost during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain and much less food is wasted at the consumer level (Gustavsson et al., 2011). In developing countries, food waste and losses are mainly due to financial, managerial and technical constraints in harvesting techniques as well as insufficient storage and cooling facilities. Much more food is wasted in the industrialised world than in developing countries with an estimated per capita food waste by consumers in Europe and North-America being 95-115 kg/year whilst only 6-11 kg/year is wasted by consumers in sub­ Saharan Africa and South/Southeast Asia (Gustavsson et al., 2011). However, there are increasing global concerns regarding the environmental, economic and social implications of food waste as food waste has been identified as contributing to global warming and climate change through landfill expansion and greenhouse gas emissions (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Economically, food waste is regarded as money wasted in the context of rising food prices and global food shortages (European Commission, 2010), not to mention the biodiversity and ecosystem services losses attributed to food production which is never consumed.

Globally, the food which is wasted is four times the amount needed to solve world hunger (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Thus, the vast amount o f food which is wasted could potentially feed the almost one billion people worldwide (13% of the global population) who are classified as undernourished (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Large quantities o f food which are going to waste are aggravating problems of hunger and food insecurity, especially in poorer countries (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Globally, fruits and vegetables as well as roots and tubers have the highest wastage rates o f approximately 40-50 %, cereals contribute to about 30 % o f the quantitative food losses and waste per year and oil seeds, meat and dairy contributes 20 % whilst fish contributes roughly 35 % (Gustavsson et al., 2011; FAO, 2013). Therefore, reducing the amount o f food that is being wasted after production could play an important role in meeting the challenge o f feeding the global hungry (Lundqvist et al., 2008) and decreasing food insecurity (Gustavsson et al., 2011).