health and nutrition

Why people in Bangladesh are eating more fish but getting less nutrition from it

The focus of food production systems, including aquaculture, must move beyond maximising yields to consider nutritional quality too.

People in Bangladesh are now eating 30% more fish than they did 20 years ago, but they are getting a smaller amount of important nutrients from it, a new study shows.

Fish is widely known as a healthy food, rich in protein and other nutrients, so how can this be? Well, it comes down to the types of fish available for people to eat.

In Bangladesh as in many regions in the world, naturally harvested fish, which is known as capture fisheries, are faltering. A combination of overfishing, pollution and environmental damage has led to significant losses in both quantities of fish (biomass) and the number of fish species (biodiversity) available.

The result is that consumption of fish from capture fisheries in Bangladesh declined by 33% between 1991 and 2010.

This trend is also seen globally. Production from global capture fisheries peaked in the 1990s and has since been declining as unsustainable fishing practices continue to worsen. Globally, 89% of marine fish stocks are either overfished or at maximum capacity.

At the same time, aquaculture or fish farming (known as the “blue revolution”) has been rapidly expanding. In fact, it is the fastest growing food production sector globally, with average annual growth of 8%, and now accounts for half of all fish consumed by people around the world.

Since aquaculture was introduced in Bangladesh in the 1980s, the industry has grown rapidly. And the country is now the world’s sixth largest producer of aquaculture products.

Growth in this sector has more than compensated for declines in the quantity of fish available from capture fisheries, and this is evident in large increases in consumption over time.

Capture fisheries in Bangladesh are dominated by ‘small indigenous fish’ that are often consumed whole. Photo credit: Jessica Bogard, Author provided.
Capture fisheries in Bangladesh are dominated by ‘small indigenous fish’ that are often consumed whole. Photo credit: Jessica Bogard, Author provided.

Small is big

But what is not widely known is that the nutritional value of different fish species varies greatly. It turns out that, in Bangladesh, local species from capture fisheries are generally much more nutritious than the species being farmed.

Capture fisheries in the country are dominated by nearly 300 species of “small indigenous fish”, which are often consumed whole, including head and bones.

Nutrition powerhouses, these small fish are rich sources of important micronutrients including iron, zinc, calcium and vitamin A, as well as high-quality protein.

Aquaculture, on the other hand, is dominated by a handful of large fish species, both indigenous and exotic. Only the flesh of large fish is normally eaten, which is a rich source of high-quality protein, but generally has lower micronutrient content.

As diets have shifted towards more farmed fish, nutrient intakes from fish has declined. And this has serious implications for a country suffering widespread malnutrition.

Indeed, Bangladesh has among the worst malnutrition rates in the world. More than one in three children under five years of age are stunted – an indicator of chronic malnutrition. And millions live with various micronutrient deficiencies.

This has been estimated to cost the country $1 billion each year in foregone economic productivity. And that doesn’t take into account the cost to the health-care system for treating malnutrition or other social costs.

Malnutrition in its various forms affects nearly every country in the world. Combined with poor diet, it’s the number one cause of the global burden of disease.

Tackling malnutrition

Fish is a nutrient-rich food that can play a more significant role in addressing this global challenge, not only in Bangladesh but in many regions.

If the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal of ending malnutrition is to be achieved, the goals of food production systems, including aquaculture, must be realigned to focus on nutrition. And this means diverse food systems that prioritise nutrient-rich foods.

A novel example of such an approach also comes from Bangladesh. Nutrient-rich small fish are produced in aquaculture systems alongside large fish in a practice known as polyculture, so that several species are raised in the same pond.

The large fish can be sold for income, while small fish are harvested regularly for household consumption or, when in excess, for sale. Farmers are able to increase total yields while also improving the nutritional quality of their production systems.

One small fish, known as mola (Amblypharyngodon mola), is an exceptional source of vitamin A, and including it in polyculture systems has been shown to be a cost-effective strategy for alleviating vitamin A deficiency. Despite the evidence, this approach is yet to be widely adopted.

Research confirms that simply producing more food is not the only global challenge. The focus of food production systems, including aquaculture, must move beyond maximising yields to also consider nutritional quality. Otherwise, the world will continue to confront situations like the one in Bangladesh, where malnutrition remains in spite of plenty.

Jessica Bogard, Public Health Nutritionist, The University of Queensland.

This article first appeared on The Conversation.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.