In August 2012, a literature search with the aim of describing indicators on food and water security in an Arctic health context was initialized in collaboration between the Arctic Human Health Expert Group, SDWG/AHHEG and the AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme within the Arctic Council) Human Health Assessment Group, AMAP/HHAG. In December 2012, workshop discussions were performed with representatives from both of these organizations, including 7 Arctic countries. The aim of this article is to describe the workshop discussions and the rational for the 12 indicators selected and the 9 rejected and to discuss the potential feasibility of these. Advantages and disadvantages of candidate indicators were listed. Informative value and costs for collecting were estimated separately on a 3-level scale: low, medium and high. Based on these reviews, the final selection of promoted and rejected indicators was performed and summarized in tables. Among 10 suggested indicators of food security, 6 were promoted: healthy weight, traditional food proportion in diet, monetary food costs, non-monetary food accessibility, food-borne diseases and food-related contaminants. Four were rejected: per-person dietary energy supply, food security modules, self-estimated food safety and healthy eating. Among 10 suggested indicators of water security, 6 were promoted: per-capita renewable water, accessibility of running water, waterborne diseases, drinking-water-related contaminants, authorized water quality assurance and water safety plans. Four were rejected: water consumption, types of water sources, periodic water shortages and household water costs.
Cites: Glob Health Action. 2011;4:791321949499
Cites: Glob Health Action. 2011;4. doi: 10.3402/gha.v4i0.844922043217
Cites: J Nutr. 2012 Jan;142(1):84-9022157543
Cites: Int J Circumpolar Health. 2011;70(5):511-922152598
The food- and waterborne disease situation in Russia requires special attention. Poor quality of centralized water supplies and sewage systems, biological and chemical contamination of drinking water, as well as contamination of food products, promote widespread infectious diseases, significantly exceeding nationwide rates in the population living in the two-thirds of Russian northern territories.
The general aim was to assess the levels of food- and waterborne diseases in selected regions of Russian Arctic, Siberia and the Far East (for the period 2000-2011), and to compare disease levels among regions and with national levels in Russia.
This study is the first comparative assessment of the morbidity in these fields of the population of 18 selected regions of Russian Arctic, Siberia and the Far East, using official statistical sources. The incidences of infectious and parasitic food- and waterborne diseases among the general population (including indigenous peoples) have been analyzed in selected regions (per 100,000 of population, averaged for 2000-2011).
Among compulsory registered infectious and parasitic diseases, there were high rates and widespread incidences in selected regions of shigellosis, yersiniosis, hepatitis A, tularaemia, giardiasis, enterobiasis, ascariasis, diphyllobothriasis, opistorchiasis, echinococcosis and trichinellosis.
Incidences of infectious and parasitic food- and waterborne diseases in the general population of selected regions of the Russian Arctic, Siberia and the Far East (2000-2011) are alarmingly high. Parallel solutions must be on the agenda, including improvement of sanitary conditions of cities and settlements in the regions, modernization of the water supply and of the sewage system. Provision and monitoring of the quality of the drinking water, a reform of the general healthcare system and the epidemiological surveillance (including gender-divided statistics), enhancement of laboratory diagnostics and the introduction of preventive actions are urgently needed.
Cites: Int J Circumpolar Health. 2013;72. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.2153023940840
Problems related to food security in Russian Arctic (dietary imbalance, predominance of carbohydrates, shortage of milk products, vegetables and fruits, deficit of vitamins and microelements, chemical, infectious and parasitic food contamination) have been defined in the literature. But no standard protocol of food security assessment has been used in the majority of studies.
Our aim was to obtain food security indicators, identified within an Arctic collaboration, for selected regions of the Russian Arctic, Siberia and the Far East, and to compare food safety in these territories.
In 18 regions of the Russian Arctic, Siberia and the Far East, the following indicators of food security were analyzed: food costs, food consumption, and chemical and biological food contamination for the period 2000-2011.
Food costs in the regions are high, comprising 23-43% of household income. Only 4 out of 10 food groups (fish products, cereals, sugar, plant oil) are consumed in sufficient amounts. The consumption of milk products, eggs, vegetables, potatoes, fruits (and berries) is severely low in a majority of the selected regions. There are high levels of biological contamination of food in many regions. The biological and chemical contamination situation is alarming, especially in Chukotka. Only 7 food pollutants are under regular control; among pesticides, only DDT. Evenki AO and Magadan Oblast have reached peak values in food contaminants compared with other regions. Mercury in local fish has not been analyzed in the majority of the regions. In 3 regions, no monitoring of DDT occurs. Aflatoxins have not been analyzed in 5 regions. Nitrates had the highest percentage in excess of the hygienic threshold in all regions. Excesses of other pollutants in different regions were episodic and as a rule not high.
Improvement of the food supply and food accessibility in the regions of the Russian Arctic, Siberia and the Far East is of utmost importance. Both quantitative and qualitative control of chemical and biological contaminants in food is insufficient and demands radical enhancement aimed at improving food security.
Cites: Vopr Pitan. 2000;69(1-2):32-410943002
Cites: Vopr Pitan. 2001;70(2):13-711494664
Cites: Gig Sanit. 2004 Jul-Aug;(4):15-815318602
Cites: Med Parazitol (Mosk). 1996 Jan-Mar;(1):52-48700016