Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Global food nutrients analysis reveals alarming gaps and daunting challenges

Abstract

Eliminating both overt and hidden hunger is at the core of the global food and nutrition security agenda. Yet, the collective state of nutrition security at the population level is not known. Here we quantify food-based availability of 11 essential nutrients for 156 countries using a food production–consumption–nutrition model, followed by assessment of the nutrient availability status as a ratio of recommended intake. For the baseline year 2017, global per capita availability was adequate for calorie and protein but in severe deficit for vitamin A and calcium (intake ratios, <0.60, where 1.0 is adequate) and moderate deficit for vitamin B12 (intake ratio, 0.76). At the country level, more than half of the 156 countries were in various degrees of deficit for all nine micronutrients. Disparities across regions or countries were enormous. We explore intervention strategies from an agriculture–food system perspective and discuss the daunting challenges of addressing nutrition security broadly.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The framework of the food-PCN model.
Fig. 2: Global food production, food loss/waste, non-food usage and available human consumption.
Fig. 3: Global food nutrient availability status.
Fig. 4: Ratio of food nutrient availability to recommended nutrient intake in eight global regions.
Fig. 5: Percentage difference between recommended nutrient intake and nutrient availability in different countries.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data needed to evaluate the conclusions of this study are publicly available in the manuscript or its Supplementary Information. Source data are provided with this paper. The dataset of food production for 156 countries is available from FAO-FBS (http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home). The food nutrient composition data are available from the well-established US Department of Agriculture databases (https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/). The dataset of food loss/waste parameters, human-edible fraction of foods and RNIs was derived from meta-analysis or literature review analysis of previous studies in the literature. The literature search was performed using ISI-Web of Science (https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/basic-search), Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) and the China Knowledge Resource Integrated database (https://www.cnki.net/).

Code availability

The custom algorithm used for this study is available in the Methods, Extended Data items and Source data.

References

  1. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wood, S. A. et al. Trade and the equitability of global food nutrient distribution. Nat. Sustain. 1, 34–37 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sustainable Development Goals (2017) (UN, accessed 13 September 2017); https://sustainable.development.un.org/?menu=1300

  4. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Yearbook (FAO, 2021).

  5. Gould, J. & Ashour, M. Nutrition: a world of insecurity. Nature 544, S6–S7 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tilman, D. et al. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Dijk, M. et al. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2, 494–501 (2021).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. von Grebmer, K. et al. Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hidden Hunger (Welthungerhilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute and Concern Worldwide, 2014).

  10. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for All (FAO, 2021).

  11. Fanzo, J. et al. Shining a Light to Spur Action on Nutrition (Global Nutrition Report, 2018); https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/global-nutrition-report-2018/

  12. Black, R. E. et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet 371, 243–260 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stevens, G. A. et al. Trends and mortality effects of vitamin A deficiency in children in 138 low-income and middle-income countries between 1991 and 2013: a pooled analysis of population-based surveys. Lancet Glob Health 35, 528–536 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Prasad, A. S. Discovery of human zinc deficiency: its impact on human health and disease. Adv. Nutr. 4, 176–190 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Vitamin and Mineral Requirements in Human Nutrition 2nd edn (World Health Organization, 2004).

  16. Sant-Rayn, P. et al. Iron deficiency. Lancet 397, 233–248 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mason-D’Croz, D. et al. Gaps between fruit and vegetable production, demand, and recommended consumption at global and national levels: an integrated modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 3, e318–e329 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT-Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8, e59–e66 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bai, Y. et al. Cost and affordability of nutritious diets at retail prices: evidence from 177 countries. Food Policy 99, 101983 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bai, Y., Herforth, A. & Masters, W. A. Global variation in the cost of a nutrient-adequate diet by population group: an observational study. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e19–e28 (2022).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Our World in Data (Global Change Data Lab, accessed 31 July 2023); https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/eat-lancet-diet-comparison

  22. Beal, T. et al. Global trends in dietary micronutrient supplies and estimated prevalence of inadequate intakes. PLoS One 12, e0175554 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bell, W. et al. Global dietary convergence from 1970 to 2010 altered inequality in agriculture, nutrition and health. Nat. Food 2, 156–165 (2021).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmidhuber, J. et al. The Global Nutrient Database: availability of macronutrients and micronutrients in 195 countries from 1980 to 2013. Lancet Planet. Health 2, 353–368 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bentham, J. et al. Multidimensional characterization of global food supply from 1961 to 2013. Nat. Food 1, 70–75 (2020).

  26. FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Data (FAO, 2018); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home

  27. Gustavsson, J. et al. Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011).

  28. Porter, S. D. et al. A half-century of production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food supply chain. Sci. Total Environ. 571, 721–729 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson, G. et al. Income growth and climate change effects on global nutrition security to mid-century. Nat. Sustain. 1, 773–781 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Chaudhary, A. et al. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 9, 848 (2018).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Tilman, D. et al. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kantor, E. D. et al. Trends in dietary supplement use among US adults from 1999–2012. JAMA 316, 1464–1474 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kalmpourtzidou, A. et al. Global vegetable intake and supply compared to recommendations: a systematic review. Nutrients 12, 1558 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Saltzman, A. et al. Biofortification: progress toward a more nourishing future. Glob. Food Secur. 2, 9–17 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Carvalho, S. M. P. et al. Producing more with less: strategies and novel technologies for plant-based food biofortification. Food Res. Int. 54, 961–971 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hys, K. in Perspectives on Consumer Behavior. Contributions to Management Science (ed Sroka, W.) 193–209 (Springer, 2020); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47380-8

  37. Beal, T., Ortenzi, F. & Fanz, J. Estimated micronutrient shortfalls of the EAT–Lancet planetary health diet. Lancet Planet Health 7, e233–e237 (2023).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guidelines on Food Fortification with Micronutrients (WHO, 2006).

  39. Tam, E. et al. Micronutrient supplementation and fortification interventions on health and development outcomes among children under-five in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients 12, 289 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hamulka, J. et al. Dietary supplements during COVID-19 outbreak. Results of Google Trends analysis supported by PLifeCOVID-19 online studies. Nutrients 13, 54 (2021).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Clark, M. A. et al. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23357–23362 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Clark, M. A. et al. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science 370, 705–708 (2020).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Springmann, M. et al. The healthiness and sustainability of national and global food based dietary guidelines: modelling study. Br. Med. J. 370, m2322 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Semba, R. D. et al. Adoption of the ‘planetary health diet’ has different impacts on countries’ greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Food 1, 481–484 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dou, Z. Leveraging livestock to promote a circular food system. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 8, 188–192 (2021).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Morr, S., Cuartas, E., Alwattar, B. & Lane, J. M. How much calcium is in your drinking water? A survey of calcium concentrations in bottled and tap water and their significance for medical treatment and drug administration. HSS J. 2, 130–135 (2006).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Cormick, G. et al. Calculation of the contribution of water to calcium intake in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1522, 149–157 (2023).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. What’s in the Foods You Eat Search Tool, v.5.0 [EB/OL] (US Department of Agriculture, accessed 12 June 2019); http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

  49. Kummu, M. et al. Lost food, wasted resources: global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 438, 477–489 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Moher, D. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 1006–1012 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Nakagawa, S. et al. Meta-evaluation of meta-analysis: ten appraisal questions for biologists. BMC Biol. 15, 18 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Human Energy Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, Rome, Italy, 17–24 October 2001 (WHO, 2004).

  53. Vanderbei, R. J. Linear programming: foundations and extensions. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 49, 94 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Chaudhary, A., & Krishna, V. Country-specific sustainable diets using optimization algorithm. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7694–7703 (2019).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Hans, D. S. et al. Applying value stream mapping to reduce food losses and wastes in supply chains: a systematic review. Waste Manage. 58, 359–368 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tayengwa, T. et al. Influence of feeding fruit by-products as alternative dietary fibre sources to wheat bran on beef production and quality of angus steers. Meat Sci. 161, 107969 (2020).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhang, Y. R. et al. Precision nutritional regulation and aquaculture. Aquacult. Rep. 18, 100496 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bouis, H. E. et al. Improving nutrition through biofortification: a review of evidence from HarvestPlus, 2003 through 2016. Glob. Food Secur. 12, 49–58 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Díaz-Gómez, J. et al. Biofortification of crops with nutrients: factors affecting utilization and storage. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 44, 115–123 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. World Development Indicators (WDI) Database (World Bank, accessed 12 June 2019); https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/world-developmentindicators

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank J. D. Toth and M. Qingfeng for their assistance in editing the manuscript. This work was financially sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U20A2047) and Innovation Research 2035 Pilot Plan of Southwest University (SWU-XDZD22001).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

X.C., Z.D. and F.Z. designed the research. X.W., S. F., Y.Z., L.M., C.Z., Z.B., P.L., X.S., D.L., W.Z., Y.D., W.Z., W.Z. and X.C. collected and analysed the data. X.C., X.W., P.L. and Z.D. wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Zhengxia Dou, Fusuo Zhang or Xinping Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

the authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Florian Freund, Attila Jámbor and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Comparison of food loss/waste, non-food use, and food available consumption derived in this study vs. that of three other publications/methods.

The results referred as Gustavsson et al.27 and Porter et al.28 in the graph below were calculated using their food loss/waste parameters (but for baseline year 2017 food production data). These two often-cited studies did not consider the inedible food components as part of the non-food use category. For food loss/waste calculations, parameters used in the current study were derived from up-to-date publications, with many published in more recent years (sine 2015). The ‘FAO 2017’ data in the graph account for ‘food availability’ without considering food waste, therefore underestimating food loss/waste at each sector of the food chain change; it does not consider the inedible food component either26. Taken together, the amounts of food available consumption computed in this study is 12–36% less than the other three reference sources.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 2

The production (a), available consumption (b), loss/waste (c), and non-food usage (d) of 11 food groups in different global regions, expressed as per capita per day.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 3 Estimated nutrients availability as a ratio of recommended nutrient intake (RNI) at global or regional scale (a), and number of countries with nutrient intake status (b).

The status is operationally defined as severe deficit (estimated intake ratio < 60% of RNI), moderate deficit (60–80% of RNI), mild deficit (80–90% of RNI), near-adequate or adequate (90–130% of RNI), and surplus (>130% of RNI).

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 4 The relationship between country-level economic development and available consumption of food.

a, total foods; b, cereals; c, vegetables and fruits; d, meats; e, milk and eggs. The data source of GDP in each country was from World Bank60.

Source data

Extended Data Fig. 5 Nutrient availability status and country-level economic development indicators.

a, high-income (GDP >13000 $ capita−1 year−1); b, upper-middle-income (13000 > GDP > 4280 $ capita−1 year−1); c, lower-middle-income (4280 > GDP > 1000 $ capita−1 year−1); d, low-income countries (GDP < 1000 capita−1 year−1). The data source for GDP in each country was from World Bank60.

Source data

Extended Data Table 1 Literature synthesis of nutrients intake recommendation and guidelines
Extended Data Table 2 Human-edible fraction of foods, data derived from meta-analysis of literature reporting
Extended Data Table 3 Food loss/waste parameters at each stage of the food supply chain for different food groups in different regions. Data were derived from literature synthesis of previous studies in the literature
Extended Data Table 4 Literature synthesis of biofortification technologies increasing micronutrient concentrations in various food crops
Extended Data Table 5 Comparison of baseline diets (except for North America, Sub-Saharan Africa) as estimated in this study (2017 data) with diets based on balancing all 11 essential nutrients as well as the ‘planet-health diet”

Supplementary information

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Statistical source data.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5

Statistical source data.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, X., Dou, Z., Feng, S. et al. Global food nutrients analysis reveals alarming gaps and daunting challenges. Nat Food 4, 1007–1017 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00851-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00851-5

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene