Sat, Dec 21, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 9, Issue 3 (Aug 2024)
JNFS 2024, 9(3): 539-550 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Palupi E, Anwar F, Tanziha I, Gunawan M A, Khomsan A. The Contribution of Forgotten Foods for Supporting Food Security in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta – Indonesia. JNFS 2024; 9 (3) :539-550
URL: http://jnfs.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-693-en.html
URL: http://jnfs.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-693-en.html
Department of Community Nutrition, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
Full-Text [PDF 1028 kb]
(206 Downloads)
| Abstract (HTML) (847 Views)
1 Department of Community Nutrition, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia;
2 Department of Nutrition, Health Polytechnics of Yogyakarta, Ministry of Health, 55293 D. I. Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Introduction
.JPG)
.JPG)
Full-Text: (83 Views)
The Contribution of Forgotten Foods for Supporting Food Security in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta – Indonesia
Eny Palupi; PhD*1, Faisal Anwar; PhD1, Ikeu Tanziha; PhD1, Made Alit Gunawan; PhD2 & Ali Khomsan; PhD1
Eny Palupi; PhD*1, Faisal Anwar; PhD1, Ikeu Tanziha; PhD1, Made Alit Gunawan; PhD2 & Ali Khomsan; PhD1
1 Department of Community Nutrition, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia;
2 Department of Nutrition, Health Polytechnics of Yogyakarta, Ministry of Health, 55293 D. I. Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
| ARTICLE INFO | ABSTRACT | |
| ORIGINAL ARTICLE | Background: Gunungkidul, one of the districts in the special region of Yogyakarta – Indonesia, was reported to have a significant number of food-insecure villages. However, it conserved various forgotten protein-source food as a regional heritage delicacy. This study aims to evaluate the contribution of forgotten foods (edible insects, aquatic animals, indigenous plants) to support food security among poor households in Gunungkidul district, Indonesia. Methods: Food security status was evaluated according to the method by Maxwell. The characteristics of socio-economic households, food consumption behaviour, nutritional status of children under five, and health status of mothers and children among the targets were also assessed through an interview using a structured coded questionnaire. The food consumption pattern was analyzed by using food recall 2 x 24 hours and a semi food frequency questionnaire. This study involved 240 poor households below the poverty line, mainly farmers (60%). Results: This study revealed that 48% of households were food-insecure, 39% were food-vulnerable, 8% were less food-secure, and 5% were food-secure. Aquatic animals and edible insects contributed as many as 22 making up for 1% of daily protein needs, respectively. A preference shifting on those forgotten foods seems to become one barrier to this contribution. Conclusion: The forgotten foods might be an alternative to a future challenge in supporting human well-being. In this case, aquatic animals and edible insects are considered as future protein sources. Keywords: Biodiversity; Food security; Protein; Malnutrition. |
|
| Article history: Received: 5 Aug 2022 Revised: 4 Jan 2023 Accepted: 4 Mar 2023 |
||
| *Corresponding author: enypalupi@apps.ipb.ac.id Eny Palupi, Department of Community Nutrition, Faculty of Human Ecology, IPB University, Jl. Lingkar Akademik, Kampus IPB Dramaga, Bogor 16680, Jawa Barat, Indonesia. Postal code: 16680 Tel: +62 251-8625006 |
Introduction
The world faces a challenging situation to achieve zero hunger in the middle of rapid global population growth, environmental degradation, biofuel expansion, pandemic and climate change (Rahimi et al., 2022, Woodward and Porter, 2016). It is predicted that the world could not significantly alleviate the problem of hunger by 2030 (Cooper et al., 2021). The effect could be massive, particularly among the vulnerable and poor population (Rahimi et al., 2022). Many children and poor people had lived in food-insecure conditions before the pandemicwho had been reported to grow considerably due to COVID-19 (Mills et al., 2021, Ohri-Vachaspati et al., 2021). Not only hunger but also poverty was estimated to increase, followed by welfare loss in most countries. It has been predicted that an additional 68.2 million people will fall into poverty globally..
Many efforts have been made to overcome those situations, such as inducing sustainable food production, improving the quality of food chain, raising public awareness of food and nutrition security, improving socio-economic status, and so on (Decerf et al., 2021, Raimondi, 2013). Some programs could be implemented, but still they are not able to meet the goal (Fraser et al., 2022). It has been estimated that currently, more than two billion people live with poor access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food (Elgar et al., 2021). Moreover, the global climate change and mass biofuel production trend made the countries to struggle in produce sufficient food for all people (Painter et al., 2022, Rahimi et al., 2022, Woodward and Porter, 2016). This suggests that global food security is impossible to achieve unless some food alternatives are found (Woodward and Porter, 2016). Some non-commercialized or so-called forgotten foods could be the disruptor which may enable them to meet the future demands with the following characteristics: nutritious, affordable, adaptive, and sustainable. A systematic review revealed that some neglected plants indeed were able to contribute to alleviating some malnutrition problems (Desire et al., 2021).
The increasing population in Indonesia also leads to an escalation of people’s needs for food. However, when awareness raises regarding this fact , Indonesia still has triple burden malnutrition left behind. More than half of Indonesians (53.4%) consume protein below the recommendation (Indonesian Ministry of Health, 2014). Even some regions, such as Gunungkidul–Yogyakarta reported that almost 60% of the people consume protein amounts less than adequate(Indonesian Ministry of Health, 2014). Nowadays, the high quality protein is mostly correlated with high price. Therefore, inadequate protein intake has mostly occurred among the poorest population. A locally available quality protein is urgently required to cover people’s needs, particularly in food-insecure areas. In the event of a high rate of food- insecure households (Food Security and Extension Agency, 2016), Gunungkidul preserves many forgotten foods that might be suitable as a sustainable future protein, like edible insects, aquatic animals, indigenous plants which are adaptive in dry climate conditions (Lampariello et al., 2012, Oyeyinka and Oyeyinka, 2018, Palupi et al., 2020). Not only nutritious, but also some forgotten foods could also be produced more sustainably with less water, land, and energy (Govorushko, 2019, Patel et al., 2019, Premalatha et al., 2011).
The main aim of this research is to identify the portrait of food insecurity status among the poor households in Gunungkidul. This area was selected as the best representative for the study site since it has the highest number of food-insecure villages and prominently conserved local food, and represents Indonesia’s topography with agrarian– and maritime– profiles. Moreover, this study intends to evaluate the contribution of some forgotten foods in supporting food security among the poor. In the end, this study is expected to give a new picture of diet alternatives for a future challenge in supporting human wellbeing.
Materials and Methods
Study site
This was a cross-sectional study located in Gunung Kidul District, Yogyakarta-Indonesia. Gunungkidul Regency has an area of 1485.36 km2 which covers 18 sub-districts and 144 villages. Patuk village, Gunungkidul Regency was selected as try-out location to validate the questionnaire. Furthermore, two villages, i.e. Pucung and Mertelu, were selected as study sites since both were representatives of high and coastal land areas, respectively (Figure 1).
Many efforts have been made to overcome those situations, such as inducing sustainable food production, improving the quality of food chain, raising public awareness of food and nutrition security, improving socio-economic status, and so on (Decerf et al., 2021, Raimondi, 2013). Some programs could be implemented, but still they are not able to meet the goal (Fraser et al., 2022). It has been estimated that currently, more than two billion people live with poor access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food (Elgar et al., 2021). Moreover, the global climate change and mass biofuel production trend made the countries to struggle in produce sufficient food for all people (Painter et al., 2022, Rahimi et al., 2022, Woodward and Porter, 2016). This suggests that global food security is impossible to achieve unless some food alternatives are found (Woodward and Porter, 2016). Some non-commercialized or so-called forgotten foods could be the disruptor which may enable them to meet the future demands with the following characteristics: nutritious, affordable, adaptive, and sustainable. A systematic review revealed that some neglected plants indeed were able to contribute to alleviating some malnutrition problems (Desire et al., 2021).
The increasing population in Indonesia also leads to an escalation of people’s needs for food. However, when awareness raises regarding this fact , Indonesia still has triple burden malnutrition left behind. More than half of Indonesians (53.4%) consume protein below the recommendation (Indonesian Ministry of Health, 2014). Even some regions, such as Gunungkidul–Yogyakarta reported that almost 60% of the people consume protein amounts less than adequate(Indonesian Ministry of Health, 2014). Nowadays, the high quality protein is mostly correlated with high price. Therefore, inadequate protein intake has mostly occurred among the poorest population. A locally available quality protein is urgently required to cover people’s needs, particularly in food-insecure areas. In the event of a high rate of food- insecure households (Food Security and Extension Agency, 2016), Gunungkidul preserves many forgotten foods that might be suitable as a sustainable future protein, like edible insects, aquatic animals, indigenous plants which are adaptive in dry climate conditions (Lampariello et al., 2012, Oyeyinka and Oyeyinka, 2018, Palupi et al., 2020). Not only nutritious, but also some forgotten foods could also be produced more sustainably with less water, land, and energy (Govorushko, 2019, Patel et al., 2019, Premalatha et al., 2011).
The main aim of this research is to identify the portrait of food insecurity status among the poor households in Gunungkidul. This area was selected as the best representative for the study site since it has the highest number of food-insecure villages and prominently conserved local food, and represents Indonesia’s topography with agrarian– and maritime– profiles. Moreover, this study intends to evaluate the contribution of some forgotten foods in supporting food security among the poor. In the end, this study is expected to give a new picture of diet alternatives for a future challenge in supporting human wellbeing.
Materials and Methods
Study site
This was a cross-sectional study located in Gunung Kidul District, Yogyakarta-Indonesia. Gunungkidul Regency has an area of 1485.36 km2 which covers 18 sub-districts and 144 villages. Patuk village, Gunungkidul Regency was selected as try-out location to validate the questionnaire. Furthermore, two villages, i.e. Pucung and Mertelu, were selected as study sites since both were representatives of high and coastal land areas, respectively (Figure 1).
Population and sampling
The population included households in Pucung and Mertelu villages. Purposive sampling was used with the following inclusion criteria: poor households (PH) with under-five children. The exclusion criteria consisted of the family moving to other regions out of Pucung and Mertelu. PH data will be obtained from the village’s office according to data from the subsidized-rice recipients in those villages. Only households with an income of under the minimum wage line can receive this subsidy. Therefore, the households in this study have been selected based on the receiver of rice subsidies and the list of under-five children from Public Medical Centers. From the list, the sample was selected randomly according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Sample size
The sample size was calculated according to the population percentage of people in food-insecure areas. In 2018, Indonesia had a population of food-insecure households which was approximately 16.94% (Peta Ketahanan dan Kerentanan Pangan, 2020). The 95% confidence interval and the absolute precision of 5% were used on this sampling calculation. The calculation was obtained by using the sample population formula (Lwanga and Lemeshow, 1991). In the end, after a 10% addition as the dropout anticipation, as many as 240 households had to participate in this study. 120 respondents from each village Pucung and Mertelu were involved in this survey using a structured coded questionnaire (Table 1).
The population included households in Pucung and Mertelu villages. Purposive sampling was used with the following inclusion criteria: poor households (PH) with under-five children. The exclusion criteria consisted of the family moving to other regions out of Pucung and Mertelu. PH data will be obtained from the village’s office according to data from the subsidized-rice recipients in those villages. Only households with an income of under the minimum wage line can receive this subsidy. Therefore, the households in this study have been selected based on the receiver of rice subsidies and the list of under-five children from Public Medical Centers. From the list, the sample was selected randomly according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Sample size
The sample size was calculated according to the population percentage of people in food-insecure areas. In 2018, Indonesia had a population of food-insecure households which was approximately 16.94% (Peta Ketahanan dan Kerentanan Pangan, 2020). The 95% confidence interval and the absolute precision of 5% were used on this sampling calculation. The calculation was obtained by using the sample population formula (Lwanga and Lemeshow, 1991). In the end, after a 10% addition as the dropout anticipation, as many as 240 households had to participate in this study. 120 respondents from each village Pucung and Mertelu were involved in this survey using a structured coded questionnaire (Table 1).
| Table 1. Location, and number of respondents for nutritional survey. | |
| Location (Dukuh or sub-village) | Number of respondents |
| Nutritional survey in Pucung Wotawati |
19 |
| Ngreyung | 19 |
| Traju | 5 |
| Karang Tengah | 4 |
| Bengle | 4 |
| Pakelkopek | 4 |
| Pucung | 7 |
| Nujo | 23 |
| Wonotoro | 25 |
| Kandri | 10 |
| Total | 120 |
| Nutritional survey in Mertelu Piji |
12 |
| Mertelu Kulon | 13 |
| Mertelu | 11 |
| Mertelu Wetan | 6 |
| Gandu | 9 |
| Krinjing | 10 |
| Baturturu | 8 |
| Soka | 13 |
| Guyangan Kidul | 12 |
| Guyangan Lor | 26 |
| Total | 120 |
Nutritional survey
A nutritional survey was performed to portray the socio-economic, nutritional, health, and food security status of the selected sites. The questionnaire for the nutritional survey was developed to gather the following information: 1) the socio-economic data of the selected households of each village (education of husband and wife, occupation of husband and wife, household income, expenditure: food and non-food expenditure, and characteristics of the children under five; 2) household food consumption data (recall 2x24 hours, semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire); 3) nutritional status obtained from anthropometry measurement of under-five children (age and sex of the children, height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-height); and 4) health status of mothers and children.
Ethical cobsiderations
The research was performed based on an ethical clearance from the Ethical Committee from Health Polytechnics Yogyakarta entity with number LB.01.01/KE-01/XLIII/889/2018.
Data analysis
The existing data was coded, entered, and cleaned, and anthropometric measurement results were processed using WHO AntroPlus 1.0.4. The z-score score was categorized to obtain the nutritional status of under-five children. Twentyfours of feeding were assessed using Nutri-survey 2007. Then, data analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0. Moreover, food security status was classified according to Maxwell (Maxwell et al., 2013) which can be grouped into four categories, i.e. (1) food-secure, if the proportion of food expenditure is low and energy intake is adequate; (2) food-vulnerable, when the proportion of food expenditure is high but energy intake is adequate; (3) lack of food, when the proportion of food expenditure is low but energy intake is inadequate; and (4) food-insecure, when the proportion of food expenditure is high and energy intake is inadequate.
Results
Socio-economic status
Most of the respondents are within the age category of 26-35 (18%), 36-45 (26%), and 46-55 (23%), this was while the average age of respondents was 47 years. In this age range, respondents were still productive and in working age. However, most of them were living in poverty. It was recorded that most of the beneficiaries in this study were farmers (60%) with the elementary school education and an average capita income of Indonesian rupiah (IDR) 517,187, 99% of whom were below the poverty line (Table 2). The average family income in Pucung Village was IDR 1,951,600 higher than Mertelu Village (IDR 1,554,800). Regency minimum wage based on the regency/city minimum wage 2018 DIY KEP No.223/KEP/2017 was IDR 1,454,200. The majority (98%) of the respondents were women. Only 23% were housewives, and the rest were helping their families earn a living (farming, laboring, trading, etc.). Jobs in the agricultural sector in Indonesia did not require high education.
Most of the respondent's households in Pucung Village (82%) and Mertelu Village (83%) belonged to medium families, with the average family numbers of 3.95 and 3.77, respectively. Family Planning Program, which had been held since 1970s, brought success in society in the formation of small, happy, and prosperous families, with the slogan "Two Children is Enough", the generation that started married life in 1980s eventually had 2-3 children, while the previous generations had 4-6 children.
A nutritional survey was performed to portray the socio-economic, nutritional, health, and food security status of the selected sites. The questionnaire for the nutritional survey was developed to gather the following information: 1) the socio-economic data of the selected households of each village (education of husband and wife, occupation of husband and wife, household income, expenditure: food and non-food expenditure, and characteristics of the children under five; 2) household food consumption data (recall 2x24 hours, semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire); 3) nutritional status obtained from anthropometry measurement of under-five children (age and sex of the children, height-for-age, weight-for-age, weight-for-height); and 4) health status of mothers and children.
Ethical cobsiderations
The research was performed based on an ethical clearance from the Ethical Committee from Health Polytechnics Yogyakarta entity with number LB.01.01/KE-01/XLIII/889/2018.
Data analysis
The existing data was coded, entered, and cleaned, and anthropometric measurement results were processed using WHO AntroPlus 1.0.4. The z-score score was categorized to obtain the nutritional status of under-five children. Twentyfours of feeding were assessed using Nutri-survey 2007. Then, data analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0. Moreover, food security status was classified according to Maxwell (Maxwell et al., 2013) which can be grouped into four categories, i.e. (1) food-secure, if the proportion of food expenditure is low and energy intake is adequate; (2) food-vulnerable, when the proportion of food expenditure is high but energy intake is adequate; (3) lack of food, when the proportion of food expenditure is low but energy intake is inadequate; and (4) food-insecure, when the proportion of food expenditure is high and energy intake is inadequate.
Results
Socio-economic status
Most of the respondents are within the age category of 26-35 (18%), 36-45 (26%), and 46-55 (23%), this was while the average age of respondents was 47 years. In this age range, respondents were still productive and in working age. However, most of them were living in poverty. It was recorded that most of the beneficiaries in this study were farmers (60%) with the elementary school education and an average capita income of Indonesian rupiah (IDR) 517,187, 99% of whom were below the poverty line (Table 2). The average family income in Pucung Village was IDR 1,951,600 higher than Mertelu Village (IDR 1,554,800). Regency minimum wage based on the regency/city minimum wage 2018 DIY KEP No.223/KEP/2017 was IDR 1,454,200. The majority (98%) of the respondents were women. Only 23% were housewives, and the rest were helping their families earn a living (farming, laboring, trading, etc.). Jobs in the agricultural sector in Indonesia did not require high education.
Most of the respondent's households in Pucung Village (82%) and Mertelu Village (83%) belonged to medium families, with the average family numbers of 3.95 and 3.77, respectively. Family Planning Program, which had been held since 1970s, brought success in society in the formation of small, happy, and prosperous families, with the slogan "Two Children is Enough", the generation that started married life in 1980s eventually had 2-3 children, while the previous generations had 4-6 children.
| Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and their households in the study. | ||||
| Characteristics | Pucung n=120 |
Mertelu n=120 |
Total n=240 |
P-value |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 2 (2.0)a | 2 (2.0) | 4 (2.0) | 1 |
| Female | 118 (98.0) | 118 (98.0) | 236 (98.0) | |
| Position in the family | ||||
| Father | 2 (1.7) | 2 (1.7) | 4 (2.0) | 0.04 |
| Mother | 105 (87.5) | 117 (97.5) | 222 (93.0) | |
| Child | 8 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (3.0) | |
| Brother/sister | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.4) | |
| Grandparent | 4 (3.3) | 1 (0.8) | 5 (2.0) | |
| Household members | 3.95±1.55)b | 3.77±1.58 | 3.86±1.56 | 0.36 |
| Small (<2 people) | 4 (3.0) | 4 (3.3) | 8 (3.0) | |
| Medium (2-6 people) | 98 (82.0) | 100 (83.3) | 198 (83.0) | |
| Big (>6 people) | 18 (15.0) | 16 (13.4) | 34 (14.0) | |
| Age (y) | 45.93±15.66 | 48.08±14.43 | 47.00±15.07 | 0.26 |
| 17-25 | 10 (8.0) | 4 (3.3) | 14 (5.9) | |
| 26-35 | 24 (20.0) | 20 (16.7) | 44 (18.3) | |
| 36-45 | 27 (23.0) | 35 (29.0) | 62 (25.8) | |
| 46-55 | 27 (23.0) | 27 (22.5) | 54 (22.5) | |
| 56-65 | 16 (13.0) | 15 (12.5) | 31 (12.9) | |
| >65 | 16 (13).0 | 19 (16.0) | 35 (37.1) | |
| Education level | ||||
| Not completed elementary school | 13 (10.8) | 24 (20.0) | 37 (15.4) | 0.03 |
| Elementary school | 69 (57.5) | 69 (57.5) | 138 (57.5) | |
| Junior high school | 30 (25.0) | 18 (15.0) | 48 (20.0) | |
| Senior high school | 7 (25.0) | 7 (5.8) | 14 (5.8) | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0(0.0) | |
| Unknown | 1 (0.8) | 2 (1.7) | 3 (1.3) | |
| Occupationc | ||||
| Does not work | 7 (5.8) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (3.0) | 0.36 |
| Farmers | 62 (51.8) | 82 (68.3) | 144 (60.0) | |
| Trader | 1 (.8) | 5 (4.2) | 6 (3.0) | |
| Farm workers | 7 (5.8) | 1 (0.8) | 8 (3.0) | |
| Non-farm workers | 9 (7.5) | 1 (0.8) | 10 (4.0) | |
| Services (drivers, tailors, brokers etc.) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (1.7) | 2 (1.0) | |
| Housewife | 30 (25.0) | 26 (21.7) | 56 (23.0) | |
| Others | 4 (3.3) | 3 (2.5) | 7 (3.0) | |
| Income per capita | 545,980±274,027 | 488,393±315,960 | 517,187±296,525 | <0.001 |
| Low (< IDR 1,454,200 /month) | 119 (99.0) | 119 (99.0) | 239 (99.0) | |
| High (≥ IDR 1,454,200 /month) | 1 (1.0) | 1 (1.0) | 2 (1.0) | |
| Household income (IDR/month) | 1,951,600±814,554 | 1,554,800±716,971 | 1,753,200±791,095 | <0.001 |
| Minimum | 143,000 | 449,000 | 143,000 | |
| Maximum | 4,480,000 | 4,095,000 | 4,480,000 | |
| IDR: Indonesian rupiah; a: n(%); b: Mean±SG; c: Several respondents have more than one job, only main occupations were analyzed here, other types of work consist of private employees, Tempe makers, craftsmen, tailors, and entrepreneurs; P-value was calculated using independent sample t-test for quantative variables and Chi square for categorical variables for comparing Pucung and Mertelu. | ||||
|
Q4
|
Under-five children
Among the children in this study, 7% were born with low birth weight, and 1% were premature. Nutritional assessment among the toddlers revealed that double-burden malnutrition occurs among the toddlers in the target area. 7% of the participants were underweight (severely underweight and underweight), and at the same time, 7% were overweight (weight-for-age, Table 3). In total, 4 and 15% of the toddlers were severely stunted and stunted, respectively. Based on weight-for-height, 1% of the toddlers were severely wasted. On the other hand, 13% of them faced a risk of being overweight, and 1% were obese.
| Table 3. Nutritional status of under-five children in the villages of Pucung and Mertelu. | |||||
| Nutritional status | Cut off z-score | Pucung | Mertelu | Total | P-value |
| According to weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) | |||||
| Severely underweight | < ˗3 | 0 (0.0) | 2 (6.0) | 2 (3.0) | |
| Underweight | ˗3 - ˗2 | 3 (7.9) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (4.0) | |
| Normal | ˗2 - 1 | 31 (81.6) | 30 (91.0) | 61 (86.0) | |
| Possible risk of being overweight | > 1 | 4 (10.5) | 1 (3.0) | 5 (7.0) | |
| Mean z-score ± SD | ˗0.44±1.01 | ˗1.06±0.89 | ˗0.72±1.00 | 0.008 | |
| According to Height-for-age z-score (HAZ) | |||||
| Severely stunted | < ˗3 | 1 (3.0) | 2 (6.0) | 3 (4.2) | |
| Stunted | ˗3 - ˗2 | 3 (8.0) | 8 (24.0) | 11 (15.5) | |
| Normal | ˗2 - 3 | 34 (89.0) | 23 (70.0) | 57 (80.3) | |
| Tall | > 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Mean z-score ± SD | ˗0.67±1.41 | ˗1.58±0.86 | ˗1.09±1.26 | 0.002 | |
| According to Weight-for-height z-score (WHZ) | |||||
| Severely wasted | < ˗3 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.0) | 1 (1.0) | |
| Wasted | ˗3- ˗2 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Normal | ˗2 - 1 | 34 (89.0) | 26 (79.0) | 60 (85.0) | |
| Possible risk of overweight | 1 - 2 | 4 (11.0) | 5 (15.0) | 9 (13.0) | |
| Overweight | 2 - 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Obese | > 3 | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.0) | 1 (1.0) | |
| Mean z-score ± SD | ˗0.01±0.92 | ˗0.09±1.36 | ˗0.04±1.14 | 0.773 | |
| P-value was calculated using independent sample t-test comparing Pucung and Mertelu. | |||||
Food and nutrition security: Food security in the studied area was examined based on two indicators, i.e. food expenditure and energy adequacy. Non-food expenditure in Table 4 shows that the average non-food expenditure of Gunungkidul was IDR 612,275. The highest average non-food expenditure was observed in Pucung Village households (IDR 683,885). The average food expenditure in Pucung and Mertelu villages was IDR 820,580, with a large food expenditure in Pucung compared to Mertelu, which was significantly different.
The mean of consumption in Pucung and Mertelu showed that the household consumption in both villages did not reach the energy level required, which is only 1101 from 2150 kcal/d needs (51%, Table 4). Based on energy sufficiency, food security at the household level showed that the majority of households (209; 87%) in Gunungkidul were classified as food-insecure because their energy sufficiency level was below the required level (≤80%, Table 4). The status of food security between the two villages was not significantly different.
The distribution of households based on the degree of food security shows that most of the households belonged to food-insecure category. 48% of the participants were identified as a food-insecure group (Table 4). It was found that 53 households, or 44% of the participants in Pucung and 52% in Mertelu, were in the food-insecure category. Food insecurity means that the proportion of household food expenditure is high, and energy consumption is low. The percentage of food expenditure and the level of energy consumption proved that the level of household welfare or food security was still low. Food-insecure households did not have enough income to access food with good quality and nutrition.
The distribution of households based on the degree of food security shows that most of the households belonged to food-insecure category. 48% of the participants were identified as a food-insecure group (Table 4). It was found that 53 households, or 44% of the participants in Pucung and 52% in Mertelu, were in the food-insecure category. Food insecurity means that the proportion of household food expenditure is high, and energy consumption is low. The percentage of food expenditure and the level of energy consumption proved that the level of household welfare or food security was still low. Food-insecure households did not have enough income to access food with good quality and nutrition.
| Table 4. Food and non-food expenditure, and food security status based on household energy sufficiency. | |||||
| Food and non-food expenditure | Pucung n=120 |
Mertelu n=120 |
Total n=240 |
P-value | |
| Expense amount (IDR) | |||||
| Food expenditure | <0.001 | ||||
| Mean±SD | 894,412±358,880 | 746,748±252,365 | 820,580±318,297 | ||
| Min-Max | 92,000-2,088,000 | 315,500-1,700,000 | 92,000-2,088,000 | ||
| Non-food expenditure | 0.01 | ||||
| Mean± SD | 683,885±475,570 | 540,665±394,603 | 612,275±441,970 | ||
| Min-Max | 15,000-2,278,000 | 46,000-1,925,100 | 15,000-2,278,000 | ||
| Total expenditure | 0.001 | ||||
| Mean± | 1,578,300±702,398 | 1,287,400±574,321 | 1,432,900±656,600 | ||
| Min-Max | 107,000-3,893,000 | 374,700-3,416,000 | 107,000-3,893,000 | ||
| Proportion of food and non-food expenditure | 0.32 | ||||
| Percent of food expenditure | |||||
| Mean± SD | 60.11±14.63 | 61.90±13.41 | 61.0±14.03 | ||
| Min-Max | 24.84-90.82 | 29.29-89.98 | 24.84-90.82 | ||
| Percent of non-food expenditure | 0.32 | ||||
| Mean± SD | 39.89±14.63 | 38.10±13.41 | 38.99±14.03 | ||
| Min-Max | 9.18-75.16 | 10.02-70.71 | 9.18-75.16 | ||
| The category of food security based on the proportion of food expenditure | 0.32 | ||||
| Food insecure (≥60%) | 49 (41.0)a | 60 (50.0) | 109 (45.0) | ||
| Food secure (<60%) | 71 (59.0) | 60 (50.0) | 131 (55.0) | ||
| Energy intake (kcal/day) | 0.70 | ||||
| Mean± SD | 1113±480 | 1089±460 | 1101±469 | ||
| Min-Max | 386-2591 | 441-2834 | 386-2834 | ||
| Category of food security based on energy sufficiency | |||||
| Food insecure (≤80%) | 105 (88.0) | 104 (87.0) | 209 (87.0) | 0.84 |
|
| Food secure (>80%) | 14 (12.0) | 15 (13.0) | 29 (13.0) | ||
| Food security status of the household | 0.84 |
||||
| Food secure | 5 (4.2) | 6 (5) | 11 (5.0) | ||
| Food vulnerable | 9 (7.5) | 9 (7.5) | 18 (8.0) | ||
| Lack of food | 51 (42.5) | 43 (35.8) | 94 (39.0) | ||
| Food insecure | 53 (44.2) | 62 (51.7) | 115 (48.0) | ||
a: n (%); IDR: Indonesian rupiah; P-value was calculated using independent sample t-test for quantative variables and Chi square for categorical variables for comparing Pucung and Mertelu.
It was also found that 39% of the cases (94 households) were classified as lacking food, which means the proportion of food expenditure was low, but the energy intake was lacking. 18 households (8%) belonged to the food-vulnerable groups, and only 5% had a food-secure status. There was no significant difference between Pucung and Mertelu in terms of food security. The condition of household food shortages might be caused by low economic levels, causing the need for large funding allocations for non-food needs, such as education and transportation, which causes the proportion of food expenditure to be low but not enough to meet the energy needs of the family members. The low level of energy consumption might be due to the lack of nutrition knowledge of the mother to regulate the diet to be more varied and nutritious.
Food consumption pattern
There was no significant difference in the patterns of forgotten food consumption between coastal areas (Pucung) and mountainous areas (Mertelu), except for the uncommon aquatic animals. Respondents in Pucung consumed aquatic animals more often than people in Mertelu. The most consumed types of insects were grasshoppers and caterpillars (including the cocoon from teak and iron tree). Grasshopper is a type of insect that is widely consumed because it is easy to find and catch, and there is no need to buy it, so it is an alternative side dish in Gunungkidul which is cheap. The processed grasshopper as a side dish in Gunungkidul is quite simple; it is only fried with salt as the seasoning. Gunungkidul is well known as grasshopper eaters (as daily food), but there are still many people who are reluctant to try because of their unusual appearance.
Types of forgotten foods originating from fish are divided into two groups: marine- and freshwater- fish. Some commonly consumed marine fish were panju fish, layur fish, and binocular fish. This was while the freshwater fish were wader, cethul, and keting. However, these freshwater fish were not found in the SQ-FFQ results. Only sea fish were found in the survey result. These fish species are classified as forgotten foods because they are rarely available in the market and are not yet commonly cultivated.
Benguk Tempeh and koro Tempe were the most consumed foods, but the people of Gunungkidul prefer the common fermented types, i.e. tofu and soybean Tempeh because processing of forgotten foods requires more complicated handling. For example, it requires immersion of benguk beans for three days to reduce the toxins. In addition, some fermented food has unpleasant sensory (bitter and unpleasant aroma).
Discussion
Food consumption pattern
There was no significant difference in the patterns of forgotten food consumption between coastal areas (Pucung) and mountainous areas (Mertelu), except for the uncommon aquatic animals. Respondents in Pucung consumed aquatic animals more often than people in Mertelu. The most consumed types of insects were grasshoppers and caterpillars (including the cocoon from teak and iron tree). Grasshopper is a type of insect that is widely consumed because it is easy to find and catch, and there is no need to buy it, so it is an alternative side dish in Gunungkidul which is cheap. The processed grasshopper as a side dish in Gunungkidul is quite simple; it is only fried with salt as the seasoning. Gunungkidul is well known as grasshopper eaters (as daily food), but there are still many people who are reluctant to try because of their unusual appearance.
Types of forgotten foods originating from fish are divided into two groups: marine- and freshwater- fish. Some commonly consumed marine fish were panju fish, layur fish, and binocular fish. This was while the freshwater fish were wader, cethul, and keting. However, these freshwater fish were not found in the SQ-FFQ results. Only sea fish were found in the survey result. These fish species are classified as forgotten foods because they are rarely available in the market and are not yet commonly cultivated.
Benguk Tempeh and koro Tempe were the most consumed foods, but the people of Gunungkidul prefer the common fermented types, i.e. tofu and soybean Tempeh because processing of forgotten foods requires more complicated handling. For example, it requires immersion of benguk beans for three days to reduce the toxins. In addition, some fermented food has unpleasant sensory (bitter and unpleasant aroma).
Discussion
This study revealed two main findings: food security status among the poor households living in food-insecure area of Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta – Indonesia, and how the forgotten foods contribute to covering the energy and protein requirements of the respondents. Almost half of the subjects (48%) living in this area are food insecure, with more than 60% food expenditure and the energy sufficiency of less than 80%. This high prevalence of food insecurity indicated that their household's available food did not sufficiently provide for their daily needs. They can not also afford to spend more money to get more food to cover their daily energy needs.
The findings in this study indicated that most cases had low education and lived below the poverty line (99%). These conditions led to low purchasing power. This condition would further reduce their food accessibility. Indeed most of them are farmers who produce foodstuff, but the majority are not land owners. The level of education, occupation, income and food/non-food expenditure are essential to observe how much the community has food insecurity and how it utilises local food in socio-cultural environment (Bene et al., 2021). Household income determines purchasing power, and this purchasing power reflects food accessibility of the household. A higher household income indicates a higher purchasing power and easier access to food (Bene et al., 2021).
The assessment indicates that the government’s movements on these subsidized-rice recipients in Gunungkidul are already the right target. The fact that the protein intake among the studied population was also insufficient, makes the subsidy more appropriate to be not only source of energy and carbohydrate like rice, but also source of protein. A subsidy program on protein sources would be appropriate to improve health and nutrition status among the subjects, particularly the mothers (pregnant and lactating) and under-five children. This situation was similarly recognized in other countries (Cunningham et al., 2021). Nutritional assessment among the toddlers reveals that there exixts the double burden of malnutrition among toddlers of poor household. Not only underweight toddlers but also the overweight ones were found on the study site. This profile proves that there is imbalance of diet among the children and there are demands for further intervention for healthier generation.
The assessment indicates that the government’s movements on these subsidized-rice recipients in Gunungkidul are already the right target. The fact that the protein intake among the studied population was also insufficient, makes the subsidy more appropriate to be not only source of energy and carbohydrate like rice, but also source of protein. A subsidy program on protein sources would be appropriate to improve health and nutrition status among the subjects, particularly the mothers (pregnant and lactating) and under-five children. This situation was similarly recognized in other countries (Cunningham et al., 2021). Nutritional assessment among the toddlers reveals that there exixts the double burden of malnutrition among toddlers of poor household. Not only underweight toddlers but also the overweight ones were found on the study site. This profile proves that there is imbalance of diet among the children and there are demands for further intervention for healthier generation.
This study revealed that conventional food only covered energy and protein sufficiency below the 80% requirement level (Figure 2). Some forgotten foods like aquatic animals and edible insects enabled the subjects to support the protein intake beyond the 80% level of requirements. The identified local forgotten foods (Palupi et al., 2020) seem to have the potential to cover the food-insecure condition in Gunungkidul (Desire et al., 2021). Even they might help the poor household enhance their protein intake since often those forgotten foods are cheap or can be obtained freely from the surroundings. Moreover, the issue of global warming makes these forgotten foods an excellent alternative since some species are able to survive at higher temperature and low water intake (Govorushko, 2019, Lampariello et al., 2012, Oyeyinka and Oyeyinka, 2018, Sade and Peleg, 2020).
The complete picture of social economic and food security status also revealed that the study on forgotten food as the future protein alternative, will be better than this study. However, this study could be overestimated since it did not take into account the available food from their stock pile. The villagers habitually preserve some dry cereals they keep after the harvest. Some farmers also implement "pala pendem," planting tubers sufficiently, which will be harvested if only the cereals are completely consumed. The tubers were harvested gradually based on their daily needs. In this case, the food is available but the energy intake is insufficient, and it could be stated as "lack of food." Therefore, nutritional education becomes the leading solution.
Nevertheless, the protein intake of the pareicipants was insufficient, which was less than 80% of the daily needs. Therefore, the alternative protein source could be an appropriate solution to cover the community's food security.The main obstacle to using this forgotten food is consumer’s preference, particularly the young generation who did not prefer to consume forgotten foods as their meals (Palupi et al., 2020). A public campaign about the functional properties of forgotten foods supported by advance sustainable production and processing might be a way to connect these forgotten foods with food-insecure households and other community’s nutrition and health problems (Patel et al., 2019, Possidonio et al., 2021). However, this study proved that food culture refers to eating those forgotten foods in Gunungkidul which should be preserved like other original eating culture in other Indonesian cultures, e.g. eating raw vegetables among Sundanese for better vitamin A intake (Amrinanto et al., 2019). Some other positive food culture campaigns for preschool and elementary children might lead to the community’s preference for forgotten foods more effectively. Supply and demand, together with supporting policy, become the key point in returning these forgotten foods.
Forgotten foods are not only protein alternatives but also a supporter of regional economic development. The local government might promote small and medium enterprises to use indigenous knowledge for producing forgotten foods as a special local identifier. Community, industry, and researchers might further collaborate to improve an innovative technology for promoting the forgotten foods, not only on the sustainable production system, but also on the innovative processing to make these foods more acceptable, and lead to longer life, nutritious food, and less un-demanded compounds.
The study has several limitations and strengths. The limitations include a relatively small sample size of 240 households, which may limit the generalizability of the findings, and the geographic scope, as it was conducted in two specific villages in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, which might not represent other regions. The reliance on self-reported data through interviews and questionnaires may introduce bias or inaccuracies, and as a cross-sectional study, it captures data at a single point in time, which may not reflect changes or trends over time. On the other hand, the study's strengths include its focus on forgotten foods (edible insects, aquatic animals, indigenous plants) as sustainable protein sources, providing a potential solution for food security in food-insecure regions. It also comprehensively assessed food security status, socio-economic characteristics, food consumption behavior, and nutritional and health status of children and mothers, offering a holistic view. The study's relevance to the local context, particularly in addressing food insecurity in Gunungkidul, provides directly applicable insights. Additionally, the findings suggest practical interventions to improve food security and nutrition, such as promoting the consumption of locally available, nutritious, and sustainable protein sources.
Conclusion
Most of the participants in Gunungkidul live under the poverty line and have a food -insecure status. The nutritional assessment also indicated that their energy and protein intake was below the required level. Some forgotten foods like aquatic animals and edible insects provided a significant daily protein intake. A preference shifting regarding those forgotten foods seems to become one barrier to this contribution. A public campaign about the functional properties of those forgotten foods supported by advance sustainable production and processing might be a solution. Therefore, these forgotten foods might be an alternative to a future challenge in supporting human well-being. However, this study is an early investigation. Further study on the whole chain food system's correlation with basic nutrition, production, cultivation, broader community acceptance, clinical nutrition, advanced product development, national impact, and global protein demand would be an excellent future establishment. A related study on food security in other regions and an investigation into some alternative solutions are also highly recommended to uncover the people's actual food and nutrition security status.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank The Neys – van Hoogstraten Foundation (NHF), in The Netherlands, for supporting and providing funds for this research withnumber IN288.
Conflict of interest
He authors declared no conflict of interests.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization and methodology of the research was done by Palupi E, Anwar F, Tanziha I, and Khomsan A, Validation and investigation was carried out by Palupi E, Anwar F, and Tanziha I. Resources were retrieved by Khomsan A, Anwar F, Tanziha I. Data curation was done by Gunawan MA and Khomsan A. Draft was prepared by Palupi E, Tanziha I, Gunawan MA, and Khomsan A, and all the authors read and approved of the final manuscript.
Funding
The research team expresses sincere gratitude to The Neys – van Hoogstraten Foundation (NHF), The Netherlands, for their generous support and funding of this research titled "Forgotten fringe-food for future protein source: A study among households in a food-insecure area of Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta," under grant number IN288. The research team also would like to thankful to Dana Abadi Perguruan Tinggi-Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (DAPT-LPDP) through national research collaboration funding program (Riset Kolaborasi Nasional) with the Grant No. 486/IT3.D10/PT.01.03/P/B/2023 entitled “Elucidation of Lipid Profiles of Edible Insects and Development of Their Meat Analogs as Sustainable Protein Sources to Prevent Stunting” for supporting the further research stage on this study.
References
Amrinanto AH, Hardinsyah H & Palupi E 2019. The eating culture of the Sundanese: Does the traditional salad (Lalapan) improve vegetable intake and blood β-carotene concentration? Journal on food, agriculture and society.(104): 1-10.
Bene C, et al. 2021. Global assessment of the impacts of COVID-19 on food security. Global food security. 31: 100575.
Cooper M, et al. 2021. Monitoring and projecting global hunger: Are we on track? Global food security. 30: 100568.
Cunningham SA, Shaikh NI, Datar A, Chernishkind AE & Patile SS 2021. Food subsidies, nutrition transition, and dietary patterns in a remote Indian district. Global food security. 29: 100506.
Decerf B, Ferreira FHG, Mahler DG & Sterck O 2021. Lives and livelihoods: Estimates of the global mortality and poverty effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. World development. 146 (105561): 1-17.
Desire MF, et al. 2021. Exploring food fortification potential of neglected legume and oil seed crops for improving food and nutrition security among smallholder farming communities: A systematic review. Journal of agriculture and food research. 3: 100117.
Elgar FJ, et al. 2021. Relative food insecurity, mental health and wellbeing in 160 countries. Social science & medicine. 268: 113556.
Food Security and Extension Agency 2016. Map of Food Insecurity and Nutrition at the Village Level of Gunungkidul Regency. Food Security and Extension Agency, Badan Ketahanan Pangan dan Penyuluhan ) Prov. DIY.
Fraser KT, et al. 2022. What we can learn from U.S. food policy response to crises of the last 20years - Lessons for the COVID-19 era: A scoping review. SSM population health. 17: 100952.
Govorushko S 2019. Global status of insects as food and feed source: A review. Trends in food science & technology. 91: 436-445.
Indonesian Ministry of Health 2014. Total Diet Study Book: Indonesian Individual Food Consumption Survey 2014.
Lampariello LR, Cortelazzo A, Guerranti R, Sticozzi C & Valacchi G 2012. Magic Velvet Bean Mucuna pruriens. Journal of traditional and complementary medicine. 2 (4): 331-339.
Lwanga S & Lemeshow S 1991. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies. A Practical Manua. WHO. Genewa.
Maxwell D, Coates J & Vaitla B 2013. How do different indicators of household food security compare? Empirical evidence from Tigray. Feinstein International Center.
Mills S, Albani V & Brown H 2021. Estimating the direct and indirect risks of becoming food insecure during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional analysis using UK cohort data. Lancet. 398 (2): S67.
Ohri-Vachaspati P, Acciai F & DeWeese RS 2021. SNAP participation among low-income US households stays stagnant while food insecurity escalates in the months following the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventive medicine reports. 24: 101555.
Oyeyinka AT & Oyeyinka SA 2018. Moringa oleifera as a food fortificant: Recent trends and prospects. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 17: 127-136.
Painter SC, Popova E & Roberts MJ 2022. An introduction to east african coastal current ecosystems: At the frontier of climate change and food security. Ocean & coastal management. 216: 105977.
Palupi E, et al. 2020. Protein sources diversity from Gunungkidul District, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Biodiversitas journal of biological diversity. 21 (2).
Patel S, Suleria HAR & Rauf A 2019. Edible insects as innovative foods: Nutritional and functional assessments. Trends in food science & technology. 86: 352-359.
Peta Ketahanan dan Kerentanan Pangan 2020. Food security and vulnerability atlas. Food Security Agency, Ministry of Agriculture.
Possidonio C, Prada M, Graca J & Piazza J 2021. Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite. 156: 104860.
Premalatha M, Abbas T, Abbasi T & Abbasi SA 2011. Energy-efficient food production to reduce global warming and ecodegradation: The use of edible insects. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. 5 (9): 4357-4360.
Rahimi P, et al. 2022. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food production and animal health. Trends in food science & technology. 121: 105-113.
Raimondi MP 2013. Academy members leading efforts to decrease food insecurity. Journal of the academy of nutrition and dietetics. 113 (7): 899-902.
Sade N & Peleg Z 2020. Future challenges for global food security under climate change. Plant sciences. 295: 110467.
Woodward A & Porter JR 2016. Food, hunger, health, and climate change. Lancet. 387 (10031): 1886-1887.
Nevertheless, the protein intake of the pareicipants was insufficient, which was less than 80% of the daily needs. Therefore, the alternative protein source could be an appropriate solution to cover the community's food security.The main obstacle to using this forgotten food is consumer’s preference, particularly the young generation who did not prefer to consume forgotten foods as their meals (Palupi et al., 2020). A public campaign about the functional properties of forgotten foods supported by advance sustainable production and processing might be a way to connect these forgotten foods with food-insecure households and other community’s nutrition and health problems (Patel et al., 2019, Possidonio et al., 2021). However, this study proved that food culture refers to eating those forgotten foods in Gunungkidul which should be preserved like other original eating culture in other Indonesian cultures, e.g. eating raw vegetables among Sundanese for better vitamin A intake (Amrinanto et al., 2019). Some other positive food culture campaigns for preschool and elementary children might lead to the community’s preference for forgotten foods more effectively. Supply and demand, together with supporting policy, become the key point in returning these forgotten foods.
Forgotten foods are not only protein alternatives but also a supporter of regional economic development. The local government might promote small and medium enterprises to use indigenous knowledge for producing forgotten foods as a special local identifier. Community, industry, and researchers might further collaborate to improve an innovative technology for promoting the forgotten foods, not only on the sustainable production system, but also on the innovative processing to make these foods more acceptable, and lead to longer life, nutritious food, and less un-demanded compounds.
The study has several limitations and strengths. The limitations include a relatively small sample size of 240 households, which may limit the generalizability of the findings, and the geographic scope, as it was conducted in two specific villages in Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta, which might not represent other regions. The reliance on self-reported data through interviews and questionnaires may introduce bias or inaccuracies, and as a cross-sectional study, it captures data at a single point in time, which may not reflect changes or trends over time. On the other hand, the study's strengths include its focus on forgotten foods (edible insects, aquatic animals, indigenous plants) as sustainable protein sources, providing a potential solution for food security in food-insecure regions. It also comprehensively assessed food security status, socio-economic characteristics, food consumption behavior, and nutritional and health status of children and mothers, offering a holistic view. The study's relevance to the local context, particularly in addressing food insecurity in Gunungkidul, provides directly applicable insights. Additionally, the findings suggest practical interventions to improve food security and nutrition, such as promoting the consumption of locally available, nutritious, and sustainable protein sources.
Conclusion
Most of the participants in Gunungkidul live under the poverty line and have a food -insecure status. The nutritional assessment also indicated that their energy and protein intake was below the required level. Some forgotten foods like aquatic animals and edible insects provided a significant daily protein intake. A preference shifting regarding those forgotten foods seems to become one barrier to this contribution. A public campaign about the functional properties of those forgotten foods supported by advance sustainable production and processing might be a solution. Therefore, these forgotten foods might be an alternative to a future challenge in supporting human well-being. However, this study is an early investigation. Further study on the whole chain food system's correlation with basic nutrition, production, cultivation, broader community acceptance, clinical nutrition, advanced product development, national impact, and global protein demand would be an excellent future establishment. A related study on food security in other regions and an investigation into some alternative solutions are also highly recommended to uncover the people's actual food and nutrition security status.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank The Neys – van Hoogstraten Foundation (NHF), in The Netherlands, for supporting and providing funds for this research withnumber IN288.
Conflict of interest
He authors declared no conflict of interests.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization and methodology of the research was done by Palupi E, Anwar F, Tanziha I, and Khomsan A, Validation and investigation was carried out by Palupi E, Anwar F, and Tanziha I. Resources were retrieved by Khomsan A, Anwar F, Tanziha I. Data curation was done by Gunawan MA and Khomsan A. Draft was prepared by Palupi E, Tanziha I, Gunawan MA, and Khomsan A, and all the authors read and approved of the final manuscript.
Funding
The research team expresses sincere gratitude to The Neys – van Hoogstraten Foundation (NHF), The Netherlands, for their generous support and funding of this research titled "Forgotten fringe-food for future protein source: A study among households in a food-insecure area of Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta," under grant number IN288. The research team also would like to thankful to Dana Abadi Perguruan Tinggi-Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (DAPT-LPDP) through national research collaboration funding program (Riset Kolaborasi Nasional) with the Grant No. 486/IT3.D10/PT.01.03/P/B/2023 entitled “Elucidation of Lipid Profiles of Edible Insects and Development of Their Meat Analogs as Sustainable Protein Sources to Prevent Stunting” for supporting the further research stage on this study.
References
Amrinanto AH, Hardinsyah H & Palupi E 2019. The eating culture of the Sundanese: Does the traditional salad (Lalapan) improve vegetable intake and blood β-carotene concentration? Journal on food, agriculture and society.(104): 1-10.
Bene C, et al. 2021. Global assessment of the impacts of COVID-19 on food security. Global food security. 31: 100575.
Cooper M, et al. 2021. Monitoring and projecting global hunger: Are we on track? Global food security. 30: 100568.
Cunningham SA, Shaikh NI, Datar A, Chernishkind AE & Patile SS 2021. Food subsidies, nutrition transition, and dietary patterns in a remote Indian district. Global food security. 29: 100506.
Decerf B, Ferreira FHG, Mahler DG & Sterck O 2021. Lives and livelihoods: Estimates of the global mortality and poverty effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. World development. 146 (105561): 1-17.
Desire MF, et al. 2021. Exploring food fortification potential of neglected legume and oil seed crops for improving food and nutrition security among smallholder farming communities: A systematic review. Journal of agriculture and food research. 3: 100117.
Elgar FJ, et al. 2021. Relative food insecurity, mental health and wellbeing in 160 countries. Social science & medicine. 268: 113556.
Food Security and Extension Agency 2016. Map of Food Insecurity and Nutrition at the Village Level of Gunungkidul Regency. Food Security and Extension Agency, Badan Ketahanan Pangan dan Penyuluhan ) Prov. DIY.
Fraser KT, et al. 2022. What we can learn from U.S. food policy response to crises of the last 20years - Lessons for the COVID-19 era: A scoping review. SSM population health. 17: 100952.
Govorushko S 2019. Global status of insects as food and feed source: A review. Trends in food science & technology. 91: 436-445.
Indonesian Ministry of Health 2014. Total Diet Study Book: Indonesian Individual Food Consumption Survey 2014.
Lampariello LR, Cortelazzo A, Guerranti R, Sticozzi C & Valacchi G 2012. Magic Velvet Bean Mucuna pruriens. Journal of traditional and complementary medicine. 2 (4): 331-339.
Lwanga S & Lemeshow S 1991. Sample Size Determination in Health Studies. A Practical Manua. WHO. Genewa.
Maxwell D, Coates J & Vaitla B 2013. How do different indicators of household food security compare? Empirical evidence from Tigray. Feinstein International Center.
Mills S, Albani V & Brown H 2021. Estimating the direct and indirect risks of becoming food insecure during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional analysis using UK cohort data. Lancet. 398 (2): S67.
Ohri-Vachaspati P, Acciai F & DeWeese RS 2021. SNAP participation among low-income US households stays stagnant while food insecurity escalates in the months following the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventive medicine reports. 24: 101555.
Oyeyinka AT & Oyeyinka SA 2018. Moringa oleifera as a food fortificant: Recent trends and prospects. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 17: 127-136.
Painter SC, Popova E & Roberts MJ 2022. An introduction to east african coastal current ecosystems: At the frontier of climate change and food security. Ocean & coastal management. 216: 105977.
Palupi E, et al. 2020. Protein sources diversity from Gunungkidul District, Yogyakarta Province, Indonesia. Biodiversitas journal of biological diversity. 21 (2).
Patel S, Suleria HAR & Rauf A 2019. Edible insects as innovative foods: Nutritional and functional assessments. Trends in food science & technology. 86: 352-359.
Peta Ketahanan dan Kerentanan Pangan 2020. Food security and vulnerability atlas. Food Security Agency, Ministry of Agriculture.
Possidonio C, Prada M, Graca J & Piazza J 2021. Consumer perceptions of conventional and alternative protein sources: A mixed-methods approach with meal and product framing. Appetite. 156: 104860.
Premalatha M, Abbas T, Abbasi T & Abbasi SA 2011. Energy-efficient food production to reduce global warming and ecodegradation: The use of edible insects. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews. 5 (9): 4357-4360.
Rahimi P, et al. 2022. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food production and animal health. Trends in food science & technology. 121: 105-113.
Raimondi MP 2013. Academy members leading efforts to decrease food insecurity. Journal of the academy of nutrition and dietetics. 113 (7): 899-902.
Sade N & Peleg Z 2020. Future challenges for global food security under climate change. Plant sciences. 295: 110467.
Woodward A & Porter JR 2016. Food, hunger, health, and climate change. Lancet. 387 (10031): 1886-1887.
Type of article: orginal article |
Subject:
public specific
Received: 2022/08/5 | Published: 2024/08/20 | ePublished: 2024/08/20
Received: 2022/08/5 | Published: 2024/08/20 | ePublished: 2024/08/20
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
