Water Security and Nutrition: Current Knowledge and Research Opportunities.

Water is an essential nutrient that has primarily been considered in terms of its physiological necessity. But reliable access to water in sufficient quantities and quality is also critical for many nutrition-related behaviors and activities, including growing and cooking diverse foods. Given growing challenges to water availability and safety, including climate change, pollution, and infrastructure degradation, a broader conceptualization of water and its diverse uses is needed to sustainably achieve global nutrition targets. Therefore, we review empirical and qualitative evidence describing the linkages between water security (the reliable availability, accessibility, and quality of water for all household uses) and nutrition. Primary linkages include water security for drinking, food production and preparation, infant and young child feeding, and limiting exposure to pathogens and environmental toxins. We then identify knowledge gaps within each linkage and propose a research agenda for studying water security and nutrition going forward, including the concurrent quantification of both food and water availability, accessibility, use, and stability. By making explicit the connections between water security and nutritional well-being, we aim to promote greater collaboration between the nutrition and water, sanitation, and hygiene sectors. Interdisciplinary policies and programs that holistically address the water-nutrition nexus, versus those that focus on water and nutrition independently, are likely to significantly advance our ability to ensure equitable access to healthy foods and safe water for all.

Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders' views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State's tree fruit industry.

Controversies in food and agriculture abound, with many portrayed as conflicts between polarized viewpoints. Framing such controversies as dichotomies, however, can at times obscure what might be a plurality of views and potential common ground on the subject. We used Q methodology to explore stakeholders' views about pesticide safety, agricultural worker exposure, and human health concerns in the tree fruit industry of central Washington State. Using a purposive sample of English and Spanish-speaking agricultural workers, industry representatives, state agencies, educators, and advocates (n = 41), participants sorted 45 statements on pesticide use and perceived human safety risks in the tree fruit industry in 2011. We used PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program to identify viewpoints, based on differences between how participants sorted the statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints among 38 sorters that explained 52 percent of the variance. The viewpoints included the: (1) skeptics (n = 22) who expressed concern over the environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use; (2) acceptors (n = 10) who acknowledged inherent risks for using pesticides but saw the risks as known, small and manageable; and (3) incrementalists (n = 6) who prioritized opportunities to introduce human capital and technological improvements to increase agricultural worker safety. We then brought representatives with these different viewpoints together to analyze the results of the Q study, and to brainstorm mutually acceptable improvements to health and safety in tree fruit orchards. In describing and analyzing this case study, we argue that Q methodology can serve as one potentially effective tool for collaborative work, in this case facilitating a process of orchard safety improvements despite perceived stakeholder polarization.