Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 October 2022 | Story Prof Johan van Niekerk, Dr Ismari van der Merwe, and Ms Elzmarie Oosthuizen | Photo Supplied
Sustainable food
World Food Day is celebrated annually on 16 October to promote global awareness and action to uplift those who suffer from hunger and to highlight the need to ensure access to healthy diets for all.

Opinion article by Prof Johan van Niekerk, Dr Ismari van der Merwe, and Ms Elzmarie Oosthuizen, Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development, University of the Free State.



World Food Day is celebrated annually on 16 October to promote global awareness and action to uplift those who suffer from hunger and to highlight the need to ensure access to healthy diets for all. However, in 2022 we are faced with an ongoing pandemic, conflict, global warming, rising prices, and international tensions. All these factors are affecting global food security. Educators have an enormous task to help students develop skills to help build a sustainable world where everyone has regular access to nutritious food. 

Although we have progressed towards building a better world, many people have been left behind – people who cannot benefit from human development, innovation, or economic growth. Millions of people worldwide cannot afford a healthy diet, putting them at high risk of food insecurity and malnutrition. But ending hunger is not only about supply. Enough food is produced today to feed everyone on the planet. The problem is access and availability of nutritious food. People worldwide are suffering from the domino effects of challenges that know no borders.

Students have insufficient balance for food

South Africa has seen a significant expansion of student enrolment in the higher education system, with nearly one million students attending one of the 26 public universities. The number of students in South Africa's higher education system is far below other middle-income developing countries. Therefore, the government aims to increase university enrolment to 1,5 million by 2030. However, the cost of attending university greatly exceeds the financial means of most students. 
Students must divide their budget between rent, tuition, utilities, and the remaining insufficient balance for food, which ultimately increases their food insecurity risk.
Moreover, the transition of school learners to university students is more complicated than foreseen since lifestyle changes have health implications, where the excitement is combined with stress from pressure to perform well academically in a competitive environment. Research has found that first-year students are exceptionally prone to food insecurity. They have newfound independence and are still learning to cope with the milieu away from home. A study on the Bloemfontein Campus by the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics indicated that students experience considerable problems in managing their tasks, time, and finances. The challenge of reduced social support results in lengthy emotional and physical separation from family and friends, which influences standard eating patterns. The students have poor nutritional knowledge, limited earning potential, and a lack of budgeting skills and resources for healthy food preparation. Finally, sociocultural diversity is another factor to consider. It influences students' food patterns, while the total student population of the UFS, about 37 800 full-time students, reflects a rich sociocultural diversity. 

Intake of vegetables, fruit, and protein among students is minimal

When required to earn a degree, food insecurity represents a short period of time, but it can precipitate poor lifelong health behaviour and increased risks of chronic diseases. Prolonged exposure may contribute to the development of obesity. The research found food insecurity is related to poor mental health and academic performance. Students endorse increased rates of depression and anxiety, decreased concentration, and low concentration marks. It leads to lower academic achievement and undermines the goals of tertiary education. The importance of studying the aspects related to students' sustainable food consumption behaviour lies in the fact that, at this age, they begin to develop specific consumption patterns that will have long-term effects.

The average of current first-year students forms part of Generation Zoomers (ages 19-22 years). Generation Zoomers (Gen Z) grew up in specific circumstances, known as the first truly digital natives. They grew up living, working, and socialising with the internet and social media. This generation's economic circumstances are more constrained. The latter is partly due to the rise in university tuition fees. Gen Z forms part of diverse communities seen as networked young citizens, but growing social inequalities often limit their opportunities. This generation is labelled as the stay-at-home generation, with indoor and online socialising on the rise. 

During a study by the Department of Sustainable Food Systems and Development on the South Campus of the UFS (student population – ages 19-22 years), we found that the intake of vegetables, fruit, and protein among our students is minimal and will lead to deficiencies. At the same time, rice and pasta are part of their everyday diet. Money to buy these foods is still an immense problem. Students indicated that they would prefer healthy foods when they had the resources to afford it.

No Student Hungry initiative

Gender and student consumption patterns showed that breakfast consumption decreased, with male students consuming breakfast more regularly than females. The results indicated that students preferred soft drinks (energy) and water (available). They argued that the high consumption of fast food is due to its wide availability and accessibility in commercial and informal outlets. The informal vendors make fast food more available and accessible to low-budget student groups due to the lower food prices. The unhealthy consumption movement is driven by aggressive advertising practices and lower costs. 

Students consume more saturated fat snacks, refined carbohydrates, sweetened carbonated beverages, and diets that are short in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) and fibres. Researchers indicated that these unhealthy diets and the increasingly sedentary lives of students could lead to non-communicable diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart disease.

Currently, the department forms part of the NO STUDENT HUNGRY (NSH) initiative by establishing vegetable tunnels on campus. It remains an indispensable objective of the department, though, to increase the proportion of university students who receive information on unhealthy dietary patterns; however, nutrition knowledge has only moderate effects on students' attitudes and behaviours. Therefore, we use our Food Security modules as an effective strategy to educate our student community on sustainable food systems by ensuring skills development. Teaching contextual skills (e.g., how to plan and prepare nutritious meals within time and financial constraints) could address this unhealthy behaviour of the UFS students and work towards the sustainable development goal of NO HUNGER in 2030

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept