ABSTRACT

While the relationship between diet and health had long been noted in history, no definitive contemporary rationale could account for such linkage, and by the close of the nineteenth century, the aetiology of some common diseases was still thought to result from bacteria, mould and toxins exacerbated by poor hygiene and sanitation. The idea that some of these common diseases such as pellagra, beriberi and infantile scurvy might just be caused by nutritional deficits was beyond the grasp of most contemporary physicians and scientists. Still there were moments of epiphany as one example by Wilbur Olin Atwater illustrated when he had intuitively noted in 1889 that health and diet were directly related. At water prophetically suggested that, the intake of food and expenditure of energy should always be in equilibrium if obesity or poor health were to be avoided (Atwater 1889). Although this had important implications for the later progression of food security, such thoughts were largely the preserve of a few elite scientists before their time. However, until such knowledge became widespread, ongoing efforts to reduce nutritional disease and prolong the shelf life of food was increasingly being consigned to things like sterilisation, milling and polishing of rice. Unfortunately, as we know today this can cause degradation of vital nutrients and as a result nutritional diseases continued, largely unabated. At about this time there were perhaps two branches of conventional wisdom both of which sought recognition for reduced mortality rates; nutrition and health objectives. Although, as research later confirmed, the relationship between the two was too close to call to allow one camp victory over the other.