Farmers Yielding Higher Nutrition for Public Health

Laura Carniel, 2024 World Food Forum AgriFutures Australia Fellow

Executive Summary

Over the last 70 years, the nutrient density of food has dramatically decreased in Australia and globally. According to research conducted internationally, since the 1950s, nutrient density has been estimated to have decreased between 16% and 75% across various nutrients in various food crops (Bhardwaj et al., 2024; Mayer et al., 2022; Davis et al., 2004; Ekholm et al., 2007). This trend is expected to continue due to soil degradation, the result of the overuse of chemical inputs and unsustainable monoculture and widespread extractive farming practices. The prioritisation of profit as an outcome measure, and often imbalanced along the supply chain, has severely diminished the nutrient density of our foods and the biodiversity of Australian farming systems. Furthermore, lower nutrient density has been linked to potential increases in global healthcare costs. Approximately one-third to one-half of the global population is affected by one or more nutritional deficiencies (Miller & Welch, 2013), with diet-related diseases costing Australia’s healthcare system approximately $16 billion annually (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022). 

Currently, there is no policy explicitly and directly designed to prevent the decline of nutrition levels in Australian food crops. Governments have predominantly focused on improving health through treating disease (Friebe, 2022) rather than a whole-of-systems prevention that starts from the farm level upwards. To ensure the nutrition security of all Australians, prevention-based policies that reward farmers for their nutritional output are required. The recommended policy option is to implement a new nutrient certification system to reward farmers for the nutrition of their food, which will aim to provide high-quality nutrition for better Australian public health outcomes. Funding of $30 million over five years is proposed to form part of the Department of Health budget to ensure a whole-of-systems solution.

Problem Identification

Over the last decades, the nutritional density of food has been deteriorating globally (Bhardwaj et al., 2024). Long-term declines in essential micronutrients in many fruits and vegetables have been reported across the United Kingdom (Mayer et al., 2022; Thomas, 2003), the United States (Davis et al., 2004), Finland (Ekholm et al., 2007) and Australia (Cunningham et al., 2001). A decrease in nutrient levels can result from soil degradation through conventional and industrial farming practices, such as heavy tillage, monoculture use and the overuse of chemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers (Khangura et al., 2023). For decades, farmers have been pressured to derive profit from increasing the yield of their produce due to the wholesale and retail buying systems maintaining buy price pressure on their product. The prioritisation of aesthetic appearance and profit of food has severely diminished the nutrient density of foods and the operation of Australian farming systems. 

From an environmental perspective, extractive farming practices are unsustainable for land management, and there is a strong need to implement nature-based solutions to prevent further biodiversity loss and promote soil and plant health (Seddon, 2022). Simultaneously, from a health perspective, a widespread shift towards nutrient-poor diets has contributed to an increase in malnutrition-related chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and heart disease (Gropper, 2023). Although people may have access to adequate calories, they may often suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, also known as “hidden hunger”(Burchi et al., 2011). Approximately one-third to one-half of the global population is affected by one or more nutritional deficiencies (Miller & Welch, 2013). 

In a 2023 FAO report, it was estimated that Australian agriculture had approximately $118 billion in hidden costs, including the burden of diet-related diseases, loss of productivity and negative environmental impacts (FAO, 2023). Approximately 11 million Australians suffer from diet-related diseases and cost Australia’s healthcare system $16 billion annually (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022), alongside economic losses due to increased workplace absenteeism. Market research estimates that Australians spend around $2 billion annually on supplements to combat hidden hunger, with an estimated growth to $5.2 billion by 2030 (CSIRO, 2017).

These diet-related diseases are disproportionately experienced by rural, remote and Indigenous communities when compared to their metropolitan counterparts (Alston et al., 2020). Previously, governments have predominantly focused on improving health through treating disease (Friebe, 2022) rather than a whole-of-systems prevention focus, which starts from the farm level upwards. 

Context

Background

Healthy soil produces healthy plants, improving public health through increased nutrient density (Harris et al., 2021). Conventional agricultural practices of the current agricultural food systems often lead to poor soil health outcomes, such as loss of soil diversity, fungi and pollinating insect populations, and overall poorer health for the whole ecosystem (Toor et al., 2021). Climate change continues to disrupt and present major challenges for Australian agricultural producers with increased frequency and intensity of floods, fires and droughts (Howden et al., 2014). This, combined with decreased environmental health, including decreased soil carbon and biodiversity, as well as economic burdens, all present extreme difficulties for farm efficiency, profitability and rural life. There is a need for nature-based solutions to prevent further biodiversity and nutrition loss caused by conventional agricultural practices (Ekka et al., 2023). 

In Australia, a study found that mineral levels of iron, potassium and calcium in fresh sweet corn in 2000 were less than half of those from the 1980s (Cunningham, 2001). Other notable differences in mineral content between 1980s and 2000s were magnesium in mangoes (250 to 160 mg/100 g), iron in red-skinned potatoes (0.5 to 0.2 mg/100 g) and strawberries (0.6 to 0.3 mg/100 g), and potassium and calcium in butternut pumpkins (potassium: 470 to 280 mg/100 g and calcium: 13 mg/100 g) (Cunningham, 2001). Although the study concluded that nutrition decline was overall not significant, the clear declines in nutrient content align strongly with trends reported in other countries. In the United Kingdom, between 1940 and 2019, there were reported declines in concentrations of sodium (52%), iron (50%), copper (49%) and magnesium (10%) in various fruits and vegetables (Mayer, 2022). In America, between 1950 and 1999, a study observed varying levels of nutrient decline (including protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin and vitamin C) across 43 different foods (Davis et al., 2004). 

Although their analysis methods have been questioned, continued analysis has confirmed statistically significant nutrient loss for copper, calcium, iron and magnesium (Marles, 2017). The loss of nutrition may also be attributed to the “dilution effect” which suggests that plants grown on a mass scale with higher yield will produce fewer nutrients and phytochemicals (Marles, 2017). However, this decreasing nutrient content trend may also be due to selecting and breeding modern-day agriculture crop varieties that improve productivity and profitability, not considering nutritional outcomes (Mayer et al., 2022). 

Regenerative agriculture has been gaining momentum worldwide and is part of the wider landscape of alternative sustainable approaches and paradigm shifts to traditional agriculture (Gordon et al., 2023). It has been commonly associated with agroecology, which holistically considers biophysical, technical and socioeconomic relationships of farming systems (Duru et al., 2015). Sustainable agriculture aims to promote harmony with nature and ecosystem health by using farming techniques such as diverse crop rotation, cover cropping, minimum tillage, integrating livestock and agroforestry (cultivation of trees), and reduction of pesticides (Vikas & Ranjan, 2024). There have been many successful stories of transition, where plants grown with these farming practices are seen to contain higher levels of minerals (Aluminium, Calcium, Copper, Magnesium and Zinc), vitamins (Vitamin B groups, C, E and K) and phytochemicals (phenolics, phytosterols and carotenoids) (Montgomery et al., 2022).

Current Policy Landscape

There is a large amount of research and development occurring within Australian agri-food systems. The Australian Government funds approximately $3 billion annually towards agricultural research and development (through associated research entities such as the ACIAR, CSIRO, FRDC and GRDC), with a recent focus on drought resilience, protein innovation and food security (ABARES, 2024). Frameworks such as the National Soil Strategy framework and the Australian Agricultural Sustainability Framework (Figure 2) have been introduced to promote guidelines for sustainable farming practices. However, these voluntary frameworks have no regulation or reward for farmers who farm more sustainably or with increased nutrient levels. The Australian wholesale and retail supply chains do not recognise or reward food grown with higher nutritional density.  Although Principle 13 focuses on societal benefits, it does not specifically incorporate the measure of human nutrition and public health. In Australia, poor fertiliser and pesticide standards directly impact public and environmental health compared to the counterparts in Europe, the UK and Canada (Gabriela et al., 2022).

Figure 2: Australian Agricultural Sustainability Framework

Currently, the Australian agricultural industry does not regularly measure the nutritional levels of the food grown. The current large-scale commercial criteria (e.g. quality standards such as aesthetics, traceability and sustainability initiatives) do not specifically focus on the measurement of healthy soil, environmental health and optimum nutritional levels in the food grown. Future policy recommendations and shifting agrifood paradigms must aim to optimise the agricultural industry whilst simultaneously optimising health qualities. This paradigm shift is starting to gain traction, for example, exemplified by La Trobe University coining the ‘gut-to-paddock’ approach (La Trobe University, 2025).

Effective food policy should be inextricably linked with public health, environmental management, and social and economic inequalities (Lang et al., 2009). Currently, there is no legislation explicitly and directly designed to prevent the decline of nutrition levels in Australian food crops, and for the most part, agriculture, food and health policies have been separated. 

Table 1: Australian agricultural, food and nutritional frameworks and initiatives 

Framework	Summary of Goals	Mechanisms	Introduced
Agriculture
Australian Agricultural Sustainability Framework	The Framework is based on 17 principles across environmental stewardship, the wellbeing of people, animals and community and economic resilience. Joint initiative led by the National Farmers’ Federation and supported by the Australian Government.	Voluntary framework for demonstrating and communicating Australia's agricultural sustainability efforts without increasing the burden of on-farm reporting.	Mid 2022
National Soil Strategy Framework	The first national policy on soil aims to focus on soil health, soil innovation and stewardship and soil knowledge. Overseen by the National Soil Strategy Implementation Steering Committee (NSSISC).	The 2021–22 Budget will deliver the $196.9 million National Soil Action Plan 2023 to 2028.  This includes: A two-year National Soil Monitoring and Incentives Pilot Program Grant programs Waste to healthy soil	May 2021
National Landcare Program and Climate Smart Agriculture under the Natural Heritage Trust	Program for natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and protecting Australia’s biodiversity. Funded by Natural Heritage Trust (established in 1997) by the Australian Government - Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)	Financially supporting: $1 billion for a range of measures for natural resource management and  $450 million for the Regional Land Partnerships Program. $302.1 million Climate-Smart Agriculture Program over five years from 2023-24.	2014
Future Drought Fund	Aim to build drought resilience in Australia’s agricultural industry, landscapes and communities Funded by the Australian Government - Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)	Investing $5 billion from 2024 until 2028 to help Australian drought resilience.  Outcome 1 has been allocated $187 million to deliver: “More sustainable, productive, internationally competitive agricultural products” Outcome 2 has been allocated $51 million to: “Safeguard Australia’s animal and plant health status to maintain overseas markets and protect the economy and environment”	2019
Food
Australia’s National Food Plan (2013) and sustainability initiatives	Aim for a sustainable, globally competitive food system by 2025, focusing on growing exports, people's access to food, and sustainable food production, with a vision of becoming a "food bowl for Asia".	This did not eventuate due to the change in the Federal Government in 2013	2013
Food safety and quality, fortification and transparent labelling, nutrient content claims etc.	Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is a statutory authority operating under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991	Determines food safety standards, which become part of state and territory legislation. Maintains a database of nutrients in Australian foods.	1991
Health
National Nutrition Policy Framework	Implementing the National Nutrition Strategy and an Action Plan	Currently, no clear link related to agri-food systems.  Since 1992, Australia has not had a formal, comprehensive national nutrition policy.	Ongoing development but more focus on the National Preventive Health Strategy
National Preventive Health Strategy	Under the Department of Health and Aged Care, the National Preventive Health Strategy	States the importance of nutrition, focusing on the reduction of diseases.	2021 until 2030
Eat for Health	Organised by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council and Department of Health, Disability and Ageing	Contains the Australian Dietary Guidelines ( based on nutrient reference values developed in 2006) tips and advice on eating healthy, and resources to help people make healthy food choices.	Feb 2013

Policy Options

Access to nutrient-dense food should be a priority for the economy, national security and public health. To ensure the nutrition security of all Australians, the Australian Government needs to implement prevention-based policies that reward farmers for their nutritional output as well as beneficial outcomes on metrics for climate change and biodiversity. Some viable policy approaches to achieve this include: 

1. Financially incentivise farmers to adopt sustainable farming practices 

The federal government can financially support farmers to transition towards the adoption of sustainable, nutrition-focused farming practices. This is critically important in the initial stages, where upfront costs are a significant barrier. This would take the form of tax incentives to reward the implementation of regenerative farming techniques, such as mixed enterprise farming, multi-species planting, cover cropping, crop rotation, reduced tillage and the use of biological fertilisers that restore mineral and microbial health. While the focus is on ecological restoration, this policy indirectly enhances nutritional output by building soil health, the evidence-based foundation of nutrient-dense food.

2. Pilot research program to grow high-nutrient crop varieties

Launch a national research pilot to support the cultivation of plant varieties that have not previously been explored by industrial agriculture, which may have higher nutritional qualities. Many traditional, Indigenous and heirloom crops, such as amaranth and Australian native plant foods, have been overlooked by large-scale industrial production but may offer higher nutrient profiles (Mustafa et al., 2021). The program would fund collaborations between farmers and multidisciplinary researchers across agriculture, food science and nutrition to evaluate new varieties. Critically, the program must be co-designed with First Nations communities, ensuring custodianship and sovereignty over cultural foods are respected and upheld. This option aims to revive cultural food systems, diversify the food supply and improve public health outcomes.

3. Incorporate a market system to reward farmers for their nutritional deliveries

Implement a government-supported nutrient density mechanism to reward farmers for developing higher nutrient density content in crops. Initially, this would begin with a rollout of a nutrient density monitoring program, providing free or subsidised crop testing to farmers. Crop data collected could be used to certify nutrient profiles and inform the development of a new, trusted ‘nutrient-dense’ label and certification for fresh produce. These government-supported market incentives, such as minimum price guarantee or premium payment, may encourage supermarkets to prioritise nutrient-dense sourcing and promote awareness among consumers. This approach shifts value away from weight and volume, instead recognising and valuing farmers for their contributions to high nutrient food quality and public health. This option represents an integrated agri-food-health policy bridging agricultural, food, nutrition and market reform.

Policy Recommendation

Option 3, to “incorporate a market system to reward farmers for their nutritional deliveries”, is recommended as the most viable policy option to increase nutritional density in Australian produce. 

Through implementing a structural incentive that measures and rewards nutrient density, farmers can be fairly compensated for providing food that supports better health outcomes. Key components of this policy include a national nutrient density monitoring program, which allows affordable access to nutrient crop testing. Verified results can be used to develop a government and science-backed certification and labelling scheme (similar to that of organic and Fairtrade), with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (FSANZ), that signals high nutritional quality to the retailers and consumers. Price premiums for certified produce, which cover the cost of sustainable production, would strengthen the demand and encourage greater widespread adoption. 

Cross-sector collaboration is essential to ensure proper delivery with key stakeholders, including: 

• Farmers/growers

• Federal and State departments (mainly DAFF and Health)

• Public research institutions and universities (e.g CSIRO)

• Retailers, food companies and supermarkets

• Certification bodies and technology partners (e.g. FSANZ) 

• Consumers

  
  

This initiative concerns both the Australian Federal and State Governments, particularly the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and the Department of Health. As of the May 2024 Budget, the current DAFF total department resourcing is approximately $1.74 billion, and the Department of Health is $112 billion. Funding is proposed to form part of the Department of Health budget to ensure a whole-of-systems solution. 

Based on the rollout of certification systems in the past, it is estimated that the implementation of this recommendation would cost $30 million annually (e.g. multi-year funding of $150 million over 5 years). 

Development Stage (Years 1 and 2) 

• Establish national nutrient density standards in collaboration with farmers, agronomists, and public research institutions

• Invest in low-cost measurement technology through public-private partnerships

• Pilot trial with select growers

  
  

Certification and Market Integration Stage (Years 3 and 4)

• Partnering with supermarkets to promote certified products

• Education and awareness campaign for consumers

• Implement price premiums for certified crops

  
  

This policy aims to bridge the gap between agriculture, food and public health by shifting the food system from quantity to quality, with appropriate design to be cost-effective, scalable and equitable. Promoting higher-nutrient produce through preventative diet-linked diseases aims to reduce healthcare costs downstream and enhance life expectancy and productivity across all age groups. By embedding nutrition into the economic value of food, this approach is a step towards a more integrative food system that values farmers' roles in contributing positively to public health.

Risks and Barriers

One of the most significant barriers is the current lack of accessible and affordable tools for measuring nutrient density on farms, as well as the lack of standardisation of the measurement systems. Without low-cost testing equipment, there are challenges in comparing nutrient levels of food crops across farms. Measurement tools, such as spectrometers, are still emerging and may be costly, which is a gap that would impact the scalability of a current market-based reward system. Additionally, it is currently unclear whether consumers and supermarkets will be willing to pay a premium for nutrient-dense food. This would require further support through widespread market research, education and knowledge to build trust and scientific evidence-based transparency.

Another barrier is the transition costs to farmers, particularly the upfront cost of testing, certification and transitioning and adapting regenerative farming practices to prioritise nutrient outcomes. There may be potential hesitancy among farmers to engage and adopt sustainable agriculture practices. This resistance may be due to short-term economic strain, a high risk and uncertainty of profitability, and market forces not aligned to encourage sustainable farming practices. The current economic pressures farmers are already facing, such as increased input costs, market volatility, and decreased profit margins, make costly initial transitions risky without additional government financial support. To mitigate these risks, especially for farmers who may struggle to commit to these costs in the initial stages, where the cost of transition is most expensive, there would need to be an offer of a minimum viable return.

However, these barriers and risks would be outweighed by the long-term economic, environmental, and social benefits of improving the integrity of our farming and food systems. If implemented, there is expected to be financial gain for farmers, as well as increased farmer retention. Ultimately, it aims to positively contribute to downstream public health outcomes, which will serve to reduce the costs of per capita public health costs. Key barriers are outweighed by the expected increase in nutrition output, estimated to save $1 billion annually for Australian healthcare budgets due to the expected reduced prevalence of diet-linked illnesses over time (AUSVEG, 2025). 

While a reductionist approach to nutrition provides valuable insights into isolated minerals and vitamins, it must be complemented by whole-of-system thinking that considers whole-body interactions. Similarly, nutrition is an important indicator that should not be considered in isolation but as part of an integrated, holistic approach of environmental, social and economic systems.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). Health system spending per case of disease and for certain risk factors. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-system-spending-per-case-of-disease

Afshin, A., Sur, P. J., Fay, K. A., Cornaby, L., Ferrara, G., Salama, J. S., Mullany, E. C.,

Abate, K. H., Abbafati, C., & Abebe, Z. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The lancet, 393(10184), 1958-1972.

Alston, L., Walker, T., & Kent, K. (2020). Characterizing Dietary Intakes in Rural Australian Adults: A Systematic Literature Review.

Nutrients, 12(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113515

AUSVEG. (2024). Senate Select Committee's Inquiry on Supermarket Prices. https://ausveg.com.au/article/ausveg-proposes-solutions-to-grower-retailer-power-imbalance/

AUSVEG. (2025). Federal Election Priorities. https://ausveg.com.au/app/uploads/2024/12/AUSVEG_2025_Election-Priorities_Digital-1.pdf

Bhardwaj, R. L., Parashar, A., Parewa, H. P., & Vyas, L. (2024). An Alarming Decline in the Nutritional Quality of Foods: The Biggest Challenge for Future Generations’ Health. Foods, 13(6), 877. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/13/6/877

Burchi, F., Fanzo, J., & Frison, E. (2011). The role of food and nutrition system approaches in tackling hidden hunger. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 8(2), 358-373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph8020358

Carey, R., Caraher, M., Lawrence, M., & Friel, S. (2016). Opportunities and challenges in developing a whole-of-government national food and nutrition policy: lessons from Australia's National Food Plan. Public Health Nutr, 19(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980015001834

CSIRO. (2017). Growth opportunities for Australian food & agribusiness.

Cunningham, J., Milligan, G., & Trevisan, L. (2001). Minerals in Australian fruits and vegetables. Food Standards Australia, New Zealand.

Davis, D. R., Epp, M. D., & Riordan, H. D. (2004). Changes in USDA food composition data for 43 garden crops, 1950 to 1999. J Am Coll Nutr, 23(6), 669-682. https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2004.10719409

Dunlop, E., Cunningham, J., Adorno, P., Fatupaito, S., Johnson, S. K., & Black, L. J. (2025). Development of an updated, comprehensive food composition database for Australian-grown horticultural commodities. Food Chemistry, 463, 141398. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141398

Duru, M., Therond, O., & Fares, M. h. (2015). Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4), 1237-1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x

Ekholm, P., Reinivuo, H., Mattila, P., Pakkala, H., Koponen, J., Happonen, A., Hellström, J., & Ovaskainen, M.-L. (2007). Changes in the mineral and trace element contents of cereals, fruits and vegetables in Finland. Journal of Food Composition and analysis, 20(6), 487-495.

Ekka, P., Patra, S., Upreti, M., Kumar, G., Kumar, A., & Saikia, P. (2023). Land Degradation and Its Impacts on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In Land and Environmental Management through Forestry (pp. 77-101). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119910527.ch4

FAO. (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources: Main Report. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i5199e

FAO. (2023). Hidden costs of agrifood systems and recent trends from 2016 to 2023 – Background paper for The State of Food and Agriculture 2023 (FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study, Issue. F. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc8581en 

Friebe, M. (2022). From SICKCARE to HEALTHCARE to HEALTH. In M. Friebe (Ed.), Novel Innovation Design for the Future of Health: Entrepreneurial Concepts for Patient Empowerment and Health Democratization (pp. 23-32). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08191-0_3

Gabriela, A., Leong, S., Ong, P. S. W., Weinert, D., Hlubucek, J., & Tait, P. W. (2022). Strengthening Australia’s Chemical Regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(11), 6673. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6673

Gordon, E., Davila, F., & Riedy, C. (2023). Regenerative agriculture: a potentially transformative storyline shared by nine discourses. Sustainability Science, 18(4), 1833-1849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01281-1

Graham, R. D., Welch, R. M., Saunders, D. A., Ortiz‐Monasterio, I., Bouis, H. E., Bonierbale, M., de Haan, S., Burgos, G., Thiele, G., Liria, R., Meisner, C. A., Beebe, S.

E., Potts, M. J., Kadian, M., Hobbs, P. R., Gupta, R., & Twomlow, S. (2007). Nutritious Subsistence Food Systems. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 92, pp. 1-74). Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)92001-9

Gropper, S. S. (2023). The Role of Nutrition in Chronic Disease. Nutrients, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15030664

Harris, J., Tan, W., Mitchell, B., & Zayed, D. (2021). Equity in agriculture-nutrition-health research: a scoping review. Nutrition Reviews, 80(1), 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuab001

Health, A. I. o., & Welfare. (2022). Health system spending per case of disease and for certain risk factors. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/health-system-spending-per-case-of-disease

Howden, M., Schroeter, S., Crimp, S., & Hanigan, I. (2014). The changing roles of science in managing Australian droughts: An agricultural perspective. Weather and Climate Extremes, 3, 80-89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2014.04.006

Khangura, R., Ferris, D., Wagg, C., & Bowyer, J. (2023). Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability, 15(3), 2338. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/3/2338

Lang, T., Barling, D., & Caraher, M. (2009). Food policy: integrating health, environment and society. OUP Oxford.https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240903336944 

Marles, R. J. (2017). Mineral nutrient composition of vegetables, fruits and grains: The context of reports of apparent historical declines. Journal of Food Composition and analysis, 56, 93-103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2016.11.012

Mayer, A. B., Trenchard, L., & Rayns, F. (2022). Historical changes in the mineral content of fruit and vegetables in the UK from 1940 to 2019: a concern for human nutrition and agriculture. Int J Food Sci Nutr, 73(3), 315-326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2021.1981831

Miller, B. D. D., & Welch, R. M. (2013). Food system strategies for preventing micronutrient malnutrition. Food Policy, 42, 115-128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.06.008

Montgomery, D. R., Biklé, A., Archuleta, R., Brown, P., & Jordan, J. (2022). Soil health and nutrient density: preliminary comparison of regenerative and conventional farming. PeerJ, 10, e12848. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12848

Morris, C. E., & Sands, D. C. (2006). The breeder's dilemma—yield or nutrition? Nature biotechnology, 24(9), 1078-1080. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0906-1078 

Mustafa, M. A., Mabhaudhi, T., & Massawe, F. (2021). Building a resilient and sustainable food system in a changing world – A case for climate-smart and nutrient dense crops. Global Food Security, 28, 100477. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100477

Research at La Trobe Institute for Sustainable Agriculture & Food. (2025).  La Trobe University. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/research/lisaf/about

Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., de Boer, I. J. M., Schrijver, A. P., & van Zanten, H. H. E. (2020). Regenerative agriculture – the soil is the base. Global Food Security, 26, 100404. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100404

Seddon, N. (2022). Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Science, 376(6600), 1410-1416. https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/science.abn9668

Statistics, A. B. o. (2024). Apparent Consumption of Selected Foodstuffs, Australia. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-and-risks/apparent-consumption-selected-foodstuffs-australia/2022-23

Sustainable Markets Initiative Agribusiness Task Force White Paper - Scaling Regenerative Farming: An Action Plan. (2023). https://a.storyblok.com/f/109506/x/7b102e6831/agribusiness-task-force-white-paper.pdf

Thomas, D. (2003). A study on the mineral depletion of the foods available to us as a nation over the period 1940 to 1991. Nutrition and Health, 17(2), 85-115.

Toor, G. S., Yang, Y.-Y., Das, S., Dorsey, S., & Felton, G. (2021). Chapter Four - Soil health in agricultural ecosystems: Current status and future perspectives. In D. L.

Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy (Vol. 168, pp. 157-201). Academic Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2021.02.004

Vikas, & Ranjan, R. (2024). Agroecological approaches to sustainable development. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1405409. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1405409 

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.