academic paper:  a proposition for the timely intersection and adoption of Traditional Ecological Knowledge into ecological public health models

In their publications from 2012 and 2015, Geof Rayner and Tim Lang address a pressing, relevant, and timely adaptation to public health  - incorporating ecological elements into public health models. We are at a time where our environment is at a pivotal turning point and facing detrimental ruin to natural resources, including our food system, bordering on irreversible and irreparable damage that could render our home planet unlivable. Furthermore, our communities and societies clash and fight over notions and ideals of politicism, ethics, and morals about ourselves and our surroundings. Our detachment from our natural systems and milieu furthers this dissociation and comprehension, in turn setting the stage for the desire for a linear, simplified, one-stop-shop, fix-it-all approach to humanity’s future.

For fear of sounding like a broken record, this is simply impossible. This mindset and hope highlights our modern (and oftentimes gullible and uneducated) thinking in believing that there could be a singular solution to a highly complex system. While efforts indeed can be made on all fronts, such as on a small scale by eating and sourcing our food more consciously and responsibly, or on a larger scale, like implementing policy changes to food producers and manufacturers. However, these efforts are already in place and still have not changed habits and understandings - or at least are not done quickly enough. Structural change looks like an overhaul of an unsuitable and unsustainable food and public health framework. It is in this way that Rayner and Lang’s research and argument appear as a viable resource for reframing our public health model, as they not only address the ecologically-focused factors that contribute to public health and our general lack of acknowledgement of said factors, but they also recognize the complex and interwoven nature of public health policy changes and adaptation.

Acknowledging and implementing these changes of course takes real work, time, and understanding from all parties involved, those being the entire world’s populations from peoples to politicians. Finding a common base of understanding and acceptance is a challenge in and of itself. There is one realm of knowledge from a group of people, however, that could bolster these changes, that being the world’s Indigenous communities. As these peoples have lived for hundreds of thousands of years, through years of great environmental, social, and political change, their knowledge, although widespread and deeply-rooted, is unfortunately hardly accepted as “real” or “legitimate” in the public health sector prior to the 1980s. Since the 1980s, however, long-overdue acceptance and valorization by Western bodies of science have brought traditional ecological knowledge, or TEK, into mainstream conversations around health and environmental sciences. What Western medicine lacks TEK possesses: regional-local knowledge, biodiversity of flora and fauna, responsible and everlasting stewardship of natural resources, and emphasis and focus on the multi-layered relationship and spirituality between humanity and the environment. In tangent, TEK and ecological public health could provide a healthy framework for our future.

Public health by definition according to the World Health Organization “is the art and science of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts of society.” It should be noted that both “science” and “art” are included in this definition, as this is an important marker of two disciplines working together for their common goals. It is not entirely in one realm or another, rather public health crosses borders to be understood and shared in a variety of ways. Moreover, a mention of “organized efforts of society” is an all-encompassing phrase that provides an open-ended answer to the questions: What is organized? What does an effort look like? Who, or what, is society? The WHO is a massive organization attempting to provide the world with a better life, but one could argue that such an organization may be unsuccessful in implementing local-regional change to public health. Of the six challenges facing public health listed by the WHO European Region, ecological and environmental changes is last. At the same time, it is the one that is literally keeping all of us alive every second of every day. An adjustment of priorities could be argued; not to invalidate the WHO’s efforts, but rather to recognize a moment of opportunity and introspection for the public health sector as a timely reflection of the current status of the world.

Speaking to the point of timeliness within massive organizations, it is only fitting to address another global power and influence - the United Nations. Setting forth 17 Sustainable Development Goals to reach by 2030, herein called SDGs, the UN has created an actionable framework with attainable benchmarks for sustainable development, all of which affect public health in some way, shape, or form. Although the UN outlines Goal 3: Good health and well-being as the one most relating to public health issues, it would be difficult to argue that the other goals have nothing in tangent with or affect public health, such as Goal 10: Reduced inequalities (i.e. equitable access to resources), Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation (i.e. improved resource quality means improved life), or Goal 13: Climate action (i.e. deteriorating resources lead to reduced quality of life), among all the others. As the SDGs have become considerably ingrained in political and social motivations, it is fitting to suggest that the integration of TEK and ecological public health, two realms who play large roles in these goals, could be supported by the UN. Defining ecological public health and TEK will help to establish the baseline for how these two methods and realms of knowledge could be supported and adopted successfully, with hopes to be done so with a sense of urgency and purpose.

Ecological public health, according to Rayner and Lang, focuses on interactions and complexity, with attention on the biological world (biodiversity loss, antimicrobial resistance) and material issues (pollution and toxicity, energy use and waste). When looking at the included table in their 2012 publication, the comparisons between ecological public health and other models are apparent but are not without their own issues:
 


Of particular interest is the “Main criticisms” row: three of the five included models (including ecological public health) state issues with individual participation or cultural relevance. When addressing the ecological public health column, one can note the core idea, conceptions, methods, moments, criticisms, and status of the model. Of course, room for improvement can be found in the criticisms section and should not come as a surprise to those informed of current issues - time, systemic change, and individual participation is not unheard of. To counter such downfalls and struggles, we can address the positive potentials and realities of ecological public health: systemic change, increased awareness, coexistence, and social relationships. It is paramount that a balance between applied science and social adoption is met. This balance could be supplemented by TEK.

The systems-thinking approach of ecological public health can be enabled by the nutritional, social, and spiritual approaches of TEK, which is defined as “a subset of indigenous knowledge, preserved through oral tradition and through cultural expressions such as arts, crafts, and ceremonies and the cultivation, collection, and preparation of traditional foods.” If ecological public health “helps…by accepting the normality of complex interactions while also explaining the necessity of multiple rather than single interventions or actions,” then TEK identifies said complex interactions as parts of a multidimensional world in which humanity is not just a part or a piece, but rather interwoven and interdependent. TEK is complementary to ecological public health in that it expands on the “hard” science into the “less-hard” realms of spirituality, respect, and interconnectedness. Whereas Western medicine relies on data, facts, surveys, and evidence (although TEK does include similar information), TEK additionally takes into consideration the thousands of years of learned knowledge and observed changes of our world. This knowledge “is preserved primarily as an oral tradition and is passed from generation to generation through storytelling, ceremonies, arts, crafts, and song, media that provide rich context and can flexibly evolve to incorporate new observations and understandings,” separating it from the oftentimes reductionist and dismissive attitude used by Western science through the dissemination of information in written publications or worrisome news reports. Concluded by Finn, Herne, and and Castille, TEK has a unique and important position in food security and sovereignty, public health, community, and the climate crisis today:

Given the place-based nature and intergenerational transmission of local knowledge inherent in TEK, TEK can be viewed as a Tribal form of citizen science and as a grassroots response to environmental health risks. It can serve as a culturally based framework that allows local community members to actively participate in identifying and addressing lifelong and multiple environmental exposures that affect their health. However, proponents of TEK, unlike citizen scientists, seek not only to increase scientific and environmental health literacy in their communities but also to assert the need for scientists and the research enterprise to respect and honor local ecological knowledge that can help generate relevant research questions and improve the interpretation and validation of study results.

Moreover, TEK is not unicultural - it is not just First Nations knowledge nor just Mayan knowledge, rather it is knowledge that is flexible and relevant to local community, culture, and ecology globally. TEK utilized by the Asmat may not be the same as Alaska Native or Aka, but it does not invalidate nor dismiss their knowledge on a global scale. Although it may not be directly applicable in every scenario, it can provide valuable insight and information into how stewardship and environmentalism can be flexibly applied in a multitude of scenarios.

Take, for example, our current crisis (well, one of our current crises) - the climate crisis. We are “woefully off-track” when it comes to controlling and reducing our global average temperature, and effects have already been seen for years. As the world continues to warm, more and more northern regions are experiencing almost tropical weather patterns and seasons, affecting businesses, economies, resources, and supplies. Where weather-dependent crops and animals once thrived now struggle to survive or provide goods and services during expected time frames. As early as 2030, just eight years from now, production of maize and wheat, global crop superpowers which our 21st century eating cultures depend on, could be affected with both a decrease in maize and increase in wheat. What does this mean for our diets? How can we adapt to a potential loss of corn and increase in wheat in our daily lives? What about the other crops that grow similarly in these regions? Turning to Monsanto or the likes for answers, perhaps a genetically modified resilient maize or a super-producing wheat that tastes like corn, the danger of biodiversity loss rings louder and truer, not to mention the insane amount of money and resources that go into researching, producing, and protecting these engineered products as if they were as prized as the United States Declaration of Independence, Rosetta Stone, or Magna Carta. What if, instead, we were to turn to TEK?

Perhaps the Kichwa of Ecuador, boasting one of the most diverse landscapes in the world, can provide valuable insight into the diversity of maize species that are resilient in said landscapes, and ecological public health methods can support systems of access, seed-sharing, and geographic or topographic information for successful plantings. Perhaps their retelling of creation stories and explanation of milpa can plant the seed of respect and knowledge in growing practices and cultural importance of maize, reconnecting our humanity to our earth, and can be supplemented by knowledge of the chemical composition benefit to soil when maize, squash, and beans are planted together that limits pesticide use and naturally deters weeds. Perhaps they can share recipes and traditions associated with specific varieties while groceries and suppliers can note to their customers the various biological and environmental impacts, nutritional benefits, and cultural relevance of alternative maize species in their diets. Perhaps, in tangent, Kichwa TEK and ecological public health can create a well-rounded network and model of healthy daily living that benefits both our social realm and our natural realm. This is only one specific example of what a relationship between TEK and ecological public health could look like. If implemented and adopted on a larger scale, there is great potential for cross-disciplinary cohesion.

Scientists and Indigenous communities, along with their respective knowledge, regions, and cultures, could establish a newfound precedent for public health and greater well-being. The co-adoption of each others’ disciplines satisfies and perpetuates the SDGs that are setting the framework for our future on a global scale, addressing both the time-pressing needs of the world but also the even more time-pressing needs of local realms, cultures, communities, and crises that are increasingly affected by our changing biosphere. The daily lives of peoples, neighborhoods, schools, businesses, families, and towns all play a reciprocal role - as humanity grows, our environment must grow; as we destroy, the environment is destroyed. A balance is not just needed - it is absolutely essential for our mutually continued existence. It is easy for large organizations and businesses to regurgitate and impart this information on their respective realms, but global recognition and adoption has to start at a local level. In the well-known and often used words of Patrick Geddes - “Think globally, act locally.” Local ecology and systems are as equally important to our future public health as local knowledge and histories.

works cited:

Lang, T. & Rayner, G. (2012). Ecological public health: the 21st century's big idea? An essay by Tim Lang and Geof Rayner. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5466
Lang, T. & Rayner, G. (2015). Ecological public health: Leaders, Movements and Ideas to Shift the Boundaries Between the Normal and the Desirable. Health of People, Places And Planet: Reflections based on Tony McMichael’s four decades of contributions to epidemiological understanding. https://www.academia.edu/69086979/Ecological_Public_Health
Finn, S., Herne, M., Castille, D. (2017). The Value of Traditional Ecological Knowledge for the Environmental Health Sciences and Biomedical Research. doi: 10.1289/EHP858
Public health services, World Health Organization. https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Health-systems/public-health-services
The 17 Goals (2015). The United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and support well being for all at all ages. The United Nations. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/
Goal 13: Climate action. The United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal13
Global Climate Change Impact on Crops Expected Within 10 Years, NASA Study Finds. (2021). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3124/global-climate-change-impact-on-crops-expected-within-10-years-nasa-study-finds/

written for:
food & public health - stanley ulijaszek
master of gastronomy: world food cultures & mobility
universita degli studi di scienze gastronomiche di pollenzo
april 23 2022