| Literature DB >> 32075055 |
Rebecca Kanter1, Mariana León Villagra1.
Abstract
Traditional diets reflect different cultures and geographical locations, and may provide healthy diet options. In Chile, it is unknown whether traditional culinary preparations are still remembered, let alone consumed. Therefore, we adapted methods to identify traditional culinary preparations for healthy and sustainable dietary interventions. In Chile's Metropolitan Region and the Region of La Araucanía, we collected data on the variety of traditional diets through cultural domain analyses: direct participant observation (n = 5); free listing in community workshops (n = 10); and pile sort activities within semi-structured individual interviews (n = 40). Each method was stratified by age (25-45 year, 46-65 year and ≥ 65 year) and ethnic group (first nations or not). About 600 preparations and single-ingredient foods were identified that differed both in frequency and variety by region. The foods most consumed and liked (n = 24-27) were ranked in terms of sustainability for public nutrition purposes. Methods originally designed to collect information about plants of indigenous peoples can be extended to collect data on the variety of existing traditional culinary preparations, globally. Context, both geographical and cultural, matters for understanding food variety, and its subsequent use in the design of healthy and sustainable diet interventions.Entities:
Keywords: Chile; cultural domain analysis; food variety; sustainable diets; traditional diets
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32075055 PMCID: PMC7071181 DOI: 10.3390/nu12020489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Key features and brief summary of Guidelines for Procedures for Documenting Traditional Food Systems of Indigenous Peoples: International Case Studies.
| Step | Objective | Rationale | Forms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prepare interdisciplinary research team | Collect background data | To have experts in local leadership; food culture anthropology; food analysis; food and dietary databases | None |
| Gather data on traditional foods | Create a list of traditional food species | To provide the foundation for the project | 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 2 |
| Select a short list of potential foods for more focused study | To identify 25–30 foods with good potential for nutrition intervention purposes | 2.6 | |
| Determination of food items for analyses | To obtain scientific parameters of traditional foods with missing data 1 | Some food items may need taxonomic identification and nutrient analyses | 3.1–3.4 |
| Individual interviews | To understand traditional food use and its relation to taste and consumption preferences | To better understand how the short list of traditional foods are used in the community and attributes people attach to them | 4.1 A & B, 4.2, 4.8 2 |
| Intervention planning | To plan for a food-based intervention to improve public health nutrition | To review data collected in the previous steps | 5.1 |
1 Not included in this study. 2 This objective includes forms not mentioned, targeted at children and micronutrient intake, which were excluded from this study.
Summary modifications to study instruments compared to the original “toolkit” ‡.
| Research Activity (Human Resources, | Toolkit Form | Modified form Applied (Time Allotted) | Modifications |
|---|---|---|---|
| Key informant interviews with free listing and direct observation: | 2.1 | Modified 2.1 (2.5 h) | Based on initial key informant interviews, for the purpose of this study form 2.1 was modified slightly and included columns for identifying the mealtime(s) for the listed preparation (e.g., breakfast, lunch and/or dinner) as well as a column for ‘side dishes’ that might accompany the preparation (if applicable). Compared to the original form 2.1, additional space for the ‘local name/national language name’ was not included beyond the name listed in the first column of the form. |
| Community workshops with free listing: | 2.2 | Hybrid 2.2–2.3 | Rather than collect data separately on forms 2.2 and 2.3, respectively, we created one hybrid form: by adding a fourth food group section; and removing the columns for comments and |
| 2.3 | The columns for months, likeability and comments on form 2.3 were removed. And the columns related to consumption frequency and seasonality were added. | ||
| 2.4 | 2.4 | We slightly modified form 2.4 from its original version designed for plant species. Specifically, we removed a section on nutrient composition and kept the remaining open-ended questions about notes regarding the species under question (in our case a culinary preparation), how the preparation ingredients are obtained (e.g., bought, harvested, etc.), which ingredients are more likely to be harvested at home or bought, seasonality of consumption, estimated cost of the preparation (if known). We also slightly modified the “use/price” table on the second page of form 2.4 to be two separate tables, one for preparation use by month and one for price by month, respectively. | |
| Select a short list of potential foods for more focused study | 2.6 | 2.6 | We slightly modified form 2.6 from its original version designed for plant species; to list 25–30 traditional culinary preparations. |
| Individual semi-structured interviews with pile sorting: | 4.1 A | 4.1 A | We expanded the number of tables for card sort groupings from two to five–one for each of the five criteria used to define sustainable diets; and added two additional final columns to this form, one column full of plus signs and a column full of minus signs. The plus and minus signs were added to form 4.1 A, so that the research assistant could circle if the card grouping corresponded to a ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ impact according to the participant. For example, when the interviewer asks the participant to group the cards according to negative environmental impacts the interviewer circles the minus sign at the end of this row. The qualification of each card sort, or row, as either positive or negative was important for more quickly tabulating the interview results by sustainable diet criteria without having to listen to audio files or wait for interview transcriptions. |
| 4.2. | 4.2 | We slightly modified the form 4.2 by removing the columns for children. | |
| 4.8 | 4.8 | We modified the form 4.8 by removing the information about the child; and removed the columns to assess micro-nutrients. Instead, form 4.8 consisted only of the brief food-frequency questionnaire related to the foods on the short-list (form 2.6). | |
| 4.1 B | 4.1 B | The sustainable diet score was based on summarizing the card-sort responses (form 4.1 B) from the form 4.1 A. Therefore, we constructed our version of form 4.1 B in Excel with each row representing one of the culinary preparations (i.e., cards) and each column representing each of the five sustainable diet criteria (i.e., card sort activity themes). |
‡ See Table 1 for information on the original toolkit. Modified forms (in Spanish) available upon request.
Study site territorial distribution overview by region.
| Territory | Province | County | Key Informant Interviews | Community Workshops | Individual Interviews | Total by Territory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| North | Santiago | Conchalí | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| Huechuraba | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Recoleta | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
| Center | Santiago | Cerillos | 1 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
| Maipu | 0 | 0 | 4 | |||
| Estación Central | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
| Santiago | 1 | 1 | 4 | |||
| East | Santiago | Las Condes | 0 | 0 | 1 | 17 |
| Peñalolen | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| La Reina | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| Providencia | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Ñuñoa | 0 | 2 | 6 | |||
| Macul | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| South | Santiago | San Miguel | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| La Cisterna | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| La Granja | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| West | Santiago | Quinta Normal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
| Santiago | Lo Prado | 0 | 2 | 1 | ||
| West | Melipilla | Curacaví | 0 | 0 | 3 | |
| West | Talagante | Padre Hurtado | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Talagante | Talagante | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Talagante | Peñaflor | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Talagante | El Monte | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Southwest | Santiago | La Florida | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 |
| Southwest | Mountain | Puente Alto | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Valley—Capital city | Cuatín | Temuco | 2 | 2 | 10 | 15 |
| Nueva Imperial | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Valley—urban | Cautín | Padre Las Casas | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Valley | Malleco | Angol | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Valley | Cautín | Freire | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Malleco | Traiguén | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Cautín | Gorbea | 0 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Cautín | Labranza | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Coastline | Cautín | Queule | 1 | 0 | 2 | 8 |
| Cautín | Carahue | 0 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Cautín | Toltén | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Mountain | Cautín | Cunco | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Mountain—Lake | Cuatín | Lican Ray | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6 |
| Villarrica | 0 | 0 | 3 | |||
Frequency of traditional culinary preparations mentioned during the community workshops by region †.
| Metropolitan Region | Region of La Araucanía | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Subcategory | Subcategory | ||
| COFFEE/TEA/MATÉ | 42 (6.5) | 23 (3.9) | EGGS/WITH |
| EGGS/WITH | 28 (4.3) | 22 (3.7) | COFFEE/TEA |
| BREADS | 27 (4.1) | 22 (3.7) | SOUPS |
| WITH VEGETABLES | 25 (3.8) | 21 (3.5) | WITHOUT A SUBCATEGORY |
| WITH CHEESE | 19 (2.9) | 16 (2.7) | WITH |
| WITH MEAT | 18 (2.8) | 16 (2.7) |
|
| LEGUMES | 18 (2.8) | 15 (2.5) | POTATOES |
| BEVERAGES (ALCOHOLIC) | 17 (2.6) | 14 (2.4) | FRUIT |
|
| 15 (2.3) | 13 (2.2) | MILK WITH… |
| WITH SAUSAGUES | 15 (2.3) | 12 (2) |
|
| SOUPS | 15 (2.3) | 12 (2) | LEGUMES |
| WITH AVOCADO | 14 (2.2) | 12 (2) | BREADS: NOT SPECIFIC |
| FRUIT | 14 (2.2) | 12 (2) | SWEET BREADS/CAKES |
| YOGURT | 14 (2.2) | 11 (1.9) | BROTHS |
| SWEET BREADS/CAKES | 13 (2) | 11 (1.9) | WITH CHEESE |
| POTATOES | 12 (1.8) | 11 (1.9) |
|
| FISH | 12 (1.8) | 10 (1.7) | BEVERAGES (ALCOHOLIC) |
| PASTAS | 12 (1.8) | 10 (1.7) | WITH SAUSAUGES |
| TUNA OR MACKEREL | 11 (1.7) | 10 (1.7) | TOMATO |
| BROTHS | 11 (1.7) | 9 (1.5) | WITH VEGETABLES |
| SALADS | 10 (1.5) | 9 (1.5) | BREADS WITH |
| 10 (1.5) | 9 (1.5) |
| |
| RICE WITH... | 9 (1.4) | 9 (1.5) | FISH |
| SPANISH-STYLE TORTILLA | 9 (1.4) | 9 (1.5) | PASTAS |
| WATER WITH | 8 (1.2) | 8 (1.4) | BARBECUE |
| OATMEAL | 8 (1.2) | 8 (1.4) | MATÉ |
| LEFTOVERS FROM LUNCH | 8 (1.2) | 8 (1.4) | MARMALADE |
| COOKIES | 8 (1.2) | 8 (1.4) | SPANISH-STYLE TORTILLA |
| 8 (1.2) | 7 (1.2) | SALADS | |
| CHICKEN | 8 (1.2) | 7 (1.2) | MILK-BASED DESSERTS |
|
| 8 (1.2) | 6 (1) | STOMACH/VICERAS |
|
| 7 (1.1) | 6 (1) | MILK |
| SANDWICH/HOT DOG | 7 (1.1) | 6 (1) | LEGUMES: FAVA BEANS |
| CEREALS | 6 (0.9) | 6 (1) | BUTTER OR LARD |
| MILK CHOCOLATE | 6 (0.9) | 6 (1) |
|
|
| 6 (0.9) | 6 (1) | SOPA DE PAN |
| MILK (COW’S) | 6 (0.9) | 6 (1) |
|
| OTHER ALGAES | 6 (0.9) | 5 (0.8) |
|
| PIZZAS | 6 (0.9) | 5 (0.8) | LEFTOVERS FROM LUNCH |
| DISHES WITH | 6 (0.9) | 5 (0.8) | WITH |
| MILK-BASED DESSERTS | 6 (0.9) | 5 (0.8) | FLOUR WITH |
| WITH | 5 (0.8) | 5 (0.8) | JUICES |
| JUICES | 5 (0.8) | 5 (0.8) | BREADS: PROBABLY HOMEMADE |
|
| 5 (0.8) | 5 (0.8) | CREPES |
| VEGETABLES (1 TYPE) # | 5 (0.8) | 5 (0.8) |
|
| 5 (0.8) |
| ||
| 5 (0.8) | SALMON | ||
| 5 (0.8) | YOGURT | ||
† Grey shading represents subcategories common to both regions. Here follow brief translations for traditional dishes: Cazuelas: liquid stock with different meat and vegetable ingredients added; Ulpo: beverage made of toasted flour; Manjar: caramel made of condensed milk; Sopaipillas: fried dough (originally made out of zucchini); Porotos con riendas: dish consisting of white beans, spaghetti noodles, and chorizo; Empanadas: baked or fried savory turnovers; Mote: wheat germ; Cochayuyo: kelp; Pastel de choclo: pie of mashed corn, with ground beef, chicken, or turkey and eggs; Humitas: mashed corn cakes; Pavo de harina tostada: similar to Ulpo, but with salt and animal fat added; Sopa de pan: soup broth with hard bread; Tortilla de rescoldo: bread cooked in ash; Changles/diguenes: mushrooms endemic to Chile; Pantrucas: dumpling soup with potatoes. # This subcategory includes vegetables such as “tomatoes” and “endemic mushrooms” that were not frequent enough to elicit their own subcategory such as in the AR.
Short list of traditional culinary preparations ranked by sustainability score by region.
| Metropolitan Region | Region of La Araucanía | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Culinary Preparation | Score | Culinary Preparation | Score |
| Fruit: whole or salad | 91% | Salads | 94% |
| Salads: | 90% | Scrambled eggs | 92% |
| Scrambled eggs w/tomato or onion | 82% | Homemade bread/ | 90% |
| Tea, coffee or maté | 81% | Tea, coffee | 90% |
| Vegetable soup | 78% | 87% | |
| Legumes: lentils, beans or garbanzos | 78% | Fruit: whole or salad | 86% |
| Spanish style tortilla with vegetables | 76% | Legumes: lentils | 84% |
| 75% | 85% | ||
| Vegetable “pudding”/vegetable stew | 72% | 85% | |
| 72% | 80% | ||
| Whole grain bread w/avocado or avocado w/chopped onion | 72% | Legumes: garbanzos or peas | 79% |
| 70% | 79% | ||
| Cheese w/tomato | 69% | Maté | 77% |
| 69% | Chicken w/peas | 76% | |
| 67% | Leftovers from lunch | 75% | |
| 64% | Cooked fava beans | 75% | |
| Leftovers from lunch | 61% | Cheese of any kind | 74% |
| Juicy baked chicken | 61% | 74% | |
| 60% | Avocado | 73% | |
| 58% | Boiled corn | 73% | |
| Ceviche or baked fish | 55% | Homemade marmalade | 72% |
| Fish soup | 52% | 71% | |
| Shredded beef | 48% | Homemade | 68% |
| Empanadas | 39% | 65% | |
| Soup with mussels or mixed seafood | 63% | ||
| Salad w/ | 61% | ||
| Large pine nuts | 54% | ||