mn

Edit Answers
1234567891011121314151617
Across
  1. 2. however, these were later panned by many as ineffectual and wasteful. By the 1960s, work was
  2. 5. of scientists in infuencing policy. Before the Bellagio conference, nutritionists, economists
  3. 7. governance front. All the while the nutritional status of the majority of the developing world
  4. 8. their mandates and a new period of political infghting erupted. Duplication of effort, ineffciency
  5. 11. Widespread Applied Nutrition Projects (ANP) at the time too, met with some measure of initial
  6. 13. the relationship between nutrition and health. About this time too there was a break in the established
  7. 14. had taken a backseat to what seemed like more domestic or industrialised nation’s concerns. The
  8. 16. to the war, nutritional issues in developing countries, despite some notable researchers’
Down
  1. 1. to name but a few. It was a collaboration that also meant that many institutions came to overlap
  2. 3. of a multitude of disciplines from social theorists, nutritionists, food economists and policy
  3. 4. targets (Ruxin 1996). These and other new ideological developments at the time meant the closer
  4. 5. and undernutrition. Children too began to occupy more prominence in targeted nutritional
  5. 6. other researchers would determine the problem, and after further research, the extent of the problem
  6. 9. statistics, the emphasis on quantitative goals was rationalised in favour of more qualitative
  7. 10. identifed and plans would be drawn up and executed. However, despondent over misleading or
  8. 12. of the war changed this perspective and many now focused on the whole, global picture of food
  9. 15. fnally being undertaken that would scientifcally link what many had suspected for a long time: that
  10. 17. leadership and misaligned objectives ensued and subsequently hindered real progress on the inter￾