Two widely used diagnostic systems, the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), are reviewed for their ability to define those who will benefit from active treatment rather than placebo. Both systems suffer from a weakness in defining symptoms sufficiently clearly to separate depression from normal mood variations in the general population. Consequently, normal individuals may be medicalized and defined as suffering from and treated for depression. Also, in mild depression, unlike moderate depression, a lack of significant separation of active treatment from placebo has been shown in individual double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and in meta-analyses of these treatment studies. Both systems would be more useful for treatment purposes if they provided a clearer symptomatic definition of moderate depression, as is widely used in pivotal regulatory standard efficacy studies.

The greatest challenge for agriculture is to reduce the trade-offs between productivity and long-term sustainability. Therefore, it is interesting to analyse organic agriculture which is a given set of farm practices that emphasise ecological sustainability. Organic agriculture can be characterised as being less driven by off-farm inputs and being better embedded in ecosystem functions. The literature on public goods and non-commodity outputs of organic farms is overwhelming. Most publications address the positive effects of organic farming on soil fertility, biodiversity maintenance and protection of the natural resources of soil, water and air. As a consequence of focusing on public goods, organic agriculture is less productive. Meta-analyses show that organic agriculture yields range between 0·75 and 0·8 of conventional agriculture. Best practice examples from disadvantaged sites and climate conditions show equal or, in the case of subsistence farming in Sub-Saharan Africa, higher productivity of organic agriculture. Hence, organic agriculture is likely to be a good model for productive and sustainable food production. Underfunding in R&D addressing specific bottlenecks of organic agriculture are the main cause for both crop and livestock yield gaps. Therefore, the potential for improving the performance of organic agriculture through agricultural research is huge. Although organic farming is a niche in most countries, it is at the verge of becoming mainstream in leading European countries. Consumer demand has grown over the past two decades and does not seem to be a limiting factor for the future development of organic agriculture.

In 1998, a review for the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (the predecessor of the Food Standards Agency) was published evaluating the relative merits of different dietary assessment methods against a series of factors likely to affect compliance or accuracy in low-income households. The review informed the design of a method comparison study carried out in London, UK, in 2001, in which the validity and acceptability of 4 d dietary assessment methods based on 24 h recalls, food checklists and a semi-weighed method were compared with 4 d weighed inventories and other reference measures. Results were based on observations in 384 respondents (159 males, 225 females) aged 2–90 years in 240 households. Outcomes of the comparison study included evaluations of each method made by respondents, interviewers and researchers. These findings were used in the present paper to update and extend the 1998 review. Additional factors not included in the 1998 review have been considered. This updated and extended review provides the basis for discussion of the relative merits of approaches to dietary assessment in low-income households in developed economies. The evidence presented here and elsewhere suggests that the 24 h recall is the method best suited for dietary assessment in low-income households, followed by the weighed inventory, food checklist and lastly the semi-weighed method.