feedback on mifc

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Heya Kai,

Great work on this. Very comprehensive list thus far!

Not sure if the following would be helpful, but just some ideas. Take them or leave them :)

- food_local_name (vs. common name vs. scientific name)
- food_trade_status: (e.g., imported, exported, locally produced)
- food_fortification_status (e.g. iodine, iron, etc.)
- food_sustainability_certification (e.g. Fair Trade, Organic, regenerative etc... this might be a long shot hehe)
- food_packaging_material (e.g. fresh, canned, frozen, etc.)
- food_ingredient_list (if applicable)
- food_climate_zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_classification)
- food_agroecological_zone (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Agro-ecological-zones-AEZs-of-the-world-used-to-represent-biophysical-heterogeneity-in_fig1_223979857)
- food_soil_type (not sure if this is possible.. however you could have soil, aquatic, mammal, etc.)
- data_confidence_level (is this possible to have users self assess, on something like high, medium, low?)

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute!

Best,
Chris

Review the proposed fields in the issue body, including naming, examples, and the linked climate and agroecological zone references. First determine which suggestions belong in the minimum information checklist and agree on definitions and scope; the work is done when the selected fields and their descriptions are incorporated into the standard.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.