2024 Global Report on Food Crisis (GRFC)

 The 2024 Global Report on Food Crisis (GRFC) reveals that nearly 282 million people across 59 countries and territories experienced high levels of acute hunger in 2023. This study shows a global increase of 24 million from the previous year, with 1 in 5 people assessed requiring critical urgent action.

Key Findings

• 36 million children under 5 years of age are acutely malnourished across 32 countries
• Acute malnutrition worsened in 2023, particularly among displaced populations
• 36 countries have been consistently featured in GRFC analyses since 2016, representing 80% of the world’s most hungry
• 705,000 people were at risk of starvation (IPC/CH Phase 5) in 2023, the highest number in GRFC’s reporting history
• The Gaza Strip accounts for 80% of those facing imminent famine, along with South Sudan, Burkina Faso, Somalia, and Mali
• By July 2024, 1.1 million people in the Gaza Strip and 79,000 people in South Sudan are projected to be in IPC/CH Phase 5

Drivers of Food Crises

The report identifies three primary drivers of acute food insecurity:

• Conflict and insecurity (affecting 20 countries, 135 million people)
• Extreme weather events (affecting 18 countries, 77 million people)
• Economic shocks (affecting 21 countries, 75 million people)

These interlinked drivers exacerbate food system fragility, rural marginalization, poor governance, and inequality, leading to massive population displacement.

Breaking the Cycle of Food Crises

The Global Network Against Food Crises calls for a transformative approach that integrates peace, prevention, and development action alongside emergency efforts to break the cycle of acute hunger. Long-term national and international investments are needed to transform food systems and boost agricultural and rural development, along with greater crisis preparedness and critical lifesaving assistance.

The Way Forward

The international community has made bold commitments to address the food crisis, including recent G7 and G20 initiatives. The Global Network Against Food Crises offers to leverage its knowledge of hunger in the most fragile countries to strengthen linkages and build coherence between these global initiatives to ensure innovative and concrete impact for those affected by food crises.

About the Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC)

• Produced annually by the Food Security Information Network.
• Launched by the Global Network Against Food Crises.
• Highlights acute food insecurity and malnutrition globally.
• Identifies main drivers like conflict, extreme weather, economic shocks.
• Calls for long-term investments to transform food systems.

The Global Report on Food Crises is produced annually by the Food Security Information Network and launched by the Global Network Against Food Crises, a multistakeholder initiative that includes United Nations organizations, the European Union, the United States Agency for International Development, and non-governmental agencies working together to tackle food crises.

Poverty points

 A recent paper by the Brookings Institution’s Stuart M. Butler and Nehath Sheriff underlines the impact of the US’ Housing First program, which shows that providing stable housing can improve the efficacy of psychiatric and substance abuse treatment as well as aid in connecting individuals to social services.

There is a raging debate on poverty levels in the country among that arcane group known as Indian economists. The argument centres around which dataset is the most credible to base assessments on whether poverty has increased or decreased over varying time spans ~ from 20 years to two.

But neither side is claiming that poverty has been eradicated or even that the number of Indians living on under $2 a day is not significant. Which brings us to the real-life impact on our fellow citizens attempting to survive on such meagre means. In this respect, there are useful learnings from the USA on how to deal with the causative implication of exposure to poverty ~ measured on metrics of homelessness, food security, and hygiene poverty ~ on mental health. India has begun to address some of these issues ~ the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, the National Food Security Act, Midday Meal Scheme, and Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan are laudable initiatives that often don’t get the credit they deserve.

While these programmes are designed to lessen the incidence of poverty, its consequences on mental health are rarely dealt with given resource constraints. A recent paper by the Brookings Institution’s Stuart M. Butler and Nehath Sheriff underlines the impact of the US’ Housing First program, which shows that providing stable housing can improve the efficacy of psychiatric and substance abuse treatment as well as aid in connecting individuals to social services.

The authors assert there is a close connection between homelessness and mental health. Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, homelessness and associated behavioural health issues have increased in the USA ~ and there is no reason to assume the situation is any different in India. US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration data suggests between 20 and 50 per cent of the homeless have serious mental illness.

Additionally, official estimates (2021) are that over 34 million Americans, including nine million children, were living in households that did not have enough to eat. Many of these families do not qualify for federal nutrition programs and are dependent on food banks or community donations. A national study quoted by Butler and Sheriff found that food insecurity was associated with a 257 per cent higher risk of anxiety and a 253 per cent higher risk of depression among low-income families.

Mothers and children appear to be at an especially high risk of mental health distress associated with food insecurity. Inequitable access to personal care and hygiene products is an overlooked public health crisis, add the authors; data is limited on the mental health implications of what is widely described as “hygiene poverty.” A 2021 study found a link between women struggling to afford menstrual products and depression ~ for young women in low-income households, this added stress in their daily lives is a significant factor in their mental health.

Given these findings, Indian policymakers could consider addressing mental/behavioural health issues among the poor by integrating the effort, possibly under the aegis of the Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) scheme, with the four flagship initiatives mentioned above. This would improve the quality of our human resources which, in turn, will have positive effects in the social, economic, and psycho-cultural domains.

Source: The Statesman, 18/04/23

Food supply chains must be reimagined to end hunger

 Food wastage is an issue of concern in both developing and developed countries. Food wastage occurs more at the retail and consumer end in developed countries. In developing countries, post-harvest and processing losses are more prominent.

Nearly one in ten people worldwide suffers from hunger. Goal 2 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is to end hunger, but we are failing in our efforts. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), eight per cent of the world population will continue to suffer from hunger in 2030, the target year for achieving the zero-hunger goal. The world population suffering from hunger in 2015, when these goals were adopted, was also eight per cent.

Armed conflicts, climate change and Covid-19 are some key factors behind failing efforts to combat global hunger. With more than 800 million people going to bed on an empty stomach, the basic tenets of humanity are under question. The global hunger crisis is not due to lack of supply or food unavailability but is largely an issue of price, purchasing power and food wastage. The FAO estimates that one-third of the total food produced on the planet ends up in a landfill.

Food wastage is an issue of concern in both developing and developed countries. Food wastage occurs more at the retail and consumer end in developed countries. In developing countries, post-harvest and processing losses are more prominent. Wasting food is an ethical concern since large number of people suffer from hunger worldwide. It is also a key contributor to the global hunger crisis and is detrimental to environment and climate.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, there is more food in landfills than any other single material. Food scraps do not easily degrade in landfills and get tightly compacted creating anaerobic conditions around them. In the absence of oxygen, the degrading food waste releases methane which is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) more dangerous than carbon dioxide. The global warming potential of methane is several times that of carbon dioxide.

According to the FAO, GHG emissions caused by food waste account for about eight per cent of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. If food loss and wastage were a country, it would be the third largest GHG emitting country in the world. The food and agriculture industry consumes nearly 35 per cent of global freshwater and more than 30 per cent cropland. Large volumes of harmful chemical fertilizers and pesticides are sprayed on crops and soil for producing food.

In India, where close to 60 per cent land is under agriculture, food production contributes significantly to soil and water pollution. The groundwater table in the North Indian states of Punjab and Haryana has declined significantly due to intensive agriculture. Conflicts over water resources to meet agricultural demand are on the rise across India. Wasting one plate of food means wasting all the natural resources and efforts that have gone into producing it.

Despite these concerns, India is a large food waste generating country. According to the UN’s Food Waste Index report 2021, India wastes 68.8 tonnes of food every year. The Global Hunger Index 2022, although disputed by the Government on methodology, ranks India at 107 out of 121 countries. There is a need for reimagining food supply and accessibility since the current food system is not working for everyone.

Food supply chains in India need to be designed on the principles of circular economy beginning with the 3Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle. Food wastage at production level must be reduced by organising operations efficiently. Food industry standards need to be strengthened to minimize waste generation at all levels. Municipal agencies must lead awareness to prevent food wastage across cities and towns.

Reusing surplus edible food is critical for preventing food wastage. Pioneering initiatives by civil society organisations are needed to create platforms for redistributing surplus food. Government and municipal agencies can help by making feeding the hungry a priority. Donating extra edible food helps save resources that were utilized for food production and should become a regular practice. Surplus edible food can also be plugged into existing government schemes for feeding the poor.

Some food waste is bound to happen due to the nature of this industry. Recycling food waste and inedible byproducts will close the loop by avoiding landfill dumping. Encouraging start-ups that are working to convert food leftovers to compost or energy is a step in the right direction. The success of such initiatives will help promote segregation of waste at household level. Adopting waste segregation is a key step for preventing food waste from reaching landfills.

Goal 12 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals aims at achieving responsible consumption and production. One of its targets is to halve global per capita food waste by 2030. India has a rich past of generating minimal waste and maintaining sustainable lifestyle. Feeding the hungry is part and parcel of the traditions, culture and heritage of India. Revisiting the Indian value system and amalgamating it with the circular economy can help end hunger and food wastage.

(The writers are, respectively, a student and an associate professor at Jindal School of Environment & Sustainability, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India.)

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, there is more food in landfills than any other single material. Food scraps do not easily degrade in landfills and get tightly compacted creating anaerobic conditions around them. In the absence of oxygen, the degrading food waste releases methane which is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) more dangerous than carbon dioxide. The global warming potential of methane is several times that of carbon dioxide.

According to the FAO, GHG emissions caused by food waste account for about eight per cent of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. If food loss and wastage were a country, it would be the third largest GHG emitting country in the world. The food and agriculture industry consumes nearly 35 per cent of global freshwater and more than 30 per cent cropland. Large volumes of harmful chemical fertilizers and pesticides are sprayed on crops and soil for producing food.

In India, where close to 60 per cent land is under agriculture, food production contributes significantly to soil and water pollution. The groundwater table in the North Indian states of Punjab and Haryana has declined significantly due to intensive agriculture. Conflicts over water resources to meet agricultural demand are on the rise across India. Wasting one plate of food means wasting all the natural resources and efforts that have gone into producing it.

Despite these concerns, India is a large food waste generating country. According to the UN’s Food Waste Index report 2021, India wastes 68.8 tonnes of food every year. The Global Hunger Index 2022, although disputed by the Government on methodology, ranks India at 107 out of 121 countries. There is a need for reimagining food supply and accessibility since the current food system is not working for everyone.

Food supply chains in India need to be designed on the principles of circular economy beginning with the 3Rs of reduce, reuse and recycle. Food wastage at production level must be reduced by organising operations efficiently. Food industry standards need to be strengthened to minimize waste generation at all levels. Municipal agencies must lead awareness to prevent food wastage across cities and towns.

Reusing surplus edible food is critical for preventing food wastage. Pioneering initiatives by civil society organisations are needed to create platforms for redistributing surplus food. Government and municipal agencies can help by making feeding the hungry a priority. Donating extra edible food helps save resources that were utilized for food production and should become a regular practice. Surplus edible food can also be plugged into existing government schemes for feeding the poor.

Some food waste is bound to happen due to the nature of this industry. Recycling food waste and inedible byproducts will close the loop by avoiding landfill dumping. Encouraging start-ups that are working to convert food leftovers to compost or energy is a step in the right direction. The success of such initiatives will help promote segregation of waste at household level. Adopting waste segregation is a key step for preventing food waste from reaching landfills.

Goal 12 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals aims at achieving responsible consumption and production. One of its targets is to halve global per capita food waste by 2030. India has a rich past of generating minimal waste and maintaining sustainable lifestyle. Feeding the hungry is part and parcel of the traditions, culture and heritage of India. Revisiting the Indian value system and amalgamating it with the circular economy can help end hunger and food wastage.

Prabhroop Kaur & Govind Singh

Source: The Statesman, 24/03/23

(The writers are, respectively, a student and an associate professor at Jindal School of Environment & Sustainability, O.P. Jindal Global University, Haryana, India.)

India’s hunger problem: Why the Global Hunger Index, FAO data aren’t to blame

 

India’s ranking results from the use of the Indian government’s official statistics, the National Family Health Survey, which reveals disconcertingly high rates of child mortality and chronic malnutrition in India, despite clear progress in the past few years. The Global Hunger Index was informed by the same official source.

This refers to the article, ‘Trivialising hunger‘ (IE, November 10). The article is spurred by the Global Hunger Index 2022, which ranks India 107th out of the 121 countries monitored in 2021. The report is published by Concern Worldwide, an international NGO, using one of FAO’s statistics, among others, to compute its index. While we agree with the seriousness of hunger and the importance of rigorous monitoring to inform policy, the article contains several serious errors.

FAO is committed to valid and reliable food security measures. Food security exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. It is only by identifying those who are food insecure that effective policies can be designed to address the root causes of the problem.

The article attempts to undermine technical aspects of the way FAO measures food security to argue that the report’s ranking doesn’t reflect the reality and that food insecurity is not a problem in India. The fact: India’s ranking results from the use of the Indian government’s official statistics, the National Family Health Survey, which reveals the rates of acute malnutrition in children under the age of five to be among the highest in the world. The same official data source also confirms that disconcertingly high rates of child mortality and chronic malnutrition persist in India, despite clear progress in the past few years. The Global Hunger Index was informed by the same official data source.

“Is an increase in child stunting and child wasting necessarily bad?”, the article asks. The stunted and wasted children are those who would have died, it contends, had it not been for the decline in child mortality rates. We argue that falling child mortality rates are not a consolation for the fact that a large proportion of children still suffer from the devastating consequences of acute and chronic malnutrition. The article also criticises an indicator FAO uses to measure food security, the prevalence of undernourishment. This indicator was scrutinised and approved by countries through the UN Statistical CommissiThe article makes two fundamental mistakes. First, it wrongly assumes that the prevalence of undernourishment is simply based on survey data collected by FAO using the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). The fact is, it is computed using data on national food balances and consumption at the household level. The most recent food consumption data available for India is from 2011, when the results of the 68th round of the NSS were released. Regrettably, FAO does not have access to more updated data, including the results from the 75th round of the same survey on consumer expenditures conducted in 2017-2018, which is not publicly available. The second mistake is a lack of understanding regarding how FAO’s FIES data are processed to ensure valid, reliable measures of the severity of food insecurity across countries. In 2013, FAO started the “Voices of the Hungry” project, engaging global academic and political communities, because the international community didn’t have a way to identify and monitor food insecure households and individuals in a comparable manner across countries.on and the UN Economic and Social Council in 2015 to monitor the UN’s SDGs.

This effort resulted in the development of statistical protocols that ensure the different translations, adaptations and nuanced interpretations of the FIES survey questions in 180 languages — such as the difference between “running out of food” and “having less food,” which the article mentions — do not affect the information obtained.

All of the methodological details regarding the way FAO measures food security are public knowledge and explained every year in the technical notes of the UN’s annual food security and nutrition report and FAO’s data and statistics website. Moreover, for the last four years, FAO has been actively collaborating with the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation to include FIES data into official national data collection initiatives and to align the national SDG indicators to the global SDG monitoring framework. We stand ready to continue working with the government of India to strengthen food security statistics and achieve the common mission of a sustainable and food secure world for all.

Written by Carlo Cafiero

Source: The Indian Express, 3/12/22

Food safety index: how it is worked out, how the states have performed

 

The SFSI is released annually for a financial year. For instance, the latest SFSI, released on World Food safety Day, June 7, is for the fiscal 2021-22. This is the fourth edition of the SFSI since its inception in 2018-19.

Last week, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) released the State Food Safety Index (SFSI) 2021-22. A look at how the index assesses and ranks states, and their performances.

What is the SFSI?

Developed by the FSSAI, the index aims to measure the performance of states and Union Territories on selected “parameters” of food safety. According to the FSSAI, the index is aimed at encouraging states and UTs to “improve their performance and work towards establishing a proper food safety ecosystem in their jurisdiction…”

The SFSI is released annually for a financial year. For instance, the latest SFSI, released on World Food safety Day, June 7, is for the fiscal 2021-22. This is the fourth edition of the SFSI since its inception in 2018-19.

Which are these food safety parameters?

The SFSI takes into account the performance of the states on five key parameters, each of which is assigned a different weightage in the assessment.

HUMAN RESOURCES & INSTITUTIONAL DATA: This carries a weightage of 20% and measures the “availability of human resources like number of Food Safety Officers, Designated Officers facility of adjudications and appellate tribunals, functioning of State/ District level Steering Committees, pendency of cases and their monitoring and participation in Central Advisory Committee meetings of the Food Authority”.

COMPLIANCE: This carries the highest weightage, 30%. “This is the most important parameter and measures overall coverage of food businesses in licensing & registration commensurate with size and population of the State/UTs, special drives and camps organized, yearly increase, promptness and effectiveness in issue of state licenses/ registrations,” the FSSAI says. “Promptness” in attending to consumer grievances, and availability of a help desk and web portals, too, come under this parameter.

FOOD TESTING—INFRASTRUCTURE AND SURVEILLANCE: Weighted at 20%, this measures the “availability of adequate testing infrastructure with trained manpower in the States/ UTs for testing food samples”. The FSSAI says, “The States/ UTs with NABL accredited labs and adequate manpower in the labs score more in this parameter.” It takes into account the “availability and effective utilization” of Mobile Food Testing Labs and registration and utilization of InFoLNet (Indian Food Laboratories Network).

TRAINING & CAPACITY BUILDING: This parameter carries the lowest weightage, at 10%. It measures states’ performance on training and capacity building of regulatory staff.

CONSUMER EMPOWERMENT: This carries a weightage of 20%. It evaluates the states and UTs on their performance on various consumer empowering initiatives of FSSAI, such as participation in Food Fortification, Eat Right Campus, BHOG (Blissful Hygienic Offering to God), Hygiene Rating of Restaurants, Clean Street Food Hubs, etc.

Besides, the states’ initiatives for creating consumer awareness are also considered under this parameter.

How is the states and UTs assessed?

The states and Union Territories are not assessed and ranked together. They are segregated into three categories — large states, small states and UTs— and assessed separately within their respective categories, based on their performance on the selected food safety parameters.

“The assessment and evaluation of each category are done by separate teams comprising of outside experts for food testing and food & nutrition professionals in addition to FSSAI officials,” the FSSAI says.

These expert teams examine details received from the states and UTs. They also interact with the states/UTs through video-conferencing for verification and confirmation of data.

How have the states and UTs performed this year?

In the category of the 20 large states, Tamil Nadu with an overall score of 82 out of 100 has performed the best and been ranked 1st on SFSI 2021-22, while Andhra Pradesh with an overall score of 26 has been ranked at the bottom —17th place (some states share a common rank).

Following Tamil Nadu in the rankings of the larger states are Gujarat (rank 2nd with a score 77.5), Maharashtra (3rd with 70), Himachal Pradesh (4th with 65.5) and West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh (sharing 5th with a score of 58.5).

Bihar (rank 16th, score 30), Telangana (rank 15th , score 34.5), Assam (rank 14th, score 35) and Chhattisgarh and Haryana (rank 13th, score 38) join Andhra Pradesh in the bottom 5 among the large states on the SFSI for the large states.

Among the remaining 8 large states, Kerala with a score of 57 has been ranked at 6th, Uttarakhand (score 55) at 7th, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh (both 54.5) at 8th, Karnataka (score 52.5) at 9th, Rajasthan (score 50.5) at 10th, Punjab (score 45) at 11th and Jharkhand (41.5) at 12th.

Among the eight small states, Goa with a score of 56 has been ranked at the top, while Arunachal Pradesh (rank 8th and score 21) is at the bottom.

Among the eight Union Territories, Jammu and Kashmir with a score of 68.5 has been ranked 1st and Lakshadweep (score 16) as the bottom. Delhi with a score of 66 has been ranked at 2nd place.

Written by Harikishan Sharma

Source: Indian Express, 13/06/22

When ‘veg’ is ‘non-veg’: what Delhi High Court said

 

Delhi High Court has directed the food safety regulator to ensure that food business operators make full disclosures on all that goes into any food article. Who went to court, and why? What is the problem with the labelling?

Delhi High Court has directed the food safety regulator to ensure that food business operators make full disclosures on all that goes into any food article — “not only by their code names but also by disclosing as to whether they originate from plant, or animal source, or whether they are manufactured in a laboratory, irrespective of their percentage in the food article”.

The operators must comply strictly with Regulation 2.2.2(4) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011 “on the basis that the use of any ingredient — in whatever measure or percentage, which is sourced from animals, would render the food article as Non-Vegetarian,” the court said.“Every person has a right to know as to what he/she is consuming, and nothing can be offered to the person on a platter by resort to deceit, or camouflage,” a division bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said in an order passed on December 9.

What are the labelling requirements under the 2011 Regulations?

The Regulations define non-vegetarian food as containing “whole or part of any animal including birds, fresh water or marine animals or eggs or products of any animal origin, but excluding milk or milk products”.

All non-vegetarian food must be labelled with “a brown colour filled circle… [of a specified diameter] inside a square with brown outline having sides double the diameter of the circle”. Where egg is the only non-vegetarian ingredient, a “declaration to this effect [may be given] in addition to the said symbol”. Vegetarian food must be labelled with a “green colour filled circle…inside the square with green outline”.

The regulations also require manufacturers to display a list of ingredients along with their weight or volume. Manufacturers must disclose which types of edible vegetable oil, edible vegetable fat, animal fat or oil, fish, poultry meat, or cheese, etc. has been used in the product.

“Where an ingredient itself is the product of two or more ingredients”, and such a “compound ingredient constitutes less than five per cent of the food, the list of ingredients of the compound ingredient, other than food additive, need not to be declared”, the Regulations say.

Who went to court, and why?

Ram Gaua Raksha Dal, a non-government Trust that works for the safety and welfare of cows, filed a petition in October seeking implementation of the existing rules, and prayed that all products, including non-consumables like crockery, wearable items, and accessories, should be marked on the basis of the ingredients used. For food items, the petition sought on the label not just the ingredients, but also the items used in the manufacturing process.

The trust, whose members are followers of the Namdhari sect, submitted that the community strongly believes in following strict vegetarianism, and that their religious beliefs also prohibit the use, in any form, of goods containing animal products.

So, what is the problem with the labelling?

The court said that the law “very clearly intends and expressly provides for declaration on all food items…as to whether they are vegetarian or non-vegetarian”. However, “it appears, some Food Business Operators are taking advantage of — upon misreading of the Regulations, the fact that the Act does not specifically oblige [them] to disclose the source from which the ingredients — which go into manufacture/production of food articles, are sourced, except…specific express exceptions”.

The court gave the example of the chemical disodium inosinate, a food additive found in instant noodles and potato chips, which is commercially manufactured from meat or fish. “A little search on Google…shows that it is often sourced from pig fat,” it said.

When such ingredients are used, often “merely the codes of the ingredients are disclosed, without actually disclosing on the packaging as to what is the source, i.e. whether it is plant based, or animal based, or it is a chemically manufactured in a laboratory,” the court said. “Many food articles which have ingredients sourced from animals, are passed off as vegetarian by affixing the green dot.”

What directions did the court issue, therefore?

The court said the use of non-vegetarian ingredients, even in “a minuscule percentage”, “would render such food articles non-vegetarian, and would offend the religious and cultural sensibilities/ sentiments of strict vegetarians, and would interfere in their right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion and belief”.

The failure of authorities to check such lapses is leading to non-compliance of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the Regulations, the court said.

It directed food business operators “to ensure full and strict compliance of Regulation 2.2.2(4)”, (“Declaration regarding Veg or Non veg”) and observed that “failure…to comply…would expose [them] to, inter alia, class action for violation of the fundamental rights of the consuming public and invite punitive damages, apart from prosecution”.

Written by Sofi Ahsan

Source: Indian Express, 16/12/21

India has a food wastage problem. Here’s how individuals can make a difference

 Recently, on a food research trip to the Garhwal region of Uttarakhand, I watched a rather extraordinary traditional ritual. The entire mountain village of Satta in Tons Valley came together to slaughter, cook and honour a goat they had raised as a community for close to a year. Every part of the animal from head to tail was turned into something useful or delicious. Nothing was wasted. The community’s frugality is in stark contrast to how meat is consumed in most parts of urban India today, where the prime cuts are usually prized.

The problem of food waste is a relatively modern one. India is an ancient civilisation and we have been prudent about food for millennia. Our parents and grandparents, too, once approached food and cooking with the same prudence. Yet, somewhere along the way, we lost sight of this “waste not, want not” mentality.

Nearly 40 per cent of the food produced in India is wasted every year due to fragmented food systems and inefficient supply chains — a figure estimated by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO). This is the loss that occurs even before the food reaches the consumer.

There is also a significant amount of food waste generated in our homes. As per the Food Waste Index Report 2021, a staggering 50 kg of food is thrown away per person every year in Indian homes. This excess food waste usually ends up in landfills, creating potent greenhouse gases which have dire environmental implications. Meanwhile, we continue to be greenwashed into amassing more “organic” and “sustainable” products than we really need.

This has been a problem for decades, and is worsening with time. It was only when the COVID-19 pandemic came along in 2020 that many of us began taking note. Affluent Indians were suddenly inconvenienced by things otherwise taken for granted, like procuring groceries or worrying about how long their supplies would last. We came to realise that the food we eat goes far beyond the few bites it takes for us to finish it. We started becoming more conscious of our food choices.

The pandemic not only exposed the problems on food waste but also compounded them. In the wake of the lockdown imposed last year, surplus stocks of grain — pegged at 65 lakh tonnes in the first four months of 2020 — continued to rot in godowns across India. Access to food became extremely scarce for the poor, especially daily-wage labourers. Although essential commodities were exempt from movement restrictions, farmers across the country struggled to access markets, resulting in tonnes of food waste. Meanwhile, instinctive hoarding by the middle class disrupted the value chain, further aggravating the situation.

So how can we, as individuals, bring about change? The astonishing statistics of food waste attributed to households and their irresponsible consumption patterns means that change needs to begin in our own homes. Calculated purchasing when buying groceries, minimising single-use packaging wherever possible, ordering consciously from restaurants, and reconsidering extravagant buffet spreads at weddings can go a long way. At the community level, one can identify and get involved with organisations such as Coimbatore-based No Food Waste which aim to redistribute excess food to feed the needy and hungry.

A strong sense of judiciousness in how we consume our food is the next logical step. We must attempt to change our “food abundance” mindset to a “food scarcity” one, working our way towards a zero-waste end goal. And for the food that is left behind? Feed someone else or, at the very least, compost it so it doesn’t end up in landfills. Be open to incorporating nose-to-tail cooking when it comes to meat and seafood (fish head makes a fantastic curry!). The roots, shoots, leaves and stalks of most vegetables are perfectly edible. Regional Indian recipes like surnoli, a Mangalorean dosa made with watermelon rind, or gobhi danthal sabzi made with cauliflower stalks and leaves in Punjab, are born out of the ideas of frugality and respect for our food. Bengalis adopt a root-to-shoot philosophy throughout their cuisine — thor ghonto is a curry comprising tender banana stems, while ucche pata bora are fritters made with bitter gourd leaves.

You can start with influencing simple decisions about your own food consumption, and then get people in your immediate community to join. Acquaint yourself with and support initiatives proactively working towards reducing food waste, such as Adrish, India’s first chain of zero-waste concept stores, which is focused on getting people to shift from harmful, artificial consumption to an eco-friendly, zero-waste lifestyle. Incidentally, adrish translates to “mirror”. And a long, hard look at ourselves and the way we consume is, perhaps, what we need right now to begin making even a small difference.

Written by Thomas Zacharias 

This column first appeared in the print edition on April 7, 2021 under the title ‘Portion control’. The writer was, until recently, chef partner, The Bombay Canteen, Mumbai

Source: Indian Express, 7/04/21

Safe, but not entirely: On milk safety survey

The presence of aflatoxin M1 in milk points to the need to regulate cattle fodder

The “most comprehensive and representative” milk safety and quality survey has demolished the perception of large-scale milk adulteration in India. It was undertaken on 6,432 samples collected last year between May and October, and picked from over 1,100 town/cities with over 50,000 population. The survey by an independent agency at the behest of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) found 93% of the samples were absolutely safe. The samples were tested for 13 common adulterants and three contaminants — pesticides, aflatoxin M1 and antibiotics. Only 12 adulterated samples were found to be unsafe for consumption. The adulterated samples — they were also subjected to confirmatory tests — were from just three States: Telangana (nine), Madhya Pradesh (two) and Kerala (one). The survey claims that quantitative analysis of all adulterated samples showed the amount of adulterants and contaminants in the dozen samples was not high and hence “unlikely to pose serious threat” to human health. However, it did find 368 samples (5.7%) had aflatoxin M1 residues beyond the permissible limit of 0.5 microgram per kilogram. Compared with aflatoxin M1, antibiotics were seen above the permissible level in 77 samples, from Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

At 227, aflatoxin M1 was more widely present in processed milk samples than in raw milk (141). This is the first time the presence of the contaminant in milk has been assessed. According to the FSSAI, aflatoxin M1 in milk is from feed and fodder, which is not regulated. The highest residue levels of aflatoxin M1 in milk were seen in samples from three States — Tamil Nadu (88 out of 551 samples), Delhi (38 out of 262) and Kerala (37 out of 187). According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer the contaminant has been classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. Its carcinogenic potency is estimated to be about a one-tenth of aflatoxin B1. Since the current survey has limited itself to milk, it is not clear how widespread aflatoxin M1 contamination is in milk products such as cheese, and hence the total exposure to it. Aflatoxin M1 in milk and milk products is a public health concern especially in infants and young children as milk constitutes one of the major sources of nutrients. According to the World Health Organisation, exposure to aflatoxin M1 in milk and milk products is especially high in areas where the grain quality used as animal feed is poor. Hence all attempts need to taken both before and after food crop harvest to reduce the toxin amount. Improper storage of food harvest in warm and humid conditions leads to aflatoxin contamination that is much higher than what is seen in the field. Equally important is in having facilities to regularly test for aflatoxin M1.

Source: The Hindu, 22/10/2019

From food security to nutrition security

Biotechnology can be a game-changer in the battle against malnutrition in much the same way that the Green Revolution was in ensuring self sufficiency.

October 16 is observed as the World Food Day to mark the creation of the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 1945. The world body envisions a “zero hunger world” by 2030. Perhaps, the occasion is incomplete without remembering Nobel Peace laureate Norman E Borlaug, whose “miracle seeds” of wheat saved over a billion people from starvation. Borlaug also instituted the World Food Prize in 1986, which is sometimes described as the Nobel Prize in agriculture. It’s important to understand the role of science and technology in ushering the Green Revolution, which ensured food security in India. Today, similar innovations in biotechnology hold the promise to provide nutrition security.

In 1943, the Bengal Famine claimed 1.5 to 3 million lives. After independence, India faced the challenge of feeding 330 million people. The situation became grim when the country was hit by back-to-back droughts in the mid-1960s. Grain production plummeted from 89.4 million metric tonnes (MMT) in 1964-65 to 72.4 MMT in 1965-66. India became heavily dependent on the PL 480 food aid from the US. Self-sufficiency in foodgrains became the country’s top policy priority.

In the early 1960s, India imported 18,000 tonnes of the semi-dwarf high yielding (HY) wheat variety, Lerma Rojo and Sonora 64. Developed by Borlaug and his team at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, these wheat varieties proved to be the harbinger of the Green Revolution. Indian scientists adapted the imported germplasm to create indigenous varieties: Kalyan developed by D S Athwal and Sona created by M S Swaminathan. Around the same time, the HY miracle rice, IR8 — developed by Peter Jennings and Henry M Beachell of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) — was imported. About a decade later, an improved variety, IR36 — developed by IRRI’s Gurdev Khush — made its presence felt in the country’s fields. The breeding programme under the All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) produced Padma and Jaya, the first indigenous HY rice varieties. These became the centrepiece of India’s rice revolution.

Breakthroughs in Basmati rice came with the development of Pusa Basmati 1121 and 1509 from 2005 to 2013. These rice varieties were developed by teams led by V P Singh, A K Singh and K V Prabhu at the Indian Agriculture Research Institute. Pusa Basmati gave Indian rice more value with less water and 50 per cent higher yields compared to the traditional basmati. V Singh et al estimate that the cumulative earnings through exports of Pusa Basmati 1121 between 2008 and 2016 and the sale of the rice variety in the domestic market in the same period to be about $20.8 billion.

Where does India stand today in terms of wheat and rice? While the country’s population has grown by more than four times, from 330 million in 1947 to 1.35 billion in 2018, India’s wheat production has increased by over 15 times in roughly the same period — from about 6.5 MMT in 1950-51 to 99.7 MMT in 2017-18. India contributes about 13 per cent of the world wheat production, next only to China whose share is about 17 per cent. Rice production has shot up by about 5.5 times — from 20.6 MMT in 1950-51 to 112.9 MMT in 2017-18. India has a 23 per cent share in world rice production, next only to China whose share is about 29 per cent. India is also the largest exporter of rice in the world with about 12.7 MMT, valued at $7.7 billion (Basmati at $4.17 billion and Non-Basmati at $3.56 billion) during 2017-18.

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, Agricultural Processing and Export Development Authority (APEDA), Government of India.

Notwithstanding its foodgrain surpluses, the country faces a complex challenge of nutritional security. FAO’s recent publication, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, 2018 estimates that about 15 per cent of the Indian population is undernourished. More than 38 per cent of Indian children aged below five years are stunted and 21 per cent suffer from wasting. Several factors ranging from poor diet, unsafe drinking water, poor hygiene and sanitation, low levels of immunisation and education, especially that of women, contribute to this dismal situation. But latest innovations in biotechnology that fortify major staples with micro nutrients like vitamin A, zinc and iron can be game changers.

Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, Agricultural Processing and Export Development Authority (APEDA), Government of India.

Globally, the HarvestPlus programme of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) is doing lot of work in this direction. In India, the group has released the iron-rich pearl millet. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research has independently released zinc and iron rich wheat (WB 02 and HPWB 01), rice (DRR Dhan 45), and pearl millet (HHB 299 and AHB 1200) in 2016-17. This could possibly lead to the next breakthrough in staples, making them more nutritious. A research team led by Monika Garg at the National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute in Mohali has innovated biofortified coloured wheat (black, blue, purple) through crosses between HY Indian cultivars (PBW550, PBW621, HD2967) and coloured wheat from Japan and America. These are rich in anthocyanins (antioxidants such those found in blueberries) and zinc (40 ppm compared to 5 ppm in white wheat). Farmers of the Borlaug Farmers Association from Punjab and Haryana have been roped in to multiply production of this wheat variety. This seems to be the beginning of a new journey, from food security to nutritional security. The best is yet to come. But innovations in biofortified food can alleviate malnutrition only when they are scaled up with supporting policies. This would require increasing expenditure on agri-R&D and incentivising farmers by linking their produce to lucrative markets. Can the Modi government do it? Only time can tell.

Source: Indian Express, 15/10/2018

We are losing fifth of world food to overeating, wastage

London PTI





Almost 20% of the food made available to consumers worldwide is lost through over-eating or wastage, according to a new study . The world population consumes around 10% more food than it needs, while almost 9% is thrown away or left to spoil, researchers said.Efforts to reduce the billions of tonnes lost could improve global food security -ensuring everyone has access to a safe, affordable, nutritious diet -and help prevent damage to the environment, they said. Scientists at University of Edinburgh in the UK examined 10 key stages in the global food system -including food consumption and the growing and harvesting of crops -to quantify the extent of losses.
Using data for 2011 (the most recent date for which the researchers said all required data was available) collected primarily by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, the team found that more food is lost from the system than was previously thought. Almost half of harvested crops -or 2.1 billion tonnes -are lost through over-consumption, consumer waste and inefficiencies in production processes, researchers said.
Livestock production is the least efficient process, with losses of 78% or 840 million tonnes, the team found.Some 1.08 billion tonnes of harvested crops are used to produce 240 million tonnes of edible animal products including meat, milk and eggs. This stage alone accounts for 40% of all losses of harvested crops, researchers said. Increased demand for some foods, particularly meat and dairy products, would decrease the efficiency of the food system and could make it difficult to feed the world's expanding population in sustainable ways, they said. Meeting this demand could cause environmental harm by increasing greenhouse gas emissions, depleting water supplies and causing loss of biodiversity.
Encouraging people to eat fewer animal products, reduce waste and not exceed nutritional needs could help reverse these trends, the team said.“Until now, it was not known how over-eating impacts the system. Not only is it harmful to health, we found that overeating is bad for the environment and impairs food security,“ Peter Alexander from Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences said.

Source: Times of India, 22-02-2017

Drawing up a diet plan 

The welfare challenge lies in providing assistance to needy households to ensure adequate diets without creating conditions in which they opt for inferior diets that are too heavy on cereals

With the Kerala government’s decision to implement the National Food Security Act (NFSA) from April, the whole country will be covered by the legislation. However, if we expect the NFSA to improve India’s malnutrition statistics, we may well be disappointed. According to a study by Himanshu and Abhijit Sen, even before the NFSA is fully implemented, use of the public distribution system (PDS) expanded sharply with proportion of households getting PDS subsidy rising from about 25% in 2004-05 to 50% in 2011-12. However, decline in child malnutrition has been far more modest.

A patchy record

While we still do not have nationwide data on malnutrition, State-wise data from Annual Health Survey/District Level Health Surveys of 2012-14 as well as National Family Health Survey IV of 2015-16 suggest only modest improvement in child malnutrition since the National Family Health Survey III of 2005-06. Proportion of households receiving PDS subsidies in Rajasthan increased by about 15 percentage points, underweight declined by 3 percentage points; neighbouring Madhya Pradesh experienced similar increase in the PDS but a sharper decline underweight (17 percentage points); another neighbour Gujarat shows a drop in PDS use but records a modest improvement in underweight statistics (5 percentage points). The strangest case is that of Andhra Pradesh where 59% of the population received PDS subsidy in 2004-05 rising to 76 % in 2011-12 but underweight rate seems to be stuck around 32% with hardly any improvement. Why do we see this disconnect? Critiques of the PDS may point to leakages and suggest that perhaps these subsidies are not reaching the target beneficiaries. However, a large number of studies have recorded improving performance of the PDS and suggest this may be an overly cynical assumption. Other critiques may argue that with rising incomes, poverty has fallen in India and regardless of the PDS, individuals may get sufficient calories, making changes in PDS use irrelevant to caloric intake. This also seems somewhat of an overreach, given the entrenched poverty in some sections of the country and society.
A recently released report based on India Human Development Survey of 2004-05 and 2011-12 suggests that the relationship between the PDS and nutrition may be more complex. Jointly organised by researchers from National Council of Applied Economic Research and University of Maryland, this is the first nationwide survey to interview the same households at two points in time. By matching households with similar income, family size, land ownership and place of residence, but one group with Below Poverty Line (BPL) or Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card and the other without these cards, this study is able to compare apples to apples and examine the role of the PDS in a quasi-experimental design.
The results suggest that access to PDS subsidies changes the way people allocate their household resources. When rice, wheat and other cereals are available cheaply, households try to get more of their required calories from cereals and less from milk, fruits and vegetables. Results show that households with BPL/AAY cards consume a monthly per capita average of 11.87 kg of cereals, but only 2.77 litres of milk. In contrast, households without BPL/AAY cards but at the same income level, consume somewhat less cereals (11.22 kg) but more milk (3.21 litres). One would normally expect that the savings from cereal purchase due to price subsidies would be used to buy milk, fruit and nuts, but in an era where school and medical costs are rising and households face many other demands on their purse, these savings seem to be spent on non-food items. Food consumption forms 56% of household budget in BPL/AAY households compared to a slightly higher level (58%) in matched households without access to PDS subsidies.
A prior study using the same data and a similar matching procedure, published in a joint NCAER/Brookings journal, India Policy Forum, found that households with a BPL/AAY card were no better than households without PDS subsidies when it came to child nutrition. This may well be because access to cheap calories reduces consumption of different foods and dietary diversity is very important for balanced nutrition.
This does not mean that we should do away with food subsidies. The NCAER report mentioned earlier also found that for very poor households or householdsthat experience income declines of 20% or more between the two surveys, access to the PDS is very important for preserving food intake and dietary diversity. When faced with a sharp income decline, households with BPL/AAY cards reduce their cereal intake by 770 g per capita per month, and maintain their milk intake. In contrast, households who can’t avail of food subsidies reduced their monthly per capita cereal intake by 930 g and milk intake by 280 milliliters.

Nudged towards better choices

The challenge lies in providing assistance to needy households to ensure adequate diets without creating conditions in which they opt for inferior diets that are heavy on cereals. This is a particular challenge for modern India where rates of diabetes, high blood pressure and heart conditions are on the rise. Indian immigrants in the U.S. and U.K. also suffer from higher prevalence of these conditions than the native-born. So it may be that Indians have greater genetic predisposition for these so-called “lifestyle” diseases, but it is also well recognised that these diseases are exacerbated by excessive consumption of carbohydrates, amply available in cereals.
Cash transfers may be one way of dealing with this challenge. They would allow households to invest in better diets without circumscribing what they consume. However, their success would depend on the ability to effectively administer transfers and reduce leakages. Moreover, how this may affect grain markets remains unknown. International research on cash versus in-kind food subsidies presents mixed results, with the effectiveness of cash transfers depending on the institutional framework. Current debates on Universal Basic Income tend to see it as an additional component of social safety nets. But if the mechanisms for effective administration of the UBI are in place, it is possible to make a case for replacing PDS by cash transfers on nutritional grounds and this is well within the framework laid down by the NFSA.

Sonalde Desai is Professor of Sociology at University of Maryland and Senior Fellow at National Council of Applied Economic Research. Views are personal.

Source: The Hindu, 1-02-2017

 

From plate to plough: A clear trend towards non-vegetarianism in India

But per capita meat consumption remains relatively low. This has implications for nutritional and food security.

In the eyes of the world, India is seen as a vegetarian country. Presumably, this impression has been created by our best brand ambassadors from political, spiritual and yoga circles. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a strict vegetarian. The popular yoga guru, Baba Ramdev, and many other Hindu religious leaders too, are vegetarians and preach vegetarianism.

But what is the reality? To know this, we dig into India’s largest household consumption surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). They were conducted in 1993-94, 2004-05 and 2011-12, each time with a sample size of over one lakh households, with a one-month recall period. We define non-vegetarians as those consuming either eggs or fish or meat or any combination of these. By this definition, 62.3 per cent of Indian households consumed non-vegetarian food in 2011-12, up from 56.7 per cent in 1993-94, and 58.2 per cent in 2004-05. So the trend is quite clear — non-vegetarianism is on the rise. The Sample Registration System Baseline Survey 2014, however, states that 71 per cent of Indians were non-vegetarians as on January 1, 2014. But this study covers only that segment of the population which is above 15 years of age; the NSSO survey includes individuals of all age groups. Hence the two are not comparable.

Which state has the most vegetarians? If you are thinking of Gujarat, the home of Gandhi and Narendra Modi, think again. While 28 per cent of Gujarat’s population eats non-vegetarian food, Punjab has an even lower percentage (23 per cent) of non-vegetarians. Haryana, however, has the lowest non-vegetarian population in the country with just 19 per cent non-vegetarian households, and has remained so since 1993-94 (see map).

A state-wide analysis shows that seven states in the Northeast had the highest proportion (97 per cent) of non-vegetarians in 2011-12, followed by West Bengal (95 per cent) and Kerala (92 per cent). At the other end, Haryana is followed by Rajasthan (20 per cent), Punjab (23 per cent) and Gujarat (28 per cent). There has been a sharp increase in the proportion of non-vegetarians in Jammu and Kashmir — from 35 per cent in 1993-94 to 71 per cent in 2004-05.

The percentage of non-vegetarians in the state increased to 74 per cent in 2011-12. The sharp increase is, presumably, due to the exodus of Hindus from the state during this period.

While the trend toward non-vegetarianism is clear, what is interesting to note is that it has been marked by a “chicken revolution”. The proportion of households consuming chicken shot up from eight per cent in 1993-94 to 38 per cent in 2011-12, while that of the fish-eating households increased marginally from 30 per cent to 32 per cent over the same period. The proportion of goat-meat/mutton-eaters has fallen significantly — from 30 per cent in 1993-94 to 15 per cent in 2011-12. The population of beef and buffalo meat-eaters has remained more or less constant at about six per cent over this period. Interestingly, the proportion of so-called “eggetarians” (those consuming only eggs) has fallen drastically from about 24 per cent in 1993-94 to merely 3.5 per cent in 2011-12.

A structural change in the poultry industry by organised large hatcheries like Venkateshwara and Suguna — who have mainstreamed small holders — seems to have ushered in the “chicken revolution”. As a result, broiler meat production rose from less than 0.2 million metric tonnes (mmt) in 1991 to about 2.47 mmt in 2011-12, and egg production from about 24 billion to 66 billion by 2011-12.

Normally, rising non-vegetarianism is attributed to increasing incomes and resulting diversification of diets for better and higher protein intake. However, the Indian story may not be that simple. Religious beliefs have played an important role in keeping meat consumption low in some states. For example, Kerala and Punjab are both prosperous states with comparable per capita incomes, but Kerala has 92 per cent non-vegetarians and Punjab only 23 per cent. Across states, correlation between per-capita incomes and non-vegetarianism does not
yield positive results.

Religious movements in Punjab — Arya Samaj, Radhasoami and Namdharis — seem to have played an influential role in restricting meat consumption in the state. It is likely that vegetarians consume more milk to meet their protein requirements. The proportion of milk-consuming households increased from 70 per cent in 1993-94 to 81 per cent in 2011-12. India is the largest producer of milk (146 mmt in 2014-15), although per capita availability (322 g/day) still remains low. Internationally too, among countries with comparable or even lower per capita incomes, India has the lowest level of per capita meat consumption — 2.9 kg in 2015, of which 1.7kg/ capita is poultry meat (see graph: Total annual per capita meat consumption). Pakistan’s annual per capita meat consumption is about four times that of India; the country has a lower per capita income than India.

What do these numbers indicate for food and nutritional security? Indians draw only about one per cent calorie-intake and three per cent protein-intake from eggs, fish and meat. Given the high incidence of malnutrition in India, especially among children, this is somewhat worrisome for nutritionists. Will government policy promote egg or meat consumption for better nutrition? The chances are dim. But the government can give a fillip to poultry consumption by reducing import duty on chicken legs from 100 per cent to say 20 per cent. Meat consumption will increase primarily through private sector initiatives such as of KFC and McDonald’s, which can ensure food safety requirements are met. Modernised, well-equipped abattoirs will also help as they have in making India one of the largest exporters of buffalo meat. Milk and milk-products can be promoted by cooperatives with support from the government.

Further, since chicken rules the roost, not pork or beef, the feed pressure will be much less in India, as chicken is a comparatively more efficient convertor of energy with feed-to-meat ratio of 1.6:1 compared to 5:1 for pork and 7:1 for beef. This, coupled with low levels of meat consumption, will keep demand for feed food subdued. While the trend towards non-vegetarianism is increasing, vegetarians are certainly more benign to the planet’s environmental health.

Gulati is Infosys Chair Professor for Agriculture and Verma is a consultant at ICRIER. This column first appeared in the print edition under the title 'Not chicken anymore'.

Source: Indian Express, 24-10-2016