Image courtesy: Alimentarium

Why is the government ignoring nutritionists and public health experts to push for fortification?

It is of great concern that the government is planning large scale fortification[i] by five multinationals which manufacture and import micronutrients to India. Fortified rice alone is expected to cost Rs. 1,700 crores because of the complicated processing required. This budget could have as well been used to provide small scale farmers with poultry and cattle which improves local economy while being nutritionally superior and sustainable. . Vijay Sardana, a Delhi-based agribusiness and trade analyst says “These multinationals govern the world market through a cartel,”

It is also of great concern, that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), is pushing its weight on the Gujarat-based dairy cooperative Amul for refusing artificial fortification. FSSAI’s conflict of interest by alliance[ii] with the EAT LANCET group and the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) is further cause for concern. GAIN is itself a front for several multinationals such as Danone, Nestle, Coca Cola, Mars etc. that have disrepute in the Baby food action groups[iii] for their wilful adverse effects on child and baby nutrition.

In March 2016, The Working group for children under six[iv], in an article published in the Social Medicine journal state unequivocally that the right to food is a universal human right, the violation of which results in hunger and malnutrition, created by structural poverty and inequality with resultant severe food insecurity. 

The Working group continues ‘ In this scenario, various technological interventions are being suggested by technical agencies and considered by the government for reducing hunger and malnutrition. These include genetically modified foods, ready-to-use (therapeutic) foods, and food fortification. These products are especially advocated to deal with various specific aspects of malnutrition such as micronutrient deficiencies and severe acute malnutrition. However, such interventions necessarily create centralised systems for food production and distribution that further compromise decentralization, local autonomy and community control. They also detract from local livelihoods and take away the option of using local foods and recipes, many of which have good nutritional value.”

“For instance, coarse flour that is locally milled and consumed would have to be refined and fortified at a larger, mechanised, central unit before redistribution, if labelling and standards are to be maintained, thus disrupting local micro-economies and practices.’

The solution, they say is that “the issues of hunger and malnutrition can be largely taken care of by an alternative, comprehensive approach that invests in and gives primacy to local control over food production and distribution along with appropriate inputs; both financial and technical. Enabling people to make the agricultural and behaviour changes needed to improve dietary diversity, quantity and quality would ensure a true food security that is not interpreted as mere calorie-sufficiency through cereal-based diets'. Feeding practices certainly need to change if nutritional deficiencies in children – both micro and macro – are to be tackled with urgency and efficacy..Higher calorie-density, protein-rich foods need to be produced and sourced in as decentralised a manner as possible and produced from locally available foods such as eggs.

They categorically state that ‘technological interventions in food for reducing hunger and malnutrition should be protected from commercial interests. They should be carried out through public institutions, based on transparent processes, public debate and scientific evidence, with extensive safeguards against profit motives and conflict of interest”.

These concerns have been echoed several times by public health experts and nutritionists[v],[vi]

 ‘Staple foods’ such as cereals and millets  are not balanced diets, and were never meant to singlehandedly meet all the nutritional needs of people. For families that subsist only on cereals and millets, the solution for improving quality is not fortification but the additions of meat, poultry, pulses, vegetables, eggs, milk, dairy products, fruits.

Dr. Umesh Kapil of the department of gastroenterology and human nutrition unit at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi. Says that “There is no proven case in any part of the world where fortification has reduced malnutrition,”

We urge the government to seek solutions to malnutrition that are long term, sustainable and supportive of the local economy rather than filling the coffers of multinationals with fortification strategies that have no proven benefit.

[i] Jitendra “Fortified rice scheme to create Rs 3,000-crore market for just five big firms” 17th September 2019, Down to Earth, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/food/fortified-rice-scheme-to-create-rs-3-000-crore-market-for-just-five-big-firms-66761

 [ii] “Release of the EAT Lancet Report – India: Food, Planet and Health, 4th April 2019, https://fssai.gov.in/eatlancetindia/
[iii]“GAIN / Gates sponsored Index whitewashes giant food companies” Baby Milk Action,  Press release, http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease12mar13
[iv] Prasad et al “On technological interventions in food for hunger and malnutrition” Editorial Social Medicine, March 2016  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303663505_On_Technological_Interventions_in_Food_for_Hun-_ger_and_Malnutrition

 [v] Karpagam S and Shatrugna V “Private Sector Ideas on Nutrition Should Be Taken with a Pinch of 'Fortified' Salt” The Wire, 24th September 2018,  https://thewire.in/health/private-sector-nutrition-vinita-bali-right-to-food

 [vi] Jitendra “Making food fortification mandatory is illegal: experts” Down to Earth, 3rd September 2018, https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/health/making-food-fortification-mandatory-is-illegal-experts-61422