FEEDING THE NEEDY-AN "OUT OF THE BOX" THINKING

India is supposed to be the biggest provider of free foods to its needy children and vulnerable segments of the population funded by the government. It is estimated that India spends annually about Rs 27000 crore on various feeding programs across the country. Some of the schemes include integrated Child Development services (ICDS), Nutrition program for adolescent girls, Nutrition Advocacy and Awareness Generation Program, Follow up action for National Nutrition Policy of 1993, Nutrition programs of ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Iron-Folic Acid supplementation for Pregnant Women, Vitamin A Supplementation for Children of 9-36 months, National Iodine Deficiency Disorder Control Program, Department of Elementary School and Literacy programs and Midday Meal for primary School Children. No wonder there are frequent criticisms regarding the effectiveness of these programs as multiple agencies are involved in administering different programs and an average citizen thinking that his money is being wasted.

While criticism of any efforts is welcome as long as they are constructive, the logistics of these operations are so gigantic that there can be slip ups and mishaps periodically. Most trenchant critics point out the pilferage of funds from these schemes through political-bureaucratic-contractors nexus about which governments at the center as well as at the State levels do not seem to be doing enough to make them more transparent. The net effect is that many deserving and needy beneficiaries do not get their entitlement. Probably by far the most visible nutrition program is the mammoth school feeding project benefiting millions of children, most of them being considered poor in economic terms.   

Government scheme that supports the mid day meal program costs about Rs 13,215 crore annually benefiting 12 crore children in 12.5 lakh schools across the country. According to some surveys one of the most desirable objectives of this scheme viz improving attendance in the primary schools has been well served resulting in progressive reduction in illiterate population in the country. Whether the nutrition status of the children also showed any significant improvement is a matter of debate. What is incongruous in this program is that it does not make any distinction between "haves" and "have nots" as the food is forced on every body irrespective of the income of their parents. Government is squarely responsible for this situation as it has not been able to generate and document the income profiles of families of children attending various schools. Naturally the resources are spread thin and impact is less than optimum. 

The eternal debate about the delivery systems most appropriate for the schools will never cease. There are strong protagonists advocating freshly cooked foods to made locally for feeding while many experts feel "ready to eat" (RTE) formulated food products in safe pilfer proof packs with long life are more suitable for mass feeding. Both sides have sufficient justification for their respective stands. It is not realized that no one solution can fit the exacting needs of this program. Probably a dual mode may be the alternative with those schools having sufficient staff, facilities and clean water provision going in for fresh cooking while schools in remote areas may have to adjust to RTE foods.

A honest citizen in this country may ask the question as to why public money must be spent on such programs with doubtful results. If the money is rightly used benefiting the most needy, no none would grudge such investments for a good future. Is there any alternative funding source that can be tapped? In this context what comes to mind is the socially relevant spending (CSR) being enforced for corporate bodies beginning April 1, 2014 under the Companies Act 2013, Section 135. Under this mandatory provision any industrial group or entrepreneur engaged in commercial activity with more than Rs 1000 crore annual turn over or Rs 500 crore net worth or profit of Rs 5 crore has to set aside 2% of its average profit during the previous 3 years for socially relevant activities. According to tentative estimates there are over 8000 companies which will have to shell out some thing like Rs 15-20 thousand crore each year. Probably this fund could be dedicated exclusively to improve the health of children below the age of 6 years as this is a critical stage of growth when brain development is completed and the future health status of these kids are decided. Lot of planning has to go into this suggestion for making it a workable plan with sufficient sustaining capacity.

A possible way out is entrusting this task to a industry supported body like FICCI or ASSOCHAM or any others managed by the industry to run all nutrition programs in stead of the governments doing it. All know that government machinery with its gargantuan machinery is like a slow moving Elephant and whatever it does is neither accountable nor time bound! Government personnel are mostly officious with no work culture while politicians who control them come and go with least commitment. A body like National Nutrition Food Corporation run with the CSR funds managed like a non-profit company with majority industry representatives and some government nominees can be mandated to run the program across the country. While core fundings will come from CSR contributions from the industry as per the Company Act 2013, liberal voluntary contributions from any quarters eligible for tax exemption can boost the resources available for the program.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

'Q' MARK STANDARDS FOR FOODS-ANOTHER GIMMICK IN THE OFFING!

Thinking loud is a good exercise but if the thoughts are not put into action such thoughts are just futile. India is supposed to have a "powerful" Authority at Delhi which claims that it is overseeing the activity of food industry and ensure only good quality products with assured safety are manufactured and marketed. But looking back is this really happening in the country at the ground level and are Indians better off than they were a few years ago? Whole world knows that India has the weakest enforcement infrastructure to monitor thousands of food products marketed in the country and a sizable portion of the food basket is adulterated, some even dangerous when consumed continuously for long periods. The food fraudsters have a free run in this country as a microscopic minority of these criminals are brought to book. It is laughable that for a country of the size of India, the annual conviction for food frauds is hardly about 700! Against such a background the recent proposal to evolve a separate quality certification system for foods with quality higher than the minimum threshold level prescribed in the statute books, is a good "loud thinking". But is it reasonable to assume that this will really come into being and become a reality? Doubtful if the past track record of Government of India (GOI) is taken into reckoning. Here is the gist of the proposal now being "considered" by GOI.

"Processed foods in the country could soon be graded for their quality and safety by Quality Mark (Q Mark), a standard instituted by the ministry of food processing industries (MoFPI). It would be on the lines of Agmark, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and the International Standards Organisation (ISO) certification. This would be possible after MoFPI receives a universal nod on its report titled, 'Report on Establishment of Quality Mark in the Food Processing Industry'. The report, which was submitted by the Quality Council of India (QCI) to MoFPI sometime ago, was recently uploaded on both MoFPI's and QCI's websites for consultation and comments. The ministry added that it has also been circulated among industry bodies, such as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry (ASSOCHAM), the All India Food Processors' Association (AIFPA), and the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PHDCCI). Speaking to FnB News, an official from MoFPI said, "The ministry received a proposal from CII for establishing a quality mark for the food processing sector. Following the proposal, a meeting was held earlier this year. It was chaired by secretary of food processing industries, and attended by industry representatives."  "At this meeting, it was decided to entrust QCI with designing the Quality Mark scheme for the food processing sector. It was envisaged that QCI would formulate the scheme following a process of multi-stakeholder consultation and subsequently the industry would decide whether and how to take it forward," he added. "The main purpose of the scheme is to offer the consumer the choice of purchasing a food product that gives a higher level of assurance of quality and safety. This assurance shall come in the form of Q Mark that would distinguish the 'marked' product from other products available in the market," the ministry added. MoFPI added that the scheme would be purely voluntary in nature and shall assist in providing both tangible and intangible benefits to the food processing industry, which must now decide whether and how to take it forward. The structure of the scheme shall help in validating both the product quality and safety amongst a plethora of products that are flooding the Indian market. The enhanced compliance by the food business operators (FBOs) who opt for the Q Mark scheme could eventually provide them a host of additional benefits, including a reduction in the regulatory oversight and an increase in the acceptance of food products from India in the international market, as well. Meanwhile, contesting reservations from some quarters about the prevalence of a number of other quality marks in the country, B Venkatraman, secretary general, QCI, said, "There is a basic difference between the existing standards and Q Mark – the others are for specific products (for instance, Agmark is only for agriculture produce, mainly for spices, and BSI is for packaged drinking water). The food processing industry needs a standard which will fulfil its own peculiar requirements according to the global standards."

It is not clear as to who is going to bell the cat? Any one involved in this proposal has any idea regarding the extent of efforts which is needed to put in place such a regime? Of course a few years will pass by before a number of committees to be set up come with their recommendations. Industry should be happy because there is an implied assurance that once the new quality certification is obtained they will have a free run with least interference from government agencies in monitoring the quality of their products. Every body knows the ISI mark which was once coveted by the industry and the pathetic experience during the last two decades. Even to day ISI mark is supposed to be compulsory for packaged water but where is the monitoring mechanism? Are all the ISI marked packaged water conform to specifications? Unlikely because of tardy implementation by the BSI which again is harm strung by infrastructural limitations.

One can only hope that the new "Q" mark scheme will not be similar to other existing "no good" government systems!

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com