POVERTY DEBATE-STATISTICAL JUGGLERY BASIS OF TALL CLAIMS!

Food Security Bill, now brought into effect through an ordinance, by-passing the Parliament, is riddled with lot of contradictions with no one in the government coming out with any clarity. Many skeptics wonder whether this is a deliberate ploy by the government to confuse the electorate and win the next election! Otherwise it does not make any sense for the very same government to come out with some statistics in its latest claim on poverty reduction which seem to have taken many experts by surprise. What is the ground reality?

According to the figures prominently flashed across the media during the lat two days the present government was so "committed" to the poor man, it has reduced by magic the extent of poor people in the country, the so called BPL population, drastically by a whopping 15.3% within a matter of 8 years! These comparative figures pertain to the years 2004-2005 and 2011-2012, the period the present government has been "burning midnight oil" to "uplift" the population from abysmal poverty! Probably during 2012-2013, the percentage must have dropped further due to the "hard work" of this government, in spite of all scams that had taken place draining   

billions of rupees from the exchequer! Now the million dollar question or quiz is how many Indians are poor in absolute numbers to day?

If the ruling elite is to be believed there are only about 240 million people living below the government fixed BPL benchmark. However the cat is out of the bag if these figures are scrutinized a little more critically. A poor person really becomes a government certified poor person if the personal income is between Rs 35 and 27 per day depending on whether this person is living in urban area or rural hinterlands! One wonders whether such a person really exist in this country any more as this pitiful amount cannot get even a part of daily necessities required for keeping the body and the soul together! Probably such a person must be not be wearing any dress daily, may not have a roof above the head, must be walking to all the destinations, has no access to nutritious foods like milk, pulses, eggs, meat, fruits, vegetables etc! Rs 27 can definitely buy cereals with adequate calories so that life in absolute terms is not severely threatened though the quality of health must be very very low. 

If this is the real condition for 240 million of the population, the food security bill is more than justified in giving them rice or wheat at Rs1-3 per kg at the rate of 5 kg per person. By giving about 165 gm of cereals providing about 600 kC per day government probably wants to keep this poor person alive hoping that the Rs 27-35 earned by this "icon" will be used to top up the calorie content to the daily minimum requirement of 2000 kC. But in the actual scheme of things, the government is being more than magnanimous by covering two thirds of the country's population under its food security phobia. Why? Does the government have unlimited funds ( collected from honest tax paying citizens) to squander like this? If the government really feels strongly about the pitiable conditions of these people identified above, why not ensure that they are adequately provided with enough cereals to meet their total calories needs at least? Probably this can be done by restricting the number of people covered and diverting the grains so saved to be given to the real BPL people? 

The real intention behind such a diabolical scheme, as being felt by many honest citizens in this country, is to "bribe" as many people as possible with state resources to collect "I Owe You" sentiments that is anticipated to be converted into votes during the next general election. Interestingly the most recent Census by government's another agency puts the number of BPL people at about 50% of the country's population based on quality of life and their aspirations. According to this version a person earning less than Rs 10000 per month or Rs 333 per day qualifies to be called poor and all others are above poverty line. If the government feels there is a resource crunch, take the figure of Rs 150 which is fixed as daily wage under the MGNREGA scheme paid for 100 days in a year which works out to Rs 50 per day per person. Under such circumstances what government ought to be doing is to just help these people to supplement their food requirement through subsidized foods which will make their lives more sustainable. This is what is supposed to be accomplished through the Public Distribution System (PDS) that is in place to day throughout the country. It is another matter that the PDS is a disease stricken arm of the government afflicted by corruption, bribery, pilferage and looting with hardly 40% of the targeted beneficiaries being really "benefited" with the rotten quality grains delivered through the so called ration shops. 

Instead of rectifying the faults of PDS where is the need to think in terms of enacting the meaningless food security bill which can never fulfill the needs of the poor people in the country. Even under the PDS what is the mechanism to identify poor people who really deserve help from the state? The burden on the PDS could have been reduced considerably if those really poor are identified through a very reliable mechanism, those falsifying the financial status being severely dealt for fraudulent practice. Laxity in management and criminal collusion among some politicians, bureaucrats and criminals have literally destroyed the PDS activities in most of the states with very little being done to plug the leakage of grains. 

Common sense tells that government must separate politics from matters involving life and death to millions of people and any poverty alleviation program must be based on bipartisan decisions through consensus.  Ask any citizen in the country about what must be done to ensure equity and fair deal for the common man and the answer will be a vociferous assertion that PDS must be made more efficient in delivering the essential foods in adequate quantity and quality to those who really deserve them, not for others who can financially afford to access such foods from the open market. The crux of the problem is how, who and when a honest exercise would be done to identify the deserving beneficiaries on whom the state can expend the public resources for bringing them on par with other citizens.       

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

WILL GM FOODS BE A NORM IN INDIA? SUPREME COURT ALLOWS GM TRIALS!

It is a sad day for India when the highest court in the country, contrary to the recommendations of its own technical expert committee (TEC) succumbed to the half truths and untenable claims put forward by the GOI and allowed to continue with trials involving genetically modified food crops. Of course one consolation is that the apex court did not hand out a total clearance for the trials but wanted its TEC to look into the governments claims and put before it for a decision in six weeks time. Those antagonists of GM food crops have been waging a war on GM crops convincingly claim that research in this area is fraught with many dangers which are difficult to anticipate with to day's limited knowledge. Two of the most contested claims of GM food lobbyists are that GM food crops are safe for human consumption and GM crop cultivation will not contaminate the environment leading to extinction of the original strains of plants on which mankind was depending heavily for survival. 

One of the most blatant lies uttered by the government attorney before the honorable court is that GM technology will increase yield of food crops dramatically and only with this technology the country can manage to meet the target for food production that is required to feed the nation adequately! No where in the history of agriculture so far any scientist has proved that GM technology can increase production and only losses due to pests can be minimized which in turn may reflect on the over all yield, that too marginally. Almost all countries in this planet who produce much more food than India with lesser acreage have achieved the same without recourse to GM technology. If India is stuck at the bottom of the list of land productivity the reason is not far to seek and the first Green Revolution which was hailed at that time turned out to be a game changer in destroying the soil health across the farm lands in this country using liberally chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The fact of the matter is that it may take ages to recondition the farm land health before productivity can be raised substantially.

At this juncture one must ask the most pertinent question as to why Government of India did not allow genetically modified Bt Brinjal into the country if it was so sure about its safety to the consumer and environment? It was done after extensive consultation by the then Minister for Environment who came to the conclusion that enough data was not available to clear the new GM Brinjal for country wide cultivation. Citing the example of the US where 80% of the products available in the market in that country contain one or more GM ingredients does not become relevant in India because American consumers are being fed these foods without them actually knowing about it! By now it is well established that the American government which is influenced in its every food policy decision by powerful GM crop lobby consisting of monolithic giants who have invested billions of dollars in developing most of the GM crops. The oft repeated claim that in spite of using GM foods and ingredients derived from them, Americans have not come to harm so far, is not sustainable when the ground reality is that more than two thirds of the population there are sick due to over weight, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other afflictions and till to day no one has been able to conclusively prove that massive consumption of GM food, day in and day out, has not contributed to this sorry situation.  

Coming to the contention of the attorney of the government before the honorable court, one can understand the extent of deception by listening to his sworn statement before the Supreme court which is reproduced below: "The government pleaded that recommendation of the apex court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) for banning field trials of the GM crops be rejected as the use of biotechnology in agriculture can bring second green revolution in the country. "Revolution have been saturated at the producer and consumer level and the methods of conventional breeding are showing very marginal increase in yield. Further, the use of inputs like fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation schemes is expensive and unsustainable. Hence biotechnology could bring in a second green revolution," the Centre said. Appearing before a bench headed by Justice Swatanter Kumar, Attorney General G E Vahanvati contended that field trial should be allowed to go on as the demand of food for growing population could be met only through the GM crops. "...Bearing in mind the far reaching implications of this matter on food security and the pressing requirement of continuation of the ongoing research on application of GM technology in improving agriculture productivity and production, it is humbly prayed that the proposed recommendation of the interim report of TEC to impose ban on field trials should be rejected outright," the Centre said in its affidavit". Opposing the TEC's recommendations, the Centre contended that genetic method is the only way for increasing the farm output to ensure food security in the country. "There is a need to increase food grain production from the current estimated supply of 257 million tonnes to 345 million tonnes by 2030. With no further possibility of increasing Net Sown Area, the only recourse left to meet the requirements of country's food security is through increase in productivity."

What is interesting in the above statement is that the government was trying to confuse the court by using the word "biotechnology" interchangeably with GM technology which is not ethical as GM technology is just one branch of biotechnology which is a marvelous tool in the hands of scientists to do hundred and one things for the benefit of mankind. If a government is bent on riding piggy back on American GM lobby without considering the vital interests of the Indian population by allowing the GM crop giants to set shop in the country, it will be a sad day for the country whose agricultural diversity is likely to be destroyed and the health of the people, most of them poor with sub-optimal health conditions, to be further jeopardized.

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

   

THE FOOD BUSINESS, NO BODY'S BUSINESS!!!

Food business is getting more and more murkier as the "war of attrition" now going on between a hostile consumer activism on one side and the not too transparent food industry under attack. It is difficult to take sides because both the warring parties have their jobs cut out and it is for others who are less biased and more receptive to reasoning to decide about what they want to believe. The stakeholders in food business include the manufacturer, consumer, government, social activists, environmentalist and scientific community. While government has its massive vigilance and safety enforcement responsibilities as mandated by the governing system in vogue, consumer needs to be well informed about the quality and safety of food available in the market. The manufacturer who is in business will invariably focus on his bottom line and no one can blame the industry if it offers products most acceptable to the consumer. Scientific community and social activists work for improving the quality and safety of food by focusing on inappropriate practices and unhealthy trends while the environmentalist has a role to ensure that food production does not vitiate the healthy environment of the human habitat.

What should be the criteria one should use in selecting the right product from the market shelves? Most consumers "eat" the products through their eyes and are attracted by the presentation of the product with all the glory of a slick appearance. The eyes also play a role taking stock of the situation and helps in selection of desired product. The front of the pack labeling regulations in vogue in almost all countries generally provide very valuable information about the nature of the product, its weight, ingredients used, expiry date, nutritional content and some times the retail price also. Branding of food products by reputed manufacturers is meant to create a lasting experience in the minds of the consumer about their good quality. If the product appeals to the consumer, repeat purchases become a reality. Many accusations and insinuations hurled at the organized industry will have to be viewed critically and objectively because mislabeling, misinformation, false claims, lower quality of products, uncertain safety credentials will all ruin the reputation of a normal company and therefore every opportunity must be given to seek clarification through discussion and transparency in order to really crucify them.

How funny it is for any one to blame the industry for all the "sins" in the world with no rhyme or reason! A plethora of diseases like CVD, blood pressure, diabetes, kidney ailments, liver problems, obesity, cancer etc are supposed to be caused by processed foods! If so what has been the role of government agencies with enormous power in preventing these "merchants of death", as the food industry is being called to day? Are not the food scientists, nutritionists, health professionals etc equally responsible for the modern day "sickness" that ails the society? Has the citizen, on whose name the fight is going on to apportion the blame. no role to play or no responsibility to be careful in food selection? These are inconvenient questions no body wants to answer because every body is guilty of not doing what he or she is supposed to be doing, trying to pass on the buck to others!

Recently there has been serious accusation regarding the role played by the flavor companies in promoting unhealthy foods, making them too attractive to be shunned! With a fair degree of transparency already in place under the labeling provision, a literate consumer has all the tools available to discriminate between bad and good foods and if this power is not exercised judiciously who is responsible for the consequences of this folly? It is true that there are a sizable number of manufacturers who indulge in unethical practices in labeling correctly but the existing mechanism of taking them to task is well designed, at least on paper. This is an area where industry must introspect and sooner they practice transparency in labeling and marketing, better it will be for improving their image among the consumers. Unless confidence on the industry to play a fair game is generated this slanging war will go on and on perpetually. The role of scientific community is not above board in this murky blame game because there is practically no unanimity on any scientific aspect relating to food quality, safety, nutrition, healthfulness and acceptability. There are millions of publications emerging every year on different aspects of food but there are controversies galore with practically no unanimity on any issue! How can a consumer understand these matters steeped in technical terms and what the industry can do in using the information correctly? Though WHO and FAO are in the forefront in unifying and synchronizing standards of food safety, each country has the liberty to use or ignore them depending on its economic interests, ignoring the impact on the consumer.     

In an interesting debate recently some one asked why the industry has to make food taste so good, tempting the consumer to over eat! The insinuation is probably directed at some of the major flavor manufacturing companies who are being blamed for seducing the food processing industry to make the food products more and more flavorful and tasty. How can any critic blame that there is an unholy nexus between the flavor industry and the food manufacturers for a high degree of secrecy shrouding their activities? After all secrecy is a part of industrial culture in a fiercely competitive market place and there is no place for any charitable considerations. Added to this, provocative statements like "flavors are so stimulating, they hijack our brain." do not help to douse the passion evident in the arguments of critics blaming the flavor industry. Food manufacturers are blamed for manipulating the product recipes by "dumping" ingredients like sugar, fat and salt which are supposed to stimulate appetite setting in motion a cycle of desire and consumption" among the consumers leading to a society of over eaters! Advocating transparency will have to be tempered with the fact the it should not try to destroy the industry and this is where moderation is called for. While industry can do better by being more transparent without affecting their economic interests too much, consumers cannot be over aggressive in seeking information that cannot be placed in the public domain and only way this can be done is through better and more effective communication between them. 

As obesity, food safety and chemicals in foods constitute some of the most pressing issues of concern to the consumers as well as the policy makers in the government, industry cannot sweep them under the carpet and if business environment is to improve, these issues must be adopted as those of the industry also. Future depends on the success of food industry in integrating these issues into their business philosophy. 

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

"GOVERNMENT" EATERIES-ANY TAKERS?

The ruling elites in this country seem to be convinced that government has the answer to every problem citizens face and in turn people, conditioned as they are to the benevolence of the government look upon it to solve all their problems! It is understandable that a responsible government must be sensitive to the difficulties faced by its citizens and bring socour to them through the financial and policy tools but entering into business for helping them, whatever be the justification, cannot be practical. There are hundreds of examples that can be drawn from recent history of this country, especially between 1947 and 1990, to prove that "doing business is not government's business" as its administrative mindset is not synonymous with entrepreneurship and eventually these public enterprises become 'millstones' around its neck. Besides bringing practically no returns on the massive investments in the public sector, most of them become a drain on the exchequer to keep them afloat. According to the latest estimates all public sector industries put to gether have incurred a mammoth loss of Rs 93000 crore compared to Rs 65000 crore the previous year! If this is the case, why not the governments, both at the state and the central levels, desist from starting new 'white elephants' in the name of the hapless citizens?

The provocation for this issue of the blog is the reported news emanating from Kerala, a state touted all over the world as "God's Own Country", that the 'enlightened' government there is contemplating setting up 'fair price hotels' all over the state for the benefit of the common man. The premise is that hotels which are operating presently are fleecing the people by charging exorbitantly for their service and poor man is denied the 'pleasure' of eating hotel foods as rich people do. Such a brain wave coming from a government identified with poor people may appear logical. But consider for a moment how such a quixotic proposal can be implemented in a state where per capita income is one of the highest in the country, inflow of foreign money from expatriates is substantial, the literacy rate is highest, the wages rule very high and a reasonably good PDS system ensures availability of food at subsidized rates for almost the entire population. Besides Kerala, unlike its neighbors Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh, does not have adequate decent eateries, probably on account of the 'low eating out' habit amongst its population. How a government can do better than the private sector in the catering area is beyond one's comprehension.

Many states have Tourism Development Corporations (TDCs) set up to attract tourists from far and wide and generally restaurants are part of the hotels under them. Except for a few, most TDCs are not functioning well and exist only because of the low tariff for their lodging facilities compared to their private sector counterparts. The quality of food served in their restaurants, at best, can be termed tolerable, reflecting the ground reality that exists to day. If this is so why does the government want to venture into so called fair price hotels? What is a fair price for a decent meal? Who decides the real cost of preparing the meal? How is the costing to be done, considering that any government operation will always carry a heavy over head cost that has to be passed on to the consumer? According to scanty information available, probably government wants catering entrepreneurs to approach it for setting up eateries in urban and semi urban areas and raw materials would be offered to them at subsidized prices through the state controlled Civil Supplies Corporation. Such a model if it works and if there are takers, could be more viable than setting up governmental hotels in the name of controlling prices. Of course there still will be many constraints in putting such precepts into practice. With real estate rates galloping day by day in a state starved of land, how any entrepreneur can get a decent place to start hotel business, all from the scratch? Will government offer the required facilities like building, water, electricity, drainage, waste disposal, toilet facilities etc that are essential for hotel business? Most important, how can government ensure that the so called fair price hotels will really offer safe and quality foods at fair price and will not divert the subsidized inputs to the open market?

It is understandable that government can intervene in such areas considered essential like medicines and basic food supply at affordable cost and probably Kerala is doing well in these areas with their fair price shops for food grains, sugar, edible oil etc, fuels like kerosene, and perishables vegetables and fruits, truly reflecting its credentials as a welfare state. But by entering into sectors like catering or vending liquor may be disastrous in the long run as both these areas cannot be considered critical to the survival of its citizens. If such a philosophy is extended, government may have to intervene in almost all sectors like entertainment, housing, many service sectors, air travel and almost all industrial operations in the name of helping out the citizens. Is it feasible, practical or logistically right? Government must give good governance, instead of imposing itself on the population what it 'feels' right without really knowing what people want!

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