FOOD SECURITY BILL-A POLITICAL HARAKIRI?

After the high decibel proclamations and declarations during the last two years, the much talked about Direct Cash Transfer Scheme of the Government of India is yet to take off with repeated postponements. Besides the Re 1 per kg rice scheme touted as one of the most progressive measure of the government is still in the limbo though a few state governments like that in Tamil Nadu have already started such a program on their own without waiting for Delhi to pass the ridiculously called food security bill! The political class seems to think that food security means only access to cereals and by providing them at throw away price, the nutrition security is also taken care of! The poor people in this country are being taken for a ride by such populist measures with short term impact. True by providing the cereals the people might not die definitely it is adequate to keep the skin and the bone together! To add to the confusion there is a stupid suggestion that those entitled for food grains from the PDS should be given cash equivalent with which they can buy their food requirements and the "pundits" who are promoting this line of thinking are baiting the government with the possibility in saving thousands of crore of rupees by preventing pilferage from the PDS. Here is a take on this muddled thinking and the country will have to wait with bated breath as to what is going to happen between now and the forthcoming election in the middle of next year.

"India's hard won gains in achieving food security are in danger of being undermined by a clause in the National Food Security Bill that encourages States to adopt cash transfers in lieu of food entitlements under the Public Distribution System (PDS). Supporting this view, a recent report by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) concluded that the provision of food subsidies in the form of cash would save the government crores of rupees. Additionally, cash transfers will supposedly eliminate middlemen such as dealers and transporters, ensuring that the subsidy reaches intended beneficiaries. Cash transfers are a solution only if we view the PDS in isolation, rather than as part of a larger food policy. India's food policy begins with the procurement of rice and wheat and price support operations by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and the CACP. Each State is entitled to purchase a certain amount of food grains from the FCI at subsidised prices for distribution through its Fair Price (Ration) Shops. It is this distribution end that constitutes the PDS, and what the cash transfers would replace. Besides not taking into account the devaluing effect of inflation or the role of intrahousehold dynamics when it comes to cash transfers, its supporters do not specify what would happen to the agricultural commodities that are procured by the FCI. As the policy exists today, the government holds millions of tons of rice and wheat, well above the buffer norms required by law. To reduce its stocks, the government has preferred open market operations (to bulk consumers) and export to distribution through the PDS".

No one in the government including the economists and sociologists has given any thought to the adverse consequences of putting money in the hands of the beneficiaries in lieu of grains. There is no guarantee that this money will be spent on food only and it is more likely that there would be vast growth of liquor industry which will have to cater to the increased demand for its products from this section of population with food subsidy money in their hands! Another disaster which is inevitable is the transformation of this segment of population into a morbid mass with no motivation for working. One of the reasons for shortage of labor in the country is this distribution of "alms" in the name of poverty while there is this continuous claim that the unemployment rate is high in the country. Unemployment may be high but those who want to work can always get work. Combined with the NREGA assuring a daily wage of Rs 150 per person for at least 150 days, the "freebie" scheme under the food security bill can bebilitate this country beyond recognition!   

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

UNDEMOCRATIC FOOD POLICIES IN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES!

Centralized and gigantic manufacturing industry is a classical American mindset and this is true with many industrial countries where scale of economy is perceived to be the stepping stone to achieve lower cost of production and improve profitability. Historically tremendous engineering innovations in designing and fabricating high production capacity machinery , dearth of labor and the huge cost of human involvement in production floor operations naturally led to many industrial activity being automated across the spectrum. It is only recently the world has woken up to the dangers inherent in such mindless agglomeration leading to a rethink on the relevance of the present production culture. In the food sector increasing episodes of food poisoning and difficulties in tracing the source of contamination spawned the locavore movement which advocates producing and consuming the food locally in stead of ferrying them from far away places that can cause logistical, quality and large carbon foot print problems. With America's supremacy in the global arena, WTO also seems to be influenced in evolving trade policies that imitate the system that is prevalent in that country while locavore type system is more preferable for all countries. Democracy does not mean any thing if large food conglomerates hold the elected governments in their vice like grip sabotaging every good intentioned policies favorable to the well being of the citizens. Here is a critical commentary on this trade issue that is dividing the world vertically.         

"There has been a quiet revolution going around the world, as communities and nations retake control of their food systems. In the U.S., more people are taking a look at processed foods at the supermarket and opting instead for healthier choices, grown locally with fewer pesticides. People in Cambodia have taken a hard look at what's happening to their climate, soil and seeds, and figured out a new, low-cost way to produce rice, increasing production and putting farmers in charge. Brazilians are favoring local farmers growing sustainable foods for school lunch programs, lowering hunger rates dramatically as a result. This trend is larger than individual choice: people are using their rights as citizens to make sure governments, from local to national, support these innovations. Unfortunately, U.S. trade policy seems wedded to a discredited notion of how we should get our food and who should benefit. These local shifts involve choices, and in many cases choices that favor local producers over transnational corporations, local markets over imports; it seems that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has a problem with that. In its latest report, the agency highlights what it calls the growing problems of "localization barriers to trade," and vows renewed vigilance against these barriers to the free flow of goods and services. A free flow to where? And for whose benefit? In the U.S., local food is sometimes dismissed as an elite niche market, but in the rest of the world it has another meaning entirely. For decades, Western aid and trade officials have told poor countries to rely on international markets to feed their people; governments were forced to cut support for "inefficient" things like local food production and emergency grain reserves; domestic farming was undermined as cheap imports flooded in. When the price of internationally traded food spiked in 2007-08, and again in 2011, the poorest couldn't afford staples like wheat and rice, and global hunger soared. The developing countries that fared best were those that built domestic production and insulated themselves from volatile global markets. So while the USTR attack on all things local may be great for the U.S. food giants, it pushes an economic model that has been discredited by actual events".

Even in the US people seem to be concerned with the direction in which food industry is moving recklessly with no concern or remorse for their past sins. Every child in the US knows that the food industry in that country could not be trusted and it does not have good intentions vis-a-vis its attitude and action. Whether it is allowing unsafe chemicals in foods or not forcing the industry to label GM foods or diluting the standards for organic foods, the government invariably seems to be on the side of the industry ignoring the well being of the citizen. No wonder experts are increasingly holding the industry and the government responsible for the obesity epidemic so rampant in the United States of America!

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

FOOD AID PROGRAMS-WHO IS BENEFITED ANY WAY?

"Food Aid" programs sponsored by many rich countries are intended to prevent starvation amongst the population in the aid receiving countries. While committing the quantum of aid the donors invariably insist on supplying food grains from their granaries through high cost delivery channels and there is a disconnect between the value of food supplied and number of beneficiaries actually covered. Surplus food grains stored as a part of the food security system for long time find their way to poor countries with suspect quality too. In a critical appraisal of the impact of such high "visibility" aid programs, some critics have pointed out the inherent inequality and adverse consequences brought about by such supposedly "humanitarian" services of donor countries.

Once the food finally arrives, it floods agricultural markets, destabilizing fragile local economies. Small farmers are the first to go bankrupt. Most of them are women like Khalida, who work small plots of land hoping to sell enough at market to buy cooking oil, flour, a bar of soap and a pair of shoes so a child can stay in school. These women are more than the backbones of their families: they grow most of Africa's food. Unlike giant grain corporations, these women farm without fossil fuels and harmful chemicals. Their sustainable agriculture practices are critical to meeting the twin challenges of feeding people and protecting the planet. Khalida and millions of other small-scale women farmers are the people we want to support with our food aid programs. Instead, the policy undermines the livelihoods of those who hold the key to long-term food security in Africa. Fortunately, there is a straightforward solution: the U.S. should buy food aid crops directly from local farmers in Africa. When the U.N. World Food Program did this, they were able to obtain 75 percent more corn to feed hungry families than when they purchased grain from factory farms in the U.S. Buying specifically from women farmers has an enormous added benefit. Studies consistently show that when poor women gain access to money, they use it to provide food, healthcare and education for their children. Now is the perfect time to push for this innovative solution and Sudan is the best place to start. Here are three reasons why:

It was not long ago that some senior American policy makers, while making tall declarations about economic aid to Africa, suggested that the poor farmers in this part of the world must use the GM technology for increased production! They further wanted them to procure the required inputs from that country, little realizing the logistical and practical difficulties inherent in such proposals. The bottom line is that more benefits must flow to the donor through such aid programs while they are least concerned about the benefits that can flow to the receiver! Similarly sending grains from the donor country brings about unintended negative consequences as detailed in the critical analysis cited above. The suggestion to transfer the aid money directly to the recipient country is an eminent one deserving consideration.

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

GREEN RUSH-WHAT IS THAT?

World is never short of nice sounding jargon which can attract large audiences. The latest in this jargon dictionary is "green rush" which refers to the emerging trend of seeking land in Africa for cultivation of food by many resource limited countries mostly for their own benefits. Though some refer to this trend as "land grab", it may not be as simple as that because investors spend money for reasonable returns and obviously not for charity. If these experiments, if you can call it so, helps the countries leasing out land by raising the land productivity and increasing food availability for the local population, there should not be any objection from the world community to such mutually beneficial deals.

"The move takes place against the backdrop of an international rush for African land. Large tracts of land are being snapped up by cash-rich but resource-poor countries, as well as by countries struggling with the burden of feeding their swelling populations. Whether it is land for food production, or as some reports suggest, for bio-fuels, alarms bells have begun to ring about whether this investment in African land is a threat or a gain for the continent".

It is interesting to see India also included in the grabber's list along with countries like China, Korea, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc and the Indian interest is mainly on account of the perennial shortage of edible oils and pulses that are considered essential, being experienced during the last 3 decades. International bodies must evolve some guidelines for such cross border land leasing to prevent local population from exploitation.

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