Are Indians really eating too much?

[Sreekar]

Are Indians really eating too much?
By Jayanthi Natarajan

(source:Deccan Chronicle on the Web)


US President George W. Bush has remarked that the desire among the burgeoning middle class in India for better nutrition is one of the factors that is driving world food prices upwards. The irony behind this controversial comment is that the leading nuclear hero of the free world is now more worried about the price of rice, meat and wheat. President Bush blames India and China for everything wrong with his economy — rising food prices, skyrocketing oil prices and also climate change. India has certainly come a long way.

Some analysts say that what President Bush said was not wrong and, if read in context, he was actually giving India a backhanded compliment. However, even if that is true, Mr Bush phrased his comments in a singularly offensive way. If what he said could be even remotely considered complimentary, we can certainly live without such compliments. Actually, some UN agencies have already said more or less the same thing, and the EU too followed suit. However, those remarks were not found offensive, because they did not betray the peevish unhappiness and lack of grace that characterised the formulation of President Bush’s statement.

Therefore, it is right for Indian politicians to react strongly. That the White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel, should, by way of explanation, further aggravate the situation by accusing India and China of pushing up oil prices only underlines America’s insensitivity. Perhaps President Bush’s advisers did not remind him that with a "huge population" and a "middle class the size of America," the Indian per capita consumption of grains is just 178 kg as opposed to America’s 1,046 kg. The Indian per capita milk consumption is 36 kg against the US figure of 78 kg and the Indian per capita poultry consumption is 1.9 kg, while that of the US is 45.5 kg. Maybe, his advisers did not mention that India is a net exporter of foodgrain.

More than the actual remark it is the mindset behind the remark which is objectionable. President Bush overlooks the dietary habits of Americans but blames India’s increasing consumption for rising food prices. The US President wonders why Indians should aspire for better nutrition when Americans have to pay more for their steak. Thus, it is okay for India to grow into a great market for Coca-Cola and McDonald’s, but aspiring for better nutrition is not good. Even by American standards, this is taking insularity to an extreme. At some level, however, this is of our own making. While the American perception of India remains largely negative and confined to tales of poverty and dowry deaths on the one hand and peacocks and elephants on the other set against the uneasy background of outsourcing BPO woes, the Indian perception of the US is still that of a welcoming land of opportunity.

To quote Pratap Bhanu Mehta this is "perhaps the first time since the 17th century, the West will face serious competition in both muscle and brain power." Also "it is supremely ironic, that the very proponents of an ardent globalisation in the US are now advocating for a greater democratic liberalisation of globalisation." What Mr Mehta’s comments bring home to me are the changing contours of the world economy, which have challenged the dominance of the world markets by the US. Clearly there is deep introspection in the US about the implications of these changes on the US economy. While such introspection is legitimate, the US should also be more sensitive towards the just and equitable concerns of developing countries.

President Bush should remember that people in the wealthier countries take food for granted. In the US, food forms 16 per cent of an average household budget, whereas, in Nigeria it eats up 73 per cent of a household budget.
In India it would be about 40 per cent and in China about 33 per cent. By 2050 the world population is set to become about nine billion, and we have to feed all these hungry mouths. Global food prices rose by 35 per cent last year and some say by 83 per cent over the past three years. In 1972 there was a somewhat similar situation due to failure of crops in India, China, and Russia. The shortfall of 70 million tones of foodgrain was largely due to drought. Today, barring Australia, the shortfall in foodgrain is not due to drought. It is due to the diversion of huge tracts of farm land for bio-fuel production. Then there is climate change caused by global warming and its cascading effects.

It is estimated that since April 2006, eight million hectares of land producing corn, wheat, soya and other food crops have been diverted for bio-fuel production in the US. This is because President Bush does not want to buy fuel "from some country which does not like us." Today, 18 per cent of US grains have been diverted to bio-fuel. In Europe, it has been mandated that 5.7 per cent of fuel used should be bio-fuel and this means that 20 per cent of European food will be converted to fuel. The International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington estimates that conversion of land for bio-fuel production accounts for a quarter to third increase in global commodity prices. If current trends continue bio-fuel conversion will result in food prices going up by 15 per cent. On the other hand, a five-year moratorium on bio-fuels will see a reduction in the price of maize by 20 per cent and wheat by 10 per cent.
With food prices surging the world over the need of the hour is to increase foodgrain productivity and stop diverting land for bio-fuel production. The argument that bio-fuel is the green alternative is also disingenuous because emissions from bio-fuel are only marginally lesser. The energy used to grow and process bio-fuel more than cancels its green credentials. Countries which are really serious about the green dividend should work on bio-fuels that do not compete with food crop and are based on cellulose derived from grass, crop residue and woody plants.

Ultimately, the global food crisis is a political issue and can only be overcome by a concerted worldwide effort. But in order to succeed this effort must be informed by equity and an awareness of the concerns of developing countries. The energy policy of some developed countries created this crisis and it is only fair that they should now make a greater contribution to solving the problem instead of pointing a finger at those who are impacted on by their excess.

Jayanthi Natarajan is a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha and AICC spokesperson

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[Sreekar]

Why bush is wrong in blaming Indians
By Dr Vandana Shiva


(source:Deccan Chronicle on the Web)


President George W. Bush has a new analysis on the global rise in food prices. At an interactive session on the economy, President Bush argued that prosperity in countries like India has triggered increased demand for better nutrition. "There are 350 million people in India who are classified as middle class. That is bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealthy, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. So demand is high and that causes the price to go up." While this fabricated story might work to divert the US political debate from the role of US agribusiness in the current food crisis (both through speculation and through diversion of food to bio-fuels) and might also present economic globalisation as having benefited Indians, the reality is that Indians are nutritionally worse off today than before globalisation. The poor are worse off because their food and livelihoods have been destroyed. The middle classes are worse off because they are eating worse, not better, as junk food and processed food is forced on India through globalisation. India is now the epicentre of the malnutrition of the poor who do not get enough and the malnutrition of the rich, whose diets are being degraded with Americanisation of food culture.

Indians eating less and worse

The myth that Bush is propagating is a "growth myth." While the Indian economy has grown, the majority of Indians have grown poorer because as a result of globalisation, they have lost their land and livelihoods. Most Indians are, in fact, eating less today than a decade ago. The per capita availability of food has declined from 177 kg per person per year in 1991 to 152 kg per person per year. The daily availability of food has declined from 485 gm to 419 gm per day.

Economic growth has gone hand in hand with growth in hunger. India is perceived as an economic superpower with almost nine per cent growth. However, because this growth is based on a large-scale takeover of land belonging to the tribals and peasants and destruction of the livelihoods of millions in agriculture, textiles and small-scale industries, poverty has grown.

Earlier, Indian farmers had seed security because 80 per cent of the seeds were their own, and 20 per cent came from the public sector seed farms. Globalisation has forced India to allow biotech giants like Monsanto into the seed market. And Monsanto’s growth comes at the cost of farmers’ lives. More than 2,00,000 have committed suicide as they were trapped in debt created by high-cost, non-renewable and unreliable seed.

Indian farmers also had market security. They grew the diverse crops. They grew rice and wheat for the national food security system which provided them a remunerative price and provided the poor affordable food through the public distribution system

Globalisation has destroyed the securities of both the producer and the poor by integrating the local and domestic food economy with the speculative global commodity trade controlled by agribusiness.

Force Feeding is not Free Trade
While Indians are eating less, India is definitely buying more soya and wheat as a result of forced imports. Imports have been forced on India by the US agribusiness, aided by the pressure of WTO rules and the US government.

This is not "demand" from India, this is "dumping" bad food on India. In 1998, India was forced to import soya even though we had adequate edible oils. With nearly $200 per tonne of subsidies these imports amounted to dumping. Millions of India’s coconut, mustard, sesame, linseed, groundnut farmers lost their market, their incomes and their livelihoods.

In 2005 India was forced to import wheat as part of the US-India agreement on agriculture. These are forced imports, designed to destroy domestic production to create markets for US agribusiness. This is force-feeding not free trade. The US wheat was declared unfit for eating but the US arm-twisted India to dilute health standards to import bad wheat.

Destruction of domestic production worldwide can only result in food scarcity and food insecurity and when food moves into the hands of global agribusiness who see profits through price fixing and speculation, a food emergency is inevitable.

The absolute decline in food production arises from three factors. First, the transformation of ecological biodiverse systems to chemical monocultures, which produce more commodities but less food and nutrition for the household and for local economies.

Second, the shift from food crops to cash crops for exports.

Third, the vulnerabilities created by climate change to which industrial farming and globalised food systems make a significant contribution. Food security requires a strengthening of local and domestic food economies, the defence of rural livelihoods and small farmers and the reigning in of the global grain giants and their price fixing. We need an anti-trust action against the agribusiness corporations which are at the heart of the current food crisis.

GM Food is problem, not solution
There is also an increasing reference to new seeds and genetically modified crops as a solution to the food crisis. However, GM crops are part of the food crisis. Bt. Cotton has destroyed food production in India and has pushed farmers to suicide.

Cotton used to be grown as an intercrop with food crops. Now it is a monoculture. And with high costs of production and low prices of produce, farmers are trapped in debt and hunger. In any case, GM seeds do not produce more food.
There are only two traits commercialised in 20 years — herbicide resistant crops, and Bt. toxin crops. Neither is a yield trait. In India we see high risks of crop failure with average yields of Bt. Cotton at 300-400 kg per acre. Not 1,500 kg per acre as advertised by Monsanto.

The present crisis is in part a consequence of transforming biodiverse systems to monocultures of globally traded commodities. With commodities getting transformed to feed and fuel, there is a shortage in food availability. Unless food sovereignty is put back in the equation, the crisis will continue to deepen.

Food Sovereignity is the answer
The current food emergency is a result of half a century of non-sustainable farming and one-and-a-half decades of trading unfairly in food. The United Nations has called an emergency meeting in early June to address the food emergency. Even the World Bank has called for an urgent response.

Will the response intensify non-sustainability and injustice, or will the global community use the crisis to strengthen sustainability, justice and fairness?

There are already signals that global agribusiness, which has created the crisis (both historically and currently), will use it to increase its stranglehold on the world food system. Lowering import duties has been one response of governments to deal with rising food prices. But lowering import duties encourages destruction of domestic markets and domestic production, thus aggravating the agrarian crisis. The crisis of rising food prices is a direct result of countries being forced by the World Bank, WTO and regional and bilateral agreements to import food from the US agribusiness.

The World Bank call to increase contributions to the World Food Programme by $500 million and President Bush’s call to Congress to add $770 million in food aid could become another subsidy to Cargill and ADM if the procurement is not based on creating fair markets for farmers at the local and regional levels.

The globalised system under corporate control is a guaranteed recipe for food disasters and food famines. We can either stop the damage through food democracy and rebuild food sovereignty by strengthening local economies or the corporate powers that have created the emergency will use it to deepen and expand their profits. While billions are condemned to starvation and death, they will use political leaders like President Bush to give a false spin on the causes of the food crisis.

Dr Vandana Shiva is the executive director of the Navdanya Trust.

-Thanks much,
Sreekar

[kushal]

that is a grim picture worth of importance.