Playing with public health

The government has recently announced a schedule to fast-track rice fortification in India. According to it the supply of fortified rice to ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services), mid-day meals, other nutrition and welfare schemes as well as to the vast public distribution system (PDS) is to be completed by 2024. The capacity to achieve this target is much higher in India than in many other countries because the government controls the vast network of PDS and nutrition schemes, together reaching out to around 800 million people.

This rapid roll-over of rice fortification is likely to be harmful in many ways. Rice fortification should not be seen in isolation, but together with programmes and proposals for fortification of several other essential foods like salt, milk, edible oils and wheat, apart from the fact that fortification is also used in several other widely sold packaged food products.

That health problems can arise from excess intake of some of the micro-nutrients like iron and vitamins is well established. There cannot be a better substitute for natural foods. The process of fortification involves processing in heavy machines which can lead to some undesirable residual products finding their way into food. In the case of fortified rice if the fortified kernels do not blend optimally with normal rice, the consumer can be left confused. Fortification will also lead to promoting only a few rice varieties, giving a better price for such varieties, or root for patented/ GM varieties that will hit small rice cultivators.

While the need is to encourage smaller, village-level processing of rice and all other foods, generating local livelihoods, rice fortification will encourage centralisation and control by big businesses. It will become difficult to establish even a cottage
industry in villages based on rice produced in the nearby fields as the rice grown there cannot be used without fortification.

With rice processing being passed on in the hands of bigger players, only a few rice millers at village level will survive that too after taking loans and adding new expensive machinery. Further, they will be at the mercy of those controlling fortification
technology.

Staple food becomes costlier once the processing passes into the hands of big businesses. The farmers’ agitation last year tried to highlight the increasing domination of big businesses and how it would adversely affect small farmers with consumer being the end sufferer.

Indigenous rice varieties are known to get better flavour with time. Older the rice, better the taste, but the shelf life of fortified rice kernels is hardly a year. Add to that the long storage periods in Food Corporation of India (FCI) warehouses and the transport to fair price shops. By the time the fortified rice from FCI godowns reach the consumers, the quality will take a beating.

Decentralised procurement, a significant part of the food procured in a village ending up in the same village fair price shops is the need. Mandatory food fortification will put paid to this.

Nutrition objectives can be achieved in better ways by simple and inexpensive methods. Official reviews say the need for fortification arises because present-day milling removes essential nutrients substantially. The obvious way is to move away from milling. However the biggest gains for nutrition will come from following the social agro-ecology approach in farming based on improving soil health and overall natural conditions. Soil nursed back to its health will retain the balance of micro- nutrients and the nutrition of plants grown in this soil will also improve.

Reducing inequalities and promoting creative, sustainable, ecologically protective livelihoods of people remain the best means of eliminating hunger, malnutrition and poverty, in addition to well implemented nutrition programmes in both villages and cities. Rice fortification serves as an anti-thesis.