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