FOod

Agro, Marine & Other Food Products and Beverages Companies
Bakery & Confectionery Products 122

Cattle Feed, Poultry Feed and Animal Feed Supplements 30
Child Care & Nursery Products 39
Dry Fruits & Nuts 188
Dyes & Color Additives 227
Edible Oil & Allied Products 202
Fertilizers 110
Flavours & Aromatics 38
Flowers, Floriculture & Dried Flowers 47
Food Processing Plants, Machinery & Equipment 150
Fresh, Dried, Preserved & Dehydrated Fruits and
154
Vegetables
Guar, Guar Gum and Guar Gum Powder 8
Herbal Food & Beverages 2
Liquors, Mineral Water & Beverages 66
Marine Food Supplies 60
Meat & Poultry Food 40
Menthol, Essential Oil and Aromatic Oil 115
Merchant Traders 9
Milk & Dairy Products 123
Other Miscellaneous Agro Products 434
Pet-Use Products, Feeds, Pet Furniture & Allied Products 19
Pickles, Chutneys, Ketchups & Sauces 26
Processed Food & Snacks 58
Rice, Wheat, Pulses & Other Food Grains 298
Seeds, Buds, Plantation & Related Products 212
Spices & Derivatives 303
Tea & Coffee 70
Tobacco & Tobacco Products 46
Industry Overview
The Indian Agriculture Industry is on the brink of a revolution that will modernize the entire food chain, as the total
food production in India is likely to double in the next ten years.
As per recent studies the turnover of the total food market is approximately Rs.250000 crores (US $ 69.4 billion) out of
which value-added food products comprise Rs.80000 crores (US $ 22.2 billion). The Government of India has also
approved proposals for joint ventures, foreign collaborations, industrial licenses and 100% export oriented units
envisaging an investment of Rs.19100 crores (US $ 4.80 billion) out of which foreign investment is over Rs. 9100
crores (US $ 18.2 Billion). The agricultural food industry also assumes significance owing to India's sizable agrarian
economy, which accounts for over 35% of GDP and employs around 65 per cent of the population. Both in terms of
foreign investment and number of joint- ventures / foreign collaborations, the consumer food segment has the top
priority. The other attractive features of the indian agro industry that have the capacity to lure foreigners with promising
benefits are the deep sea fishing, aqua culture, milk and milk products, meat and poultry segments.
Excellent export prospects, competitive pricing of agricultural products and standards that are internationally
comparable has created trade opportunities in the agro industry. This further has enabled the Indian Agriculture Industry
Portal to serve as a means by which every exporter and importer of India and abroad, can fulfill their requirements and
avail the benefits of agro related buy sell trade leads and other business opportunities.
This Indian agro industry revolution brings along the opportunities of profitable investment and agriculture-industry-
india.com provides you the B2B platform with agro related catalogs, trade leads, exporters & importers directory etc.
that help you make your way to profit easy.
To lead yourself to the destination of profit through the Indian Agriculture Industry, know maximum about the EXIM
policy, programs & schemes, price policy, seed policy and statistics at the Indian agro portal and harvest benefits from
India, world's second largest producer of food and a country with a billion people. From canned, dairy, processed,
frozen food to fisheries, meat, poultry, food grains, alcoholic beverages & soft drinks, the Indian agro industry has
dainty areas to choose for business.
Import and Export of Agriculture
Commodities vis-a-vis Total National
Imports and Exports during 1990-91 to
2000-01
Value (Rupees in crores)
Commodity April 90 - March 91 April 91 - March 92 April 92 - March 93
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pulses 791.95 473.24 312.61 255.27 382.62 334.37
Wheat 65.95 24.19 Neg. 1363.70 710.06
Rice 66.06 39.19 12.12 10.94 102.38 73.32
Other Cereals 1.59 0.28 1.35 0.22 1.18 0.19
Cereal Preparation 118.75 86.99 174.30 162.26 145.87 182.19
Milk & Cream 0.98 3.38 2.13 8.01 9.43 44.79
Cashew Nuts 81.72 132.37 106.08 266.68 134.99 376.33
Fruits & Nuts Excluding Cashew Nuts - 107.67 - 100.05 - 188.92
Spices # # # # # #
Sugar 12.10 9.44 2.59 0.83 1.34 0.43
Oil Seeds - 6.42 @ - 9.65 @@ - 10.64
Vegetable Oils Fixed (Edible) 484.58 322.22 226.05 247.79 102.77 166.88
Vegetable & Animal fats 0.31 0.47 0.40 1.02 0.47 1.53
Cotton (Raw & Waste) # # # # 138.13 216.49
Jute (Raw) # # # # # #
Tea # # # # # #
Wood & Wood Products # # - 415.55 - 570.11
Total Agricultural Imports 1205.86 1478.27 2876.25
Total National Imports 43170.82 47850.84 63374.52
% Share of Agricultural Import in 2.79 3.09 4.54
National Imports
(Continued)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pulses 628.16 567.01 554.27 592.73 490.75 685.57
Wheat 241.70 125.65 0.54 0.38 8.24 10.39
Rice 75.52 55.26 6.99 8.55 0.08 0.05
Other Cereals 0.53 0.11 0.99 0.34 1.04 0.24
Milk & Cream 2.55 16.53 0.95 5.72 5.09 37.01
Cashew Nuts 191.32 482.70 228.18 691.29 222.82 760.08
Spices 25.68 75.72 20.27 54.97 24.28 74.12
Sugar 0.35 0.45 13933.95 2283.12 150.63 215.89
Oil Seeds - 6.98 - 5.35 - 36.17
Cotton (Raw & Waste) 3.82 18.39 80.80 506.90 69.62 521.23
Jute (Raw) 37.97 32.57 67.93 61.71 54.50 47.90
Tea - - # # - -
Wood & Wood Products - 449.95 - 703.29 - 835.94
National Imports
(Continued)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pulses 654.91 890.34 1008.16 1194.64 563.60 708.81
Wheat 612.68 403.76 1485.78 988.98 1803.70 1164.78
Rice Neg. 0.02 0.05 0.06 6.65 5.40
Other Cereals 1.96 0.50 1.12 0.34 2.02 1.07
Milk & Cream 0.42 2.60 0.78 5.36 1.89 12.31
Cashew Nuts 212.86 687.57 246.20 767.19 243.35 968.76
Spices 29.00 97.14 34.08 134.92 61.12 298.58
Sugar 2.13 3.18 346.91 470.25 900.47 1111.22
Oil Seeds - 4.70 - 2.47 - 8.52
Cotton (Raw & Waste) 2.92 31.56 9.97 80.65 57.40 381.11
Jute (Raw) 48.08 75.76 45.54 50.54 99.46 86.38
Tea - - - -
National Imports
(Continued)
Commodity April 99 - March 2000 April 2000-March2001 (P) April 2001-Oct. 2001 (P)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Pulses 250.77 354.69 348.47 493.79 1165.04 1685.37
Wheat 1365.97 774.35 4.22 2.87 1.35 0.84
Rice 34.99 29.95 13.20 17.79 0.06 0.06
Other Cereals 205.20 114.07 30.38 15.61 3.85 2.00
Milk & Cream 18.89 107.31 1.37 7.66 0.70 5.14
Cashew Nuts 256.00 1198.26 249.09 962.14 7.88 18.88
Spices 65.08 294.10 50.75 249.60 36.90 232.27
Sugar 1181.18 1110.80 30.61 31.36 26.53 32.43
Oil Seeds - 15.42 - 7.89 - 0.98
Cotton (Raw & Waste) 237.40 1253.93 212.07 1183.15 236.72 1329.49
Jute (Raw) 137.40 139.31 73.37 82.57 33.56 38.90
Tea 5.06 25.61 6.40 41.49 6.22 35.98
# : Commodity not reported

@ : Other Oilseeds.
@@ : Oilseeds
P : Provisional Source:- Director General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics,Ministry of Commerce,Kolkata.
Interaction between nutrition and agriculture in
India
S.G. Srikantia. National Institute of Nutrition Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore. India
Abstract
Production of food grains
Upgrading nutrient quality
Meeting nutritional needs
References
Abstract
Nutrition is an important environmental factor that influences health,

and adequate food intake is a prerequisite for good nutrition.
Agricultural production is of crucial importance in ensuring that food
needs are met. Countries with a high rate of population growth need to
develop suitable agricultural strategies to increase food production. In
addition to this quantitative aspect, there has to be concern for the
qualitative dimension of food production. The mixed bag of produce
should be able to satisfy "recommended allowances" of all nutrients
needed for optimal nutrition.
Food production in India has increased substantially over the years. All
food grains have, however, not increased uniformly. Production of
cereals and millets has increased substantially but not that of pulses
and oilseeds. In a country where the inclusion of pulses is important in
increasing dietary protein content and for improving protein quality,
this is a disturbing trend. At current levels of production, the
recommendation of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMP)
(1968) that a balanced diet should contain 70 grams of pulse, cannot
be met. The revised balanced diet (1980) contains only 50 grams and
this level can barely be met. Unless special efforts are made to
increase pulse production, there is a real risk that recommended
dietary allowances of pulses cannot be met.
Another qualitative aspect of food production has been India's efforts
to identify, evolve, and propagate food-grain varieties with more-than-
average nutrient content. Protein and lysine have received special
attention. High protein/high lysine lines of cereals and millets have
been identified, but have often been found not to breed true, for
reasons not fully understood. Improving protein content and quality of
staples was conceived as a method of improving the quality of diets, at
a time when habitual Indian diets were considered to be protein-
deficient. This concept has changed and the primary bottleneck is now
believed to be energy. Cereal-pulse based diets have been found to be
capable of meeting protein needs, when consumed in amounts that
satisfy energy needs. The relevance of efforts to improve protein
quality, therefore, needs re-evaluation.
At the national level, food production appears to be adequate to meet
demands, provided there is equitable distribution. In actual practice
many households do not get enough food because of poor purchasing
power Among families whose daily per capita income is below Rs 3/-,
over one half consumes an energy-deficient diet. A proportion of such
households do not get enough protein either - a finding that explains
the widespread childhood energy-protein ma/nutrition. The impressive
buffer stocks of food grains held in recent years is a reflection of this
low consumption. They would disappear should the purchasing
capacity improve. Current levels of production under such
circumstances would not be enough to build reserves.
Due to increased agricultural production, food-grain import has,
normally, all but stopped. What has been achieved in the Indian
agricultural situation has been the prevention of serious famines,
which occurred in earlier years. But it does not appear to have made
much impact on the widespread chronic malnutrition. To be able to
reduce chronic malnutrition, increase in food production has to be of a
magnitude larger than that seen at present. This alone will not suffice.
Food grains have to be within the price range of the great majority.
Also, national nutrition policy and national agricultural policy will have
to be more compatible.
Nutrition is an important environmental factor that influences health

and well-being. Consumption of diets adequate both in quantity and
quality is a prerequisite for the maintenance of good nutritional status.
Agricultural production that determines food availability is, therefore,
an important determinant of food consumption, though not a critical
one if food imports can be assured. Self-sufficiency in food production
is of particular importance for developing countries, not only because
they tend to have high rates of population growth, but also because
such countries have malnutrition as a public health problem. The
quantitative aspects of food production are undoubtedly of primary
concern, but it cannot be forgotten that the qualitative aspects are
extremely important, if optimal nutrition is to be provided. The
interphase between agriculture and nutrition, therefore, acquires
considerable practical importance. Some aspects of this interphase as
they relate to India are briefly presented here.
Production of food grains

Food-grain production in India has risen considerably over the last
three decades. The increase has indeed been spectacular - from
around 50 million tons in 1951 to over 130 million tons in 1980
representing as it does a 2.5-fold rise. The true significance of this
becomes apparent when it is viewed in terms of per capita availability
at the national level. This has jumped from about 350 grams a day to
around 470 grams, after allowances are made for food losses and
reservation of seeds (table 1). The increase in production in the earlier
part of the period was of a magnitude greater than the increase in
population, and has subsequently kept pace with the population rise.
The increased production has been achieved largely through an
increase in the yield of grain per hectare, rather than from an
increased cultivated area. The increase in production has been the
result of widespread cultivation of new high-yielding varieties coupled
with a package of agricultural inputs that permit the genetic expression
of their high yield potential. As a result, from cereals, millets, and
pulses alone (excluding oilseeds, sugar, roots, and tubers) dietary
energy availability has gone up from 1,180 calories per capita daily, to
1,650 calories.
TABLE 1. Per Capita Food-grain Availabilitya in India: 1951-1980
Year Total Net availability Per capita
production (million tons) availability
(million tons) (g/day)
1951 50.8 44.4 337
1956 66.9 58.5 392
1961 82.0 72.3 430
1966 72.3 63.3 351
1971 108.4 94.9 473
1975 100.0 87.5 420
1978 126.4 110.0 475
1979 131.4 115.0 482
1980 132.0 115.5 470
a. Excluding oilseeds, sugar, roots, tubers, milk, and milk products

Sources: Bulletin of Food Statistics 1975, 1979; Agricultural Situation in India, 1980
The increase in the production of different types of food grains has, however, not been
uniform. While that of wheat has registered a sixfold increase from 6.4 million tons in
1951 to over 35 million tons in 1980, those of rice and millets have been less marked
(table 2). This is particularly so since 1961, the increase in rice production between then
and 1979 being around 60 per cent and that of millets only 30 per cent. Although the
nutrient composition of rice, wheat, and millets does differ in several respects, and
though the digestibilities of these staples are different, it is unlikely that this would have
demonstrable nutritional significance. What, however, is of considerable nutritional
importance is the failure of pulse production to increase between 1961 and the present.
Following a 50 per cent increase between 1951 and 1961, there has been virtually no
change over the last two decades. As a consequence, the per capita availability of pulses
which stood at 70 grams per day in 1961, has now dropped sharply to about 45 grams
(table 3). With an increase in cereal-millet availability, the pulse-cereal ratio has shown a
marked distortion, falling from about 20 per cent to half that figure at present (table 4).
TABLE 2. Production of Rice, Wheat, and Millets in India: 1951-1979 (million tons)
1951 1961 1971 1976 1979
Rice 20.6 34.6 42.2 48.7 53.8
Wheat 6.4 11.0 23.8 28.9 35.0
a
Millets 12.9 20.7 27.8 26.2 27.1
a. Bajra, barley, jowar, maize, ragi, and small millets.

Source: Agricultural Situation in India, 1980.
TABLE 3. Per Capita Availability of pulses in India: 1951-1980

Year Total Net availability Per capita
production (million tons) availability
(million tons) (g/day)
1951 8.4 7.3 55
1956 11.0 9.7 69
1961 12.7 11.1 70
1971 11.8 10.3 51
1976 13.1 11.5 51
1980 12.2 10.8 43
a. pulses are important sources of protein, lysine, riboflavin, and trace metals in the Indian diet
Source: Agricultural Situation in India 1980.
TABLE 4. Per Capita Availability of Cereals and pulses Ratio 1951-1980

Cereals and Pulses g/day Total g/day Pulses as ratio
millets: g/day of total
1951 282 55 337 19.5
1961 360 70 430 17.5
1971 422 51 473 19.5
1976 403 51 454 12.5
1980 427 43 470 10.7
The habitual Indian diet is predominantly vegetable-based, and foods of animal origin do
not usually find a place because of their high cost. The inclusion of pulses in cereal-
millet-based diets is critical not only in increasing the protein content, but also in
improving the nutritional quality of the protein. pulses are also rich sources of several
trace metals, whose essentiality to human beings is no longer in doubt. The present
situation has, therefore, to be viewed with considerable concern. The balanced diet
recommended by the Indian Council of Medical Research in 1968 contained 70 grams of
pulses for an adult subject (Gopalan and Narasinga Rao 1968). A 25 per cent higher
production level is needed to support availability at the individual level since allowances
have to be made for losses. wastage, and seed purposes. At no time during the last three
decades could the production level permit the inclusion of 70 grams of pulses daily. This
figure was perhaps unnecessarily high, and, using linear programming, the least-cost
balanced diet recommended recently (ICMR 1981) provides for only 40 grams of pulses
per day. To be able to achieve this, the production level has to be over 50 grams a day - a
figure that just about matches current production (table 5). This is indeed a disturbing
situation, and proper corrective measures have to be introduced urgently if the situation is
not to become worse. The danger is real, in the face of the very low per capita availability
of foods of animal origin, including milk and its products.
TABLE 5. Per Capita Production Levela of Calories and Pulses: g/day
1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1980
Cereals 395 470 504 411 570 534 560
Pulses 63 76 78 45 60 57 49
Upgrading nutrient quality
A qualitative dimension to food production was built into Indian

agriculture when attempts were begun years ago, to improve the
nutritive value of cereals and millets through genetic engineering,
made possible by the discovery of genes that control the
concentrations of nutrients. Malnutrition is a major public health
problem in India, particularly among pre-school children, and the major
reason for this is the consumption of diets that do not provide
adequate amounts of several nutrients. Among deficiency diseases,
protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) is the most widespread, and based
upon the belief then that the diets of children in whom PEM was
prevalent, were deficient in protein - both in terms of quantity and
quality - emphasis was laid on developing varieties of food grains that
had higher-than-average protein content and a higher amount of
lysine-the limiting amino acid in cereals. It was the discovery of high
levels of lysine and tryptophan in the opaque 2 mutant maize, which
initiated a search for similar characteristics in other foods, and
subsequently varieties of cereals and millets with high protein and high
lysine have been identified. When grown under apparently similar
agronomic conditions in different parts of the country, they appear not
to breed true. For example, when the same five varieties of sorghum
were grown in two different locations - Dharwar and Indore - under the
Co-ordinated Sorghum Project, those grown in Dharwar had lower
amounts of protein than those grown in Indore. The extent of
difference was not uniform. values were lower by 21 to 86 per cent,
depending upon the variety (table 6). Values for lysine were lower in all
varieties grown in Indore, a finding to be expected considering the
known inverse relationship between protein and lysine concentrations .
But the differences in lysine between the two locations could not all be
accounted for by differences in protein alone, The concentration of
leucine in the protein also showed changes from marginal to
considerable.
TABLE 6. Nutrient Content of Five Sorghum Varieties Grown in Two
Locations
Variety Protein g/100 g Lysine Leucine
g/16 g
Da Ia D I D I
CSV-1 7.7 9.8 2.6 1.9 11.7 9.7
CSV-2 7.0 10.7 2.3 1.6 11.5 12.4
CSV-6 7.7 13.1 2.1 - 11.0 13.9
SPV-8 7.6 12.6 2.2 1.5 11.1 12.3
SPV-40 6.0 11.2 2.5 1.9 13.1 13.0
a. D= Dharwar; I = Indore.
Source: National Institute of Nutrition 1977.
This was also true of the nutrient content of red gram. Three varieties of red gram grown
in four different locations showed that the protein content could vary by over 20 per cent
without corresponding changes in either leucine or methionine, but with substantial
differences in their riboflavin content. Another variety of red gram, C 11, grown in five
locations, showed again that protein content could vary by over 28 per cent, the
concentration of methionine by 55 per cent, and that of tryptophan by 100 per cent.
Differences in the amino acid content seemed not to be related to differences in protein
content (table 8).
TABLE 7. Nutrient Composition of Three Red Gram Varietiesa
Grown in Four Different Locations
Location Protein g/100 g Lysine Leucine Methionine Nicotinic acid Riboflavin
g/16g N mg/100 g
Aurangabad 23.7 6.86 6.18 1 15 2.54 0.18
Delhi 21.7 6.88 6.27 1.34 2.55 0.20
Jabalpur 18.7 7.64 6.74 1.37 0.27 0.17
Hyderabad 21.5 6.65 7.05 1.21 2.47 0.15
a. Pusa-Ageti, Mukta-R 60 and AS-3, grown under similar agronomic
conditions.
TABLE 8. Nutrient Composition of Red Gram Variety C-11,
Grown in Five Locations
Location Protein Tryptophan Methionine
g/100 g 8/16 g N
Nagpur 25.2 0.8 0.9
Akola 25.1 0.4 -
Coimbatore 24.0 0.8 1.0
Aurangabad 22.8 0.5 -
Jabalpur 18.1 0.5 1.4
Such locational differences do not seem to be limited to nutrient composition. They seem
to apply also to the concentration of the unusual amino acid ß-oxalyl aspartic acid,
present in Lathyrus sativus and believed to be the toxin responsible for neurolathyrism
(table 9). They also seem to apply to the potential for supporting the in vitro production
of the fungal toxin, aflatoxin (table 10).
TABLE 9. Toxin Content (ß-Oxalyl Aspartic Acid in Varieties of Lathyrus sativus Grown
in Different Locations
Variety Range of toxin in nine locations
mg/100 g Fold variation
LSD-1 104-393 3.8
LSD-2 155-600 3.8
LSD-4 166-476 2.9
LSD-5 104-642 6.2
LSD-6 93-590 6.4
P-24 207-559 2.2
TABLE 10. Locational Differences in Aflatoxin Production Potential of Maize Varieties

Variety Location Aflatoxin production
potential (ppm)
Shakti Andhra Pradesh 510
IARI, Delhi 403
DHM-10 Andhra Pradesh 455
IARI, Delhi 208
B-19 Andhra Pradesh 406
IARI, Delhi 162
B-23 Andhra Pradesh 480
IARI, Delhi 63
Ganga-5 Andhra Pradesh 495
Rajasthan 112
These findings suggest that it would not be easy to predict with any degree of confidence
the nutrient composition of a variety of food grain that has a high protein potential. Apart
from this practical consideration, improving protein content and protein quality was
conceived as a method of improving the quality of the diet at a time when it was believed
that protein was the limiting nutrient in Indian diets. This concept has now changed and
the primary limiting nutrient is believed to be energy. Cereal-pulse-based diets of the type
commonly eaten have a protein-energy ratio which is capable of meeting protein
requirements, when consumed in amounts that satisfy energy requirements. It must be
stressed that this is not to imply that there is no inadequacy of dietary protein. A fair
proportion of subjects do have low protein intakes, but this is almost exclusively because
total food intake is so low that both protein and energy become limiting (table 11). The
relevance of efforts to improve protein quality by genetic manipulation, as a priority
measure, therefore, needs re-examination, at least in the Indian context. Whether
upgrading the lysine content is relevant may also be questioned, since in cereal-pulse-
based diets, the first limiting amino acid is not lysine, but the sulphur-containing amino
acids.
TABLE 11. Adequacy of Protein and Calorie Intake among Families in 1977
Category Percentage of families in:
Karnataka Maharashtra West Bengal Uttar Pradesh
Protein adequate - 69.2 57.8 59.0 60.9
calorie adequate
Protein inadequate - 17.4 14.8 25.9 6.8
calorie inadequate
Protein adequate - 11.6 27.4 14.1 32.3
calorie inadequate
Protein inadequate - 1.8 0.1 1.0 0.1
calorie adequate
Source: National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau 1978
Turning to the availability of agricultural produces other than cereals and pulses,
particularly edible oils and sugar, the situation is not an encouraging one. The per capita
availability of both has gone up: that of edible oils and fats from 7.7 grams per day in
1951 to 13 in 1979, and that of sugar from 8.2 grams per day to 19.8 (table 12). Though
higher now than three decades ago, these are still considerably lower than what the least-
cost balanced diet recommends, which is 30 grams per capita per day (tables 13 and 14).
These low availabilities are not without nutritional implications, particularly in the
feeding of young children. The caloric density of cereal-pulse based diets is low - often
around 1 to 1.2 calories per gram of cooked food, and a three-year-old child will have to
consume over one kilogram of food to meet its energy needs. Bulk has, in fact, been
known to be one of the constraints in satisfying the nutrient requirements of such
children, unless the frequency of feeding is increased. A practical and easy way of
increasing calorie density is to include fats and sugar - except that these two commodities
are today not only in short supply, but also expensive. The recommended per capita
intake of each of these food items is 30 grams per day and the effort needed to produce
these quantities would be truly enormous.
TABLE 12. Per Capita Availability of Edible Oils and Sugar in India, 1951-1979
Edible oils and vanaspati Sugar
kg/year g/day kg/year g/day
1951 2.7 7.7 3.0 8.2
1956 3.2 8.8 5.0 13.7
1961 4.0 10.9 4.7 12.9
1966 3.5 9.6 5.7 15 9
1971 4.5 12.3 7.3 20.0
1976 4.3 11.8 6.2 17.0
1979 4.8 13.1 7.2 19.8
Source: Statistical Outline of India 1980.
TABLE 13. Per Capita Requirement of Food (g/day) at the National Level on the Basis of
Least-cost Balanced Diets
Food Physiological Retail level Production
level level
Cereals 386 436 490
Pulses 43 47 53
Leafy vegetables 58 64 72
Other vegetables 45 49 55
Roots, tubers 40 44 50
Milk 200 220 248
Fats, oils 31 34 38
Sugar, jaggery 31 34 38
Source: Recommended Dietary Allowances ICMR 1981.
TABLE 14. Calculation of National Food Requirements

Per capita production
= Per capita recommended dietary allowance at physiological level
x 1.1 (10 per cent kitchen and other waste)
x 1.125 (for seeds and losses)
Provided that:
Distribution is according to requirements;
There are no constraints on purchasing power.
Meeting nutritional needs
At the national level, food production appears to be sufficient to meet

the country's needs (table 13). In actual practice, however, food
consumption does not follow normal distribution but is skewed. A large
number of families with a daily income of Rs 2 or less consume diets
that do not provide enough energy, and of these, a proportion do not
get enough proteins - a finding that explains the widespread PEM
among young children. The primary reason for such inequitable
distribution is lack of purchasing power. The impressive stocks of food
grains, amounting to about 18 million tons, held in recent years, is, in
fact, a reflection of this low buying power and consumption. Stocks
would have been far less impressive if people could have afforded to
buy what they needed. Wages and incomes have gone up over the
years but they do not seem to have kept pace with the rising costs of
even essential food commodities. Data collected by the National
Nutrition Monitoring Bureau show that food consumption has not
changed significantly over the last few years.
Due to increased agricultural production in the country, food-grain
imports have progressively come down and, during recent years, have
all but stopped. The agricultural situation has also been able to prevent
the serious widespread famines that used to occur in earlier years.
Both are no mean achievements. But increased production seems to
have made little impact on the widespread chronic malnutrition in the
country, with all its health and developmental implications. The mean
birth weight of infants born to mothers belonging to poor rural groups,
which was 2.7 kg in 1951, has remained so even today. The
proportional mortality rate whereby one-third of all deaths in the
country in 1951 occurred among children below the age of five years,
continues to be as high even today. Severe forms of protein-energy
malnutrition such as kwashiorkor and marasmus were seen in 3 to 5
per cent of children of pre-school age three decades ago. Prevalence
rates are not different now (table 15). Limited data available on mean
body weight and height of adults show little improvement. There are,
therefore, no indications that malnutrition has been contained in any
way, despite improved food production.
TABLE 15, Nutritional Status of Pre-school Children
State Percentage of children
Normal Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Clinical
Karnataka 9.7 41.6 42.6 6.1 6.6
Maharashtra 7.5 38.2 43.9 10.4 1.5
West Bengal 7.2 40.1 45.1 7.6 4.0
Uttar Pradesh 16.8 40.0 34.2 9.0 1.8
Source: National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau 1977.
Should it be possible to achieve a more equitable consumption of food in the coming

years, the level of production, which apparently looks adequate at present, would cease to
be so, for two main reasons. Buffer stocks can no longer be maintained at satisfactory
levels. Also, children who from birth get enough food, would be able to fully express
their genetic potential for growth and become bigger toddlers, bigger adolescents, and
bigger adults, with clearly bigger food needs. The level of production would have to
increase at a rate faster than that which the country has been able to achieve in the
immediate past.
Increased agricultural production is a key factor in ensuring adequate food supplies. The
agricultural policy of a country will have to take care of the relevant aspects of its
nutrition policy, if the food needs of the population have to be met. Imbalances in
production of different commodities have to be corrected and more importantly food has
to be made available at a cost that the great majority can afford. Until such time,
adequacy of agricultural production will be more apparent than real. It must not be
forgotten that factors outside agriculture also have a role in influencing nutrition.
U.S. about to become net food importer
A little over a year ago The Wall Street Journal (31 Jan 2005) reported
that the U.S. would become a net food importer on a more or less
permanent basis by the end of 2005. To me, this is an immense
challenge to our food security, but also marks a great opportunity for
the U.S. to rebuild its food markets. I'm interested in how others see it.
Trade data for December have not been released yet. When they are,
we'll know if the Journal's prediction is true. Still, one look at USDA
Economic Research Service (ERS) numbers shows the trend is upon us.
The U.S. enjoyed an agricultural trade balance of $12 billion four years
ago. By November 2005, we barely had a surplus, after a slide of $5
billion in one year. It seems to be a matter of when, not if.
I like to eat great cheeses and wines from France and Italy, and I enjoy
tropical fruits in the middle of winter. When the U.S. was a dominant
food supplier, this seemed rather like the natural order of things. But
now U.S. imports of meat and grains -- to name two commodities that
used to be our strength -- are rising. America now imports two dollars
of feed grains for every three dollars of exports, and imports $2.5
billion more red meats than it exports, ERS data show.
I work with farmers and others striving to build local food markets
across the country. In my travels, I have picked up a few glimpses of
what changes are afoot:
• In the Central Coast of California (south of the Bay Area), as NPR

reported a year ago, it is cheaper to buy an artichoke grown in
South America than to buy one from one of the massive local
farms near Watsonville that specialize in this crop.
• The state of California, long viewed as the source of food for
much of the U.S., now imports a net of $5 billion of food per year.
New competitors in China, Japan, and elsewhere in Asia are
emerging as cheaper producers of staples like raspberries.
• The average food item sold in the Midwestern heartland travels
1,500 miles from producer to consumer, as the Leopold Center
for Sustainable Agriculture reports.
• Farmers in Minnesota have lost $1 billion each year over the past
seven years producing crops and livestock, according to Bureau
of Economic Analysis data.
If America becomes a net food importer, we'll face greater costs. We'll
spend more for the energy needed to bring food to our tables. Already
we spend about $139 billion each year paying for the energy required
to grow and distribute food. That's far more than cost of the first year
of the war in Iraq.
Moreover, Congress is about to write a new Farm Bill in 2007. Our
increasing dependence on food imports will force us to completely
rewrite our subsidy programs. For one thing, our farm policy assumes
that our government can effectively intervene in food markets. This will
not be the case when we are net food importers.
Further, the World Trade Organization has ruled our farm subsidies a
violation of global trade policies. The U.S. government is inclined to
ignore this ruling, but will have a tougher time doing so when we are
dependent on others for food.
I believe reducing these subsidies will be good for America. As it is,
government programs create a situation where farmers suffer big
losses. Subsidies end up taking more money out of rural communities
than they put back in. They have shaped America's economy so
farmers produce food commodities as raw materials for industry very
efficiently -- but where only one half of one percent of all foods raised
are sold directly by farmers to consumers. An Iowa State University
study shows that subsidies play a large role in raising land prices
higher than farmers can pay from growing food. Traders benefit far
more than farmers or rural communities. And in the post-Katrina era,
amidst an expensive war, it is not clear where the money will come
from.
I find myself hoping that this new emergence of food imports will serve
as a wake-up call to all of us who eat. I hope it will encourage us to
learn more about where our food comes from, to get acquainted with
more farmers, and to invest in more localized food processing and
distribution. The reward will be healthier urban and rural citizens, and,
assuming we reclaim our ability to feed ourselves, a stronger economy.
The Green Devolution
India's population is growing faster than
farm output, threatening one of its most
prized achievements.
Sept. 4, 2006 issue - The furnace Australia sailed into Chennai last
month carrying a load of wheat and, some warned, ill tidings. India's
first wheat imports in six years marked a reversal in the march toward
"food independence" that the country began in the 1970s. To M. S.
Swaminathan, one of the agronomists credited with sparking the so-
called Green Revolution, the return of grain imports should be seen as
"a wake-up call" for a country that has in recent years taken its ability
to feed its people for granted.
Though India's government officially dismissed the return of grain

imports as a passing event, Swaminathan and other experts saw it as
the latest sign of a long-term decline. The growth rate of grain
production has fallen from 1.5 percent before 1995 to 1 percent today,
due to a combination of bad management, unpredictable weather and
a growing water shortage. Meanwhile, the growth rate for all crops has
fallen to 1.25 percent a year, the lowest level since India gained
independence in 1947, says Ramesh Chand, acting director of India's
National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research. That's
too slow to keep pace with a population now growing, according to
United Nations estimates, at a rate of 1.5 percent a year. Chand says
the threat to India's food independence is manageable, if the
government makes the right moves.
These are sobering indicators for the Green Revolution, which was
originally inspired by grave threats to the food supply in India. After
back-to-back droughts put the country in danger of massive starvation
in 1966, a U.S. presidential-advisory commission called for an "effort
unprecedented in human history" to raise farm output around the
world. And so it did, as scientists produced new strains of rice and
wheat that boosted yields by a factor of five, with the help of heavy
irrigation and applications of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In
India, an initially well-executed campaign raised grain output from 82
million metric tons in 1960 to 176 million tons in 1990 and cut imports
to zero by 2000. That is, until the trend reversed last month.
Now production gains are slowing as the water supply dwindles,
overzealous use of fertilizer and pesticides taints the soil and excessive
irrigation waterlogs the land along canals in the showpiece states of
India's Green Revolution, like the Punjab and Haryana.
Because irrigated land is two and ahalf times more productive than
rain-fed land, many of the gains of the Green Revolution were
produced by an increase in the area under irrigation. But as India's
population and economy grow, water supplies are shrinking. Already,
the World Bankestimates, India meets most of its irrigation and
household demand by tapping groundwater—a practice that is "no
longer sustainable."
Similar threats haunt China and other developing nations that were big
beneficiaries of the Green Revolution. China has responded by relaxing
its commitment to being completely self-sufficient in the production of
food—encouraging farmers to grow more lucrative fruits and
vegetables, while importing wheat and soybeans. To free-trade
advocates, this approach makes sense—why obsess over "food
independence" in an increasingly global free market, if others grow
wheat more efficiently than you do? Focus on the goods, agricultural or
not, that you grow most efficiently.
Indeed, when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called in January

for a "second Green Revolution," his concern focused on raising farm
incomes, not securing the food supply. He called for a fresh emphasis
on fruits, vegetables and new plant varieties that would command
higher prices in export markets. He also encouraged measures to
harvest rainwater more efficiently, improve the soil and spread the
benefits of agricultural technology, including genetically modified
seeds.
But the basic position of the Singh government is that India normally
produces more grain than it consumes, and soon will again. As for the
recent return to imports, officials dismissed it as a procurement snafu:
this year, for the first time, India allowed private buyers, including
multinationals, to buy wheat directly from farmers. That helped push
up prices, and the government responded by refusing to match the
prices offered by private buyers. It wound up buying less wheat than
usual for the federal program that provides subsidized grain to 150
million poor Indians. When supplies fell short, the government had to
turn to imports—temporarily, officials insist.
Critics argue that Singh and his government are missing the big
picture. Farm-policy analyst Devinder Sharma complains that "the
people who govern this country believe technology is the answer to
every problem," and are pushing a second revolution without
examining why the first "has collapsed." Chand says the key going
forward is to target backward states like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh,
which have done little to modernize their farms, and thus have "huge
potential" to reverse the slowdown in output.
One reason for these problems is that over the past decade India, as
part of its effort to reduce the state role in the economy, has cut back
significantly on investment in farms. Public-sector investment fell from
just over 2 percent of agricultural output in 1991 to less than 1.5
percent in 2001. That slashed funds for upgrading Green Revolution
technologies and for the extension programs that teach farmers how to
make it all work.
By the late 1980s, when the early gains made in rice and wheat had
slowed, India attempted to extend its success to pulses (peas and
beans) and oilseeds. Though it did manage to produce high-yield
seeds, the program failed to supply enough of these seeds to farmers,
and poor oversight allowed corrupt traders to pass off ordinary seeds
as high-yield hybrids, says Delhi University agricultural economist Usha
Tuteja. With its vegetarian tradition India is the world's largest
consumer of protein-rich pulses, but now ranks near the bottom in the
production of these crops.
Swaminathan urges leaders to focus on what he calls an "evergreen

revolution." The goal would be to correct the damage wrought by the
first Green Revolution: adoptingnew methods like the use of natural
predators instead of chemicals to eliminate pests, and switching to
organic fertilizers and more efficient drip irrigation. He also says Singh
should promote crops that require less water, including native Indian
grains such as finger millet (ragi), pearl millet (bajra) and sorghum
(jowar).
All goods may be freely imported or exported save for two 'Negative
Lists'. The Negative List of Imports and Negative List of Exports place
restriction on imports or exports of certain goods on the ground of
public policy.
• Capital goods are freely importable without any restriction. Import of second-hand capital
goods, except for few specified sectors (which include food processing industry, seafood
and packaging/packaging material) require a license.
• Second-hand capital goods imported should not be more than 7 years old and should
have a minimum residual life of 5 years.
• As mentioned earlier, foreign exchange for import of goods would have to be obtained
from the market at market at market determined rates.
• Effective import duties currently range between 0 and 65 per cent.
• Lower duty rates are generally applicable to raw materials and intermediate goods in
comparison with finished products. General machinery and project imports currently
attract duty at the rate of 25%. The Government has announced its intention to
progressively reduce duty rates over the next few years.
• Imports of raw materials and intermediates required for export production do not attract
any import duties. Capital goods imported for export production are importable at
concessional duties ranging between 15% and 25% of CIF value. Units located in free
trade zones or 100% export-oriented units are exempted from all import duties. Certain
sales to domestic units where the buyers earn or save foreign exchange for the country
are termed as 'deemed exports' and such production/sales qualify for export- related
incentives.
List Prohibited/Restricted for Imports in Food Sector
The list of goods in this sector prohibited/restricted for import are as follows:
AB-PROHIBITED
• Tallow, fats and oils of animal origin

• Animal rennet
AB-RESTRICTED
• Concentrate of alcoholic beverages
• Wines
• Saffron, Cloves, Cinnamon and Cassia
• Seeds, Plants and animals
• Insecticides and Pesticides
• Flavouring essences
• Perfumery compounds/Synthetic essential oils.
AB-CANALISED (imports only through Government Agencies)
• Oils and seeds and all other material from which oil can be extracted.
• Fatty acids and acid oils
• Cereals
The Law For Food Facism: The
Proposed Food Safety &
Standards Bill, 2005
by Vandana Shiva February 21, 2005
Printer Friendly Version

EMail Article to a Friend
Food laws and Food Safety for India’s diverse and local food economy
The Government has drafted a Food Safety and Standards Bill 2005 as an “Integrated
Food Law” which has been prepared with the intention to be contemporary,
comprehensive, and ensure better consumer safety through food safety management
systems and settling standards based on science and transparency as also meeting
the dynamic requirements of international trade and Indian Food Trade and Industry.
Clearly, the law has been designed to lubricate international trade and the expansion
of the global agribusiness. Consumer health, nutrition, and food culture are not even
mentioned as objectives of the integrated food law.
PFA needs strengthening, not dismantling
The case in the Indian Supreme Court filed by the Centre for public interest litigation
shows how Coke and Pepsi are violating the Prevention of Food Adulteration Acts. We
need strengthening the PFA, not diluting it or dismantling it through a new Food Law
which floods India with toxics in foods and replaces our strict PFA and our natural
food systems with toxic processed food. That is why we must reject the integrated
food law which through Article 102 (overriding effect of this Act over all other food
related laws) states
The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained any other law for the time being in force or in
any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
In effect, the Food Safety Law 2005 is a dismantling of the PFA. It is in effect the
legalizing of adulteration of our entire food system with toxic chemicals and industrial
processing.
There is no reference in the objectives to most distinctive aspects of India’s food
systems – indigenous science, cultural diversity and economic livelihoods in local
food provisioning. Ninety nine per cent of India’s food is processed naturally and
locally for local consumption and sale. Our science of food is based on Ayurveda, not
the reductionist science which has treated unhealthy food as safe. This “free
economy” that serves local community is governed by community control, and local
culture, is now to be regulated by the centralized rules and standards appropriate for
a 1% industrialized large scale manufacture. The “integrated Food Law” is a law to
dismantle our diverse, decentralized food economy.
We need stronger food safety laws, especially in the context of toxics in food and the
introduction of GMOs in food crops. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act needs to
be strengthened, not substituted by the proposed law.
Industrial food systems produce food hazards and disease
The case of Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola selling soft drinks with phosphoric acid,
ethylene glycol, and huge amounts of sugar or High Fructose Corn Syrup shows that
industrial food producers need to be regulated with strict safety laws designed
through democratic participation. The report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee
following the disclosure of pesticides in soft drinks by the Centre for Science and
Environment, as well as recent studies published in a large number of medical
journals have clearly indicated that soft drink manufacturers have been using
significant quantities of very harmful and toxic chemicals in their drinks in order to
make them more attractive and addictive. They have been clearly pushing their sales
and profits at the cost of public health. The sustained attempt by the Coke-Pepsi
companies to refuse to disclose the contents and ingredients of their drinks, is clear
Coke-Pepsi are refusing to abide by the order of the Rajasthan High Court ordering
Coke-Pepsi to disclose the contents of their drinks (including pesticides) on Coke-
Pepsi labels, and instead resorting to endless review petitions and appeals. In fact the
requirement to disclose the ingredients of all packaged food items on their labels has
been there in the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules for a long time. The fact that
it has not been enforced again shows how Coke-Pepsi subvert and undermine our
national laws.
It is now known that most soft drinks contain an extremely toxic brew of chemicals
which are now known to be very harmful to human health. Apart from pesticides, the
chemicals which are deliberately added include large quantities of phosphoric Acid
(added to give them ‘bite’), caffeine (added to make them addictive), large quantities
of sugar (to make it extra sweet), ethylene glycol (an extremely toxic and freeze
compound added to allow them to be drunk ‘extra chilled’ at sub zero temperatures)
and Carbon Dioxide.
Food safety is a growing concern with the industrialisaiton and globalisation of food.
Food related diseases have spread.
As Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at City University, London reports, “incidence of
food borne disease has in fact risen during the era of the productionist Paradigm. In
West Germany cases of infections S.Enterites rose from 11 per 100,000 head of
population in 1963 to 193 per 100,000 in 1999, in England and Wales formal
notifications of the same disease rose from 14,253 cases in 1987 to 86,528 in 2000.”
Food hazards have increased with industrialization of food production and processing.
As Colin Tudge observes “the modern food supply chain is convoluted and so long
that it allows endless opportunities for malpractice of all kinds – including many that
beggar the imagination of those who are not criminally inclined. The supply chain is
impossible to police because it is so complex, and because policing is so expensive
(and nobody wants to pick up the bill – certainly not the governments who win votes
by keeping the price of food down). Sometimes though, it is not at all easy to draw a
line between outright villainy (like the adding of contaminants) from the standard,
legitimate practices of the modern food industry.
On a global scale, new diseases are emerging and more virulent forms of old diseases
are growing as globalisation spreads factory farming and industrial processing and
agriculture. Disease epidemics and food hazards are the outcome of food production
methods based on hazardous inputs and processes.
In the U.K., more than 2 million cattle were found to be infected with Bovine
Spongiform Encephelopathy (BSE) -- the mad cow disease. By August 2002, 133
people had died from variant Creutz feld-Jacob Disease (VCJD) - the human
equivalent of BSE .
New strains of Ecoli 0157 have led to 75 million cases of food poisoning annually in
the US, resulting in 325,000 hospitalisation and 5000 deaths.
The Swine fever in Asia led to killing of millions of pigs. A newly emerged Nipah Strain
killed 100 pig farm workers, infected 150 with non-fatal encephalitis and led to the
slaughter of a million pigs to control the disease .
The Avian flu has already led to human deaths and the killing of millions of ducks and
chicken. The first sightings of the H5N1 virus behind the Avian influenza came in
November. The epidemic has spread to 10 countries. The disease has jumped from
chickens to humans and killed eight people in Vietnam and Thailand. In 1997 the
H5N1 Strain killed six people in Hong Kong .
Food production technologies have undergone two generations of changes over the
last few decades. The first shift in food production technologies was the introduction
of chemicals in agriculture under the banner of the Green Revolution. Toxic chemicals
used in warfare were deployed in agriculture in times of peace as synthetic fertilizers
and pesticides. Agriculture and food production became dependent on "Weapons of
Mass Destruction". The Bhopal disaster in which a leak from a pesticide plant killed
thousands in 1984, and has killed nearly 30,000 since then is the most tragic
reminder of how agriculture has become dependent on war technologies designed to
kill.
Genetic Engineering will introduce new food hazards.
New traits of viral promoter, antibiotic resistance markers being introduced in GM
foods need public approval and strict monitoring for safety.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho in “Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare? (1999) has identified
the following risks to human health from genetically engineered foods.
· Toxic or allergenic effects due to transgene products or interactions of

transgene with host genes.
· Vector-mediated spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes to gut bacteria

and to pathogens.
· Vector-mediated spread of virulence among pathogens across species by

horizontal gene-transfer and recombination.
· Potential for vector-mediated horizontal gene transfer and recombination to

create new pathogenic bacteria and viruses.
· Potential of vector-mediated infected cells after ingestion of transgenic

foods, to regenerate disease viruses, or for the vector to insert itself into the
cell’s genome causing harmful or lethal effects including cancer.
While Toxic and GM foods need stricter laws, local, natural processing in small
dhabas, small outlets cannot be subjected to industrial regulation, both because they
are not a source of toxic threat and because they are not centralized producers
needing centralized regulation.
Whose Safety Rules ? Whose Standards?
However, while food hazards grow, food safety laws are being shaped which
deregulate large corporations and over-regulate the small scale self organized
economy. Such industrial food safety standards promote large scale globalised
production, and act against local foods. These laws are also the basis of the Sanitary
and Phyto Sanitary Agreement of WTO. An example of these inappropriate standards
was used to destroy India’s diverse, decentralize edible oil industry.
In August 1998, a new packaging order was introduced for edible oils on grounds of
food safety which shut down millions of small scale local oil mills and local edible oils
like mustard. Combined with WTO trade rules of removing import restrictions, the
laws of false food safety flooded India’s markets with oil from genetically engineered
soyabeans.
India has used the coconut, groundnut, linseed, mustard, sunflower, and sesame for
edible oil. Biodiversity has gone hand in hand with cultural diversity.
The main consequence of the mustard oil ban and the ban on sale of edible oils in
unpackaged forms is the destruction of our oilseed biodiversity and the diversity of
our edible oils and food cultures. It is also a destruction of economic democracy and
economic freedom to produce oils locally, according to locally available resources,
and locally appropriate food culture.
Since indigenous oilseeds are high in oil content, they can be processed at household
or community level, with ecofriendly, decentralized and democractic technologies.
Soyabean oil is based on concentration of poor, from the seed, to trade, to processing
and packaging. Monsanto controls seeds through its patents and its ownership of
seed corporations. Cargill, Continental and other trading giants control the trade and
milling operations internationally. Because of its low oil content, the extraction of
soyabean oil needs heavy processing which is environmentally unfriendly and unsafe
for health.
Pseudo safety standards destroy safe and healthy oils and have flooded the market
with unhealthy hazardous oils.
Mustard oil and our indigenous oilseeds symbolize freedom for nature, for our
farmers, our diverse food cultures and the rights of poor consumers.
Soyabean oil symbolizes concentration of power and the colonization of nature,
cultures, farmers and consumers.
The manipulation of oil prices and the restrictions put on indigenous oilseed
processing and sales are forcing Indians to consume soyabean oil and thus further
strengthen a monoculture and monopoly system.
Free trade and economic globalisation has been projected as economic freedom for
all. However, as the case of the mustard oil crisis and soyabean imports reveals, so
called free trade is based on many levels of destruction of economic freedom of small
producers, processors and poor consumers.
Small farmers are loosing their freedom to grow the diverse oilseeds adapted to their
soils, ecosystems and cultures. With new patent laws, they will be forced to pay
royalties for seeds and will be further pushed into poverty.
Small processors of eco-friendly and safe edible oil are being rendered illegal through
new laws like the ‘packaging’ order which is in effect an instrument of market take
over of big industry.
Further, while the rhetoric of free trade is that the government should step out of
business, the decision on free import of soyabean, the packaging order and the
proposed Food Safety Act reveal how the government is a major player in the transfer
of production from small scale decentralized systems to large scale, centralized
systems under monopoly control.
The state in fact is the backbone of the free trade order. The only difference is that
instead of regulating big business, it leaves big business free, and declares small
producers and diverse cultures illegal so that big business has monopoly control on
the food system.
The asymmetric treatment of the small and the big is also evident in the regulation of
food safety.
While the government reacted immediately to ban mustard oil, it has done nothing to
prevent the dumping of toxic, genetically engineered soyabean. Adulteration in
various forms undertaken by the global players gets protection rather than
punishment from governments, in India, in the U.S., and across the world. This is why
the PFA is being dismantled to legalise adulteration with toxic chemicals and toxic
genes.
The highest level political and economic conflicts between freedom and slavery,
democracy and dictatorship, diversity and monoculture have thus entered into the
simple acts of buying edible oils and cooking our food. Will the future of India’s edible
oil culture be based on mustard and other edible oil seeds or will it become part of
the globalised monoculture of soyabean with its associated but hidden food hazards.
In Europe too the food safety laws were threatening small producers of typical foods.
For example, Slow Food organised half a million signatures that forced the Italian
government to amend a law that would have forced even the smallest food maker to
conform to the pseudo hygienic standards that suit corporations like Kraft Foods.
Need for pluralism to protect food livelihoods and diverse food cultures
Local natural organically processed food is not the same as chemically processed
food which is different from genetically engineered food. Different foods have
different safety risks and need different safety laws and different systems of
management. That is why in Europe there are different standards for organic, for
industrial and genetically engineered foods. Organic standards are set by organic
movements while the standards for genetic engineering are set at European level
through the Novel Food laws. There is in addition the movement to protect cultural
diversity of food, which is destroyed when industrial food processing standards are
applied. Cultural diversity is protected through “unique” and “typical” foods. Carving
out these spaces of freedom in the face of a globalised industrial food economy has
been the contribution of the Slow Food Movement. These standards are cultural,
based on indigenous science and community control not industrial “science” and
controlled by central government manipulated by Food giants like Cargill, ConAgra,
Lever, Nestle, Phillip Morris and Gene Giants like Monsanto.
India, like Europe, needs 3 different laws governed at different levels for different
food systems based on different production processes which produce different foods.
1. An organic processing law for local, natural small scale food processing
governed by gramsabhas, panchayats and local communities. In cities this
could be based on licensing by resident welfare associations as Urban
Panchayats, and local municipalities. Community control through citizen
participation is the real guarantee for safety.
2. An industrial processing law which already exists and is the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act. This could be updated to deal with new food hazards. It
should definitely not be dismantled.
3. A GMO food law which controls imports, labeling, segregation, traceability

etc. This is the new law that the consumers need. This law should be drafted
by the Central Government, but states and local communities should be free
to introduce stricter standards. If regions want to be GMO free, this should be
allowed under the principles of decentralized democracy.
However, the central government cannot try to license the last dhaba in India.
It will unleash the worst form of license and inspector raj. It will establish a
food facism based on food mafia, serving global corporations. It will destroy
our food freedom, livelihoods, our food safety, our food diversity. The
proposed integrated food safety law will be used to criminalise every tiny
dhabawala and street vendor who are not introducing obesity and diabetes,
cancer and heart disease in our society. They are providing safe, affordable
dal and roti to millions of working people.
Since different food systems need different levels of management for safety, it is
totally inappropriate to lump together all kinds of food – organic, industrial, GMOs
into one category as is done in Def 3 (k) which treat all food providers as the same.
“Food business” means any undertaking, whether for profit or not, and whether
public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production,
processing and distribution of food and includes import, export and sale of food and
food service providers.
How food is processed determines its quality, nutrition, safety. Home processed bread
is not the same as industrial bread. They are not “like products” in the W.T.O. jargon.
They are different products in terms of their ecological content and public health
impact. A factory chicken is not the same as a free range chicken both in terms of
animal welfare and in terms of food quality and safety. A GMO corn is not the same as
organic corn. The former contains antibiotic resistance markers, viruses used as
promoters, and gene for producing toxins such as Bt. Regulating Bt. corn for safety
needs different systems than organic corn, factory farming needs different regulatory
processes than free-range chicken.
Pluralism of production processes and products needs pluralism of laws and science
appropriate to the safety issues and governance systems that a product or
production process demands.
Chemical processing need chemistry labs and chemists, GMOs need genetic I.D.
Laws, organic processing needs indigenous science and community control. The
response of government to the mustard oil contamination in 1998 was to demand
that every ghani have a lab, a chemist and must package oil. This response was
inappropriate for the scale and method of production. One million ghanis were shut
down, 20,000 small and tiny crushers were criminalized by an inappropriate law that
opened the flood gates for import of soy oil. We cannot repeat the destruction
unleashed by pseudo safety laws in the edible oils sector in other sectors of our
indigenous food economy and food culture. We cannot replace safe systems with
unsafe systems through manipulated laws and rules which serve agribusiness, leave
them free to spread food hazards and disease, destroy our diverse foods and
substitute them with unhealthy, anti-nutritive, hazardous industrial foods. We do not
need to deregulate global trade and overregulate domestic production. We need to
regulate chemicals and GMOs through centralized structures and regulate local,
domestic food systems through local, democratic, decentrlaised, participatory
processes.
The principles of food safety used in the proposed law are inappropriate to the
indigenous self-organised food systems of India Act 17 (b) states that the Food
Authority will take into account International Standards.
However, in the case of GMOs, there are no International Standards. There are
European laws on novel foods and the absolute deregulation of GM foods in the U.S.
On May 13th 2003, the US together with Canada and Argentina challenged Europe’s
moratorium on GM crops and foods. Arguing that their GM products were being
unfairly discriminated against, they challenge the precautionary principle in decision
making about GM crops that is supposed to be embodied into European
decisionmaking. Bringing this case to the WTO is another excuse to attack the use of
the precautionary approach in international law.
The new EU Regulations take account of the EU’s international trade commitments
and of the requirements of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety with respect to
obligations of importers. The EU’s regulatory system for GMOs authorization is in line
with WTO rules: it is clear, transparent and non-discriminatory. There is therefore no
issue that the WTO needs to examine.
Many countries are now looking at the EU policy to develop their own policy. The US
fears that several countries will adopt a similar approach as the EU to regulate GMOs
and GM food and feed products. The new Swiss GM legislation, entered into force on
January 1st 2004, is a good example.
The Swiss law is stricter than current EU legislation on the liability and co-existence
aspects. It is based on the precautionary principle and “the polluter pays” principle
(Article 1) and aims to protect health and security of human beings, animals and
environment. It also aims to permanently maintain biological diversity and fertility of
the soil and to allow freedom of choice for consumers. The EU Moratorium represents
the will of its people not to be force-fed. It crystallizes (as the patent on seeds still
does) the worldwide mobilization of people against the reinterpretation of national
security and sovereignty to increase the global control of US corporations over
resources and market.
If Europe had not suspended its approvals process in 1998, these would have been
some of the consequences:
• The indirect effects of growing GM herbicide tolerant (HT) crops on farmland wildlife would not
have been taken into account. GM HT sugar/fodder beet and spring oilseed rape now known to be
damaging to farmland wildlife would have been grown commercially in Europe.
• No requirement for monitoring of environmental or human health effects would have been
introduced, maintaining the ‘no evidence of harm’ claim for safety.
• Consumers would not have been able to make a choice not to eat products derived from GM crops
as the new labeling laws now allow for.
• There would have been no traceability requirement for GM foods. If an adverse effect had
emerged, it would have been impossible to withdraw the product from the market quickly and
easily. Following BSE, traceability is a cornerstone of European food safety systems.
Under India’s diverse decentralized plural economy, a centralized integrated law is

inappropriate on many counts. Indigenous Gur and Mithai have no international
standards, they need indigenous standards. India must craft her laws for her
conditions. These laws must be appropriate to the level and content which they
address. One law for all food systems is a law that privileges large-scale industrial
commercial establishments and discriminates and criminalizes the small, the local,
the diverse.
Our kitchens and dhabas, our cottage and household industry is being put in the
same category as Nestle’s Cargills and ConAgra’s massive super industrial
processing. Domestic and local consumption, including “not for profit” food
provisioning is being put in the same category as imports of hazardous GMOs. This is
not a science based contemporary system. It is an obsolete, corrupt crude and
coercive system proposed by a corporate state to destroy 99% of our indigenous food
processing so that global agribusiness MNCs which have spread disease and ill health
control our entire food economy, destroying millions of livelihoods and millennia of
diverse gastronomic traditions.
The Right to Information Vs Confidential Information
Instead of regulating hazardous food industry like Coke and Pepsi, the Food Safety
law is in effect a law for deregulating hazardous industry. Article 14(5) on Functions of
Food Authority states:
The food Authority shall not disclose or cause to be disclosed to third parties
confidential information that it receives for which confidential treatment has been
requested and has been acceded.
Coke and Pepsi are hiding behind Trade Secrets to not disclose the ingredients of
their soft drinks to the Rajasthan High Court. Union Carbide hid behind Trade Secrets
to not disclose the nature of the gas leak in Bhopal and allowed thousands to die and
millions to be crippled. Food and health are too important to be sacrificed to
corporate confidentiality. The Right to Information must be the basis of any Food
Safety Law.
In the year 2004, we need to learn from the food mistakes of the industrialized food
systems. Systems that have created Mad Cow Disease and unleashed an epidemic of
obesity and diabetes. These diseases of unhealthy processing are not identified as
“food hazards” in food safety laws, though they are a hazard to health. That is why
the proposed law is obsolete – it fails to take into account the diseases related to
industrial food processing which are creating ill health and should be treated as
unsafe.
Law for Food Facism : The License Permit Raj for the Food Economy
The Food Safety and Standards Bill 2005 threatens to create a culture of “Food
Facism”.
Industrial foods need chemical labs, genetically engineered foods need genetic I.D.
labs, but cooking fresh dal and roti does not need testing for toxic chemicals and
transgenes. The risk and safety standards for Lassi in a Dhaba and a synthetic
Milkshake at a Fast Food chain must be different. As Eric Schlosser has reported in his
best seller “Fast Food Nation”, “A typical artificial strawberry flavor, like the kind
found in a Buger King strawberry milk shake, contains the following ingredients: amyl
acetate, amyl butyrate, amyl valerate, anethol, anisyl formate, benzyl acetate, benzyl
isobutyrate, butyric acid, cinnamyl isobutyrate, cinnamyl valeratge, cognac ssential
oil diacetyl, dipropyl ketone, ethyl acetate, ethyl amyl ketone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl
cinnamate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl heptylate, ethyl lactate, ethyl
methylphenylglycidate, ethyl nitrate, ethyl propionate, ethyl valerate, heliotropin,
hydroxyphenyl-2 butanone (10 per cent solution in alcohol), a-ionone, isobutyl
anthranilate, isobutyl butyrate, lemon essential oil, maltol, 4-methylacetophenone,
methyl anthranilate, methyl benzoate, methyl cinnamate, methyl heptine carbonate,
methyl naphthyl ketone, methyl salicylate, mint essential oil, neroli essential oil,
nerolin, neryl isobutyrate, orris butter, phenethyl alcohol, rose, rum ether, y-
undecalactone, vanillin, an solvent.
We are better off sticking to Lassi and treating these toxics as Food Adulterants under
PFA rather than allowing them into our food systems, and using the toxic food culture
of U.S. as the standard for pseudo safety. Risk Assessment in the hands of centralized
corruptible agencies is no protection for consumers as the disease and health
epidemic in the U.S. linked to over processed, industrial foods shows. Even while the
U.S. is at the epicenter of the food related public health crises, the U.S. government
is trying to export its Food laws which deregulate the industry and over regulate
ordinary citizens and small enterprise. This deregulation of the big and toxic and over
regulation of the small and ecological is at the core of Food Facism, which the
proposed Integrated Food law tries to introduce on the basis of the U.S. Model.
Firstly, it sets up a coercive apparatus of centralized control, which lends itself to
corruption. It creates a license permit Raj in food when the rhetoric is about ending it.
A license and inspector raj controlled from Delhi is a recipe for corruption. In the area
of food, corruption could kill.
Secondly, it is inappropriate to “integrate” what are in effect different activities and
different products. Small scale, local natural food processing for largely local
consumption use fresh foods is based on transparent cooking, natural and organic
processing without toxic chemicals in front of the consumer. This cannot be measured
with the same safety standards as needed for large-scale processing with chemicals,
or for foods containing GMOs.
Traceability is a particular challenge created by GMO’s. IN a law for GM foods it would
have a place. However to demand that in India’s’ self organized, informal, orally
organized local food economy, every food operator will have systems and procedures
for traceability in which all for this information to be made available to the competent
authorities is to kill small food providers with the burden of a corrupt and unwieldy
bureaucratic control (Article 27 on Traceability). The core of the Act is bureaucratic
control through a licence permit raj. Article 31(1) states that no person shall
manufacture, sell, stock, distribute or exhibit for sale any article of food, including
ready-to-serve food, irradiated food except under a licence issued by the state
Commissioner of Food Safety or its authorized officer. Roasted peanuts or chanas,
and irradiated foods have been lumped in the same category of hazards. A
“bharbuja” (maker of roasted grains) and the Mumbai dabbawalas will be burdened
with the same licensing arrangements as a High Fructose Corn Syrup factory of
Cargill. This mix up between a small scale self organized sector and a large scale
industrialized food sector is the most lethal aspect o the proposed law. Undemocratic,
bureaucratically designed, corporate driven food safety laws like the proposed law
destroy safe alternatives and promote unsafe industrial food production. According to
Colin Tudge “overall, the food-safety laws of Britain are extensive and intricate and
more and more detailed, so that its becoming very difficult even to keep a few
chickens or pigs for local use, or to run a village shop, or to sell cakes at the church
bazaar. Men and women in suits ow with nylon hats and clipboards descend like flies
to point out ways in which small farmers and traders could in theory poison their
customers. AT the same time, the government that makes these laws presides over
policies that seem designed expressly to maximize the spread of disease.
In England where local economies have been destroyed, pseudo safety laws prevent
little old ladies from selling their homemade cakes in churches for charity. In India
such laws would criminalise “annadana”, the langars of gurudwaras, the zakat at the
Mosques and Dargahs, and the bhandaras which feed millions of poor people daily in
temples, the livelihoods of our chaiwalas and dhabawalas, the entire household and
cottage industry in food processing would be made illegal overnight, leading to the
criminalisation of our safe foods and legalisation of food crimes.
There is only one system for food safety – locally produced, freshly processed food –
of which we have abundance in India’s non-industrial local food systems. Pseudo
hygiene and food safety laws that are designed for the disease producing industrial,
long distance convoluted system of getting food from farms to tables will not produce
safety. They will produce poverty and unemployment by destroying millions of small-
scale livelihoods in food production and processing.
A modern food law would recognize that our decentralized food economy enhances
nutrition, safety, culture and livelihoods. We need laws to protect our diverse local
food cultures from the disease causing homogenous, centralized industrial food
culture of the west. Our biodiversity and cultural diversity of food have built robust
localized food economies. Our skilled and knowledgeable food processes are the
future of food. We cannot allow a law manipulated by global food giants, promoted by
power hungry bureaucrats to take away our food freedom and food sovereignty. We
need a stronger PFA. We do not need a food police from Delhi to destroy our rich food
culture through pseudo safety standards which serve global business. We need
society led, participatory, democratic systems to enrich our food systems, promote
health and nutrition and guarantee food safety. Delhi needs to control the Monsantos,
Coca Colas and Cargills, not our dhabas and our kitchens. Let the government
regulate agribusiness through the PFA. We will regulate ourselves as community and
civil society. We will not be ruled through the law for food facism. We will shape laws
for our food freedom. This is our food sovereignty. This is our Anna Swaraj.
Globalisation of agriculture and rising food insecurity
Despite claims to the contrary, trade liberalisation and globalisation are resulting
in declining food production and posing a threat to food security, particularly in
the countries of the South. The same processes are also wiping out small
efficient family farms and replacing them with inefficient and unhealthy
industrialised food systems under corporate control.
THE Draft Plan of Action for the UN Food Summit to be held in Rome in
November categorically states that 'trade is vital to food security'.
Trade liberalisation and globalisation of agriculture are supposed to increase

production of food, increase efficiency of food production, improve the economic
situation of farmers and improve patterns of food consumption. However, the
evidence provided by the participants of an international conference on
'Globalisation, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture' held in Delhi on 30 and
31 July pointed to the opposite direction.
In country after country, trade liberalisation is leading to declining food

production, declining productivity, declining conditions for farmers in the North
and in the South, and declining food security for consumers of the North and the
South.
In her welcoming address which was on the theme 'Globalisation and Food', Dr
Vandana Shiva said, 'The US and other industrialised countries of the North are
trying to change the meaning of food security from being a fundamental human
right to participation in global markets, which excludes the large number of poor
without adequate purchasing power.'
'They are also trying to redefine food security to exclude food safety issues. Food
security has always meant adequate, safe, nutritious and culturally safe food.
While this meaning was inscribed in the earlier draft plans of action, it has been
removed in the current draft of the World Food Summit,' she said.
Dr Shiva said the structure of governance that was being shaped 'is governments
without rights, but with exclusive responsibilities for food security, and
international organisations like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) with absolute rights and no
responsibilities. Since these organisations are controlled by the G7 group of
countries, this structure has built into the North-South asymmetry of Southern
governments with the largest number of poor and hungry people carrying
responsibilities without rights for food security, and Northern governments
pushing rights of their corporations without responsibilities for food security.'
Referring to the situation in India, she said, 'Land reforms (which put a ceiling on
land holdings) are being undone in state after state to allow corporate superfarms
for..... luxury production for international markets. Massive displacement of
farmers is taking place, which can rapidly turn into a socially and politically
explosive situation.'
Globalisation and Food Insecurity in the South
A paper on 'Globalisation and Agriculture in India' by Dr Vandana Shiva, Ms

Radha Holla and Ms Kusum Menon showed through field studies how food
production was being undermined by trade liberalisation policies. Food-growing
land is being diverted to non-food crops such as flowers or luxury commodities
such as shrimp. Farmers are being displaced on a massive scale and natural
resources are being over exploited. Corporatisation of agriculture which is being
pushed under trade liberalisation as a successor of the Green Revolution is
leading to new poverty for small farmers as unequal and unfair contracts lock
them into a new forms of bondage.
Farmers of Punjab who were contracted by Pepsico to grow tomatoes received

only Rs.0.75 per kg while the market price was Rs.2.00. First the farmers
rejected Pepsico and now Pepsico has abandoned Punjab and sold its tomato
processing plant to a subsidiary of Levers.
Trade liberalisation is supposed to bring benefits to national agricultural

economies. However, the beneficiaries are neither farmers nor governments of
the Third World. A recent editorial of a business daily in India had the heading
'Freeing Wheat'. It is significant to ask what wheat is being freed from and whom
it is being freed for.
This freedom to trade has mainly benefited the giant grain traders Cargill and
Continental. They are buying wheat at $60 to $100 per tonne from India and
selling it at $230-240 per tonne on the international market, making a neat $130-
170 profit per tonne, while India is losing $100 million in exports because of the
concentration of power in the hands of five merchants of grain.
The US grain giants are turning to the Indian market because the large- scale
wheat farming in the US, has been wiped out in nearly 50% of the farm land by a
combination of drought and the Karnal Bunt - a fungal disease. As a result of the
US crop failure, India's wheat exports have increased dramatically. However, in
the globalised world, it is ultimately not countries such as the US and India, which
are exporting and importing grain, but corporations like Continental and Cargill.
Treating countries as economic units in a free-trade world is misplaced since they
have been replaced by corporations as the basic economic units. The gains and
losses from globalised trade in food are more appropriately worked out at the
level of people and corporations rather than at the level of countries. Globalised
food trade is of course an opportunity in the trade perspective, but will have
serious impacts on the entitlements of already vulnerable groups.
Dr Amitava Mukherjee, Executive Director, ActionAid India in his paper on

'International Trade and Food Security' confirmed that the area under food crop
production in India is on the decline, as is evident from the fact that the index for
the area under food grains (1981-82 =100) has declined from 100.7 to 97.3 in
1990-91 in 1994-95, while the index for the area under non-food crops increased
from 120.0 to 125.7 during the period. Production of coarse cereals and pulses,
the main food for the poor, has shown a declining trend.
Declining
Dr Abhijit Sen of Jawaharlal Nehru University showed how under liberalisation

domestic production and consumption of food were declining. Removal of food
subsidies had led to decrease in the amount of food purchase from the public
distribution system. The off take of rice had declined from 10.1 metric tonnes in
1991-92 to 6.9 metric tonnes in 1995-96. The offtake for wheat has gone down
from 8.8 metric tonnes to 3.8 metric tonnes. While agricultural exports as a
percentage of total exports had gone down, cereals in exports had gone up from
1.4% to 3.4%, indicating that exports were increasingly based on the creation of
domestic food insecurity.
Dr John Kurien of the Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum elaborated

how industrial aquaculture and fisheries were promoted with bilateral and
multilateral aid for 'short-term "parking" of international capital in a specific
location for a short duration of time during its race for profits'. This 'rape and run'
industry is also based on the enclosure of the common resources of coastal
communities. While the production feeds into the international luxury demand for
humans and pets of affluent countries, they pose a threat to existing patterns of
food production and a direct threat to national and local food security
Mr Victor Suares Carrera, Executive Director of the National Association of

Peasant Maize Producers, Mexico said after 14 years of liberalisation under
structural adjustment and two years of NAFTA in Mexico, 9,000 years of food
security were being wiped out. Mexico, which like India was the centre of the
origin of agriculture, from where corn expanded to the USA and the rest of the
world, was now in danger in the wake of globalisation. Today, he said, his country
was ruled by the law of comparative advantage. However, with NAFTA, the
illusion of comparative advantage had evaporated. There was neither food
security nor comparative advantage for Mexico under freetrade. Three years ago,
Mexico imported half a million tonnes of rice. It now imports 7 million tonnes of
rice.
While Mexico's corn economy is being destroyed, it was importing yellow corn
from the US, which is used to feed animals in that country. Mexicans eat white
corn which is culturally more appropriate to their food system. The government,
he said, had abandoned its responsibility and there was no policy of food security
and no employment policy. Everything had been left to market forces. The
government had amended the Mexican land law and discarded the principles of
the 1910 revolution. This had been done on the demand of the agri-business.
Referring to the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas in Mexico on 1 January 1994, the

first day of NAFTA, he said, 'When we entered the club of the rich people, while
the political elite were celebrating the event, thousands of indigenous peasants
went up in arms.' They cried against the policy of impoverishment of the farmers
and the denial of their rights. People have demanded a change in the National
Agricultural Policy and support for the domestic producers. They have argued
that it is much easier to support domestic production than to buy from the US,
when the country did not have foreign currency.
In 1992, Mexico imported 20% of its food. In 1996 it was importing 43%. Eating
'more cheaply on imports is not eating at all for the poor in Mexico'. One out of
every two peasants is not getting enough to eat. In the 18 months since NAFTA,
the intake of food has been destroyed by 29%. 2.2 million Mexicans have lost
jobs and 40 million are in extreme poverty.
Dr Regassa Feyissa, Director of the Biodiversity Institute of Ethiopia, said Africa

was being treated merely as a cheap source of labour. Kenya was importing 80%
of its food, while 80% of its exports were accounted for by agriculture. In Kenya,
grain imports have risen, subsidised by the European Union, undermining local
production and creating poverty by oversupply. In 1992, Europen Union (EU)
wheat was sold in Kenya at a price which was 39% cheaper than that at which it
was purchased by the EU from European farmers. In 1993, it was 50% cheaper.
In 1995, Kenyan wheat prices collapsed through oversupply. All this in a country
which had been self-sufficient in the 1980s.
Dr Kamal Malhotra, co-Director of FOCUS on the Global South, referring to

South Korea, reported how the country had shifted from food self-sufficiency 40
years ago to dependence on the US today. During the five-year period from 1986
to 1991 agricultural imports in South Korea went up from US$1.8 billion to US$5
billion. In the Philippines acreage under rice was declining, while the area under
'cut flowers' was increasing. Three hundred and fifty thousand rural livelihoods
will be destroyed by shifting from corn, rice and sugarcane to cut flowers and
vegetables for export. The import of 59,000 metric tonnes under the minimum
access requirement of GATT would displace 15,000 families annually.
Globalisation and Food Insecurity in the North
Referring to the massive growth of food insecurity in Britain, Dr Tim Lang,

Professor of Food Policy at Thames Valley University, said there were mountains
of food in his country and miles of supermarket shelves but many Britishers could
not afford an adequate diet due to rising unemployment and declining social
welfare. One-fifth of the population was classified as not being able to afford a
nutritious diet. Poverty, he said, was a reality, even in rich countries.
Five companies controlled 70% of the food market in the UK. There was growing
food insecurity even in rich countries as the food system became more
centralised. The distance for shopping for food had increased from 2 miles to 5
miles, increasing 'food miles' embodied in food and creating a motorway food
system. Long-distance transport and intensification of agriculture were linked.
Tim Lang said that Britain had shifted from a policy for small farmers to a policy
against farmers. The British model of farming, where farmers were systematically
thrown out of agriculture, was being spread to other parts of the world.
The Mad Cow Disease, he said, was the result of the intensification of
agriculture. The disease had affected dairy cows and beef cows, had totally
undermined the UK beef trade and had led to the extermination of 165,000 cows
because of the risk of the transfer of the infection to humans. The farmers, he
said, were now questioning intensification of agriculture, adding that the big
lesson for the public was that you cannot squeeze nature to the maximum.
The Mad Cow Disease was challenging freetrade, as 'passports' for sources of
beef were becoming necessary to regain consumer confidence.
'We must stop intensification. We must re-inject food security in the system,' Tim
Lang said.
Philip Lymbery from the Compassion in World Farming, UK said the

repercussions of the Mad Cow Disease were going to be immense. It proved the
pitfalls of factory farming. Since World War II, half a million farmers had
disappeared following the corporatisation of agriculture in the UK. Displaying
slides he showed how cattle were reared in inhuman conditions. In the UK alone,
he said, 600 million broiler chickens were raised annually. They were kept in
cages, too small for their well-being, with the result that 75% of the chickens
were dying of heart failure. In intensive dairying, male calves were useless and
were kept in inhuman conditions in cages till they were six months old and ready
for slaughter. They are then exported. One of the biggest popular movements in
the UK had emerged as a result of this violence to veal calves.
Mika Iba, Coordinator, Network for Safe and Secure Food and Environment,
Japan said the story of the success of Japan on the economic front was also the
story of failure on the food front, undermining the country's food security. The
experience of the past 50 years was the undoing and selling out of the Japanese
farmer for the country's economic growth. Today 90% of the farmers were part-
time farmers, who lived on other incomes.
Ms Iba said 30% of land could be cultivated and there was competition for this
land between housing and agriculture. Only 22% of the food was produced in the
country. The remaining 78% came from abroad. Only in rice was Japan self-
sufficient, while other grains were imported.
Accepting more food imports, she said, also meant accepting more additives in
the form of chemicals and pesticides. In 1950, Japanese food imports had 78
food additives. In 1995, this had risen to 345. In 1996, there were 1,051 food
additives in food imported by Japan.
In Russia, as reported by Vera Matusevich, an Agricultural Economist, World

Bank, production and consumption of food had dramatically declined as a result
of trade liberalisation and a transition to a market economy. One-third of
Russians were now below the poverty line. Fifty per cent of food was being
imported. Production had declined by 33% between 1990 and 1995. The
livestock sector had declined by 40%. Meat production had fallen from 8.3 million
tonnes in 1992 to 5.9 million tonnes in 1995. At the same time imports of meat
had increased from 1.4 metric tonnes to 2.1 metric tonnes i.e. in 1995 imported
meat had accounted for about 25% of all meat consumption. These imports are
concentrated in big cities which account for 70% of retail turnover. Mafias linked
to trade are dumping contaminated food on Russian consumers.
Kristin Dawkins, Director of Research Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy of
the United States, said the US government had led the world in promoting
globalised monopolies through international trade agreements, assisted by such
bullying tactics as the use of Section 301. She said under encouragement from
the US government food corporations controlled US agriculture and were now
attempting to control world agriculture.
Dawkins said in 1994-95, 10 cents out of every food dollar spent in the United
States went to Philip Morris and another 6 cents went to CongAgra. Four
companies - IBP, ConAgra, Cargill and Beef America - sold 87% of all
slaughtered beef. Two companies - Kelloggs and General Mills - sold two-thirds
of all ready-to-eat breakfast cereals. Campbells sold 73% of all canned soups.
Frito-Lay sold 85% of all corn chips and 40% of all potato chips. Kraft is owned
by General Foods, (the latter is owned by Philip Morris) sold more than half of all
sliced processed cheese.
The dispensability of small farmers
Small farmers are paying the price for this corporatisation. They have been seen
as dispensable in the US and the dispensability of the small farmer is now being
globalised through trade liberalisation. As Kristin Dawkins reported, in 1962, the
Committee on Economic Development which advised the White House
recommended 'moving off the farm about two million of the present farm labour
force, plus a number equal to a large part of the new entrants who would
otherwise join the farm labour force.' Kenneth Boulding, an agricultural economist
from the University of Michigan, described their plan bluntly: 'The only way I know
to get toothpaste out of a tube is to squeeze, and the only way to get people out
of agriculture is likewise to squeeze agriculture. If the toothpaste is thin, you don't
have to squeeze very hard, on the other hand if the toothpaste is thick, you have
to put real pressure on it.'
A V Krebs, Director, Corporate Agribusiness Research Project and author of

Corporate Reapers, reports that in 1990 nearly 22% of US farm operator
households had incomes below the official poverty threshold, twice the rate of all
US families. In 1993, over 88% of the average farm operator household income
was derived from off-farm income.
From 1982 to 1993 the index of prices received by farmers rose only 7.5% while
the index of prices paid by farmers for inputs multiplied over threefold to 23%.
As Krebs queried: Is it any wonder that our farmers during the period from 1990
to 1994 saw an almost minuscule 1.98% return on their investment?
Is it any wonder that from 1987 to 1992 in the US farm entries dropped to less
than 67,000 per year while 'exits' averaged 99,000 per year, resulting in the net
loss of 32,000 farms a year.
The myth of the unproductive small farmers and fisherfolk
The main argument used for the industrialisation of food and corporatisation of
agriculture is the low productivity of the small farmer. However, even the World
Development Report has accepted that small farms are more productive than
large ones.
In Brazil, the productivity of a 0-10ha farm was $85/ha while the productivity of a
500 ha farm was $2/ha. In India, a 0-5 acre farm had a productivity of
Rs.735/acre while a 35 acre farm had a productivity of Rs.346/acre.
The state of Bengal was showed the highest rate of growth of 6.5% for
agriculture as a result of land reform, while the rate of growth for India was a
mere 3%.
Even biologically, small diverse farms have higher productivity than large
monoculture farms.
Productivity of monocultures is low in the context of diverse outputs and needs. It

is high only in the restricted context of output of 'part of a part' of the forest and
farm biomass. For example, 'high yield' plantations pick one tree species among
thousands, for yields of one part of the tree (e.g.pulp wood).
'High yield' Green Revolution cropping patterns pick one crop among hundreds
e.g. wheat for yields of one part of the wheat plant (only grain).
These high partial yields do not translate into high total (including diverse) yields.
Productivity is therefore different depending on whether it is measured in a
framework of diversity or uniformity.
A recent article in Scientific American has developed this approach further and
has shown how the economic calculations of agricultural productivity of the
dominant paradigm distort the real measure of productivity by leaving out the
benefits of internal inputs derived from biodiversity as well as the additional
financial and ecological costs generated by purchase of external inputs to
substitute for internal inputs in monoculture systems.
In a polyculture system, five units of input are used to produce 300 units of food
thus having a productivity of 1.5.
In an industrial monoculture, 300 units of input are used to produce 100 units of
food, thus having a productivity of .33.
The polyculture system which has been called 'low yielding' and hence incapable
of meeting food needs is therefore five times more productive than the so-called
'high yielding' monoculture.
Quoting Mr Obaidullah Khan, Head of FAO's Regional Office for Asia and Pacific,
Martin Khor of Third World Network said the intensive model of Green Revolution
agriculture was not sustainable due to rising costs and falling yields.
As in the case of crop production, industrial fisheries and aquaculture also

consume more resources than they produce. As Dr John Kurien pointed out, in
1988, global shrimp aquaculture consumed 180,000 tonnes of fish meal derived
from an equivalent of 9 lakh tonnes of wet-weight fish. It is further estimated that
by the year 2000 about 570,000 tonnes of cultured fish will be produced in Asia.
The feed requirement for this will be in the order of 1.1 million tonnes. This is
equivalent to 5.5 million tonnes of wet-weight fish, nearly double the total marine
fish harvested in India today. Fish meal provides the crucial link between
industrial aquaculture and industrial fisheries since the fish used for fish meal is
harvested from the sea through trawlers and purseines which totally deplete
marine stocks. This falsifies the often-used argument by agencies like the World
Bank that promotion of aquaculture is like moving from hunting and gathering to
settled agriculture in fisheries and will reduce the pressure on marine resources.
Genetic engineering
Other experts from India who presented papers at panels were Dr B D Sharma,
Dr D Bandopadhyay, Dr Sultan Ismail, Dr Vijayalakshmi, Mr Pandhari Pandey,
Prof Ramakrishnan, Dr Santosh Satya, Dr Indira Hirway and Dr Darshini
Mahadevia. They gave details of the impact of structural adjustment on
agriculture and food security and also developed the sustainable alternatives
available to ensure safe and adequate food for all.
In spite of all evidence pointing to the high diversity, productivity and

sustainability of small family farms, globalisation is wiping out these efficient
systems and replacing them with inefficient and unhealthy industrialised food
systems under corporate control.
The myth of low productivity of diversity-based small farms is also being used to
promote genetic engineering. In her paper on 'Biodiversity and Biotechnology',
Beth Burrows called genetic engineering a form of Structural Adjustment but
directed by Ciba-Geigy and Monsanto rather than by the World Bank and IMF.
Vandana Shiva pointed out how the same corporations which want regulation for
Intellectual Property Rights, want deregulation for biosafety. They want
organisms to be treated as 'novel' when it comes to claiming property rights and
as 'natural' when it comes to taking responsibility.
These corporations pushed for trade liberalisation of agriculture under the

Uruguay Round of GATT. They are now demanding total freedom of investment
as a right. As Martin Khor of the Third World Network stated, the industrialised
countries are now threatening to launch a new Uruguay Round at the WTO
Ministerial Meeting to be held in Singapore at the end of the year. The biggest
issue was the Multilateral Investment Agreement, under which no country would
have the right to screen foreign investment. Corporations wanted the right to
enter and establish themselves with 100% equity, and total freedom to repatriate
profits. They could buy farmers' land , set up plantations and fisheries and also
undertake livestock rearing.
Everywhere across the world, less food is being produced and less diverse food
is being grown, and less is reaching the poor and hungry. Fewer farmers are
finding a place in agriculture and even privileged consumers have no food
security in the sense of access to safe and nutritious food. BSE-infected meat
and hazardous chemicals are creating new health threats to the consumers even
in affluent countries.
The corporations are the only beneficiaries of freetrade and they are not in the
business of ensuring food for all. As Senator McGovern of the US Senate had
stated, 'Food security in private hands is no food security at all' because
corporations are in the business of making money, not feeding people.
When trade liberalisation policies were introduced in 1991 in India the Agriculture
Secretary stated that 'food security is not food in the godowns but dollars in the
pockets'. Dr Shiva pointed out that the dollars go to the pockets of the Cargills,
Continentals and Pepsicos, not the pockets of Indian farmers or fisherfolk. The
centralised government-controlled food distribution system run by the Food
Corporation of India depending on long-distance transport had its flaws, but
these flaws can hardly be corrected by replacing it with an even more centralised
corporate-controlled food system which promotes the export of Indian food grains
and then imports food at high social, economic and political costs to people and
the country. - TWN
Revolution in the Indian Countryside
by Anuradha Mittal
George W. Bush's three-day visit to India in the first week of March 2006 was not just about the
U.S.-India nuclear deal. It was also about an agreement on farm research and education,
foundation for which was laid in November 2005, following Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh's visit to the U.S.
Known as the India-U.S. Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Research, Services and
Commercial Linkages, the agreement is about the U.S. and India conducting joint research in
transgenic crops, animals, and fisheries over a period of three years. Andy Mukherjee, a
columnist for Bloomerberg.Com enthusiastically announced, "If the nuclear deal promises relief
for India's power- starved industrial sector, the agricultural agreement has the potential to
transform the nation's poverty-ridden countryside. The economics are simply unbeatable." Citing
the success of Bt cotton in India, he states, "cotton production has been transformed since
Monsanto was allowed to sell its GM cotton seeds to farmers in 2002."
Indeed, Bt cotton has transformed both the cotton production and lives of farmers in India.
The Unbeatable Economics of Genetic Engineering: A Harvest of Suicides
While the Indian government was busy opening its vast network of public sector agricultural
research institutes to U.S. private companies, the first nine days of March 2006 were marked with
25 farmers taking their own life in Maharashtra's cotton growing district of Vidarbha. By April 14,
2006, an estimated 443 farmers in the region had committed suicide to escape indebtedness
since the start of the agriculture season on June 2, 2005.
What is driving this harvest of suicides?
Last December, Jaideep Hardikar a journalist with India Together reported on the suicide of
Ramesh Rathod in the village of Bondgavhan, Vidarbha. He had purchased Bollgard brand
MECH 162 variety from companies with commercial license from Mahyco/Monsanto for Rs. 1800
($36) per 450 grams, compared with the 450 rupees ($9) that farmers pay for non-Bt seeds. The
official price for Bt cotton is Rs. 1600 ($30), but the local inputs dealer charged an additional Rs.
200 since Ramesh bought it on credit.
Ramesh's hopes were dashed when his Bt cotton crops had a severe pest attack and the leaves
of his cotton plants turned red before drying up. After having spent a lot of money on inputs and
the yield destroyed irreparably, he was in no position to pay back the loans he had taken. With no
option left, he opted for death by consuming pesticide. Left behind to pay back the debt and
shoulder the responsibility of a family including a young son and a daughter, Ramesh's grieving
widow, Dharmibai used Endosulphane and Tracer - two costly pesticides - against the bollworm
pest, but the three acres of land did not even yield three quintals of cotton.
More recently AFP reported the suicide of 34 - year old Indian cotton farmer Chandrakant
Gurenule from Yavatmal. He too had bought the genetically-modified cotton seeds for his 15-acre
(six-hectare) farm, only to watch his crops fail for two successive years. When there was no hope
left, despite him selling off the pair of bullocks he used to plough the fields, and pawning his wife's
wedding jewelry, he doused himself in kerosene and lit a match on April 1, 2006.
It is estimated that more than 4,100 farmers committed suicide in the western state of
Maharashtra in 2004. Increasing cost of production along with sliding global prices and dumping
of cheap subsidized cotton from outside the country has been compounded by failure of Bt seeds.
Devastated by bollworm pest, Bt crops have been attacked by "Lalya" or "reddening" as well, a
disease unseen before which affected Bt more than the non-Bt cotton crop, resulting in 60
percent of farmers in Maharashtra failing to recover costs from their first GM harvest. Some
studies show that farmers are spending Rs. 6,813 ($136.26) per acre compared to Rs. 580
($11.6) on non-Bt cotton since GE cotton requires more supplemental insecticide sprays. It is this
failure of the Bt cotton that resulted in Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of India
banning Mech 12, Mech 184, and Mech 162 varieties in Andhra Pradesh while Mech 12 was
banned all over Southern India.
India-U.S. Knowledge Initiative: In Who's Interest?
At the first board meeting of the Knowledge Initiative in Washington D.C. in December 2005,
representatives from both the Wal-Mart food chain and Monsanto Seed Corporation were present
as key stakeholders in the agreement, a clear indication as to what lies ahead: Indian Agricultural
Universities and Krishi Vigyan Kendras (Agricultural Research Centers), instead of catering to the
needs of poor farmers, will now be promoting the interests of GE giant Monsanto and Wal- Mart.
Then there is the fear of biopiracy with U.S. multinationals having free access to India's genetic
resources. The agreement might set the American model in place where following the Bayh-Dole
Act of 1980, even publicly funded research in U.S. universities and institutes is patented and
licensed out for commercial development to companies such as Monsanto.
Not surprisingly then, the weekly newsletter of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) wrote in
protest, "Today's gene revolution depends almost entirely on private domain science. If we
harness Indian scientific research to the U.S., then it is allowing the complete dominance of
companies such as Monsanto on Indian agriculture. By Patenting and Branding Seeds, they will
openly exploit Indian agriculture. India will be coerced into production of raw materials for the
American MNCs and in turn these multinationals will sell their branded end products through
misleading advertisements and catchy slogans, labeling their products efficacious, hygienic and
safe from health point of view."
Krishna Bir Chaudhary, leader of Bharat Krishak Samaj, a farmers' organization in India in an
opinion editorial wrote, "The Indo-U.S. agreement on agriculture will cast a demonizing spell over
the country and is bound to cause large-scale plunder of the agro-society and definitely tend to
capitalize on our living, life pattern, culture and social norms. Already much maligned,
misconceived and utterly irrelevant second green revolution is a clever ploy to promote the
interest of America and other Multi National Corporation's (MNCs)."
Revolutionizing Profits of Agribusiness
Celebrating the accord, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, " Our first Green Revolution
benefited in substantial measure from assistance provided by the U.S. We are hopeful that the
Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture will become the harbinger of a second green revolution in our
country."
It was the U.S. initiative that brought the Green Revolution and its "miracle" wheat seeds to India
four decades ago. Fueled by large doses of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides,
manufactured by the U.S. corporations, the Green Revolution put the Indian farmer on the
treadmill of imported seeds and chemical inputs. Now with the revolution at a dead end, with
pests resistant to pesticides and fields choked with chemicals, the U.S. is offering India the
revolution of Genetic Engineering.
To add to the destitution in the countryside, the Indian government has decided to liberalize
agricultural sector. For instance, despite the increase in wheat production this year to beat 73.1
million tons, which is more than sufficient to meet domestic needs, the Indian government
decided to import 500,000 tons of wheat from AWB Ltd., an Australian public sector company, that
has been investigated for alleged payment of $290 million kickback to the Saddam regime in Iraq
for supply of wheat. Citing "rising domestic prices due to shortage" as a pretext for imports, India
is buying wheat at a higher price of $178.75 a ton from AWB, when the Australian exporters have
sold wheat in the global market at $131 per ton.
Price of wheat did increase, particularly in the South, in January and February 2006, but it was a
result of artificial shortage. As Ashok Sharma, a journalist with India's Financial Express explains
in his Farm Column, "Last year wheat output was 72 million tons but the government agencies
procured about 18 million tons while the private trade procured and stocked a substantial amount.
With liberalization of the economy, the government removed all restrictions on the stocking limit.
The result is that the private trade is now in a position to stock any amount and manipulate
market prices. It is a shame that the government, instead of re-imposing stocking limits, is citing
the need for imports on the pretext of shortageŠ Wheat can be transported through railways in
bulk in silos at a cheaper cost. The food ministry could pay the amount out of the earmarked
subsidy to another government department - railways - for transportation. It is just an adjustment
of the accounts within the government without involving any extra cost."
Instead, at the recommendation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Indian
government has decided to import an additional three million tons. Abdicating its responsibility to
the farmers, the Indian government is not willing to pay them more than Rs. 7,000 ($120) per ton
while it is prepared to import wheat, the cost of which including handling and transportation would
amount to Rs. 10,000 ($200) a ton.
The Way Out
With India home to 50 percent of the world's hungry and two thirds of its population depending on
agriculture for its livelihood, the Indian countryside does need a revolution.
This revolution, however, will look very different from the one envisaged by the India-U.S.
Knowledge Initiative or opening up of markets. Based on the principle of food sovereignty, this
revolution will recognize "the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture and to
protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable
development objectives."
This revolution would entail:
- Prioritizing local, regional and national needs and protecting local and national
markets of basic food stuffs to give priority to the products of local farmers;
- Promoting and enforcing farmer's rights including access and ownership of

commons including land, water and seeds;
- Promoting sustainable peasant agriculture;
- Promoting the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of
peoples to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production;
- And, recognizing food sovereignty as a human right.

India is the already the third largest producer of food in the world - world's largest producer of
milk, second largest producer of rice, wheat, sugar, fruits and vegetables, and the third largest
producer of cotton, to mention a few. Looking at the economics of it all, genetic engineering and
Bt cotton will not revolutionize India's countryside, help increase production, or help feed over 350
million of its people who live on less than $1 a day, but a new farm economy as the centerpiece of
the country's economic development model will.
Anuradha Mittal is the executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think whose mission is
to increase public participation and promote fair debate on critical social, economic and
environmental issues in both national and international forums.
Lessons from the Green Revolution
March/April 2000
Do We Need New Technology to End Hunger?
Faced with an estimated 786 million hungry people in the world,

cheerleaders for our social order have an easy solution: we will grow
more food through the magic of chemicals and genetic engineering.
For those who remember the original "Green Revolution" promise to
end hunger through miracle seeds, this call for "Green Revolution II"
should ring hollow. Yet Monsanto, Novartis, AgrEvo, DuPont, and other
chemical companies who are reinventing themselves as biotechnology
companies, together with the World Bank and other international
agencies, would have the world's anti-hunger energies aimed down the
path of more agrochemicals and genetically modified crops. This
second Green Revolution, they tell us, will save the world from hunger
and starvation if we just allow these various companies, spurred by the
free market, to do their magic.
The Green Revolution myth goes like this: the miracle seeds of the
Green Revolution increase grain yields and therefore are a key to
ending world hunger. Higher yields mean more income for poor
farmers, helping them to climb out of poverty, and more food means
less hunger. Dealing with the root causes of poverty that contribute to
hunger takes a very long time and people are starving now. So we
must do what we can-increase production. The Green Revolution buys
the time Third World countries desperately need to deal with the
underlying social causes of poverty and to cut birth rates. In any case,
outsiders-like the scientists and policy advisers behind the Green
Revolution-can't tell a poor country to reform its economic and political
system, but they can contribute invaluable expertise in food
production. While the first Green Revolution may have missed poorer
areas with more marginal lands, we can learn valuable lessons from
that experience to help launch a second Green Revolution to defeat
hunger once and for all.
Improving seeds through experimentation is what people have been up
to since the beginning of agriculture, but the term "Green Revolution"
was coined in the 1960s to highlight a particularly striking
breakthrough. In test plots in northwest Mexico, improved varieties of
wheat dramatically increased yields. Much of the reason why these
"modern varieties" produced more than traditional varieties was that
they were more responsive to controlled irrigation and to
petrochemical fertilizers, allowing for much more efficient conversion
of industrial inputs into food. With a big boost from the International
Agricultural Research Centers created by the Rockefeller and Ford
Foundations, the "miracle" seeds quickly spread to Asia, and soon new
strains of rice and corn were developed as well.
By the 1970s, the term "revolution" was well deserved, for the new
seeds-accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and, for the
most part, irrigation-had replaced the traditional farming practices of
millions of Third World farmers. By the 1990s, almost 75 percent of
Asian rice areas were sown with these new varieties. The same was
true for almost half of the wheat planted in Africa and more than half of
that in Latin America and Asia, and about 70 percent of the world's
corn as well. Overall, it was estimated that 40 percent of all farmers in
the Third World were using Green Revolution seeds, with the greatest
use found in Asia, followed by Latin America.
Clearly, the production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth.
Thanks to the new seeds, tens of millions of extra tons of grain a year
are being harvested. But has the Green Revolution actually proven
itself a successful strategy for ending hunger? Not really.
Narrowly focusing on increasing production-as the Green Revolution
does-cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly
concentrated distribution of economic power, especially access to land
and purchasing power. Even the World Bank concluded in a major 1986
study of world hunger that a rapid increase in food production does not
necessarily result in food security-that is, less hunger. Current hunger
can only be alleviated by "redistributing purchasing power and
resources toward those who are undernourished," the study said. In a
nutshell-if the poor don't have the money to buy food, increased
production is not going to help them.
Introducing any new agricultural technology into a social system
stacked in favor of the rich and against the poor-without addressing the
social questions of access to the technology's benefits-will over time
lead to an even greater concentration of the rewards from agriculture,
as is happening in the United States.
Because the Green Revolution approach does nothing to address the
insecurity that lies at the root of high birth rates-and can even
heighten that insecurity-it cannot buy time until population growth
slows. Finally, a narrow focus on production ultimately defeats itself as
it destroys the very resource base on which agriculture depends. We've
come to see that without a strategy for change that addresses the
powerlessness of the poor, the tragic result will be more food and yet
more hunger.
More Food and Yet More Hunger?
Despite three decades of rapidly expanding global food supplies, there

are still an estimated 786 million hungry people in the world in the
1990s. Where are these 786 million hungry people? Since the early
1980s, media representations of famines in Africa have awakened
Westerners to hunger there, but Africa represents less than one-
quarter of the hunger in the world today. We are made blind to the day-
in-day-out hunger suffered by hundreds of millions more. For example,
by the mid-1980s, newspaper headlines were applauding the Asian
success stories-India and Indonesia, we were told, had become "self-
sufficient in food" or even "food exporters." But it is in Asia, precisely
where Green Revolution seeds have contributed to the greatest
production success, that roughly two-thirds of the undernourished in
the entire world live.
According to Business Week magazine, "even though Indian granaries
are overflowing now," thanks to the success of the Green Revolution in
raising wheat and rice yields, "5,000 children die each day of
malnutrition. One-third of India's 900 million people are poverty-
stricken." Since the poor can't afford to buy what is produced, "the
government is left trying to store millions of tons of foods. Some is
rotting, and there is concern that rotten grain will find its way to public
markets." The article concludes that the Green Revolution may have
reduced India's grain imports substantially, but did not have a similar
impact on hunger.
Such analysis raises serious questions about the number of hungry
people in the world in 1970 versus 1990, spanning the two decades of
major Green Revolution advances. At first glance, it looks as though
great progress was made, with food production up and hunger down.
The total food available per person in the world rose by 11 percent
over those two decades, while the estimated number of hungry people
fell from 942 million to 786 million, a 16 percent drop. This was
apparent progress, for which those behind the Green Revolution were
understandably happy to take the credit.
But these figures merit a closer look. If you eliminate China from the
analysis, the number of hungry people in the rest of the world actually
increased by more than 11 percent, from 536 to 597 million. In South
America, for example, while per capita food supplies rose almost 8
percent, the number of hungry people also went up, by 19 percent. In
south Asia, there was 9 percent more food per person by 1990, but
there were also 9 percent more hungry people. Nor was it increased
population that made for more hungry people. The total food available
per person actually increased. What made possible greater hunger was
the failure to address unequal access to food and food-producing
resources.
The remarkable difference in China, where the number of hungry
dropped from 406 million to 189 million, almost begs the question:
which has been more effective at reducing hunger-the Green
Revolution or the Chinese Revolution, where broad-based changes in
access to land paved the way for rising living standards?
Whether the Green Revolution or any other strategy to boost food
production will alleviate hunger depends on the economic, political,
and cultural rules that people make. These rules determine who
benefits as a supplier of the increased production-whose land and
crops prosper and for whose profit-and who benefits as a consumer of
the increased production-who gets the food and at what price.
The poor pay more and get less. Poor farmers can't afford to buy
fertilizer and other inputs in volume; big growers can get discounts for
large purchases. Poor farmers can't hold out for the best price for their
crops, as can larger farmers whose circumstances are far less
desperate. In much of the world, water is the limiting factor in farming
success, and irrigation is often out of the reach of the poor. Canal
irrigation favors those near the top of the flow. Tubewells, often
promoted by development agencies, favor the bigger operators, who
can better afford the initial investment and have lower costs per unit.
Credit is also critical. It is common for small farmers to depend on local
moneylenders and pay interest rates several times as high as wealthier
farmers. Government-subsidized credit overwhelmingly benefits the
big farmers. Most of all, the poor lack clout. They can't command the
subsidies and other government favors accruing to the rich.
With the Green Revolution, farming becomes petro-dependent. Some
of the more recently developed seeds may produce higher yields even
without manufactured inputs, but the best results require the right
amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and water. So as the new
seeds spread, petrochemicals become part of farming. In India,
adoption of the new seeds has been accompanied by a sixfold rise in
fertilizer use per acre. Yet the quantity of agricultural production per
ton of fertilizer used in India dropped by two-thirds during the Green
Revolution years. In fact, over the past thirty years the annual growth
of fertilizer use on Asian rice has been from three to forty times faster
than the growth of rice yields.
Because farming methods that depend heavily on chemical fertilizers
do not maintain the soil's natural fertility and because pesticides
generate resistant pests, farmers need ever more fertilizers and
pesticides just to achieve the same results. At the same time, those
who profit from the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides fear labor
organizing and use their new wealth to buy tractors and other
machines, even though they are not required by the new seeds. This
incremental shift leads to the industrialization of farming.
Once on the path of industrial agriculture, farming costs more. It can
be more profitable, of course, but only if the prices farmers get for
their crops stay ahead of the costs of petrochemicals and machinery.
Green Revolution proponents claim increases in net incomes from
farms of all sizes once farmers adopt the more responsive seeds. But
recent studies also show another trend: outlays for fertilizers and
pesticides may be going up faster than yields, suggesting that Green
Revolution farmers are now facing what U.S. farmers have experienced
for decades-a cost-price squeeze.
In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yield increased 13 percent during the
1980s, but came at the cost of a 21 percent increase in fertilizer use. In
the Central Plains, yields went up only 6.5 percent, while fertilizer use
rose 24 percent and pesticides jumped by 53 percent. In West Java, a
23 percent yield increase was virtually canceled by 65 and 69 percent
increases in fertilizers and pesticides respectively.
To anyone following farm news here at home, these reports have a
painfully familiar ring-and why wouldn't they? After all, the United
States-not Mexico-is the true birthplace of the Green Revolution.
Improved seeds combined with chemical fertilizers and pesticides have
pushed corn yields up nearly three-fold since 1950, with smaller but
still significant gains for wheat, rice, and soybeans. Since World War II,
as larger harvests have pushed down the prices farmers get for their
crops while the costs of farming have shot up, farmers' profit margins
have been drastically narrowed. By the early 1990s, production costs
had risen from about half to over 80 percent of gross farm income. So
who survives today? Two very different groups: those few farmers who
chose not to buy into industrialized agriculture and those able to keep
expanding their acreage to make up for their lower per acre profit.
Among this second select group are the top 1.2 percent of farms by
income, those with $500,000 or more in yearly sales, dubbed
"superfarms" by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 1969, the
superfarms earned 16 percent of net farm income; by the late 1980s,
they garnered nearly 40 percent.
Superfarms triumph not because they are more efficient food
producers or because the Green Revolution technology itself favored
them, but because of advantages that accrue to wealth and size. They
have the capital to invest and the volume necessary to stay afloat
even if profits per unit shrink. They have the political clout to shape tax
policies in their favor. Over time, why should we expect the result of
the cost-price squeeze to be any different in the Third World? In the
United States, we've seen the number of farms drop by two-thirds and
average farm size more than double since World War II. The gutting of
rural communities, the creation of inner-city slums, and the
exacerbation of unemployment all followed in the wake of this vast
migration from the land. Think what the equivalent rural exodus means
in the Third World, where the number of jobless people is already
double or triple our own.
Not Ecologically Sustainable
There is also growing evidence that Green Revolution-style farming is

not ecologically sustainable, even for large farmers. In the 1990s,
Green Revolution researchers themselves sounded the alarm about a
disturbing trend that had only just come to light. After achieving
dramatic increases in the early stages of the technological
transformation, yields began falling in a number of Green Revolution
areas. In Central Luzon, Philippines, rice yields grew steadily during the
1970s, peaked in the early 1980s, and have been dropping gradually
ever since. Long-term experiments conducted by the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in both Central Luzon and Laguna Province
confirm these results. Similar patterns have now been observed for
rice-wheat systems in India and Nepal. The causes of this phenomenon
have to do with forms of long-term soil degradation that are still poorly
understood by scientists. An Indian farmer told Business Week his
story:
Dyal Singh knows that the soil on his 3.3-hectare [8 acre]

farm in Punjab is becoming less fertile. So far, it hasn't hurt
his harvest of wheat and corn. "There will be a great
problem after 5 or 10 years," says the 63-year-old Sikh
farmer. Years of using high-yield seeds that require heavy
irrigation and chemical fertilizers have taken their toll on
much of India's farmland.Š So far, 6 percent of agricultural
land has been rendered useless.
Where yields are not actually declining, the rate of growth is slowing
rapidly or leveling off, as has now been documented in China, North
Korea, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, and Sri
Lanka.
The Green Revolution: Some Lessons
Having seen food production advance while hunger widens, we are

now prepared to ask: under what conditions are greater harvests
doomed to failure in eliminating hunger?
First, where farmland is bought and sold like any other commodity and
society allows the unlimited accumulation of farmland by a few,
superfarms replace family farms and all of society suffers.
Second, where the main producers of food-small farmers and farm
workers-lack bargaining power relative to suppliers of farm inputs and
food marketers, producers get a shrinking share of the rewards from
farming.
Third, where dominant technology destroys the very basis for future
production, by degrading the soil and generating pest and weed
problems, it becomes increasingly difficult and costly to sustain yields.
Under these three conditions, mountains of additional food could not
eliminate hunger, as hunger in America should never let us forget. The
alternative is to create a viable and productive small farm agriculture
using the principles of agroecology. That is the only model with the
potential to end rural poverty, feed everyone, and protect the
environment and the productivity of the land for future generations.
Successful Examples
That sounds good, but has it ever worked? From the United States to
India, alternative agriculture is proving itself viable. In the United
States, a landmark study by the prestigious National Research Council
found that "alternative farmers often produce high per acre yields with
significant reductions in costs per unit of crop harvested," despite the
fact that "many federal policies discourage adoption of alternative
practices." The Council concluded that "Federal commodity programs
must be restructured to help farmers realize the full benefits of the
productivity gains possible through alternative practices."
In South India, a 1993 study was carried out to compare "ecological
farms" with matched "conventional" or chemical-intensive farms. The
study's author found that the ecological farms were just as productive
and profitable as the chemical ones. He concluded that if extrapolated
nationally, ecological farming would have "no negative impact on food
security," and would reduce soil erosion and the depletion of soil
fertility while greatly lessening dependence on external inputs.
But Cuba is where alternative agriculture has been put to its greatest
test. Changes underway in that island nation since the collapse of
trade with the former socialist bloc provide evidence that the
alternative approach can work on a large scale. Before 1989, Cuba was
a model Green Revolution-style farm economy, based on enormous
production units, using vast quantities of imported chemicals and
machinery to produce export crops, while over half of the island's food
was imported. Although the government's commitment to equity, as
well as favorable terms of trade offered by Eastern Europe, meant that
Cubans were not undernourished, the underlying vulnerability of this
style of farming was exposed when the collapse of the socialist bloc
joined the already existing and soon to be tightened U.S. trade
embargo.
Cuba was plunged into the worst food crisis in its history, with
consumption of calories and protein dropping by perhaps as much as
30 percent. Nevertheless, by 1997, Cubans were eating almost as well
as they did before 1989, yet comparatively little food and
agrochemicals were being imported. What happened?
Faced with the impossibility of importing either food or agrochemical
inputs, Cuba turned inward to create a more self-reliant agriculture
based on higher crop prices to farmers, agroecological technology,
smaller production units, and urban agriculture. The combination of a
trade embargo, food shortages, and the opening of farmers' markets
meant that farmers began to receive much better prices for their
products. Given this incentive to produce, they did so, even in the
absence of Green Revolution-style inputs. They were given a huge
boost by the reorientation of government education, research, and
extension toward alternative methods, as well as the rediscovery of
traditional farming techniques.
As small farmers and cooperatives responded by increasing production
while large-scale state farms stagnated and faced plunging yields, the
government initiated the newest phase of revolutionary land reform,
parceling out the state farms to their former employees as smaller-
scale production units. Finally, the government mobilized support for a
growing urban agriculture movement-small-scale organic farming on
vacant lots-which, together with the other changes, transformed Cuban
cities and urban diets in just a few years.
The Cuban experience tells us that we can feed a nation's people with
a small-farm model based on agroecological technology, and in so
doing we can become more self-reliant in food production. A key lesson
is that when farmers receive fairer prices, they produce, with or
without Green Revolution seed and chemical inputs. If these expensive
and noxious inputs are unnecessary, then we can dispense with them.
The Bottom Line
In the final analysis, if the history of the Green Revolution has taught
us one thing, it is that increased food production can-and often does-go
hand in hand with greater hunger. If the very basis of staying
competitive in farming is buying expensive inputs, then wealthier
farmers will inexorably win out over the poor, who are unlikely to find
adequate employment to compensate for the loss of farming
livelihoods. Hunger is not caused by a shortage of food, and cannot be
eliminated by producing more.
This is why we must be skeptical when Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis,
and other chemical-cum-biotechnology companies tell us that genetic
engineering will boost crop yields and feed the hungry. The
technologies they push have dubious benefits and well-documented
risks, and the second Green Revolution they promise is no more likely
to end hunger than the first.
Far too many people do not have access to the food that is already
available because of deep and growing inequality. If agriculture can
play any role in alleviating hunger, it will only be to the extent that the
bias toward wealthier and larger farmers is reversed through pro-poor
alternatives like land reform and sustainable agriculture, which reduce
inequality and make small farmers the center of an economically
vibrant rural economy.
* Peter Rosset has a Ph.D. in agricultural ecology and is the executive
director of Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
(http://www.foodfirst.org), which was founded by Joseph Collins and
Frances Moore Lappé in 1975. This article is based on research
presented in World Hunger: 12 Myths, second edition by Frances Moore
Lappé, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza (Grove
Press/Earthscan, 1998).

FOod

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FOod

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Agro, Marine & Other Food Products and Beverages Companies

Bakery & Confectionery Products 122

# : Commodity not reported

Nutrition is an important environmental factor that influences health,

Nutrition is an important environmental factor that influences health

Production of food grains

a. Excluding oilseeds, sugar, roots, tubers, milk, and milk products

a. Bajra, barley, jowar, maize, ragi, and small millets.

TABLE 3. Per Capita Availability of pulses in India: 1951-1980

TABLE 4. Per Capita Availability of Cereals and pulses Ratio 1951-1980

Upgrading nutrient quality

A qualitative dimension to food production was built into Indian

Source: National Institute of Nutrition 1978.

Source: National Institute of Nutrition 1978.

TABLE 10. Locational Differences in Aflatoxin Production Potential of Maize Varieties

Source: National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau 1978

Source: Recommended Dietary Allowances ICMR 1981.

TABLE 14. Calculation of National Food Requirements

Meeting nutritional needs

At the national level, food production appears to be sufficient to meet

Source: National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau 1977.

Should it be possible to achieve a more equitable consumption of food in the coming

• In the Central Coast of California (south of the Bay Area), as NPR

Though India's government officially dismissed the return of grain

Indeed, when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called in January

Swaminathan urges leaders to focus on what he calls an "evergreen

List Prohibited/Restricted for Imports in Food Sector

• Tallow, fats and oils of animal origin

Printer Friendly Version

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything

· Toxic or allergenic effects due to transgene products or interactions of

· Vector-mediated spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes to gut bacteria

· Vector-mediated spread of virulence among pathogens across species by

· Potential for vector-mediated horizontal gene transfer and recombination to

· Potential of vector-mediated infected cells after ingestion of transgenic

2. An industrial processing law which already exists and is the Prevention of

3. A GMO food law which controls imports, labeling, segregation, traceability

Under India’s diverse decentralized plural economy, a centralized integrated law is

Trade liberalisation and globalisation of agriculture are supposed to increase

In country after country, trade liberalisation is leading to declining food

Globalisation and Food Insecurity in the South

A paper on 'Globalisation and Agriculture in India' by Dr Vandana Shiva, Ms

Farmers of Punjab who were contracted by Pepsico to grow tomatoes received

Trade liberalisation is supposed to bring benefits to national agricultural

Dr Amitava Mukherjee, Executive Director, ActionAid India in his paper on

Dr Abhijit Sen of Jawaharlal Nehru University showed how under liberalisation

Dr John Kurien of the Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum elaborated

Mr Victor Suares Carrera, Executive Director of the National Association of

Referring to the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas in Mexico on 1 January 1994, the

Dr Regassa Feyissa, Director of the Biodiversity Institute of Ethiopia, said Africa

Dr Kamal Malhotra, co-Director of FOCUS on the Global South, referring to

Globalisation and Food Insecurity in the North

Referring to the massive growth of food insecurity in Britain, Dr Tim Lang,

Philip Lymbery from the Compassion in World Farming, UK said the

In Russia, as reported by Vera Matusevich, an Agricultural Economist, World

The dispensability of small farmers

A V Krebs, Director, Corporate Agribusiness Research Project and author of

The myth of the unproductive small farmers and fisherfolk

Productivity of monocultures is low in the context of diverse outputs and needs. It

As in the case of crop production, industrial fisheries and aquaculture also

In spite of all evidence pointing to the high diversity, productivity and

These corporations pushed for trade liberalisation of agriculture under the

The Unbeatable Economics of Genetic Engineering: A Harvest of Suicides