PHM-Exch> A note on Eat lancet and its relevance to India

[Claudio Schuftan]

*From: *Sylvia Karpagam <sakie339 at gmail.com>

excerpts
The Eat* Lancet* Commission report, launched
<https://www.fssai.gov.in/eatlancetindia/> on April 4, 2019 the at the Food
Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) headquarters, New Delhi,
India had its premise on the question “*Can we feed a future population of
10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries?’*. The event
aimed to ‘*spark conversations’* among all stakeholders and deliberate on
the five global strategies to bring about the *‘Great Food Transformation’*.

*Eat-Lancet ‘stakeholders’*


Neither of the two ‘experts’ representing India on the Eat *Lancet*
commission have any experience or expertise on nutrition.  The alacrity
with which FSSAI is ready to promote and project the EAT Lancet report does
away with all democratic consultation processes and allows for unilateral
decisions with ‘equal stakeholders’ such as companies, corporates and
students. That the Right to food campaign, which has been a consistent
proponent of food security and a vocal critic of fortification and
industry, has been left out from the report release shows the tilt of the
FSSAI towards commercialising food in India.
It is of concern that neither the Eat *Lancet* group nor their government
supporters in India, have taken any cognisance either of the research or
the recommendations by the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), the 100
year old government nutrition research body in the country. Is it because
the evidence from NIN strongly points in favour of animal source foods?


The Eat *Lancet *report has been critiqued
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)31903-8/fulltext>
for methodological flaws in assumptions, data collection and modelling,
substantial enough to alter the conclusions of the report. They observe
that some of the described relative risks, such as the association between
red meat and type 2 diabetes do not match the values in the source studies
or were based on a different definition of meat consumption (e.g.
conflating effects from red and processed meat)

Some observations about the Eat Lancet report

*On diet related morbidity and mortality*


The report, by clubbing undernutrition and obesity as ‘low dietary quality
which causes persistent micronutrient deficiencies’, fails to take into
account the complexities around nutrition in India.




The report claims that ‘*traditional diets’* in countries like India
include *‘little red meat which might be consumed only on special occasions
or as minor ingredients of mixed dishes’*. In India there is a vast
difference between what people would like to consume and what they consume
in reality because of innumerable barriers around caste, religion, culture,
cost, geography etc. The report feeds into the false premise that a
majority of people in India consume less meat by choice.


*Taxes and subsidies*
They make dangerous recommendations that ‘*food prices should fully reflect
the true costs of food. Subsidies on fertilisers, water, fuels,
electricity, and pesticides should be critically reviewed, with some
authorities arguing for their removal, and environmental and societal
health costs of food supply and consumption should be fully reflected in
pricing by introducing taxes. As a result, food prices might increase”.*
Increase in food costs would be the death knell for small farmers in India
who are already reeling with loans they are unable to repay and an increase
in food prices would be death knell for the poor in India who have chronic
energy deficiency, stunting, undernutrition, anemia and a host of other
vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
The solution offered by the Eat Lancet group is ‘*Therefore, where
appropriate, social protection or safety nets (e.g., increasing income
through cash transfers) can be established to protect vulnerable
populations, particularly children and women, while keeping trade open*”
Keeping ‘trade open’ and ‘protecting vulnerable populations’ do not go hand
in hand. The market has been relentless in its greed and pretending to have
a social goal is blatantly flawed.
Cash transfers have failed miserably
<https://www.governancenow.com/views/interview/interview-jean-dreze-development-economist>
in India and it only shows the level of marketization that the ill-informed
Eat lancet Commission is pushing for.


*Conflict of interest*

The conflict of Interest <https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053> of the Eat
Lancet Commission is too blatant to ignore. It was founded by Gunhild
Stordalen, an animal rights activist and one of Europe’s richest and whose
supporters include companies that develop fake meat and dairy. The
underlying agenda <https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053> seems to be to use
cheap plant based materials such as protein extracts, starches and oils to
market a ‘plant based lifestyle’ through a network of large multinationals.
FSSAI has been embroiled in controversies and blatant conflict of interest
<https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/opinion-conflict-of-interest-impairs-tie-ups-between-food-industry-and-its-regulator/339118>
with its scientific panel being populated with ‘experts’ from the food and
beverage industry.



Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) which co-hosted this event
are pushing for large scale fortification
<https://www.gainhealth.org/resources/reports-and-publications/national-mandated-food-fortification-programs-chapter-food>
of grains/oils which FSSAI is promoting on a large scale such that it will
benefit
<https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/food/fortified-rice-scheme-to-create-rs-3-000-crore-market-for-just-five-big-firms-66761>
5 big  international firms.  This large scale fortification has been
criticised widely. A Cochrane review
<https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009902.pub2/full>
shows that fortification of rice makes little or no difference to
addressing anemia or Vitamin A deficiency.. The body requires a combination
of good quality proteins, minerals, vitamins and fats. Instead of
addressing chronic hunger and malnutrition through enabling better foods
that include meats, milk, eggs, dairy products, fruits and vegetables, that
will automatically address issues of malnutrition and micronutrient
deficiency,  the government is opening the door for company dependent
solutions. What is not being disclosed or discussed is the cost of
fortification, the environmental or economic cost of shifting tonnes of
micronutrients from Western countries on a permanent basis because local
food economies would have been completely destroyed by this model.
*Dr. Sylvia Karpagam*
https://independent.academia.edu/SylviaKarpagam
-- 
Jan Swasthya Abhiyan (JSA) is the Indian Chapter of the People's Health
Movement. JSA brings together organisations and individuals in India
working to promote health equity across all population groups. Also visit
our website: www.phmindia.org
---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20191204/2964caf8/attachment.html>