Government is pushing ahead with the rice fortification scheme, which will cost over Rs 17,000 crore, but two members of PM’s economic advisory council (EAC-PM) have written articles or papers citing consumption survey data to argue that fortification may not be the best way to tackle anaemia among women and children. This is in line with what several public health experts have been saying.
Sanjeev Sanyal, an EAC-PM member and former principal economic advisor to the finance minister, wrote an article just a fortnight back questioning the wisdom of large-scale food fortification. He cautioned that “an important driver of fortification-heavy strategy is advocacy by international donors and NGOs” and suggested that “much stronger evidence supporting different kinds of fortification” was needed.
Shamika Ravi, another EAC-PM member, was one of the authors of a paper published by EAC that analysed the latest household consumption survey data and showed that prevalence of anaemia among children and women was associated with poor dietary diversity of iron sources. The analysis flagged “the limited impact” of universal fortification of cereals to improve iron and zinc intake and reduce anaemia in India. The analysis based on survey data for 2022-23 and 2011-12 was done by Ravi and several experts from Indian Statistical Institute.
Sanyal questioned whether fortification was an efficient response to undernutrition with thousands of crores of public money being spent on fortification for the universal distribution of fortified rice through PDS, midday meals and Integrated Child Development Scheme. He pointed out that of 18 studies on the impact of rice fortification on anaemia, which was used as scientific evidence by central govt to justify ramping up rice fortification programmes, only four were from India and that the results were ambiguous.
According to Sanyal, even international donor community might be having second thoughts about fortification as Bill Gates also had recently stated that it is very important to diversify the diet. However, Sanyal concluded by stating that they were not advocating a blanket withdrawal of fortification but merely pointing out that much stronger evidence supporting different kinds of fortification was needed.