On 13-12-2011 17:29, Sruthi Krishnan wrote: >> See above - not only processed foods, other natural food items too. >> Edible oil for example has shown a huge huge jump over the years thanks >> to imports and oil actually reaching the rural hinterland. In general, >> grain budgets have shifted to both superior foods and nonfood consumer >> goods. >> > I am getting confused here - maybe I don't understand this properly. > Let me write what I understood, correct me if I am mistaken: > Food availability refers to both direct consumption and superior foods. > Direct consumption is decreasing - this both you and Utsa agree upon. Sorry I have to type with a cast on and have been trying to use as few words as possible.
The paper you quoted referred to grain absorption which as I understood it referred to how, of the total production of foodgrains in the country was used a) direct consumption as food b) fed to livestock (and thus converted to milk/ meat/ eggs) and if it goes into storage that's not absorption. Utsa Patnaik first says direct consumption as food is decreasing - we both agree as you say. She then says that because absorption too is falling, it means that the alternative explanation that meat and dairy is being consumed instead must be false. But the NSSO data which she used to show that consumption of grain as food is falling also show that meat and dairy *are* being consumed more. So are edible oils and vegetables. So there is a discrepancy - foodgrain absorption is falling but meat and milk are rising at the same time. This does need to be explained. Possible explanations are that livestock are now being fed alternative feed like soya meal instead of grain. This would make sense- it's more efficient. > So, the first point of contention is over processed foods - if people > are consuming more of that, absorption should increase. As it is not > increasing, people are consuming less of that. - Here there is no > consensus between you and Utsa. You are saying that consumption of > superior foods is increasing, which means absorption should increase. > But it is not, right? Not necessarily, the superior foods which show increasing consumption don't necessarily take foodgrains as input. Vegetables and edible oils for example. So superior food consumption can rise without rising foodgrain absorption providing we don't limit superior foods to animal protein. See above for why animal protein doesn't necessarily need grain absorption. > Second point of contention - why is this happening? > Utsa is saying it is because of lowered purchasing power. You are > saying it is because they are spending more on nonfood consumer goods. > Essentially she's saying they are in distress, you are saying this > data is insufficient to make that claim. Both you and me think that UP claims that it is because of lowered purchasing power. I think it could be, but not necessarily so. Diverting grain budget to any combination of veggies, edible oil, meat, eggs, milk and dairy, nonfood items, education, entertainment, etc is also an explanation. And most of these items do show an increase in relative consumption over time in the NSSO surveys. -- Regards, Aadisht Mailing address for lists: li...@aadisht.net Personal mailing address: aadi...@aadisht.net Phone: 96000 23067
