Health File

New Delhi, 18 August 2009

Key To Good Health

CHECK OUT ANIMALS’ EATING HABITS

By Suraj Saraf

People in modern society are growing more and more health conscious and there is extensive research going on the world-over about what we should eat to keep healthy, trim, alive and kicking. However, little attention is being paid to how to eat.

A related study by two American zoologists on how wild animals eat is interesting and may be highlighted here because the two stress that humans should follow similar habits. The two, Dr. William Karest and R. Fritz Walther underscore that wild animals are rarely fat and lazy as they have to hunt for their food and eat only when they are hungry. It is only when animals become domesticated that they fall into bad eating habits and pile on unnecessary and unhealthy pounds.

Most wild animals eat early in the day. Then they have plenty of time during the remaining daylight hours to work off all their excess calories. Humans, especially, tend to reverse this pattern, say these zoologists. They add that in modern society most of us barely eat first thing in the morning and do not have much for lunch either. But, we more than make up for it late at night. However, at the end of the day our bodies cannot digest the food properly and while we are asleep, it is a definite tendency for this food to turn into fat.

Moreover, animals eat a high-fibre diet. This goes both for vegetarian and meat-eating creatures. Grazing animals eat lots of grass and weeds all day long. This keeps them feeling full, but never makes them fat.

One of the remarkable aspects of animals’ eating habits is the way in which carnivorous animals tend to demolish the whole carcass of their prey including fur, feathers and bones. Wild animals do not eat and drink at the same time. They chew their food slowly which means they feel full on less of it, emphasise the zoologists.

Another analogous study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition underpins there are advantages to frequent feeding. One is of spreading out our food intake during the day which helps to equalize the body’s biochemistry. Also, by reducing the risk of the appetite running riot, regular ingestion can help quell a tendency to over eat.

Clearly, this study by the British scientists had attempted to add to our understanding of how the pattern of eating may affect our physiology. The results of their research suggest that when it comes to the impact eating has on our health, time can be the essence. The study assessed the effect of two eating patterns in a group of overweight women. This enabled the researchers to assess what advantages, if any, regularity in food intake has over chaotic consumption.

The participants undertook a test that measured the ability of food to stimulate the body’s metabolism (known as the thermogenic effect of food or Tef). A regular eating pattern brought a significant boost to the Tef. In addition, participants reported eating less when eating consistently. It is not uncommon for slimmers to skip the odd meal.

But the findings of this study suggest that those planning to shed pounds would be best advised not to skip their lunch, or any other meal. More regularised eating was also associated with lower levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. LDL is believed to raise the risk of heart diseases and stroke. In addition, consistency in eating pattern led to reduction in amount of insulin secreted in response to food.

This has important implications because lower levels of insulin in the long term should protect against such conditions as obesity, diabetes and heart disease. The researchers added that they were not of the opinion that meal times should be strictly adhered to but some regularity in eating patterns does seem to be one of the keys to good health. For those wishing to optimise their well-being through dietary means, consistency is the order of the day, underpinned the study.

While emphasizing meal habits of wild animals above, it was pointed out by the zoologists that these animals take their meals early morning and then work off their calories during daylight hunting for food. The underlying idea has been supported by another study stressing that people who can not sit still have an inborn behaviour that keeps them slim even if they overeat a little. Tests on slim and overweight people who described themselves as ‘couch potatoes’ showed that the main difference between the two groups was how long they sat still, said this study led by James Levine of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

“Our study shows that the calories that people burn in their everyday activities are far more important in obesity that we previously imagined.” The study was conducted on two groups of normal and obese men and women. It found that obese people spent two extra hours a day on an average sitting still compared to the lean volunteers. This difference accounted for about 350 calories a day, enough to add 4.5 kgs a year.

Interestingly, the study also added that the tendency to fidget may be genetic or it may be learned at an early age. “The idea is that there is either a ‘get-up-to-go’ gene or there is a gene that sends you into your chair. I am actually of the belief that what happens in childhood is absolutely the key,” said Dr. Levine.

The connection between diet and genes has been touched upon in another significant study which highlights that people who over eat might ruin their grandchildren’s health as a person’s diet could influence generations. Although diet does not change genes, it could affect future generations, says a study by Swedish researchers. It found that grand-children of well-fed people were found four times as likely to die from diabetes while kids of men who suffered famine were less likely to die from heart disease.  

“It’s a big leap to say that such effects are passed to future generations. But, I have a gut feeling that it is right,” said Eugene Albrecht, who studies foetal growth in the Maryland University in Baltimore. A father’s nutrition could change the activity of genes in sperm, rather than the genetic code itself, he suggested. Indeed, all these studies should be food for thought for most of us. --- INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 22 August 2009

Crass VIP Culture

TIME FOR NETAS TO GET REAL

By Poonam I Kaushish

Political Delhi is in the throes of VIP aka Very Important Person tremors once again. The kind that spells bad news for the poor aam aadmi. Whose life turns topsy turvy, leading to chakka jams, frayed tempers, boorish behaviour, shrilling sirens et al. Which could make even the most evenly tempered man turn in his grave. Even as our ruling VIP cabal afflicted by the Orwellian syndrome of some are more equal than others continue creating merry hell!

First it was over former President Kalam being frisked by an American airline. Little did the ‘people’s ex-President who “smiling” followed the procedures without any fuss, realise that his security ‘treatment’ would take a life all of its own among our gossamer-thin-skinned VIP elite. A much-outraged Government of India, parties, TV and FM channels jostled to air their indignation. From over-the-top “this-is-an-insult-to-India,” down cocky MPs bellowing “don’t-you-know-we-are-VIPs,” the Congress demanding the airline be thrown out, Left accusing the US of “religious profiling,” to the JMM burning effigies of the US President. 

Barely had the furor subsided when news of Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan’s detention for over an hour at US’s Newark airport again let loose a volley of quivering fury from our VIPs. The I&B Minister Ambika Soni advocated a tit-for-tat policy vis-à-vis US leaders, colleague Sashi Tharoor’s shrugged it off with “100s of innocent Muslims go through the same thing daily but don’t have 1 billion people to stand up for them.” RJD’s Lalu advised the “matter be taken up with the US” and Samajwadi’s Amar Singh cheekily asserted “it’s a publicity stunt by King Khan for his new movie.”

Sadly, drowned in this morbid narcissism none had time to think leave alone talk about the plight of the aam janata who undergo extended interrogation at security counters in the US and UK on the basis of colour and nationality as a fall-out of the 9/11 attacks. Neither does the ruling elite care tuppence for the common man’s ill-treatment within the country. The plucking out of line and made to comply with increasingly random demands at airports, stations and highways . All to show off the babu’s importance.

Raising a moot point: Why should our law makers be exempt from security checks? Why should the ever-ballooning list of VIPs feel their selfhoods are at stake when asked to follow the rules? Why should our post-Independence ruling mai-baaps nurse a feudal mindset and demand differential treatment?

The tragedy is that even as the country saunters into the 21^st century for our ruling maharajas the vestige of 19^th century India still lingers on. Bruised by a feudal oligarchy, colonial hangover and pummeled self-esteem our leaders combined the power of democracy, vote-bank politics and populism to became a force to reckon with for acquiring and retaining power.

Wherein everything was subjected to the whims and fancies of the privileged few, netas and babus. Of which ‘follow-no-rules’ was a fundamental part. These ranged from living in palatial heritage buildings in areas exempt from the daily drudgery of the aam aadmi: bijli, sadak, paani. Cars with beacons. Never having to queue up. What was of prime importance was where they figured in the pecking order, the size of their office and residence, the beacon colour atop their vehicle and their security and hangers-on entourage.

In fact, so VIP cocooned are our netas that Ambika Soni was fuming at being frisked on a recent US visit. Last year Pranab Mukherjee as Foreign Minister had to undergo security checks at Moscow airport. Earlier Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee cancelled his trip to Australia when told that he would not be exempt from security checks. The Lok Sabha witnessed pandemonium after former Dy Prime Minister Advani and ex-Defence Minister George Fernandes were ‘strip-searched’ at New York airport.

Then there is the strange case of Anand Sharma, who as Minister of State for External Affairs in the last Government threw a fit when he had to go through security checks while boarding a flight in New Delhi. Instead of pulling him up, a craven Government quickly amended the rules. Thus, all Ministers of State are now exempt from security checks.

But it doesn’t end just there. Recently, Lok Sabha witnessed an ugly scramble for VIP status. A livid Mulayam, Lalu and Mayawati’s BSP cohorts yelled blue murder over the down-grading of the security cover. Who dare strip them off the elite NSG cover? “The leaders are vital for the country… you will have blood on your hands…,” they yelled. Really?

Also look at the absurdity. Even VIPs who face no threat to their life are given minimal security of four PSOs round the clock. Bringing things to such a ridiculous pass that one sees fat waddly wannabes walking in Delhi’s Lodi garden chest puffed-up to show-off their VIP status and cars.

Bringing things to such a pass that anybody who is a busy body in the sarkar is there. So long is the list. Forget tabaars of President, PM, ex-Presidents, PMs’, Ministers, Chief Ministers, judges, MPs and MLAs, down to son-in-laws, father-in-laws, samdhi-samdhan, beta-bahu etc. Babudom too is not far behind. From Secretaries down to joint-secretaries all are included.  

Scandalously, our obsession with our VIPs has become so ludicrous that even the Gods have been ‘affected’ by it. At the world’s richest religious shrine Lord Venkateswara at Tirupati it is a is moot point whether `free access' of VIPs to the `Lord of Riches' would be restricted following a directive to the TTD board from the Andhra Pradesh Government. Its list of protocol VIPs competes with that of the Government’s. Sometimes they come along with an entourage of not less than 100 members, especially during peak days.

In sharp contrast, in the US, UK and other developing nation the list is kept to a minimal of ruling leaders. According to the US regulatory body Transportation Security Administration (TSA) its regulations require pre-embarkation screening of all passengers, irrespective of their rank or position. Former Vice-President Al Gore, Senator Edward Kennedy, music legend Bob Dylan, entertainers and sports heroes all have experienced trouble by routine security procedures at airports.

Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps was issued court summons for driving with an expired out-of -State license and boxer Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. In obverse, we have criminal-politicos ruling the roost in the corridors of power. Who can forget the sight of an MP being brought hand-feet shackled to Parliament House to take his oath as an MP? The Fifteenth Lok Sabha boasts of over 100-odd criminals. Less said the better of the State Assemblies.

Abuse all you want, but the fact is that there has been no attack in the US after 9/11 because of its air-tight-no-nonsense security. Put it down to a country where there is very little VIP culture; if anything, VIPs are singled out for special attention to see if they are in the breach. In which case, incidentally, the law-enforcement guys get their 15-minutes of fame.

Importantly, it is high time we did away with unnecessary privileges for politicians, bureaucrats and others. It is imperative we take a good hard relook at our security apparatus. We should adopt the US security pattern with a heavy dose of no-nonsense professionalism. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover, callousness and make no compromises where the country’s safety is concerned.  It is quite ridiculous that just because the VIPs consider themselves icons everybody else should too. They need to smell the coffee and get real! --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 13 August 2009

Food Insecurity

POLICY & NOT MONSOON FAILURE

By Shivaji Sarkar

“The world pays more for food as India goes shopping,” screams newspaper headlines. This has not happened in a day. Over the last few years, whenever India reaches the international market to buy foodstuff, prices have shot up. Neither can the monsoon be blamed for the food shortage and consequent food insecurity. It has assiduously, or unintelligently, been built since the ushering of the new economic era in 1991. And is a result of the skewed economic policy framed by the top economists – a virtual world’s who’s who - of the time.

Sadly, the economists were too concerned about the Forex shortage in 1990 that led to the pawning of gold to the Bank of England and its balance of payment crisis. Food prices were at their affordable best despite the so called “international” crisis. Our economists, concerned at the nation’s global image launched the fast track reforms process.

Some of them found that the agriculture-based economy was the “bane”. It followed a bashing of the “backward, retrograde looking farm-based economy”. They came out with the simplest solution –abandon foodgrain production as it was capital intensive, guzzled water, power and contributed ‘least’ to the economy.  They also said that India needed to produce cash crops, earn dollars and buy foodgrain from the international market.

The nation of a billion blindly followed the prescription, forgetting that the then 65 per cent of its people were dependent on agriculture. Now the figure is around 60 per cent. Shockingly, it was to be followed up with a cut in agriculture and food subsidies and in devastating the public distribution system (PDS), built over the past four decades. The PDS not only ensured food supply to the people but also effectively functioned as a market interventionist tool.

The impact of the policy was felt within a short span. Food started becoming scarce. Cultivation of BT cotton and other genetically modified crops started playing havoc with the farmers. They started committing suicide – a phenomenon that has not stopped since. The beneficiaries were the multi-national corporates (MNC), who entered the foodgrain production market in a big way and are now able to form a strong cartel, both nationally and internationally to extract the highest price.

However, the sober, “backward”, nationally-oriented economists had strongly opposed the moves in the mid-90s. They predicted what we are witnessing today. But the lobbyists of the MNCs backed by the World Bank were able to steamroll the protests and even labeled them renegades.

Clearly, they succeeded in devastating the base of the Indian economy, its agriculture. Since land is the base for a prosperous agriculture, they lobbied hard to change the Land Ceiling Act, both in urban and rural areas. This had a dual effect. The MNCs acquired large tracts of land and became corporate zamindars in rural areas. They backed similar large acquisitions in the urban neighbourhood too. This deprived the farmers of prime fertile land to their large housing projects. It also created the land mafia, who profit when someone loses his land.

The entire operation led to a reduction of several million hectare of arable land. By now agriculture became a bad word. The farming community was denied all support. Food production started falling. In 2008-09, growth originating from agriculture and allied activities declined to 1.6 per cent. Total food production at 230 million tonnes in 2007-08 is almost equal to that of 1980-81, when it was about 200 million tonnes. The Population then was 80 crore and it is about 110 crore now and in effect the per  capita food availability has reduced which has lead to the price spiral.

Moreover, the share of agriculture in gross capital formation between 1999 and 2007 has reduced from 10.2 per cent to 7 per cent. The decline was mainly attributed to turn down in share of private sector (farming community) despite an increase in the share of public sector (read large companies), according to the Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance. It states that private sector share has come down from 11.9 per cent in 1999-2000 to 6.6 per cent in 2006-07.

 This speaks of a grim reality. The protagonists of privatization overlooked the crucial fact that the Indian farm sector was always managed by private farmers with minimal state support. These protagonists saw in the efficient farming community a road block to corporate march. So they worked in the interest of the corporate to monopolise agriculture in the name of high investment, which they did not do, futures trading and linking the farms to the equity market.

 It had its effect. The oilseed and pulses programme initiated in mid-80s was jettisoned. This did not suit the international food traders, who now also control a large chunk of the domestic food market. They created through policy makers an artificial shortage – by not allowing the country to increase production, devastating the affordable PDS marketing system and feigning to making up the shortage by importing pulses, sugar, edible oil and at times wheat.

Indeed, the companies are profiting both ways. They are buying products from their own parent farms. Profits are being earned exploiting the hungry Indians. Their repatriation to the parent companies is growing. The policy makers have turned blind eye to this international exploitation.

No sooner Indian firms, both public and MNCs, started the food purchase, sugar futures for October delivery at the New York-based International Commodity Exchange (ICE) broke a 28-year barrier reaching a 20.81 cents a pound (454 grams) in early August. In London, the futures price rose to $ 537.2 per metric tonnes - the highest since 1983.

Sugar trailed only petroleum and copper price in rise in prices in 12 months. Although pulses are not traded in the futures market, their prices have been skyrocketing in Canada, Australia, Myanmar and Turkey, main exporters to India. World production of pulses has been stagnating at about 56 million tons for several years.

What the Prime Minister has been saying about firming of food prices is a grim reality. The government is looking for short-term solutions. Instead, it requires long-term policy shift. The country needs to lay emphasis on agriculture, have a proper food production and marketing policy. Instead of industry and stock market, agriculture has to be made the base for any growth pattern. Unless the large segment of the people dependent on agriculture is protected all developments are bound to be lopsided.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Events & Issues

New Delhi, 17 August 2009

Farmers & Fertilizers

DIRECT SUBSIDY, BETTER YIELD?

By Dr PK Vasudeva

The Government’s move to unshackle the fertilizer industry is a great idea. The sooner we throw the sector open the better. But, we must tread carefully as there is no guarantee that merely by freeing the industry dramatic changes in availability and prices in favour of farmers would result.

Farmers are increasingly using chemical fertilizers for better output of their produce. However, they are not getting direct subsidy from the Government as it goes to the fertilizer industry. Therefore, the mode of delivering the fertilizer subsidy must rightly shift from the producer to the farmer, who is the intended beneficiary.

None of the stakeholders — neither the farmer, who is the product user nor the industry the producer or the Government that doles out the subsidy — ever appeared happy with the extant controls and restrictions. The country, regrettably is not self-reliant in chemical fertilizers.

Among major fertilizers, the critical bottleneck in the production of urea is the limited availability of natural gas/LNG. DAP (Di-Ammonium Phosphate) production depends on availability of imported raw material/intermediates such as rock phosphates, phosphoric acid, sulphur, etc. Owing to limited availability and fluctuating prices of raw materials/intermediates in the international market, production of DAP and complex fertilizers has thus remained stagnant.

The consumption of fertilizers during the 9^th Five Year Plan and the initial years of the 10^th Five Year Plan has been stagnant. However, a combination of a good monsoon, increase in cultivated area, improved awareness about usage of fertilizers and better purchasing power in rural areas has resulted in a sharp increase in consumption of fertilizers, especially since 2004-05.

Despite improving availability and expanding usage of chemical fertilizers, per hectare consumption in nutrient terms is around 115 kg only, far less than that of many other developing countries. For instance, China consumes close to 300 kg/ha. While rising consumption is a positive sign, the productivity response has been rather muted. Well, around 70 per cent of the total fertilizer consumption in the country is on foodgrain crops and most of it is in irrigated areas.

In other words, there is a skew in fertilizer consumption, with wide variation across States and regions. It is also known that high-input regions of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh have become environmentally fragile. Besides, soil health has deteriorated and the water table has declined to alarming levels. Urgent steps to arrest the deterioration are needed. Crop diversification is a must. The politically expedient policy-driven system of grain mono cropping needs to be broken, and use of organic sources (bio-fertilizers) and the like to restore soil health is warranted.

Importantly, in his Budget speech, Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee referred to the Government’s intention to shift to a system of direct transfer of subsidy to the farmers. However, he did not specify a timeline. Clearly, fertilizer subsidy is something the Government will need to live with. The focus must, therefore, shift to the farmer. Currently, for chemical fertilizers, the farmer spends on an average just about Rs 1,500 per hectare, although the cost of production is calculated to be several times higher. The difference is absorbed as subsidy.

Besides, fertilizer subsidy has been ballooning in recent years. It reached an unprecedented and wholly unsustainable Rs 99,500 crore in 2008-09, up from Rs 43,300 crore in 2007-08 and Rs 28,000 crore in 2006-07. A sharp rise in international prices since 2006-07 and unchanged domestic prices account for a substantial portion of the subsidy.

The Rs 99,500 crore fertilizer subsidy Bill for 2008-09, translates to over Rs 5,000 crore per hectare of cultivated land. Yet, on ground there is little to show in terms of output growth. Though fertilizers are one of the key inputs for agriculture, the industry is quite happy keeping it instead.

The Government is on record that as per rough estimate, the total removal of plant nutrients (NPK) by foodgrain crops is around 32 million tonnes (mt) at the present level of foodgrain production of 230 mt. The replenishment of nutrients (NPK) through addition of chemical fertilizers is nearly 16 mt assuming 70 per cent of 23 mt of fertilizer nutrients is consumed by foodgrain crops.

About 6 mt of nutrients may be added through manures, leaving a total nutrient gap of 10 mt. This gap has to be met from bio-fertilizers and other nutrient sources. Besides, the imbalanced use of chemical fertilizers (significantly different from the desirable ratio of 4:2:1) and low addition of organic matter over the years has caused widespread multi-nutrient deficiencies and deterioration of soil health. The deficiencies of sulphur, zinc and boron are said to be more widespread.

Clearly, soil conditions, crop type and agronomy should dictate the amount and nature of fertilizers to be applied. In the event, soil-test based site-specific integrated nutrient management is necessary. Therefore, it calls for conjunctive use of inorganic and organic sources of plant nutrients (compost, bio-fertilizers).

The maximum retail price of chemical fertilizers has remained unchanged since February 2002 though the actual cost of production is said to be roughly 4-5 times higher. At the current subsidised MRP, the cost of 115 kg of fertiliser applied on an average per hectare works out to approximately Rs 1,400 -1,500.

The gross area under cultivation of major crops is an estimated 165 million hectares. Here is a simple calculation. Assuming the Government delivers directly to farmers the fertilizer subsidy at the rate of, say, Rs 4,000 a hectare, it would involve an outgo of Rs 66,000 crore; and at Rs 5,000 a hectare, the outgo would be Rs 82,500 crore.

Such direct payment would allow farmers the freedom to access the most suitable fertilizer. It would also free the industry from unnecessary restrictions and foster competition. This idea is in no way intended to be the last word, but something that would trigger a debate on how best to support farmers with direct subsidy even while allowing the industry the freedom to operate and innovate.

A simplified solution to the vexed issue of fertilizer pricing and delivery of subsidy would be to grant to the farmer a direct subsidy at a fixed rate per hectare of land cultivated. The gross area under major crops is 165 million hectares. If the farmer is granted Rs 5,000 as subsidy per hectare, the total subsidy burden would be Rs 82,500 crore and at Rs 4,000 a hectare, it would be Rs 66,000 crore. The subsidy amount can be delivered to farmers directly. Administrative hassles will be minimised, if not eliminated. This, however, pre-supposes the farmers know what they need and are in a position to source it.

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)