Exposé by Reporters Collective on Fortified Rice

Image from: Reporters Collective 

Please find the link to the 3 part series by Shreegireesh Jalihal of the Reporters Collective here: https://www.reporters-collective.in/projects/modified-rice-papers

 PRESS RELEASE BY ASHA AND RIGHT TO FOOD CAMPAIGN

 

“Reporters’ Collective’s 3-part Investigative Exposé highlights with additional evidence the red flags that ASHA and RTFC have raised on large scale iron-fortified rice distribution in India’s public food schemes” – civil society platforms 

 

New Delhi, May 26^th 2023: The Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) and the Right to Food Campaign (RTFC) who have been actively raising concerns on the many red flags related to large scale iron-fortified-rice distribution in India, stand vindicated with additional evidence emerging from Reporters’ Collective’s investigative stories - that too from official confidential and documents - More detailed information has now emerged on state-led cover ups, internal red flags from different government agencies, and corporate profit-government nexus behind the rice fortification program via an exposé by the Reporters Collective in a 3 part series.

 

Government of India, in a unilateral decision on a matter which Constitutionally is vested with state governments, has been supplying iron-fortified rice in public safety net programs like PDS, mid-day meals, and anganwadis reaching crores of Indians. These are mostly poor citizens who rely on state subsidized food and for whom iron fortified rice has become mandatory since they cannot afford to buy other (non-fortified) rice in the open market. The scaling up of this program came before a pilot scheme in 15 states was completed, or evaluated independently and rigorously. The evaluation of these pilots was due in late 2022 per an RTI response by the government. 

 

Key concerns raised by ASHA and RTFC have been about the haste under which the programs were scaled up to national food programs despite no evaluations of the pilot schemes or evidence that fortified rice met its goals without risks, and the fact that a one-size-fits-all approach is being adopted even though iron-fortified foods are contra-indicated for many medical conditions of lakhs of citizens. RTI replies to requests for evaluation reports of the pilots stated that evaluations were not done by state governments, yet the government proceeded to scale up. However, the confidential NITI Aayog report that has now come to light, and FSSAI’s own scientific panel on nutrition and fortification had also warned that evaluations and large-scale studies be conducted before any scaling up was to be undertaken.[1] Moreover, the finance ministry too had called the program premature.

 

The exposé reveals that a confidential evaluation study conducted by the Government of India’s own think-tank Niti Aayog had been covered up and ignored, unsurprisingly because the bungled pilots do not indicate in any way that fortified rice distribution should be scaled up. None of the reviewed pilots had carried out basic surveys to map existing levels of micronutrient deficiency, or had quality control processes in place to prevent over-dosing, among other problems. Moreover, the expose reveals that states did not have an appetite for the pilots. An evaluation of a co-implemented pilot conducted by Tata Trusts (which also is involved in a commercial manner in iron fortification) in Gadchiroli district was so flawed that it tried to link consumption of iron fortified rice with reduced smoking and alcohol consumption and immunisation!

 

ASHA and RTFC had also conducted two fact finding visits in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh to investigate on-ground implementation of fortification programs, revealing that even those patients with haemoglobinopathies like Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Anemia (and other contra-indicated conditions), who have been cautioned not consume iron-fortified foods as per FSSAI’s own warnings, were being forced to consume iron rice, at risk to their health. The state governments did not seem to have a say on the matter and were being pushed into implementing these policies by the Union Government.

 

Earlier this year, ASHA had also published a report on the massive corporate influence on policy-making within the FSSAI, by companies who stood to profit from fortification policies in India. The conflict of interest is quite apparent, and the regulatory regime stands compromised. The Reporters’ Collective’s exposé has identified one of these MNCs, i.e. vitamin and premix manufacturer DSM (a Dutch corporate), which alone gained hundreds of crores of rupees. ASHA’s research reveals that the corporate nexus runs deeper than DSM alone and involved many other corporations and philanthropic entities who deliberately influenced policy for the adoption of mandatory policies on fortification because of the huge profit potential. 

 

ASHA and RTFC once again call upon the Union Government to stop iron-fortified rice distribution in the country immediately, given the numerous irregularities and anti-people aspects of iron-fortified rice distribution. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

OUR REPORT ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CORPORATE INFLUENCE BEHIND INDIA'S FORTIFICATION POLICIES

A new report on conflict of interest and corporate influence behind India's fortification policies focuses on an entity named the Food Fortification Resource Center (FFRC), which is an industry linked body, and is located within the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which is India’s food safety regulator. The report reveals how FFRC’s direct and indirect members stand to financially gain from an expansion in food fortification programs in India. Given the profit motive that exists, the report questions the location of FFRC within the FSSAI, as the latter is a statutory regulatory body whose aim is to protect citizen health, and which is expected to function in an independent fashion. As the report states, “of greatest concern to this report, is why such actors have a seat inside India’s regulatory body, the FSSAI. Moreover, such actors are co-implementing fortification programs, providing funding, advisory services, selling proprietary technologies in state programs, and conducting the government’s so-called ‘independent’ evaluation studies. We make the case that the presence of the FFRC inside the FSSAI deserves further scrutiny and intervention to avoid conflict of interest.”

link to report here 

Image from the report on the web of connections between corporate actors and the FFRC

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHHATTISGARH FACT FINDING VISIT ON FORTIFIED RICE IN GOVT PROGRAMS (June 2022)

Report in English 

Executive Summary in English

Press Release in English

Executive Summary in Hindi

Press release in Hindi

Public Health expert, Dr Randall on his observations from the fact finding visit in Chattisgarh (in Hindi)

KEY FINDINGS OF THE FACT FINDING VISIT 

The following is an Executive Summary of a Fact-Finding Report on Fortified Rice Distribution in various government food schemes in the state of Chhattisgarh, after visits to four districts of the state (Kondagaon, Bastar, Surguja and Korba) and interactions with scores of entitlement-holders/”beneficiaries”, frontline workers of various line departments, PDS dealers, medical experts, and senior government/executive functionaries at state and district level. The fact-finding visit organised by Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA-Kisan Swaraj) and Right To Food Campaign (RTFC) was during June 13th to 15th 2022, and included a seven member team (two of whom are medical doctors). 

a. Community Rejection Initially: During the fact finding, at several places the team found that, communities initially rejected the fortified rice quite strongly. While some of this is linked to fears around “plastic rice”, some of it was lack of preference. In one location, it was adverse effects that made the community give up consumption of fortified rice. In Kondagaon field visit, the team found that PDS beneficiaries refused to buy the fortified rice for one month. This is being sought to be overcome by the state government by aggressive publicity about the virtues of fortified rice without any messages put out on contra-indications related to iron-fortified foods. 

b. FRK (fortified rice kernal) being discarded even now: The fact-finding teams found that even now, a significant number of people avoid eating the FRK being mixed natural rice in the PDS supplies. There are at least 3 ways that the chemical fortificants are getting discarded – one, by hand-picking during cleaning stage where women are able to recognise the FRK by color and appearance; two, when the rice is soaked in water when FRK floats up, it is removed; three, when extra water is drained out after the rice is cooked. This is happening in beneficiaries’ homes as well as in anganwadis. This puts a question mark on the efficacy of this approach, apart from this being a clear violation of the WHO guidelines. Efficacy questions arise for other medical reasons also, as a perusal of published scientific literature shows. 

c. Adverse reactions reported after consumption of fortified rice: During the visits, adverse physical reactions were also reported in some locations from some people. Stomach ache was the common complaint heard; however, it is unclear if fortified rice was the reason.

 

d. Iron Fortified Rice being distributed indiscriminately and irresponsibly to unsuspecting and unknowing people: There is indiscriminate distribution of fortified rice even to contra-indicated patients – here, multiple issues emerge. (i) there has been no comprehensive screening of the population to identify sickle cell disease persons and thalassemia patients. Therefore, the question of patients following any medical advisories does not arise; (ii) even the patients who have been identified as such have been consuming fortified rice since no one warned them against the same; (iii) in many cases, the patients have no choice other than eat the iron-fortified rice, given their poverty conditions; (iv) even if both fortified and non-fortified rice is supplied separately to each household, maintaining this distinction in the cooking practices of the household, where two types of rice are to be cooked each day may not be possible; (v) even if this is indeed put into place by over-worked women in the households where cooking food has been made their gendered responsibility, such choices don’t exist for contra-indicated persons in anganwadi and school meals. 

e. Non-Compliance to Statutory Food Safety Regulations: The teams also found that statutory labelling regulations are being flouted with regard to iron-fortified rice. F+ logo was not always there, nor were warning statements stencilled and labelled in all cases. Moreover, labelling was incomplete, where it was present. Importantly, compliance to labelling regulations does not mean anything much for the end consumer in this case for various reasons – in Chhattisgarh, PDS dealers, anganwadis and schools are made to return back the gunny sacks in which the rice has been supplied for government food schemes. Such rice is transferred into any bag and container from that stage on and supplied bags are returned. From that stage on, labelling holds no meaning, in that sense. Further, end consumers get their supplies in loose, and not in packaged labelled manner. The poverty, literacy and knowledge about contra-indicated conditions is such that even if all issues are addressed, patients may not be able to avoid fortified rice. 

Label is blurry and not useful since rice is given in loose form

f. One-sided Incorrect Publicity by the Government: The fact-finding teams found that potential benefits of fortified rice were amplified through the government agencies as wall-writings, posters, banners, newspaper advertisements etc; on the other side, the PDS dealers, anganwadi functionaries and health department functionaries were not told about fortified rice supplies and no warning statements put out. No prior informed consent was obtained from beneficiaries before such large-scale distribution began even though Right to Know Your Food and Right to Informed Choices are basic rights when it comes to something as critical as food. 

g. Chhattisgarh Government is supplying more fortified rice per person than other states – Safety implications unstudied, unknown: In Chhattisgarh, the PDS-based entitlements per person are higher than in other states, and all schemes (including PMGKAY) are right now supplying only fortified rice in the chosen districts. This could lead to iron over-dosing. 

h. Layering of multiple interventions also leading to potential iron over-dosing: Chhattisgarh also has other schemes which seek to address malnutrition apart from the fact that it is supplying more quantities of fortified rice to its citizens. This includes fortified Take Home Rations, which incidentally also have iron added. Further micronutrient supplementation programs are also underway. In certain districts, jaggery and channa are supplied in the PDS. There is no evaluation of all the interventions comprehensively, to check for risks of iron over-dosing of vulnerable populations. 

i. Concerns and Reservations amongst Government Functionaries too: It is noteworthy that the fact-finding teams have only encountered concerns and reservations expressed by various functionaries in the government, once detailed discussions on various aspects related to the intervention unfolded. The lack of debate and information about Rice Fortification is striking and disturbing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------