essay on food production in india

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Why publish with Food Quality and Safety
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Food Quality and Safety
• About Zhejiang University Press
• Editorial Board
• Outstanding Reviewers
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, organic farming process, benefits of organic farming, organic agriculture and sustainable development, status of organic farming in india: production, popularity, and economic growth, future prospects of organic farming in india, conclusions, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Suryatapa Das, Annalakshmi Chatterjee, Tapan Kumar Pal, Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation, Food Quality and Safety , Volume 4, Issue 2, May 2020, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/fqsafe/fyaa018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Food quality and safety are the two important factors that have gained ever-increasing attention in general consumers. Conventionally grown foods have immense adverse health effects due to the presence of higher pesticide residue, more nitrate, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotic residue, and also genetically modified organisms. Moreover, conventionally grown foods are less nutritious and contain lesser amounts of protective antioxidants. In the quest for safer food, the demand for organically grown foods has increased during the last decades due to their probable health benefits and food safety concerns. Organic food production is defined as cultivation without the application of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides or genetically modified organisms, growth hormones, and antibiotics. The popularity of organically grown foods is increasing day by day owing to their nutritional and health benefits. Organic farming also protects the environment and has a greater socio-economic impact on a nation. India is a country that is bestowed with indigenous skills and potentiality for growth in organic agriculture. Although India was far behind in the adoption of organic farming due to several reasons, presently it has achieved rapid growth in organic agriculture and now becomes one of the largest organic producers in the world. Therefore, organic farming has a great impact on the health of a nation like India by ensuring sustainable development.

Food quality and safety are two vital factors that have attained constant attention in common people. Growing environmental awareness and several food hazards (e.g. dioxins, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and bacterial contamination) have substantially decreased the consumer’s trust towards food quality in the last decades. Intensive conventional farming can add contamination to the food chain. For these reasons, consumers are quested for safer and better foods that are produced through more ecologically and authentically by local systems. Organically grown food and food products are believed to meet these demands ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

In recent years, organic farming as a cultivation process is gaining increasing popularity ( Dangour et al. , 2010 ). Organically grown foods have become one of the best choices for both consumers and farmers. Organically grown foods are part of go green lifestyle. But the question is that what is meant by organic farming? ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The term ‘organic’ was first coined by Northbourne, in 1940, in his book entitled ‘Look to the Land’.

Northbourne stated that ‘the farm itself should have biological completeness; it must be a living entity; it must be a unit which has within itself a balanced organic life’( Nourthbourne, 2003 ). Northbourne also defined organic farming as ‘an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity’. According to Winter and Davis (2006) , ‘it is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony’.

They mentioned that organic produce is not grown with synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, application of genetic modification techniques (such as genetically modified crops), sewage sludge, or chemical fertilizers.

Whereas, conventional farming is the cultivation process where synthetic pesticide and chemical fertilizers are applied to gain higher crop yield and profit. In conventional farming, synthetic pesticides and chemicals are able to eliminate insects, weeds, and pests and growth factors such as synthetic hormones and fertilizers increase growth rate ( Worthington, 2001 ).

As synthetically produced pesticides and chemical fertilizers are utilized in conventional farming, consumption of conventionally grown foods is discouraged, and for these reasons, the popularity of organic farming is increasing gradually.

Organic farming and food processing practices are wide-ranging and necessitate the development of socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable food production system. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has suggested the basic four principles of organic farming, i.e. the principle of health, ecology, fairness, and care ( Figure 1 ). The main principles and practices of organic food production are to inspire and enhance biological cycles in the farming system, keep and enhance deep-rooted soil fertility, reduce all types of pollution, evade the application of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, conserve genetic diversity in food, consider the vast socio-ecological impact of food production, and produce high-quality food in sufficient quantity ( IFOAM, 1998 ).

Principles of organic farming (adapted from IFOAM, 1998 ).

According to the National Organic Programme implemented by USDA Organic Food Production Act (OFPA, 1990), agriculture needs specific prerequisites for both crop cultivation and animal husbandry. To be acceptable as organic, crops should be cultivated in lands without any synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and herbicides for 3 years before harvesting with enough buffer zone to lower contamination from the adjacent farms. Genetically engineered products, sewage sludge, and ionizing radiation are strictly prohibited. Fertility and nutrient content of soil are managed primarily by farming practices, with crop rotation, and using cover crops that are boosted with animal and plant waste manures. Pests, diseases, and weeds are mainly controlled with the adaptation of physical and biological control systems without using herbicides and synthetic pesticides. Organic livestock should be reared devoid of scheduled application of growth hormones or antibiotics and they should be provided with enough access to the outdoor. Preventive health practices such as routine vaccination, vitamins and minerals supplementation are also needed (OFPA, 1990).

Nutritional benefits and health safety

Magnusson et al. (2003) and Brandt and MØlgaord (2001) mentioned that the growing demand for organically farmed fresh products has created an interest in both consumer and producer regarding the nutritional value of organically and conventionally grown foods. According to a study conducted by AFSSA (2003) , organically grown foods, especially leafy vegetables and tubers, have higher dry matter as compared to conventionally grown foods. Woëse et al. (1997) and Bourn and Prescott (2002) also found similar results. Although organic cereals and their products contain lesser protein than conventional cereals, they have higher quality proteins with better amino acid scores. Lysine content in organic wheat has been reported to be 25%–30% more than conventional wheat ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ; Brandt et al. , 2000 ).

Organically grazed cows and sheep contain less fat and more lean meat as compared to conventional counterparts ( Hansson et al. , 2000 ). In a study conducted by Nürnberg et al. (2002) , organically fed cow’s muscle contains fourfold more linolenic acid, which is a recommended cardio-protective ω-3 fatty acid, with accompanying decrease in oleic acid and linoleic acid. Pastushenko et al. (2000) found that meat from an organically grazed cow contains high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The milk produced from the organic farm contains higher polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E ( Lund, 1991 ). Vitamin E and carotenoids are found in a nutritionally desirable amount in organic milk ( Nürnberg et al. , 2002 ). Higher oleic acid has been found in organic virgin olive oil ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). Organic plants contain significantly more magnesium, iron, and phosphorous. They also contain more calcium, sodium, and potassium as major elements and manganese, iodine, chromium, molybdenum, selenium, boron, copper, vanadium, and zinc as trace elements ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

According to a review of Lairon (2010) which was based on the French Agency for food safety (AFSSA) report, organic products contain more dry matter, minerals, and antioxidants such as polyphenols and salicylic acid. Organic foods (94%–100%) contain no pesticide residues in comparison to conventionally grown foods.

Fruits and vegetables contain a wide variety of phytochemicals such as polyphenols, resveratrol, and pro-vitamin C and carotenoids which are generally secondary metabolites of plants. In a study of Lairon (2010) , organic fruits and vegetables contain 27% more vitamin C than conventional fruits and vegetables. These secondary metabolites have substantial regulatory effects at cellular levels and hence found to be protective against certain diseases such as cancers, chronic inflammations, and other diseases ( Lairon, 2010 ).

According to a Food Marketing Institute (2008) , some organic foods such as corn, strawberries, and marionberries have greater than 30% of cancer-fighting antioxidants. The phenols and polyphenolic antioxidants are in higher level in organic fruits and vegetables. It has been estimated that organic plants contain double the amount of phenolic compounds than conventional ones ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ). Organic wine has been reported to contain a higher level of resveratrol ( Levite et al. , 2000 ).

Rossi et al. (2008) stated that organically grown tomatoes contain more salicylic acid than conventional counterparts. Salicylic acid is a naturally occurring phytochemical having anti-inflammatory and anti-stress effects and prevents hardening of arteries and bowel cancer ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ; Butler et al. , 2008 ).

Total sugar content is more in organic fruits because of which they taste better to consumers. Bread made from organically grown grain was found to have better flavour and also had better crumb elasticity ( BjØrn and Fruekidle, 2003 ). Organically grown fruits and vegetables have been proved to taste better and smell good ( Rembialkowska, 2000 ).

Organic vegetables normally have far less nitrate content than conventional vegetables ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ). Nitrates are used in farming as soil fertilizer but they can be easily transformed into nitrites, a matter of public health concern. Nitrites are highly reactive nitrogen species that are capable of competing with oxygen in the blood to bind with haemoglobin, thus leading to methemoglobinemia. It also binds to the secondary amine to generate nitrosamine which is a potent carcinogen ( Lairon, 2010 ).

As organically grown foods are cultivated without the use of pesticides and sewage sludge, they are less contaminated with pesticide residue and pathogenic organisms such as Listeria monocytogenes or Salmonella sp. or Escherichia coli ( Van Renterghem et al. , 1991 ; Lung et al. , 2001 ; Warnick et al. , 2001 ).

Therefore, organic foods ensure better nutritional benefits and health safety.

Environmental impact

Organic farming has a protective role in environmental conservation. The effect of organic and conventional agriculture on the environment has been extensively studied. It is believed that organic farming is less harmful to the environment as it does not allow synthetic pesticides, most of which are potentially harmful to water, soil, and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife ( Oquist et al. , 2007 ). In addition, organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining biodiversity, due to practices of crop rotation. Organic farming improves physico-biological properties of soil consisting of more organic matter, biomass, higher enzyme, better soil stability, enhanced water percolation, holding capacities, lesser water, and wind erosion compared to conventionally farming soil ( Fliessbach & Mäder, 2000 ; Edwards, 2007 ; Fileβbach et al. , 2007 ). Organic farming uses lesser energy and produces less waste per unit area or per unit yield ( Stolze et al. , 2000 ; Hansen et al. , 2001 ). In addition, organically managed soils are of greater quality and water retention capacity, resulting in higher yield in organic farms even during the drought years ( Pimentel et al. , 2005 ).

Socioeconomic impact

Organic cultivation requires a higher level of labour, hence produces more income-generating jobs per farm ( Halberg, 2008 ). According to Winter and Davis (2006), an organic product typically costs 10%–40% more than the similar conventionally crops and it depends on multiple factors both in the input and the output arms. On the input side, factors that enhance the price of organic foods include the high cost of obtaining the organic certification, the high cost of manpower in the field, lack of subsidies on organics in India, unlike chemical inputs. But consumers are willing to pay a high price as there is increasing health awareness. Some organic products also have short supply against high demand with a resultant increase in cost ( Mukherjee et al. , 2018 ).

Biofertilizers and pesticides can be produced locally, so yearly inputs invested by the farmers are also low ( Lobley et al. , 2005 ). As the labours working in organic farms are less likely to be exposed to agricultural chemicals, their occupational health is improved ( Thompson and Kidwell, 1998 ). Organic food has a longer shelf life than conventional foods due to lesser nitrates and greater antioxidants. Nitrates hasten food spoilage, whereas antioxidants help to enhance the shelf life of foods ( Shreck et al. , 2006 ). Organic farming is now an expanding economic sector as a result of the profit incurred by organic produce and thereby leading to a growing inclination towards organic agriculture by the farmers.

The concept of sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals—environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. The concept of sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The very basic approach to organic farming for the sustainable environment includes the following ( Yadav, 2017 ):

Improvement and maintenance of the natural landscape and agro-ecosystem.

Avoidance of overexploitation and pollution of natural resources.

Minimization of the consumption of non-renewable energy resources.

Exploitation synergies that exist in a natural ecosystem.

Maintenance and improve soil health by stimulating activity or soil organic manures and avoid harming them with pesticides.

Optimum economic returns, with a safe, secure, and healthy working environment.

Acknowledgement of the virtues of indigenous know-how and traditional farming system.

Long-term economic viability can only be possible by organic farming and because of its premium price in the market, organic farming is more profitable. The increase in the cost of production by the use of pesticides and fertilizers in conventional farming and its negative impact on farmer’s health affect economic balance in a community and benefits only go to the manufacturer of these pesticides. Continuous degradation of soil fertility by chemical fertilizers leads to production loss and hence increases the cost of production which makes the farming economically unsustainable. Implementation of a strategy encompassing food security, generation of rural employment, poverty alleviation, conservation of the natural resource, adoption of an export-oriented production system, sound infrastructure, active participation of government, and private-public sector will be helpful to make revamp economic sustainability in agriculture ( Soumya, 2015 ).

Social sustainability

It is defined as a process or framework that promotes the wellbeing of members of an organization while supporting the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community. Social sustainability can be improved by enabling rural poor to get benefit from agricultural development, giving respect to indigenous knowledge and practices along with modern technologies, promoting gender equality in labour, full participation of vibrant rural communities to enhance their confidence and mental health, and thus decreasing suicidal rates among the farmers. Organic farming appears to generate 30% more employment in rural areas and labour achieves higher returns per unit of labour input ( Pandey and Singh, 2012 ).

Organic food and farming have continued to grow across the world. Since 1985, the total area of farmland under organic production has been increased steadily over the last three decades ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). By 2017, there was a total of 69.8 million hectares of organically managed land recorded globally which represents a 20% growth or 11.7 million hectares of land in comparison to the year 2016. This is the largest growth ever recorded in organic farming ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). The countries with the largest areas of organic agricultural land recorded in the year 2017 are given in Figure 2 . Australia has the largest organic lands with an area of 35.65 million hectares and India acquired the eighth position with a total organic agriculture area of 1.78 million hectares ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Country-wise areas of organic agriculture land, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

In 2017, it was also reported that day to day the number of organic produces increases considerably all over the world. Asia contributes to the largest percentage (40%) of organic production in the world and India contributes to be largest number of organic producer (835 000) ( Figures 3 and 4 ).

Organic producers by region, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Largest organic producers in the world, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The growth of organic farming in India was quite dawdling with only 41 000 hectares of organic land comprising merely 0.03% of the total cultivated area. In India during 2002, the production of organic farming was about 14 000 tonnes of which 85% of it was exported ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ). The most important barrier considered in the progress of organic agriculture in India was the lacunae in the government policies of making a firm decision to promote organic agriculture. Moreover, there were several major drawbacks in the growth of organic farming in India which include lack of awareness, lack of good marketing policies, shortage of biomass, inadequate farming infrastructure, high input cost of farming, inappropriate marketing of organic input, inefficient agricultural policies, lack of financial support, incapability of meeting export demand, lack of quality manure, and low yield ( Figure 5 ; Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Constraints of organic farming in India in the past ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Recently, the Government of India has implemented a number of programs and schemes for boosting organic farming in the country. Among these the most important include (1) The Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, (2) Organic Value Chain Development in North Eastern Region Scheme, (3) Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, (4) The mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (a. National Horticulture Mission, b. Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan states, c. National Bamboo Mission, d. National Horticulture Board, e. Coconut Development Board, d. Central Institute for Horticulture, Nagaland), (5) National Programme for Organic Production, (6) National Project on Organic Farming, and (7) National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture ( Yadav, 2017 ).

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a method of farming where the cost of growing and harvesting plants is zero as it reduces costs through eliminating external inputs and using local resources to rejuvenate soils and restore ecosystem health through diverse, multi-layered cropping systems. It requires only 10% of water and 10% electricity less than chemical and organic farming. The micro-organisms of Cow dung (300–500 crores of beneficial micro-organisms per one gram cow dung) decompose the dried biomass on the soil and convert it into ready-to-use nutrients for plants. Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana since 2015–16 and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana are the schemes taken by the Government of India under the ZBNF policy ( Sobhana et al. , 2019 ). According to Kumar (2020) , in the union budget 2020–21, Rs 687.5 crore has been allocated for the organic and natural farming sector which was Rs 461.36 crore in the previous year.

Indian Competence Centre for Organic Agriculture cited that the global market for organically grown foods is USD 26 billion which will be increased to the amount of USD 102 billion by 2020 ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The major states involved in organic agriculture in India are Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh ( Chandrashekar, 2010 ).

India ranked 8th with respect to the land of organic agriculture and 88th in the ratio of organic crops to agricultural land as per Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority and report of Research Institute of Organic Agriculture ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ). But a significant growth in the organic sector in India has been observed ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ) in the last decades.

There have been about a threefold increase from 528 171 ha in 2007–08 to 1.2 million ha of cultivable land in 2014–15. As per the study conducted by Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry in India, the organic food turnover is increasing at about 25% annually and thereby will be expected to reach USD 1.36 billion in 2020 from USD 0.36 billion in 2014 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The consumption and popularity of organic foods are increasing day by day throughout the world. In 2008, more than two-thirds of US consumers purchased organic food, and more than one fourth purchased them weekly. The consumption of organic crops has doubled in the USA since 1997. A consumer prefers organic foods in the concept that organic foods have more nutritional values, have lesser or no additive contaminants, and sustainably grown. The families with younger consumers, in general, prefer organic fruits and vegetables than consumers of any other age group ( Thompson et al. , 1998 ; Loureino et al. , 2001 ; Magnusson et al. , 2003 ). The popularity of organic foods is due to its nutritional and health benefits and positive impact on environmental and socioeconomic status ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ) and by a survey conducted by the UN Environment Programme, organic farming methods give small yields (on average 20% lower) as compared to conventional farming ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). As the yields of organically grown foods are low, the costs of them are higher. The higher prices made a barrier for many consumers to buy organic foods ( Lairon, 2010 ). Organic farming needs far more lands to generate the same amount of organic food produce as conventional farming does, as chemical fertilizers are not used here, which conventionally produces higher yield. Organic agriculture hardly contributes to addressing the issue of global climate change. During the last decades, the consumption of organic foods has been increasing gradually, particularly in western countries ( Meiner-Ploeger, 2005 ).

Organic foods have become one of the rapidly growing food markets with revenue increasing by nearly 20% each year since 1990 ( Winter and Davis, 2006 ). The global organic food market has been reached USD 81.6 billion in 2015 from USD 17.9 billion during the year 2000 ( Figure 6 ) and most of which showed double-digit growth rates ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Worldwide growth in organic food sales ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

India is an agriculture-based country with 67% of its population and 55% of manpower depending on farming and related activities. Agriculture fulfils the basic needs of India’s fastest-growing population accounted for 30% of total income. Organic farming has been found to be an indigenous practice of India that practised in countless rural and farming communities over the millennium. The arrival of modern techniques and increased burden of population led to a propensity towards conventional farming that involves the use of synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides, application of genetic modification techniques, etc.

Even in developing countries like India, the demand for organically grown produce is more as people are more aware now about the safety and quality of food, and the organic process has a massive influence on soil health, which devoid of chemical pesticides. Organic cultivation has an immense prospect of income generation too ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ). The soil in India is bestowed with various types of naturally available organic nutrient resources that aid in organic farming ( Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Reddy, 2010 ; Deshmukh and Babar, 2015 ).

India is a country with a concrete traditional farming system, ingenious farmers, extensive drylands, and nominal use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, adequate rainfall in north-east hilly regions of the country where few negligible chemicals are employed for a long period of time, come to fruition as naturally organic lands ( Gour, 2016 ).

Indian traditional farmers possess a deep insight based on their knowledge, extensive observation, perseverance and practices for maintaining soil fertility, and pest management which are found effective in strengthening organic production and subsequent economic growth in India. The progress in organic agriculture is quite commendable. Currently, India has become the largest organic producer in the globe ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 , 2019 ) and ranked eighth having 1.78 million ha of organic agriculture land in the world in 2017 ( Sharma and Goyal, 2000 ; Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Various newer technologies have been invented in the field of organic farming such as integration of mycorrhizal fungi and nano-biostimulants (to increase the agricultural productivity in an environmentally friendly manner), mapping cultivation areas more consciously through sensor technology and spatial geodata, 3D printers (to help the country’s smallholder), production from side streams and waste along with main commodities, promotion and improvement of sustainable agriculture through innovation in drip irrigation, precision agriculture, and agro-ecological practices. Another advancement in the development of organic farming is BeeScanning App, through which beekeepers can fight the Varroa destructor parasite mite and also forms a basis for population modelling and breeding programmes ( Nova-Institut GmbH, 2018 ).

Inhana Rational Farming Technology developed on the principle ‘Element Energy Activation’ is a comprehensive organic method for ensuring ecologically and economically sustainable crop production and it is based on ancient Indian philosophy and modern scientific knowledge.

The technology works towards (1) energization of soil system: reactivation of soil-plant-microflora dynamics by restoration of the population and efficiency of the native soil microflora and (2) energization of plant system: restoration of the two defence mechanisms of the plant kingdom that are nutrient use efficiency and superior plant immunity against pest/disease infection ( Barik and Sarkar, 2017 ).

Organic farming yields more nutritious and safe food. The popularity of organic food is growing dramatically as consumer seeks the organic foods that are thought to be healthier and safer. Thus, organic food perhaps ensures food safety from farm to plate. The organic farming process is more eco-friendly than conventional farming. Organic farming keeps soil healthy and maintains environment integrity thereby, promoting the health of consumers. Moreover, the organic produce market is now the fastest growing market all over the world including India. Organic agriculture promotes the health of consumers of a nation, the ecological health of a nation, and the economic growth of a nation by income generation holistically. India, at present, is the world’s largest organic producers ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ) and with this vision, we can conclude that encouraging organic farming in India can build a nutritionally, ecologically, and economically healthy nation in near future.

This review work was funded by the University Grants Commission, Government of India.

None declared.

Adolph , B. , Butterworth , J . ( 2002 ). Soil fertility management in semi-arid India: its role in agricultural systems and the livelihoods of poor people . Natural Resources Institute , UK .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

AFSSA. ( 2003 ). Report on Evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic foods (Evaluation nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments issus de l’agriculturebiologique, in French), AFSSA, 164 . http://www.afssa.fr . Accessed 3 August 2018 .

Barik , A. , Sarkar , N . ( 2017 , November 8-11). Organic Farming in India: Present Status, Challenges and Technological Break Through . In: 3rd International Conference on Bio-resource and Stress Management, Jaipur, India.

Bhardwaj , M. , Dhiman , M . ( 2019 ). Growth and performance of organic farming in India: what could be the future prospects? Journal of Current Science , 20 : 1 – 8 .

BjØrn , G. , Fruekidle , A. M . ( 2003 ). Cepa onions ( Allium cepa L) grown conventionally . Green Viden , 153 : 1 – 6 .

Bourn , D. , Prescott , J . ( 2002 ). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods . Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition , 42 : 1 – 34 .

Brandt , D.A. , Brand , T.S. , Cruywagen , C.W . ( 2000 ). The use of crude protein content to predict concentrations of lysine and methionine in grain harvested from selected cultivars of wheat, barley and triticale grown in Western Cape region of South Africa . South African Journal of Animal Science , 30 : 22 – 259 .

Brandt , K. , MØlgaord , J.P . ( 2001 ). Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of Science of Food Agriculture , 81 : 924 – 931 .

Butler , G. et al.  ( 2008 ). Fatty acid and fat-soluble antioxidant concentrations in milk from high- and low-input conventional and organic systems: seasonal variation . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 88 : 1431 – 1441 .

Chandrashekar , H.M . ( 2010 ). Changing Scenario of organic farming in India: an overview . International NGO Journal , 5 : 34 – 39 .

Chopra , A. , Rao , N.C. , Gupta , N. , Vashisth , S . ( 2013 ). Come sunshine or rain; organic foods always on tract: a futuristic perspective . International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology Neurological Diseases , 3 : 202 – 205 .

Dangour , A.D. , Allen , E. , Lock , K. , Uauy , R . ( 2010 ). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods-using systematic reviews to question the available evidence . Indian Journal of Medical Research , 131 : 478 – 480 .

Deshmukh , M.S. , Babar , N . ( 2015 ). Present status and prospects of organic farming in India . European Academic Research , 3 : 4271 – 4287 .

Edwards , S . ( 2007 ). The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia . In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security . 2–5 May 2007, FAO , Rome [cited on 2013 March 20], pp. 1 – 42 . http://www.ftp.fao.org/paia/organica/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf .

Fileβbach , A. , Oberholzer , H.R. , Gunst , L. , Mäder , P . ( 2007 ). Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 118 : 273 – 284 .

Fliessbach , A. , Mäder , P . ( 2000 ). Microbial biomass and size—density fractions differ between soils of organic and conventional agricultural system . Soil Biology and Biochemistry , 32 : 757 – 768 .

Food Marketing Institute (FMI) . ( 2008 ). Natural and organic foods . http://www.fmi.org/docs/media-backgrounder/natural_organicfoods.pdf?sfvrsn=2 . Accessed 10 March 2019 .

Gour , M . ( 2016 ). Organic farming in India: status, issues and prospects . SOPAAN-II , 1 : 26 – 36 .

Gutierrez , F. , Arnaud , T. , Albi , M.A . ( 1999 ). Influence of ecologic cultivation on virgin olive oil quality . Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society , 76 : 617 – 621 .

Halberg , N . ( 2008 ). Energy use and green house gas emission in organic agriculture. In: Proceedings of International Conference Organic Agriculture and Climate Change . 17–18 April 2008, ENITA of Clermont , France , pp. 1 – 6 .

Hansen , B. , Alroe , H.J. , Kristensen , E.S. ( 2001 ). Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 83 : 11 – 26 .

Hansson , I. , Hamilton , C. , Ekman , T. , Forslund , K . ( 2000 ). Carcass quality in certified organic production compared with conventional livestock production . Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health , 47 : 111 – 120 .

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) . ( 1998 ). The IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing . General Assembly , Argentina, November, IFOAM, Germany . Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (U.S.C) s. 2103.

Kumar , V. ( 2020 , February 03). Union Budget 2020– 21 : Big talk on natural farming but no support [Web log post] . https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/agriculture/union-budget-2020-21-big-talk-on-natural-farming-but-no-support-69131 . on 28.04.2020

Lairon , D. ( 2010 ). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review . Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 30 : 33 – 41 .

Levite , D. , Adrian , M. , Tamm , L. ( 2000 ). Preliminary results of resveratrol in wine of organic and conventional vineyards, In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Organic Viticulture , 25–26 August 2000, Basel, Switzerland , pp. 256 – 257 .

Lobley , M. , Reed , M. , Butler , A. , Courtney , P. , Warren , M . ( 2005 ). Impact of Organic Farming on the Rural Economy in England . Exeter: Centre for Rural Research, Laffrowda House, University of Exeter , Exeter, UK .

Loureino , L.L. , McCluskey , J.J. , Mittelhammer , R.C . ( 2001 ). Preferences for organic, eco-labeled, or regular apples . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 26 : 404 – 416 .

Lund , P . ( 1991 ). Characterization of alternatively produced milk . Milchwissenschaft—Milk Science International , 46 : 166 – 169 .

Lung , A.J. , Lin , C.M. , Kim , J.M . ( 2001 ). Destruction of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enteritidis in cow manure composting . Journal of Food Protection , 64 : 1309 – 1314 .

Magnusson , M. K. , Arvola , A. , Hursti , U. K. , Aberg , L. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2003 ). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour . Appetite , 40 : 109 – 117 .

Meiner-Ploeger , K . ( 2005 ). Organic farming food quality and human health. In: NJF Seminar , 15 June 2005, Alnarp, Sweden .

Mukherjee , A. , Kapoor , A. , Dutta , S . ( 2018 ). Organic food business in India: a survey of companies . Research in Economics and Management , 3 : 72 . doi: 10.22158/rem.v3n2P72 .

Nourthbourne , C.J. , 5th Lord. ( 2003 ). Look to the Land , 2nd Rev Spec edn. Sophia Perennis , Hillsdale, NY ; First Ed. 1940. J.M. Dent & Sons.

Nova-Institut GmbH . ( 2018 , July 2). High-tech strategies for small farmers and organic farming [press release] . http://news.bio-based.eu/high-tech-strategies-for-small-farmers-and-organic-farming/ . Accessed 28 April 2020 .

Nürnberg , K. et al.  ( 2002 ). N-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acids of longissimus muscle in beef cattle . European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology , 104 : 463 – 471 .

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–624, §§ 2101- 2123, 104 Stat. 3935 (codified at 7 U.S.C.6501–6522).

Oquist , K. A. , Strock , J. S. , Mulla , D. J . ( 2007 ). Influence of alternative and conventional farming practices on subsurface drainage and water quality . Journal of Environmental Quality , 36 : 1194 – 1204 .

Padiya , J. , Vala , N . ( 2012 ). Profiling of organic food buyers in Ahmadabad city: an empirical study . Pacific Business Review International , 5 : 19 – 26 .

Pandey , J. , Singh , A . ( 2012 ): Opportunities and constraints in organic farming: an Indian perspective . Journal of Scientific Research , 56 : 47 – 72 , ISSN: 0447-9483.

Pastushenko , V. , Matthes , H.D. , Hein , T. , Holzer , Z . ( 2000 ). Impact of cattle grazing on meat fatty acid composition in relation to human nutrition. In: Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference . pp. 293 – 296 .

Pimentel , D. , Hepperly , P. , Hanson , J. , Douds , D. , Seidel , R . ( 2005 ). Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems . Bioscience , 55 : 573 – 582 .

Reddy S.B . ( 2010 ). Organic farming: status, issues and prospects—a review . Agricultural Economics Research Review , 23 : 343 – 358 .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2000 ). Wholesomeness and Sensory Quality of Potatoes and Selected Vegetables from the organic Farms . Fundacja Rozwoj SGGW , Warszawa .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2007 ). Quality of plant products from organic agriculture . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 87 : 2757 – 2762 .

Rossi , F. , Godani , F. , Bertuzzi , T. , Trevisan , M. , Ferrari , F. , Gatti , S . ( 2008 ). Health-promoting substances and heavy metal content in tomatoes grown with different farming techniques . European Journal of Nutrition , 47 : 266 – 272 .

Sharma A. K , Goyal R. K. ( 2000 ). Addition in tradition on agroforestry in arid zone . LEISA-INDIA , 2 : 19 – 20 .

Shepherd , R. , Magnusson , M. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2005 ). Determinants of consumer behavior related to organic foods . Ambio , 34 : 352 – 359 .

Shreck , A. , Getz , C. , Feenstra , G. ( 2006 ). Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: findings from an exploratory analysis . Agriculture and Human Values , 23 : 439 – 449 .

Sobhana , E. , Chitraputhira Pillai , S. , Swaminathan , V. , Pandian , K. , Sankarapandian , S . ( 2019 ). Zero Budget Natural Farming. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17084.46727.

Soumya , K. M . ( 2015 ). Organic farming: an effective way to promote sustainable agriculture development in India . IOSR Journal Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) , 20 : 31 – 36 , e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org .

Stolze , M. , Piorr , A. , Haring , A.M. , Dabbert , S. ( 2000 ). Environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe . Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy . vol. 6 . University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany . Retrieved on 15 May 2011. http://orgprints.org/8400/1/Organic_Farming_in_Europe_Volume06_The_Environmental_Impacts_of_Organic_Farming_in_Europe.pdf .

Thompson , G.D. , Kidwell , J . ( 1998 ). Explaining the choice of organic procedure: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 80 : 277 – 287 .

Van Renterghem , B. , Huysman , F. , Rygole , R. , Verstraete , W . ( 1991 ). Detection and prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in the agricultural ecosystem . Journal of Applied Bacteriology , 71 : 211 – 217 .

Warnick , L. D. , Crofton , L. M. , Pelzer , K. D. , Hawkins , M. J . ( 2001 ). Risk factors for clinical salmonellosis in Virginia, USA cattle herd . Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 49 : 259 – 275 .

Willer , H. , Lernoud , J ., eds. ( 2017 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . FiBL & IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn.

Willer , H . Lernoud J , eds. ( 2019 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick and IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn . https://www.organicworld.net/yearbook/yearbook-2019.html .

Winter , C.K. , Davis , S.F . ( 2006 ). Organic food . Journal of Food Science , 71 : 117 – 124 .

Woëse , K. , Lange , D. , Boess , C. , Bögl , K.W . ( 1997 ). A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods—results of a review of the relevant literature . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture , 74 : 281 – 293 .

Worthington , V . ( 2001 ). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains . Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine , 7 : 161 – 173 .

Yadav , M . ( 2017 ). Towards a healthier nation: organic farming and government policies in India . International Journal of Advance Research and Development , 2 : 153 – 159 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2399-1402
• Print ISSN 2399-1399
• Copyright © 2024 Zhejiang University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Sustainable food security in India—Domestic production and macronutrient availability

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Contributed equally to this work with: David Reay, Peter Higgins

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

• Hannah Ritchie, 
• David Reay, 
• Peter Higgins

• Published: March 23, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766
• Reader Comments

India has been perceived as a development enigma: Recent rates of economic growth have not been matched by similar rates in health and nutritional improvements. To meet the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG2) of achieving zero hunger by 2030, India faces a substantial challenge in meeting basic nutritional needs in addition to addressing population, environmental and dietary pressures. Here we have mapped—for the first time—the Indian food system from crop production to household-level availability across three key macronutrients categories of ‘calories’, ‘digestible protein’ and ‘fat’. To better understand the potential of reduced food chain losses and improved crop yields to close future food deficits, scenario analysis was conducted to 2030 and 2050. Under India’s current self-sufficiency model, our analysis indicates severe shortfalls in availability of all macronutrients across a large proportion (>60%) of the Indian population. The extent of projected shortfalls continues to grow such that, even in ambitious waste reduction and yield scenarios, enhanced domestic production alone will be inadequate in closing the nutrition supply gap. We suggest that to meet SDG2 India will need to take a combined approach of optimising domestic production and increasing its participation in global trade.

Citation: Ritchie H, Reay D, Higgins P (2018) Sustainable food security in India—Domestic production and macronutrient availability. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0193766. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766

Editor: David A. Lightfoot, College of Agricultural Sciences, UNITED STATES

Received: September 13, 2017; Accepted: February 17, 2018; Published: March 23, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Ritchie et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files, or can be accessed at the UN FAO databases through the following URL: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home .

Funding: The authors received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) as part of its E3 DTP programme.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) committed to achieving zero hunger by 2030 as the second of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An important element of this goal is to end all forms of malnutrition, including agreed targets on childhood stunting and wasting. This represents an important progression beyond the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), where food security was defined and measured solely on the basis of basic energy requirements (caloric intake), and prevalence of underweight children [ 1 ]. This new commitment has significant implications for the focus of research and policy decisions; it requires a broadening of scope beyond the traditional analysis of energy intake, and inclusion of all nutrients necessary for adequate nourishment.

India offers a potentially unique example in the development of models and mechanisms by which nutritional needs can be addressed sustainably. In 2016, India ranked 97 out of 118 on the Global Hunger Index (GHI)—this rates nations’ nutritional status based on indicators of undernourishment, child wasting, stunting and mortality [ 2 ]. Despite ranking above some of the world’s poorest nations, India’s reduction in malnourishment has been slow relative to its recent strong economic growth and puts it behind poorer neighbouring countries [ 3 ]; India has fallen from 80 th to 97 th since 2000.

India’s nutritional problems are extensive. In 2016, 38.7% of children under five were defined as ‘stunted’ (of below average height) [ 2 ], a strong indicator of chronic malnourishment in children and pregnant women, and a largely irreversible condition leading to reduced physical and mental development [ 4 ]. Malnourishment within the adult population is also severe, with approximately 15% of the total population defined as malnourished. The issue of malnutrition in India is complex, and determined by a combination of dietary intake and diversity, disease burden (intensified by poor sanitation and hygiene standards), and female empowerment and education [ 5 ]. Improvements in dietary intake alone will therefore by insufficient to eliminate malnutrition, however it forms an integral component alongside progress in other social and health indicators—particularly sanitation. Quantification of India’s micronutrient and amino acid profiles, and recommendations for addressing these deficiencies have been completed as a follow-up paper (Ritchie et al. in submission) to provide a more holistic overview of its nutritional position.

India’s nutritional and health challenges are likely to be compounded in the coming decades through population growth and resource pressures. Its current population of 1.26 billion is projected to increase to 1.6 billion by 2050, overtaking China as the world’s most populous nation [ 6 ]. India has also been highlighted as one of the most risk-prone nations for climate change impacts, water scarcity, and declining soil fertility through land degradation [ 7 ].

A number of studies have focused specifically on Indian food intake and malnutrition issues from survey assessments at the household level [ 8 ]. The emphasis within India’s agricultural policy and assessment of its success has traditionally been on energy (caloric) intake [ 9 ]. Since the Green Revolution in the 1970s, agricultural policies have been oriented towards a rapid increase in the production of high-yielding cereal crops with a focus to meet the basic calorific needs of a growing population. India has attempted to reach self-sufficiency predominantly through political and investment orientation towards wheat and rice varieties [ 10 ]. While production of staple crops has increased significantly, India’s agricultural policy focus on cereal production raises a key challenge in simultaneously meeting nutritional needs in caloric, high-quality protein and fat intakes. Few studies have addressed the system-wide balance between supply and demand of the three key macronutrients—calories, protein and fat; nor have they assessed the importance of protein quality through digestibility and amino acid scoring. This assessment is particularly significant for India as a result of its extensive and complex malnutrition issues. Whether India is capable of meeting these macronutrient needs in the future through domestic production improvements alone is of prime importance for study, as a result of its growing population and policy orientation towards self-sufficiency.

Improving the availability and access to food at the consumer level requires an understanding of how food is created and lost through its various pathways across the full agricultural supply chain. Here, for the first time, we have attempted to capture this high-level outlook from crop harvesting to residual food availability across the three macronutrient categories.

Mapping the current Indian food system

The Indian food system was mapped from crop production through to per capita food supply using FAO Food Balance Sheets (FBS) from its FAOstats databases [ 11 ]. FBS provide quantitative data (by mass) on production of food items and primary commodities, and their utilisations throughout the food supply chain. Such data are available at national, regional and global levels. Food Balance Sheet data for 2011 have been used, these being from the latest full data-set available. Some aspects of FBS data are available for the years 2012 and 2013, however such data are not complete across all commodities and value chain stages at the time of writing.

Food Balance Sheets provide mass quantities across the following stages of the supply chain: crop production, exports, imports, stock variation, re-sown produce, animal feed, other non-food uses, and food supplied (as kg per capita per year). Data on all key food items and commodities across all food groups (cereals; roots and tubers; oilseeds and pulses; fruit and vegetables; fish and seafood; and meat and dairy) are included within these balances.

While there are uncertainties in FAO data (see Supplementary Information for further discussion on FAO data limitations), FBS provide the only complete dataset available for full commodity chain analysis. Therefore, while not perfect, they provide an invaluable high-level outlook of relative contribution of each stage in the food production and distribution system. As shown in this study (see Results section below), a top-down model using FAO FBS has a discrepancy of <10% with national nutrition survey results at the household level.

FBS do not provide food loss and waste figures by stage in the supply chain. To maintain consistency with FAO literature, food loss figures have therefore been calculated based on South Asian regional percentages within FAO publications [ 12 ]. These percentage figures break food losses down across seven commodity groups and five supply chain stages (agricultural production, postharvest handling and storage, processing and packaging, distribution and consumption). The applied percentage values by commodity type and supply chain stage are provided in S1 Table .

In order to calculate the total nutritional value at each supply chain stage, commodity mass quantities were multiplied by FAO macronutrient nutritional factors [ 11 ]. In this analysis, energy content (kilocalories), protein, and fat supply were analysed. Protein quality is a key concern for India in particular as a result of its largely grain-based diet, with grains tending to have poorer digestibility and amino acid (AA) profiles than animal-based products and plant-based legume alternatives [ 13 ]. To best quantify limitations in protein quality in the Indian diet, protein intakes have therefore been corrected for digestibility using FAO digestibility values [ 14 ].

For consistency, and to provide a better understanding of the food system down to the individual supply level, all metrics have been normalised to average per person per day (pppd) availability using UN population figures and prospects data [ 6 ]. Whilst this provides an average per capita availability value, it does not account for variability in actual macronutrient supply within the population. To help adjust for this, we have also estimated the assumed distribution of supply of each macronutrient using the FAO’s preferred log-normal distribution and India-specific coefficient variation (CV) factor of 0.26 [ 15 ]. Whilst we recognise that food requirements vary between demographics based on age, gender and activity levels, the normalisation of food units to average per capita supply levels is essential in providing relatable measures of food losses within the system, and its measure relative to demographically-weighted average nutritional requirements (as described below) is appropriate in providing an estimation of the risk of malnourishment.

Estimated macronutrient supply has then been compared to recommended intake values. The FAO defines the “Average Daily Energy Requirement” (ADER)—for India’s demographic specifically—as 2269kcal pppd; ADER is defined as the average caloric intake necessary to maintain a healthy weight based on the demographics, occupation, and activity levels of any given population [ 16 ]. Protein requirements can vary between similar individuals; recommended daily amounts (RDA) are therefore typically given as two standard deviations (SD) above the average requirement to provide a safety margin, which some individuals would be at risk of falling below. The World Health Organization (WHO) define a ‘safe’ (recommended) intake in adults of 0.83 grams per kilogram per day (g/kg/d) of body mass for proteins with a digestibility score of 1.0 [ 17 ]. The average vegetarian Indian diet contains lower intakes of animal-based complete proteins; the Indian Institute of Nutrition therefore recommends a higher intake of 1 g/kg/d of total protein for Indians to ensure requirements of high-quality protein are met [ 18 ]. This is equivalent to 55 and 60 grams of protein per day in average adult females and males, respectively based on mean body weight [ 19 ]. Since our analysis attempts to correct for protein digestibility, WHO’s lower safe intake of 0.83g/kg/d would reduce to an equivalent of 50 grams of high-quality protein per day for an average 60 kilogram individual. Consequently in this study we have adopted this RDA value of 50 gpppd.

Dietary fat intake plays a key dietary role in the absorption of essential micronutrients. Several vital vitamins, including vitamin A, D, E and K are fat-soluble—insufficient intake can therefore result in poor micronutrient absorption and utilisation [ 20 ]. Inadequate fat intake can therefore exacerbate the widespread ‘hidden hunger’ (micronutrient deficiency) challenge in India [ 21 ] through poor nutrient absorption. However, daily requirements for fatty acids are less straightforward to determine, relative to energy or protein—there is no widely-agreed figure for total fat requirements for adequate nutrition [ 22 ]. The resolution of food balance sheet data does not allow us to adequately quantity the availability to the level of specific fatty acids. As a result, although we have mapped pathways of total fat availability through the food system in a similar manner to energy and protein, we have not here attempted to quantity the prevalence of potential insufficiency at the household level.

Mapping potential near-term and long-term scenarios

Our initial analysis identified two mechanisms potentially crucial in increasing food availability at the household level: reduction of harvesting, postharvest and distribution losses; and improvements in crop yields. Medium-term (through to 2030) and long-term (2050) scenarios have therefore been mapped based on use of these mechanisms. It should be noted that these scenarios are focused on domestic supply-side measures to enhance food availability as opposed to demand drivers related to consumer preferences. A summary of assumptions used in each scenario in this analysis is provided in S2 Table .

A 2030 baseline scenario (assuming yields stagnate and population growth continues in line with UN projections) and three alternative scenarios to 2030 were analysed:

Scenario 1 (halving food supply chain losses): it was assumed that a significant shift in post-harvest management practices, appropriate refrigeration, and efficient distribution allowed for a halving of food loss percentages at the production, postharvest, processing and distribution stages of the supply chain. This would make its relative losses more in line with those of more developed nations [ 12 ]. In this scenario consumption (household) waste was assumed to remain constant.

Scenario 2 (achieving 50% of attainable yield (AY) across all key crops): the halving of food chain losses in scenario 1 was assumed. In addition, it was assumed that all key crops managed to achieve 50% AY through better agricultural management, irrigation and fertiliser practices. ‘Attainable yield’ is defined as the yield achieved with best management practices including pest, nutrient (i.e. nutrients are not limiting) and water management.

Scenario 3 (achieving 75% AY across all key crops): assumptions as in scenario 2 except an attainment of 75%, rather than 50% AY, has been assumed through crop yield improvements.

Long-term (through to 2050) scenarios were as follows:

Scenario 1 (halving food supply chain losses): the same assumption of halving food loss percentages at the production, postharvest, processing and distribution stages of the supply chain was applied in this scenario. This will require a significant shift in post-harvest management practices, appropriate refrigeration, and efficient distribution, hence 50% reduction represents a magnitude which is more likely to be achieved in this long-term scenario than in the near-term.

Scenario 2 (achieving 75% AY across all key crops): the same assumption of a closure of the yield gap to 75% AY across all crop types, as in the near-term scenario 3, was applied.

Scenario 3 (achieving 90% AY across all key crops): it was assumed that all crop types managed to achieve closure of the yield gap to 90% AY.

To correct for 2030 and 2050 population estimates, all metrics were re-normalised to ‘per person per day’ (pppd) based on a projected Indian population estimate from UN prospects medium fertility scenarios [ 6 ].

To best demonstrate the food production potential of current agricultural support mechanisms, such as governmental policy and subsidy (which largely determine crop choices), the relative allocation of crop production was assumed constant. It was also assumed that production increases were achieved through agricultural intensification alone; this assumption was based on FAOstats data which has shown no increase in agricultural land area over the past decade, indicating a stagnation in agricultural extensification ( http://faostat.fao.org/beta/en/#home ).

Crop yield increases were derived based on closure of current farm yields (FY) to reported attainable yields (AY). FY is defined as the average on-farm yield achieved by farmers within a given region, and AY is defined as the economically attainable (optimal) yield which could be achieved if best practices in water and pest management, fertiliser application and technologies are utilised in non-nutrient limiting conditions). Estimates of crop yield improvements were based on given percentage realisations of maximum attainable yields (AY) attained from published Indian crop-specific figures [ 23 ]. These data are available across all key crop types. Baseline and AY values are provided in S3 Table .

Significant improvements in yield would predominantly be achieved through improved nutrient and water management. In the present study, scenarios were mapped based on achievement of 50% and 75% AY in the near-term. Fifty percent AY should be technically feasible by 2030: many crops have already reached these values, and those which have yet to do so, typically fall short by 3–5% (see S3 Table for baseline, and AY values). Attainment of 75% AY would be highly ambitious in the near-term, representing an increase of >20% in yield. However, 75% AY and higher may be feasible in the long-term if significant investment in agricultural management and best practice were to be realised in this sector.

Our scenarios to 2050 are therefore modelled on the basis of closure of the yield gap to 75% and 90% AY. To assess whether these estimates were realistic, necessary growth rates were cross-checked based on historical yield growth rates in India. Discussion on this comparison and the suitability of attainable yield valuables utilised in this study are available in the Supplementary Discussion.

Climate change impacts on crop yields remain highly uncertain; the importance of temperature thresholds in overall crop tolerance makes yield impacts highly dependent on GHG emission scenarios. This makes it challenging to accurately quantify 2050 climate impacts. As such, we applied average percentage changes in yields of Indian staple crops based on literature review [ 24 ] of field-based observations and climate model results. The studies utilised presented results for a doubling of atmospheric CO 2 from pre-industrial levels. This approximates to a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for 2050 [ 25 ]. The yield-climate factors applied in this analysis are provided in S4 Table .

It is projected that, through economic growth and shifts in dietary preferences, meat and dairy demand in India will continue to increase through to 2050. It has been assumed that per capita demand in 2050 is in line with FAO projections; this represents an increase in meat from 3.1kg per person per year (2007) to 18.3kg in 2050, and an increase in milk and dairy from 67kg to 110kg per person per year [ 26 ]. We here assume that this increase in livestock production has been met through increased production of crop-based animal feed rather than pasture. The change in macronutrient demand for animal feed was calculated based on energy and protein conversion efficiency factors for dominant livestock types (beef cattle, dairy cattle, ruminants and poultry) [ 27 ].

Our analysis assumes that the per person allocation of crops for resowing and non-food uses, and the relative allocation of land for respective crop selection, is the same as in the initial baseline (2011) analysis.

Current food system pathways

The pathways of macronutrients from crop production to residual food availability are shown for calories, digestible protein and fat in Fig 1A–1C . Across all macronutrients, the relative magnitude of exports, imports and stock variation is small, and approximately balance as inputs and outputs to the food system. This result is in line with India’s orientation towards meeting food demand through self-sufficiency agricultural policies [ 28 , 29 ]. This study’s scenarios are therefore designed to assess whether this same emphasis on self-sufficiency in food supply through to 2050 could be achieved through waste reduction and crop yield improvements alone.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Food pathways in (a) calories; (b) digestible protein; and (c) fat from crop production to residual food availability, normalised to average per capita levels assuming equal distribution. Red bars (negative numbers) indicate food system losses; blue bars indicate system inputs; green bars indicate meat and dairy production; and grey bars indicate macronutrient availability at intermediate stages of the chain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.g001

In 2011, India produced 3159kcal, 72g of digestible protein, and 86g of fat per person per day (pppd) ( Fig 1A–1C ). Across the system, this resulted in average food availability of 2039kcal, 48g digestible protein, and 49g fat pppd; this represents a loss across the food supply system of 35%, 33%, and 43% in calories, digestible protein, and fat respectively.

Our top-down supply model has been cross-checked against India’s National Sample Survey (NSS) data—this reports nutritional intakes bi-annually measured through national household surveys. In its 68 th Round (2011–12) report, the NSS reported average daily intakes of 2206kcal and 2233kcal in urban and rural areas, respectively; 60g of protein in both demographics; and 58g (urban) and 46g (rural) of fat [ 30 ]. Our top-down analysis therefore suggests slightly lower caloric availability than NSS intake figures (but with a discrepancy of <10%); and strong correlation regarding fat intake. Since NSS data reports total protein and take no account of quality or digestibility, our results of digestible protein are not directly comparable. However, with digestibility scores removed, our analysis suggests a total average protein availability of 57g pppd—within 5% of NSS intake results.

Despite the acknowledged uncertainties in FAO FBS datasets (see Supplementary discussion), the strong correlation (within 5–10%) between our top-down supply model and reported household intakes (bottom-up approach) gives confidence in the use of FBS data for high-level food chain analyses such as attempted here.

The largest sources of loss identified in the Indian food system for calories and protein lie in the agricultural production and post-harvest waste stages of the chain, with lower but significant losses in processing and distribution. Consumption-phase losses are comparatively small. Higher losses of fat occur predominantly due to the allocation of oilseed crops for non-food uses; this is in contrast to digestible protein where losses to competing non-food uses are negligible.

In contrast to the average global food supply system, the conversion of crop-based animal feed to meat and dairy produce in India appears comparatively efficient, with an input-output ratio close to one for calories and protein, and an apparent small production of fats [ 31 ]. It is one of the few agricultural systems in the world where the majority of livestock feed demand is met through crop residues, byproducts and pasture lands—its lactovegetarian preferences tend to favour pasture-fed dairy cattle over grain-fed livestock such as poultry (ibid).

Average per capita supply across all macronutrients falls below average per capita minimum requirements. The magnitude of this issue in India emerges via the population-intake distributions. With extension of average macronutrient availability to availability across the population distribution (using a log-normal distribution with CV of 0.26), 66% (826 million) and 56% (703 million) of the population are at risk of falling below recommended energy and protein requirements, respectively.

Potential future pathways

Scenario results for 2030..

Results from scenario analyses for potential food waste reduction and crop yield improvements are summarised in Table 1 . Note that we have assumed no change in income/dietary inequalities, hence the CV in distribution has remained constant.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.t001

Under all scenarios, waste or yield improvements fail to keep pace with population growth through to 2030; average per capita caloric, digestible protein and fat availability all fall below the 2011 baseline. Under current levels of dietary inequality, distribution of availability highlights even greater potential malnourishment. The majority (>75%) of the population are at risk of falling below requirements in energy and protein availability in all scenarios. This represents severe malnutrition across India in 2030, even in the case of significant and ambitious yield and efficiency improvements.

Under these scenarios, India would fall far short of reaching the SDG2 target of Zero Hunger by 2030.

Scenario results for 2050.

India’s anticipated population growth, in addition to potential impacts of climate change on crop yields, could have severe implications on household macronutrient supply by 2050. Our 2050 baseline scenario demonstrates these potential impacts, assuming gains in crop yields were to stagnate at current levels. The full supply chain pathways are shown in Fig 2A–2C . Even at the top level of the supply chain (crop production phase) mean provision per person would fall below average requirements in all macronutrients (2198kcal, 49g protein, and 60g fat per person). Although reducing food system losses plays an important role in improving availability at the household level, this result highlights the necessity of also achieving substantial crop yield improvements at the top of the supply chain.

Food pathways in (a) calories; (b) digestible protein; and (c) fat from crop production to residual food availability, normalised to average per capita levels assuming equal distribution under 2050 baseline conditions. Red bars (negative numbers) indicate food system losses; blue bars indicate system inputs; green bars indicate meat and dairy production; and grey bars indicate macronutrient availability at intermediate stages of the chain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.g002

How these variables impact on availability at the household level in our 2050 baseline, and three scenarios is detailed in Table 2 , with baseline distributions provided in Supplementary Fig 1A–1C . As shown, even in the case of scenario 1 (halving of supply chain loss and waste), and scenario 2 (increase to 75% of AY), in 2050 greater than 80% of the population would potentially fall below average requirements in energy and protein. Only in the case of significant yield increases to 90% AY (scenario 3) would projected levels of malnourishment approach current levels. This would still leave 62% and 56% of the population at risk of falling below recommended caloric and protein requirements, respectively.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.t002

Our analysis utilised a framework for evaluation of the whole food system (from crop production through to residual food availability) by normalising to consistent and relatively simplistic metrics (per person per day). This holistic approach is critical for identifying levers within the food system which can be targeted for improvements in food security and efficiency of supply. The basic framework is replicable and could therefore be adapted for analysis of any dietary component (for example, micronutrients or amino acids and at a range of scales (global, regional, or national). This allows for similar analyses to be carried out for any nation, potentially allowing for improved understanding of hotspots in the food system and opportunities for improved efficiency. As such, it could then allow national food strategies to focus on components which are likely to maximise improvements.

Overall, our analyses indicate weaknesses in India’s current reliance on domestic food production. Further calculation, based on FAO FBS, make this explicit: in 2011 India’s population was 17.8% of the global total, yet produced only 10.8%, 9%, and 11.8% of the world’s total calories, digestible protein and fat respectively. Based on calculations using FAOstats global crop production data and nutritional composition factors, in 2011 world crop production totalled 1.34x10 16 kcal; 3.62x10 14 g digestible protein; and 3.33x10 14 g fat. 2011 Indian production amounted to 1.44x10 15 kcal; 3.27x10 13 g digestible protein; and 3.93x10 13 g fat. Even in a highly efficient food system, self-sufficiency is impossible to achieve based on such production levels and the need to provide sufficient nourishment for all. Likewise, even if Indian population figures were to plateau, it is unlikely that domestic production alone would be sufficient to close the current food gap.

Current malnutrition levels—defined here as insufficient macronutrient availability—in India are already high. Sufficient nutrition requires adequate availability and intake of all three macronutrients. Impacts of insufficient protein and energy intake can often be difficult to decouple, and are often termed protein-energy malnourishment (PEM)—PEM has a number of negative consequences including reduced physical and mental development [ 32 ]; increased susceptibility to disease and infection; poorer recovery and increased mortality from disease; and lower productivity [ 33 ]. Our results indicate that India’s self-sufficiency model—a reliance on domestic crop yield increases and waste reduction strategies—will be insufficient to meet requirements across all three macronutrients. Levels of undersupply and consequent malnutrition would show a significant increase in both 2030 and 2050 scenarios.

This has important implications for forward planning to effectively address malnutrition. Policy incentives in Indian agriculture since the Green Revolution have predominantly been focused on achieving caloric food security through increased production of cereals (wheat and rice) [ 9 ]. This has resulted in a heavily carbohydrate-based diet (> 65–70% total energy intake [ 34 ]) which may be significantly lacking in adequate diversity for provision of other important nutrients [ 35 ]. Widespread lactovegetarian preferences have further reduced the scope for dietary diversity [ 36 ].

If trying to address caloric inadequacy alone, efforts to increase output of energy-dense crops (i.e. cereals, roots and tubers) may seem appropriate, and has largely been India’s focus to date [ 8 ]. Our analysis, however, strongly suggests the need to shift dietary composition away from reliance on carbohydrates towards a more diversified intake of protein and fats (with diversification also contributing to a reduction in micronutrient deficiency) [ 37 ]. Forward planning therefore needs to simultaneously address caloric inadequacy and malnourishment through balanced, increased supply and intake of high-quality proteins and fats.

Our examination of macronutrient supply in India indicates large inequalities in availability across the population. This is likely to be closely coupled to the high levels of income inequality and poverty which remain in India today [ 8 ]. Large inequalities in food supply and dietary intake will make it increasingly difficult for India to address its malnutrition challenges; our assessment of potential improvement scenarios highlight that, even in cases where average macronutrient supplies meet requirements, the high CV in distribution still leaves a large proportion of the total population at risk of malnourishment. Whilst the RDA values used in this analysis account for distribution in nutritional requirements of individuals, they do not account for the distribution in intake. To meet SDG2 (whereby all individuals’ requirements are met) at current levels of inequality, the national mean intake would therefore have to increase to 3600kcal pppd; 82g pppd digestible protein; and 105g pppd fat. This is well above current national pppd supply values, even if crop production-phase level were to be at the top of the food system.

It should be emphasised that this work is a largely computational, supply-driven analysis exploring the domestic capacity of India’s food. Our results are not intended to imply actual future scenarios of Indian malnutrition. Projections of acute food shortage implied within this analysis would be likely to drive market and policy interventions including enhanced trade, in addition to changes in consumer and producer responses. The interaction between supply and demand-side measures, commodity prices, trade, and governmental policy creates an important feedback loop for food pricing, affordability and production [ 38 ]. For example, the estimated reduction in per capita food supply and domestic food shortage would be expected to drive an increase in food prices [ 39 , 40 ]. Rising food prices (as are expected across a number of countries where food demand continues to grow [ 41 ]) create a number of producer and consumer impacts, including per capita food expenditure, reduced purchasing power for expensive commodities such as meat and dairy products [ 42 ], farmer incentives and agricultural investment. Analysis of the drivers of historical food price volatility and inflation in India suggests that both supply and demand-side factors (and the interaction between) play an important role [ 40 ].

The impact of feedbacks such as reduced meat and dairy demand (thereby reducing demands for feed, with further feedbacks on food supply and commodity prices) are not reflected within these scenarios, but will play an important role in determining food system dynamics. The impact of domestic food shortages, agricultural prices and balance within international markets is particularly pronounced in India where the agricultural sector accounts for the employment and income of a large percentage of the population [ 43 ]. Literature on the interactions between poverty, agriculture and food prices is extensive; many studies indicate that, since a large share of the world’s poor are rural, high food prices have a positive long-term impact on poverty reduction. However they have negative impacts on poverty and malnutrition in the short-term [ 39 , 44 – 48 ]. The lack of domestic capacity in India to meet the full nutritional needs (balancing caloric, protein and micronutrient requirements) of its population is likely to increase the demand for commodity imports. This in turn creates further feedbacks on domestic prices, farmer income and inevitably poverty reduction [ 46 ]. Further work on the economic dimension to Indian food security—within the context of value chain potential and efficiency evaluations in this study—is therefore crucial to develop better understanding of their interactions and policy responses.

Overall, our results highlighted several key points:

• production quantities at the farm level are very low relative to global average production;
• low import and export values produce an approximately balanced trade model; this correlates with India’s self-sufficiency focused agricultural and food policies;
• harvesting, post-harvest and distribution losses in the supply chain form a large proportion of total food system inefficiencies;
• a moderate amount of energy and fat (but not protein) is allocated to non-food uses, although this is significantly less than global average non-food allocation;
• India’s caloric and protein losses in the conversion of edible crops to livestock are small due to the dominance of pasture-fed livestock such as dairy cattle. The large nutritional gains achieved through increased milk consumption in India suggest this may be a beneficial trade-off in agricultural land for provision of high-quality protein.

Our examination of the food supply chain in India identified harvesting, handling and storage losses, and top-level crop production to be the key intervention phases for improving food security. The approach not only adds value in the identification of ‘hotspots’ of wastage and inefficiency, but also allows for an understanding of the magnitude of change required to produce a certain food supply chain-wide result. Our analysis highlighted that, despite being an important mechanism for improving food security, even a 50% reduction in food loss/waste (a challenge that is achievable but would take significant economic, infrastructural and educational investment) alone would be largely insufficient in ensuring food security in India.

Increased production at the agricultural level must therefore be a focus for both near and long-term food security. The viability of achieving yields close to 75% AY in the near-term (to 2030), across the range of available crops, needs to be more closely considered. For several staple crops, a yield increase upwards of 30% and 50% would be required for attainment of 75% and 90% AY, respectively (see S2 Table ). The challenge in reaching close to 90% AY (i.e. almost maximum yield) is substantial; many developed countries have not yet reached such levels [ 23 ].

The potential resource limits and environmental implications needed to achieve such yields also need to be given consideration in order to optimise crop selection and mitigate negative impacts. The yield gap could predominantly be closed through improved water and nutrient management [ 23 ]. Depleting groundwater resources through agricultural irrigation in India raises key concerns over long-term water security [ 49 ][ 50 ], and whether water availability is likely to impose a resource limit on yield attainment. Improved yields through increased fertiliser application raise similar sustainability concerns; nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is a key source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a major source being microbially-mediated emissions as a result of nitrogen fertiliser application to agricultural soils [ 51 ]. There may therefore be a significant GHG penalty in closing the current yield gap.

It should be noted that this study has considered only yield improvements through traditional crop varieties. Genetic variation and modification of crop strains may offer further potential for yield increases, in addition to increased resilience to pests, disease and climatic impacts [ 52 ]. However, with the exception of Bt Cotton, genetically modified (GM) crop varieties are banned from commercial crop production [ 53 ]. Despite the introduction of GM field trials in recent years, they continue to face significant resistance across a range of stakeholder groups [ 54 ].

Our analyses for 2050 highlight severe food security challenges for India, even in scenarios which assume attainment of 90% AY for all crops. In addition to the hotspots identified for further focus to achieve near-term improvements, long-term strategies require increased consideration of the impact of potential climatic changes. India’s staple crops–wheat and rice—show particular vulnerability; in the near-term, CO 2 fertilisation may offer some positive yield impacts, however, simulated climate models suggest this effect is likely to be cancelled out if global mean temperature increase reaches a 3°C threshold in wheat (2°C for rice) [ 55 ]. This suggests negative climate impacts may only begin to arise from mid-century onwards. Failure to build capacity and agricultural resilience in the interim could result in severe food deficits should a 2°C or 3°C warming threshold be breached. Planning strategies should therefore not only aim to adapt to gradual near-term impacts of a changing climate, but importantly focus on capacity-building for a resilient food system in a warmer post-2050 world.

Our 2050 scenarios are based on assumptions which are sensitive to change; we have assumed BAU climatic-yield factors, and increased meat and dairy intakes in line with FAO projections. Both of these assumptions could change based on global GHG mitigation progress, and governmental or social interventions on meat consumption. In addition, it is recognised that some potential climatic impacts could be reduced through shifts in crop production regions and seasonal cropping patterns [ 24 ]. While such changes may marginally change the scale of the food supply and malnutrition challenge, the overall conclusions remain the same. Climatic and livestock impacts may serve to exacerbate the issue, however, India would continue to face a severe risk of domestic food shortages regardless of these additional pressures.

To deliver effective recommendations for addressing macronutrient undersupply and malnutrition, two key components need to be further explored. Firstly, there needs to be better understanding of optimal crop selections to maximise production and consumer supply of energy, digestible protein and fats alike. This has to be analysed with key resource and environmental constraints in mind to deliver a more optimal and sustainable domestic food system. This should include consideration of options outwith traditional domestic agricultural practice, such as genetic modification, industrial biotechnology and biofortification [ 56 , 57 ].

Secondly, India’s role within global food markets needs to be more closely assessed. To successfully address malnutrition, India will likely have to fill the gap between domestic production and food demand through increased imports. Food imports can have a significant impact on domestic prices, and the dominance of agriculture as a primary source of employment in India may be a negative influence on farmer livelihoods [ 9 ]; and further, a large increase in food imports could potentially reduce energy-protein intake for the poorest 30% of the population [ 46 ]. This means appropriate economic and social analysis must be carried out to try to optimise import quantities and products which will have minimal domestic impacts. The importance of reducing economic and dietary inequalities makes this even more crucial.

In order to ensure a resilient food system, such analyses and recommendations should be made alongside consideration of potential climatic impacts in the medium- and long-term. This would allow for appropriate choices to be made in the near-term that are also sustainable in a changing climate. The implications of our analysis for health, social, and environmental policy is discussed in detail in our Supplementary Discussion.

Closing its current food supply and nutrition gap while meeting increasing population demand will require a combination of domestic measures to improve agricultural practice and subsequent yields, in addition to a well-planned increase in food imports.

Supporting information

S1 file. supplementary discussion..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s001

S1 Table. Loss and waste percentages by food chain stage and commodity group for South and Southeast Asia.

Due to poor data availability on India-specific food loss figures, regional average figures from the FAO were applied to derive estimates of macronutrient losses at each stage in the Indian commodity chain.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s002

S2 Table. Assumptions and sources for figures used within all scenarios from 2011 baseline to 2050 scenarios.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s003

S3 Table. Indian baseline and attainable yield (AY) values for key crop types.

Year 2000 and all attainable yield values have been derived from Mueller et al. (2012)[ 23 ][ 23 ][ 23 ][ 23 ][ 23 ](23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(23)(22)(21)(21)(21), and 2011 yield data derived from the FAOstats database ( http://faostat.fao.org/beta/en/#home ). The necessary percentage increase in yield from 2011 levels to reach each of the AY values has also been shown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s004

S4 Table. Average estimated climatic impacts on Indian crop yields in 2050.

Average values have been assumed based on the range of historic studies on yield sensitivities and climatic models within literature review [ 24 ]. These models are projected on the basis of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial (which is approximately equivalent to a business-as-usual scenario).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193766.s005

• 1. United Nations. Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. New York: 2001.
• 2. Klaus von Grebmer, Jill Bernstein, Nilam Prasai, Shazia Amin YY. Global Hunger Index: Getting to Zero Hunger. Washington, DC: 2016.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 6. United Nations. UN Population Prospects 2015. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/ (accessed February 6, 2016).
• 11. FAO. Food Balance Sheets Handbook. Rome: 2001.
• 12. FAO. Global food losses and food waste–Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: 2011.
• 14. World Health Organization. Energy and protein requirements. Geneva: 1991.
• 15. FAO. Refinements To the FAO Methodology for Estimating the Prevalence of Undernourishment Indicator. Rome: 2014.
• 16. FAO, IFAD, WFP. The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. 2015. I4646E/1/05.15.
• 17. WHO/FAO/UNU Expert Consultation. Protein and amino acid requirements in human nutrition. Geneva: 2007. ISBN 92 4 120935 6.
• 18. National Institute of Nutrition. Nutrient Requirements and Recommended Dietary Allowances for Indians. 2009.
• 22. FAO/WHO. Fats and fatty acids in human nutrition, Report of an expert consultation. vol. 91. Rome: 2008. 978-92-5-106733-8.
• 25. IPCC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary Chapter for Policymakers. IPCC Fifth Assess Rep 2014. 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.
• 29. Subramaniam GS, Subramaniam SR. Does India attain self sufficiency in food production? 2009.
• 30. National Sample Survey Office. Nutritional Intake in India, 2011–12. vol. 471. New Delhi: 2014.
• 38. Evans A. Rising Food Prices: Drivers and Implications for Development. London: 2008.
• 40. Sekhar CS., Roy D, Bhatt Y. Food Inflation and Food Price Volatility in India: Trends and Determinants. New Delhi: 2017.
• 43. World Bank. World Development Indicators 2017. https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed June 6, 2017).
• 44. Polaski S. Rising Food Prices, Poverty, and the Doha Round. Washington D.C.: 2008.
• 45. Headey D. Food Prices and Poverty Reduction in the Long Run. Washington D.C.: 2014.
• 46. Panda M, Ganesh-Kumar A. Trade liberalization, poverty, and food security in India. New Delhi: 2009.

Interview for the U.S. Senate India Caucus

Feeding a billion agriculture and food security in india.

Suresh Babu (International Food Policy Research Institute) examines the key challenges and opportunities facing India’s agriculture as the country seeks to meet its food security need while moving more of its workforce to the industrial and services sectors.

Today, five decades after the start of the “Green Revolution,” India’s food grain production has increased fivefold and the country is one of the world’s largest producers of staples like rice and wheat. However, its hunger and malnutrition levels are still extremely high, and great inefficiencies remain within the agricultural sector, which employs about half of the population, including 70% in rural areas.

In this NBR interview, Suresh Babu (International Food Policy Research Institute) examines the dynamics facing Indian agriculture as the country seeks to meet its food security needs while moving more of its workforce to the industrial and services sectors. Dr. Babu argues that the foremost challenge is improving productivity within the agriculture system and recommends that India adopt new technologies in agricultural mechanization, increase food processing, develop better supply chains, and increase investment in agriculture research, among other solutions.

India’s Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s introduced significant reforms that were intended to drastically increase the country’s agricultural output. How has India’s agricultural sector changed since this period?

India’s production of food grain has increased fivefold since the Green Revolution. The agricultural sector has also made good strides in the production of high-value commodities such as milk, livestock, aquaculture, and fruits and vegetables, although productivity in some cases is still less than optimal. The sector has benefitted from high levels of government support for farmers in the form of fertilizer subsidies and other subsidies for technology adoption. In addition, private-sector participation has increased in the input markets, such as those for fertilizer, seeds, and animal feed, and in output markets for crops produced, such as basmati rice and wheat.

Today, there is tremendous opportunity for developing joint ventures between India and the United States in mechanizing agriculture. As India looks to increase its agricultural output, there is great need—and a growing market—for sophisticated mechanized tools and equipment from the United States. There is great potential to collaborate more in this area to arrive at a win-win situation. India needs this agricultural technology and is now increasingly capable of paying for it, which should be an interesting proposition for U.S. industry. While Indian companies are successful at producing tractors, for example, there is room for them to upgrade their technologies in collaboration with U.S. companies. Perhaps surprising to many outside of India is that there is a great shortage of labor within India’s agricultural sector. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, with its aim to guarantee the “right to work,” increased the safety net within rural India, which has had the effect of taking away some low-end labor from agriculture and thus has increased the need for machinery.

The key question for India in the next stage of developing agriculture productivity is how to organize its farmers to connect with those in other parts of Asia. The country is a bit disorganized right now. This is partly because agricultural supply is primarily led by local demand and prices are low overall. However, for the agricultural sector to contribute in larger part to the economy, this cannot continue much longer, and India must find ways for its farmers to engage in regional markets by opening up markets both in South Asia and throughout Asia more broadly, including Central and Southeast Asia.

Although India’s food supply is now largely self-sufficient, the country’s hunger and malnutrition levels are still extremely high. Restrictions such as banning the movement of food grains from one state to another and from one district to another within the same state have hindered further growth of the sector. To meet the increasing demand for high-value commodities, several private companies are developing various models for working with farmers to enhance production and improve integration with local, regional, and international markets. However, further efforts are needed to streamline the contractual procedures so that both producers and aggregators benefit from these arrangements. In addition, the public agriculture extension system has declined since the 1990s, and there have been efforts recently to revive it in order to more effectively deliver information to farmers based on agricultural research. Finally, although input markets are well-developed to meet the needs of farming communities in most places, the timely availability of fertilizers and varieties of seeds suitable for certain agro-ecological zones remains a challenge.

What are the top agricultural issues India should focus on to meet its food security needs?

The top issue by far for Indian agriculture is increasing productivity. This is due to a need for more effective integration of smallholder farmers in markets by providing necessary rural marketing infrastructure, strengthening the capacity of farmers to access and use information for problem solving, and increasing the quality of agricultural research and education. In addition, productivity is low in part because smallholder farmers produce less than their potential due to the poor adoption of best practices. The need for technology varies among farmers according to their natural resource base, land quality, water availability, and connections to local and regional markets. Developing best practices in crop cultivation based on scientific methods, including applying fertilizers based on soil testing and optimizing water use with micro-irrigation systems, can help increase productivity. This is something the federal government is starting to understand, and India’s twelfth five-year plan, covering 2012–17, emphasizes food security and also discusses ways to increase agriculture productivity. There is a huge potential for small farmers to increase sustainable productivity. The United States has much to offer here, and there is a successful history of similar collaboration during the Green Revolution.

Another key issue for productivity enhancement is the development of high-value commodity supply chains. While this has been happening in the India in the last ten to fifteen years, it has been driven largely by the private sector. A much greater role for the public sector could help facilitate the process of engagement between farmers and the private sector.

In addition, agricultural research must become more relevant to address the emerging challenges faced by farmers, such as the impact of climate change on smallholder agriculture and the high risk that farmers face in the event of droughts and floods. To improve the quality of the research system, there is an urgent need for the government of India to invest in agricultural education, which has been deteriorating over the last 30 years. Increasing the accountability of the researchers and rewarding them based on performance, through salary increases, benefits, and promotions, are important means to improve the productivity of the national agricultural research and education systems.

To increase agriculture growth, what is fundamentally required is to increase productivity and the efficiency of the agricultural research system. There are many ways the United States can assist with this, and there is great need to build long-term sustainable partnerships. During the George W. Bush administration, for example, the United States and India launched an initiative aimed at strengthening India’s agricultural knowledge system, but such initiatives require continued commitment. In 2010 Washington and New Delhi launched the U.S.-India Agriculture Dialogue to look at these issues at a higher level and this should be further developed into joint programs. Above all, what will build long-term sustainable collaboration and growth is if U.S. researchers can find opportunities to work in India, and, if U.S. professors can work with or more Indian students. Indian universities should also host students from U.S. universities to work on joint research projects. These types of researcher exchanges would benefit the next generation of Indian scientists, who could then increasingly do research of global quality. It would also benefit U.S agricultural scientist’ understanding of global agricultural challenges.

Over half of India’s workforce is engaged in farming-related activities. Yet agriculture accounts for only about 14% of India’s GDP. Why is this?

Agriculture contributes to the livelihoods of over 70% of India’s rural population. The share of agriculture in GDP, however, has been declining due to the growth of the industrial and service sectors. This is a normal structural change for emerging economies and is a good sign. What is worrisome, however, is the low productivity of the rural sector, and in particular of smallholder farms. It should be possible, for example, to increase the rice harvest from 2.5 tons to 5 tons per hectare, and yet due to poor adoption of best practices, farmers continue to harvest less than the potential yields. In addition to improving food security, increasing productivity would help reduce the area of land under crop production and make it possible to preserve more land for forests and tree cover. Heightened engagement with farmers through rural advisory services is needed to encourage the adoption of new technology.

In September 2012, India opened its retail trade market to FDI. How does this move affect Indian agriculture and help address the country’s food security challenges?

Opening up the retail trade market to FDI will affect the agriculture sector positively. This allows for technology transfers from international firms to Indian firms and will facilitate the integration of Indian agriculture into international markets, as well as the development of better supply chains. The quality of the processed products could improve, and in the long run this will help India compete in the global markets. However, the experiences of local output aggregators that are also local retailers have not been rosy, in part due to contract disputes between smallholder farmers and companies that are difficult to enforce on both sides.

Because of a strong preference for fresh produce and the existence of local market chains that supply fresh produce to rural and urban markets, the retail revolution in India’s agriculture sector may not occur as quickly as expected. Take, for example, the local pushcart vendor or vegetable stand. He gets his produce every morning, so it is very, very fresh. Retailers make organized purchases that require refrigeration; they cannot compete with the vegetable stands or pushcart vendors on freshness. However, pushcart vendors’ children will not be pushing carts in another fifteen years. They will have moved on to another profession as India’s economy grows. It is a purely a process of development. While some of these bigger retailers are struggling right now—both Indian and Western companies—eventually they will succeed. India is not fully ready for big retail markets in rural and semi-rural areas. The retailers who are there are only cater to a small percentage of consumers, even in big urban areas like Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, and Mumbai.

There needs to be a middle ground where the pushcart suppliers and the highly franchised retailers meet. This has not been explored yet. Why should we only have a refrigerated store with vegetables that go bad after one day? There is an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of each. For example, one could pay a little extra to the pushcart operator for fruits and vegetables that are washed and kept clean. We are trying to jump from street markets to highly sophisticated Western grocery stores and that takes time.

However, in the long run, increasing the productivity of cereal and legumes will release land and allow for development of the high-value chains I noted above that will increase the income levels of smallholder farmers, thereby potentially enhancing food security as well. Greater processing also means that there is room for better storage and handling, providing additional opportunities to farmers and rural households.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for moving many Indian workers out of agriculture and in other sectors such as manufacturing and services. What changes within India’s agriculture sector are needed for this to take place, and how might this shift affect India’s food security?

As discussed earlier, increasing labor productivity is the key factor in enabling the movement of surplus labor to other sectors. This requires improving the quality of research available to smallholder farmers. For example, new technologies could release laborers from tedious practices such as the transplanting and harvesting of rice. Agricultural labor is already in short supply due to the out-migration of rural labor to urban areas to perform non-agricultural operations. Mechanization has been increasing in areas with labor shortages. Movement from one rural area to another is also becoming increasingly common. Agricultural processing promises to be an important outlet for this excess labor in some rural areas. Placing processing units in rural areas could, for example, absorb some of the labor and add value in terms of processing and packaging.

Yet the processing sector in India lags significantly behind that of several other developing countries, such as Thailand, because of poor rural infrastructure characterized by low-quality feeder roads, the erratic availability of electricity, and a lack of cold-storage facilities. For example, Thailand processes almost 90% of its agriculture products, either for export or domestic consumption. India processes less than 10% of its agriculture products. There is thus huge potential for rural, agro-based industries to operate in a more mechanized and organized way to process commodities from various parts of the country. This will be next big area to absorb rural employment and take advantage of India’s demographic dividend. Policies and strategies at the central, regional, and local levels that can help farmers to add value by using the local labor force will also assist in this process. India can learn an important lesson from the United States on this. For example, from watching the recent debates on the new farm bill, India can learn how national policies on agriculture are implemented at the state and local levels. There could also be an exchange of policymakers and farmers to help facilitate this.

India’s federal government has passed a National Food Security Bill to improve food access. How does this legislation address the country’s core food needs? Can the requirements of the bill be met with India’s current agricultural policies and output?

The food security bill is part of a larger program that the government of India has put in place to provide the poor and vulnerable with a safety net and should be seen in conjunction with the 150 other rural policies to help poor and vulnerable families. Yet a major challenge is in the local implementation of these programs. This includes ensuring proper governance and accountability that goods are delivered without leakages (meaning that the food did not reach targeted populations). Supervision is often minimal at the local levels.

Current policies in agriculture also complement the National Food Security Bill. For example, the national food security mission addresses the problem of food security from the supply side by increasing food production. However, the coordination and harmonization of these seemingly disparate programs and policies need serious scrutiny in terms of their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving food security goals. There are many ways to improve. For example, much more should be done in the way of monitoring and evaluating information on leakages, how people are using the program, and other key data, and this information should be transmitted back to program managers. The Indian government could create a mobile app to assist in this, with tools to reduce the burden of local supervision, mapping, and getting the local level involved. The key is to be innovative.

Over the last few years, food prices in India have risen dramatically, as evidenced most recently by the tremendous increase in the price of onions during the fall. Why has this been the case? Are there any policies or practices you recommend to reverse this trend?

Price increases are due to both supply and demand factors. On the supply side, production shortages have been caused by low rainfall and poor management of food stocks. On the demand side, consumption of high-value commodities such as meat, milk, and produce has been growing. The increase in onion prices is a special case that involves poor functioning of the markets and to some extent speculative pricing by middlemen who tend to create artificial scarcity to take advantage of the higher prices. Farmers, however, have responded to this trend by reallocating land to increase the supply of onions to the market, which has brought prices down recently. Onions are a big business in India and are s storable crop, which allows middlemen to manipulate market prices by creating scarcity. To reduce market pricing pressures, technology and information play a role. Looking out over both the next five to ten and ten to twenty years, increasing productivity and organizing farmers better through supply chain efficiency is critical to help ameliorate this problem. It is particularly important as there may likely be a decline in onion supply due to environmental degradation.

India seeks to play a larger role in the global economy and return to 7%–8% GDP growth. How does the agricultural sector contribute to this goal?

There has been a set target of 4% growth in the agricultural sector to meet the target of 7%–8% overall GDP growth. Again, increasing productivity is the key to achieving this target. Although the growth rate of agriculture is on the rise, this trend does not seem to be robust. The main reason is India’s dependence on monsoon rains for the major share of agricultural production. In addition, the sector is largely managed at the state level. States that have invested in agriculture research and extension policies that are focused on outcomes at the farm level have done well at increasing their productivity growth rate. Still there remains a need to invest more in both the agriculture systems and in people to enhance productivity. Yet several states are struggling to do so.

Gujarat and Bihar provide examples of successful models. In Gujarat, for example, mobilizing the implementing organizations and institutions to meet farmers’ needs for quality inputs at the right time has helped achieve higher yields. In Bihar, the effective use of resources in strategic areas such as agricultural extension systems has increased returns for farmers. By contrast, states such as Orissa and Madhya Pradesh are still behind in making notable strides to improve productivity.

Looking at this year’s general elections, in many ways it is a debate between Gujarat-style and Bihar-style agricultural productivity. In Gujarat, Chief Minister Narendra Modi mobilized his state at all levels. He did not change any agriculture policies dramatically, but he made existing ones work through coordination, harmonization, and synergy among the players involved. He brought both the private and public sectors into play to help the farmers. Should Modi become prime minister with the Bharatiya Janata Party, a key question is whether he will try to replicate this Gujarat-style model throughout the country, and if so, whether it will work. Many states lack strong governance, which was key to Gujarat’s success. The Bihar-style model, alternatively, is more hands-on and places a greater emphasis on subsidies and helping with resources. It creates a different environment for farmers. The Congress party is running on a “right to food” platform as part of its “five rights,” which has an emphasis on uplifting the poor through subsidies. We will see in the coming months which ideas are more persuasive and in the months after how new agriculture policies will be implemented, if any.

Do you have anything final to add?

The agriculture sector will continue to be crucial for reducing poverty and eliminating hunger in India for several decades to come. Yet the challenges of water scarcity, inadequate irrigation systems, land deterioration, and nutrient depletion have to be addressed in a holistic manner as well. For example, continued support to the fertilizer industry from the government based on the quantity of fertilizer sold has drained valuable resources without providing any incentive for manufacturers to increase the efficiency of their production units. India should take a look at the way it supports this industry, but the political will must be there. This would be a bold step and an issue that should be raised continually.

Emerging challenges such as climate change will only complicate efforts to improve the resilience of the agricultural sector. Strengthening the capacity of agricultural professionals and organizations, as well as the delivery process of intervention programs, is key to increasing the productivity and sustainability of Indian agriculture. For example, efforts to revamp the extension system that are currently underway through the district-level agricultural technology management agencies need further evaluation to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, cost-effective micro-irrigation systems are required to sustain groundwater systems and could benefit from technologies developed by foreign collaboration. Finally, there is continued need to strengthen professionals working in the agriculture sector to ensure they have the necessary skills to innovate and interact on a global scale.

Suresh Babu is a Senior Research Fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). For the past 23 years at IFPRI, he has been involved in institutional and human capacity strengthening for higher education and research in many countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, including Ghana, Nigeria, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. Dr. Babu has an MS and PhD in Economic from Iowa State University.

This interview was conducted by Sonia Luthra, Assistant Director for Outreach at NBR.

• agriculture

Advertisement

The Hungry Nation: Food Policy and Food Politics in India

• Research Article
• Published: 02 May 2016
• Volume 1 , pages 29–45, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Dan Banik 1  

26k Accesses

14 Citations

22 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

India has the largest number of hungry people in the world. Improvements in nutritional status have not kept pace with the country’s impressive success in spurring economic growth in the past few decades. This essay revisits India’s success in preventing famine and compares it to the country’s inability to improve the food security of hundreds of millions of its citizens. Why is the Indian performance on reducing hunger not any better? And why is India’s democracy able to prevent famines but not more effectively combat undernutrition? An important result of the right to food movement and the resulting judicial activism was the enactment of the National Food Security Act (NFSA) in 2013, which has attracted considerable attention regarding its potential to radically improve the food security of over 800 million Indians. I critically examine the historical development of the NFSA including its current provisions against the backdrop of heated debates over four broad sets of interrelated issues—availability of adequate funds, the specific roles and duties of various levels of government in India’s federal political set-up, the distinction between food security and nutritional security and the extent to which the country proposes to reform existing social protection programmes aimed at improving food security.

Similar content being viewed by others

India’s Evolving Food and Nutrition Scenario: An Overview

Evolution of India’s Policy Response to Hunger, Nutrition, and Food Security Since Independence

Food Poverty and Insecurity: The Poor in a World of Global Austerity

Explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

There has been considerable interest in academic and policy circles regarding India’s impressive economic growth rates over the past couple of decades. And many analysts have predicted, as recently as in January 2016, that the Indian economy will continue to grow at a fast pace. Although China is often praised for successfully distributing the benefits of economic growth and lifting over a half a billion people out of poverty between 1981 and 2005, India too has had several developmental successes. Indeed, India’s achievements include a doubling of live expectancy at birth and a drastic reduction in child mortality rates. In addition to being the poster child of freedom and democracy for over six decades, India is now also firmly established as one of major economies in the world with a burgeoning middle class and corporate houses that have acquired control over iconic brand names on the global stage.

Despite all its achievements, however, India tops the list of countries in the world with the largest share of the global extreme poor. And with 37.2 % of the population (more than 400 million people) that is officially estimated to be living in absolute poverty, the country has the unenviable record of being home to a third of the world’s poor (Banik 2011 ). Although substantial improvements have taken place in the past six decades—e.g. the number of undernourished individuals decreased from 210 million in 1990–1992 to 194.6 million in 2014–2016 (FAO 2015 ), there is now widespread consensus among scholars, practitioners and policymakers that improvements in nutritional status have not kept pace with the country’s impressive success in spurring economic growth in the past few decades. With 15.2 % of the population categorised as undernourished—and a prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years at 38.8 %—India is ranked 80th among 104 countries in the current Global Hunger Index compiled by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI 2015 ). Indeed, as a recent FAO ( 2015 , p. 15) report noted, ‘Higher economic growth has not been fully translated into higher food consumption, let alone better diets overall, suggesting that the poor and hungry may have failed to benefit much from overall growth’. Over 3000 children die every day in India from poor diet-related illnesses and undernutrition accounts for 24 % of deaths of children under five years of age. Footnote 1 The brutal reality is disconcerting and poses a major moral dilemma. Despite being touted as a major economic power and a rising global power, India is also home to the largest number of hungry people in the world. The dilemma prompted the Indian Prime Minister to admit in January 2012 that the ‘the problem of malnutrition is a matter of national shame’. He went on to add that the country has simply not managed to reduce hunger ‘fast enough’. Footnote 2

Why is the Indian performance in reducing hunger not any better? And why is India’s democracy successfully able to prevent sensational famines on the one hand but unable to combat chronic undernutrition on the other? The essay, which is structured in two parts, discusses the potential impact of the recently enacted National Food Security Act (NFSA) on hunger and food security in the country. The discussion in the first part revolves around three dimensions of the problem: food policies pursued by the Indian government, the politics of food in India’s democracy, and the role and impact of civil society and the judicial system on attempts to improve food security. I begin by providing a brief overview of the nature of food security policies implemented in the country, with a particular focus on the impact and functioning of major social protection programmes aimed at improving food security. Thereafter, I examine India’s past successes in improving food security and preventing large-scale food crises from turning into famines, before highlighting the current extent and nature of acute and chronic hunger that continues to affect hundreds of millions of people in the country every day. In the concluding sections of Part I, I discuss the influence and impact of civil society organisations and the right to food movement on food and nutrition policies in the country, starting with a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court by a group of civil society organisations that has resulted in some progressive court orders that have changed the food policy landscape in India.

In Part II of the essay, I discuss one of the most important outcomes of the India’s right to food movement—the enactment of the National Food Security Act (NFSA) in 2013, which has attracted considerable attention both at home and abroad regarding its potential to radically improve the food security of over 800 million Indians. I critically examine the historical development of the NFSA including its current provisions against the backdrop of heated debates over funding, division of responsibility between various levels of government, potential impact on food and nutritional security and the ability to overhaul the country’s expensive but largely ineffective social protection system.

PART I: Three Dimensions of Food Security

Food policy.

Social scientists have long compared the development performance of the two Asian giants—India and China—particularly in relation to the ability of the two countries to reduce poverty and hunger. The picture that emerges on India’s performance in combating chronic (regular) hunger is very different to that of China. Indeed, as Yu et al. ( 2015 ) argue, all available evidence indicates that ‘Food insecurity is a much more serious concern in India than China’. Nonetheless, India has witnessed some progress in that the incidence of severe undernutrition among children, and the incidence of certain nutritional-deficiency diseases like kwashiorkor, marasmus and pellagra have been greatly reduced. Chronic caloric and micronutrient deficiencies, however, remain widespread among children and adults. For example, between 1947 and 2000, mortality rates had been reduced by half, but the corresponding reduction in undernutrition was only 20 % (Planning Commission 2000 , p. 5). More recent estimates show that around 1.83 million children die before reaching 5 years of age, 50 out of 1000 infants die before their first birthday and 39 out of 1000 die during their very first month of life (Planning Commission 2010 , p. 7). Particularly alarming is the fact that the number of underweight children has not declined significantly since the early 1990s, despite the Indian economy growing at an average annual rate of over 6 %. Footnote 3 And a study of 112 districts throughout the country concluded that child malnutrition is widespread throughout the country and 42 % of children under five were underweight and 59 % were stunted in the survey areas (Hungama 2011 ).

The main explanatory factors behind chronic caloric deficiency affecting large groups in the population are inadequate food intake (e.g. low dietary intake), infections (e.g. poor sanitation and inadequate health care) and poor caring practices (e.g. poor infant feeding practices). According to available evidence from the rather dated National Sample Survey (NSS 2005–06) results, the poorest 20 % of India’s rural population consume on average 1900 cal or less per day against the average recommended daily allowance of 2400 cal. And the poorest 25 % of the urban population consume on average 1700 cal per day or less against the recommended 2100 cal. Hunger in India moreover has a regional dimension. For example, while the national average of moderately underweight children stands at 40.4 %, the corresponding figures for Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand are 57.9, 55 and 54.5 %, respectively. Smaller states such as Mizoram (14.3 %), Sikkim (17.3 %) and Manipur (19.5 %) enjoy the best record, while among larger states Kerala (21.2 %) and Punjab (23.6 %) exhibit impressive results (Banik 2011 ).

The nutritional status of the population is also considerably dependent on gender, age and ethnicity. For example, undernutrition is particularly high among children less than two years of age, rural women, and Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups (Measham and Chatterjee 1999 , p. 10). These findings are further confirmed by data that shows that the prevalence of undernutrition among ST children is 54 %, and far higher than the national average of 42.5 % (NFHS 2005–06; Planning Commission 2010 , p. 9). Other studies conclude that undernutrition is not only higher among those who identify as Scheduled Castes or Schedule Tribes, but also among Muslims (HunGama 2011 , p. 9). And the rates of underweight and stunted children are significantly higher among women with low levels of education (Ibid.).

The overall improvements in nutritional status that many groups in India have experienced in the past half a century are mainly due to an increase in foodgrain production, better diets, increased access to health care and the implementation of some of the largest and most expensive social protection programmes in the world. The Indian government’s two main pillars for ensuring food security include improving access to foodgrains and increasing their availability or production (Yu et al. 2015 ). While food production has increased manifold—largely due to the success of the Green Revolution—hundreds of millions of Indians are not food secure in that they do not have ‘physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’ (FAO 2014 ).

Over the years, the Indian government has intervened in private food markets in order to control and stabilize prices and supplies, and to prevent food shortages. Unlike China, which has adopted a policy of direct transfers to support agricultural incentives that many studies find to be less distorting and more efficient, India typically uses price-based input subsidies to support agriculture. The main (and most expensive) components of the policy include input subsidies on fertilisers, electricity for irrigation and irrigation water (Ibid: 407–408). In terms of market price support for foodgrains, the government operates with a so-called Minimum Support Price (MSP) for 25 agricultural commodities. It thus provides various forms of price support to producers, and encourages export (Pacey and Payne 1985 ; Planning Commission 2010 ). The government moreover regulates the rationing of subsidised food stocks, imposes movement restrictions on agricultural produce, imports food from other countries, and controls market prices through the Public Distribution System (PDS).

India currently has several active social protection programmes specifically aimed at improving the nutritional status of the population. These include the provision of subsidised food (through the Public Distribution System, PDS), targeted food supplementation (through the Integrated Child Development Services, ICDS); provision of a cooked meal once a day through the National Mid-Day Meals Programme, emergency feeding to the destitute, micronutrient programmes (e.g. distribution of iron-folate and vitamin A; salt iodization) and food/cash for work programmes (through schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, MGNREGA). Typical problems associated with these programmes relate to identifying and reaching targeted groups in the population, weak purchasing power of food insecure households, corruption and leakage, lack of trained staff and equipment and inadequate storage facilities for foodgrains (Banik 2007 ).

An illustrative example of some of the challenges in implementing social protection programmes in India is the PDS—a (producer) price-support-cum-consumer subsidy programme—which aims to improve food security among poor households by subsidising rations of rice, sugar, kerosene oil, and other commodities that are distributed through Fair Price Shops by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The PDS is the most expensive and far reaching of safety-net oriented programmes in India and the distributive leg of a chain of government interventions in the agricultural products markets. In the past couple of decades, the fiscal cost of the PDS has more than doubled due to a widening gap between procurement prices (i.e. the Minimum Support Prices) and the subsidized consumer prices through the PDS (Kishore et al. 2014 ; Yu et al. 2015 ). Although it plays an important role in promoting food security, the poor enjoy limited access to the PDS. And since the relative poverty levels across states have not played a major role in determining programme allocations, the programme has had an overall nation-wide urban bias with considerable inter-state variation. It has also continued to remain an expensive and largely untargeted intervention (Banik 2007 ; De Brauw and Suryanarayana 2015 ).

At the local level, there have been numerous difficulties with targeting the neediest groups despite an attempt to improve this very feature through a targeted PDS (TPDS), which was introduced in 1997. For example, methodological inadequacies in the compilation of so-called ‘Below Poverty Line’ (BPL) lists make it difficult, if not impossible, for many genuinely needy households to access food and non-food items as they do not have the required ration cards. Moreover, a large number of households cannot afford to purchase their allocated quota of subsidised products in one transaction, and given the considerable distance to the nearest Fair Price Shop, it is not always practical to make several trips to the store to pick up small quantities of rationed goods. The general lack of purchasing power also means that although certain items (e.g. kerosene and sugar) may be abundantly available at Fair Price Shops, there are few takers. Further, many districts in the country do not have the capacity to adequately store (given adverse weather conditions) agricultural products for long periods, which negatively affects the quality and durability of foodgrains that are procured, stored and transported for the PDS by the Food Corporation of India from other parts of the country. Moreover, newspaper reports frequently cite villagers and local NGOs throughout India who complain about PDS stocks that are routinely diverted to the free market by shop owners and wholesale dealers in charge of transporting the stocks. The incentive to divert is particularly strong as the sale of subsidised PDS supplies in the open market fetches a higher price and involves an extra profit for Fair Price Shop owners.

Another major social protection programme aimed at improving nutritional and health status of children below 6 years of age is the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). The ICDS combines several services to women and children: supplementary feeding, monitoring of child growth, immunisation against preventable childhood diseases, regular health check-ups and referral, health and nutrition education to adult women, preschool education to 3–6-year olds. The targeted groups are reached through more than 300,000 trained community-based ‘Anganwadi’ workers (trained village women) and an equal number of helpers, supportive community structures/women groups, through the ‘Anganwadi centre’, the health system and the community. However, the ICDS faces a similar set of challenges to that of the PDS. In a previous study, I found that that urban areas, and administrative blocks close to urban centres, are far better covered by the ICDS than remote areas of the country where children are more likely to be severely undernourished (Banik 2007 ). Another shortcoming in rural areas is that there is generally little contact between Anganwadi centres and the district health system. Local level ICDS staff moreover complain of shortage of funds, which in turn results in many unfilled positions (low monthly salaries make it unattractive for qualified candidates) and generally low quality and uncoordinated service delivery. The programme has also been criticised for earmarking only a small portion of funds and staff time for children below 3 years of age (Planning Commission 2010 ). Some argue that the ICDS model should be redesigned to be much more ‘outreach-based’ rather than the current ‘centre-based’ practice whereby small children are often required to walk long distances to reach the ICDS centres (Saxena 2012 ). If staff were to visit the children at their homes, then in addition to mothers, perhaps also other members of the families could be made aware of crucial nutrition-related information (Ibid.).

Food Politics

In 1947, when the country achieved independence from Great Britain, India’s political leaders were confronted with numerous challenges. Among the most serious of challenges resulting from widespread poverty and chronic energy deficiency due to a combination of low-literacy and poor access to safe-drinking water, sanitation and health care. In the first couple of decades after independence, progress on basic development indicators was slow and large groups in the population were plagued by infections, ill health and low life expectancy (Planning Commission 2000 , p. 2). With the Great Bengal Famine (1942–44) fresh in memory, a related concern was the threat of new famines and mass starvation deaths resulting from low agricultural production. India’s administrators, moreover, were confronted with the challenge of establishing an improved food distribution system that would enable the state to make adequate amounts of food available at regular intervals to a large number of food insecure people. India managed to gradually reduce (if not entirely eliminate) the threat of famine. As the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has famously claimed, unlike its fellow Asian giant China, India has successfully prevented famine since independence mainly due to the functioning of its democratic institutions. Sen argues that the role played by opposition parties, a free press, and an active civil society has ensured that the political authorities are held to account if they are unable to prevent a major loss of lives in times of crisis. Indeed, India’s achievement is all the more impressive when one considers that it averted famines despite producing less food per capita than the famine-hit countries of Africa in the 1970s and 1980s (Banik 2007 ). Although there have been several so-called near-famine conditions in 1965–67 1970–73, and during major droughts in ensuing decades, the last famine in India took place in Bengal in 1943–44—under British colonial rule.

The case of China, however, is very different. During its attempt to take the ‘Great Leap Forward’, China experienced a major famine in 1958–61, resulting in the deaths of tens of millions of people (Ashton et al. 1984 ; Drèze and Sen 1989 ). A major reason for this famine, according to Sen, was the absence of democracy in the country, which allowed Chairman Mao to pursue collectivisation policies that exacerbated initial food shortages. Thus, Sen ( 1984 ) claims that India’s success in preventing famines is not because it drastically increased food production; indeed, famines have been prevented despite lower food production than in many Sub-Saharan African countries. Rather, Sen argues, a democratically-elected Indian government simply cannot afford to not take prompt action when large-scale starvation threatens. An independent and extremely adversarial news media plays a crucial role in this aspect in providing early warning information of impending problems and thereafter following up these initial reports with critical coverage of government response directed at affected communities. Similarly, opposition parties are always on the lookout for critical stories that can undermine the credibility of the ruling party, and use any ammunition they can find to criticize government policy in regional and national legislatures and other forums—especially during major calamities and visible crises. Hence, a political system which allows criticism and debate of official policies can ‘spread the penalties of famine from the destitute to those in authority’ (Sen 1990 ). The Chinese political system exhibited neither of the two above features during the famine of 1958–61, and subsequent research by others largely substantiates Sen’s claim. Without a democratic system of checks and balances, Chairman Mao’s policy decisions on development and famine relief were never really questioned or held to account (Becker 1996 ).

India’s impressive achievement in preventing famine, however, go beyond a simplistic idea of a well-functioning democracy. Rather, famines have been prevented due to comprehensive ‘entitlement protection’ efforts helped by two complementary forces (Drèze and Sen 1989 ). First, the Indian public administrative system has been largely efficient at recreating lost entitlements caused by major crises such as floods, droughts, and economic slumps. Specific interventions include provision of subsidized or free food and other basic necessities to vulnerable households as well as employment generation schemes such as food-for-work or cash-for-work schemes. Second, the political system has been very successful in pushing the administrative system to work as and when required. The major point here is that simply relying on the bureaucracy, not matter how efficient, is inadequate if there is no ‘political trigger’ that can be applied at regular intervals to prod efficient and timely response aimed at preventing large-scale suffering. And by influencing government policy via public action in the form of political activism, criticism and opposition, many actors in Indian society contribute towards triggering government response towards the successful prevention of famine.

Sen accepts that although democracy successfully helps combat famines in India, it fails to address problems of acute poverty and chronic malnutrition. However, he does not explain why this is so. I have argued elsewhere (Banik 2007 ) that in addition to the role of political parties and a free press, it is necessary and important to understand the actual interactions and relations between a whole set of actors and institutions at various levels—including the courts, voluntary organisations, the bureaucracy, institutions of local self government and national and regional legislative organs. This is important in order to better understand why public action in India is effective against famines but ineffective in reducing chronic hunger, which also often results in several hundred alleged ‘starvation deaths’ that although serious, do not warrant the same attention as a large-scale famine.

Civil Society and Judicial Activism

Amartya Sen is, of course, correct in claiming that the media can play an important role in providing early warning information of impending crises and thereafter hold the authorities to account for their failure to mount an appropriate and timely response. Although India has a free press, it does not, however, appear that newspapers are necessarily always interested in covering the plight of those starving in an objective manner. Indeed, the influence of the press is also highly dependent on working conditions of journalists. The political ownership of newspapers in many Indian states moreover poses an additional challenge, and critical reports emanating in media outlets controlled by political parties and their leaders often lack credibility and risk being easily dismissed by the ruling party as being politically biased (Banik 2007 ). Despite the above shortcomings, the Indian media does in fact provide regular coverage of food security-related stories. And it was particularly active in the late 1990s and the first couple of years in the new Millennium.

Following news reports of starvation deaths in the state of Rajasthan in 2000–2001 despite an abundance of food available in government storage houses, the People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL)—a coalition of 56 civil society organisations—decided to seek the help of the Indian judiciary, which has been widely acclaimed for developing innovative jurisprudence on economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights. Footnote 4 In particular, PUCL made use of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which has become an extremely popular avenue for civil society to scrutinise the actions of the government. An important function of courts in India relates to ‘judicial review’, according to which the Constitution empowers the judiciary to protect the fundamental human rights of citizens and intervene when legislative and executive actions are found to be unconstitutional. In the past couple of decades, the Indian judiciary has been increasingly willing to don an activist garb following the decision of the Supreme Court to accept litigation that addresses matters in which interest of the public at large is involved. Such PIL petitions can be moved by any individual or group of persons highlighting the question of public importance for invoking this jurisdiction.

With an explicit focus on human rights, the PUCL submitted a PIL to the Supreme Court in April 2001 questioning whether the right to life guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian Constitution also included the right to food. Footnote 5 Using the human rights language of duty-bearers who must act to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the poor, PUCL identified central and state governments in India as the main duty bearers with the obligation to protect the right to food (Banik 2010 ). The petition argued that these duty bearers must be held to account for their failure to assist individuals and households facing acute hunger while large stocks of food remained in government storage houses. The petitioners further requested the Supreme Court to enquire government action aimed at addressing the implementation challenges associated with the country’s main social protection programmes. They also questioned whether vulnerable groups in the population (e.g. impoverished women, children and the aged) were adequately covered and targeted by public policy. While the PIL was initially brought against the government of Rajasthan, thanks to civil society activism and mobilisation, it now applies to all state governments in India.

In a landmark judgement in November 2001, the Court ordered full implementation of the Public Distribution System (PDS) that offers subsidised food to below poverty line households, converted a previously voluntary programme (Mid-Day Meal Scheme) to provide cooked meals at schools to an obligation on the part of all states, and ordered improved implementation of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), which provides assistance to pregnant and nursing women and children, and other programmes aimed at helping impoverished families whose primary breadwinner has died. With this particular order, the Court converted the benefits of the eight programmes into legal entitlements, i.e. all programme beneficiaries now have the ability to claim benefits as a matter of right, and seek judicial redress if such rights are violated (Right to Food Campaign 2005 , p. 10). This particular order together with previous and subsequent interim orders has thus given rise to a set of ‘umbrella orders’ (applicable to all relevant social programmes) and more specific orders relating to the functioning of specific Although the Supreme Court is yet to award a final verdict in the case, it has held hearings at regular intervals since 2001 and issued over a hundred very detailed ‘interim orders’ that are considered applicable as law until the case is closed. These umbrella orders cover the identification of agent(s) or agency with responsibility for compliance (mainly Chief Secretaries in the various States), and village councils (or Gram Sabhas) that can monitor social protection programmes, investigate misuse of funds and hold the authorities to account by accessing all relevant information. The Court also established a new mechanism for ensuring compliance with, and the monitoring of, its own orders by appointing two commissioners to monitor and report on the implementation of a whole range of public welfare programmes. The commissioners were given powers to investigate potential violations of the interim orders and to demand redress from the political and administrative leadership, with the full backing of the Supreme Court. In addition to providing periodic reports to the Court, the commissioners were authorised to seek responses from state governments, investigate complaints from civil society organisations and set up relevant enquiry committees. A major impact of these initiatives has been the gradual increase in the amount of funds allocated by state governments for improving coverage of social protection programmes within their territories (Right to Food Campaign 2012 ).

Not surprisingly, there has been considerable debate over the nature, extent and validity of the Supreme Court’s activism in the right to food as well as similar cases where PILs have been invoked by various actors to focus attention on the plight of the poor, who typically do not use legal channels to solve problems. In particular, political leaders at the state level, have expressed dismay at the additional costs associated with enforcing court orders. Indeed, politicians resent being lectured to by ‘unelected’ judges who do not have the mandate of the people (Banik 2010 ). Others are more supportive of the courts, arguing that judicial activism is necessary not only for the protection of the powerless but also due to the presence of corruption and inefficiency in the legislative and executive branches (Sateh 2002 , p. 278–281, cited in Zwart 2009 , p. 6–7).

The actions of the Supreme Court and the ensuing interim orders have had considerable impact, with the media and the political-administrative system paying close attention to the regular judicial pronouncements. It has also encouraged a few regional (state) governments in India to enact legislation of their own in order to improve service delivery. One prominent example is Chhattisgarh, a state which ranks low among other Indian states in relation to human development, where the government successfully enacted the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act in December 2012 with the aim of ensuring ‘access to adequate quantity of food and other requirements of good nutrition to the people of the State, at affordable prices, at all times to live a life of dignity’. With several innovative features related to targeting of vulnerable food insecure households, availability and distribution of various types of food, and speedier mechanisms for service delivery, this piece of legislation has been hailed as a major success story amidst the general reluctance of state and national governments in India to abide by the directions of the central government and the Courts that are aimed at improving food security. It is particularly interesting to bear in mind at this stage that a state level legislation on food security came into force well before legislation at the national level.

PART II: The National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013

One of the most important impacts of the right to food movement in India, was the enactment of national legislation on food security—the National Food Security Act (NFSA), which was passed by the Indian Parliament in September 2013. The NFSA converted many existing food security programmes such as the TPDS into legal entitlements for recipients. It entitles up to 75 % of the rural population and up to 50 % of the urban population (thus covering two-thirds of the currently estimated population of 1.25 billion) to 5 kilograms (kg) of rice, wheat, or coarse cereals per person per month at a subsidised price of 1–3 Rupees per kg.

The Act highlights the importance of breastfeeding of children below six months while for children between 6 months and 6 years, it provides for a free age-appropriate hot-cooked meal. And for children aged 6–14 years, the Act provides for one free mid-day meal every day (except on school holidays) in all government and government-aided schools up to the eighth grade. Similarly, pregnant women and nursing mothers are entitled to a free meal every day during pregnancy and six months after childbirth, and there are provisions for basic maternity benefits. With the aim of promoting empowerment of women, the NFSA provides that women of 18 years of age or above will be considered to be the household head when ‘ration cards’ (that serve as proof of identity and status as programme beneficiary) for subsidised food programmes are issued. The Act also introduced a conditional cash transfer model to India by providing that households were entitled to receive food security allowance (or cash transfers) in situations when ‘the entitled quantities of foodgrains or meals to entitled persons’ are not available (NFSA 2013, Sec. 13.). The main responsibility for the implementation of the NFSA is given to state governments, ‘in accordance with the guidelines, including cost sharing, between the Central Government and the State Governments in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government’ (Ibid., Sec. 7). In addition, state governments are expected to constitute a seven-member State Food Commission for monitoring and reviewing the implementation process, with at least two women members and one member each from traditionally disadvantaged communities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities). The NFSA also provides for the redress of complaints and grievances, including call centres and helplines.

From a human rights and ethics perspective, the most important step forward is the recognition in the NFSA of explicit duties or ‘obligations’ of various levels of government for the promotion of food security. Thus, the main obligation of the central government is to provide foodgrains (or adequate funds) to state governments at specified prices. State governments, however, have the main duty to implement the provisions of the Act together with local government institutions, and may extend the level of benefits with additional resources from their own coffers.

Despite the delays in enacting the legislation, and the innumerable compromises in the final draft, many societal and political actors hailed the NFSA as a watershed. Most parties and organisations agreed on the need for a NFSA and its main purpose—to redefine the basis for promoting food security in the country ensuring greater access to adequate quantity and quality food at affordable prices. There are some very obvious benefits of legislating the right to food and guaranteeing access to food to large sections of the population. Harsh Mander, an erstwhile civil servant and activist, and one of the architects of an earlier version of the food security bill, claimed that one the main advantages of the legislation is that it will ensure that foodgrains that are procured by the government are actually distributed to the needy rather than rotting in official storage houses (Mander 2012 ).

The enthusiastic—and often heated—public debate that took place following the introduction of the first draft of the Bill in Parliament in 2011 and subsequent enactment of the NFSA in September 2013 provide an interesting backdrop to understanding India’s struggle to address specific challenges related to poverty and deprivation. The debates reveal considerable disagreement between political parties, think-tanks, scholars, civil society organisations and media commentators on the nature, extent and cost of state intervention in improving food security. Opposition to the NFSA has mainly come from two groups of people. There are those who argue the case for maintaining a high pace of economic growth with increased employment opportunities, wealth and fiscal prudence. They claim that the enormous costs associated with implementing the NFSA will slow India’s economic growth rate. Others subscribe to the view that combating hunger should be the country’s top priority and that the government should actually spend even more resources in combating hunger than it is currently doing. In the following sections, I will highlight four broad sets of interrelated issues that have characterised the Indian social and political discourse on food security in recent years. These four categories relate to the availability of adequate funds, the specific roles and duties of various levels of government in India’s federal political set-up, the distinction between food security and nutritional security and the extent to which the country proposes to reform existing social protection programmes aimed at improving food security.

Can India Afford the High Cost of Food Security Programmes?

The foremost criticism levelled against the NFSA relates to the huge cost of implementation. It did not help matters that ever since the legislation was first introduced in Parliament in 2011, it has been riddled with confusion over the exact amount of extra costs it will entail. The Congress-party led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government—which put all its political might and prestige into getting the NFSA passed in Parliament—initially estimated that an additional cost of US$ 4 billion Footnote 6 per year would be incurred. The Minister of Food significantly played down the costs after introducing the Bill in Parliament, claiming that it would require an additional amount of approx. US$ 3 billion annually. However, it was later revealed that the figures provided by the Minister mainly concerned the food distribution arm of the NFSA. And costs related to improving the nutritional status of children and providing maternity benefits to women would make the NFSA even more expensive.

Recent estimates show that the annual cost of India’s food subsidy programme is rapidly rising, having increased from US$0.62 billion in 1992 to US$16.67 billion in 2012 (Kishore et al. 2014 , p. 31). And according to the Indian government’s own projections, it was supposed to have used an estimated US$21 billion in 2013–2014 to procure 61.2 million tonnes of cereals and deliver it to 820 million people at 1–3 rupees per kg through its existing retail network of 480,000 fair price shops (Ibid.). Moreover, the overall costs of the food subsidy component of the NFSA is projected to rapidly rise to US$ 23.5 billion, although this figure does not include costs related to establishing new, and strengthening existing institutions that are required for the implementation of the Act.

Supporters of the Act argue that the cost of implementing the NFSA does not appear to be very high when compared to the roughly US$ 62.5 billion that are annually written off by the Indian state in the form of exemptions and subsidies to the non-farm sector in addition to tax breaks for big businesses. Footnote 7 The economist Jean Drèze ( 2011 ), who has been an active campaigner for the right to food movement, has claimed that the critics of the NFSA mistakenly assume that all expenses will be borne by the government right away when in reality, it will take a considerable amount of time for the government to start implementing the programme all over the country. Besides, he points out, not all states will be doing everything at the same time. Thus, the issue at hand relates not so much to the immediate financial impact of the NFSA, but ‘the ability of the Indian economy and public finances to accommodate’ the Act, and Drèze argues that current trends point towards a ‘favourable environment for a food security initiative’. Perhaps the most powerful argument in favour of the high costs associated with the Act comes from Harsh Mander who observes: ‘It is about our priorities … what is worth spending and what is not. In a country where every second child is malnourished, what could be more important?’ Footnote 8

Centre-State Blame-Game

India’s federal political system has witnessed a long history of tension between the central government in New Delhi and regional (‘state’) governments. Financial assistance to states affected by widespread natural calamities has been governed through the awards of successive finance commissions appointed by the central government, which recommends the formula for the sharing of all resources between the centre and states for a period of five years at a time. Politicians and civil servants at the state level frequently complain about not having the resources to mount an adequate response during natural calamities, particularly in relation to the provision of drought relief. State governments therefore tend to blame the central government for either failing to provide adequate resources and/or not providing earmarked resources on time. The central government’s typical response is to accuse state governments of underutilising available funds at their disposal and not planning in advance. Indeed, federalism is often under severe strain when the two levels of government do not agree on the extent and nature of assistance required to ameliorate various types of suffering, including those that are food-related. Since competing political parties often hold power at the centre and state levels, there is a constant tug-of-war for all potential sources that can be tapped. And this means that allegations of favouritism are hurled at the centre whenever a particular state does not get the amount it believes it is entitled to (Banik 2007 , p. 130–140).

When the food security bill was first tabled in Parliament in late 2011, many state governments immediately went on to attack the provisions relating to coverage and costs. For example, Tamil Nadu claimed that the Bill was ‘replete with confusion and inaccuracy’. In a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister, the government of Tamil Nadu argued that the classification of the target groups was ‘unscientific and unacceptable’. Footnote 9 As this particular state is well-known for running well-functioning food security schemes of its own—and since the Bill provided that states cannot provide subsidised food to anyone that the central government rules out of its beneficiaries list—Tamil Nadu expressed concern that it would either have to find a way to fund the entire burden of subsidy for additional beneficiaries or take the politically controversial step of excluding people from its programmes. Footnote 10

The government of India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, characterised the Bill as a ‘political stunt’ given the forthcoming legislative assembly elections in the state and alleged that it would place additional fiscal pressure on non-Congress Party ruled states. Footnote 11 It also claimed that the ambitious new measures provided in the legislation were not implementable as the central government had not taken into consideration the availability of the required amount of foodgrains. Moreover, Uttar Pradesh claimed that the central government did not have viable plans for funding new schemes that involved the new and innovative system of cash transfers. Similarly, other opposition party controlled states like Bihar demanded a radical revision of implementation criteria for food security programmes while Tamil Nadu requested to be exempted from implementing the legislation. Footnote 12

Echoing the arguments of Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh governments, the main opposition party of the time—the BJP—characterised the initiative as unscientific and confusing, and part of the central government’s political game. Several news reports in this period further claimed that many states were actually offering rice at Rs. 1 per kg, which was much lower than the Rs. 3 per kg proposed in the Bill. When confronted with such inconsistencies, India’s Food Minister, while proclaiming that this was ‘the world’s largest experiment in providing food security to the poor’, argued that all such details would be looked into later. Footnote 13

Food Security in the Absence of Nutritional Security?

Some critics have questioned whether the quota of 5 kg of cereals per person as provided for in the NFSA is adequate. They argue that the PDS is already notorious for distributing low quality foodgrains given the lack of storage facilities and difficulties of transporting food across large parts of the country. The influential group of NGOs that are a part of the Right to Food Campaign ( 2012 ) in India has forcefully argued that current food security initiatives, including the provisions of the NFSA do not adequately address issues of ‘nutritional security’. They point to the highly centralised and extremely narrow understanding of the needs of people living in poverty in the NFSA. Indeed, while beneficiaries can only receive rice, wheat and coarse cereals under the provisions of the Act, some argue that pulses rather than cereals should be provided for better nutritional outcomes (Kishore et al. 2014 ). Others like Saxena ( 2012 , p. 8) argue that ‘food alone does not solve the problem of underweight children, which needs a multidimensional thrust in health, hygiene, quality of water’ as well as cultural practices related to accessing adequate food that typically discriminate against women.

Like Saxena, many activists and administrators rue the fact that food security-related interventions in India often do not place adequate emphasis on identifying and linking existing strategies with ‘non-food’ items that are crucial to improving nutritional security—health, education, culture, infrastructure, storage, transportation, etc. In addition, de Brauw and Suryanarayana ( 2015 ) argue that the NFSA ‘is not based on an explicit concept of food security’ and that it grossly exaggerates the need for covering two-thirds of the population as it is based in outdated calorie norms. They further argue that the Act ‘provides for a monotonous energy dense diet’ that can ‘at best ensure energy security only’ rather than dietary diversity which is the need of the hour. Thus, some critics argue that this very feature—i.e. the neglect of nutritional security—is one of the major reasons that explain the failure of major programmes such as the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) to radically improve food security of vulnerable groups.

Reforming Defective Social Protection Systems and Ensuring Efficient Service Delivery

Many observers have criticised India’s continued interest in persisting with flawed social protection programmes such as the PDS rather than radically improving or replacing them. Even after the PDS was reformed in 1997 to targeted PDS (TPDS), in order to enable it to better target food insecure households, the main challenge for it as well as other anti-poverty programmes in India continues to be that of identifying and targeting intended beneficiaries (Tanksale and Jha 2015 ). The PDS not only remains expensive (accounting for 1 % of the country’s GDP in 2004–2005) but there is also little evidence of it having made a substantial contribution in reducing food insecurity (Svedberg 2012 ).

The PDS is also already under pressure to distribute the current amount of foodgrains amidst considerable leakage caused by greedy shop owners who divert subsidised food items to the open market. Moreover, the lack of refrigeration and adequate storage capacity frequently results in damaged foodgrains, unsuitable for human consumption. Related to this is the absence of provisions in the NFSA regarding agriculture and concrete measures to increase food production to feed India’s rapidly growing population that currently includes 1.2 billion people and over 1 billion cattle and other farm animals. For example, Hegde ( 2012 ) claims that the procurement policies of the central government, by which rice is purchased from northern states and distributed at cheap prices in other regions has actually forced many farmers in southern and eastern regions of the country to ‘quit farming as it has become financially uneconomical and unviable’. Panandiker ( 2012 ) estimates that the total production of cereals (rice and wheat) in India in 2010–11 was 180 million tonnes (MT), of which around 36 MT is typically retained by farmers for self-consumption, another 36 MT is procured by the government for distribution through the PDS, and 109 MT is available in the open market. The NFSA accordingly will necessitate at least an additional 35 MT for government procurement to PDS, which will in turn drastically reduce supply in the open market and consequently having a negative impact on farmers.

Still others question the wisdom of replacing food subsidies with the introduction in India of a system of conditional cash transfers—a model that has worked very well in Mexico and Brazil. Many state governments are, however, reluctant to bear the costs of these cash transfers from their already meagre resources. In addition to concerns over costs, there is widespread scepticism of providing income-based support without improving access to food in adequate quantity and quality. Moreover, given the existing challenges related to the implementation of social protection programmes, critics claim that it may be extremely difficult to monitor compliance to any conditions attached to these cash transfers. Some scholars have thus recently argued that direct but unconditional cash transfers that offer recipients more choice and create less risk of distortion may be more relevant in the Indian context as they are more cost effective (Kishore et al. 2014 ; Gangopadhyay et al. 2015 ). There are, in addition, numerous concerns whether cash will be used by recipient households for intended purposes (i.e. purchase of food) and how cash will be distributed in the absence of local bank branches and ATM machines. One solution envisaged by the UPA government that sponsored the passage of the NFSA in Parliament is the Unique Personal Identity (UID) number project, which advocates the use of smart cards to transfer benefits directly to the poor rather than through Fair Price Shops and middlemen. However, as Saxena ( 2012 , p. 10) observes, while the use of individual biometric markers may make a difference in removing duplicate and fake beneficiaries and allowing people to withdraw food rations from any part of the state, the UID cannot in practice help target Below Poverty Line (BPL) households, for which other and more relevant criteria (for measuring deprivation) must be adopted.

India has been very successful in preventing famines. Indeed, it’s food security record so far has been most impressive whenever ‘crisis’ has been clearly defined and when there is an unambiguous understanding and consensus among politicians and administrators on the seriousness of the situation. India has in the past witnessed, and will continue to experience in the future, numerous situations that can best be described as ‘famine threats’. It has thus far managed to prevent such famine threats from escalating into famine and there is reason to believe that India will continue to enjoy success on this issue.

A more mixed picture emerges on India’s ability to tackle undernutrition. Instead of sustained commitment to long-term policies that aim to reduce vulnerability to hunger, the political-administrative response in India is typically short-term, ad hoc, and populist in character. There is widespread attention to allegations of sensational and so-called ‘starvation deaths’, while the problem of chronic hunger or ‘undernutrition’ does not attract the same level of state response as it is not considered to be a ‘crisis’ such as a famine. Indeed, the political system fails to address fundamental issues related to daily susceptibility to hunger and the numerous flaws in the implementation of social programmes—including the need for correct diagnoses of the exact type of nutrition-related problem, early intervention, and meaningful interaction between policymakers and local-level bureaucrats. Thus, India’s abysmal record at promoting food and nutritional security, despite managing to increase food production, is not necessarily a product of a lack of resources but rather due to political and administrative disinterest compounded by a lack of appreciation of the dangers of chronic (or less visible forms of) hunger.

The large and expensive social protection programmes run by India have no doubt made significant contributions to improving food security in the past few decades. However, they are ready for a major overhaul as many of the existing programmes are unable to identify and target beneficiaries and use available resources effectively. The importance of the right to food movement lies in the critical public scrutiny that the PDS and other programmes have attracted from the media, the legislature, the judiciary and not least civil society organisations as a result on the on-going case in the Indian Supreme Court. The resulting NFSA appeared to signal a new era where the rights of the poor would finally be respected, protected and promoted.

While the Act does possess many innovative features with the potential of improving food security in the country, I have highlighted four broad sets of challenges that it currently faces. These issues and challenges—which include endless debates over costs and available funding, division of responsibility between various levels of government, lack of linkages to health and education and a comprehensive overhaul of the country’s expensive but largely ineffective social protection system—are by no means new to India; but rather have characterised the debate on poverty reduction and the implementation of public policies for decades. The UPA government, which was accused by opposition parties of pushing the NFSA though Parliament in the hope of winning votes, ended up losing heavily in the 2013 general elections. The current government, formed by the BJP party and its allies, has been lukewarm to the NFSA. While in opposition, it was vocal in its criticism of the Act’s provisions, the BJP now finds itself in government and bound by law to implement the legislation. Although the central government has been reluctant to put its weight behind the NFSA, several state governments are showing signs of willing to start implementing various measures in accordance with the Act. If this trend continues, the central government may feel pressured into devoting more attention and resources to successfully implementing the NFSA on a national scale. The challenge for India is to pursue policies that continue to increase food production in an environmentally sustainable manner while undertaking major steps to improve food storage facilities. In addition, the country must devise better methods to identify food insecure households and adopt a set of policy instruments—either subsidies or cash transfers or both—that take into account local realities. While India has achieved considerable success in reducing extreme poverty, it continues to top world hunger charts. This reality should indeed force politicians to place food security at the top of their policy agendas.

‘India Tops World Hunger List with 194 Million People’, The Hindu 29 May 2015.

‘Full text of PM’s speech at the release of the HUNGaMA Report,’ NDTV , 10 January 2012, http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/full-text-of-pm-s-speech-at-the-release-of-the-hungama-report-165450 (Accessed: 11 January 2015).

For example, while 54 % of Indian children were underweight in 1992–1993, the figure declined to 46 % in 1998–99 and remained constant in 2005–06. Children under age 5 whose weight for age is more than two standard deviations below the median for the international references population for ages 0–59 months are classified as underweight.

This section has benefited from personal communication with Kavita Srivastava, the National General Secretary of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).

Writ Petition (civil) 196 of 2001, submitted in April 2001. 8 ‘PUCL petitions Supreme Court on starvation deaths,’ PUCL Bulletin, July 2001, http://www.pucl.org/reports/Rajasthan/2001/starvation_death.htm (Accessed: 10 September 2010).

All figures converted from INR to USD according to current exchange rates (1 USD = 66.7 INR).

‘Promise of Food Bill is enormous’, editorial, Deccan Chronicle , December 2011.

‘Food Security Bill will ensure that grains will not rot in warehouses: Harsh Mander’, The Times of India , 22 December 2011.

‘Food Security Bill Confusing’, Business Standard , 28 December 2011.

‘Food Security Act to curb states’ largesse’, The Times of India , 23 December 2011.

‘Food security bill not practical for poor people: Mayawati’, The Times of India , 22 December 2011.

‘Govt will allay Food Bill fears: Thomas’, The Hindu , 22 December 2011.

Ashton, B., K. Hill, A. Piazza, and R. Zeitz. 1984. Famine in China, 1958–61. Population and Development Review 10(4): 613–646.

Article   Google Scholar  

Banik, D. 2007. Starvation and India’s democracy . London: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Banik, D. 2010. Governing a giant: The limits of judicial activism on hunger in India. Journal of Asian Public Policy 3(3): 263–280.

Banik, D. 2011. Growth and hunger in India. Journal of Democracy 22(3): 90–104.

Becker, J. 1996. Hungry ghosts: China’s secret famine . London: John Murray.

De Brauw, A., and M.H. Suryanarayana. 2015. Linkages between poverty, food security and undernutrition: Evidence from China and India. China Agricultural Economic Review 7(4): 655–667.

Drèze, J. 2011. Hunger must go. Hindustan Times 21 December 2011.

Drèze, J., and A. Sen. 1989. Hunger and public action . Oxford: Clarendon.

FAO. 2014. The state of food insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition . Rome: FAO.

FAO. 2015. The state of food insecurity in the World . Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf .

Gangopadhyay, S., R. Lensink, and B. Yadav. 2015. Cash or in-kind transfers? Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Delhi, India. Journal of Development Studies 51(6): 660–673.

Hegde, P. 2012. Food bill doesn’t promote security. Deccan Herald , 24 September 2011.

HUNGaMA 2011. Fighting hunger & malnutrition: The HUNGaMA survey report—2011 . http://hungamaforchange.org/HungamaBKDec11LR.pdf .

IFPRI. 2015. Global hunger index 2015: Armed conflict and the challenge of hunger . Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Kishore, A., P.K. Joshi, and J. Hoddinott. 2014. India’s right to food Act: A novel approach to food security, chapter 3. In 2013 Global food policy report , ed. A. Marble and H. Fritschel. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/128046 .

Mander, H. 2012. Food from the courts: The Indian experience. IDS Bulletin 43(S1): 15–24.

Measham, A.R., and M. Chatterjee. 1999. Wasting away: The crisis of malnutrition in India . Washington DC: World Bank.

Book   Google Scholar  

Pacey, A., and P. Payne (eds.). 1985. Agricultural development and nutrition . London: Hutchinson.

Panandiker, D.H.P. 2012. Food grains for food security, http://blogs.reuters.com/india-expertzone/2011/12/26/food-grains-for-food-security/ . Accessed 12 Jan 2016.

Planning Commission. 2000. Nutrition, chapter 6.3.2. In Annual plan 2000–2001 . New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.

Planning Commission. 2010. Addressing India’s Nutritional Challenges. New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/multi_nutrition.pdf .

Right to Food Campaign 2005. Supreme court orders on the right to food: A tool for action, Available at: http://www.righttofoodindia.org/data/ . Accessed 12 Jan 2016.

Right to Food Campaign 2012. Right to food campaign’s critique of the National Food Security Bill 2011, March 2012, Available at: http://www.righttofoodindia.org/data/right_to_food_act_data/events/March_2012_general_note_final_18_february_2012.pdf Accessed: 16 Oct 2012.

Sateh, S.P. 2002. Judicial activism in India: Transgressing borders and enforcing limits . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Saxena, N.C. 2012. Hunger and malnutrition in India. IDS Bulletin 43(S1): 8–14.

Sen, A. 1984. Food battles: Conflicts in the access to food. Food and Nutrition 10: 81–89.

Sen, A. 1990. Public action to remedy hunger. In The Arturo Tanco Memorial Lecture, August 1990 . London: The Hunger Project and CAB International in association with The Commonwealth Trust and The Royal Institute of International Affairs [ http://www.thp.org/reports/sen/sen890.htm ] .

Svedberg, P. 2012. Reforming or replacing the public distribution system with cash transfers? Economic and Political Weekly 47: 53–62.

Tanksale, A., and J.K. Jha. 2015. Implementing national food security act in India: Issues and challenges. British Food Journal 117(4): 1315–1335.

Yu, W., C. Elleby, and H. Zobbe. 2015. Food security policies in India and China: Implications for national and global food security. Food Security 7: 405–414.

Zwart, T. 2009. Good governance as a legal concept with a bite, Available at: http://chairemadp.sciences-po.fr/pdf/seminaires/2009/CONTRIBUTION-TOM_ZWART.pdf . Accessed 05 Oct.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Matthias Kaiser and Anne Algers for the invitation to contribute to this inaugural issue of Food Ethics and to two anonymous referees for very useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1116, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Banik .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Banik, D. The Hungry Nation: Food Policy and Food Politics in India. Food ethics 1 , 29–45 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-016-0001-1

Download citation

Accepted : 08 April 2016

Published : 02 May 2016

Issue Date : June 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-016-0001-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Food security
• Food policy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Essay on Agriculture – The Backbone of the India

Students are often asked to write an essay on Agriculture – The Backbone of the India in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Agriculture – The Backbone of the India

Introduction.

Agriculture is the primary source of livelihood for about 58% of India’s population. It provides raw materials to industries and is the backbone of the Indian economy.

Importance of Agriculture

Agriculture is important as it feeds the nation. It also creates vast employment opportunities. Industries like textiles and sugar depend on agriculture for raw materials.

Challenges in Agriculture

Despite its importance, agriculture faces challenges like lack of modern technology, dependence on monsoon, and low productivity. These need to be addressed for sustainable growth.

Agriculture is vital for India’s economic and social well-being. It’s the backbone of the nation and deserves attention and support.

250 Words Essay on Agriculture – The Backbone of the India

The significance of agriculture in india, interdependence of agriculture and indian society.

The interdependence of agriculture and Indian society is profound, as it not only provides livelihoods but also ensures food security. The diversity of crops, ranging from cereals to fruits and vegetables, caters to the dietary needs of the vast population. Moreover, agriculture has a direct bearing on rural development, as it influences the rural economy and shapes the social dynamics in these areas.

Agriculture and Environmental Sustainability

In the context of environmental sustainability, agriculture plays a critical role. Traditional agricultural practices in India have always advocated for harmony with nature. However, the challenge lies in balancing the need for increased production with sustainable practices. Innovative strategies such as organic farming and precision agriculture are being adopted to address this.

The Way Forward

The future of Indian agriculture hinges on technological advancements, policy reforms, and a shift towards sustainable farming practices. Emphasizing research and development, improving access to credit, and strengthening the agricultural value chain are crucial steps in this direction.

In conclusion, agriculture remains the lifeblood of India’s economy and society. Its importance transcends beyond mere economic contributions, linking to social cohesion, food security, and environmental sustainability. As such, the need to prioritize and modernize this sector is more imperative than ever.

500 Words Essay on Agriculture – The Backbone of the India

Agriculture, often referred to as the backbone of India, is a significant part of the country’s economy, contributing to approximately 17% of the total GDP. It is the primary source of livelihood for about 58% of India’s population, emphasizing its crucial role in the socio-economic fabric of the country.

Historical Significance

The modern agricultural landscape.

Today, India is the world’s largest producer of pulses, rice, wheat, and spices. It’s the second-largest fruit producer and the third-largest in vegetables. Yet, the sector faces numerous challenges such as inadequate irrigation facilities, small and fragmented land-holdings, and lack of modern technology.

Technological Interventions in Agriculture

In the age of digital revolution, technology has started making its way into the agricultural sector. Precision farming, using AI and IoT, is enhancing productivity and reducing wastage. Drones are being used for crop monitoring, and mobile apps are providing real-time weather forecasts and market prices to farmers.

Agriculture and Climate Change

The role of government.

The government plays a pivotal role in supporting agriculture. Policies like Minimum Support Price (MSP), crop insurance schemes, and subsidies on fertilizers aim to safeguard farmers’ interests. The recent farm bills have sparked debates about their potential impact on farmers’ income and the agricultural sector at large.

Agriculture and India’s Future

Agriculture’s role extends beyond mere food production. It is a key player in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). With the right mix of policies, technological interventions, and sustainable practices, agriculture can be the driving force in India’s journey towards sustainable development.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

UN India Digital Library

Nutrition and Food Security

India has done well to expand food production and build up adequate safety stocks of food grains. For over 70 percent of rural Indian households, agriculture, including livestock, still remains the principal source of livelihood. With a six-fold increase in food grain production from 50 million tonnes in 1950-51 to nearly 300 million tonnes in 2019-20, India has become a net food exporter, being the ninth largest exporter of agricultural products in the world. The share of agriculture and allied sectors in the total Gross Value Added of the Economy have improved to 20.2 per cent in the year 2020-21 and 18.8 per cent in 2021-22.

With these gains, India has transitioned from being a food-deficit nation to a self-sufficient food-producing country in the last 30 years. This has been possible through the 2013 National Food Security Act (NFSA), under which the Public Distribution reached 813 million people with subsidized monthly household rations (rice, wheat or millets).

The National Food Security Act 2013 aims to provide for food and nutritional security by ensuring access to adequate quantities of quality food at affordable prices. Through 543,562 fair price shops and 237 million ration cards, priority households are entitled to receive 5 kg of food grains per person per month at the issue prices of Rs. 3, Rs. 2 and Rs. 1 per kilogram of rice, wheat and coarse grains respectively. 

As an impact of various government schemes, levels of under-nutrition among children have come down over the past decade. From 2005 to 2019, stunting among under-5 children declined from 48 to 35 percent and the proportion of underweight children dropped from 43 to 32 percent. The proportion of children aged 6-59 months who were anaemic fell from 69 percent to 58 percent for the period 2005 to 2015.

While the Government has identified pathways to improve agricultural productivity, it is not clear that these will provide sufficient benefits for the marginal and small farmers working on rain-fed plots who dominate Indian agriculture.

For this group, there are new challenges. Firstly, growth rates in agriculture have been fluctuating as farming becomes more vulnerable to climate change. Secondly, land degradation constitutes a major threat to India’s food and environmental security and so does rapidly shrinking bio-diversity. Large tracts of farmlands in India have become barren due to imbalanced fertiliser use and excessive use of a single fertiliser, urea. Third, about 30 per cent of the 5,723 administrative blocks in the country report that groundwater is at unsustainable levels. The gradual decline in size of farm holdings and productivity has forced many farmers to look for other livelihood opportunities.

Compounding these challenges, are food safety concerns, particularly for the urban poor and migrants. Food contamination with infectious viruses and bacteria comes from untreated water, pest infections, poor environmental sanitation, poor hygiene, and poor waste management. About half of the cases of child malnutrition are associated with unsafe water, inadequate sanitation or insufficient hygiene. Improved nutritional status depends upon the avoidance of food-borne infections.

Due to social and economic disparities, nutrition, especially in women and children, is still an immense challenge. The aggregate decline in childhood stunting is not fast enough to meet global targets. India is increasingly confronted with the double burden of malnutrition: About 11 percent of children aged 6-23 months received an adequate diet in 2019-20.  This is paired with an increased prevalence of overweight children and obesity in children and adolescents, which can lead to non-communicable diseases (NCD) in adulthood.

Women and girls are particularly disadvantaged due to their unequal nutritional and health status. This vulnerability is worsened by the growing feminization of poverty and agriculture, with 79 percent of rural women workers in farming and agriculture, who have limited voice, choice, and security, and only 13 percent have landholdings in their name. Ensuring that women farmers have equal rights to land and other forms of property and equal access to rural extension and financial services will increase agricultural productivity and ensure food security for their families and communities.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has further impacted food supply, livelihoods, and ability to access affordable, nutritious food thereby affecting malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies and low birth weight. The impact was even worse for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Closing of schools and anganwaadis have affected the nutrition that children received through the mid-day meal programme.

UNICEF translated global best practices for protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding and complementary feeding and early childhood development into implementation tools, audio, video and text formats for dissemination across states. Using digital platforms like messaging, WhatsApp, social media, ICDS IT gateway and or SatComs caregivers were provided critical information on breastfeeding, complementary feeding and care of children. Capacity of Government, partners and civil society was enhanced on COVID sensitive nutrition social behaviour change communication (SBCC) through the implementation of SBCC plan of actions for POSHAN Abhiyaan Jan Andolan (JA).

Distribution of ration and food items to migrant workers and economically weaker sections through digital apps, automated vending machines and physical distribution helped the UN combat malnutrition.

Government interventions

The government launched several programmes to double farmers’ incomes by 2022. These seek to remove bottlenecks for greater agricultural productivity, especially in rain-fed areas. They include: the  National Food Security Mission ,  Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) , the  Integrated Schemes on Oilseeds, Pulses, Palm oil and Maize (ISOPOM) ,  Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana , the  e-marketplace , as well as a massive irrigation and soil and water harvesting programme to increase the country’s gross irrigated area from 90 million hectares to 103 million hectares by 2017. The  Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act  and the  National Rural Livelihoods Mission have provided support for agriculture and livelihood in rural areas.

The government has also taken significant steps to combat under- and malnutrition over the past two decades, such as through the introduction of  mid-day meals at schools ,  anganwadi  systems to provide rations to pregnant and lactating mothers, and subsidised grain for those living below the poverty line through a  public distribution system . The  National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013 , aims to ensure food and nutrition security for the most vulnerable through its associated schemes and programmes, making access to food a legal right.

The launch of the POSHAN Abhiyan (Nutrition Mission) in March 2018 refocused the national agenda on nutrition. The POSHAN Abhiyaan  Jan  Andolan  (people’s movement for nutrition) further intensified regular monthly mass communication on nutrition behaviours. 

UN's support

To address the linked nutrition and livelihood challenges in India and to ensure that vulnerable groups are not left behind, the UN priority group partners with the government to scale-up nutrition services and improve feeding and caring practices at home, contributing towards:

• Scaling-up of nutrition systems and services and imp roved young child feeding and caring practices in the home
• Greater efficiency and effectiveness of the safety nets under the National Food Security Act (NFSA, with a focus on social protection for vulnerable groups
• Increased farm incomes and diversified food baskets for small and marginal farming households,
• Improved household access to food through enhanced livelihoods and purchasing power
• Strengthened agriculture and livelihood dimensions of anti-poverty programmes, particularly the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA ) and National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM)
• Strengthened market linkages for farm producer
• Increased food safety, reducing the risks of foodborne infections related to malnutrition and improving nutrition security

Related Content

• UNICEF: United Nations Children’s Fund
• FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
• IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development
• ILO: International Labour Organization
• IOM: International Organization for Migration
• UN Women: United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women
• UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
• UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
• WFP: World Food Programme

Goals we are supporting through this initiative

Background documents.

Food Problem in India (With Measures)

In this article we will discuss about the food problem in India and measures to solve it.

Frankly speaking, our food problem, dates to the partition of Burma from India in April 1937 when India lost her best rice producing areas and had to import 15 to 20 lakh tons of rice from Burma. India faced its first serious food shortage in 1943, when millions of people perched in the Bengal famine.

This famine showed India’s weakness in rice production. Separation of Burma forced India to import rice; the Partition in 1947 made India dependent on import of wheat. Rapid increase of population sine 1920, the separation of Burma in 1937, the creation of Pakistan in 1947 and occasional crop failures due to failure of monsoons have had been the basic causes for the origin of food problem in India.

During the First 5-Year Plan (1951-56):

The Government introduced the First Five-Year Plan in 1951 to achieve self-sufficiency in food. The Government undertook measures of agricultural development, irrigation, etc. Production increased rapidly. In 1950-51 India produced 55 mm. tonnes of food grains; but in 1955-56, India produced over 69 mn tonnes of food grains-an increase of more than 25% in 5 years.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

As a result of this increase in food production, the prices of foodstuffs fell and there was plenty of foodstuffs available to the people. The imports of food grains were cut down from 48 lakh tonnes in 1941 to 6 lakh tonnes in 1955. Finally, the Government gave up controls and rationing of foodstuffs. The Government and the people felt happy that at least the food problem was solved.

During the Second 5-Year Plan:

The feeling of happiness and optimism which the Government felt about the food problem at the end of the First Plan was short-lived. For, even from 1955, prices of food grains started rising. In the beginning, the rise in prices was very mild and was not even noticed; but soon prices of food grains rose rapidly.

By 1958-59, the food problem became very acute and there was almost a crisis. But the strange thing was that throughout this period the production of food grains was increasing; food grains production increased from 69mn. tonnes in 1955- 56 to 82mn. tonnes in 1960-61. There was actually no shortage of food grains, but what worried the people and the Government was the increase in food grains prices.

So long as food was available at reasonable prices, people believed that there was no food problem. But when the prices of food grains increased rapidly, they felt panicky even though there were adequate stocks. This phenomenon has continued till today—of abundant supply and rising food grains prices, creating a feeling of crisis.

During the Third 5-Year Plan:

During the first decade of planning food grains production in spite of some setbacks, had shown significant increase. Between 1950-50 and 1960-61 the production of food grains increased from 55mn. tonnes to 82mn. tonnes—the increase in production of food grain was over 50%.

During the same period, population of India increased only by 22%. After 1960-61, the food production had gone from bad to worse. In the first place, the production of food grains was more or less constant, till it reached a record high of 89mn. tonnes in 1964-65. But in the last year of the Third Plan (i.e., 1965-66) production came down badly to 72 mn. tonnes. India went through severe famine conditions in Bihar and U.P.

Since 1965-66:

The Government set about the task of facing the food problem with courage and vision. On the one hand, large imports of food grains specially wheat were effected. Internally, the new agricultural strategy of food production was rigorously followed. The weather gods also were favourable. Thus output of food grains increased to 95 million tonnes in 1967-68, 108 million tonnes in 1970-71 and 14 million tonnes in 1971-72.

The favourable output in the first three years of the Fourth Plan gave the impression that the country has solved the food problem finally. Visions of food self-sufficiency and even the possibility of exporting food grains were openly discussed. But the successive bad crops of 104 million tonnes and 95 millions tonnes of 1971-72 and 1972-73 respectively created panic again in the food front.

The decline in agricultural production in 1972-73 was particularly severe—the output in that year was 8 million tonnes less than the previous year and 11 millions tonnes less than the year before. The revival in 1973-74 was only marginal. But the food situation has been fluctuating from year to year.

Revival in 1973-74 decline in 1974- 75 and record bumper crop in 1975-76 (115 million tonnes) good crops in 1976-77 and 1977-78 -this has been the picture in our food situation. The Production of food grain has achieved record production 234.47 million tonnes 2008-09.

Measure to Solve the Food Problem:

The Government of India has been expected to solve the problem of food in the country. In co-operation with the State Governments, the Central Government has been taking vigorous steps to solve the food problem.

These steps can be discussed conveniently under two headings:

(A) Short- term measures, and

(B) Long-term measures.

(A) Short-Term Measures:

(1) Increase in Imports:

India’s food problem normally takes two aspects, i.e., shortfall in internal production and high prices of food grains. These two aspects are, in fact, inter-related. It is the internal shortage of production, combined with the increased demand for food, which leads to rise in prices of food grains.

Now, the Government has made great effort in increasing imports of food grains from other countries during periods of shortage. Between 1961 and 1966, as much as 35 million tonnes of food grain were imported. India had become the biggest importer of food grains in the whole world. But we should appreciate the difficulties of the Government in this matter.

In the first place, the Government does not have sufficient foreign currencies to buy foreign foodstuffs. Naturally, the Government has to depend upon the United States of America which has been the most generous nation in the matter of helping India Secondly; India has not been able to import much of rice because of the shortage of rice in the international markets. Besides, India Russia and China have also started importing wheat from U.S.A. and Canada, making India’s position really difficult.

(2) Procurement of Food grains:

The second step taken by the Government is the procurement of foodstuffs with the country. There are some States which have surplus food. Punjab has surplus wheat and Andhra has surplus rice. Moreover, in each State, there are large farmers and landlords who produce more food grains than the market: sometimes, they hoard up the surplus so as to push up the prices still further.

The State Governments collect some amount of food grains from each farmer who has above the minimum necessary for his own consumption. This collection is known as procurement of food grains. In recent years, the State Governments have increased their procurement. The Food Corporation of India has been set up to buy food grains in surplus areas and sell them in deficit areas.

It is strongly believed by the Government that a strong procurement drive, along with fixing of wholesale and retail prices of food grains, will compel the farmers to sell their surplus stock. The prices of food grains will then come

(3) Price Control and Rationing:

The Government has fixed the prices of food grains both for wholesale and retail trade. The Government has set up fair price shops throughout the country-they number more than a lakh now. It is through these fair price shops that the Government sells its stock of food grains.

There are two advantages in this system. Firstly, fair price shops help to hold down the prices. Secondly, they provide essential food grains to low income groups at comparatively low prices. The fair price shops are actually meant for the low income groups in the country.

Besides fair price shops, the Government had introduced rationing in urban areas and by 1977 nearly 42 mn. people had been covered by rationing. Under the system, a minimum quantity of food grain is assured to every persons and family in a town.

Altogether, the volume of retail sales through rationing shops and fair price shops rose from about 44 lakh tonnes in 1962 to about 101 lakh tonnes in 1965 and nearly 188 lakh tonnes in 1977. All town and cities are covered by fair price shops.

(4) Government Takeover of Wholesale Trade:

To check prices and to eliminate hoarding and speculative activity in food grains trade, wholesale dealers in food grains were licensed in many States. The Government has also sought the help of associations of food grains traders in regulating their activities and improving trade practices. The Government has also fixed margins to profits of stop profiteering by traders. Moreover, traders were asked to declare their stocks: this is done to prevent hoarding and profiteering.

In April 1973, the Government nationalised the wholesale trade in wheat and underfeed its intention to take over Price trade from the coming kharif crop. When the take-over was a failures the Govt. reversed its policy and brought back the wholesalers.

Thus the Government of India, in cooperation with State Governments, has taken various steps to solve the food problem in a short period. But as we know, India’s problem is not a sudden one but has been a chronic problem. It will continue to be with us for many more year to come. Hence, the Government has been taking some long-term measures also.

(B) Long-Term Measures:

The ultimate solution to India’s food problem is increased production and control of population. This can be brought about by the use of better seeds, more fertilisers, more irrigation, and so on. The Government has been following these steps for many years. But nothing substantial was achieved. The Government has introduced a new strategy to increase agricultural production.

(1) Increase in Agricultural Production:

The new strategy concentrates resources and attention to only certain areas with assured water supply. Supplies of the high-yielding varieties of seeds, adequate quantities of fertilisers, pesticides and agricultural equipment will we made to these selected regions.

The farmers will also get sufficient amount of credit to help them. The result of this concentration of resources in selected regions has been very encouraging. The farmers in these regions have shown great interest in these schemes and their response to the new technology is most encouraging as is seen from the willingness of farmers to try new improved seed varieties and to use large amounts of fertilisers. Besides, they are putting up enthusiastically wells, pumping sets, etc.

The second feature of the new agricultural strategy is to raise rapidly the area under double cropping. This is to be done through the use of quick yielding varieties of seeds. In recent years, new varieties of rice, wheat and potatoes have been developed in India and are being introduced in selected regions.

At present only 15% of the irrigated area produces a second crop. By introducing quick maturing varieties, it is possible to raise two crops in a year, or even three corps. The new agricultural strategy has ushered in a green revolution.

Policies regarding the development and efficient use of water resources have also received a new emphasis. At one time the Government gave too much attention the large multipurpose irrigation works.

But the emphasis has shifted to minor irrigation works, for the benefits of these schemes are available for everybody and they can be realised more quickly. Between 1966 and 1968 over 6.5 mn. acres have benefited from the installation of pump sets and construction of tube-wells and ordinary wells.

(2) Control of Population:

Side by side, with the steps to increase agricultural output, the rate of increase in population will have to be reduced. Otherwise, whatever steps India takes to raise the volume of production will become useless and the food problem cannot be solved at all. The Government has been using various methods to check population growth in urban and rural areas. The latest of these methods is the legislation of abortion.

(3) Reorienting Strategy for Food Production:

At present about two- thirds of the overall food grains production come from the kharif crops and the balance from Rabi. It is now proposed to get more from the Rabi crop, about a half of the total.

Such a step is considered to be in the larger national interest on at least three counts. First, it will be an insurance against natural calamities like droughts and floods. Secondly, the winter crop requires less water, which can be provided even by limited irrigation. Thirdly, the loss from pests is relatively small.

(4) Changing Food Habits:

Another long-term measure that can be adopted is the changing of food habits of the people. Cereals predominate in the food of our people of all classes. It will be helpful towards a permanent solution of the food problem if the richer classes consume less of cereals and more of protective foods like eggs, fish, meat, fruit, vegetables, etc. and the poor classes are persuaded to take less of wheat and rice and more of coarse grains, papaya, tapoca, sweet potatoes etc.

Conclusion:

How far has the Government succeeded in solving the food problem and in checking food grains prices? Many of the short-term measures to solve the food problem had succeeded to avert severe food shortages, provide minimum amount of food in areas suffering from famine condition and checking rise in the prices of food grains.

The use of new agricultural strategy appeared to be successful for some time. But then, in the last two or three years, prices of food grains have been rising steadily and inflationary conditions are looming large. This is mainly because of heavy deficit financing and large increase in money supply in the country. Unless the Government gives attention to this point, the problem of food and food grains prices will assume the proportions of a crisis.

Related Articles:

• Supply of Food Grains: 3 Conditions
• Rise in Demand for Food: 5 Factors
• Essay on Food Problems in India
• Food Grain Production Policies in India

Essay on Agriculture for Students and Children

500+ words essay on agriculture.

Agriculture is one of the major sectors of the Indian economy. It is present in the country for thousands of years. Over the years it has developed and the use of new technologies and equipment replaced almost all the traditional methods of farming. Besides, in India, there are still some small farmers that use the old traditional methods of agriculture because they lack the resources to use modern methods. Furthermore, this is the only sector that contributed to the growth of not only itself but also of the other sector of the country.

Growth and Development of the Agriculture Sector

India largely depends on the agriculture sector. Besides, agriculture is not just a mean of livelihood but a way of living life in India. Moreover, the government is continuously making efforts to develop this sector as the whole nation depends on it for food.

For thousands of years, we are practicing agriculture but still, it remained underdeveloped for a long time. Moreover, after independence, we use to import food grains from other countries to fulfill our demand. But, after the green revolution, we become self-sufficient and started exporting our surplus to other countries.

Besides, these earlier we use to depend completely on monsoon for the cultivation of food grains but now we have constructed dams, canals, tube-wells, and pump-sets. Also, we now have a better variety of fertilizers, pesticides, and seeds, which help us to grow more food in comparison to what we produce during old times.

With the advancement of technology, advanced equipment, better irrigation facility and the specialized knowledge of agriculture started improving.

Furthermore, our agriculture sector has grown stronger than many countries and we are the largest exporter of many food grains.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Significance of Agriculture

It is not wrong to say that the food we eat is the gift of agriculture activities and Indian farmers who work their sweat to provide us this food.

In addition, the agricultural sector is one of the major contributors to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and national income of the country.

Also, it requires a large labor force and employees around 80% of the total employed people. The agriculture sector not only employees directly but also indirectly.

Moreover, agriculture forms around 70% of our total exports. The main export items are tea, cotton, textiles, tobacco, sugar, jute products, spices, rice, and many other items.

Negative Impacts of Agriculture

Although agriculture is very beneficial for the economy and the people there are some negative impacts too. These impacts are harmful to both environments as the people involved in this sector.

Deforestation is the first negative impact of agriculture as many forests have been cut downed to turn them into agricultural land. Also, the use of river water for irrigation causes many small rivers and ponds to dry off which disturb the natural habitat.

Moreover, most of the chemical fertilizers and pesticides contaminate the land as well as water bodies nearby. Ultimately it leads to topsoil depletion and contamination of groundwater.

In conclusion, Agriculture has given so much to society. But it has its own pros and cons that we can’t overlook. Furthermore, the government is doing his every bit to help in the growth and development of agriculture; still, it needs to do something for the negative impacts of agriculture. To save the environment and the people involved in it.

FAQs about Essay on Agriculture

Q.1 Name the four types of agriculture? A.1 The four types of agriculture are nomadic herding, shifting cultivation, commercial plantation, and intensive subsistence farming.

Q.2 What are the components of the agriculture revolution? A.2 The agriculture revolution has five components namely, machinery, land under cultivation, fertilizers, and pesticides, irrigation, and high-yielding variety of seeds.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Food Security in India

Last updated on July 9, 2024 by ClearIAS Team

Food security in India has been a significant policy concern for many years. India’s economy may be the one that is booming most rapidly in the world, but it is also seeing an increase in food price inflation. Read here to understand the food insecurity in India.

The price of food began to rise rapidly in 2019 and has continued to grow ever since. Annual inflation in July 2023 hit 11%, which was the highest level in a decade.

A portion of the population may have difficulty obtaining food with sufficient nutritional content as a result of the ongoing high food price inflation.

The term “food security” refers to the availability, accessibility, and affordability of safe and nutritious food for all individuals in a country.

Table of Contents

Food insecurity in India

Subscribe to the ClearIAS YouTube Channel for more informative videos on UPSC preparation, tips, and strategies. Stay updated with our latest content and enhance your exam readiness.

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

Food insecurity in India has been a longstanding and complex issue, despite significant improvements in food production and distribution over the years. Several factors contribute to food insecurity in the country:

• Poverty: A significant portion of India’s population lives below the poverty line. Low income and lack of economic opportunities can limit people’s access to nutritious food.
• Unequal Distribution: While India produces enough food to feed its population, the distribution of food is unequal. Food often doesn’t reach those who need it the most, leading to food shortages in certain regions.
• Price Fluctuations: Price fluctuations in essential food commodities, such as rice and wheat, can make them unaffordable for many people during times of high inflation.
• Agricultural Challenges: India’s agriculture sector faces challenges such as unpredictable weather patterns, water scarcity, soil degradation, and inadequate infrastructure. These factors can lead to lower crop yields and affect food production.
• Land Ownership: Unequal land ownership patterns can limit small-scale farmers’ access to land and resources, making it difficult for them to produce sufficient food for their families.
• Food Wastage: A significant amount of food is lost or wasted during production, storage, and distribution. This wastage contributes to food scarcity.
• Malnutrition: Food insecurity is often linked to malnutrition. Even when food is available, it may lack the necessary nutrients for a balanced diet, leading to malnutrition issues, especially among children.
• Urbanization: Rapid urbanization has led to changes in dietary habits, with a greater reliance on processed and less nutritious foods, contributing to health-related food insecurity issues.
• Natural Disasters: India is prone to natural disasters like droughts, floods, and cyclones. These events can disrupt food production and lead to food shortages in affected areas.
• COVID-19 Pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns further exacerbated food insecurity by disrupting supply chains, affecting livelihoods, and increasing the vulnerability of marginalized populations.

While India has implemented various food security programs like the Public Distribution System (PDS) , the National Food Security Act (NFSA), and the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, there are often challenges in their effective implementation, including issues related to leakages and corruption.

Also read: Global Food Security Index 2021

Food security in India

India has made significant progress in improving food security, but challenges still exist.

• Food Production: India has made remarkable progress in increasing food production, particularly in staple crops like rice and wheat. The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s played a crucial role in boosting agricultural productivity.
• Buffer Stocks: India maintains strategic grain reserves, known as buffer stocks , to stabilize food prices and meet emergencies. These stocks are managed by agencies like the Food Corporation of India (FCI) .
• Addressing Malnutrition: India has implemented programs to address malnutrition, particularly among children and pregnant women. These programs focus on improving nutritional intake and health outcomes.
• Containing Pandemic Impact: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in India’s food security system, as lockdowns disrupted supply chains and livelihoods. The government implemented relief measures, including distributing free food grains to vulnerable populations.
• Nutrition Quality: While food availability has improved, the focus is shifting toward improving the quality of food and addressing issues of hidden hunger, where people lack essential vitamins and minerals in their diet.
• Sustainable Agriculture: There is a growing emphasis on sustainable agriculture practices, including organic farming, to ensure long-term food security while protecting the environment.
• Climate Change Resilience: Building resilience to climate change is a priority for ensuring food security in the face of changing weather patterns and extreme events.
• Role of Technology: Technology is being increasingly harnessed for better crop management , weather forecasting, and food distribution, which can enhance food security efforts.

Government initiatives

National Food Security Act (NFSA)

• The NFSA, enacted in 2013, is a landmark legislation aimed at providing legal entitlements to food for a large section of India’s population. It aims to ensure that a specified quantity of food grains is made available to eligible beneficiaries at affordable prices.

Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)

• The Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme, which began on October 2, 1975, is one of the Government of India’s flagship programs and one of the world’s largest and most innovative early childhood care and development programs.

Public Distribution System

• It is defined as the system in which food procured by the FCI is distributed among the weaker or poorer sections of society.

Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)

• This scheme was launched in December 2000. Under this scheme, one crore of the poorest among the BPL families covered under the targeted public distribution system was identified. In this scheme, the State Rural Development Department has identified poor families through the Below poverty line survey.

Other schemes and initiatives:

• Eat Right India Movement
• POSHAN Abhiyan
• Food Fortification
• National Innovations Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA)

Way forward

Improving food security in India is a multifaceted challenge that requires a combination of policies, programs, and initiatives aimed at increasing food availability, access, and utilization.

Enhance Agricultural Productivity:

• Invest in agricultural research and development to develop high-yield and climate-resilient crop varieties.
• Promote sustainable farming practices, including organic farming and precision agriculture.
• Improve access to modern farming technologies, such as improved seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation systems.

Increase Crop Diversification:

• Encourage diversification of crops to reduce dependency on a few staple crops and improve dietary diversity.
• Promote the cultivation of nutritious crops, fruits, and vegetables to address malnutrition issues.

Support Small-Scale Farmers:

• Provide small-scale farmers with access to credit, affordable crop insurance, and agricultural extension services.
• Promote farmer cooperatives and self-help groups to enhance collective bargaining power.

Water Management:

• Invest in water conservation and management techniques to address water scarcity issues.
• Promote efficient irrigation practices, such as drip irrigation and rainwater harvesting.

Infrastructure Development:

• Improve rural infrastructure, including roads, storage facilities, and markets, to reduce post-harvest losses and connect farmers to consumers.

Food Distribution and Supply Chain Enhancement:

• Strengthen the Public Distribution System (PDS) and other food distribution networks to ensure efficient and equitable access to food.
• Address issues related to food wastage during storage and transportation.

Nutrition Education:

• Launch public awareness campaigns to educate people about balanced nutrition and healthy eating habits.
• Implement school-based nutrition programs to improve the health and nutrition of children.

Social Safety Nets:

• Expand and strengthen social safety net programs like the National Food Security Act (NFSA) and the Mid-Day Meal Scheme to provide subsidized food to vulnerable populations.

Support for Women in Agriculture:

• Empower women in agriculture by providing training, credit, and land rights.
• Recognize and value the crucial role of women in food production and household nutrition.

Climate Resilience:

• Develop climate-resilient farming practices and provide support to farmers to adapt to changing climate patterns.
• Promote agroforestry and sustainable land use practices.

Reduce Food Loss and Waste:

• Implement measures to reduce food loss and waste at all stages of the supply chain, from farm to fork.
• Encourage food donation and redistribution programs to redirect surplus food to those in need.

Research and Innovation:

• Invest in research and innovation to find solutions to food security challenges, including crop diseases, pests, and climate-related issues.

Policy and Governance:

• Strengthen governance and transparency in food-related policies and programs to reduce corruption and ensure effective implementation.
• Monitor and evaluate food security initiatives to assess their impact and make necessary improvements.

International Cooperation:

• Collaborate with international organizations and neighbouring countries on food security initiatives, trade agreements, and disaster response.

Also read: Malnutrition in India

Addressing food insecurity in India requires a multi-pronged approach that includes improving agricultural practices, ensuring equitable distribution, reducing food wastage, enhancing access to social safety nets, and addressing poverty and malnutrition.

Government policies and programs, as well as international cooperation and support, play crucial roles in mitigating food insecurity and improving food access for all segments of the population.

India has made significant strides in improving food security, but challenges such as poverty, inequality, and the impacts of climate change continue to influence the nation’s efforts to ensure that all its citizens have access to adequate and nutritious food.

Addressing these challenges requires ongoing policy measures, investment in agriculture and rural development, and a commitment to social safety nets and nutrition programs.

Also read: 

• Biofortification; 
• Agri-food Policies for Soil, water, air, and Biodiversity
• Child food poverty

-Article by Swathi Satish

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Measures to promote self-sufficiency of food production in India Essay

Essay – measures to promote self-sufficiency of food production in india.

Measures to promote self-sufficiency of food production in India Essay: India has gone through many revolutions to develop food production or agriculture sector after independence. Green revolution for wheat, white revolution for dairy production, yellow revolution, red revolution etc. were the various strategies to change the agriculture production of India. In green revolution Punjab and Haryana reached the highest rate of production in wheat production. Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh made significant records in rice production after revolution. India has become self-sufficient with improved measures in food grains over the past centuries. Being self-reliant in food production means developing other commodities related to agriculture not only farming pattern. Though farmers have focused in diversifying crops for increasing production which has given effective results in recent years. With the right production system there should be the right market strategy to fulfil the demands for equal level food distribution. The government should take initiatives for enhancing sustainability in agriculture sector and food security system for being self-reliance in food in any situation. After the international wars, prime minister of India has emphasised on being self-reliant in food production too. If we become self-become self-reliant in every aspect then it will strengthen our capacity to combat any difficulty further. The essay will highlights on the key challenges of self-reliance in food, initiatives taken by the government of India for self-reliance in food production.

Importance of being self-reliant:

Key challenges in self-reliance for food:.

India has become self-reliant in maximum food grains production in the past years. It has also become the largest exporter in many food grains, fibres and spices. But the country is still dependent on import for edible oils which is around 50-60% of the total consumption. This dependency is arising the concern at high level. Most of the production is considered as primary processing which cost value is lower than secondary processing. Due to this reason, India is still far behind compared to other countries in GDP of agriculture sector despite having large agricultural commodities. India has good cooperation relationship with neighbouring countries which enhances the import-export system in agriculture sector. The production pattern should be more centralised with all planned experiments, best practices and policies for all food grains.

Initiatives taken by the government:

Conclusion:.

The overall development of a nation will be possible when the country becomes elf-reliant from all aspects. Food production is the chief source which contributes maximum percentage of finance for agriculture based country like India. When India will include mode developed technology, renewable energy, improved systems it will open more job opportunities. The government should invest in proper training facility for farmers to educate them about new agriculture patterns. Besides that they should be provided adequate knowledge about marketing strategy and distribution to create self-reliance in all levels of production. Farmers should take part in all the initiatives of the government to utilise resources and make profits. They will find new ideas to incorporate in their production management and increase farming production.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

We have a strong team of experienced teachers who are here to solve all your exam preparation doubts, dav class 5 math solutions chapter 3 multiples and factors, dav class 5 math solutions chapter 2 operations on large numbers, maharashtra board class 4 english chapter 12 why english is so hard solution, ncert solutions class 6 math ganita prakash chapter 6 perimeter and area.

SarkariSchools.in

Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India

Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India Explore essential measures to enhance self-sufficiency in food production in India through diversified agriculture, technological innovation, water management, organic farming, smallholder support, infrastructure development, government policies, and consumer education. Discover how these strategies collectively drive food security and economic stability in India’s diverse agricultural landscape.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The concept of self-sufficiency in food production is a cornerstone of ensuring a nation’s ability to feed its population from its own agricultural resources, without relying heavily on imports. In an era marked by globalization and interconnected markets, achieving self-sufficiency in food production holds paramount importance for both food security and economic stability. This becomes particularly pertinent in the context of India, a country renowned for its diverse agricultural landscape and vast population. With the need to feed over 1.4 billion people, India’s agricultural strategies must be tailored to its unique agro-climatic regions, acknowledging the distinct challenges and opportunities they present. As we explore the measures to promote self-sufficiency in food production, it becomes evident that a balanced and strategic approach is not only essential but imperative for India’s sustenance and prosperity.

Diversification of Agricultural Practices

Significance of Identifying Suitable Crops Based on Regional Conditions

One of the primary steps towards promoting self-sufficiency in food production in India is the strategic identification of crops that are best suited to the unique agro-climatic conditions of different regions. India’s vast geographical expanse encompasses a wide range of climates, soil types, and rainfall patterns. Therefore, tailoring crop choices to these specific conditions can significantly enhance productivity and reduce vulnerability to climatic variations.

When crops are selected based on regional suitability, they are more likely to thrive and yield optimal harvests. For instance, arid regions could focus on drought-resistant crops, while areas with ample rainfall might prioritize water-intensive crops. This approach maximizes resource efficiency, reduces input costs, and minimizes the risks associated with crop failures due to adverse weather events.

Benefits of Crop Rotation and Intercropping for Soil Health and Pest Management

Crop rotation and intercropping are sustainable agricultural practices that offer substantial benefits for both soil health and pest management. Crop rotation involves systematically changing the types of crops grown in a particular field over successive seasons. Intercropping, on the other hand, involves cultivating two or more crops simultaneously in the same field. These practices provide a range of advantages:

• Soil Health Improvement: Different crops have varying nutrient requirements and impacts on soil health. By rotating crops, soil nutrient depletion is minimized, as some crops help restore soil fertility by fixing nitrogen and other nutrients. This promotes long-term soil productivity and reduces the need for synthetic fertilizers.
• Pest and Disease Management: Continuous cultivation of the same crop can lead to the buildup of specific pests and diseases. Crop rotation disrupts the life cycles of these pests, reducing their prevalence. Intercropping can also deter pests by creating an unfavorable environment and promoting natural pest predators.
• Weed Control: Intercropping and crop rotation can help suppress weed growth, as different crop combinations shade the soil and limit weed establishment. This reduces the need for herbicides and manual weeding.
• Enhanced Biodiversity: Intercropping and crop rotation diversify the plant species in a field, encouraging beneficial insects, pollinators, and microbial life. This ecological diversity contributes to overall ecosystem health.
• Risk Reduction: If one crop fails due to adverse conditions or pest outbreaks, the other crops in a diversified system may still thrive, reducing the overall risk of complete crop loss.

In conclusion, diversifying agricultural practices through the identification of region-specific crops and the implementation of crop rotation and intercropping techniques can play a pivotal role in promoting self-sufficiency in food production in India. These practices not only enhance productivity but also contribute to environmental sustainability, making them valuable components of a comprehensive strategy to ensure food security and economic stability.

Investment in Research and Technology

Role of Research Institutions and Agricultural Universities

Research institutions and agricultural universities play a critical role in driving innovation and progress in the agricultural sector. Their contributions extend from fundamental scientific research to the practical application of cutting-edge technologies on the farm. These institutions serve as hubs of knowledge creation, dissemination, and skill development for both farmers and researchers.

By investing in research institutions and agricultural universities, India can harness the power of knowledge to address the evolving challenges in food production. These institutions provide a platform for collaborative research, where scientists can collaborate with farmers to identify region-specific issues and develop contextually relevant solutions. Moreover, they offer training programs that empower farmers with the latest agricultural practices and technologies.

Development of High-Yielding Crop Varieties, Disease-Resistant Plants, and Precision Agriculture

• High-Yielding Crop Varieties: Research institutions play a pivotal role in developing crop varieties that exhibit higher yields while maintaining essential traits like taste, nutritional value, and resilience to environmental stress. These high-yielding varieties are often the result of selective breeding or genetic modification, designed to optimize crop performance under specific conditions.
• Disease-Resistant Plants: Developing plants that are naturally resistant to pests and diseases reduces the reliance on chemical pesticides, promoting environmentally friendly and sustainable agriculture. Research focuses on identifying genes that confer resistance and incorporating them into crop varieties.
• Precision Agriculture: Precision agriculture involves using technology and data to optimize resource allocation on a per-plant or per-field basis. This approach ensures that inputs like water, fertilizers, and pesticides are used efficiently, minimizing waste and environmental impact. Techniques such as satellite imaging, GPS-guided machinery, and sensor technology contribute to precision agriculture’s success.

Research institutions and agricultural universities facilitate the development of these technologies through rigorous scientific exploration, experimentation, and collaboration with farmers. Their role in disseminating knowledge about these advancements is equally crucial, ensuring that farmers can access and implement the latest tools to enhance productivity.

In conclusion, investing in research institutions and agricultural universities is a foundational step towards achieving self-sufficiency in food production. These institutions drive advancements in high-yielding crop varieties, disease-resistant plants, and precision agriculture, all of which collectively contribute to boosting agricultural productivity, sustainability, and the overall economic growth of the country.

Water Management and Irrigation

Importance of Efficient Water Management in Agriculture

Efficient water management in agriculture is crucial due to the limited availability of water resources and the growing demand for agricultural products. Agriculture is a water-intensive activity, and as water scarcity becomes a pressing issue globally, it is imperative to utilize water resources judiciously. Efficient water management not only ensures sustainable agricultural practices but also addresses environmental concerns and supports long-term food security.

Rainwater Harvesting, Reservoirs, and Modern Irrigation Methods

• Rainwater Harvesting: Rainwater harvesting involves collecting and storing rainwater for agricultural use. This practice is particularly important in regions with seasonal rainfall patterns. Capturing rainwater through techniques such as rooftop collection systems, check dams, and percolation ponds helps recharge groundwater levels, reducing dependency on surface water sources during dry periods.
• Reservoirs: Constructing reservoirs, dams, and water storage facilities helps regulate water supply for agricultural purposes. These structures store excess water during monsoon seasons and release it gradually throughout the year. This approach ensures a steady water supply for irrigation, especially during critical growing stages of crops.
• Modern Irrigation Methods: Traditional flood irrigation methods can be highly wasteful, leading to waterlogging, soil erosion, and uneven distribution of water. Modern irrigation methods such as drip irrigation and sprinkler irrigation deliver water directly to the roots of plants, minimizing water wastage and maximizing efficiency. These methods are particularly advantageous in water-scarce regions.

Utilization of Recycled Water and Treated Wastewater

• Recycled Water: Recycled water, often treated sewage or wastewater, can be repurposed for agricultural use. Properly treated recycled water can provide a consistent and reliable water source for irrigation. This practice reduces the strain on freshwater resources and lessens the environmental impact of wastewater disposal.
• Treated Wastewater: Wastewater from domestic, industrial, and agricultural sources can be treated to remove contaminants and pathogens. Treated wastewater, when properly managed and treated to appropriate standards, can serve as an additional source of water for irrigation. However, stringent treatment processes are essential to ensure the safety of crops and the environment.

Utilizing these water management techniques enhances water availability for agricultural activities, reduces pressure on conventional water sources, and promotes sustainable agricultural practices. These measures are crucial for adapting to changing climate patterns and addressing the water challenges faced by the agricultural sector.

In conclusion, efficient water management and irrigation practices are essential for promoting self-sufficiency in food production in India. By embracing techniques such as rainwater harvesting, reservoir construction, modern irrigation methods, and the utilization of recycled water and treated wastewater, India can optimize water resources, enhance agricultural productivity, and contribute to long-term food security and environmental sustainability.

Promotion of Organic Farming

Advantages of Organic Farming for Health and Environment

Organic farming is a sustainable agricultural approach that avoids the use of synthetic chemicals and focuses on maintaining the health of ecosystems, soils, and people. It offers several significant advantages for both human well-being and the environment:

1. Health Benefits: Organic farming produces food that is free from synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This results in lower residual pesticide content in crops, reducing consumers’ exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Organic produce is also often richer in nutrients and antioxidants, contributing to improved nutrition and health outcomes.

2. Soil Health: Organic farming prioritizes soil health by avoiding the use of chemical fertilizers and promoting natural nutrient cycling. Practices like crop rotation, composting, and cover cropping enhance soil structure, fertility, and microbial diversity. Healthy soils are better equipped to retain water, resist erosion, and support robust plant growth.

3. Biodiversity Conservation: Organic farming encourages the presence of diverse plant and animal species on farms. Avoiding synthetic chemicals and cultivating diverse crops create habitats for beneficial insects, birds, and pollinators. This approach helps maintain ecosystem balance and supports natural pest control.

4. Reduced Environmental Impact: The absence of synthetic chemicals in organic farming reduces the risk of soil and water contamination. It also decreases greenhouse gas emissions associated with chemical production and application. Additionally, organic farming practices such as agroforestry and mixed cropping contribute to carbon sequestration, aiding in climate change mitigation.

Government Incentives, Training Programs, and Subsidies for Organic Practices

To encourage the adoption of organic farming, governments provide a range of incentives, training programs, and subsidies:

1. Financial Support: Governments offer financial incentives to farmers who transition to organic practices. These incentives can include grants, low-interest loans, and subsidies for organic certification costs. Financial support eases the initial investment and operational costs associated with organic farming.

2. Training and Education: Agricultural extension services and training programs are conducted to educate farmers about organic farming techniques. Workshops, seminars, and demonstrations familiarize farmers with organic practices, pest management strategies, and sustainable soil management techniques.

3. Certification Support: Obtaining organic certification can be a complex process. Governments often provide assistance to farmers navigating the certification process, making it more accessible and manageable.

4. Market Access: Governments may facilitate market access for organic produce by connecting organic farmers with consumers, retailers, and food processors. Certifications from government-accredited bodies can enhance consumer trust and facilitate market entry.

By combining these measures, governments aim to create an enabling environment for farmers to embrace organic farming practices. This not only benefits farmers economically but also contributes to public health, environmental sustainability, and the long-term resilience of the agricultural sector.

In conclusion, the promotion of organic farming brings a multitude of benefits for human health, ecosystem well-being, and sustainable agriculture. Government incentives, training programs, and subsidies play a vital role in encouraging farmers to adopt organic practices, fostering a transition towards a more environmentally friendly and health-conscious agricultural system.

Support for Smallholder Farmers

Significance of Smallholder Farmers in India’s Agricultural Landscape

Smallholder farmers are the backbone of India’s agricultural sector, contributing significantly to food production, rural employment, and economic growth. These farmers typically cultivate small plots of land using traditional methods, making them crucial for ensuring food security, reducing poverty, and sustaining rural communities. Given that the majority of India’s population resides in rural areas, the well-being of smallholder farmers directly impacts the overall social and economic fabric of the country.

Need for Farmer Cooperatives, Access to Credit, and Market Facilitation

• Farmer Cooperatives: Smallholder farmers often face challenges such as limited access to resources, market information, and bargaining power. Farmer cooperatives, where farmers pool their resources and collectively market their produce, can enhance their bargaining strength, improve access to inputs, and provide a platform for knowledge sharing. These cooperatives empower farmers to negotiate better prices, access modern technology, and jointly address challenges.
• Access to Credit: Lack of access to affordable credit is a major barrier for smallholder farmers. Governments and financial institutions can offer targeted credit programs tailored to the needs of small farmers. Microfinance schemes, crop loans, and insurance products can provide the necessary financial support for investing in seeds, equipment, and modern agricultural practices.
• Market Facilitation: Smallholder farmers often struggle to connect with formal markets due to information gaps, infrastructure limitations, and transportation issues. Creating efficient market linkages, establishing market information systems, and supporting the development of local marketplaces can enable farmers to sell their produce at better prices and reduce post-harvest losses.

Emphasis on Education and Training for Small Farmers

• Agricultural Education: Providing smallholder farmers with access to agricultural education equips them with the knowledge and skills needed to adopt modern and sustainable farming practices. Training programs can cover topics such as soil health management, water conservation, pest control, and crop diversification.
• Digital Literacy: Familiarity with modern communication tools can help small farmers access weather forecasts, market prices, and best agricultural practices. Digital literacy programs can empower them to make informed decisions and adapt to changing conditions.
• Financial Literacy: Educating smallholder farmers about financial management, credit options, and savings strategies enhances their financial resilience and helps them make informed choices regarding investment and expenditure.

Education and training not only improve the livelihoods of small farmers but also contribute to increasing agricultural productivity, reducing environmental impact, and enhancing overall rural development.

In conclusion, supporting smallholder farmers is crucial for ensuring inclusive and sustainable agricultural growth in India. Establishing farmer cooperatives, providing access to credit and market facilitation, and emphasizing education and training can collectively empower small farmers to overcome challenges, improve their productivity, and contribute significantly to food security and economic prosperity.

Infrastructure Development

Role of Infrastructure in Reducing Post-Harvest Losses and Wastage

Infrastructure development is a key factor in transforming the agricultural landscape and reducing post-harvest losses and wastage. Post-harvest losses occur at various stages of the supply chain, from harvesting to consumption. Inadequate infrastructure exacerbates these losses, negatively impacting food security, farmer incomes, and overall economic efficiency.

Better Roads:

• Transportation Efficiency: Improved road networks provide efficient transportation routes for agricultural produce from farms to markets. Well-maintained roads reduce travel time, prevent damage to perishable goods, and facilitate the timely delivery of crops to consumers.
• Access to Markets: Remote and rural areas often lack proper road connectivity, isolating farmers from lucrative markets. Good road infrastructure enhances access to wider markets, enabling farmers to reach consumers beyond their immediate vicinity.

Cold Storage Facilities:

• Extended Shelf Life: Cold storage facilities preserve the quality and freshness of perishable products by maintaining optimal temperatures. This extends the shelf life of produce, reducing spoilage and increasing the chances of fetching better prices.
• Market Flexibility: Cold storage enables farmers to store surplus produce during times of bumper harvests and release it gradually during periods of low supply. This helps stabilize market prices and prevents gluts or shortages.

Food Processing Units:

• Value Addition: Food processing units allow farmers to convert raw produce into processed goods, such as packaged fruits, vegetables, and dairy products. This adds value to the products and opens up opportunities for higher profit margins.
• Reduced Wastage: Processing units can convert surplus or imperfect produce into value-added products, reducing the amount of produce that goes to waste due to cosmetic imperfections.
• Diversification of Products: Processing units can encourage farmers to diversify their product range and explore niche markets, reducing dependency on a single crop and spreading risk.

Infrastructure development directly addresses the challenges of inadequate storage and inefficient transportation that contribute to significant post-harvest losses. By investing in better roads, cold storage facilities, and food processing units, countries can minimize wastage, stabilize prices, and ensure a more efficient flow of agricultural products from farm to fork.

In conclusion, infrastructure development in agriculture is not just about physical structures but about enhancing the entire supply chain. Through the provision of better roads for transportation, cold storage facilities for preservation, and food processing units for value addition, a more robust and efficient agricultural ecosystem can be created. This, in turn, contributes to reducing post-harvest losses, increasing farm incomes, and ultimately improving food security and sustainability.

Government Policy and Support

Importance of Stable and Supportive Government Policies

Stable and supportive government policies play a pivotal role in fostering a conducive environment for agricultural growth and self-sufficiency. Agriculture is highly influenced by external factors such as climate, market fluctuations, and global trade dynamics. Well-designed policies can mitigate risks, incentivize production, and provide a safety net for farmers, contributing to food security and economic stability.

Fair Pricing, Subsidies, and Insurance Schemes for Farmers

• Fair Pricing: Government policies that ensure fair and remunerative prices for agricultural products are essential. Fair pricing protects farmers from price volatility, discourages exploitation by middlemen, and provides a predictable income stream. It encourages farmers to invest in modern techniques, better seeds, and improved practices, ultimately enhancing production.
• Subsidies: Targeted subsidies on inputs such as fertilizers, seeds, and irrigation equipment can alleviate the financial burden on farmers and promote sustainable agricultural practices. Subsidies can enhance affordability, encourage adoption of modern technologies, and lead to increased yields.
• Insurance Schemes: Agricultural production is vulnerable to various risks, including weather-related disasters and pest outbreaks. Government-backed crop insurance schemes provide a safety net for farmers by compensating them in case of crop failure. These schemes reduce the financial uncertainty associated with unpredictable events and encourage farmers to take calculated risks.

Role of Market Interventions to Stabilize Prices

• Price Stabilization: Market prices for agricultural commodities can be highly volatile due to factors like supply-demand imbalances, weather fluctuations, and global market trends. Government interventions, such as procurement at minimum support prices (MSP), can stabilize prices by ensuring a floor price for produce, preventing drastic fluctuations.
• Buffer Stocks: Governments can create buffer stocks of essential commodities to counter supply shortages and surpluses. These stocks can be released into the market during times of scarcity to regulate prices and ensure steady supply.
• Market Information: Providing accurate and timely market information to farmers empowers them to make informed decisions about when, where, and at what price to sell their produce. Information dissemination helps farmers avoid market manipulation and obtain better prices.

Stable government policies that encompass fair pricing, subsidies, insurance schemes, and market interventions create a favorable environment for farmers, ensuring their financial security and incentivizing sustainable agricultural practices. These policies also contribute to food security by promoting increased production and minimizing risks associated with market uncertainties.

In conclusion, government policy and support are integral components of promoting self-sufficiency in food production. By establishing policies that protect farmers’ interests, provide financial security, and stabilize market prices, governments can contribute significantly to enhancing agricultural productivity, ensuring food security, and fostering economic stability.

Education and Awareness

Raising Awareness for Better Consumer Choices and Reduced Wastage

Raising awareness among consumers about their role in promoting self-sufficiency in food production can have a transformative impact on both consumption patterns and food wastage. Consumer behavior significantly influences the demand for various agricultural products, which in turn affects production decisions. By imparting knowledge about the importance of sustainable consumption and the impact of their choices on the agricultural ecosystem, individuals can make more informed decisions that contribute to reduced wastage and increased self-sufficiency.

Educational Campaigns about the Importance of Domestic Produce

Educational campaigns that emphasize the significance of consuming domestic produce can drive positive changes in consumer preferences and habits. These campaigns can highlight several key points:

• Support for Local Farmers: By choosing domestic produce, consumers directly support local farmers and contribute to their livelihoods. This, in turn, strengthens the agricultural sector and local economies.
• Reduced Carbon Footprint: Locally produced food has a lower carbon footprint compared to imported goods that have traveled long distances. Consuming locally grown food reduces transportation-related emissions and contributes to environmental sustainability.
• Freshness and Nutritional Value: Locally produced food is often fresher and retains more nutritional value compared to products that have been transported over long distances. Educating consumers about the superior quality of local produce can incentivize them to make conscious choices.
• Preservation of Biodiversity: Encouraging the consumption of local and traditional varieties of crops and livestock contributes to the preservation of biodiversity. This is essential for maintaining resilient ecosystems and adapting to changing environmental conditions.
• Food Security: Supporting domestic agriculture through consumer choices enhances a country’s food security by reducing dependence on imported goods. This becomes especially crucial during times of global supply chain disruptions.

Impact on Reduced Wastage

Raising awareness about the connection between consumer choices and reduced wastage is equally important. When consumers understand the efforts and resources that go into food production, they are more likely to value food and minimize wasteful consumption. This can lead to decreased food wastage at both the individual and household levels, resulting in more efficient resource utilization and greater overall self-sufficiency.

In conclusion, education and awareness campaigns play a vital role in shaping consumer behavior and driving positive changes in the agricultural landscape. By educating consumers about the benefits of choosing domestic produce, the importance of supporting local farmers, and the role they play in reducing food wastage, societies can contribute to increased self-sufficiency, improved food security, and more sustainable agricultural practices.

In the pursuit of achieving self-sufficiency in food production, India must adopt a multi-faceted approach that addresses the diverse challenges faced by its agricultural sector. The measures discussed in this essay underscore the interconnectedness of various strategies aimed at enhancing productivity, sustainability, and resilience.

Diversification of Agricultural Practices: Tailoring crops to regional conditions, promoting crop rotation, and intercropping enhance productivity and soil health.

Investment in Research and Technology: Embracing modern technologies, high-yielding crop varieties, and precision agriculture boosts agricultural efficiency.

Water Management and Irrigation: Efficient water management, including rainwater harvesting and modern irrigation methods, ensures water availability in a changing climate.

Promotion of Organic Farming: Organic farming improves health, soil fertility, and ecosystem sustainability.

Support for Smallholder Farmers: Farmer cooperatives, access to credit, and education empower smallholders to thrive.

Infrastructure Development: Better roads, cold storage facilities, and food processing units reduce post-harvest losses.

Government Policy and Support: Stable policies, fair pricing, subsidies, insurance schemes, and market interventions support farmers.

Education and Awareness: Raising awareness about consumption’s impact reduces wastage and drives sustainable choices.

These measures collectively contribute to a comprehensive strategy to achieve self-sufficiency in food production in India. However, success hinges on the collaboration of various stakeholders: the government, agricultural research institutions, farmers, consumers, and the private sector. By recognizing their respective roles and working together, India can create a resilient and self-reliant agricultural ecosystem.

The goal of food self-sufficiency is not just about producing enough food to meet the population’s needs; it’s about ensuring equitable access to nutrition, reducing dependency on external sources, and enhancing the overall well-being of the nation. As a nation with a rich agricultural heritage and a diverse landscape, India possesses the potential to achieve self-sufficiency. By implementing these measures and fostering cooperation among all stakeholders, India can secure a future of food security, economic stability, and sustainable agricultural growth.

Extra Tips 4 Extra Marks :

Practice essay writing online.

मतदाता दिवस

Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India Essay on Measures to Promote Self Sufficiency of food production in India

Similar Posts

Essay on Water Conservation And its Management

Explore the vital importance of water conservation and its comprehensive management in our Essay on Water Conservation And its Management. Discover effective methods, the role of legislation, challenges, and solutions to ensure a sustainable future. Dive into the world of responsible water practices today. Essay on Water Conservation And its Management जल ही जीवन है…

Essay on National Voters Day in English

Explore the essence of Voting in India through this insightful Essay on National Voters Day in English. Learn about its historical roots, objectives, and the call for civic participation. Discover how this celebration, observed annually on January 25th, encourages citizens, especially the youth, to actively engage in the democratic process. Uncover the role of felicitating…

Essay on Fit India Movement in English

Dive into the comprehensive ‘Essay on Fit India Movement in English’ and explore the transformative journey of India towards a healthier and more active nation. Discover the historical context, the importance of fitness, and the impact of flagship initiatives. Uncover success stories, understand the role of technology, and envision the future of this pivotal movement….

Essay on My School in English

Discover a compelling essay on my school in English, detailing the vibrant campus, dedicated teachers, co-curricular activities, and the holistic learning experience. Explore the diverse student community, achievements, and support services that make my school a place of growth and camaraderie Essay on My School in English Essay on My School in English 10 lines…

वैश्विक जल संकट पर निबंध (Essay On The Water Crisis in Hindi)

वैश्विक जल संकट पर निबंध (Essay On The Water Crisis in Hindi): जल संकट वैश्विक जल संकट के कारणों, प्रभावों और समाधानों की पड़ताल करता है, जलवायु परिवर्तन, जनसंख्या वृद्धि और पानी की कमी पर प्रदूषण के प्रभाव की खोज करता है। सभी के लिए स्वच्छ और सुरक्षित पेयजल के साथ एक स्थायी भविष्य बनाने…

Essay on Artificial Intelligence in English: A Revolutionary Leap into the Future

Explore the fascinating world of Artificial Intelligence (AI) through this comprehensive Essay on Artificial Intelligence in English. Discover the applications, impact, and ethical considerations surrounding AI’s revolutionary technology. Learn how AI is reshaping industries, healthcare, and our daily lives. Gain insights into the future of AI and its potential to address global challenges. Delve into…

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Agriculture

Make Your Note

Food Security in India

• 12 Sep 2022
• 14 min read
• GS Paper - 3
• Food Security

This editorial is based on “The wheat of the matter: Disruption of supply chains due to Ukraine war has implications for India’s food security” which was published in The Indian Express on 08/09/2022. It talks about Food Security in India and related challenges.

For Prelims: Global Hunger Index 2021, Food Corporation of India (FCI), Antyodaya Anna Yojana, Priority Households (PHH), Soil degradation, Nano-Urea, Heatwaves, JAM trinity platform, Direct Benefit Transfer.

For Mains: National Food Security Act, 2013, Challenges Related to Food Security in India, Sustainable Farming.

India has experienced remarkable economic growth in recent years and remains one of the fastest growing economies in the world . However, poverty and food insecurity in India are still areas of concern in spite of many strides. Food is considered as a basic amenity essential for the sustenance, development and growth of an individual.

India has ranked 101 among the 116 countries on the Global Hunger Index, 2021 . According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation , the Food Price Index has increased by 30% in the year 2021-22.

Although the Government of India has been actively addressing food security at households for a long time through the Public Distribution System and the National Food Security Act (NFSA) 2013 , there are still concerns related to Food Security in India amidst increasing population, climate change and global supply chain disruption (Russia-Ukraine War) that need to be addressed.

What is Food Security?

• Availability: It means food production within the country, food imports and the stock stored in government granaries.
• Accessibility: It means food is within reach of every person without any discrimination.
• Affordability: It implies that having enough money to buy sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet one's dietary needs.
• Thus, Food security is ensured in a country only when sufficient food is available for everyone, if everyone has the means to purchase food of acceptable quality, and if there are no barriers to access .

What is the Current Framework for Food Security in India?

• Constitutional Provision: Though the Indian Constitution does not have any explicit provision regarding right to food, the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution can be interpreted to include the right to live with human dignity, which may include the right to food and other basic necessities.
• Buffer Stock: Food Corporation of India (FCI) has the prime responsibility of procuring the food grains at minimum support price (MSP) and stored in its warehouses at different locations and from there it is supplied to the state governments in terms of requirement.
• Under the PDS, presently the commodities namely wheat, rice, sugar and kerosene are being allocated to the States/UTs for distribution.
• Some States/UTs also distribute additional items of mass consumption through the PDS outlets such as pulses, edible oils, iodized salt, spices, etc.
• Antyodaya Anna Yojana: It constitute the poorest of-the-poor , are entitled to receive 35 kg of foodgrains per household per month.
• Priority Households (PHH): Households covered under PHH category are entitled to receive 5 kg of foodgrains per person per month.
• The eldest woman of the household of age 18 years or above is mandated to be the head of the household for the purpose of issuing ration cards.
• In addition, the act lays down special provisions for children between the ages of 6 months and 14 years old , which allows them to receive a nutritious meal for free through a widespread network of Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) centres, known as Anganwadi Centres.

What are the Challenges Related to Food Security in India?

• Soil degradation due to excessive or inappropriate use of agrochemicals, deforestation and natural calamities is a significant challenge to sustainable food production. About one-third of the earth’s soil is already degraded.
• Fall Armyworm (Pest) destroyed almost the entire maize crop in the country in 2018. India had to import maize in 2019 due to the damage caused by the pest in 2018.
• In 2020, locust attack was reported in districts of Rajasthan and Gujarat.
• Lack of Efficient Management Framework: India lacks strict management framwork for food security. Public Distribution System faces challenges like leakages and diversion of food-grains , inclusion/exclusion errors, fake and bogus ration cards, and weak grievance redressal and social audit mechanism.
• Further, there is a tremendous wastage of around Rs.50,000 crore annually by both improper accounting and inadequate storage facilities
• To increase domestic availability amid low Kharif Crop productivity this year (2022), the Government of India has banned the export of broken rice.
• Russia and Ukraine represent 27% of the world market for wheat, 26 countries, mainly in Africa, West Asia and Asia, depend on Russia and Ukraine for more than 50% of their wheat imports.

What Should be the Way Forward?

• There is also a need to look forward towards establishing Special Agriculture Zones through ICT based crop monitoring.
• By adopting precision agriculture with high-tech farming practices , farmers' incomes will increase, input cost of production will be reduced, and many other issues of scale will be addressed.
• Revitalising Aadhaar Seeding of Ration Cards : To speed up the process of Aadhaar linking to ration cards, ground monitoring measures must be taken that will ensure no valid beneficiary is left out of their share of food grains that can give thrust to the aim of zero hunger (Sustainable Development Goal- 2) .
• Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) Through JAM: There is a need to streamline food and fertiliser subsidies into direct benefit transfers to accounts of identified beneficiaries through the JAM trinity platform (Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, and Mobile) that will reduce huge physical movement of foodgrains, provide greater autonomy to beneficiaries to choose their consumption basket and promote financial inclusion.
• Further, foodgrain banks can be deployed at block/village level, from which people may get subsidised food grains against food coupons ( that can be provided to Aadhar linked beneficiaries).
• Addressing Issues With an Umbrella Approach: By looking at diverse issues from a common lens , such as inequality, food diversity, indigenous rights, and environmental justice, India can look forward to a sustainable green economy.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Question (PYQ)

Q.1 In the context of India’s preparation for Climate-Smart Agriculture, consider the following statements: (2021)

• The ‘Climate-Smart Village’ approach in India is a part of a project led by the Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), an international research programme.
• The project of CCAFS is carried out under Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) headquartered in France.
• The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in India is one of the CGIAR’s research centres.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

Q.2 With reference to the provisions made under the National Food Security Act, 2013, consider the following statements: (2018)

• The families coming under the category of ‘below poverty line (BPL)’ only are eligible to receive subsidised food grains.
• The eldest woman in a household, of age 18 years or above, shall be the head of the household for the purpose of issuance of a ration card.
• Pregnant women and lactating mothers are entitled to a ‘take-home ration’ of 1600 calories per day during pregnancy and for six months thereafter.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 only  (d) 3 only

Q.1 In what way could replacement of price subsidy with Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) change the scenario of subsidies in India? Discuss. (2015)