India’s Nutrition Security: Setting priorities right

Articles

1. India’s paradox: surplus grain but serious hunger

  • India produced ~354 million tonnes of food grains in 2024–25—far above domestic requirements.
  • Per-capita cereal availability (~240 kg/year) is almost double recommended levels.
  • Yet India ranks 102 out of 123 countries in the 2025 Global Hunger Index—a “serious” hunger category.
  • This shows a structural truth: food-grain abundance does not translate to nutrition security.

2. Nutrition insecurity persists because the system produces calories—not nutrients

  • Malnutrition indicators (stunting, wasting, anemia) remain high despite cereal surplus.
  • We measure tonnes, not nutrition.
  • India has solved “availability” but not dietary diversity, nutrient density, or absorption.

3. Soil degradation is stripping nutrients from crops—and fortification cannot fix that

  • ICAR/NIN soil assessments show widespread deficiencies (Zn, B, S, organic carbon).
  • Debnath et al. (2023) show sharp declines in nutrient density in landmark cultivars:
  • When soil is nutrient-poor, the food system becomes nutrient-poor—no amount of post-harvest engineering compensates for a failing ecosystem.

4. Environmental toxicity is rising—and undermines nutrient quality further

  • Arsenic in rice increased 1,493% over five decades.
  • Mining, industrial pollution, sewage, and deep groundwater extraction introduce heavy metals (As, Cd, Pb, Cr) into food chains.
  • These toxic elements bioaccumulate in grain—damaging organs, impairing cognition, and increasing NCD risk.

5. The genetic-focus of agricultural research has hit a natural limit

For decades, agricultural R&D has focused on:

  • High-yielding varieties (HYVs)
  • Genetic modification / gene editing
  • Biofortified crops

But this approach is fundamentally limited:

5A. Genetics cannot overcome ecological collapse

  • Even the best genotype cannot express nutritional potential in degraded soils or toxic water.
  • Breeding for yield has historically reduced nutrient density (as shown in multiple ICAR studies).
  • Some high-yield varieties accumulate more toxic elements from polluted soils.

5B. Narrow breeding focus creates uniformity, reduces resilience

  • Over-reliance on a few genetic lines reduces biodiversity.
  • India’s rice-wheat system is now ecologically and nutritionally fragile.

Genetics is important—but not sufficient. Ecology sets the upper limit of what genetics can deliver.

6. Fortification is a technological shortcut—useful in emergencies, but harmful as policy

Fortification (iron-fortified rice, wheat flour, oils, milk) is promoted as a solution to anemia and micronutrient deficiencies.

But it carries serious limitations:

6A. It treats symptoms, not causes

  • Anemia in India is 60% non–iron deficiency (ICMR).
  • Mandating iron fortification for a non–iron deficiency problem is irrational.
  • It ignores root causes: poor diets, gut inflammation, soil nutrient loss, infections.

6B. Risk of toxicity and health harm

  • Excess iron can cause:
  • Populations with thalassemia traits are at risk of iron overload.

6C. Synthetic nutrients ≠ natural nutrients

  • Fortified nutrients have variable absorption.
  • Natural foods (pulses, leafy greens, fruits, millets) come with co-factors that ensure proper metabolism.

6D. Fortification centralizes the food system

  • It supports corporatized, processed, centralised supply chains—weakening local food sovereignty.
  • It reduces dietary diversity by focusing on “fixing” rice and wheat, instead of improving access to diverse foods.

7. Biofortification is a genetic band-aid, not a systems solution

Biofortified crops (e.g., iron millet, zinc rice) are often presented as scientific breakthroughs.

But:

7A. They create dependence

  • Seeds often come from proprietary breeding programs.
  • They reduce farmer seed sovereignty.
  • Traditional, diverse, nutrient-dense varieties get replaced.

7B. Biofortification ignores soil

  • Biofortified crops still draw from the same degraded soils.
  • Nutrient density declines again if soils are not restored.

7C. They focus on single nutrients

  • Nutrition is holistic, not a single-molecule problem.
  • Biofortification encourages a reductionist view of nutrition.

7D. They do not restore ecosystems

  • Only agroecology rebuilds soil organic matter, microbial life, pollinator diversity, and water quality.

Biofortification tries to “hack” nutrition inside a failing system—instead of repairing the system itself.

8. Modern lifestyles require a shift from cereal-heavy diets to pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, and fruits

  • Today’s sedentary lives need lower calories but higher micronutrients, protein, and healthy fats.
  • India consumes too much cereal, too little pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, fruits, and quality fats.
  • Rebalancing production and consumption is essential for metabolic health.

9. Agroecology produces real nutrition—not laboratory substitutes

The APCNF evaluation shows:

  • Increased dietary diversity
  • Lower anemia
  • Better child development
  • More consumption of naturally grown vegetables, fruits, eggs, and pulses
  • Demonstrates that when soil is alive, people thrive.

Agroecology builds nutrient density from the ground up, not by adding synthetic micronutrients later.

10. India’s path forward: nutrition per hectare, not calories per hectare

To become truly nutrition-secure, India must prioritize:

  • Soil carbon and microbial health
  • Crop diversity
  • Clean water
  • Absence of contaminants
  • Dietary diversity
  • Local food systems
  • Pulses, millets, oilseeds, vegetables, fruits over rice-wheat dominance

Fortification and genetic manipulation may assist at the margins—but they cannot substitute for ecological integrity and dietary diversity.