Why are experts opposing mandatory food fortification by FSSAI?
Food fortification is the process of adding essential vitamins and minerals to staple foods to improve their nutritional content. Fortification is considered a cost-effective and sustainable solution to address malnutrition, which is a severe problem in India, with millions of people suffering from vitamin and mineral deficiencies. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has mandated the fortification of rice, wheat, and oil with essential vitamins and minerals. While mandatory fortification has its advantages, there are some experts who are opposed to it, citing concerns over its effectiveness, accessibility, and safety.
One of the primary concerns raised by experts is that mandatory fortification may not be effective in reaching the most vulnerable populations who are at the highest risk of malnutrition. Malnutrition is prevalent in India, particularly among the poor and marginalized communities. These communities often do not have access to fortified foods, and the cost of fortification may be passed on to consumers, making fortified foods more expensive and less accessible to the poorest communities.
Experts also worry that mandatory fortification may lead to overconsumption of certain nutrients, which can be harmful to health. For example, excessive intake of iron can cause gastrointestinal distress and increase the risk of chronic diseases. Mandatory fortification may also lead to the consumption of excessive amounts of certain nutrients, such as vitamin A, which can be toxic in high doses.
Moreover, there is concern about the quality of fortified foods and whether they provide the required amounts of essential vitamins and minerals. There have been instances where fortified foods have been found to have lower levels of nutrients than claimed, and there is a need for proper regulation and monitoring to ensure the quality of fortified foods.
Another concern raised by experts is that mandatory fortification may have unintended consequences, such as displacing the consumption of nutrient-rich whole foods. Fortification should not be seen as a substitute for a healthy and balanced diet that includes a variety of whole foods. Mandatory fortification may also lead to the perception that fortified foods are a panacea for malnutrition, which may lead to complacency in addressing the root causes of malnutrition, such as poverty and lack of access to healthcare.
Furthermore, experts argue that mandatory fortification may be a one-size-fits-all solution that does not take into account the diverse nutritional needs of different populations. The nutritional needs of pregnant women, children, and the elderly differ from those of the general population, and fortification programs must be tailored to meet the specific needs of different groups.
Some experts also point out that mandatory fortification may not be the most effective solution for addressing malnutrition. Nutrition education, food diversity, and other measures may be more effective in promoting healthy eating habits and addressing malnutrition in the long term.
In conclusion, while mandatory fortification has its advantages, it is essential to consider the concerns raised by experts and ensure that any mandatory fortification program is implemented effectively, ensuring access to fortified foods for vulnerable communities while ensuring the quality and safety of fortified foods. Fortification should be seen as one tool in the fight against malnutrition, and a comprehensive approach that includes nutrition education, food diversity, and poverty reduction measures must be taken to address the root causes of malnutrition in India.
