Food bill norms give contractors the edge -Nitin Sethi

The government has provided a back-door entry for contractors and the food industry to corner the lucrative ICDS food supply budget through the National Food Security Bill - a move that had seen controversy earlier too but could now become part of the law if passed by Parliament. In a footnote to one of the three schedules of the bill, the government has provided that children between 6 months to 3 years, malnourished children between 6 months to 6 years and pregnant and lactating women would only get energy dense fortified foods - something only food companies and contractors can produce through centralized production units. If accepted, the food security bill could ensure that food companies and contractors get a legally guaranteed foothold in the business worth more than Rs 17,000 crore annually. The second schedule of the bill, which is to be tabled in the current session of Parliament, sets the nutritional standards for the food to be provided under the Integrated Child Development Scheme. The bill envisages that children between the ages of 6 months and 3 years should be provided take-home rations containing 500 kilo calories and 12-15 grams of proteins. Similarly, malnourished children between 6 months and 6 years of age should be provided 800 kilo calories and 20-25 grams of proteins. For pregnant and lactating mothers, the bill provides take-home rations containing 600 kilo calories and 18-20 grams of protein. But the catch lies in a footnote to the schedule of the bill. The note defines what 'take-home rations' are. The food security bill says take-home rations are 'energy dense food' fortified with micronutrients. Another note at the bottom of the schedule also enforces the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to any meal served. Only centralized food production units are capable of producing food that is fortified and which matches these standards. In 2004, the Supreme Court had passed an order banning the use of contractors in running of food schemes. This was reiterated in another order by the apex court in 2006. Then, the government put out new guidelines for the ICDS which included nutritional norms for the food to be supplied to children. The norms were so strict and finely detailed that it rendered it impossible for self-help groups and local groups to provide the rations under the scheme. The Supreme Court's food commissioners brought the guidelines to the apex court's notice, warning that the norms held the danger of opening the door to contractors. The court again reiterated its earlier orders banning contractors but gave a stamp of approval to the guidelines. The women and child development ministry informed the states that the norms had become part of the Supreme Court order and should be implemented. Some states got back to the Centre noting that the strict norms laying down micronutrient levels and other detailed standards could only be followed if the food was produced through a mechanized route. In another case before the Gujarat high court, some suppliers providing these rations took the position that they were not 'contractors' but original manufacturers and therefore did not fall foul of the apex court ruling of 2004. The Gujarat government brought the case before the apex court, which is yet to decide on the matter. In the meanwhile, in 2012, the principle advisor to the Supreme Court commissioners also reported another scam of contractors acting as self-help groups to take over the ICDS ration supply in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. This was brought to the court's notice in 2012. As of now, many states allow pre-packaged food as part of the take-home rations under the ICDS scheme. The role of food companies and contractors could get cemented firmly by a legal mandate from Parliament to provide fortified packaged food daily in the name of take-home rations to millions of children under the government scheme if the bill is passed in its current shape.