On 13-12-2011 16:29, Sruthi Krishnan wrote: > Hi, > Thanks Salil for those links. Will go through them. > > Went through your article on the Life on the 32 line. > I don't think Utsa Patnaik refers to calorific intake - she's talking > about absorption of foodgrains going down, defining absorption as a > sum of both direct intake and indirect spend - for livestock feed etc.
Yes that is my point. She first made a point about household consumption which was refuted by showing that people were eating less grains and more vegetables and meat. The important thing here is that this was on the basis of the *same* survey she had originally referred to. She had just ignored all other data. When this refutation came up, she dropped that data set entirely and started talking about overall foodgrain utilisation. > > Aadisht, I didn't know about her previous work - I have gone through > only Republic of Hunger. I am still not convinced that people buying > less food because they are buying other things argument works - I may > not buy rice, but I'll buy processed foods. But yes, I agree that the > lack of data from different sources makes such debates baseless. > See above - not only processed foods, other natural food items too. Edible oil for example has shown a huge huge jump over the years thanks to imports and oil actually reaching the rural hinterland. In general, grain budgets have shifted to both superior foods and nonfood consumer goods. I think people in HUL have some interesting stories to share about how FMCG sales in rural India have changed over the past fifteen years. -- Regards, Aadisht Mailing address for lists: [email protected] Personal mailing address: [email protected] Phone: 96000 23067
