> 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 am getting confused here - maybe I don't understand this properly. Let me write what I understood, correct me if I am mistaken: Food availability refers to both direct consumption and superior foods. Direct consumption is decreasing - this both you and Utsa agree upon. So, the first point of contention is over processed foods - if people are consuming more of that, absorption should increase. As it is not increasing, people are consuming less of that. - Here there is no consensus between you and Utsa. You are saying that consumption of superior foods is increasing, which means absorption should increase. But it is not, right? Second point of contention - why is this happening? Utsa is saying it is because of lowered purchasing power. You are saying it is because they are spending more on nonfood consumer goods. Essentially she's saying they are in distress, you are saying this data is insufficient to make that claim. Is this right? (Am not sure I like economics anymore.)
