Indian Government Asks UNICEF To Stop Distribution Of Nutrition Aid
"India has asked UNICEF to stop distributing millions of dollars worth of nutrition aid to children, saying it had been done without permission and at the expense of local food to fight hunger," Reuters reports. Since August 2008, UNICEF has invested about $2.4 million importing "a high energy relief treatment known as 'Ready to Use Therapeutic Food' (RUTF)" for children with severe acute malnutrition in the states of Bihar and Madhya Pradesh, according to the news service (Williams, 8/4).
The Indian government said that UNICEF had failed to inform them about the importation of the RUTF Plumpy'nut this year, and the government objected to the treatment because it was unconvinced the product works and wanted UNICEF to find "Indian alternatives," the Times reports. The Times reports that the issue illustrates how efforts to end malnutrition in India are often held up by red tape and a long-standing "desire to maintain food security and avoid depending on foreign aid." The article includes additional comments by a malnutrition experts on the ground in India who acknowledged that UNICEF should have gotten the necessary permissions from the government for importing Plumpy'nut, but believe the Indian government is overreacting (Page, 8/5).
What is your opinion on this. Do you believe the Indian government is overreacting? Is the government trying to hold up efforts to end malnutrition? Is the government right in saying that UNICEF should find "Indian alternatives"? Add your comments below.
The Kaiser Daily Global Health Policy Report is published by the Kaiser Family Foundation. © 2009 Henry J. Kaiser
A local alternative to treatment of SAM is available now in India
At least we can start doing our bit to improve the situation
Comment by vivek arora — 2010-07-04 12:09 | # - re
It is unfortunate that hungry people are caught in the crossfire.
Comment by A.Wilson — 2010-05-21 06:21 | # - re
It is unfortunate that the children who were receiving the feeds are caught in the cross fire of two forces. The effectiveness of any intervention is very dependent on all stakeholders, including the government, researchers, relief organizations, the target population etc. If what is in the media is right, then there must have been a breach of protocol, because UNICEF caries out its projects in close consultation with the government. If the project was being evaluated on a continuous basis, and action taken then the issue of cultural acceptability, political will, and community involvement would have been picked out and addressed before the government intervened. That aside the most important action is to find an amenable step gap measure to save the children that may be at risk of death. This website gives possible alternatives, that may be practical in India: http://fex.ennonline.net/102/4-3-2.aspx
Comment by Moses Mokaya — 2009-08-31 19:05 | # - re
One more story which agian appeared in one of the Indian publication, clearly shows how flwaed the strategy of just distributing the Plumpy nut was. Please see the link
"http://www.tehelka.com/story_main40.asp?filename=cr081108Weight_Listed.asp"
Comment by jp dadhich — 2009-08-13 11:26 | # - re
I agree with Mr. Tom Ndanu. The problem of malnutrition and its' solution is not so simplistic as it sounds. The objective of any intervention should be to have a permanent solution of the problem for an individual family. Please see the real situation at ground level depicted in this story from an Indian publication at
"http://www.tehelka.com/story_main41.asp?filename=Ne020509a_famished.asp"
After reading this story, one may rethink before only distributing the RUTF for treating Severe malnutrition.
Comment by jp dadhich — 2009-08-13 11:16 | # - re
Acute malnutrition must be tackled with the vim and vigour it deserves. All hands will have to be on deck but a long term solution will be the best alternative. The question I would like to ask is, will it be possible to get local alternatives to those imported? If the answer is yes, it makes common sense to explore the local alternatives. If not measures must be taken to look for a local alternative while the acute phase must be addressed with the imported products.
The 2 million USD used to buy the product from outside would have been better utilized if that amount of money was invested in the local economy for the victims of the maulnutrition. It will have a long term impact on reducing poverty as well as the root cause of the acute malnutrition in the first place.
I am of the view that this system where the developed countries impose their solution on poorer countries in the name of helping us must stop but rather strengthen the local people to solve their own problems. When it comes to retaining the money the develop world will always want to show that they know what is good for us who are the real victims of the situation facing us.
Indian govt is right but must not do it to the detriment of those victims of the condition
Tom Ndanu
Comment by Tom A. Ndanu — 2009-08-06 11:16 | # - re