(published in 2009)
C Shivakumar
Chennai:
The ready to use therapeutic food supplied to eight states,
bypassing central and state governments, by the Unicef had
commercial dimensions.
Many non-governmental organizations and experts question Unicef’s
urgency to import a particular brand of RUTF into India, when such
food can be locally produced. It is believed
“Why is Unicef forgoing all the norms to supply RUTF in India. With
$60 per sachet, it is not possible for a poor child to avail of a
sachet of plumpynut. Obviously, it has commercial dimensions,” says
a source.
The UN body “has included the product on its own in the Draft Child
Development and nutrition work plan,” says Ministry of Women and
Child Development.
The world body also tried to bend the rules and even lied to the
government of supplying RUTF to two states but in reality supplied
it to eight states. “While furnishing information in response to the
provisional starred question in Lok Sabha vide its letter dated
February 11, 2009, Unicef mentioned names of only two states.
Whereas it now appears that procurement/supply of RUTF has been made
for eight state,” says MWCD
“We have taken up with the issue with Ministry of External affairs.
The Unicef has intimated the ministry of restoring $880,000 funds of
equivalent value of the RUTF supplies to GOI-UNICEF India Country
Programme 2008-2012. The government and media should be vigilant,”
joint Joint Secretary of MWCD Dr Shreeranjan.
“The GOI-UNICEF India Country Programme 2008-2012 never mentioned
supplies of RUTF or emergency food. In our governmental programmes,
we don’t encourage RUTF. But at the same time, if it is done
privately then it is ministry of health that has to decide on the
issue,” he said.
But shouldn’t Unicef be held accountable for lying and giving false
information. “Now the world body is portraying as the government of
India has wronged them but the fact is that they wanted to market
Plumpynut, a product developed by French paediatrician Andre Briend.
Unicef, which buys three quarters of the world's supply, bought
10,000 tonnes of Ready to use food sachets in 2008, more than triple
the volume bought in 2007. Medecins Sans Frontieres and the former
US president's Clinton Foundation are major buyers too, sources said.
With the rocketing global demand for ready-to-use-foods being unable
to be met by the firm that owned the patent for the recipe, French
Nutriset, which sells its food under the brand Plumpy'nut, many
firms have started paying royalty and setting up plants globally. In
India, Norwegian manufacturer Compact for Life, began manufacturing
in India recently and plans to expand to countries where Nutriset
has not patented Plumpy'nut.
“Products like Plumpy Nut are effective in specific circumstances,
to treat severe acute malnutrition. However, interventions of this
kind, involving branded and patented products, also tend to be
linked with a dangerous invasion of corporate interests in food
policy and nutrition programmes,” warns Indian Right to Food Campaign.
The business of nutrition for poor
In the year 1999, Andre Briend, a French paediatric nutritionist,
developed a ready to use product ‘Plumpynut’ . The product is based
on peanut butter for use in treatment of severe malnutrition.
Few trials were conducted in African countries to prove it’s’
efficacy. These trials, though having many limitations in the design
of the studies, were used effectively to push the product into
international guidelines as a treatment option to treat severe
malnutrition, first in indoor facility and later on in home based
care.
This was done despite the fact that for any public health decision
of such a proportion, there should have been many Randomized
Controlled Trials based on which there should have been a Meta
analysis/ systematic review.
One of the studies, which was quoted maximum while building a case
for the product was supported by the Nestle foundation and the
manufacturer of the product, Nutriset. Andre Briend, who was a part
of the research team for this study, was given a consultancy by
Nutriset during the conduct of this study.
Interestingly, Andre Briend, was part of the research team for other
trials in Africa also. Briend was later affiliated with the
Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, World
Health Organization, Geneva; becoming part of important policy
decisions on the treatment of “severe acute malnutrition” which
suggested among other things, RUTF as “the” intervention
C Shivakumar
Chennai:
The ready to use therapeutic food supplied to eight states,
bypassing central and state governments, by the Unicef had
commercial dimensions.
Many non-governmental organizations and experts question Unicef’s
urgency to import a particular brand of RUTF into India, when such
food can be locally produced. It is believed
“Why is Unicef forgoing all the norms to supply RUTF in India. With
$60 per sachet, it is not possible for a poor child to avail of a
sachet of plumpynut. Obviously, it has commercial dimensions,” says
a source.
The UN body “has included the product on its own in the Draft Child
Development and nutrition work plan,” says Ministry of Women and
Child Development.
The world body also tried to bend the rules and even lied to the
government of supplying RUTF to two states but in reality supplied
it to eight states. “While furnishing information in response to the
provisional starred question in Lok Sabha vide its letter dated
February 11, 2009, Unicef mentioned names of only two states.
Whereas it now appears that procurement/supply of RUTF has been made
for eight state,” says MWCD
“We have taken up with the issue with Ministry of External affairs.
The Unicef has intimated the ministry of restoring $880,000 funds of
equivalent value of the RUTF supplies to GOI-UNICEF India Country
Programme 2008-2012. The government and media should be vigilant,”
joint Joint Secretary of MWCD Dr Shreeranjan.
“The GOI-UNICEF India Country Programme 2008-2012 never mentioned
supplies of RUTF or emergency food. In our governmental programmes,
we don’t encourage RUTF. But at the same time, if it is done
privately then it is ministry of health that has to decide on the
issue,” he said.
But shouldn’t Unicef be held accountable for lying and giving false
information. “Now the world body is portraying as the government of
India has wronged them but the fact is that they wanted to market
Plumpynut, a product developed by French paediatrician Andre Briend.
Unicef, which buys three quarters of the world's supply, bought
10,000 tonnes of Ready to use food sachets in 2008, more than triple
the volume bought in 2007. Medecins Sans Frontieres and the former
US president's Clinton Foundation are major buyers too, sources said.
With the rocketing global demand for ready-to-use-foods being unable
to be met by the firm that owned the patent for the recipe, French
Nutriset, which sells its food under the brand Plumpy'nut, many
firms have started paying royalty and setting up plants globally. In
India, Norwegian manufacturer Compact for Life, began manufacturing
in India recently and plans to expand to countries where Nutriset
has not patented Plumpy'nut.
“Products like Plumpy Nut are effective in specific circumstances,
to treat severe acute malnutrition. However, interventions of this
kind, involving branded and patented products, also tend to be
linked with a dangerous invasion of corporate interests in food
policy and nutrition programmes,” warns Indian Right to Food Campaign.
The business of nutrition for poor
In the year 1999, Andre Briend, a French paediatric nutritionist,
developed a ready to use product ‘Plumpynut’ . The product is based
on peanut butter for use in treatment of severe malnutrition.
Few trials were conducted in African countries to prove it’s’
efficacy. These trials, though having many limitations in the design
of the studies, were used effectively to push the product into
international guidelines as a treatment option to treat severe
malnutrition, first in indoor facility and later on in home based
care.
This was done despite the fact that for any public health decision
of such a proportion, there should have been many Randomized
Controlled Trials based on which there should have been a Meta
analysis/ systematic review.
One of the studies, which was quoted maximum while building a case
for the product was supported by the Nestle foundation and the
manufacturer of the product, Nutriset. Andre Briend, who was a part
of the research team for this study, was given a consultancy by
Nutriset during the conduct of this study.
Interestingly, Andre Briend, was part of the research team for other
trials in Africa also. Briend was later affiliated with the
Department of Child and Adolescent Health and Development, World
Health Organization, Geneva; becoming part of important policy
decisions on the treatment of “severe acute malnutrition” which
suggested among other things, RUTF as “the” intervention
No comments:
Post a Comment