1.

Introduction

Since the beginning of time, governments have placed a high priority on ensuring that citizens

have access to healthy food. Emperors in China as far back as the Zhou dynasty ran the risk of

losing their right to reign if they did not confront famines. Additionally, the United States made

the calculated decision to carry out programmes to improve its allies' access to food during the

Cold War. The Romans had a custom of stealing food from places like Egypt that had an abundance

of resources. Egypt was exposed to Roman invasion after Cleopatra's death in 30 BCE, and the

Romans exploited this weakness. They ruled the kingdom for generations, plundering its resources,

especially its bountiful grain supply. Owing to its crucial function in providing grain, the area

earned the moniker "The Breadbasket." These illustrations highlight the vital connection between

national security and food access.

1.1 History

India has struggled with food insecurity ever since gaining its freedom. The majority of Indians

don't have enough money to support themselves financially. The Indian government assumes

responsibility for these issues and provides sustenance to the vulnerable citizens of the nation.

Therefore, to supply food grains at fair rates, the government launched food assistance programme,

whose primary goal is to stabilize food prices and distribute food grains to low-income domestic

customers. Food policy in our nation began to take shape following the 1943 Bengal famine. It led

to a poor supply of food grains, particularly in Bengal, in eastern India during World War II. Under

these conditions, the Indian government began importing rice from nations that had an excess

supply. India imported food grains and pulses totaling between 6,00,000 and 22,00,000 tonnes per

year between 1931 and 1941. In order to offset the nation's inadequate production of food grains,
this group recommended increasing the production of native food grains. Food grain prices

increased as a result of natural disasters like the Bengal famine and war conditions. The Indian

government implemented the decontrol programme in September 1948.

The government established the Food grain Purchase Committee in 1950 and suggested raising

exports from states with excess production while lowering imports in deficit states. To lower food

grain costs, the government allowed some imports and allowed exports between 1950 and 1957.

But starting in 1956, food grain prices skyrocketed, prompting the government to forbid exports,

arrange for organized imports, and open fair-price stores. The government established the Food

Grains Inquiry Committee in 1957 after learning that India was still experiencing a food crisis.

The committee then announced the opening of Fair Price Shops, allowing a zonal policy to group

areas of excess and deficiency, inside zones and set price caps within each zone.

The food grains policy committee was founded as a result of the 1943 famine and the persistently

poor food circumstances in several regions of the country. It promoted obtaining food grains from

these areas of excess supply, regulating public distribution, and using statutory price controls to

restrain rising costs. Between 1943 and 1947, the effects of the food scarcity, cereal production,

and irrigated lands became still more severe. When a new food grains policy committee was

appointed in 1947, it was determined that imports were necessary to fulfill significant rationing

obligations as domestic food grain production was insufficient. The committee on food grains

policy was established in 1966, subsequent to 1957. In order to address the food crisis, this

committee evaluated the current state of affairs and made recommendations for national food

management. This group made recommendations for the nation's food grain acquisition,

distribution, and partial control.

 1.2 Food Security

The term "food security" encompasses not just a nation's food supply but also its citizens' access

to, and affordability of, sufficient food. In a world where everyone has consistent and unfettered

access to sufficient quantities of nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and allows them to

make healthy food choices, food security is defined as by the United Nations committee (2020) on

world food security. Another aspect of food security is the availability of food regardless of

gender, region, or socioeconomic status. Food security was likely an issue thousands of years ago

in Egypt and China, since governmental officials would release food from storehouse during

famines. For the 1974 World Food Conference, the term "food security" meant "access to

sufficient, nutritious, varied, balanced, and moderate global food supplies of basic foodstuffs to

support a continuous increase in food consumption and to offset variations in production and

prices," with an emphasis on supply (FAO, 2003).Definitions that came later incorporated

concerns about availability and demand. A condition of "food security exists when all people, at

all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their

dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life" as stated in the 1996 statement

released at the inaugural World Food Summit (Patel, 2013; Shaw. 2007). Like housing, food

security refers to the degree to which all members of a household are able to consistently meet

their nutritional needs and maintain an active lifestyle (USDA, 2014). The fear of hunger does not

exist in those who enjoy access to food (FAO, 2012).

On the other hand, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity

as "limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain

ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways" (Bickel et al., 2000). A measure

of resilience against potential interruptions or shortages of essential food supplies brought on by a

variety of risk events, including as wars, fuel shortages, transportation disruptions, droughts, and

economic instability, is incorporated into food security (FAO, 2013).

In accordance with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the four cornerstones of

food security are accessibility, utilization, availability, and stability (FAO, 2009).As a prerequisite

for the realization of all other rights, the right to food was recognized by the UN in 1948 (FAO,

2012).The concept of food security has evolved to include agency and sustainability with the four

core pillars of accessibility, utilization, stability, and availability. Each of these six indicators of

food security is further supported by theoretical and statutory conceptions of the right to food

(WHO, 2021; Food security and nutrition, 2020).

"Food should not be used as an instrument for political and economic pressure," the World Summit

on Food Security 1996 declared (Shaw, 2007). To address food security, numerous international

agreements and institutions have been formed. The Sustainable Development Goals contain the

primary international strategy for reducing poverty and hunger. In particular, by 2030, the world

aspires to have ended hunger, achieved food security and improved nutrition, and advanced

sustainable agriculture, as outlined in Goal 2: Zero Hunger (Atukunda, 2021).

1.3 Food Security in India

Food insecurity is a major concern in India. According to UN-India, an estimated 195 million

people are undernourished in India, making it home to a quarter of the worlds hungry. In addition,

chronic malnutrition affects 43% of children in India (Majmundar, 2018). According to the 2022

Food Security Index, India comes up at number 68 out of 113 significant nations. Even though the

current nutritional guideline satisfies 100% of the need, India's consumption of quality protein is

far lower at 20%. To combat this, more protein-rich foods such as soybeans, lentils, meat, eggs,
dairy, etc. should be easily accessible and priced cheaply (Bhatia, 2021). India is barely meeting

56.8% of the right to food criteria that should be achievable given its level of wealth, according to

the Human Rights Measurement Initiative (Patel, 2013, Brook, 2020).

1.3.1 Central Initiative

• The original goal of the 1965 founding of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was to

acquire, store, and distribute food grains. It has been having a major impact on the

safety of food in India. (Bhatia, 2021)

• Now, citizens of India may legally claim benefits from the food security programmes

already in place according to the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA 2013). It

includes the Midday Meal Scheme, the Integrated Child Development Services

scheme, and the Public Distribution System. In the 2017–18 fiscal year, the government

allocated more than Rs 1500 billion, or 7.6 percent of total expenditure, to finance food

subsidies under the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) (The National Food

Security Act, 2013)

• Maternity benefits are also recognized under the NFSA 2013. Daily complimentary

cereals are offered to breastfeeding moms, pregnant women, and some youngster

categories (Indira Canteen, Karnataka).

1.3.2 State Initiative

• 'Indira Canteen', a new initiative in Karnataka, offers extremely affordable breakfast,

lunch, and dinner options. As chief minister, Siddaramaiah carried out this plan to

ensure that everyone in the state had access to wholesome food and that no one went

hungry (Nalabothu foundation)

• As a state, Andhra Pradesh has supported the Nalabothu Foundation's efforts to feed

the hungry by collecting and redistributing food scraps from homes, companies,

restaurants, and events. The country was made aware of this endeavour by Prime

Minister Modi (Tamil Nadu's Amma canteen concept).

• 'AmmaUnavagam', or Mother's Canteen, as it is more popularly known, is a new

initiative from Tamil Nadu (Atukunda et al, 2021). The Nimbkar Agricultural Research

Institute's 2012 proposal is where this programme first got its start.

• The Chhattisgarh government passed the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act, 2012. In

order to guarantee that "the people of the State have access to an adequate quantity of

food and other requirements of good nutrition, at affordable prices, at all times to live

a life of dignity," the State Assembly enacted it on December 21, 2012, with no

opposition ((Chhattisgarh food security bill).

Table 1: List of Government Schemes

Schemes Year Coverage Latest Volume Issue Price

Introduced Target Group (Rs Per Kg)

Public Distribution Upto 1992 Universal N/A Wheat:2.34

System (PDS)
Rice :2.89

Wheat:2.80

Revamped Public
1992 Backward 20 kg of food
Distribution System Rice:3.77
Blocks grains

(RPDS)

Targeted Public Poor and Non- .

Distribution System Poor BPL – Wheat-

1997 35 kg of food
(TPDS) BPL 4.15 Rice-5.65
grains
APL APL - Wheat-

6.10 Rice-8.30

2000 Poorest of the 35 kg of food Wheat:2.00

Antyodaya Anna Yojana
poor grains Rice:3.00
 Indigent

2000 Senior 10 kg of food free

Annapurna Scheme
Citizens grains

National Food Security Priority 5 kg per person Wheat:2.00

Act,2013 2013 Households per month

Rice :3.00

Millet:1.00

Sugar :5.00

Source: Economic survey of India, Ministry of Finance. (Sunil Madan and Badri Narayanan, 2023)

1.4 Current Scenario

On October 9th, it was brought to attention once more when the World Food Programme was given

the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize by the Norwegian Nobel Committee in appreciation of their work

eradicating hunger. The Committee made clear that hunger, conflict, and peace are related, and it

commended the World Food Programme (WFP) for its efforts to promote peace in conflict-

affected countries and for taking the lead in preventing hunger from being used as a weapon of

war or violence. India already has 1.43 billion people living there, surpassing China in 2023. India

cannot attain its aim of national food security without agriculture (Majumdar, 2018). India's

economy is based primarily on agriculture, with over 70% of the population working in the sector.

By bolstering the agricultural sector with better farming techniques, higher production yields, and

easier access to markets, national food security can be guaranteed. In his address at the 34th

convocation of the GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, India’s National Security
Advisor, Ajit Doval, emphasized the significance of food security for national security. Despite

having less arable land, he pointed out that China produces more grain than India. Because

preserving national security is of the utmost importance, Doval emphasized the need for further

measures to boost agricultural output (Nutrion and food security bill, Sunil Madan and Badri

Narayanan, 2023).

The Global Food Security Index 2022 states that 16.3% of Indians are undernourished. Moreover,

3.8% of Indian children are obese, 33.4% are underweight, and 30.9% of toddlers are stunted. The

Human Development Index for India is 0.65.

In 2022–23, 333.5 million people—or 65% of the world's food insecure—will reside in India,

according to the International Food Security Assessment, 2022–32, GFA-33 USDA, Economic

Research Service. The country's huge population is a major factor in the prevalence of food

insecurity. The number of Indians who are food insecure is expected to decrease to 24.7 million,

or 1.7% of the population, during the next decade (Bhatia, 2021).

With the help of price support and procurement, as well as subsidized and enhanced grain

distribution, India's food production and affordability are projected to keep up with the country's

growing population. Resolving supply chain issues and lowering inflation are two expected

outcomes. Because of this, the number of people in India who are hungry drops even lower. The

predicted rise in revenue is likely to have a substantial positive impact on the nation's food security

indices.

The provision of nutritious food and the improvement of the lives of the most vulnerable members

of society is fundamental to national food security, which in turn contributes to economic growth,

poverty reduction, and population security in India. National Food Security contributes to national
security by assisting India's economy in achieving more notable growth and stability through

enhanced agricultural output and distribution methods.

As part of its fight against malnutrition and poverty, the Indian government passed the National

Food Security Act (NFSA) in 2013. Affordable, high-quality food is guaranteed to anyone living

below the poverty level under this statute. This law is one of the most important steps the Indian

government has done to ensure the safety of the country's food supply. Meals are provided for

expecting mothers, children under six years old, and nursing mothers under this act, which is part

of the National Nutrition Mission and ensures that 810 million people have access to subsidized

food grains. Reduced rates of hunger and malnutrition among at-risk populations are direct results

of the Act's efforts to expand food access for low-income people (Sunil Madan and Badri

Narayanan, 2023).

Another important initiative that has contributed significantly to raising agricultural output and

enhancing soil fertility is the National Food Security Mission. The mission, who began in 2007 as

a Central Sector Scheme (CSS), aims to increase food production and productivity by expanding

agricultural areas and implementing interventions to promote crop yield in rice, wheat, pulses,

oilseeds, and other crops. In addition, the Indian government established the National Agriculture

Market (e-NAM) platform to ensure that food supplies are distributed fairly. It is an online

marketplace where farmers may sell their commodities across state boundaries. To further promote

agri-based enterprises' efficient use of agricultural output and to reduce post-harvest losses, the

government also set up the National Food Processing Mission (Sunil Madan and Badri Narayanan,

2023).
The government has also improved distribution networks and increased agricultural output in an

effort to guarantee the availability and accessibility of food resources. The government has put in

place a number of programmes to improve agriculture production and distribution, including the

National Horticulture Mission, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) to insure crops

against natural disasters, and the Minimum Support Prices (MSP) for agricultural products.

National food security is a key component of national security because it ensures that all

individuals have access to nutritious food and may engage in economic and socially beneficial

activities without fear of starvation. These and other regulations have ensured that Indians have

access to affordable, nutrient-dense food, which has helped the country achieve national security.

Economic development, poverty reduction, and health outcomes have all been enhanced as a

result. It is also crucial for national security to ensure that food is distributed and consumed fairly

across the country (Sunil Madan and Badri Narayanan, 2023). In addition, national food security

is crucial for national security since it ensures that everyone can fulfill their daily nutritional needs

with access to healthy food and has far-reaching effects on social welfare and economic

development.

Several factors endanger India's food security, including high poverty rates, outdated storage

technologies, limited access to financing, and bad infrastructure (such as inaccessible highways).

Over-cultivation and excessive pesticide usage are two examples of poor agricultural practices that

reduce soil fertility. Extreme weather events have joined crop failures and food shortages as a

result of climate change. Among other things, there are problems with production and distribution

systems caused by fragmented landholdings, insufficient market infrastructure, and inefficient

supply chain networks.

Efficient resolution of these issues is crucial for India to attain National Food Security. This can

be achieved by making sufficient investments in agricultural production systems and research,

enhancing perishable commodity storage facilities, setting up effective national transportation

networks for the distribution of food goods, and motivating farmers to use contemporary

agricultural practices.

Achieving national food security requires an increase in agricultural production and distribution.

Modern irrigation systems, agricultural research, improved market infrastructure, and efficient

distribution networks should be the top priorities of the government when it comes to agricultural

growth. As a result, food prices will fall and supplies will increase, bringing the cost of food down

for everyone (Sunil Madan and Badri Narayanan, 2023).

Also, some money should go towards campaigns that get the word out about how important

national food security and national security are, and how they are interdependent. An improvement

in resilience against global shocks such as pandemics, wars, or natural disasters can be achieved

through national food security, which guarantees an adequate supply of food during times of crisis.

Finally, National Food Security has the potential to significantly impact India's economic stability.

Improving distribution networks and raising agricultural output would boost farmer incomes and

job prospects, which would ultimately raise GDP growth and raise living conditions for the

populace. (National Food Security Bill)

By guaranteeing that there is enough food for everyone in the nation, national food security

contributes to the achievement of inclusive development as a whole. Food security is crucial to

India's national security since it ensures the safety of the country's inhabitants, their economy, and

the availability of food. Because so many Indians make their living in the agricultural sector,
ensuring the nation's food supply is essential to India's economic growth. Consequently, everyone

involved has to give National Food Security the priority it deserves if we are to achieve national

security.

2. Review of Literature
2.1 Food Security Scenario in India

India deserves praise for increasing its food output and accumulating sufficient stocks of nutritious

grains. More over 70% of rural Indian households still rely mostly on agriculture, particularly

animal husbandry, for their income. In 1950–1951, India produced 50 million tonnes of cereal

grain, six times as much as it did in 2019–20 (almost 300 million tonnes). India is now the world's

ninth-largest exporter of agricultural commodities and a net exporter of food. The percentage of

the economy's overall Gross Value Added which is obtained from agriculture and associated

industries climbed to 20.2% in 2020–21 and 18.8% in 2021–22. With these results, India has

changed over 30 years becoming a food-deficit nation to an autonomous food producer. The 2013

National Food Security Act (NFSA) made this feasible, providing subsidized monthly household

rations (rice, wheat, or millet) for 813 million people.

The National Food Security Act of 2013 seeks to provide adequate amounts of affordable, high-

quality food in order to promote food and nutritional security. Families that qualify have the

opportunity to get 5 kilogrammes of food grains per person per month through 543,562 fair price

stores and 237 million ration cards. The rates for rice, wheat, and coarse grains are Rs. 3, 2, and 1

per kilogramme, respectively.

Numerous government measures have resulted in a reduction in child undernutrition during the

previous ten years. Between 2005 and 2019, the percentage of underweight children decreased

from 43% to 32%, while the percentage of stunted children under the age of five decreased from

48% to 35%. Both the percentage of people with anemia and the percentage of children born

between 2005 and 2015 who were between 6 and 59 months old had a decline, going from 69% to

58% (GFSI, 2023).

For India, the issue of food insecurity is far from over. India was placed 68th out of 113 major

nations in the world for food security in the 2022 Global Food Security Index (Al Jazeera). In

2022, out of 121 nations in the globe, India was rated 107th on the Global Hunger Index (Nutrition

and Food Security - UN India, 2018). The United Nations estimates that 25% of the world's

malnourished people—200 million people—live in India. Around 43% of Indian youngsters also

suffer from chronic malnutrition (Global Food Security Index, 2019).The current dietary

guidelines fulfill all daily food specifications, but India still ranks low in terms of quality protein

intake (20%). This shortcoming can be remedied by making protein-rich foods such as lentils,

meat, eggs, dairy, and soybeans easily accessible and affordable for the people of India (Human

Rights Measurement Initiative, 2022). In order to guarantee that its residents have sufficient food

security, India is only using 56.8% of its economic capacity, according to the Human Rights

Measurement Initiative (HRMI Rights Tracker, 2022). Indian lawmakers passed the National Food

Security Act in 2013 to guarantee all residents' access to affordable, readily available food. The

Right to Food Act estimates that 66 percent of the nation's 1.33 billion people will have access to

subsidized grain (NFSA, 2018; Press Information Bureau, 2018). It was ratified on September 10,

2013, and as of July 5, 2013, it was retroactive (BTVI, 2018, Saxena and Mohan, 2021).

There is a critical lack of affordable, nutritious food in India. More than 60% of Indians make a

living in agriculture, making it a crucial sector for the country's economy and food security (Gupta

and Pathak, 2016). India's agricultural sector, however, is facing an increasing number of

difficulties, such as decreased agricultural productivity brought on by climate volatility and a

reduction in the amount of farmland that is available, partly as a result of the country's rapidly

expanding population outpacing its economic growth, which puts a strain on India's natural

resources and land availability (Shama et al., 2020). Approximately 100 million tons of rice are
.1produced annually in India. Even if there may be enough food for everyone in India, a lot of

families, particularly those with young children, lack access to food due to financial difficulties.

Consequently, millions of undernourished children in India are the result of this. India's cultural

awareness makes it possible for them to have a well balanced and nutritious diet. The majority of

Indians consume rice at least thrice a day, which gives their bodies access to carbohydrates. Since

rice is India's most well-known product, it will mostly control their lifestyle as well as that of other

nations (Rabbi et al., 2019).

The agriculture industry is the focus of the Agritech Challenge since it is essential to the

development of emerging countries in Asia and Africa. Over a billion people worldwide are

employed in agriculture. Over half of emerging markets' MSMEs (medium, small, and micro

enterprises) Agriculture is an activity carried out by economies. Most individuals working in

agriculture are smallholders, who make up 82% of all farmers, and possess less than two hectares

of land possession. The low-middle-income or low-income countries comprise 49% of this

acreage. In relation to Smallholders are vital to the productivity of agriculture as a source of

production. Upon In the lower middle class, smallholders contribute more than 50–60% of the

agricultural output on average and nations with lesser incomes and finances (Balakrishnan, 2023).

Thus, in many rising economies, the agriculture sector's continued growth is essential to sustaining

livelihoods, driving GDP, and guaranteeing food self-sufficiency. The goal of the Agritech

Challenge is to serve as a link between markets in the global south. The goal of the Agritech

Challenge is to promote international collaborations between innovators and incubators in order

to tackle development issues and enhance the financial well-being of both individuals and

communities. It will be accomplished by fostering corporate partnerships and information

exchanges that are backed by long-term investments.

Ensured food availability has been an important goal of Indian policy for quite some time. Despite

having the world's fastest-growing economy, food price inflation is on the rise in India. The price

of food shot up in 2019 and hasn't budged since. The greatest yearly inflation rate in 10 years

occurred in July 2023, at 11%. Some members of society would struggle to afford foods that are

sufficiently healthy due to the persistently rising inflation of food costs (SDGs UN, 2019).

Even though there have been notable advancements in food production and distribution over the

years, food insecurity remains a persistent and intricate problem in India. There are numerous

reasons for the nation's food insecurity, including:

Poverty: A sizable section of the Indian populace is impoverished. People's access to wholesome

food may be hampered by low income and a lack of employment options. (Cuesta, 2014; Kepplea

and Segall-Corrêab, 2017; Choithani, 2017).

Uneven Distribution: India has enough food production to meet its people's needs, but it is not

distributed evenly. Food shortages occur in some areas because food frequently does not reach

people who need it the most.

Price Fluctuations: In periods of severe inflation, price swings in staple foods like wheat and rice

can push many individuals beyond their means.

Agricultural Challenges: Unpredictable weather patterns, a lack of water, degraded soil, and poor

infrastructure are some of the issues facing India's agriculture industry. Reduced agricultural yields

might be one consequence of these factors influencing food production (Joshi, 2016; Narayanan,

2015).
Land Ownership: Inequalities in land ownership can restrict small-scale farmers' access to

resources and land, making it challenging for them to grow enough food to feed their families.

Food Wastage: During the processes of production, storage, and distribution, a substantial portion

of food is lost or squandered. Food shortage is exacerbated by this waste.

Malnutrition: Malnutrition and food instability are frequently associated. When food is available,

it cannot have all the nutrients needed for a balanced diet, which can cause malnutrition,

particularly in young children. (Grebmer et al., 2018; Burchi et al., 2011; Gödecke et al., 2018;

Saxena and Mohan, 2021)

Urbanization: The fast pace of urbanization has changed people's eating patterns, making

processed and low-nutrient meals more common. This has increased food insecurity and other

health problems.

Natural Disasters: Cyclones, floods, and droughts are among the many natural disasters that can

strike India. Food shortages may result from these occurrences in the impacted areas by interfering

with food production.

COVID-19 Pandemic: By upsetting supply lines, impacting livelihoods, and making marginalized

groups more vulnerable, the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns that followed it worsened

food insecurity (Burchi et al., 2011).

While India has implemented several programmes to provide food security, such as the Mid-Day

Meal Scheme, the Public Distribution System (PDS), and the National Food Security Act (NFSA),

issues including leakage and corruption often hinder their effective implementation.

Even while India has made great strides towards enhancing food security, there are still issues.
Food Production: India's food production has increased significantly, especially with respect to

staple crops like wheat and rice. The 1960s and 1970s Green Revolution was a major factor in

increasing agricultural output.

Buffer Stocks: In order to control food prices and prepare for emergencies, India keeps strategic

grain stockpiles, or buffer stocks. Organizations such as the Food Corporation of India (FCI)

oversee these stocks.

Malnutrition: India has put policies in place to combat malnutrition, especially in children and

expectant mothers. Enhancing dietary consumption and health outcomes is the main goal of these

initiatives (Burchi et al., 2011; Grebmer et al., 2018)

Reducing the Impact of the epidemic: The COVID-19 epidemic revealed weaknesses in India's

food security system by causing supply chains and livelihoods to be interrupted by lockdowns.

Relief efforts were carried out by the government, which included giving away free food grains to

those in need (Gödecke et al., 2018).

Nutrition Quality: Although there is now more food available, attention is now focused on

enhancing food quality and resolving concerns related to hidden hunger, which occurs when a

person's diet is deficient in important vitamins and minerals (FAO, 1996).

Sustainable Agriculture: To guarantee long-term food security while preserving the

environment, there is an increasing focus on sustainable agriculture methods, such as organic

farming.

Changes in Climate Resilience: It is crucial to strengthen resistance to climate change if we want

to keep food supplies stable despite unpredictable weather and other catastrophic events.
Technology's role: Improved crop management, weather forecasting, and food delivery are all

made possible by the growing use of technology, which can strengthen efforts to ensure food

security (Gustafsson, 2011).

2.2 Indicators of Food Security

The concept of food security is multi-faceted. You can't live without food, just as you can't breathe

without air. Food security might mean more than just being able to afford two meals a day. By "a

situation that exists when all people, at all times have physical, social and economic access to

sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active

and healthy life," the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2011) means food security

(Napoli et al., 2011). The majority of the published research on food security focuses on four

factors: availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability (Schnepf, 2016). Measurable indicators

could be identified to quantify food security and combine all four of these characteristics.

Production, demand, growth in population, GDP, individual purchasing power, and factors

contributing to the decline in food production—such as variations in the climate, changes in the

climate, severe episodic events, irregular weather patterns, etc.—may be the main measures. It is

possible to compile and examine the established indicators for every nation to ascertain their

current state of food security. In 1996, during the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)–

sponsored World Food Summit, four crucial factors were highlighted as important for ensuring

food security: availability, accessibility, utilization, and stability. The concept includes both

physical and temporal nutritional aspects (Singh el al., 2020).

It's possible that food is available, but accessibility might not work. In a similar vein, inadequate

use may not guarantee food availability, and instability brought on by conflict, climate change,
etc., may also cause disruptions. It is impossible to assess food security effectively using only one

indicator. As a result, it necessitates the selection of acceptable numerous indications that can be

integrated by giving each indicator the proper weight based on some sort of logical deduction. One

possible useful approach for analyzing food security indicators at the national and regional levels

is a multidimensional index-based research (Singh el al., 2022). A combination of an availability,

accessibility, utilization, and stability index was used by Napoli et al. (2011) to evaluate food

security.

Availability: Food availability can be defined in a number of ways, including domestic

production, food imports, and the supply held in government granaries. Statistics on specific

countries' domestic output, stock, food exports, and imports can be used to determine the quantity

of food that a country produces through agriculture (WFP, 2009). Information on food availability

can be compiled using the available country-level statistics. The availability factor, as stated by

Singh et al. (2020a), is a good proxy for the country's food supply. Synthesizing the Availability

index could be done using related indicators and sub-indicators. Fixing the selection criteria for

the selected indicators, however, would be a major worry (Chukwuka et al., 2023; Ellis and

Ramankutty, 2008).

Utilization: It denotes that food is available to everyone, without exception. Utilization is linked

to wholesome, secure food that satisfies each person's daily dietary needs. It might address how to

prepare food, preserve food, provide safe drinking water, and provide enough sanitary facilities to

prevent the spread of illnesses.

Stability: It is the state of being able to purchase enough food that is safe, nourishing, and

sufficient to suit one's dietary demands. Stability is the state of preserving food supply in the face
of ongoing changes brought on by shifting conditions. It could be linked to climatic shifts,

socioeconomic factors, shifting food supply and access circumstances, and more.

Therefore, a nation can only be said to have food security if there is enough food for everyone, if

everyone can afford food of a reasonable quality, and if there are no obstacles in the way.

Food (stable foods like wheat and maize) is provided on Earth by agriculture systems, which

perform vital ecosystem functions (Godfray et al., 2010). However, sufficient acreage is necessary

for this to be able to produce enough food to meet the increasing need for food. Consequently,

access to arable land is a major factor in the quest for food security. Due to the availability of land

for multiple uses, the allocation of land to different types of uses is a dynamic process, driven by

the speed of fast expansion and urbanisation. The majority of SAARC member states are

developing nations, and their populations are expanding at a rate that is higher than the world

average (World Bank 2011). A 70-100% increase in food consumption is projected by the end of

2050 as a result of the expanding human population (Ballantyne, 2009). Seventy percent of the

land is used for agriculture, which has contributed to a thirty percent growth in the gross domestic

product (GDP) of SAARC nations in the last several decades and has enabled most of these nations

to fulfil their increasing food demands (World Bank, 2011). Food and other necessities are

provided by agricultural lands to the rural populace, giving them sufficient security for their way

of life and financial advantages. Food security would be stressed by any circumstance that results

in the transfer of agricultural land into other categories (such as conversion to a built-up area)

(Padgham, 2009; Pingali et a., 2006;, Tibesigwa et al., 2016; Keenan et al., 2015). Currently, over

38% of the Earth is usable for agriculture (FAO, 2011), and another 31% is available for forest

cover, which helps to partially meet global food demand (Garcia and Rosenberg, 2010). Food

insecurity could result from the conversion of agricultural and forest lands into non-vegetated areas
due to the speed of various planning and development projects. The United Nations projects that

global population will reach 9.8 billion by 2050, altering the distribution of forest and arable land.

This would undoubtedly change the situation regarding food security. As a result, it is necessary

to evaluate the security for diverse situations involving numerous countries.

Out of all the factors that could affect food security, climate change has come to light as a major

factor. According to Kumar et al. (2018), the impact of climate change is anticipated to extend to

agriculture productivity and could affect global forests, which serve as an additional food supply

(Drèze, 1990). The effects of climate change on farming and food security may differ among

regions. The difficulties differ both inside and between the nations that require evaluation. Extreme

episodic occurrences, climatic variability, and climate change are posing a worldwide problem that

could have a significant impact on many countries (Olesen and Bindi, 2002).

2.2.1 India's current food security system

Constitutional Provision: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to exist in a

humane manner, which may include the right to food and other essentials, even if the right to food

is not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Buffer Stock: It is the primary responsibility of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to purchase

food grains at the minimum support price (MSP), store them in various warehouses, and distribute

them to the state governments in accordance with their needs.

Public Distribution System: Over time, as the country's food industry has expanded, so too has

the Public Distribution System's significance as a governmental policy element. PDS is not

intended to replace a particular product; rather, it is intended to be utilized as a supplement. The

present PDS distribution to the States and UTs includes sugar, rice, wheat, and paraffin.
Additionally, PDS outlets are used by a number of states and union territories (UTs) to distribute

edible oils, spices, iodized salt, pulses, and other commodities intended for public consumption

(Dantwala, 1993; Dandekar, 1994).

National Food Security Act of 2013 (NFSA): With the passage of time, the welfare model of

addressing food security was replaced with a rights-based model. Around 50% of people living in

cities and 75% of those living in rural areas are covered by NFSA under:

❖ Asantidaya Yojana Anna: The poorest of the poor, who make up this group, are

entitled to 35 kg of food grains per home per month.

❖ Priority Households (PHH): Each member of a family that falls under this category

is eligible to receive five kilogrammes of food grains each month. A ration card can

only be issued to the oldest female member of the household who is at least eighteen

years old.

2.3 Public Distribution System

Making food grains affordable and widely available is the primary objective of the Indian Food

Security Policy. Hence, the objectives are to: (i) supply a enough or suitable amount of food grains;

and (ii) distribute those food grains at a fair price. After World War II, the public distribution

method attempts to achieve two simultaneous goals (Dandekar, 1994). The PDS, according to the

Indian government, intends to keep our population's nutritional status at optimal levels while

shielding customers from the effects of growing costs. In order to mitigate scarcity and discourage

speculative impulses, the PDS supplies stabilise open market prices by increasing supply (Mooij,

1999).

2.3.1 PDS in India: HISTORY

'Arthashastra' by Kautilya is the foundation of food security via PDS.In his research on strategies

to mitigate the effects of hunger, he makes the following recommendations:

• Provide food and seeds from the royal store to the general people on a concessional

basis.

• Initiate food-for-work programmes by constructing forts or launching irrigation

projects.

• Disperse the royal food supplies.

• Commandeer personal food supplies for general consumption.

• Ask kings who are friendly for help.

• The affected population's temporary relocation to a different area.

• Encourage temporary relocation to other nations.

• Move everyone in the population, including the King and Court to an area or

territory bordered by rivers, lakes, or the sea that receives an abundance of crops.

• Enhance the harvest by cultivating an abundance of fruits, vegetables, and cereals;

engage in fishing; hunt game, poultry, and cattle.

In Kautilya, social protection was both a state and a private concern. The family's head was

principally in charge of providing for the needs of the parents, kids, wives, younger siblings, and

children who were single or widowed. Without providing for his wife and children first, no one

could ever become an ascetic. All the same, the state was obligated to provide a safety net and

safeguard the weak, the old, the childless, and the children (Mooij, 1999).

Starvation and food shortages during India's British colonial rule are deeply ingrained in the history

of PDS. The plundering of the Bengal by colonists from the East India Company in 1770 was the
main cause of the famine that killed over a million people. Twenty significant famines and

scarcities occurred between 1860 and 1910. The final famine in British India occurred in Bengal

in 1943 (Mooij, 1999).

Following the East India Company's closure in 1858, a number of committees published findings

on British India. The reports on famine by Baird Smith in 1860–1860, the Commission on Famine

in 1880, the application of famine codes, the Commission on Famine in 1896–1897 on famines,

the Commission on Famine in 1899–1900 on famines, and the Committee on Famine on Famine

in Bengal in 1945. "The planning of massive public works was the foundation of the famine relief

approach articulated in the Famine Codes" (Mooij, 1999).

Following independence, Indian farming persisted through the 1943 Bengal Famine and the

subsequent food shortages caused by World War II. The food crisis in India's agricultural sector

prompted the masses to take action. By 1947, formal rationing had encompassed over 54 million

people, and public distribution in urban areas had covered an additional 19 million people

(Majumdar and Bhaskar, 1998). Procurement, buffer stock, public distribution, importations,

limitations on internal food grain movement, export controls, and other measures are among the

GOI's food grain intervention programmes. It is not necessary to apply any of these acts

simultaneously. It was in 1943 that the first Food Grain Policy Committee proposed informal

restrictions in rural regions. Stated differently, food grains were permitted to be produced in rural

regions and sold on a free or open market (Majumdar and Bhaskar, 1998). It was expected that the

government will lift the limitations on food grain production, distribution, and pricing after

independence. The Food Grains strategy Committee recommended progressive deregulation of the

food grains industry in 1947, and the Government of India announced a strategy of gradual

decontrol in November 1947. The eventual expectation that a lack of management would lead to
stock market disruption, an increase in buying, and price stability did not materialise, and prices

began to rise quickly. As a result, an agreement was reached in September 1948 to reverse the

controls. Purchasing enough stock for public distribution became essential after controls

reappeared (GOI, 1976, Part I, p. 145).

The Food Grains Investigation Committee was formed by the Government of India in response to

complaints about the quality of supplied food grains. The committee reported back to the

government on April 30, 1950, confirming the concerns that had been raised since August 1949

(Dreze, 1990). A Food Grain Procurement Committee was established on February 8, 1950, based

on a recommendation from the All India Food Ministers' Conference, which was convened in

August 1949, in light of the ongoing discrepancy between public procurement and procurement

obligations. "Monopolies of food grain purchases, the abolition of the free market, imposition of

complete statutory rationing in cities of 50 000 and above population, and informal rationing

elsewhere" were the policies promoted by the Committee on Food Grains Procurement in 1950.

The government of India recognised the dangers associated with any decontrol scheme, so on July

8, 1952, it issued the 1952 order for food grains (licensing and procurement). Any person or entity

not duly licensed by the State Governments could not purchase, sell, or store food commodities

for sale according to this directive (Dreze, 1990).

The government was given the authority to regulate the production, supply, exchange, and

distribution of necessary goods for equitable distribution by the necessary goods Act of 1955. The

1964 Food Grains Price Committee made a recommendation, and in January 1965 the Committee

on Agricultural Prices was established. The crucial point is that the Committee's recommended

floor or support price for major food grains for 1964–1965 was "generally higher than the average

post-harvest prices during the preceding three seasons". Therefore, the price of producers and
sellers would not drop right away as a result of public distribution. An appropriate minimum

support price for farmers should cover their production costs and enable a sufficient margin of

profit, as acknowledged by the National Agriculture Commission (Platteau, 1990).

The Essential Commodity (EC) Act was enacted in 1955 with the goal of advancing trade

governance. The EC Act of 1955 granted the power to establish the public distribution system to

the public authorities. However, restrictions on distribution and commerce were not originally

imposed by the 1955 Act. Naturally, it was the pioneering effort in Post-Independence India. A

number of control measures were implemented by the UK Colonial Government in accordance

with Indian Defence Laws. The Critical Supply Act (Temporary Powers) came into force in 1946

and was later superseded by the EC Act in 1955 (Platteau, 1990). As per the Act, there has been a

significant surge in the number of commodities designated required, from 10 in 1955 to 60 in 1992.

The EC (Special Provisions) Act was renewed for an additional five years in August of 1992.

Food grains are supplied by a network of FPSs approved by state/UT governments in India; each

of these stores is designed to feed 2,000 people. As of March 31, 1995, the number of FPS, which

was above 4 lakhs in March 1992, had increased to over 4.33 lakhs. The majority of FPSs are

found in rural regions. In 1995, there were three times as many FPSs in rural than in urban regions.

Rather than importing, food grains are still purchased domestically for distribution through PDS.

The Green Movement in the '60s was a major factor in making this happen (Kaslryap, 2002). The

PDS quickly became the anti-poverty initiative's fulcrum. The Green Revolution's massive grain

harvest is in line with the idealistic goals of expanding the PDS to include all people, whether they

live in cities or the country. Under this arrangement, food grains are provided to customers through

PDS at a price determined by the government's purchase of feed grains. The Government of India
has said unequivocally that pay prices ought to be a major component of its agricultural policy

from the beginning.

An Act of Parliament revived the concept of state trade in January 1965 when the GOI established

the FCI. In 1965, the Commission for Agrarian Prices and Costs (formerly known as the

Agricultural Price Commission) and the FCI came for price establishment and procurement,

respectively. As a result, after 1965, institutional structures and protocols for the acquisition,

stocktaking, assessment, and distribution of food grains were established. Let's take a quick look

at how the public delivery system is maintained and enhanced (Platteau, 1990).

2.3.2 Rationale of PDS

The insufficiency of the entire food grain supply to provide food grain accessibility highlights the

importance of the public distribution system's social safety net. However, automatic utilisation

cannot be guaranteed by manufacturing alone. The start of the first manufacturing is a territory

that is unknown to humans. Humans are forced to change their surroundings (those that are

accessible to them) by virtue of their need to survive or begin a material life. An individual

produces first work regardless of his own decision or the existence of any agreement. Due to two

factors, this one-time duty turns into a societal phenomenon: (i) the person's incapacity to provide

all the resources required; and (ii) the impartiality of any one person's decision-making.

Particularly, the above cannot equally satisfy everyone on the relative control that each person has

over resources that have been generated. As a result, command disparity over commodities is

produced. The disparities in instructions are based on the disparity in resources, which refers to

the uneven resources that the owners hold and transform in terms of commodity output (Kaslryap,

2002). The implication is that a person does not have the right to eat just because food is present
in the market or economy. Both the urban poor with little purchasing power and the impoverished

in rural parts of emerging nations with low incomes are frequently denied the right to food,

regardless of whether they receive unemployment benefits or have a regular paid job (HRMI,

2022).

Being impoverished and having the right to food are identical with each other. Even having the

opportunity to purchase does not ensure food safety in the absence of an efficient distribution

mechanism. We examine cross-sectional (societal under-protection) in this study. As

acknowledged by the State of India in the 10th Planning Commission: "Food grains are insufficient

to ensure the safety of the impoverished. The impoverished need to be able to afford food. The

impoverished can be made to purchase food in two ways: by increasing their earnings or by

providing subsidized food grains. The PDS method is the second choice, even though Job

Services tries the first one.

The fact that India was once a colonial power supports the fact that there were significant famines

and shortages during a period when the nation had an excess of food and exported a lot of it."The

complete scarcity of food resulting from unpredictable natural whims" was not the primary cause

of starvation in British India, at least not at the national level. An economy's ability to regulate the

food consumed by its diverse economic segments is contingent upon a number of institutional and

legal elements, such as ownership and control of food, goal-setting, political will and competence,

governance, and goal setting. Similar to the Ethiopian food crisis of 1973, there was no connection

between the 1974 famine in Bangladesh and a decline in food supply (74).

A portion of the population has historically underconsumed food, yet there is no link between the

supply of food per capita and this phenomenon. Despite their differences, food security and self-
sufficiency are related to economic inequality in a nation. This inequality manifests itself in

different ways depending on the region in question. Food safety is not guaranteed by macro food

self-sufficiency (using the single unit a food economy). The population of several Latin American,

Asian, and African nations is substantial and growing. This expanding scope is causing hunger

and malnourishment in many. Approximately 20.0% of Africa's total export revenue came from

food imports in the mid-1980s, up from 16.0% in 1980 (Rao, 1995).

If domestic food supply cannot keep up with demand, an economy will have to import food; in the

meantime, poverty and hunger will result from the lowest segments of the population's lack of

purchasing power (Swaminathan, 1996). The difficulty lies in making sure that the weaker sectors

of the economy continue to have access to food, even if it means importing food. However, in a

large country like India, home to more than a billion people, the capacity to import food has

become increasingly restricted. For instance, India produced five times as much rice as the entire

globe in 1989, but only half as much wheat.

India was the world's leading producer of wheat (10.0%) and rice (21.2%) in 1989 (Indrakant and

Rao, 2003). Since the entire demand for food requirements cannot be supplied even by joint export

from the rest of the globe, the wisest course of action for a major economy like India is to avoid

relying on food imports to ensure food certainty. This is because, while poor nations primarily

cultivate food to maintain food balance within their own economies, rich nations have shifted away

from food production. As a result, it is reasonable for the government to meddle in the allocation

of food production.

Over the course of twenty years, cereal consumption per capita in all Indian nations fell from 15.3

kg to 13.4 kg, according to statistics from the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). Over
the twenty years ending in 1993–1994, India's food share dipped from about 73% to 55%. This

fall occurred in every country. Food shares have decreased for the first (poor) quartile across all

income levels, according to the NSSO, even though the poor still spend the most of their money

on food—even more so than the non-poor. That would seem to be implied by Engel's Rule, which

states that declining food shares accompany economic growth. We presume that the opposite is

not always true: falling and falling food shares correspond to rising economic growth (Indrakant

and Rao, 2003). The social underpinnings of this development would be poor and unsustainable,

even if it implies economic progress. The underlying reasons why food consumption is lowered

can frequently be hidden by the underprivileged segments of society who tend to have more

flexible eating patterns. "Reduced food consumption could be an early response to the risk of a

failure of rights, which is apparently motivated at least in part by the protection of productive

assets," as one example states (Rao, 1995). On the other hand, shifting dietary composition may

be the cause of a decline in per capita food intake. According to the Bennett Law, consumers are

moving more and more towards an expensive diet that prioritises quantity above quality. The

Indian version of the NSSO data has confirmed this.

The decline in coarse cereal consumption, which occurred between 1972–1973 and 1993–1994

and per capita per month from 4.8 kg to 2 kg, is the only factor contributing to the per capita cereal

consumption decline. Even while wheat consumption increased from 3.9 kg to 4.4 kg per person

per month, it wasn't enough to offset the overall fall in grain consumption. There was very little

variation in the quantity of rice eaten over this time. While non-poor regions' consumption of rice

and wheat remained relatively unchanged, NSSO data indicated that lower income groups

substituted coarse cereals with rice more frequently than other income groups. One possible

explanation is that the non-poor fraction already eats enough cereal to feel full. The impoverished
go from less expensive to more expensive cereals before their income shifts from grain to non-

cereal.

This implies switching from coarse grains to either wheat or rice, or both, from the Indian point of

view. PDS is still a crucial instrument for upholding the Indian government's economic policy of

safeguarding the weak. The goal of government intervention in the food grain market is to secure

food grains for public distribution and maintain buffer inventories, which will protect consumer

interests and ensure that the prices of essential commodities remain constant over the long run

(Rao, 1995). In addition to providing farmers with financial incentives to increase agricultural

expenditure and raise output, food grain purchase would prevent market prices from falling below

support levels in the case of a surplus or for any other reason.

The Government of India's goal has been to ensure that farmers receive their product prices and

are not forced to sell their produce in distress since the beginning of the 1970s. This is especially

true during the harvest season when the minimum price of support (MSP) policy is in place (GOI,

1998-99, p.73). Procurement rates are determined by government support prices, as the

government has declared. Buying wheat, rice, and coarse grain is a completely voluntary

endeavour. Farmers and state agencies can purchase products from producers at support prices, or

producers can sell their products openly or on the FCl/State market(GOI, 1998-99, p. 70). Since

the government always has grains available, food grain prices fluctuate less, which is why the PDS

aims to maintain market stability. This lessens scarcity and keeps an eye on speculative trends

(Swaminathan, 1996).

Helping the underprivileged and marginalised segments of society is the aim of this PDS. It also

promises to keep a careful eye on high-risk areas, deserts, tribal communities, urban slums, and
steep terrain. To aid the tribal and rural communities in remote and underdeveloped areas, a

campaign was launched in June 1992 to reinforce PDS and other items like as tea, soap, iodized

salt, and pulse(GOI, 1994-95, p. 78). Poverty and insufficient infrastructure are typically the root

causes of this unique programme. Family members of the BPL were to receive food grains at

heavily subsidised rates (GUI, 1998-99, p. 69). The importation of food grains at government-set

rates was necessary for the implementation of PDS and TPDS. In order to ensure that farmers

could maintain their current levels of production, the government allegedly purchased food grains

to provide them with price protection. To shield PDS and other susceptible market segments from

potential market shifts, it functioned as a weapon (Swaminathan, 1996).

2.3.3 Public distribution system and food security

Rao, V.M. (1995) discussed food security in the context of change. In order to lessen the load on

the federal government and free it from its hegemony over PDS, he suggested that the states

assume control of PDS. He advised governments to foster an atmosphere that would encourage

greater involvement from neighbourhood-level organisations. This would guarantee that public

services would be provided to all eighteen countries, and that the policies and initiatives pertaining

to food security for the poor would also be successful.

Madhura Swaminathan (1996) conducted research on the topics of structural adjustment, food

security, and public distribution of food systems. During this phase of structural adjustment, the

author concentrated on modifications to the Public Distribution System, or the subsidised food

distribution system. She also examined some of the global experience about modifications to food

subsidy programmes during the structural adjustment. She talked about the significant policy shifts

that India has experienced since 1991. She also touched on some of the PDS's variances and how
they affect food security. In this study, she concentrated on Maharashtra. The study's primary

conclusions are as follows: first, a significant percentage of poorer households do not use the

Public Distribution System because the market offers cheaper food; second, the amount of cereals

purchased from the system is typically very low; and third, both adults and children suffer from

high levels of nutritional deprivation. She came to the conclusion that the country's PDS needed

change in order to provide the majority of the population with access to basic food.

A study on PDS was conducted by Indrakant S. (2003) on five villages in the state of Andhra

Pradesh. Each of the five villages has a different level of farming patterns, irrigation capability,

and economic growth. Nettempadu, Singtham, Jaggasagar, Narsayapalem, and Machavaram are

the five villages. Here, the villages of Singtham (Medak District) and Nettempadu (Mahabubnagar

District) are backward districts. In the Karimnagar District, Jaggasagar's third village is a

reasonably developed community. On the other end of the spectrum, two developed villages from

the Guntur District (Narasayapalem and Machavaram) were chosen. He talked about a number of

trends in the supply, procurement, and manufacturing of rice and other cereals (Jyotishi and

Bedamatta, 2011). According to his research, the state's seven districts consistently produced less

rice than needed. Using a stratified random sampling technique, he polled 219 households in total

from the five villages. The author conducted a field survey using a standardised questionnaire that

was divided into two rounds. He classified the household based on three standards. These are the

average employment per worker, the level of consumer consumption, and the extent of operational

holdings. To determine how much the Public Distribution System contributes to food security, he

examined three metrics: the total amount of rice purchased, the total amount of rice consumed, and

the total amount of cereal consumed. In the five Andhra Pradesh villages he chose, he also looked

at the standard of living, patterns of consumer spending, consumption of grains and cereals, the
Public Distribution System's assistance with food security, the distribution of card holders, and

targeting errors. Lastly, he offered several different plans that would put less of a strain on the

government and increase food security for the impoverished (Krishnan, 1992).

A 2004 article by Susmita Priyadarshini on food security “A case study centred on the Indian state

of Assam”. She described how the Targeted PDS system, which was implemented in Assam in

1997, works. Under the scheme, rice is provided to BPL families on a monthly basis at a cost of

Rs. 4.00 per kilogramme. In Assam, this rice exclusively distributed special cards (Red). She

gathered original data for her research from the state of Assam. She polled 45 owners of fair price

shops and 75 randomly chosen TPDS beneficiaries. In this poll, TPDS recipients included slum

dwellers, blacksmiths, fruit and flower vendors, rickshaw pullers, and coolies. She created two

distinct surveys for fair price store owners and TPDS recipients. She discovered from her survey

that both fair price business owners and customers had numerous issues or concerns. She decided

on the Assamese Kamrup 20 District. She chose 50 sample homes from the Kamrup district in

Guwahati city and 25 sample homes from Jarhat village for the TPDS survey sample. She

discovered numerous fake cards, irregularities and inadequacies, a lack of vigilance, and no

consultation with BPL households in this study from the sample district. She chose a total of 45

fair pricing store owners for her study, 15 of whom were from the Kamrup district's Jarhat hamlet

and 30 of whom were from Guwahati. She discovered that fair price shop owners receive minimal

transportation costs, and that godowns have issues such as being too far from ration shops and

having inadequate storage space (Dev and Suryanarayana, 1991).

Amalendu Jyotishi and Satyasiba Bedamatta (2010) essay titled "Some Policy Issues in the Indian

Agriculture Sector Aiming for Food Security." The four key components of food security—

availability, accessibility, absorption, and sustainability—are described by the author. In order to

comprehend the state of agriculture during the past few decades, this article examined the

industry's general situation, paying particular attention on food security. They investigate supply

and demand aspects as well as environmental, technological, credit, retail, and marketing options.

Ultimately, the authors came to the conclusion that improving national food security would have

policy ramifications (Balakrishnan and Ramaswami, 1997).

2.3.4 Food security and Poverty

In his 1992 study, Krishnan T.N. explored the reasons behind the Indian economy's achievements

and shortcomings in terms of population assimilation. He linked this to issues with development

planning and the expenses associated with rapid population increase in terms of reducing poverty

in the nation. He established a connection between population increase and food grain production,

and he also elucidated how these factors influenced inter-state variations in food grain

consumption. Despite a significant increase in food grain production, poverty and the inability of

the poor to access food continued since production shifted from a surplus to a deficit state, meaning

that per capita availability remained mostly unchanged for decades. Nonetheless, a more

significant change in recent years has been India's exportation of food grains to countries

experiencing shortages, since trends indicate a rise in per capita availability. (Dev, 2000) Over

time, there was an internal growth in the differences in the states' per capita food production. He

clarified that the Public Distribution System (PDS) transfers food grains from states with surplus

production to those in need, thereby reducing the difference in per capita consumption between

states. Additionally, this gave the impoverished access to grains at fair costs through stores that

offered discounts. In his words, "the interstate disparities in per capita consumption of cereals were

declined when compared to 22 early 1980's."

Mahendra Dev. S (1996) looks at the PDS and Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) in relation

to two large Indian states, Maharashtra and West Bengal, in order to investigate the problems of

poverty and food security. His research was based on information from the 42nd and 43rd rounds

of the National Sample Survey (NSSO), which covered the years 1986–1987 and 1987–1988,

respectively. He has investigated the states' rural vs urban food security. Four key areas of interest

were covered in this study: poverty and unemployment, poor people's access to the public

distribution system, PDS vs. EGS, targeting, and the efficient operation of the public distribution

system. According to him, poverty can be decreased by properly directing the public distribution

system. In order to prevent distress purchases, he contends that food security is covered by the

public distribution system. He looked at how the public distribution system is more widely used

than employment guarantee programmes (Jha and Srinivasan, 2001). Lastly, he pointed out that

because the public distribution system only benefits those with purchasing power, it does not

provide food security for the impoverished. He proposed that the introduction of different anti-

poverty programmes, such as public distribution systems, health facilities, and self-employment,

has an impact on food security.

In their study, Balakrishnan P. and Bharat Ramaswami (1997) contended that customer switches

regarding the open market and PDS caused by quality dissimilarities are essential to understanding

the price development in food grain marketplaces. They examined the consequences for policy

formulation as well and made the case that the poor's living conditions are negatively impacted by

quality disparities. They examined the problems surrounding the open market pricing of wheat.

Based on data available from 1971 to 1994, they tested the price of wheat on a monthly average

of 23; over this time, the issue price of wheat fluctuated. They said that in the area of delivered
goods' quality variances, customers demanded the subsidised good (Indrakant and Harikishan,

2003).

Mahendra Dev .S (2000) pointed out that not enough policies or initiatives had been put in place

to stop the worrying patterns in poverty, rural development, and agriculture. He gave an

explanation of the development and progress of agriculture. The techniques required for the

development of agriculture and the efficiency of the Public Distribution System were covered in

this study. He maintained that governmental spending on irrigation and agricultural research is

crucial to generating higher growth rates for agricultural commodities (Banerjee, 2010). He took

issue with the budget, saying it did not pay enough attention to technology advancements that

could help Indian agriculture discover all the answers it needs to ensure food security. He made a

solid case for increasing funding for agricultural research. He recommended encouraging food

grain exports and tying food grains into public labour initiatives in order to have access to buffer

reserves.

In 2001, Shika Jha and P.V. Srinivasan conducted a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and

disadvantages associated with the PDS process for food grains in India. Their paper, "Taking the

PDS to the poor: Directions for future reform," described how subsidies aimed at the impoverished

cause the Public Distribution System's benefits-cost ratio to rise. The authors emphasised the direct

advantages of implementing the Public Distribution System, citing a rise in both production and

consumer surplus. They looked at the shortcomings in the system, the Indian Food Corporation's

function, and the distribution operations in comparison to those of private agents, particularly in

the last several years (Howes and Jha, 1992). They also looked at the possible advantages 24 of

geographic targeting and talked about the challenges associated with providing PDS to the

underprivileged. Here, they clarified that the Public Distribution System's ability to give the
impoverished food security has been limited. This is mostly because, prior to 1980, the Public

Distribution System was used exclusively in metropolitan areas, was universal, and did not target

the poor particularly; instead, a sizable amount of the subsidies went to the non-poor. The potential

for leaks presents serious issues for the Public Distribution System. It is because BPL families'

market and ration prices differ more than average. In conclusion, they recommended cutting down

on cost inefficiencies in the distribution and procurement processes, preventing grain from being

diverted from the Public Distribution System to the open market, and having the federal

government give food subsidies to the states so they can buy food grains for their Public

Distribution Systems.

Impact of PDS on Poverty - A Micro Level Study, Indrakant. S. and Hari Kishan. S. (2003). In

this article, it was discussed how the Public Distribution System (PDS) is one tool utilised in India

to improve the lives of the underprivileged who endure chronic hunger and poverty. This study

aims to address a few key concerns, such as: Does the impact of subsidies on poverty vary

throughout villages with varying levels of development? and if the advantages justify the

expenses? This essay also examined the Andhra Pradesh government's ration coupon programme,

which was implemented in the late 1990s. The conclusion of this research discussed how PDS's

efficacy as a tool for reducing poverty has changed over time. The analysis also reveals that the

fake cards have not been completely eradicated by the coupon programme.

In his analysis, Arindam Banerjee (2010) looked at nine geographical regions, comprising 141

countries, mostly developing or underdeveloped. He tried to see if there was any evidence of

successful food importing strategies across the regions, thereby maintaining or increasing their per

capita food availability even as per capita food production declined due to exports oriented

agriculture strategies. He also looked at the total availability of cereal in these areas at the times
when normative output was declining. Lastly, he noted that while food production has increased

somewhat in a few regions, such as Latin America, North Africa, and Southeast Asia, it has

decreased in other regions, such as the Caribbean and West Asia, and there has been no appreciable

increase in Central America and South Asia.

2.3.5 The Public Distribution System (PDS) and urban bias

Radhakrishna R and Indrakant S (1988) used the rice markets of Andhra Pradesh as a case study

to investigate how market intervention affected welfare policy in India. The model was designed

to shift the impact of policy on consumer welfare from gross revenue accumulation to rice makers

and millers. The understanding of how a four-market, four-price structure interacts with a rice

market. But because A.P. is a rice-surplus state, it is determined that the study is solely applicable

to that state.

In India, the PDS offers food security to the most vulnerable people, according to research by

Mahendradev.S and Suryanarayana.M.H. (1991), although it was skewed towards urban areas and

mostly benefited middle-class and upper-class people. Their analysis, which focused on social

consumption in 1986–1987, was based on secondary 26 data, specifically the 42nd set of NSS

data. After gathering the data, they got in touch with 27,736 urban and 47,827 rural households.

In order to determine whether or not PDS was urban-biased, they gathered data using four different

criteria: the share of the rural sector in the overall public distribution system as indicated by the

ratio of PDS purchases to total purchases, the quantity of PDS purchased per capita, and the

quantity purchased per market dependent. The findings of their analysis of data at the national

level for all of India demonstrated that the PDS did not benefit the middle class or the wealthy;

rather, almost every demographic in rural areas relied on the PDS for all goods.
Stephen Howes and Shikha Jha (1992) used three key metrics to analyse the differences in urban

bias levels among the states: 1. Urban Bias; 2. PDS grain consumption quantities; and 3. Implicit

subsidies and ration store accessibility. In many Indian states, rural areas are more accessible than

metropolitan ones when it comes to crowds and distances between ration shops. They claim that

the average intake of PDS foodgrains by rural dwellers was almost 70%, with a comparable

improvement of 20% in 1978. On the other hand, urban dwellers are receiving sugar through PDS

on par with rural areas in terms of implied subsidies. They must investigate how PDS consumption

is distributed among the population's urban and rural segments.

The public distribution in India during the liberalisation and structural adjustment initiatives was

the main topic of Jos E. Mooij's 1994 article. She talked on the Public Distribution System's

viability and benefits' distribution. In order to investigate food distribution and the amount of PDS

food allotted to Karnataka and 27 other states, the author chose to focus on that state rather than

Kerala. She gathered information for this study from a field survey conducted in the years 1990–

1991 in the state of Karnataka regarding the production and distribution of food grains. She

conducted interviews with over 150 rural residents in fifteen distinct villages. Here, she addressed

the proprietors of all fair pricing stores, warehouse managers, and moneylenders. Ultimately, she

came to the conclusion that Karnataka state consumers received very little advantage from PDS.

According to Suryanarayana M.H. (1995), the evaluation of the PDS has had a significant impact

on the context of agriculture's enormous growth. As a result, the design and framework of PDS, as

well as its scope and policies, have undergone significant reform by decoupling agricultural policy

from food policy. He claims that ensuring food security for the entire population entails ensuring

food is both economically and physically available. While poverty alleviation efforts aimed to

increase economic accessibility, PDS addressed physical accessibility. He claims that India's food
policy was initially limited to providing physical access to food in urban areas and places

experiencing food shortages, but it eventually expanded to include providing poor and vulnerable

households with economic access to food.

2.3.6 Redesigned Public Distribution System

A considerable portion of the poor population lives in rural, mountainous, isolated, and otherwise

difficult-to-reach areas; in June 1992, the government launched the Redesigned Public Distribution

System (RPDS) with the goal of expanding PDS service to these areas. The PDS's simplification

and reinforcement were its intended outcomes. The area-specific programmes, which included the

Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP), Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDP), and

Desert Development Programme (DDP), were implemented across 1,775 blocks. A small number

of Designated Hill Areas (DHA) was also included, which were chosen for special attention after

consulting with the state government. At a price 50 paise lower than the Central Issue Price, food

grains were provided to the states for distribution in RPDS zones. It was a massive issue, affecting

up to 20 kilogrammes each card.

The RPDS included extra ration cards for those families who weren't able to get them, a plan to

ensure that the State Governments could still transport PDS products to FPSs in the designated

areas, necessary infrastructure like more Fair Price Shops and storage facilities, and more

commodities like tea, salt, pulses, soap, and more to be circulated through PDS outlets.

Reorganising the public distribution system was examined in 1993 by Geetha S. and

Suryanarayana M.H. for its crucial components. The purposes of this research are to define the

public distribution system's objectives and to examine state-level distribution inconsistencies.

Reports and records from federal, state, and municipal governments were used to perform this
study, which is based on secondary data and information regarding food grain distribution to the

general people. They addressed a number of plans from 1973 to 1989. The extent of the subsidies

was not as concerning in the early 1970s as it was in the 1990s. Even if the national budget's food

security subsidy has not increased, economists and decision-makers believed that it should be

increased in line with advancements. There have been several attempts to limit food subsidies via

changing PDS. The primary goal of the revisions was to give food grains at a reduced cost to the

underprivileged while leaving the program's better-off participants out. Renovating the PDS to

connect to underserved areas and classes by removing the non-poor from the programme has

received a lot of attention lately. These strategies lower the food subsidy while also protecting the

weaker groups. Consequently, the federal government's budget deficit came to the conclusion that

improving the public distribution system required more than just setting goals; it also required

building the infrastructure that was required, especially in the states of Bihar and Orissa, such as

storage facilities and distribution networks.

According to an essay by Kripa Shankar (1997) titled "Revamped Public Distribution System -

who benefits and how much," the PDS programme was first primarily focused on metropolitan

regions. After the PDS was renovated, it later expanded to rural and isolated areas. Twenty-one

isolated tribal communities in the Hallia block of Uttar Pradesh's Mirzapur district—which borders

Madhya Pradesh—were the study's sites. A total of 1569 households were present, of which 599,

or 38%, lacked a land. Eleven percent of the households owned more than two acres, while thirteen

percent were marginal farmers.The survey discovered that 21 isolated tribal settlements are not

receiving PDS supplies. Following its implementation in 1992, the RPDS was mostly used by

residents in remote and hilly locations.

Both surplus and deficit states were covered in the 1975 study "PDS and Its Coverage of

Vulnerable Sections of the Society" by Gulati, I.S. and Krishnan, T.N. They said that households

in metropolitan areas and non-agricultural rural households, including agricultural labourers, made

up the economically disadvantaged groups. According to the authors, the levy procurement system

is unfair and causes farmers to have a number of issues.

2.3.7 Targeted Public Distribution System

With a primary focus on the impoverished, the Indian government introduced the Targeted Public

Distribution System (TPDS) in June 1997. The PDS mandated that States develop and put into

action specific initiatives to determine who qualifies as impoverished in order to supply food grains

and distribute them in an accountable and transparent way at the FPS level. Approximately 72 lakh

tonnes of food grains are set aside annually for approximately 6 crore underprivileged families,

who were the target audience for the scheme when it was first developed. Based on State-by-State

estimates of poverty from the Planning Commission for 1993–1994 and the methodology used by

the "Expert Group on estimation of proportion and number of poor," assembled by the late Prof.

Lakdawala, the plan identified the disadvantaged States. Food grains were distributed to the States

and Union Territories (UTs) at the start of the TPDS based on the average of their historical

consumption or their average annual off-take under the PDS for the ten years prior (Kriesel and

Zaidi, 1999).

Every year, the government set aside 103 lakh tonnes of food grains for what was called a

"transitory allocation," which was the amount of grain that households living below the poverty

line (BPL) did not need. Extra funds were distributed to the states in addition to the TPDS budget.

The interim allocation was put in place to make sure that that Above the Poverty Line (APL)

continued to get subsidized food grains since it was considered unpleasant to suddenly cut off their
benefits from the PDS. Despite receiving subsidies, the food grain BPL ration was sold at a lower

price than the temporary allotment.

The agreement to concentrate food subsidies and increase the supply of food grains to BPL families

went into effect on 1.4.2000, with APL families receiving their allotment at economic cost and

BPL households receiving an increase in their monthly food grain amount from 10 to 20 kg at 50%

of economic cost. Following the implementation of TPDS, the distribution of APL families

remained unchanged. However, starting from that point on, the Central Issue Prices (CIPs) for

APL were set at 100% of the financial cost. This allowed the whole consumer subsidy to be

directed towards the BPL population. Despite sharp increases in procurement costs, the CIPs for

APL and BPL, which were set in July 2002 and December 2000, respectively, have remained

unchanged.

The total number of families living below the poverty line as of December 1, 2000, was calculated

by switching from the previous demographic forecast based on 1995 to the Registrar General's

census predictions as of January 3, 2000. Although estimates of 596.23 lakhs families were made

when TPDS was first launched in June 1997, with this rise there were 652.03 lakhs families

altogether.

The final retail price under the TPDS was determined by the States/UTs after accounting for levies,

local taxes, transportation costs, and wholesaler/retailer margin. It was previously requested of the

States to provide food grains to BPL families at a differential of not more than 50 paisa per

kilogram above and above the CIP. However, since 2001, the 50 paisa per kg CIP restriction for

food grain distribution under TPDS has been removed, expanding the discretion of States and UTs

in determining retail issue pricing.

The interim allocation was put in place to make sure that the ones Above the Poverty Line (APL)

continued to get subsidized food grains since it was considered unpleasant to suddenly cut off their

benefits from the PDS. Even though it was subsidized, the food grain BPL ration had cheaper

pricing than the temporary allocation. Among the BPL households covered by TPDS in the states,

one crore of the poorest families were identified as part of AAY. They were given food grains at

a substantially subsidized rate of Rs. 2/-per kg for wheat and Rs. 3/-per kg for rice. Transportation

and distribution expenditures, as well as dealer and retailer income, were to be covered by the

states and territories. Consequently, the whole food subsidy was distributed to the consumers under

the programme.

The purpose of Indrakant's (1997) investigation was to determine if food was reaching the right

people or if leaks prevented it from doing so. He has decided to research the coverage and leaks in

the Andhra Pradesh public distribution system. The primary factor in the state's selection since the

early 1980s, Andhra Pradesh has maintained a strict public distribution policy and is a rice-

producing state. The 42nd NSS data was used by the author to demonstrate how 60–70% of

households relied mostly or exclusively on the public distribution system. He clarified that a

significant portion of impoverished homes lack rations cards, while wealthy households who

possessed white cards reaped the benefits. According to this report, Andhra Pradesh only has leaks

at the village and town levels. He investigated the primary causes of leaks in rural areas, which

were found to be low income levels and dishonest business practices by fair price shop vendors.

White card holders in rice surplus districts relied on their home-grown stock, again leaving their

quota unused, and about thirty impoverished households may not buy their full quota, which may

also be delivered to the market. White card holders in rural households apply for white cards in

order to receive the concessional medical facilities in government hospitals, leaving their quota
insured. The two kinds of leakages that he identified are the FCI godown level and the village or

town level. Ultimately, he came to the conclusion that the majority of people in India's developing

areas have access to food from PDS. However, a sizable portion of the recipients were not

impoverished.

MadhuraSwaminathan and Neeta Misra (2001) investigated the mistakes made in distributing food

to the public in a Maharashtra hamlet between 1995 and 2000. They decided on Mohakal village

in Maharashtra's Pune district. Primary data was acquired from the hamlet in two distinct years:

Swaminathan conducted the first survey in December 1995, and Neeta Misra used a very similar

questionnaire for her survey in June 2000. They carried out the survey in two distinct contexts: the

first was during the installation of the universal public distribution system, and the second took

place following the establishment of the targeted public distribution system. They discovered that

while the mistakes of incorrect exclusion increased concurrently with the switch from the universal

to the targeted public distribution system (TPDS), the errors of incorrect inclusion decreased

significantly. The official identification procedure's shortcoming was also noted by the authors.

In their 2001 study titled "Targeting efficiency in the PDS - Case of Andhra Pradesh and

Maharashtra," Bhaskar Dutta and Bharat Ramaswami analysed household consumption data from

the 1993–1994 NSS. It was at the time of the Universal Public Distribution System when the

utilisation of the PS in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh was compared. They discovered that

Andhra Pradesh has a significantly larger percentage of households using the Public Distribution

System (57% of all households) than Maharashtra (33% of all households). They stressed that

practically every single area in Andhra Pradesh has a Public Distribution System retail outlet,

unlike in Maharashtra. Researchers compared the PDS utilisation rates of people from diverse

socioeconomic backgrounds and found that rural Andhra Pradesh had lower exclusion error rates
than rural Maharashtra, but both states had comparable inclusion error rates. They discovered that

while involvement rates decreased with income levels, they did so in Andhra Pradesh somewhat

faster than in Maharashtra. In summary, the overall utilisation was higher in Andhra Pradesh, a

state with a more widely distributed and well-functioning public distribution system. The poor

were excluded with fewer errors, and as income levels decreased, so did utilisation. In this instance,

they looked at the two targeted errors that travelled in the opposite directions: Andhra Pradesh had

more incorrect inclusion errors than Maharashtra, but less incorrect exclusion errors.

2.3.8 Anna Yojana Antodaya (AAY)

AAY was a positive development since it required TPDS to prioritise eradicating hunger among

the most disadvantaged BPL populations. Around 5% of the entire population in the National

Sample Survey Exercise said that the problem was raised from 25 kg per family per month to 35

kg per home per month as of April 1, 2002. Since then, 2.50 crore of the poorest households have

been added to the AAY Scheme, which includes the following:

1. Initial Growth

Fifty thousand extra BPL households headed by widows, terminally sick persons, handicapped

people, or aged 60 and above without a guaranteed means of sustenance or social assistance were

added to the AAY Scheme in 2003–2004. On June 3, 2003, a directive was issued with this

objective in mind. This expansion allowed the AAY to reach 1.5 crore families, or 23% of the BPL

population.

2. The Second Growth

All households at risk of starvation were included in the AAY expansion, which was later increased

by 50 lakh BPL families, as indicated in the Union Budget 2004–05. On August 3, 2004, a directive
was made to such effect. The following criteria were incorporated into the standards to aid in the

identification of such homes:

People who work in the informal economy include those who sell fruits and flowers, those who

charm passers-by with snake charmers, those who pick through trash for rags, those who make

shoes, those who work as porters or coolies, those who pull rickshaws or hand carts, those who

sell fruit and flowers, those who work as snake charmers, those who pick through trash for rags,

those who cobblers, and similar people. They also include underprivileged farmers, ceramicists,

tanners, weaving artisans, blacksmiths, and metal carpenters, as well as those who live in slums.

3. The Third Inclusion

Expanding the AAY to include an additional 50 lakh BPL homes brought the total number of

families it assists to 2.5 crore, or 38% of the BPL population, as stated in the Union Budget 2005-

06. On May 12, 2005, a directive was made to such effect.

2.3.9 Public Distribution System and Subsidy

The issue of the "Public Distribution System, food subsidy and production incentives" was

discussed in George P.S. in 1996. According to him, one of the primary goals of the public

distribution system is to maintain stable pricing for customers in areas where food is in low supply,

such as cities. The food management system aims, among other things, to control the flow of grain

from countries with excess output to those with shortages. Because it provides funding for food

subsidies and price regulation, he claims that India's Public Distribution System is intricately

linked to the food security of the disadvantaged people. He made three criticisms of the Public

Distribution System: first, it exhibits a sectoral bias favouring metropolitan areas; second, it

displays a geographical bias; and third, leaks in the system introduce class bias, particularly when
the poor class is not provided with food security. Lastly, he recommended paying farmers

minimum support prices (MSP) in order to boost the production of food grains.

Using data from the National Sample Survey on public distribution utilisation from 1986 to 1987,

Dev and Suryanarayana (1991) sought to examine the veracity of the assertion that the system is

urbanised and skewed towards the affluent. Depending on the good and the standard employed,

the study shows that the sort of bias differs. The paper explains that the PDS is pro-rural rather

than pro-urban for many commodities under various parameters. Nonetheless, the PDS exhibits an

urban bias in places such as West Bengal. Regarding the question of whether PDS effectively

shields vulnerable communities, the research indicates that PDS has not benefitted middle-class or

wealthy populations. A large number of the population in rural areas depend on the PDS to a

comparable extent for all commodities, despite minor variances. In any case, when it comes to

products like rice, sugar, and edible oils, those who live in poverty in urban areas receive a

substantially bigger share of their overall spending from PDS than do people of means. However,

this was not the case for wheat or paraffin. When comparing how dependent the rich and the poor

are on PDS, it can be seen that in some states, the rich are more dependent than the poor.

In 1991, Rao conducted a study to assess the PDS's sufficiency and examine the Central

Government's PDS strategy in the rural Khanapur Havali area of Andhra Pradesh, a scheduled

caste area, in the Khammam region. The study takes note of the challenges that people confront as

well as the amounts of items that are given and desired. Sixteen families from the chosen ward

were interviewed for the current study.There was a significant discrepancy between supply and

demand when the system was evaluated based on how well the commodities were supplied in

comparison to consumer needs. Except for sugar, the PDS's performance was a complete failure.
Due to a shortage, people started purchasing necessities from private "Kirana" stores.The majority

of complaints included poor quality, FPS dealer overcharging, and unethical marketing.

In 1993, Geeta and Suryanarayana reviewed interstate PDS discrepancies, checked on PDS

objectives during several five-year plans, and made recommendations for ongoing PDS changes.

The data used in the study came from NSS data (on consumer spending) and several issues of the

Bulletin of Food Statistics (published by the federal and state governments). The writers have

utilized the methods of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and T-insights. The study shows that PDS

continued to serve a small population but concentrated on urban and food-deficit areas during the

shift from the first to the sixth five-year plans. However, following that, in the sixth plan, the

necessity of national coverage was acknowledged. Restructuring PDS by removing those who

were not poor and optimizing the distribution and procurement procedures was the aim of the

Eighth Plan. The only states who are PDS concerning total population (PDSTP) increased were

Jammu & Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, Karnataka, Orissa, and Tamil Nadu, reports

the study. While PDSTP remained stagnant in Bihar, it fell in the following states: Gujarat,

Haryana, Maharashtra, Punjab, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh.

Significant differences were found in the state-wise PDS quantity performance as revealed by the

ANOVA on PDSTP data. The data on per capita PDS paints an almost identical picture

(PDSPC).The analysis shows that the poor in places like Jammu Kashmir and Kerala would benefit

if the PDS was limited to the impoverished.

However, it won't make a difference for the impoverished in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya

Pradesh, Orissa, and Bihar. ANOVA performance on the PDSPOOR data reveals that, similar to

PDSTP and PDSPC, there was a considerable interstate variance in PDSPOOR.

Balakrishnan and Ram Swami (1997) investigated the possibility of quality differences between

grains sold through the PDS and those sold in the general market, as well as whether or not

customers perceive a poorer grade of grain supplied by the PDS. The study reveals that the main

process of price shift from the PDS to the open marketplace is the consumer's sense of a quality

disparity of 17 between grain from PDS and independent vendors. However, the study makes the

case that consumers' switching between the open market and the PDS, which is brought about by

a quality differential, is necessary to understand how prices are formed in the food grains market.

According to the study, the explanation for the reverse correlation between the issue price and the

market price is the existence of quality differences.

In 2000, Swami Nathan evaluated India's public distribution system, focusing particularly on the

modifications brought about by the implementation of structural adjustment measures.The paper

examines the successes and failings of PDS and outlines its evolution over time. We took a look

at what other countries have done to see how food subsidies have fared after fiscal reform. Also

considered were the results of such institutional shifts in India. Food insecurity and poverty are

pervasive in India, as shown by the survey. Cereals are a major source of energy; however the

average amount consumed has decreased over time. Approximately 35 percent of the population

spent less than the official poverty threshold in 1993–1994, while 70–80 percent of households did

not consume the daily required amount of calories. Undernutrition affected 50% of adults and 55%

of children, and a significant number of people did not consume enough micronutrients. Significant

inter-state diversity existed in the PDS's operation, with Kerala leading the southern states in being

the most productive in terms of both coverage and quantity provided. According to a study, using

data from the 1986–1987 NSS survey, just 2% of people in Bihar and 98% of people in Kerala,

respectively, bought grains from fair pricing stores. In terms of quantity, Kerala and Bihar received
an average of 69.6 kg and 6.83 kg of food grains annually from PDS in 1991. The impoverished

used PDS more than the rich in states like Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, which have extensive

coverage and an effective distribution network. In states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, which have

ineffective and inefficient PDS, PDS did not help either group. The stark differences in PDS

coverage and operation amongst states had less to do with state poverty and income levels than

they did with the political landscapes of those states. Corrupt administrative policies and system

leaks were two more major problems with the system. Additional research indicates that the

implementation of structural adjustment initiatives in many developing countries has had a

negative impact on food security programmes. Case studies of five nations—Mexico, Jamaica,

Tunisia, Sri Lanka, and Zambia—illustrated how structural adjustment led to a sharp decline in

food subsidies in these nations, which in turn decreased food intake and nutrition among people

that were already at risk. During the liberalisation phase, strategies of structural adjustment in India

also resulted in restricted targeting, which further undermined the delivery system. Following

1991, there were other instances of rising commodity costs and falling supply, which made PDS

less strong. After 1991, it became clear that food inventories were increasing while food take off

from the PDS was decreasing. Evidence suggested that coverage was almost ubiquitous or

universally available.

Researchers Dev and Suryanarayan (1991) looked into how well India's public distribution system

helped with food security and poverty reduction. Averting more famines in India was deemed

PDS's biggest success, according to the study. On the other hand, PDS had a lot of problems, such

favouring the wealthy and urbanites, failing to reach the poor, being inefficient, and not helping

with family food security. Nonetheless, the system's direct and indirect benefits to millions of

India's poor ensured its permanence. Revamped PDS was started with several modifications;
however it was unable to modify the massive and bureaucratic bureaucracy. At that moment, its

global nature was changed to 19 and it was presented in 1997 as Targeted PDS, focusing on the

genuinely impoverished and worthy. It was praised for two reasons: first, it concentrated on the

actual poor, and second, the price at which BPL households could obtain food grains fell within a

reasonable range for the truly impoverished. However, there were several gaps and flaws in TPDS,

and these adjustments had not made much of an impact.

Swaminathan has known about the public distribution system's failure since 2001. This study sheds

light on a difficult economic paradox in India: there are more than 500 million people who are

undernourished or at danger of becoming food insecure, but the government has 45.5 million

metric tonnes of grain on hand—enough to feed more than 600 million people at 70 kilogrammes

per person. The quantity of food grains distributed by PDS has been steadily decreasing. Coming

in at 20.8 million tonnes in 1991, it dropped to 14 million tonnes in 1994, and finally to 10.9

million tonnes in 1999–2000, with the exception of two years, 1995 and 1998. The recent changes

in strategy, particularly the introduction of Targeted PDS, were the cause of this decline. Millions

of defenceless people were left out of the BPL class and, as a result, the PDS due to the focus on

the pay destitution line that was portrayed. Not only did TPDS significantly narrow the parameters

of public food allocation, but it also changed the qualifying threshold from a per capita to a

household standard. The paper claims that PDS has had corruption and inefficiency issues for a

large amount of time.

Jena (2002) analysed the public distribution system's effects and current status using data from the

2001–2002 Annual Report (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution System).

From the first five-year plan to the tenth, the author explains how the public distribution system's

strategy develops. The author cites a plethora of research that show a positive effect on the
nutritional status and overall health of the poor. The author continues by stating that PDS in India

was experiencing certain issues. The system was evaded by 36% of the nation's wheat, 31% of its

rice, and 23% of its sugar. Numerous other issues plagued the system as well, including inadequate

infrastructure, subpar food grains, a lack of accountability, insufficient monitoring, a cost that was

greater than advertised, the inability of the poor to pay with cash at the time of purchase, etc.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of TPDS and its effects on these tribal areas, Shankar oversaw

a research in 2004 in the mostly tribal Duddhi block in the Sonbhadra district in south eastern Uttar

Pradesh, where 57% of the block's population is tribal. In all, 593 households from 21 villages

were present; 463 of these households possessed BPL cards, 119 had Antyodaya cards, and 11 had

Annapurna cards. Families with incomes over the poverty threshold were ineligible since they

lacked any PDS items other than paraffin (WHO, 2007). The investigation indicated that 73% of

BPL cardholders weren't buying anything but grains through the PDS, while residing in extreme

poverty. The Fair Price Shop (FPS) was only open a few days a month and might not have any

inventory; therefore the vast majority of these individuals were unable to visit it because they

worked jobs every day. Taking everything into account, they will most likely not receive their

daily pay as they were frequently visiting the FPSs. People complained about things like

inconsistent FPS openings, little price changes from the open market, and other things. The report

contends that giving the underprivileged access to jobs is essential to guaranteeing food security

(NABARD Research Report, 2022).

3. Methodology

3.1 Rationale of the study

To comprehend the state of food security at the moment so that the research can provide value by

suggesting tactical methods for managing and operating the PDS system in Uttar Pradesh

The Indian government has carried out a number of initiatives for the socioeconomic advancement

of its citizens since gaining independence. The PDS was established in order to begin the enormous

task of elevating the underprivileged, needy, and vulnerable segments of society. PDS is a vital

component of India's food policy and is responsible for giving basic goods at affordable, subsidized

prices to the most vulnerable members of society. In actuality, it is a crucial part of the expansion

with social justice policies. In addition to defending the interests of the underprivileged, PDS aims

to remove intermediary obstacles and shield customers from deceptive tactics including

adulteration, overpricing, profiteering, under weighing, and black marketing, among other

wrongdoings. PDS has been widely implemented in practically every region of the nation due to

its general significance to significant portions of Indian society. Even the PDS, meanwhile, has
ongoing problems with implementation and is far from ideal. Researchers must give these issues

their full attention right once in order to begin working on solutions.

The Public Distribution System in India has been the subject of several research projects since its

establishment. Numerous studies on various areas of PDS are continuously needed and have great

opportunity due to the system's complexity and dynamic nature. The thorough review of the

literature revealed that there aren't many studies about PDS in Uttar Pradesh. Because of the time

period in which the investigations were conducted, their applicability has also become irrelevant.

This work will be a great starting point for more PDS research in the future.

3.2 Statement of the problem

Policy officials, administrators, social scientists, and academics are still concerned about the issue

of hunger and food insecurity caused by poverty, particularly in developing nations. Everyone has

an inherent right to food since it is essential to human life. The ongoing incapacity to fulfil the

right to food is indicative of the global persistence of human hunger. Ironically, hunger is still a

reality in today's society despite an exponential increase in the amount of food produced per person

worldwide in recent years.

India is no longer an exception, housing millions of undernourished and unable to satiate their

hunger. The 2020 Global Hunger Index ranks India at 94 out of 107 nations, just below Nepal,

Pakistan, and Bangladesh, three of its neighbouring countries. Food insecurity persists in several

regions despite the Green Revolution's tremendous success and the recent decrease in poverty.

Poverty, chronic malnutrition, and mortality caused by hunger persist in India despite the fact that

the country produces and stores enough food to meet its own needs. Since independence, the

government has periodically launched significant programmes and initiatives pertaining to social
welfare, employment, and food security with the goal of ending hunger and malnutrition. Some of

these efforts have the potential to be globally unique and revolutionary. Although the National

Food Security Act (NFSA 2013) is a big step in the right direction, hunger, malnutrition, and food

insecurity still pose serious challenges to the nation.

India currently operates the biggest public distribution system in the country, complete with a

sizable buffer store of food grains. Nearly comparable issues with the Targeted Public Distribution

System exist in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State government has been working to alleviate

poverty since the National Food Security Act was introduced. As a result, quick changes have been

made to the current TPDS, such as computerizing beneficiary data records, linking Aadhar cards

to ration cards, creating grievance cells, etc.

3.3 Objectives of the study

i. To study the status and indicators of food security.

ii. To understand the Public Distribution System in India.

iii. To analyze the food Security, availability and accessibility through PDS Mechanisms in

India

iv. To analyze the status of NFSA in Uttar Pradesh

3.4Methodology

a) To find all of the household-level food security research that has been done in India, a
thorough search was conducted. The following search criteria were chosen based on

how the FAO defines food security: "Food insecurity*," "food access*", "food afford*,

*food poverty* ALSO "food secur*," "food supplement,""hung*," "food insufficien*,"

"food sufficien*." "India" "household*" "house*." Examined databases comprising

Comprehensive Academic Search, SCOPUS, Embase, MEDLINE, world Health,

Complete, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and ProQuest. For a complete a compilation of

papers detailing study findings India's household food security had no restrictions on

dates of publishing. Only published peer-reviewed works considered were books,

unpublished articles, and dissertations, theses, and non-peer-reviewed articles were

omitted.

In order to locate relevant research, every item was reviewed. A three-stage evaluation

procedure was employed for the publications. The papers were imported, duplicates

were deleted, and the year, author names, article titles, and journal titles were imported

into Excel for easier perusal. The first step was to screen articles using the inclusion

and exclusion standards, which were based on the title and abstract. Articles that were

obviously ineligible for inclusion were eliminated at this point; those that either did or

would fit the requirements upon more examination were kept. After obtaining the

whole texts of the remaining articles, it was decided whether or not each one satisfied

the inclusion requirements. At this point, any articles that blatantly failed to satisfy the

inclusion requirements were eliminated.

Research that covered food insecurity, either as the standard quantifiable structure or

in the form of an idea invented by the authors and labeled "food insecurity"—was

incorporated into the analysis.

Many non-governmental and international organizations measure the idea of "hunger,"

the nutritional conditions linked to overweight or obesity, or symptoms that could

suggest malnutrition (such anemia or death among children under five). If data were

gathered at the household level, these reports usually do not offer a thorough
 explanation of the technique employed and usually utilize the purchase or cultivation

of crops as a substitute. At this point, the following information was extracted: location,

demographic group, findings, evaluated food security (Y/N), methodology for

estimating food insecurity, and frequency of food insecurity.

b) A thorough search of the literature was carried out to find publications that looked into

the PDS's response to food insecurity in India. Academic Search Complete, CINAHL

Complete, Global Health, GreenFILE, Health Policy Reference Centre, Legal Source,

Scopus, and Medline were among the databases that were included. The search terms

that were used were "India," "Public Distribution System," "PDS," or "TPDS," as well

as "food insecurity" or "food security." The search was limited to articles that had their

entire text published in English due to limits. No time restrictions were imposed on

articles in order to obtain a thorough grasp of the PDS's contribution to long-term food

security.

Articles that met three criteria were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review: they

had to be peer-reviewed, highlight the role of the PDS in addressing food security, and

contain food security or food insecurity as an exposure of interest. Commentaries and

editorials were not included. In order to determine relevancy, both authors went over

every article. According to the inclusion criteria, articles were first reviewed by title

and abstract. We got the whole texts of the chosen papers to review before final

inclusion.

c) One of the key components of this analysis is the application of mixed approaches. To

put the analysis in perspective, we have included some key components of the mixed

approaches I used in my thesis here. Since the main focus of my research is needs
 assessment regarding PDS, I have combined quantitative and qualitative primary

surveys to get a better understanding of community needs and preferences for PDS. In

addition, if necessary, I have analyzed needs and preferences using secondary data from

sources like Village Dynamics Studies in South Asia (ICRISAT).I attempt to

investigate causal relationships between heterogeneity and PDS valuation and

utilization using mixed approaches. Determining the causal mechanisms by which PDS

adoption and valuation increase when it is structured to meet needs and preferences

proved to be a more difficult assignment. There may be a number of complicating

variables when attempting to build these connections, like advancements in

administration or increased knowledge between the right-holders.

d) To measure the food security the following questionnaires by FIES were followed:

QUESTIONNAIRE PART 1

A. NAME/RESPONDENT ID

B. GENDER (Response retrieved from)

1. male

2. female

3. sometimes combined

C. AGE

1. Between 20-25

2. Between 25-30

3. Between 35-40

4. Above 40
D. CHARACTERSTICS (MIGRANTS AND NON MIGRANTS)

1. Migrants

2. Non Migrants

E. INCOME GROUP

1. 1500-2000 Denoted by 0

2. 2000-4000 Denoted by 1

3. 4000-6000 Denoted by 2

4. above 6000 Denoted by 3

F. OCCUPATION(NON FACTORY/FACTORY WORKERS)

1. Factory workers

2. Non Factory workers

3. Self sustained

G. PDS ACCESSIBILITY

1. Accessibility

2. Non Accessibility

H. PDS UTILIZATION

1. Non Utilization

2. Utilization

I. DEPENDENTS

J. CHILDREN
1. None

2. 1-2

3. 3-4

4. More than 4

K. EDUCATION

1. LITERATE

2. ILLITERATE

L. SANITATION

1. POOR

2. AVERAGE

3. GOOD

M. WATER FACILITY

1. POOR

2. AVERAGE

3. GOOD

N. INFRASTRUCTURE

1. POOR

2. GOOD

3. AVERAGE

O. PRIMARY HEALTH CARE

1. POOR

2. GOOD
QUESTIONNAIRE PART 2

In the FIES-SM, questions are asked on the respondent's own experiences or the experiences of

their household. In light of the growing difficulty in obtaining food due to resource constraints,

the questions revolve around self-reported food-related behaviours and experiences.

Was there ever a moment in the past 12 months when, due to a lack of funds or other resources:

1. Were you concerned that you wouldn't consume enough food?

2. You weren't able to consume wholesome food?

3. You ate only a few kinds of foods?

4. You have to go without food?

5. Did you eat less than you felt you ought to?

6. You run out of food in your home?

7. You did not eat despite being hungry?

8. You skipped meals for the entire day?

The raw data on food availability was gathered from an array of governmental and nonprofit
organizations' published and unpublished sources. Unpublished agricultural statistics have
been obtained from the Uttar Pradesh government in Lucknow, U. P., India, and the
Department of Statistics and Economics in Lucknow. The Directorate of Food Supply
Department, Lucknow, U. P., India, provided data on poverty and storage capacity, while the
Census of India (2001) provided data on population. The Economics and Statistics department
of the State Planning Institute in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, is the source of the
socioeconomic statistics. The following periods' agricultural data have been used: 1969–1972,
1979–1982, 1989–1992, 1999–2002, and 2006–2009. A three-year moving average has been
used to eliminate weather anomalies and variations from the collected data.

Because the amount of food consumed varies from person to person depending on factors
including age, sex, climate, income, and occupation, the coefficient of consumption has been
determined. Singh's scale states that one person is equivalent to 0.773 consumption units, or
that one thousand people are equal to 773 consumption units. The computation of the
coefficient of production has also been done. Not all food grains that are produced may be
eaten because some are lost during transit, storage, pest and bug extermination, kitchen waste,
seed use, etc. Thus, to obtain net food available for consumption, Chakravarty (1970) proposed
a total deduction of roughly 16.8% of the entire gross production. Consequently, the coefficient
of production is 0.832 (100-16.8=83.2).

The primary driver of increased production of food grains is yield. It has been decided to
quantify production stability and productivity in kg/ha, or yield level. A measure of
productivity is yield.

Said another way, it is a measurement of the output from a specific quantity of input. Thus, the
yield approach, which may be written as follows, can be used to analyze the productivity of
food grains:

𝑃
𝑌= × 1000
𝐴

Where, A= Area under food grains, P= Production of food grains, and Y= Yield

District-wise, the production of food grains has been divided by the area planted with them,
and the resulting value has been multiplied by 1000.

The raw data for each indicator were calculated into standard scores, sometimes referred to as
z-scores or standard scores, in order to standardize the data. District-wise z-scores for each
indicator were determined in the first stage. In order to calculate the composite z-score (Cs)
for each district and each set of indicators, such as the food security region, the values so
obtained were added district-wise and standardized scores were subtracted. Once more, the z-
score was calculated using these results, where "zero" denotes average performance, unity (+
or -) denotes one standard deviation, and + or - denotes high or low values, respectively. Thus,
the composite z-score technique, which may be written as follows, can be used to analyze the
degrees of food security:

𝑍 = (𝑋 − 𝑋̅) ÷ 𝑆𝐷

̅ is the variables' mean, and SD is the

Z is the standard score, X is the score's initial values, X
variables' standard deviation.

District-by-district addition of the derived Z-scores for each indicator results in composite Z-
score(s) for every spatial unit in the study area.

𝐶𝑠 = ∑ 𝑍𝑖𝑗

Cs stands for Z-score composites.

Zij is the total of the Z-scores for each of the indicators in district i.
4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Status of Food Security in India

4.1.1 Food availability in India

Food security and nutrition are closely related since malnutrition can only be eradicated through a

food-based strategy that is both financially and socially feasible. Since food production has a major

impact on food supply, it is the foundation of food security. The production of food grains

expanded at an average yearly rate of 2.5 percent between 1950 and 1951 and between 2006 and

2007, in contrast to the nation's average 2.1 percent population growth over this period. This

included the production of rice, wheat, coarse cereals, and pulses. By executing the Green

Revolution in the late 1960s, India was able to avert the grave predictions of starvation and famine.

This allowed us to get to a point where, between 1976–1977 and 2005–2006, we rarely had to

import food grains (NABARD research Study, 2022).

Part I: Production, Yield, and Cultivated Area

i. Rice

India is the world's greatest rice exporter in the past ten years, and rice is one of the country's most

significant food crops. A minor portion of rice is planted in the Rabi season with guaranteed
irrigation, but the majority is farmed during the Kharif season. From 1950–1951 to 2020–21, rice

production rose by nearly six times (Fourth AE). The projected total production of kharif rice in

2021–2022 is 107.04 million tons. It exceeds the average Kharif rice production of 97.83 million

tons for the preceding five years (2015–16 to 2019–20) by 9.21 million tons. High-yielding

cultivars, fertilizers, insecticides, and irrigation have all been introduced, greatly increasing rice

yields and increasing the area used for rice cultivation. Still, given that the yield is below the global

average, there is a great deal of room for development. A number of actions and upgraded

technology could be used to boost the nation's production. Promoting the cultivation of hybrid rice

is necessary since it has the potential to boost yield (NABARD research Study, 2022).
Figure 1: Area, Production and Yield of (A) Paddy, (B) Wheat, (C) Coarse grains, (D) Pulses,

(E) Horticulture, (F) Edible Oilseeds (Source: NABARD research Study 35, 2022)

ii. Wheat

Rabi season is when wheat is cultivated in India. Typically, it is sown in November and harvested

in March or April. Wheat production increased by more than 17 times, from 6.46 million tons in
1950–1951 to 109.52 million tons in 2020–21 (Fourth AE). This has been made feasible by

increases in both the area under cultivation—which has expanded more than three times—and

productivity—which has increased more than five times. The use of high-yielding cultivars in

conjunction with additional inputs is what has caused this productivity increase (NABARD

research Study, 2022).

iii. Coarse Grain

Cereal grains other than rice and wheat, such as rye, barley, sorghum (jowar), finger millet (ragi),

pearl millet (bajra), and maize, are referred to as coarse cereals. Iron content is relatively high in

coarse cereals. But since the 1970s, the area used for millet cultivation has been gradually

decreasing. The "green revolution" in India in the middle of the 1960s, which concentrated on

wheat and rice to address needs for food security, is one of the causes of this drop. Research,

extension, and market assistance were given to wheat and rice, but there was a noticeable shift in

the supply of coarse grains away from them, which had an impact on dietary micronutrients.

Additionally, the prevalence of wheat and rice in the PDS altered dietary habits and diverted

attention from barley, maize, bajra, ragi, and jowar. Between 1961 and 2011, the percentage of

coarse cereals consumed in India fell from 35% to 5% in rural regions and from 17% to 3% in

urban areas. In spite of this, the last 20 years have seen a 60% increase in coarse grain production

thanks to improved productivity, which rose from 1027 kg/ha to 1990 kg/ha between 2000–01 and

2019–20. Given that millet is low in fat, gluten, and carbs and has several health benefits, efforts

have been made by the federal and state governments to boost millet growers' revenue,

productivity, and output through a variety of programmes (NABARD research Study, 2022).

iv. Pulses
India is the world's largest producer (25% of global output), consumer (27% of global intake), and

importer (14%). Pulses make up 7–10% of the food grains produced in the country and occupy

around 20% of the area used for food grains. Rabi pulses account for more than 60% of the

production even though they are harvested in each of the Kharif and Rabi seasons. Pulses have

historically been a smallholder crop because of their minimal water requirements, inherent

resistance to harsh weather, and benign environmental qualities. After the green revolution, pulse

output remained nearly flat. However, in the recent 20 years, it has picked up, rising from 18.24

MT in 2010–11 to a record 25.72 MT in 2020–22 (Fourth AE). 9.45 million Tonnes of Kharif

pulses are expected to be produced overall in 2021–2022. Compared to the average production of

pulses over the previous five years (8.06 million tons), it is 1.39 million tons greater. India boasts

the means and aptitude to sustain this swift escalation in pulse output. Maintaining this pace,

making sufficient and ongoing expenditures in pulse research and development, and offering

supportive legislative measures to increase pulse production are all necessary (NABARD research

Study, 2022).

v. Horticulture

High-value horticulture crops are essential to providing food that is nutritious for everyone on the

planet. India's diverse temperature and physio-geographical circumstances make it an ideal place

to cultivate a wide range of horticulture products, including fruits, vegetables, flowers, nuts, spices,

and plantation crops like cocoa, cashew, and coconut. A record 334.60 million tons of horticulture

are expected to be produced in 2020–21, an increase of almost 14.13 million tons (4.4%) over

2019–20 production. It is predicted that 333.3 million tons of horticulture would be produced

overall in 2021–2022, a 0.4% decline from 2020–21 (NABARD research Study, 2022).
 vi. Nutritious Oilseeds

A variety of oilseed crops, such as peanut, soybean, and rapeseed-mustard, are grown in the

nation's various agro-climatic zones, in addition to sesamum, sunflower, and sunflower. The

increase in consumption has outpaced the country's ability to produce edible oil. In 2020–21, the

total domestic demand for edible oils was 24.61 million tons, while the domestic production was

11.16 million tons. Approximately 72% of oilseeds are grown in rainfed ecosystems. Just 28% of

the area used for oilseeds is irrigated. Due to the current crop production and commercialization

circumstances, the area planted with oilseeds has typically fallen. This is mainly because oilseeds

have lower profits compared to competing crops such as maize, cotton, chickpeas, etc. The

government's multi-pronged strategy to achieve oilseed self-sufficiency has been put into place by

the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (NABARD research Study, 2022).

Part II: Availability in Terms of Per Capita

As the previous section illustrates, during the past fifty years, India has seen a massive

improvement in agricultural productivity across the board. The Global Hunger Index 2022 places

India in the serious category of hunger, ranking 107 out of 121 countries, behind its neighbours

Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal; despite this great development, this is confusing.

The fact that the per capita net availability has not changed is one clue to this mystery. The overall

accessibility of food grains is determined by taking into account the following variables: Gross

Production (-), imports, exports, changes in stockpiles, and waste, seed, feed, and waste. The per

capita supply of food grains is calculated by dividing the net accessibility of food grains for that

year by the projected population. There were 468.7 grams of cereal grains available per person in

1971 and 468.8 grams in 1961.

In 1981, this fell to 454.8 grams. In the ensuing ten years, net availability rose by over 12%,

reaching 510 grams per person per day in 1991. But this rise was fleeting, as the very next year

saw a return to 468 grams. We have only just, in 1997, and again in 2020 and 2021, come close to

reaching the level seen in 1991. Until now, we have not been able to do so. Furthermore, it is

noteworthy that although food security in India has traditionally been associated with food grain

security, there is a shift occurring in the per capita food availability of food, with high-value

horticulture and animal products replacing staple food grains (NABARD research Study, 2022).

Figure 2: Availability of food grains in per capita (Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2021)

Part III: Trends in Protein and Calorie Production

The two main components of nutrition are calories and protein. A greater variety of food sources

guarantees the availability of calories, but the quality of these calories is only improved when they

originate from a variety of foods that offer a range of nutrients. Increasing the amount of fruits and
vegetables in the diet will enhance the quality of the calorie basket. Conversely, only some meals—

such as pulses, legumes, or foods derived from animals—can increase the body's supply of protein,

which is our body's building block. The production of food was divided into two categories: gross

protein content (GPC) and gross calorie content (GCC) based on the protein and calorie content of

the various crop and animal sources.3 In TE 2020–21, food produced by Indian agriculture

contained 51.87 million tons of protein, more than twice as much as in TE 1993–94 (Table 2).

Over time, the amount of protein derived from animal-based food commodities has increased

steadily, but the amount of protein derived from pulses has nearly stagnated. Protein derived from

food of crop origin decreased from 85% to 38% during TE 1993–1994 and TE 2020–21, while

protein derived from food of animal origin climbed from 15% to 26%. Between TE 1993–94 and

TE 2020–21, the per capita production of protein grew by 37%, from 77.5 grams to 106 grams

(NABARD research Study, 2022; Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2021).

Between TE 1993–94 and 2020–21, the gross calorie content (GCC) of food production increased

from 901.02 billion kcal to 1725.01 billion kcal (Table 3). The percentage of food originating from

crops fell from 83.79 to 78.48 percent in the GCC between TE 1993–94 and TE 2020–21, whereas

the percentage of food originating from animal sources climbed from 6.15 to 12.47 percent.

Between TE 1993–94 and TE 2020–21, the per capita calorie production from both crop and

animal origin grew from 2827 kcal to 3524 kcal per day (NABARD research Study, 2022).

The Herfindahl Index values' departure from unity is used to create the index of diversification,

which measures the diversity of protein sources or calorie output. The formula pi 2 is used to

calculate the Herfindahl Index, where pi is the percentage of each activity in the production basket.

Total specialization (zero) and diversification (one) define its boundaries. Over time, the

diversification index for calories and proteins has risen. The production of protein has grown,
rising from 0.75 in TE 1993–1994 to 0.79 in TE 2020–21. The index for calorie production has

grown, going from 0.69 in TE 1993–1994 to 0.74 in 2020–21.

Table 2: Trend in Protein Production in India (million tonne) (Satyasai and Shukla (2016),

Contribution of Indian Agriculture to Nutritional Security, Agricultural Economics Research

Review, Vol. 29)

Figure 3: Trend in Protein Production in India (million tonnes) (Satyasai and Shukla (2016),

Contribution of Indian Agriculture to Nutritional Security, Agricultural Economics Research

Review, Vol. 29)

Table 3: Trend in Calorie Production in India (Bn. kcal)
 Figure 4: Trend in Calorie Production in India (Bn kcal)

4.1.2 Food Accessibility in India

When all people can reliably and easily obtain the food they need to live healthy, happy lives,

regardless of their financial situation, we say that there is food security. The epidemic, the conflict

between Russia and Ukraine, and climate change has all exacerbated the worldwide problem of

food insecurity. Food became increasingly scarce for the impoverished, particularly for daily wage

workers in some areas. Even though there were no limitations on the transportation of necessities

during the lockdown, farmers in India found it difficult to reach markets, which led to a massive

amount of food wastage. In the meantime, the middle class's innate hoarding caused a disruption

in the value chain, which made matters worse (NABARD research Study, 2022).
 i. Rise in Food Prices

The simple fact that food is available in the nation is obviously insufficient to guarantee that

everyone has access to it. A household's ability to afford enough food is based on its purchasing

power. One crucial metric by which we can assess the financial accessibility of food is food

inflation. Food inflation primarily affects individuals with lower incomes because they spend a

larger portion of their income on food. Price hikes make food expensive and unaffordable for those

who are already struggling, which pushes more people into poverty. In September 2022, food

prices in India grew by 8.6% annually, the most since November 2020. The largest increases in

nine years were recorded by vegetables (18.05%), spices (16.88%), and grains (11.53%).

According to a recent ADB analysis, every 1% increase in food inflation causes a 0.5% increase

in undernourishment and a 0.3% increase in neonatal and child mortality. It's interesting to note

that the effects are less pronounced in nations where agriculture accounts for a larger portion of

GDP (NABARD research Study, 2022).

Figure 5: Food Inflation in India over the Years (Y-o-Y % Change)

Government's role in guaranteeing food access

The Indian government has taken the initiative to guarantee that its citizens have access to food.

When it comes to spending, the PDS is among the largest welfare initiatives in the nation. The

nation's food subsidy programme will receive funding from the Centre for 2022–2023, which

amounts to around 5.2% of its overall budget. By way of the public distribution system (PDS), the

food subsidy shields farmers from the effects of low market prices while making food grains

inexpensive for consumers. The FCI was created as a statutory organization under the Food

Corporation of India Act of 1964. Everything from purchasing to storing to transporting to

distributing and selling food grains and other commodities was to be done according to plan

(NABARD research Study, 2022).

By repealing the welfare paradigm and replacing it with a rights-based strategy, the National Food

Security Act of 2013 (NFSA) successfully addressed food insecurity. 50% of people living in cities

and 75% of those living in rural areas are covered by NFSA under the following programmes:

Antyodaya Anna Yojana: This project gives each household a monthly allotment of 35 kg of

food grains to the lowest of the poor.

Priority Households (PHH): per member of a family in this category is entitled to an allowance

of 5 kg of food grains each month.

For the purpose of ration card distribution, the head of the household is the oldest female resident

who is at least eighteen years old. The aforementioned law also specifies certain requirements for

children between the ages of 6 months and 14 years, so that they can get a healthy meal for free at

one of several Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) centres, also called Anganwadi

Centres. The Government of India has also created programmes like the PM POSHAN Scheme
and the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) to improve food access,

particularly for underprivileged people. The facility offers the underprivileged 5 kilogramme of

free food grains per month under PMGKAY.

Furthermore, between 2021–2022 and 2025–2026, one hot meal will be provided in government

and government-aided schools under the Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman (PM POSHAN)

Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The Scheme's execution is supervised by the Ministry of Education.

Originally called the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, the program's objectives were to reduce malnutrition

and simultaneously encourage school attendance for five years by giving millions of pupils

attending government schools around the country free food.Table 4: PM-Poshan program's

guidelines for nutrition and eating

SNo. Items Primary Upper Primary

A. Nutrition norm per child per day

1 Calorie 450 700

2 Protein 12 gms 20 gms

B. Food norms per child per day

1 Food grains 100 gms 150 gms

2 Pulses 20 gms 20 gms

3 Vegetables 50 gms 75 gms

4 Oil and Fat 5 gms 7.5 gms

5 Salt and Condiments As per need As per need

ii. Reducing food waste to guarantee food for everyone

Food waste must be discussed in order to find a solution to the problem of food access. The have-

nots must have access to food, thus we must embrace the waste-not mentality. The Food and

Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates that over 40% of the food produced in India is lost

annually as a result of disjointed food systems and ineffective supply chains. This represents the

loss that happens even before the meal is consumed. Food systems that lose and waste this much

food are incompatible with sustainable production and consumption, given the effects of increased

waste on the environment, water resources, biodiversity, food security, and the economy. The

ministry of consumer affairs, food, and public distribution claims that between 2017 and 2020,

11,520 tons of food grains kept in government godowns went bad, costing the government around

Rs 150 million in lost revenue. Reducing food waste is essential to achieving Sustainable

Development Goal 12, "Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns," which is

embodied in Target 12.3: by 2030, cut food waste in half and reduce food loss throughout supply

chains.

According to the Food Waste Index Report 2021, which was produced by the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), 931 million metric tonnes of food, or 17% of the food available

to consumers, was wasted in 2019.The majority of trash worldwide, according to the research,

originates from households (11%) and is followed by food services (5%) and retail establishments

(2%). In contrast to South Asian, most European, and North American countries, per capita food

waste was significantly greater in west Asian and sub-Saharan African nations, defying

preconceived notions about higher rates of food waste and food production in industrialized

nations. Afghanistan wastes the most food of any country in South Asia (82 kg per person

annually), followed by Bangladesh (65 kg), Nepal (79 kg), Sri Lanka (76 kg), Pakistan (74 kg),

and Sri Lanka (76 kg). India ranks lowest in the world for food waste, but at 50 kg, it is still a
significant amount. The majority of this extra food waste is disposed of in landfills, where it

produces strong greenhouse gases that have detrimental effects on the environment.

4.1.3 Utilization of Food

Food utilization is the proper natural use of food, requiring access to clean, potable water, and a

meal high in energy and essential nutrients. Efficient use of food is mostly dependent on household

knowledge of fundamental nutrition, safe childrearing practices, and food processing and storage

methods.

Early in infancy, proper nutrition is essential for development and overall health. Children may

get sick, experience delayed mental and motor development that can have long-lasting negative

repercussions beyond childhood, or even die if they do not eat the suggested levels of

micronutrients like vitamin A, iodine, iron, and zinc as well as macronutrients like protein, fat, and

carbohydrates.Ensuring optimal nutrition and correcting nutritional deficits in the early years is

especially important, as reversal may become very difficult after the age of two (NABARD

research Study, 2022).

An imbalance of critical nutrients, excesses or deficits in food intake or poor nutrient utilization

are all considered forms of malnutrition. Undernutrition, overweight, and obesity, as well as non-

communicable diseases associated with diet, constitute a double cost of malnutrition. There are

four main ways that under-nutrition presents itself: underweight, stunting, wasting, and

micronutrient deficiencies. We analyze the state of these criteria nationwide in an effort to

comprehend the utilization aspect of food security.

 i. Stunting: A Sign of Prolonged Under-nutrition

Stunting in children is the term used to describe the stunted growth and development that arises

from undernourishment, recurring illnesses, and inadequate psychological stimulation. A child is

considered to be stunted if their height relative to their age is more than two standard deviations

lower than the median height according to the World Health Organization's Kid Growth Standards.

Early life stunting can have a detrimental effect on a kid's capacity to function, particularly in the

initial 1,000 days following creation until the child is two. When combined with excessive weight

gain later in childhood, the results include poor cognitive function and scholastic achievement,

low adult income, decreased productivity, and an increased risk of chronic diseases related to

nutrition in adulthood."A 1.4% loss in economic productivity is associated with a 1% loss in adult

height due to childhood stunting," the World Bank states. Stunting also affects future generations

in a continuous way.

The NFHS data shows that there has been a discernible decrease in child stunting in India, with

rates falling by around 20% from 48% in 2006 to 35.5 percent in 2019. Despite a remarkable drop,

the nation bears a large portion of the global cost of childhood stunting, with clear differences

across and within states. In India, the percentage of stunted children living is greater (30.1%) in

rural than in urban regions (NABARD research Study, 2022).

To decrease the significant incidence of stunting, the ongoing cycle of malnutrition needs to be

addressed with successful measures for the mother (pre- and post-pregnancy) and child. The five
states with the highest rates of stunting are Uttar Pradesh (397.7%), Jharkhand (396.6%),

Meghalaya (46.5%), and Bihar (42.9%). At 22.3% and 20%, respectively, Sikkim and Puducherry

have the lowest percentages. Rajasthan had a decline of 7.3% in stunting, whereas only three

states—Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand—reported a reduction of at least 6%

when comparing NFHS-4 and NFHS-5 findings. The dietary standards have improved across the

board, yet there are still significant differences between the states. The stunting rates of children

in Goa (which increased from 20.1% to 25.8% in 2015–16; NFHS–4) and Kerala (which increased

from 19.7% to 23.4% in the same survey) were the lowest in the nation, but they saw significant

increases in the NFHS–5 survey. In addition, it is concerning that West Bengal has reversed its

progress, with stunting rising from 32.5 in 2015–16 to 33.8 in 2019–20. India is unlikely to be able

to meet SDG Target 2.1.2, which calls for a 40% reduction in stunting rates by 2030 compared to

2016 levels, at the current rate of development (NABARD research Study, 2022).

Stunting is caused by a number of immediate and underlying issues, including as baby and

childcare practices, hygiene, and the lack of food security experienced by the poorest households.

It is closely linked to mother nutrition and reproduction, and it is frequently influenced by the

social standing and educational attainment of the mother while the child is still in the womb. Other

considerations include traditional views about the appropriate dietary intake and care for teenage

girls and women during pregnancy and lactation. Up to 50% of all child malnutrition cases are also

caused by poor sanitation, cleanliness, and access to clean water, which can result in infections

and potentially fatal conditions like diarrhea. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2008 is the

source. It is essential to advocate for the convergence of nutrition and health programming from

the time a child is pregnant until they turn five years old in order to address the issue of stunting.

ii. Wasting (Suggests Severe Undernourishment)

Wasted weight is low body weight compared to height. Even though it occasionally persists for a

long time, it usually indicates abrupt, significant weight loss. This typically occurs when an

individual has not consumed enough food in sufficient amounts or of acceptable quality, or if they

have been ill regularly or for an extended period of time. Child wasting is associated with a higher

risk of death if neglected. These elements are cyclically tied to waste and have a strong mutual

interaction. An infection has a significant impact on nutritional health, and a poor diet increases

the chance of infection. A serious infection can swiftly cause a previously healthy child to become

wasted, possibly even resulting in a loss of appetite. Children are more vulnerable to infections

when their wasting gets worse. Between infection and wasting, this is referred to as the "vicious

cycle."A monotonous diet low in nutrients and constant shortages of food in resource-poor

settings, coupled with an absence of understanding of proper preparation, storage, and

consumption, are the main causes of waste. Other contributing factors include poor concern and

feeding habits (such as exclusive breastfeeding or inadequate amounts and quality of supplemental

food); and an absence of a sanitary environment, which includes access to potable water, sanitation

amenities, and hygiene services (NABARD research Study, 2022).

In 2012, the World Health Assembly passed a detailed strategy for improving the diets of pregnant

women, newborns, and young children. The plan outlined nutrition targets for 2025, with the sixth

target being to maintain and reduce childhood wasting to less than 5%. India has performed quite

badly, with 19% of children wasted in 2019–20. The state with the greatest percentage of wasted

children (25.6%) is Maharashtra, and both urban and rural sections of the state are witnessing an

increase in this number. Between 2015–16 and 2019–20, there was a rise in the percentage of

wasted children in nine states and union territories. Over this period, Nagaland has experienced

the most increase in the percentage of wasted children (11.3% to 19.1%).

According to the WHO criteria, severe wasting is when the weight for height is less than three

standard deviations. These kids would be very underweight in relation to their height. It is

concerning that the percentage of severely wasted youngsters in all of India increased from 7.5%

to 7.7% between 2015–16 and 2019–20. Between 2015–16 and 2019–20, the percentage of

severely wasted children increased in half of the 36 states and UTs. During the same period,

Lakshadweep, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh experienced the biggest increase in severe

wasting.

iii. Underweight (which indicates insufficient access to food)

Due to its ease of measurement, weight has historically been the indicator for which the majority

of data have been gathered. Even slightly underweight children have a higher chance of dying,

while extremely underweight children have an even higher danger. In terms of mobility, mortality,

productivity, and economic growth, India has the greatest frequency of underweight children

worldwide—nearly twice as high as Sub-Saharan Africa. This is especially true for lower- and

middle-income nations. An improvement has been observed throughout India, with the

underweight falling from 35.8% to 32.1%. Bihar (41%), Gujarat (39.7%), Jharkhand (39.4%),

Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu (38.7%), and Maharashtra (36.1%) have recorded the

highest percentages. It also needs to be looked at why Nagaland's development has reversed, with

a 10% increase.

iv. Deficiencies in micronutrients

Inadequate consumption of calories leads to under-nutrition (a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5

kg/m2) and over-nutrition (a BMI greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2), the two most prevalent forms

of malnutrition. Malnutrition can also refer to deficiencies in specific micronutrients. The

nutritional condition of people varies both within and across countries. Overweight and obesity 26

disproportionately affect people with poor incomes, low levels of education, and membership in

racial or ethnic minorities in affluent nations, such as the United States (Satyasai and Shukla, 2016;

Drewnowski, 2004; Mokdad et al., 2003). Under-nutrition is linked to low individual

socioeconomic status (SES) and over-nutrition to high SES in developing nations like India. These

relationships are based on factors such as education, standard of living, and social standing

(USPHS, 2001; Osmani and Sen, 2003; Griffiths, 2005; Subramanian and Smith, 2006). One

explanation for low birth weight in India is the country's one in five underweight women, which

is higher than in sub-Saharan Africa. Babies born prematurely and with low birth weights are the

outcome of chronic under-nutrition in mothers.

v. Anemia

The illness known as anemia is characterized by a lower-than-normal concentration of

haemoglobin or red blood cells. Iron deficiency is the leading cause of anemia, followed by folic

acid, vitamin B12, and vitamin A deficiencies; however, there are numerous other potential

reasons. One out of two women in India suffers from anemia, and the disease has been steadily

rising in incidence among children and women. Iron and vitamin B-12 deficiencies are the leading

causes of anemia in India. The situation is far worse in rural India compared to the cities (Osmani

and Sen, 2003).

With the exception of Haryana, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, and Uttarakhand, all other states have seen

a decline in the proportion of children who are anemic. In 2019–20, there were five states—Gujarat

(79.7%), Madhya Pradesh (72.7%), Rajasthan (71.5%), Punjab (71.1%), and Haryana (70.4%)—

where more than 70% of children were anemic. There has been a rise in the proportion of
undernourished children in Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, and Puducherry among the Union

Territories. The issue is particularly serious in Ladakh's UT, where 92.5% of children were

determined to be anemic in 2019–20 (Osmani and Sen, 2003; Griffiths, 2005).

Women are more susceptible to anemia than males are because of the higher prevalence of iron

insufficiency in women due to menstrual iron losses and the increased iron needs of growing

fetuses during pregnancy. Nine states—West Bengal, Tripura, Odisha, Jharkhand, Gujarat,

Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, and Assam—had more than 60% of their female population anemic

in 2019–20. The percentage of anemic women has increased in every state but Uttar Pradesh,

Uttarakhand, Meghalaya,Tamil Nadu, Haryana,Himachal Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, and

Andhra Pradesh. With just three states—West Bengal, Tripura, and Assam—having more over

30% of their male population anemic, the issue is less serious for men. Anemia is a very serious

issue for men (75.6%) and women (92.8%) in Ladakh, as observed in children. One possible

explanation for the high rate of anemia in the chilly desert region of Ladakh would be the scarcity

of fresh produce throughout the protracted winter season.

vi. Malnutrition's double burden combined with growing obesity

According to the NFHS 5 data, most states and union territories are seeing an increase in obesity

rates. The issue seemed more worrisome in kids. With the exception of Goa and Tamil Nadu, all

states have shown an increase in the number of overweight children under the age of five. In

NFHS-4, the percentage of overweight children was 2.1%; in NFHS-5, it was 3.4%. Madhya

Pradesh reported the lowest percentage of women (40%) and Jammu and Kashmir (88%) reported
the greatest proportion of women having a significantly higher risk of WHR. Men's rates are

highest (67%) in Chandigarh and lowest (25%) in Meghalaya (Subramanian and Smith, 2006).

4.1.4 Food Stability in India

When we talk about food and nutrition security, the word "stability" is referring to the temporal

component, which ensures that households have a consistent supply of food throughout the year

and for a long time. It is critical to reduce external risks through interventions and enhancing

household resilience through a variety of coping mechanisms. These risks include natural disasters

and climate change, price volatility, wars, and diseases. The Russia-Ukraine War and COVID-19

have both had an effect on the stability component of food security in recent years.

i. Impact of COVID-19

a) Supply Chain Upheavals

The food, wellness, and financial industries experienced a crisis as a result of the epidemic. The

most vulnerable and impoverished countries and individuals bear the brunt of the consequences.

The lockdown measures have caused major disruptions in the food supply networks, impacting the

availability, pricing, and quality of food (Shukla et al., 2002). Dairy products, potatoes, fresh fruits,

chocolate, and some expensive cuts of meat were among the many perishable commodities whose

demand plummeted as a result of the closure of restaurants and other food service businesses

(Barrett et al., 2021; Lewis, 2020). As pandemic-related lockdowns spread across numerous

nations in March-May 2020, food goods were allegedly abandoned or ploughed back into the

fields, according to multiple media stories. Reportedly, this was caused by either a decline in

demand or problems transporting these products to stores (Terazono et al., 2006). No cold storage
or other means of storing food were available to farmers who had unsold crops. This has a

disproportionate impact on the transportation of food across the pathways of global commerce.

b) Decline in Nutritional Condition

According to a state-by-state examination of under-nutrition indicators in India, the majority of

states did poorly between 2015 and 2019. It is anticipated that Covid-19 may make nutritional

insecurities worse. It has also brought up grave concerns about vulnerable groups in society having

less access to nourishing food, which calls for proactive measures to increase the availability,

affordability, and accessibility of safe and nutrient-dense food. The numerous government

nutrition initiatives are probably in disarray as a result of Covid-19 and the limits put in place to

stop the virus's spread. Services at nutrition rehabilitation centers, village health sanitation and

nutrition days, and Anganwadi centers were interrupted. Due to the majority of the last two years'

school closures, children's access to iron and folic acid tablets was greatly decreased, and nutrition

awareness programmes were put on hold (Corkery and Yaffe-Bellany, 2020). This might make the

anemia issue worse, which was already getting worse between 2015 and 2019. Health

professionals like ASHA and ANM were pulled from nutritional programmes to assist with

contract tracing, vaccination, and other response and services because the pandemic required more

attention. This is probably going to keep happening because it will take time to vaccinate a

population as large as India's. Additionally, during this time, a variety of community-based

nutrition interventions, including counseling and practical training for expectant and nursing

mothers, were interrupted.

c) Coping Strategies
Rather than spending money on less nutrient-dense staple foods, low-income households are likely

to choose fresh fruits and vegetables that are rich in micronutrients, according to a recent research

(Laborde, Martin and Vos, 2020). Other studies also found a trend towards eating more processed

foods (Bracale and Vaccaro, 2020). With rising worries about the safety of supermarkets and a

need for more direct access to fresh meat, seafood, and fruit, community-supported agriculture

(CSA) subscriptions in North America witnessed a surge in popularity (Worstell, 2020)

Nonetheless, there was more demand than CSA producers could meet. Community and household

gardening also saw a surge in popularity as individuals sought to increase their food security and

nutrition by cultivating their own (Lal, 2020). These changes to the food system had varying

impacts on dietary variety and healthfulness.

d) Russia-Ukraine War

Wars are by definition violent and hazardous, even though the depletion of resources may at times

result in more devastating destruction than the deployment of bombs and bullets. Conflict-related

food shortages and severe economic disruptions could endanger the viability of a people.

Moreover, victims of wartime population relocation sometimes find themselves cut off from

sources of employment and food. Apart from disease, severe food insecurity is a common risk for

immigrants. If people choose to remain in their homes, the encircling forces possess the capability

to imprison folks within a city, neighborhood, or town, depriving them of food, medication, and

other essentials until they surrender. In many conflict zones, humanitarian aid is desperately

required, yet frequently than not, one or both sides will stop at nothing to deny supplies to starving

civilians, or even initiate attacks against humanitarian organizations.

While there's no denying that armed conflict can precipitate dangerous food shortages, some

scholars argue that the other way around as well—food insecurity can trigger violent political

strife. A sudden change in the price or accessibility of staple foods can start a social unrest chain

reaction, but this is typically only one of many contributing factors. The French Revolution of

1789 is a well-known example, which was primarily sparked by poor grain yields and financial

constraints that led to sharp increases in bread costs. More recently, during the Arab Spring

upheavals in 2011, food prices reached an unprecedented level across the Middle East and North

Africa. Undoubtedly, armed conflict can exacerbate the dangerous conditions of food shortage,

but some scholars argue that the other way around as well: food insecurity can precipitate violent

political conflict.

A societal upheaval can be triggered by abrupt changes in the price or availability of staple foods,

although they are typically just one of the many contributing variables. An iconic example of this

was the French Revolution of 1789, which saw a sharp increase in bread costs as a result of

insufficient grain yields and financial difficulties. During the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings, food

prices reached an all-time high in the Middle East and North Africa.

Past and present COVID-19 pandemics, energy crises, shipping limits, and climate-related extreme

weather events have all had an effect on supply chains and prices. As if things weren't already bad

enough, the ongoing instability caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine has only served to

exacerbate these issues. About 12% of the calories in wheat come from Russia and Ukraine,

whereas 30% comes from the world's traded wheat. Russia and Belarus generate a large amount

of fertilizer, but their exports of wheat, maize, and barley have been impacted by the war. Fertilizer

and food prices have risen sharply because of this. Immediate action is required to avert a projected

8–22% increase in global food and feed costs above their present high baseline levels, according
to the FAO. Both the importing and the originating nations' food security will be jeopardized,

according to Wegren et al., because agricultural output in Eastern Europe would be disrupted.

Some countries are totally dependent on others to fulfill their food needs; for instance, Eritrea gets

53% of its wheat from Russia and 47% from Ukraine. If Ukraine is unable to export wheat due to

the conflict, 47% of Eritrea's wheat will have to be imported. Food costs are now increasing at a

rapid rate on a global scale, making the situation even more difficult to solve.

Food security in both importing and originating nations might be jeopardized due to the

interruption of agricultural output in Eastern Europe, according to Wegren et al. Some countries

are totally dependent on others to fulfill their food needs; for instance, Eritrea gets 53% of its wheat

from Russia and 47% from Ukraine. If Ukraine is unable to export wheat due to the conflict, 47%

of Eritrea's wheat will have to be imported. Given the present global trend of sharply increasing

food costs, the situation will only worsen. Hunger and other humanitarian crises in nations ravaged

by conflict are becoming more difficult for international organizations to alleviate as a result of

this conflict. As an example, half of the grain used by the World Food Programme comes from

Ukraine. Now that prices are going up, the programme has to cut back on rations, which means

millions of people would have to go without food assistance.

4.2 Indicators of Food Security

In India, an estimated 200 million people suffer from malnutrition (Rautela et al., 2020). Poverty,

insufficient access to safe drinking water, and inadequate sanitation are major contributors to

malnutrition in India (Dhamija et al., 2022). There has not been much focus on the correlation

between food insecurity and malnutrition in India, despite the fact that the country has high rates

of both (Saxena et al., 2020). The links between food difficulty in the home and children's
underweight, wasting, and stunting are highlighted by the scant data that is currently available,

highlighting the importance of food insecurity as a public health issue (Pathak et al., 2020).

Reviewing present and prior research that has measured and treated food insecurity is necessary

to acquire a better knowledge of nutrition-related health at the community level. This is especially

important in India, where child stunting, wasting, and general malnutrition are common. As far as

we are aware, no published systematic review has addressed the issue of household food insecurity

in India. A comprehensive analysis of existing literature on food scarcity in India is desperately

needed to comprehend the reasons behind food insecurity in families, the consequences for health

and nutrition, and to create plans of action to address this problem. Initially, we shall enumerate

every peer-reviewed article that has attempted to investigate India's food insecurity. Second, we

will catalogue all the different types of research that are currently taking place in India, including

information about the populations and instruments that have been used

There were duplicates in 405 of the 1027 entries that the search turned up. Upon reviewing the

abstracts and titles of the 622 papers that were still in existence, 517 of them were excluded due to

their omission of any reference to a study on food insecurity carried out in India. 105 articles

remained that need further investigation. After the 105 articles' entire text was assessed, 52 that

did not meet the inclusion requirements were eliminated. The 53 articles that were left are included

in this review.

Thirteen research were randomized controlled trials (Gangopadhyay et al., 2015), three were

longitudinal studies with data spanning 27 years (Kumar et al., 2012), eleven years (Aurino et al.,

2019), and four years (Aurino and Morrow, 2018), while the vast majority of the articles (n = 48,

90%) were cross-sectional studies. A mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches was used in
eight of the investigations, while thirteen relied only on quantitative methods. The sample size

varied widely, with the largest research included 10 participants and the smallest exceeding

100,000 in population-level investigations (Kumar et al., 2012; Diehl et al., 2019). For a synopsis

of the studies that were considered, refer to the supplementary materials.

The majority of the nine completed studies on food insecurity were carried out in the state of West

Bengal. Afterwards, six studies were completed in Maharashtra and the Delhi Union Territory. As

a whole, India consists of 28 states and 8 union territories. In addition to studies conducted in 17

states and 5 territories, this analysis also included four nationwide surveys that adequately covered

the whole nation (Mahajan et al., 2015).

The Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) was used in 17 investigations, making it

the most prevalent tool for measuring food insecurity. With 13 researches using it, the Household

Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) was the runner-up tool for measuring food insecurity.

Aside from the Comprehensive Nutrition Survey in Maharashtra and the Radimer/Cornell, other

measures of food insecurity include the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), which has been

utilized in three investigations, and one study (Kendall et al., 1995). In the other seventeen studies,

the authors used the India National Sample Survey (NSS) data or came up with their own surrogate

measurement.
Figure 6: Flow chart with the number of articles that met the search criteria, the number of articles
that were rejected, and the total number of articles that were found to be eligible for review

Table 5: Food insecurity measurement tools

Measure of food Dimension of Items Brief description of tool Validated

insecurity food
 insecurity
measured

Household Food Access 9 The approach is predicated on the Yes (Castell

Insecurity Access notion that experiencing food al., 2015)
Scale (HFIAS) insecurity (or access) results in
predictable behaviours and
responses that can be recorded,
measured, and condensed into a
scale via a survey.

Household Food Access 18 The set of questions about food Yes

Security Survey security considers the experience of (Radimer et
Module (HFSSM) food insecurity as a whole and al., 1990;
classifies this phenomena according Frongillo,
to its severity. 1999)

Food Insecurity Access 8 The set of questions about food Yes (Ballard
Experience Scale security considers the experience of et al., 2014)
(FIES) food insecurity as a whole and
classifies this phenomena according
to its severity.

National Sample Access (only Varies A nationwide survey of the non- No

Survey (NSS) household institutionalized population in all of
expenditure) India is called the National Sample
Survey (NSS).
The CNNS is a state-specific
nutrition survey that focuses on
Comprehensive Availability 9 mothers and their young children No
Nutrition Survey in (only dietary under the age of two.
Maharashtra diversity)
(CNNS/M)

Radimer/Cornell Availability 10 It uses interviews to calculate the Yes

Radimer/Cornell indicators of food (Kendall et
insecurity and hunger. al., 1995)
Thirteen scholars asserted to have examined food insecurity but did not disclose their findings; the

percentage of people reported to be food insecure ranged from 8.7 to 99% in these investigations.
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) was the gold standard for measuring food

insecurity in India. During its development, this nine-item experience measure took into account

its potential cross-cultural applicability. We want to know how often each scenario occurs for our

participants. The following is the scoring scheme for these questions: The score for "never" is 0,

for "very rarely" it's 1, for "on occasion" it's 2, and for "frequently" it's 3. As a consequence, we

can determine the range of potential scores, from 0 to 27. An increased score indicates more severe

food insecurity, as per the methodology offered by the HFIAS Indicator Guide (Coates et al.,

2007). There is a tendency to categorize continuous scores into four groups: those whose homes

are food secure, those whose food security is somewhat compromised, and those whose food

security is seriously compromised. The scale illustrates three culturally invariant aspects of food

insecurity based on a household's actual encounters with difficulties obtaining food (Frongillo and

Nanama, 2006; Knueppel et al., 2010; Chinnakali et al., 2014). Feelings of anxiety or uncertainty

about food availability, insufficient food consumption, and poor household food quality are all

assessed by this instrument (Coates et al., 2006). From "food secure" to "food insecure," the HFIAS

questions allow families to get a score on a scale.

The US Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) was the second most popular

measuring tool that this search turned up. The purpose of this measure is to assess the extent to

which households are able to satisfy their fundamental requirements in terms of food and

resources, as well as their emotional and behavioural reactions to this status (Humphries and Kirk,

2015). Among the eighteen things included in the HFSSM module, eight are tailored to households

with children. Concern and lack of self-assurance, low-quality food, adults going hungry, and kids

going hungry are the four forms of food insecurity that can manifest in the household (Leroy et

al., 2015; Sethi et al., 2017). Households can be classified into four levels of food insecurity using
the 18-item or 6-item versions of the questionnaire: high, marginal, low, or extremely low. One

way to measure food security for a household is the Coleman-Jensen et al., 2014, approach, which

involves adding food security scores. The number of food-insecure circumstances and behaviours

reported by a household is a good indicator of their food security level. Once a family reports no

more than two instances of food insecurity, they are considered to be food secure. If they mention

being food insecure three times or more, or two times if they have a parent who does, they are

considered food insecure. Extremely low food security is defined by families that disclose eight

food-insecurity scenarios (or three to seven if they have children), whereas poor food security is

characterized by families that disclose three to five conditions (or three to seven if they have

children). Of the studies that utilized the HFSSM, 15.4% (Maitra, 2017; Maitra and Rao, 2015;

Maitra and Rao, 2018) to more than 80% of the participants (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2018) reported

experiencing food insecurity. The HFSSM is a multi-purpose tool that is used often to measure

food insecurity. Three researches that comprise this study utilized the Food Insecurity Experience

Scale (FIES) module. Personal or family history is the focus of the FIES inquiries. The FAO, or

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, developed and first piloted this scale

for usage all across the world (Humphries and Kirk, 2015). Concerning the growing challenges in

accessing food as a result of resource limitations, the questions centre on self-reported food-related

habits and experiences. In addition to providing a raw score that writers may use to classify food

insecurity severity levels (Cafiero et al., 2018), the FIES can also be used as a reference scale to

calibrate other measures, such as the HSSM and the HFIAS. As a result, we can evaluate potential

differences in food insecurity prevalence rates (Ballard et al., 2013). Food insecurity was shown

to be between 66-77% in all three studies that used the FIES, even though the sample numbers,

localities, and demographic categories varied.

One study used the Radimer/Cornell scale, which is both popular and reliable (Kendall et al.,

1995). On the ten-point scale, two of the food-related issues are the availability and quality of food.

Child hunger, family food insecurity, individual food insecurity, and food security are the four

dimensions that may be measured by this method when evaluating homes for food insecurity.

Two studies relied on the Comprehensive National Nutrition Survey (CNNS). Mothers and

children younger than two are the focus of this nutrition survey that is exclusive to the state of

Maharashtra. To gauge people's ability to put food on the table, the CNSM used a battery of nine

questions (Unicef, 2014). Inadequate amount, poor quality, and reduced food consumption are all

documented by the questions, along with feelings of uncertainty or concern about eating

(Chandrasekhar et al., 2017). There are four levels of food insecurity that families might

experience: secure, somewhat insecure, severely insecure, and extremely insecure.

National household expenditure surveys are carried out in "rounds" annually for a period of one

year by the National Sample Survey (NSS) organization. Interviews with a representative cross-

section of the population are used to conduct these surveys (Diehl et al., 2019). It is doubtful that

this survey can accurately portray the extent of food insecurity in Indian households as it only asks

about daily food access (Tandon and Landes, 2012). Even if it offers a way to measure food

insecurity in India, the technique relies on the idea that having money to buy food is the same as

having physical access to it. Using the NSS, four studies were conducted. Given that food

insecurity was not a primary outcome of these researches, we may utilize the NSS as a surrogate

indicator as it more often than not indicates food consumption or supply rather than food scarcity.

Alternate forms of measuring were widely used. Purchase power, food consumption, calorie

intake, and agricultural production were some of the proxy measures. Because of their indirect
nature, these proxy measures can only give a partial picture of food insecurity (NSS Report, 2014,

Coates et al., 2003). These metrics are already limited, and the unreliability of the correlation

between food, caloric consumption, and family nutrition further makes matters worse (Webb et.,

2006). For instance, according to Sujoy (2006), 85 percent of Gujarati households experience food

insecurity annually. This subset of the population was the focus of this study, which sought to

understand their experiences with food insecurity and hunger and the many methods they use to

alleviate it. In their study of food insecurity, Sajjad and Nasreen (2014) discovered that 75 percent

of the families in Bihar were severely food insecure. In order to create a household-level indicator

of food security, Sajjad and Nasreen (2014) surveyed both families and government officials on

food production, food expenditures, and food procurement; however, they did not employ a

standard measure. Using calorie consumption as a proxy, 57% of participants were found to be

food insecure in a research by George and Daga (2000). The study also found that the size and

income of a family can have an effect on the food security of children. Ten out of seventeen studies

that used a proxy for food insecurity did not discover any indication of food security in their results.

One research targeted adolescents, and thirteen investigations zeroed in on younger children. The

rates of food insecurity among this group were determined using various methods; the results

showed that they varied from 8.7 percent (144 studies) to 80.3 percent (151 studies); most studies

within this range discovered that children's rates of food insecurity were 40 to 60 percent.

Curiously, while all of the research we looked at found comparable rates of child food insecurity

(8.7%), Humphries's study (2015) found lower rates. Every study that looked at childhood food

insecurity found that babies and young children have poor cleanliness, feeding, and care

behaviours. In addition, other research found that these procedures stunted the development of

both children and teens.

Seven studies either only examined women's experiences or used women's experiences to measure

food insecurity in households. From 32 (Mastiholi et al., 2018) to 77.9% (Reshmi et al., 2019), all

of these studies used a single food insecurity index. Food insecurity and hunger are linked to

several negative health outcomes, according to this study. As an example, two-thirds of households

experienced food insecurity, with younger women being more impacted. This, in turn, increased

the risk of stunted and underweight children (Das and Krishna, 2018). The major emphasis of the

study was on mothers with children younger than five years old. A research conducted by Chyne

et al. (2017) found that mothers with big families, poor incomes, and low literacy rates were more

prone to food insecurity. Many children born to these mothers suffered from vitamin A deficiency,

anemia, stunting, or wasted growth. Those lines up with what Chatterjee et al. (2012) discovered:

that low income is associated with a number of socioeconomic characteristics, such as women's

food insecurity, relationship status, education level, and employment odds. Slums were the sites

of thirteen research projects. In four separate studies carried out in Delhi's shantytowns, the

percentage of families without enough food varied between 77% and 12% among children aged 1-

2 (Houghton et al., 2020). Maitra and colleagues performed three studies (Maitra, 2017; Maitra

and Rao, 2015; Maitra and Rao, 2018) in Kolkata's slums. The research found that 15.4% of

households experienced food insecurity, and that characteristics such as low income, family

composition, and academic ability were predictive of this occurrence. The remaining study was

carried out by researchers from West Bengal (Mukhopadhyay et al., 2013; Satabdi et al., 2019),

Varanasi (Rani et al., 2018), Jaipur (Maxfield, 2020), Mumbai (Chatterjee et al., 2012), and

Vellore (Dharmraju et al., 2018). Slums provide a significant setting for studying food insecurity,

especially in India, where 25% of the metropolitan population lives in or around slums. In addition
to contributing to food insecurity, research shows that slum dwellers are less likely to be well-off,

less educated, and have lower-quality lives overall.

Food insecurity among people with preexisting medical conditions was the focus of five separate

researches. Four of these studies (Dasgupta et al., 2016; Van Elsland et al., 2012; Heylen et al.,

2015; Patil et al., 2019) looked at the issue of food insecurity among HIV/AIDS patients. From 16

to 99% of the population was food insecure, according to these studies, and having a pressure

cooker protected one from this problem (Van Elsland et al., 2012). A worse quality of life and

increased risk of depression are associated with co-occurring food insecurity and HIV/AIDS

(Heylen et al., 2015). Food insecurity is exacerbated by other factors, such as poor income and low

education levels. Lastly, 177 patients with tuberculosis were the subjects of a research that

examined means of overcoming food insecurity. Food insecurity was linked to low income and

unemployment, and 34% of the population reported being in this situation, according to the survey

(Ayiraveetil et al., 2020).

For more regular and reliable data collection and comparison on food insecurity and for the

development of appropriate remedies to food poverty, an Indian-specific food security measure

must be created and put into action immediately. Researchers in the future should make it a top

priority to create a tool like this to tackle nutrition-related public health concerns in India, where

food instability and widespread malnutrition are common.

4.3 Public Distribution System in India

The creation of the Public Distribution System (PDS) allowed for the equitable distribution of food

grains in response to shortages. As a component of the government's plan to regulate the food

industry, PDS has grown in importance throughout the years. Neither individuals nor any particular

social group should expect PDS to provide for all of their needs; rather, it should be seen as a

complement to other available resources. Both the federal government and the state/UT

governments work together to manage PDS activities. On behalf of the Central Government, the

Food Corporation of India (FCI) is responsible for acquiring, storing, transporting, and distributing

food grains in bulk to the State Governments. All operational tasks, including allotting funds

within the state, determining eligibility, distributing ration cards, and supervising the operation of
Fair Price Shops (FPSs), are the responsibility of the state governments. Currently, the PDS is

distributing wheat, rice, sugar, and paraffin to the states and union territories (UTs). Some states

and union territories (UTs) also supply mass-consumption items through PDS stores, including as

edible oils, spices, iodized salt, and pulses (Khera annd Somanchi, 2020).

Public distribution of essentials was in existence throughout the nation's interwar years. The severe

food shortages of the 1960s inspired PDS, which distributes food grains to metropolitan areas

when they are scarce. As a result of PDS, food grain price inflation has been kept under control,

and those living in urban areas still have access to food. In the 1970s and 1980s, when agricultural

output grew across the country due to the Green Revolution, PDS expanded its reach to areas with

high poverty rates and tribal blocks.

The Public Distribution System (PDS) has expanded into a significant public initiative for social

welfare and food safety in India after the national government enforced the strict lockdown on

March 24, 2020, to deal with the COVID-19 outbreak. The PDS provides basic food security for

millions of Indians, and although the epidemic has shown many skeptics and critics of the

programme its importance, it has also highlighted the reality that there is a lot of work that needs

to be done. During its 2013 discussion, the National Food Security Act (NFSA) omitted some

crucial provisions relating to food programmes. Building community kitchens, expanding the PDS

basket to include nutritious items like lentils and edible oil, making the PDS universal so that

everyone may get subsidized food and a lot more are all part of this. In this website, we map the

coverage and benefits of PDS and record the number of people who are not covered (Khera, 2011).

The NFSA, 2013 expanded the PDS's scope even if the universalization requirement was rejected.

In 2013, the NFSA mandated that the PDS provide subsidized grain to 50% of city dwellers and
75% of rural residents. Two "entitled" ration cards are issued by the NFSA: Antyodaya (the lowest

of the poor) and Priority (often called "NFSA cards"). The National Food Security Act (NFSA)

stipulates that every prioritized household is entitled to 5 kilogrammes of grain per month, with

each kilogramme costing 2 rupees for wheat and 3 rupees for rice. At the same price, every

Antyodaya home, no matter how big or little, receives 35 kilogrammes every month.

According to state-by-state calculations, states with lower incomes benefited more than states with

higher incomes from the national rate of coverage, which is 75% in rural regions and 50% in

metropolitan areas. On many occasions, state administrations felt that their NFSA coverage % was

inadequate. Some states had already introduced a "expanded PDS," which covered a greater

population than the Centre did (Khera 2011), while other states had demanded that the NFSA's

scope be extended. Opposition came from states that had already implemented an enlarged PDS

before the NFSA. The 'tide-over' meals were offered to them at APL (above poverty line) pricing

of Rs. 8.30/kg for rice and Rs. 6.10/kg for wheat1 in an effort to win their cooperation. Recipients

of ration cards issued by these states were eligible for grain subsidies made possible by the

utilization of state money and/or tide-over rations. Surprisingly, this encompasses the vast majority

of southern states, including West Bengal, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh, all of which are rather poor

(more on this later). A state is considered to have a "expanded PDS" in accordance with the NFSA

if its population coverage is higher than what is required by the NFSA. Thus, the practice of

conducting an extended PDS continued long after the NFSA was put into place.

The choice by some states to provide additional subsidies by reducing their rates below the

federally established NFSA pricing is another factor contributing to variations in PDS operations

among states. So, all eligible cardholders in Tamil Nadu receive free rice, even if the state buys it

at a higher price for non-PHH (Priority households) and at Rs. 3/kg for NFSA cards.
Comparatively, the states of Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand provide rice at a lower cost than

the federal government (Saoo and Kar, 2021).

The basket of goods offered by the PDS is a third version, which is not covered here. While the

Centre supplies grain, the majority of states currently supply salt, and a few use state resources to

supply edible oil and dal. Therefore, many still use their own system even if the PDS in the majority

of states is compliant with the NFSA, 2013 framework.

We attempt to gather and rebuild fundamental data on state-by-state access to PDS grain in this

post, including the several kinds of ration cards, their respective entitlements, and the population

holding each kind of card. We would like to know what percentage of the population is eligible

for PDS grain, how much of that is subsidized by the Centre in accordance with the NFSA, and

which states also provide additional subsidies to a portion of the population. We briefly discuss a

few PDS-related actions that the states took during the lockdown before coming to an end. It is

very difficult to get this fundamental data for every state, even though it ought to be easily

accessible. Government publications and portals are our primary sources of data. We use state PDS

portals (to the greatest extent feasible) because they offer the most thorough and precise

information. But occasionally, since they were aware of the most recent developments, information

from government circulars, newspaper articles, scholars, activists, and other sources had to be

added to this (Drèze et al., 2018).

4.3.1 PDS Entitlements

Monthly Foodgrain Bulletin data shows that 810 million people were supposed to receive NFSA

subsidies in 2011, according to the population count and the legally required coverage ratios

(MFB). Triggering this figure are three government-related sources: the national government's
 public NFSA dashboard (808 million), data compiled from state-specific PDS websites (809

million), and MFB for June 2020 (813 million) regarding PDS coverage via NFSA cards (Priority

and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)) (Drèze et al., 2018).

The "real-time" Annavitaran portal (as of June 2020) indicates that only 753 million people are

covered by the central government; however, data from Assam, Delhi, Meghalaya, and Punjab is

missing. This might occur because of challenges with data sharing between state websites and the

unified national gateway (Drèze et al., 2019).

Eight09 million people, or barely 59% of the projected 1,372 million global population in 2020,

are predicted to live in the world—less than the two-thirds required under the NFSA (Table 6).

According to Jean Drèze, Reetika Khera, and Meghana Mungikar's secret calculations (see

IndiaSpend, 2020), there are about 100 million fewer individuals covered than what is legally

necessary. This under-coverage results from the federal government using outdated population

Census data from the 2011 Census to modify PDS coverage.

Table 6: All-India access to the Public Distribution System: A snapshot

Sl. Indicator People (millions) Share of Details

population 2020

(%)

A Total anticipated 1,372 100 Based on mid-decade rates of

population in 2020 births and deaths and

statistics from the 2011

Census
B Population projections 922 67 The Census 2011 weighted

should be covered by average of required NFSA

PDS, as required by coverage

NFSA.

C Individuals with 809 59 Antyodaya (35 kgs per card)

NFSA ration cards and Priority cards (5

kgs/person/month) cost Rs. 2

and Rs. 3 per kg for rice and

wheat, respectively.

D Individuals with ration 90 7 The NFSA ration cards offer

cards bearing the the same (or greater) benefits

"NFSA Equivalent at the same (or cheaper) cost.

Entitlements or More"

(NEEM)

E People with ration 51 4 More expensive and fewer

cards bearing the rights than NFSA ration

phrase "Lesser cards

Entitlements as

against NFSA"

(LEAN)

F Total number of 899 66 C+D

individuals with
 NFSA or NEEM

ration cards

G Total number of 950 69 C+D+E

persons using PDS for

acquiring food

(Sources: Jean Drèze, Reetika Khera, and Meghana Mungikar projected 2011 Census data, using

mid-decade state-wise birth and death rates to infer population growth (IndiaSpend, 2020). Rows

A and B are unpublished projections based on this data. Rows C through E are assembled from

each state's PDS webpage.)

As previously indicated, a few states made the decision to operate an enlarged PDS using their

own funds in addition to exceeding the central NFSA limits. Here, households with entitlements

to grain who hold non-NFSA ration cards fall into one of two categories: One is "NFSA Equivalent

Entitlements or More" (NEEM), which refers to people who are eligible for grain subsidies in

accordance with NFSA guidelines (either at NFSA pricing or at a lower level).4. Two homes that

possess ration cards labelled as "Lesser Entitlements as against NFSA" (LEAN). Their

entitlements are less than those of NFSA ration cards, and their issue prices—of which APL

cardholders in Himachal Pradesh are one example—are typically higher than those of NFSA but

frequently cheaper than market rates (Drèze et al., 2018).

An additional 90 million persons have access to NFSA entitlements from the PDS if the NEEM

population is taken into account (see Table 6, row D). This brings the total number of persons

covered by PDS up to 899 million, 10% of whom have NEEM cards. Furthermore, Table 1, rows

E shows that 51 million individuals own LEAN ration cards. By including them, PDS coverage

rises to 950 million, or 69% of the 2020 population estimate. Six percent of the population, or 87
million more, have non-food ration cards, which are apparently mostly used as identity cards and

to purchase paraffin.

4.3.2 Cost Bearing

Based on data from each state's PDS homepage and information from the MF B, Table 7

categorizes the states into three groups. The first set (column A) consists of states that rely only

on NFSA-mandated central grain allocations. The second set of states is B1, which is comprised

of those that run an expanded PDS and receive tide-over grain from the centre. The third type of

state is B2, which is characterized by an enlarged PDS and the exclusive use of state resources.

The expanded PDS has the potential to grant cardholders NEEM or LEAN privileges. For several

states, the pre-NFSA APL pricing of 6.10/kg for wheat and 8.30/kg for rice was given as a buffer

before the price hikes. All of the southern states (with the exception of Karnataka) and the

northeastern mountain states (Uttarakhand, Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh) make up

this group. Some states are considered to be in a "special category" even if the southern states had

a bigger PDS prior to the NFSA (Drèze et al., 2018). The majority of other states saw an increase

in PDS coverage as a result of the law's enactment, although tide-over rations were made available

to help them retain the coverage that existed previous to the NFSA. If the homes that an extended

PDS serves are NEEM households (as in Tamil Nadu), then the cost of running the programme is

shared by the federal government and the state. However, if the households in question get non-

NFSA entitlements, then the cost is borne by the federal government (as in Himachal Pradesh).

States like Chhattisgarh, which runs a prolonged PDS while not receiving any tide-over meals, are

responsible for paying the extra expenditures (Drèze et al., 2019).

Table 7: Classification of states based on state and central subsidy

 (A) NFSA PDS (B) Expanded PDS

(Exclusively with (1) Inclusive of central (2) Exclusive of central

Central subsidy) contribution contribution

NEEM LEAN NEEM LEAN

Andhra

Assam Pradesh Goa Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh

Himachal

Bihar Kerala Pradesh Maharashtra Karnataka

Jammu &

Delhi Tamil Nadu Kashmir Odisha West Bengal

Gujarat Telangana Kerala West Bengal

Haryana Uttarakhand

Jharkhand

Madhya Pradesh

Punjab

Rajasthan

Uttar Pradesh

Coverage (millions) 64 26 26 25

(Sources: State PDS portals and Monthly Foodgrain Bulletin (June 2020).)

(i) A state's PDS coverage falls under column A if it meets NFSA standards.

(ii) A state is categorized as having a "expanded PDS" if its population coverage exceeds NFSA

standards.
(iii) "Tide-over" rations, which are given to states operating an enlarged PDS at a rate of Rs.

6.10/kg for wheat and Rs. 8/kg for rice, are recorded under column B1.

(iv) A state is categorized under column B2 if it operates an enlarged PDS without getting tide

over rations from the federal government.

(v) States in B1 and B2 are additionally categorized as NEEM or LEAN based on the benefits of

individuals covered by the extended PDS. Households with NFSA Equivalent Entitlements or

More (NEEM) cards are entitled to the same benefits as those without NFSA cards. Reduced

Entitlements Compared to NFSA (LEAN) cardholder families: These households receive some

grain at prices that are greater than NFSA but lower than market rates, with the amount varying by

state.

(vi) This table does not include the Union Territories.

(vii) The states of Northeast India are not included in the table. Manipur is exempt from receiving

tide-over rations. Except for Sikkim and Tripura (which are covered in column B1 for LEAN),

information on whether they convert into NEEM or LEAN entitlements was not made available to

the general public.

(viii) Because the PDS price paid to NFSA cardholders is less than NFSA prices, there is a state

contribution in Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh.

(ix) As tide-over grains, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana receive a tiny portion of their overall

allotment (1% and 3%, respectively). However, in these rice-eating republics, wheat is designated

as a tide-over grain. Since they get tide-over grains, we categorize them under expanded PDS with

central support; nonetheless, it's likely that state funding supports the enlarged PDS.West Bengal,

Kerala, and Chhattisgarh are included under both NEEM and LEAN since their populations have

varying entitlements within the same state.

(xi) It is unclear what Maharashtra's APL card holders' status is. NEEM cards are used to count

cards in the subcategory of "APL farmer" cards. The other APL cardholders come from non-food

or LEAN households. These are tallied as non-food cards.

Table 8, column D, shows the accreditation by state that the Centre has granted in accordance with

NFSA standards (also called "NFSA cards"). Even if some states don't seem to meet the NFSA

coverage requirements according to 2011 population estimates. As an example, the NFSA states

that 3.68 million persons in Himachal Pradesh should have NFSA cards (54% of the state's

population in 2011). However, based on the data we have, it seems that just 2.8 million are eligible

for the subsidy from the national government. Regardless, the state has achieved a high coverage

rate (98%) because to tide-over rations, which are given to APL cardholders at a higher cost than

NFSA.

There are four ration cards that are supposedly in use in Gujarat: APL-1, APL-2, BPL (below

poverty line), and Antyodaya. Priority and AAY determine the rightful owners of the first two. We

include all of these card kinds as NFSAs, including the 1.4 million BPL cards that are labeled as

non-NFSAs on the state food portal. They get central subsidies together. When it comes to APL-

1, we've tallied 15.6 million people as NFSA APL-1. Assuming they get grain through Priority

household entitlements, we've included them in the category of Central subsidies. Since there does

not seem to be a "single source of truth," the information gathered here should be considered the

best available source; the case of Gujarat exemplifies this point.

In addition to the NFSA requirements, Table 8 (columns F and H) includes details on supplemental

PDS coverage. With the exception of Karnataka, all southern states pay individuals using NEEM

cards at their own expense using central tide-over rations (column F). Between 31% and 45% of

PDS users in these states also have NEEM cards. In contrast, the whole subsidy received by NEEM
cardholders in West Bengal (24%), Chhattisgarh (10%), Maharashtra (6%), and Odisha (2%), is

paid for by the state (Kundu, 2020)

Some things are still unclear and unanswered. As an example, in Tamil Nadu, there are five

different types of ration cards: PHH, Antyodaya households (PHH-AAY), NPHH, NPHH-S, and

NPHH-NC. None of these cards are considered priority. "Sugar cards" (NPHH-S) are the final

category to opt out of receiving any non-rice PDS items. In this scenario, NPHH-S opted not to

get rice, hence we have categorized them as NEEM. They make about 85% of the anticipated 2020

population.

Table 8: State-wise coverage of the Public Distribution System

Manda

tory

NFSA Estima Share of

Proje covera ted populati

cted NFS ge per NFSA on with Share of

popul A 2020 Persons under- Persons NFSA populati

ation cover popula covered covera with or on with

2020 age tion by NFSA ge NEEM NEEM LEAN

(milli ratios (millio cards (millio cards a ( cards cards a (

States ons) (%) n) (million) n) million) (%) %)

 [E=C- [G=(D+

[A] [B] [C] [D] D] [F] F)/A] [H]

1,371.

All India 70 67 921.9 809 112.9 90 66 4

Andaman &

Nicobar

Islands 0.4 17 0.06 0.06 0 0 15 77

Andhra

Pradesh 53.8 54 29.2 26.8 2.4 15.2 78 0

Arunachal

Pradesh 1.55 63 1 0.9 0.1 0 55 6

Assam 35.6 81 28.8 24.9 3.9 0 70 0

Bihar 124.9 84 104.8 87.3 17.5 0 70 0

Chandigarh * 1.15 47 0.5 0.3 0.2 - 25 -

Chhattisgarh 29.3 79 23 19.4 3.6 2 73 13

Dadra &

Nagar Haveli 0.41 69 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 52 0

Delhi 18.6 43 8.1 7.1 1 0 38 0

Goa 1.54 36 0.6 0.5 0.1 0 35 51

Gujarat 68.4 63 43.4 33.6 9.8 0 49 0

Haryana 28.9 50 14.4 12.1 2.3 0 42 0

 Himachal

Pradesh 7.45 54 4 2.8 1.2 0 38 61

Jammu &

Kashmir 13.8 59 8.2 7.2 1 0 52 33

Jharkhand 38.5 80 30.9 26.3 4.6 0 68 0

Karnataka 67.4 66 44.3 43.2 1.1 0 64 11

Kerala 35.5 46 16.4 15.4 1 10.4 73 28

Lakshadweep 0.07 34 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 32 0

Madhya

Pradesh 85.2 75 64.2 54.4 9.8 0 64 0

Maharashtra 122.9 62 76.6 68.3 8.3 4.1 59 0

Manipur * 3.1 88 2.7 2.5 0.2 - 81 -

Meghalaya * 3.5 72 2.5 2.2 0.3 - 62 -

Mizoram * 1.2 65 0.8 0.7 0.1 - 57 -

Nagaland * 2.2 75 1.6 1.3 0.3 - 58 -

Odisha 46.2 78 35.9 33.3 2.6 1 74 0

Puducherry * 1.3 51 0.7 0.6 0.1 - 48 -

Punjab 30 51 15.3 13.3 2 0 45 0

Rajasthan 80.7 65 52.5 49.6 2.9 0 61 0

Sikkim 0.7 67 0.5 0.4 0.1 0 55 18

Tamil Nadu 77.9 51 39.4 36.6 2.8 29.5 85 0

Telangana 39.1 54 21.2 19.2 2 8.8 72 0

 Tripura 3.9 68 2.7 2.4 0.3 0 62 32

Uttar Pradesh 237 76 180.6 150 30.6 0 63 0

Uttarakhand 11.1 61 6.8 6.1 0.7 0 56 42

West Bengal 99.6 66 65.6 60.2 5.4 19.2 80 14

With the exceptions of Chandigarh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Lakshadweep, and

Puducherry, wherein information is obtained from the NFSA dashboard (state portals could not

give these figures), data for real NFSA coverage in 2020 (column D) is collected from state PDS

portals. Columns A and C were created based on estimates by Jean Drèze, Reetika Khera, and

Meghana Mungikar (see Table 8 references). From the Monthly Foodgrain Bulletin is Column B.

Columns F and H are also compiled via the state PDS gateways.

According to our calculations, 900 million individuals receive PDS coverage in compliance with

NFSA regulations, but 51 million receive less PDS support than NFSA guidelines, leaving nearly

400 million people on their own without any food support from the government. This runs counter

to the government's assertion that the PDS covers nearly 1 billion people. A Press Information

Bureau (PIB) press release from June 4 states that 250 million more people have access to state

PDS in addition to the NFSA coverage. It said, "Statute provisions and enumeration under the

2011 Census serve as the basis for the coverage of people under the NFSA (roughly 81.3 crore)."

States do, however, manage their own ration card programmes to serve this population, and as of

right now, there are more than 6 crore State Ration Cards in place to serve over 25 crore more

people than the NFSA (PIB, 2020).

Adding the 90 million holders of NEEM cards, the 51 million holders of LEAN cards, and the 87

million holders of non-food ration cards results in a total of only 228 million persons (22.8 crores).

Nevertheless, there are only 141 million non-NFSA card members with grain entitlements (14.1
crores) as the final category does not have any foodgrain rights. It's unclear from the PIB press

release how they arrived at the figure of 250 million (25 crore) more state coverage. Our

calculations show that, with 900 million individuals receiving PDS coverage under the NFSA,

State-level measures to extend PDS coverage beyond NFSA coverage criteria prior (even during

the lockdown) imply that the issue of under-coverage and exclusion is well-recognized, despite

the central government's denial that it is necessary. The 400 million excluded people are largely

impoverished (IndiaSpend, 2020).

The Centre has demonstrated a lack of interest in developing and executing both immediate and

long-term plans to enhance food coverage for people at risk of going hungry. Social kitchens, more

subsidized grain at tide-over prices for states that run a more comprehensive PDS, and extending

the PDS to the poorest states are all on the list of suggestions put forth to the Centre (Kundu, 2020;

Cris, 2020). During the lockdown, the Centre announced that 80 million "migrants" would be

eligible for free grain for two months. November was the final extension of this time. By the end

of the first two months, very few states had made use of this provision, mainly because it was

difficult to identify these people. Eighty million individuals, including migratory workers who

may not have ration cards, would need permanent NFSA cards, which the government must

provide. As a result, the PDS coverage would be similar to what the NFSA has mandated by law.

Our estimates show that about 400 million people are remaining food insecure, whereas 900

million receive PDS coverage according to NFSA standards and 51 million receive less help than

NFSA norms.

Given the current situation of plentiful food stock, several alternatives are viable. More than twice

the quantity of buffer stock was retained by Food Corporation of India (FCI) at the beginning of

the July quarter12. Government action is required from the Centre rather than the States due to the
Centre's greater financial flexibility. The federal government is eager to adopt "One Nation, One

Ration," a controversial programme with murky advantages, instead of relying on the tried-and-

true methods described before (Khera and Somanchi, 2020; Drèze and Khera, 2020). Adding

portability is more difficult than expanding the PDS. It is clear from recent events that

universalization, not portability, has to occur sooner. Based on our findings, 51 million individuals

do not get the level of assistance that is required by NFSA, whereas 900 million individuals are

covered by PDS according to NFSA requirements.

There are numerous cross-links between the domains determining food insecurity, as illustrated in

Figure; nevertheless, due to the complexity of the issue, there isn't a single, comprehensive

solution. Targeting, diversion, and corruption are major issues with the PDS, one of the primary

remedies to food insecurity in India (Khera, 2020; Jha et al., 2013; Khera, 2011). As seen here,

rising levels of corruption make information less accessible, which has an impact on how well the

PDS functions as a whole (Jha et al., 2013; Khera, 2011). If the enablers listed above are

prioritized, the PDS can be strengthened even in the face of several obstacles. Effective and

carefully supervised administration has been noted as a definitive solution to targeting issues as

well as a successful diversion strategy (Khera, 2020; Jha et al., 2013; Khera, 2011; Krishnamurthy

et al., 2017). Success can also be influenced by subsidized prices for commodities, an effective

transportation system, and an effective food chain structure that promotes greater inclusion while

lowering transaction costs (Khera, 2020; Kumar et al., 2016). Lastly, higher wages in the

agriculture sector were acknowledged as a contributing element to the PDS's and India's

agricultural industry's smooth operation (Kishore and Chakrabarti, 2015).

The National Food Security Act (NFSA) is an essential tool for combating food insecurity. As a

useful adjunct to the PDS, it has the potential to boost economic growth, which in turn can enhance
agriculture and reduce poverty and hunger (Kishore and Chakrabarti, 2015). Although

environmental sustainability is critical to the agricultural and economic sectors' long-term health,

the NFSA does not support it (Kumar et al., 2016; Goel, 2011). All of the concept map's parts are

important for ensuring India's food security, but changing policies is where most of them come

from. The nation's food security may be achieved by policy adjustments that manage the factors

that hinder or help the PDS from operating smoothly (Kumar et al., 2016; Khera, 2020; Jha et al.,

2013; Sengupta and Mukhopadhyay, 2016). When implemented effectively, policies have the

potential to alleviate environmental sustainability issues, pediatric mortality, hunger, and

malnutrition (Kumar et al., 2016; Gaiha et al., 2012). The economics and pricing strategies of a

country are affected by policy reforms, which in turn affect the subsidized rates necessary for the

PDS to be absorbed efficiently. As a result, the idea map clarifies that policy modifications and

reforms to the PDS and NFSA are necessary for India to achieve food security for its residents

(Balani, 2017; Gupta, 2017; Masiero, 2015).

Figure 7: An understanding of the different factors that influence how well the PDS and NFSA

solve India's food security (Biswal and Jenamani, 2018)

4.3.3 PDS in providing India with an effective food safety network

The PDS and NFSA, if not more in terms of calorie provision, have been shown in multiple studies

to have contributed to India's raised food security; however, there is reason for worry

about problems such as mis-targeting, under-coverage, fraud, and redirection that impact the

creation and functioning of the food security network in India (George and McKay, 2019). It is

difficult to comprehend these worries because, despite reports from various governmental and non-

governmental organizations about the amount of food provided and the number of people the PDS

contacted, there is a dearth of research or data on the more pervasive problems associated with

food insecurity and the PDS (DFPD Targeted Public Distribution System, 2017). It is also unusual

for these reports to provide the technique for data gathering and/or analysis, which further

complicates further interpretation. To analyze the PDS's ability to reduce food scarcity in India,

here we try to synthesize the body of research published on the subject. Here, our goal is to

understand how this vast and expensive food delivery system functions among the more populist

and unequal countries (DFPD Annual Report 2015-16).

Any plan to address food insecurity must make use of the PDS, the largest distributive network in

the world, and its reliable and effective functioning. But corruption, mis-targeting, and

inefficiencies ensure that a sizable portion of India's population still lives in food insecurity. Two

primary causes of PDS's inability to address food security have been identified: (1) issues related

to targeting; and (2) issues related to diversion and corruption.

4.3.3.1 Targeting
The PDS was reorganized in 1997, moving away from a universal system that, in theory, qualified

every Indian for a food subsidy and towards a system that catered to the most vulnerable. The two

primary goals of this targeting were to: (1) reduce the system's steadily rising expenses; and (2)

increase the amount of food distributed to people in need. With this modification, food subsidies

for BPL households persisted, while those for APL households were gradually tapered off. BPL

households were identified by comparing their earnings to an absolute earnings line. However,

under this modification, all homes possessing assets (such as fans, TVs, two- or four-wheel drives,

land, etc.) were classified as APL. Even with these resources, rations had been lifted, leaving many

APL households unable to purchase enough food, leading to food insecurity (WFP Targeted Public

Distribution System, 2017). It is more difficult to target when there is a shortage of consistent,

dependable data. For instance, many BPL houses are not classified as such, and official estimations

of income for households are not frequently conducted. Furthermore, some homes in the BPL lack

ration cards. The PDS's poor performance as a successful system for food safety is caused by

targeting problems, which are exacerbated by the existence of unapprovedcards.

4.3.3.2 Distraction and Impropriety

Diversion and leakage still restrict the PDS's effectiveness. Over the previous 20 years, data for

the entire country of India have yielded inconsistent results. For example, data from 2007–2008

showed that 44% of grain was diverted, down from 55% three years earlier (WFP Targeted Public

Distribution System, 2017). There is still a substantial amount of food that has been moved about

in the system even though these numbers show a decline in system losses. Those who depend on

subsidized rations experience shortages as a result of these items that were meant for the PDS

being diverted into the general market. Some argue that targeting has made leakage and diversion

issues worse rather than better (Mane, 2006). Some see the TPDS's ability to provide dual pricing
as an incentive for investors to shift products into the free market, in which they can command a

higher price. The risk of enduring and entrenched corruption is increased by these diversions and

leaks as well as the ineffective monitoring brought on in part by the decentralized operation (NITI

Ayog, 2017; Prasad, 2013).

4.3.4 Techniques to Make the PDS Stronger

The PDS has the ability to play a big role in addressing India's food security issues, despite the

many challenges it faces in functioning. This assessment has identified two strategies to improve

the PDS's operational efficacy: (1) the National Food Security Act of 2013; and (2) electronic

governance and tracking.

4.3.4.1 The National Food Security Act

The creation of the NFSA in 2013 is a positive step towards strengthening the PDS. The NFSA is

a symbol of a move away from the traditional charitable paradigm and towards one that places

more emphasis on the acknowledgement of the human right to a healthy diet. The PDS was

established with the explicit intention of providing food grains at a subsidized rate to almost 800

million people, or about two-thirds of India's total population. The NSFA's wide provisions

allowed for the validity of several current food security schemes. The nutritional needs of the

general population at all ages are taken into account by the life cycle approach that forms the basis

of the NSFA (Balani, 2017). PDS targeting is maintained, but it now includes universal elements

like the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme and the Midday Meal Scheme, which are

accessible to all Indians. Seventy-five percent of people living in rural areas and fifty percent of

those living in urban areas receive five kilogrammes of food grains every month under the NFSA.

For rice, wheat, and millet, the price of a kilogramme is Rs 3, Rs 2, and Rs 1, respectively (one

rupee (Rs) is equal to 1.39 USD). The NFSA aimed to improve accountability and transparency
while simultaneously increasing state involvement in PDS coordinating and formalizing some pre-

existing rights (Chakraborty and Sarmah, 2018). One of the main goals of the NFSA is to empower

women and other marginalized groups in society. Monitoring programmes that seek to address

corruption, diversion, and leaks through improved coordination between the federal and state

governments are also emphasized (Chakraborty and Sarmah, 2018; Tanksale and Jha, 2015).

The NFSA may be a "game changer" for the nation's agriculture and economy, even though it is

unlikely to have a lasting impact on nutrition (NFSA, 2013; UNSGD, 2017). The main objectives

of the NFSA were to increase state management of the PDS and to enhance transparency and

control, in addition to formalizing some entitlements already in place (Chakraborty and Sarmah,

2018). The NFSA's main objectives are the empowerment of women and the underprivileged

groups in society. There is additional emphasis on monitoring programmes to combat corruption,

diversion, and leakages through enhanced cooperation between the federal and state governments

(Chakraborty and Sarmah, 2018; Tanksale and Jha, 2015). Concerns about the NSFA's ability to

identify low-income households have not been resolved, and issues with fake cards still exist

(Sengupta and Mukhopadhyay, 2016). Finally, because the NFSA's rising need for food grain

demands more water, fertilizer, and land, it may be damaging to the resilience of the ecosystem.

Unchecked, these activities have the potential to pollute the land, water, and air (UNSGD, 2017).

4.3.4.2 Monitoring and Digital Governance

If approved and put into practice, information and communications technology could play a crucial

part in success. As digitalization spreads throughout the public sector, computerization can

enhance PDS performance while lowering some leakage (Masiero, 2015). It can facilitate

beneficiary identification, lessen targeting-related inclusion and exclusion errors, and improve

accountability and transparency (Kumar et al., 2016). Another technological advancement that is
now being investigated in some locations is the application of global positioning systems to track

the food supply chain. Ensuring that things are checked through and out at every point of the supply

chain is how this technique works. Thus far, it has shown a decline in diversion, corruption, and

leaks (Kumar et al., 2017; Prasad, 2013) in addition to a boost in the quantity of goods given to

clients (Gupta, 2017).

4.4 Food Security in Uttar Pradesh

Research on food security carried out in India hardly ever uses subjective metrics (Agarwal et al.,

2009). The only statistically representative collection that gives specific information on food

expenditure and consumption is the National Sample Survey (NSS). However, it confines itself by

asking families about their beliefs of food sufficiency. Just lately, researchers in Maharashtra ran

the Comprehensive Nutrition Survey (CNS). Rather of limiting the survey to questions on hunger

and calorie intake, the International Institute for Population Sciences (2013) has highlighted the

survey's inadequacies and called for a series of subjective inquiries covering all areas of food

security. A more contemporary subjective method of gauging food security, the Household Food

Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) is gaining popularity across cultural and contextual borders for

its low cost, convenience of use, and little time investment (Headey and Ecker). The HFIAS's nine-

question module reveals a rising degree of food insecurity intensity. Certain questions (like "Did

you worry that your household would not have enough food or money to buy food?") focus on
 food vulnerability and stress, while other questions (like "Did you or any member in the household

have to eat a smaller meal than felt because there was not enough food?) Ask about the household's

behavioral responses to food insecurity.

4.4.1 Food Availability in Uttar Pradesh

Any region's ability to feed its people is mostly dependent on its ability to import food from areas

with surpluses or to produce enough food domestically. There are three aspects to food security:

food that is readily available, enough food for everyone at all times, and the ability to support

human life (Census of India, 2001). Therefore, an attempt has been made to ascertain the trends

and distributional pattern of food availability in this sector, which includes the availability of food

grains, their caloric availability, and the availability of livestock. The factors of food availability

from which food availability regions have been generated are food grains availability (in

calories/head/day), food grains caloric availability (in g/head/day), and livestock availability (per

thousand population) The z-score technique has been applied, whereby all factors are summed to

determine the weight of food availability and to identify areas where high productivity is

responsible for high food grain availability.

Table 1: Distribution of Food availability, stability, accessibility, and security (In Composite
Z-Scores) by District in Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Districts Food Food Food Food Food

availability stability accessibility utilization security
Allahabad -0.386 1.406 0.454 -0.496 0.244
Kaushambi -0.258 -0.259 0.716 0.901 0.275
Pratapgarh -0.327 0.370 0.602 0.993 0.410
Varanasi 0.452 0.218 1.044 -1.133 0.145
Chandauli 0.216 0.387 0.219 0.267 0.272
Ghazipur 0.303 0.311 0.156 -0.063 0.177
Jaunpur -0.027 0.230 0.063 0.047 0.078
Mirzapur -0.350 -0.238 0.148 -0.227 -0.167
Sonbhadra -1.225 -1.529 0.750 -1.091 -0.774
SantRavidasNagar -0.506 -0.421 -0.158 -0.686 -0.443
Azamgarh 0.163 0.514 -0.271 0.227 0.158
Mau 0.031 -0.003 0.125 -0.372 -0.055
Ballia 0.053 0.408 -0.553 0.460 0.092
Gorakhpur 0.086 0.476 -0.275 -0.575 -0.072
Maharajganj 0.698 0.189 0.0004 -0.046 0.210
Deoria 0.113 -0.093 -0.387 0.372 0.001
Kushinagar 0.317 0.325 -0.478 -0.259 -0.024
Basti 0.382 0.059 -0.639 1.026 0.207
Siddhartnagar 0.575 -0.250 -0.590 1.076 0.203
SantKabirNagar 0.054 -0.535 -0.676 -0.506 -0.416
Faizabad -0.349 0.382 0.125 0.511 0.167
Ambedkarnagar 0.402 0.082 -0.488 -0.706 -0.177
Sultanpur 0.186 0.025 0.359 0.024 0.149
Gonda 0.420 0.284 -0.216 0.028 0.129
Balrampur 1.020 -0.735 0.080 0.323 0.172
Behraich 0.463 -0.327 -0.334 -0.019 -0.054
Shrawasti 0.138 -1.273 0.222 -0.086 -0.250

Table 2:Distribution of Food availability, stability, accessibility, and security (In Composite
Z-Scores) by District in Western Uttar Pradesh

Districts Foodavaila Food Foodaccessib Food

bility stability ility security
Saharanpur -0.92 -1.33 0.98 -0.79
Muzaffarnaga -1.20 -0.15 0.87 -0.49
r
Meerut -1.83 -1.75 -0.14 -1.98
Baghpat -1.40 -1.60 -0.06 -1.60
Bulandshahr -0.07 1.12 1.27 0.94
Ghaziabad -1.38 -2.11 0.22 -1.69
GBN -0.46 -1.79 0.76 -0.73
Aligarh 0.98 0.54 -0.76 0.54
Hathras -0.66 -0.69 -1.40 -1.29
Mathura 0.88 0.01 1.47 1.18
Agra -0.48 0.61 -1.34 -0.61
Firozabad -0.44 0.25 -0.58 -0.42
Mainpuri 0.70 0.23 0.32 0.41
Etah 0.80 0.23 0.24 0.71
Bareilly -0.86 0.38 1.37 0.42
Badaun 1.18 0.71 -0.45 0.34
Shahjahanpur -0.34 0.53 -0.62 -0.26
Pilibhit 1.77 0.57 -1.81 0.63
Bijnor -0.61 -0.98 -1.30 -0.42
Moradabad -1.19 0.30 0.42 -0.48
JPN -0.49 0.18 -0.45 -0.43
Rampur 1.56 1.32 -1.78 0.83
Farrukhabad 1.06 1.51 0.45 1.49
 Kannauj 0.89 -0.07 0.55 0.51
Etawah 1.19 1.29 0.35 1.45
Auraiya 1.31 0.63 1.62 1.77

The districts of Bahraich, Varanasi, Gonda, Ambedkarnagar, and Basti in eastern region have the

highest food availability, followed by three districts—Balrampur, Maharajganj, and

Siddhartnagar. The aforementioned districts constitute high-food-availability regions as a result

of the expansion of agricultural infrastructure and irrigation capabilities. The production of food

grains has increased as a result of higher crop yields brought about by the use of high-yielding

seed types and greater fertilizer consumption. It should be mentioned that these districts have

abundant supplies of meat, milk, and livestock. The districts with intermediate food security are

Kushinagar, Ghazipur, Chandauli, Sultanpur, Azamgarh, Shrawasti, Deoria, Gorakhpur, Sant

Kabir Nagar, Ballia, Mau, Jaunpur, Kaushambi, and Pratapgarh. While the majority of the districts

have a moderate amount of livestock availability, these districts also have low levels of foodgrain

production and calorie availability, placing them in the category of moderate food availability

regions. The supply of milk and meat is likewise moderate, with the exception of the Sultanpur,

Bahraich, and Mau areas. There is a lack of food in the districts of Faizabad, Mirzapur, Allahabad,

Sant Ravidas Nagar, and Sonbhadra. The aforementioned districts have poor levels of agricultural

development and a high rate of population expansion, which leaves little food available. The

districts of Varanasi and Sant Ravidas Nagar have extremely low food availability since the bulk

of people work in home industrial jobs and the textile industry, with relatively few people working

in agriculture and related fields. The districts of Mirzapur, Sonbhadra, and Allahabad also have

extremely poor food availability since they are located in the Vindhyachal mountain range, whose

mountainous terrain makes it difficult to cultivate crops.

 3 Food availability in Western UP

Food availability in Eastern UP

2 Log. (Food availability in

Western UP)
Log. (Food availability in
Eastern UP)
1

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

-1

-2

-3

Figure: Food Availability in Uttar Pradesh

The regions of western U.P. with inadequate food availability are composed of six districts:

Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar, Baghpat, Ghaziabad, Morradabad, and Hathras. There is only one

district, Meerut, which is located in the western part of the research area and has a very low

concentration of food availability. Due to the high concentration of cash crop production, high

pace of urbanization, and high population density, low food availability has been documented in

these regions. According to reports, the Rampur and Pilibhit area has the greatest food availability

due to its low rate of urbanization and low population density. Five grades i.e. very high, high

medium, low, and very low; are created by grouping and mapping these results.
Food security in the Western United Province is diminishing as a result of commercialization,

which has decreased the output of food grains, and the region's fast transition from agriculture to

industrial activity and crop commercialization. Due in large part to the Green Revolution, the

Western U.P. is the most affluent, developed, and agriculturally wealthy region; nonetheless, there

are regional differences in food security. Farmers employ labor-intensive technologies, and the

quantity of work that a planter is able to put in determines how much is produced. In the parts of

the Western U.P. where food insecurity is an issue, farmers frequently lack expertise about land

practices, soil fertility, and water management. The upper Ganga plain, which contains fertile land,

level terrain, and a suitable climate, is home to Western Uttar Pradesh.

4.4.2 Food Stability in Uttar Pradesh

Food stability necessitates implementing the necessary preventative measures in order to lessen

detrimental, intermittent, and inter-annual fluctuations in food supply. The systems for production,

pricing, marketing, and distribution must all have built-in stability. Disasters, both man-made and

natural, can frequently be predicted and even avoided (Busch and Lacy, 2021). Thus, an attempt

has been undertaken to determine the distributional pattern of food stability in these regions.

There is just one district in the eastern U.P., Allahabad, where there is an exceptionally high degree

of food stability. These districts have extremely high levels of food security because of the

development of agricultural infrastructure, which includes increased fertilizer consumption and

irrigation systems with both surface and subsurface water. These developments have increased the

area under food grain cultivation and, consequently, crop productivity. These districts have large

storage capacities as well, which allows them to keep food supplies stable even during times of

scarcity. Additionally, there is moderate food stability in the districts of Azamgarh, Gorakhpur,
Ballia, Chandauli, Faizabad, Pratapgarh, Kushinagar, Ghazipur, Gonda, Jaunpur, Varanasi,

Maharajganj, Ambedkarnagar, Basti, Sultanpur, Mau, Deoria, Mirzapur, Siddhartnagar,

Kaushambi Bahraich, Sant Ravidas Nagar, and Sant Kabir Nagar. These districts lack the storage

capacity, fertilizer consumption, and irrigation infrastructure of high food stable districts. There is

extremely little food stability in the three districts of Sonbhadra, Shrawasti, and Balrampur. The

low concentration of nearly all the variables pertaining to food stability is the reason for the low

level of food stability in these regions. Due to their limited storage capacity, some areas are unable

to keep food prices stable even during shortages. These districts' farmers are still in the Stone Age

and lack necessary knowledge of contemporary agricultural practices, such as irrigation.

According to the most recent data available from the Government of India, Eastern Uttar Pradesh

has a much lower percentage of its total irrigated area—56.10 percent—under food grains than the

State average, which is 68.58 percent. The districts of Balrampur, Bahraich, Shrawasti, and

Sonbhadra have the lowest percentages of total irrigated area—37.47, 35.30, 32.16, and 24.21

percent, respectively. With the exception of Sonbhadra and Sant Ravidas Nagar, these districts

have the lowest fertilizer consumption per hectare of land, despite an increase in the past ten years.

While the fraction of net irrigated land to net seeded area is low in Sonbhadra and Sant Ravidas

Nagar, the two regions consume relatively high amounts of fertilizer, which leads to low yields.

It is said, in accordance with genetic advice, that high-yielding seed varieties with heavy chemical

fertilizer applications generate a higher yield only when sufficiently water is applied to the field.

Therefore, on the current agricultural area, farmers are unable to enhance crop productivity and

production. This explains why, despite having high fertilizer consumption, the districts of

Sonbhadra and Sant Ravidas Nagar have low food stability.

Three indicators have been developed for the analysis of food stability in the spatial dimension:

public distribution system, storage capacity, and productivity of food grains. The primary drivers

of food stability are the productivity of food grains (yield kg/ha), the public distribution system

(total number of fair price shops per thousand population), and storage capacity (storage capacity

in metric tonnes per thousand population). Based on the value of the standardized z-score, the

regions of food stability have been delineated. Farrukhabad, in the western U.P. has records of a

very high food stability zone. Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur, Budaun, Aligarh, Agra, Rampur, Etawah,

Bulandshahr, and Auraiya are among the districts with high food stability, with a notable

concentration in the eastern and southern regions of the research area.

 3
Food stability in Western UP
2.5
Food stability in Eastern UP

2 Log. (Food stability in Western

UP)
Log. (Food stability in Eastern UP)
1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

Figure: Food Stability in Uttar Pradesh

4.4.3 Food Accessibility Regions in Uttar Pradesh

Until people have access to the food that is available, its stability and availability will mean

nothing. "Food security" is defined as "access to adequate food for all people at all times" (World

Bank, 1986). Accessibility is just as important to food security as stability and availability of food.

Most malnourished people are unable to produce enough food or cannot afford to buy enough of

it. They don't have enough access to natural resources, employment opportunities, money, or social
standing (Ghosh, 2000). The composite outcome of factors like employment, purchasing power,

and literacy rate is food accessibility. A food accessibility analysis takes into account three

variables: purchasing power, employment, and literacy rate. The weight of food accessibility

regions is calculated by adding the standardized z-scores of these variables.

The districts of Varanasi, Sonbhadra, Kaushambi, and Pratapgarh from eastern U.P. form a high

food accessibility region because of their significantly higher rates of urban population and

literacy. This is indicated by the district-wise distributional pattern of food accessibility. Higher

levels of literacy are typically associated with higher employment rates, which in turn improve

access to food. However, the districts of Kaushambi, Pratapgarh, and Sultanpur are located in an

area with a high level of food accessibility while having low rates of urbanisation and literacy.

These districts' residents have higher purchasing power due to their high per capita income. The

farmers can easily acquire agricultural inputs, as well as the delivery and selling of agricultural

produce to make food available to the needy at the appropriate time, thanks to the lengthy and

well-connected roadways.Moderate food accessibility is found in seventeen districts: Allahabad,

Sultanpur, Shrawasti, Chandauli, Ghazipur, Mirzapur, Mau, Faizabad, Balrampur, Jaunpur,

Maharajganj, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Gonda, Azamgarh, Gorakhpur, Bahraich, and Deoria. These

districts fall into the category of moderately accessible food regions due to their medium levels of

urbanisation, literacy, and road connection. Very little food was accessible in Sant Kabir Nagar,

Ballia, Siddhartnagar, Basti, Kushinagar, and Ambedkarnagar. The accessibility of food in these

districts is low due to lower employment rates and lower rates of urbanization, which ultimately

result in lower purchasing power, even though there are fewer people per fair price shop. These

districts have low levels of urbanization, which has a negative impact on the availability of urban

amenities and services for sanitation, health, and other infrastructure needs that are critical to
increasing population accessibility to food. Even though these districts have very low to no access

to food, over 50% of the population is literate, and unemployment and poverty are pervasive. The

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has generated a lot of

fanfare, however research shows that just 17.52% of the population is employed as primary

workers, and 16.23% is employed as a marginal worker. When all of the districts in Eastern Uttar

Pradesh are combined, excluding the districts with extremely low and low food accessibility, it is

clear that not a single district in the area has more than one-third of its population employed for

more than six months of the year. These employment statistics demonstrate how depressing the

state of job creation initiatives is in the research region.

3
Food accessibility in Western UP
2.5
Food accessibility in Eastern UP
2
Log. (Food accessibility in Western
1.5 UP)

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-2.5

Figure: Food Accessibility in Uttar Pradesh

On the other hand in western U.P., Auraiya district is the single district with exceptionally good

food accessibility. Seven districts comprise the high-grade food accessibility region, which are as

follows: Muzaffarnagar, Bareilly, Goutam Buddha Nagar, Saharanpur, Mathura, Etawah, and

Bulandshahr. Due to their strong employment and spending power, these districts saw significant

food accessibility and improvement in the security of food. However, there are pockets of high

human density and low agricultural output scattered throughout the territory with significant food

accessibility. Purchasing power and food accessibility have the most favourable correlation. The

most crucial element in eradicating poverty and enhancing farmers' ability to employ new

technologies responsibly is the literacy rate. Ten of the study area's districts have designated zones

for medium-grade food accessibility. Six districts are located in the low-food-accessibility region:

Shahjahanpur, Aligarh, Hathras, Bijnor, Agra, and Firozabad. The eastern part of the western U.P.

comprises two districts, Pilibhit and Rampur, which are located in the very low grade food

accessibility region. Food accessibility is poor in these places because of high rates of poverty and

unemployment.

The districts of Siddhartnagar, Basti, Pratapgarh, and Kaushambi comprise the high food

utilization region, which is situated in the research area's northern and western regions. These

districts remain in the category of high food utilization region due to the high availability of

primary and medical healthcare facilities, including safe drinking water and amenities for mothers

and children. Located on the north-eastern, north-western, south-eastern, and central portions of

the study area, the districts of Faizabad, Ballia, Deoria, Balrampur, Chandauli, Azamgarh, Jaunpur,

Gonda, Sultanpur, Bahraich, Maharajganj, Ghazipur, Shrawasti, Mirzapur, Kushinagar, Mau,

Allahabad, Sant Kabir Nagar, and Gorakhpur constitute notable moderate food utilisation

regions.Low food consumption is found in four districts: Mau, Allahabad, Sant Kabir Nagar, and
Gorakhpur. Very low food consumption is found in the central and southern regions of the research

area, where Sant Ravidas Nagar, Ambedkarnagar, Sonbhadra, and Varanasi are found.

4.4.4 Food Security in Uttar Pradesh

The eastern, south-western, and north-central portions of eastern Uttar Pradesh have moderate

levels of food security. Kaushambi, Chandauli, Allahabad, Maharajganj, Basti, Siddhartnagar,

Ghazipur, Faizabad, Balrampur, Azamgarh, Sultanpur, Varanasi, Gonda, Jaunpur, Deoria,

Kushinagar, Bahraich, Mau, Gorakhpur, Mirzapur, and Ambedkarnagar are the districts that

recorded moderate food security. The high levels of food security in these regions can be attributed

to the availability of food and animals, higher fertilizer consumption with suitable irrigation

systems, increased crop yield, and increased purchasing power. Additionally, these areas have a

well-developed road network that facilitates improved distribution and selling of agricultural

products as well as easier access to agricultural supplies. In terms of food consumption, these

areas benefit from the availability of clean drinking water, which protects residents from a variety

of waterborne illnesses and facilitates appropriate food intake. Hospitals are widely available and

have a high bed count per lakhs of people, offering basic medical services and primary healthcare

to the general public. The aforementioned districts have low newborn and maternal mortality due

to the high concentration of maternal and child healthcare centers. Evidence exists to suggest that

a key contributing factor to high infant and maternal death rates is malnutrition. These areas' low

rates of infant and maternal mortality further demonstrate their strong nutrition security, which

improves food utilization and, ultimately, food security. The study area's north-central and

southern regions are home to the four districts with the lowest food security scores: Shrawasti,

Sant Kabir Nagar, Sant Ravidas Nagar, and Sonbhadra. Together, these districts represent a very

poor region of food security. In these districts, there is a general lack of food supply. Low fertilizer
consumption combined with inadequate irrigation systems results in low crop output. There are

also few medical and primary healthcare services, as well as safe drinking water sources. Because

of the low yield per acre and low fertilizer usage, agricultural infrastructure improvement is

necessary. To ensure better access to food, storage capacity and the number of fair price stores

should be increased.

Food security in Western UP

2
Food security in Eastern UP

Log. (Food security in

1 Western UP)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-1

-2

-3

Figure: Food Security in Uttar Pradesh

The preceding research makes it abundantly evident that there are wide differences in the

availability, stability, and accessibility of food in the Western U.P. districts. Composite z-scores

of nine variables—three for food availability, three for stability, and three for accessibility—have

been included in order to evaluate overall food security .The five classes of very high, high,

medium, low, and very low are based on the composite standardized z-score values, which are
used to split western Uttar Pradesh into food security regions. The districts of Mathura, Etawah,

and Auraiya in the southern portion of the research area have extremely high levels of food

security. The concentrated portion of the study area is home to high food security regions, which

are distinguished by high concentrations of food stability brought on by large land holdings that

lead to higher rural development, public distribution networks, and high production of food grains,

low population density, and high storage capacity. Thus, the primary determinants of high levels

of food security in these areas are employment and purchasing power (Reutlinger, 1986). Three

districts fall under the medium category food security region: Bijnor, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, and

Bareilly. The low concentration food security region is dispersed throughout the research area and

includes Goutam Buddha Nagar, Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Moradabad, Firozabad, and Agra.

In the western portion of the research area, in the districts of Ghaziabad, Hathras, Meerut, and

Baghpat, there is a concentration of very low-grade food security regions. Due to a lack of

reasonable priced stores, limited purchasing power, inadequate storage space, and a lack of

production of food grains, these districts have low levels of food security. A low degree of food

security inhibits the growth of rural areas (Chaturvedi, 1997).

Finally, an attempt has been made to figure out on the basis of correlation matrix in order to

determine the relationship between the food security factors. The association between them has

been ascertained using Karl Pearson's Correlation Coefficient approach, and the degree of

significance has been verified through the use of students' tests. At the one percent significance

level, food security is positively connected with food availability (r=0.86) and food stability

(r=0.81). Although there is a positive correlation (r=0.27) between it and food accessibility, none

of it is significant at the recognized level. The analysis suggests that food stability and availability

are key factors in determining the region's food security. However, the supply of food has little
bearing on "the food stability." It is mostly because farmers are more likely to grow cash crops for

short-term profit as a result of industrialization, urbanization, commercialization, and technical

advancement in agriculture. The production of food grain crops is hampered by the extensive

cultivation of cash crops, which lowers food grain availability. At the one percent significance

level, there is a high correlation (r=0.70) between food availability and food stability. It has a

negative relationship with the availability of food. The research makes it abundantly evident that

food stability and availability are linked and rely on one another. One could argue that food

stability might rise in proportion to increases in food availability.

5. Conclusion
Food availability, consistency, and accessibility are all positively connected with food security.

Stability and the availability of food are related. However the primary cause of the decline in food

availability is the conversion of cereal crop agriculture into commercial cropping. A shifting land

use pattern brought on by globalization, commercialization, and industrialization may impair food

stability. Food accessibility differs from food availability and stability in that it is solely based on

the residents' purchasing capacity. The primary cause of this is that farmers are more likely to grow

cash crops in order to make rapid money as a result of industrialization, urbanization,

commercialization, and technical advancements in agriculture. The production of food grains is

greatly hampered by the large-scale cultivation of cash crops, which eventually reduces the supply

of food grains. The public distribution system (total number of fair price stores per thousand

population), storage capacity (storage capacity in metric tonnes per thousand population), and food

grain productivity (yield kg/ha) are the main factors that determine food stability. Food security

depends on accessibility as much as it does on food stability and availability. Most malnourished

individuals either cannot grow enough food on their own or cannot afford to buy enough of it.

They don't have enough access to money, work prospects, natural resources, or social standing.

Food accessibility is the result of a number of variables, including employment, purchasing

capacity, and literacy rate. Also, many districts have low levels of food security because there

aren't enough affordable retailers, their purchasing power isn't high enough, there isn't enough

storage space, and there aren't enough food grains produced. A poor level of food security impedes

rural communities' ability to grow.

Reference:
1. "Chhattisgarh passes own food security bill - Hindustan Times". 11 January 2013. Archived
from the original on 11 January 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
2. "Food Security Act To Be Implemented From June 5". BTVI.in. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
3. "Food Security". www.ifpri.org. Retrieved 2020-11-30
4. "Global Food Security Index (GFSI)". The Economist. 7 February 2023.
5. "Goal 2: Zero Hunger"
6. "Human Rights Measurement Initiative – The first global initiative to track the human rights
performance of countries". humanrightsmeasurement.org. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
7. "India - HRMI Rights Tracker". rightstracker.org. Retrieved 24 February 2022.
8. "India slips in Global Hunger Index, ranks 107 out of 121 nations". Al Jazeera.
9. "India: Global Food Security Index". Archived from the original on 12 July 2012.
Retrieved 11 January 2019.
10. "Indira Canteen, Karnataka"
11. "Nalabothu foundation"
12. "National Food Security Act" (PDF). PRS Legislative Research. Archived from the
original (PDF) on 27 January 2018. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
13. "Nutrition and Food Security - UN India". UN India. Archived from the original on 6 January
2018. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
14. "Press Information Bureau". Retrieved 5 January 2018.
15. "The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013. The multiple dimensions of food
security" (PDF). FAO.
16. Agarwal S, Sethi V, Gupta P, Jha M, Agnihotri A, Nord M. Experiential household food
insecurity in an urban underserved slum of North India. Food security. 2009 Sep;1:239-50.
17. Agricultural, F. A. O. (2012). Development Economics Division (June 2006). Food
Security, 2.
18. Aurino E, Fledderjohann J, Vellakkal S. Inequalities in adolescent learning: Does the timing
and persistence of food insecurity at home matter?. Economics of Education Review. 2019 Jun
1;70:94-108.
19. Aurino E, Morrow V. “Food prices were high, and the dal became watery”. Mixed-method
evidence on household food insecurity and children’s diets in India. World Development. 2018
Nov 1;111:211-24.
20. Ayiraveetil R, Sarkar S, Chinnakali P, Jeyashree K, Vijayageetha M, Thekkur P,
Lakshminarayanan S, Knudsen S, Hochberg NS, Horsburgh CR, Ellner J. Household food
insecurity among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and its associated factors in South
India: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2020;10(2).
21. Balakrishnan P, Ramaswami B. Quality of public distribution system: why it matters.
Economic and Political Weekly. 1997 Jan 25:162-5.
22. Balani S. Functioning of the Public Distribution System: An Analytical Report. [(accessed on
18 September 2017)]
23. Ballantyne P. Accessing, sharing and communicating agricultural information for
development: Emerging trends and issues. Information Development. 2009 Nov;25(4):260-71.
24. Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C, Schmidhuber J. Better measurement of food insecurity in
the context of enhancing nutrition. Ernahrungs Umschau. 2014 Jan;61(2):38-41.
25. Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a
global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: FAO; 2013.
26. Banerjee A. Revisiting the global food crisis: magnitude, causes, impact and policy options.
Research and Information System for Developing Countries; 2010 Oct.
27. Barrett CB, Fanzo J, Herrero M, Mason-D’Croz D, Mathys A, Thornton P, Wood S, Benton
TG, Fan S, Lawson-Lartego L, Nelson R. COVID-19 pandemic lessons for agri-food systems
innovation. Environmental Research Letters. 2021 Sep 21;16(10):101001.
28. Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W., & Cook, J. (2000). Guide to measuring
household food security.
29. Biswal, A.K.; Jenamani, M. Leveraging ICT for Food Security: An Analysis in the Context of
PDS in India. Annual Convention of the Computer Society of India. In Social
Transformation—Digital Way; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 376–390.
30. Bracale R, Vaccaro CM. Changes in food choice following restrictive measures due to Covid-
19. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020 Aug 28;30(9):1423-6.
31. Burchi F, Fanzo J, Frison E. The role of food and nutrition system approaches in tackling
hidden hunger. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2011
Feb;8(2):358-73.
32. Busch L, Lacy WB. Introduction: What Does Food Security Mean?. InFood Security in the
United States 2021 Jan 7 (pp. 1-10). CRC Press.
33. Cafiero C, Viviani S, Nord M. Food security measurement in a global context: the food
insecurity experience scale. Measurement. 2018;116:146–152.
doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2017.10.065.
34. Castell GS, Rodrigo CP, de la Cruz JN, Bartrina JA. Household food insecurity access scale
(HFIAS). Nutricion hospitalaria. 2015;31(3):272-8.
35. Census of India (2001), Primary Census Abstract, Series 10, Uttar Pradesh, India: Directorate
of Census Operation.
36. Chakraborty S., Sarmah S. India 2025: The public distribution system and National Food
Security Act 2013. Dev. Pract. 2018:1–20.
37. Chandrasekhar S, Aguayo VM, Krishna V, Nair R. Household food insecurity and children’s
dietary diversity and nutrition in India. Evidence from the comprehensive nutrition survey in
Maharashtra. Matern Child Nutr. 2017;13:n/a-n/a.
38. Chatterjee N, Fernandes G, Hernandez M. Food insecurity in urban poor households in
Mumbai. India Food Security. 2012;4(4):619–632.
39. Chaturvedi P, editor. Food Security and Panchayati Raj. Concept Publishing Company; 1997.
40. Chinnakali P, Upadhyay RP, Shokeen D, Singh K, Kaur M, Singh AK, et al. Prevalence of
household-level food insecurity and its determinants in an urban resettlement colony in north
India. J Health Popul Nutr. 2014;32(2):227.
41. Choithani C. Understanding the linkages between migration and household food security in
India. Geographical Research. 2017 May;55(2):192-205.
42. Chukwuka O, Emeka I, Ibrahim Y, Fenetahun Y, Yuan Y, Yongdong W. Remote sensing
approach in evaluating anthropogenic impacts on the spatiotemporal changes in net primary
productivity of the Niger river basin, from 2000 to 2020. Heliyon. 2023 Nov 1;9 (11).
43. Chyne DAL, Meshram II, Rajendran A, Kodali V, Getti N, Roy P, et al. Nutritional status,
food insecurity, and biodiversity among the Khasi in Meghalaya, North-East India. Matern
Child Nutr. 2017;13.
44. Coates J, Frongillo EA, Rogers BL, Webb P, Wilde PE, Houser R. Commonalities in the
experience of household food insecurity across cultures: what are measures missing? J
Nutr. 2006;136(5):1438S–S1448.
45. Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for
measurement of food access: indicator guide: version 3. 2007.
46. Coates J, Webb P, Houser R. Measuring food insecurity: going beyond indicators of income
and anthropometry: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project, Academy for
Educational Development; 2003.
47. Coleman-Jensen A, Gregory C, Singh A. Household food security in the United States in 2013.
USDA-ERS Econ Res Rep. 2014;(173).
48. Corkery M, Yaffe-Bellany D. Meat plant closures mean pigs are gassed or shot instead. The
New York Times. 2020 May 14;14.
49. Cris (2020), 'Inside a Kerala community kitchen during the coronavirus lockdown', The News
Minute, 28 March 2020.
50. Cuesta J. Is long-term food insecurity inevitable in Asia?. The Pacific Review. 2014 Oct
20;27(5):611-27.
51. Dandekar VM. The Indian economy 1947-92. Vol. 1. Agriculture. Sage Publications; 1994.
52. Dantwala ML. Agricultural policy: prices and public distribution system: a review. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1993;48(902-2018-3216):173-86.
53. Das S, Krishna C. Household food insecurity and malnutrition in an urban field practice area
of a medical college. National Journal of Community Medicine. 2018;9(12):869–874.
54. Dasgupta PB, Sharmistha D, Dilip K. Food security in households of people living with human
immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: a cross-sectional study in a
subdivision of Darjeeling District, West Bengal. J Prev Med Public Health. 2016;49(4):240–
8.
55. Dev SM, Suryanarayana MH. Is pds urban biased and pro-rich?: An evaluation. Economic and
Political Weekly. 1991 Oct 12:2357-66.
56. Dev SM. Agricultural Development and PDS: lack of Major Initiatives. Economic and Political
Weekly. 2000 Mar 25:1046-9.
57. DFPD Annual Report 2015-16. [(accessed on 17 September 2017)]
58. DFPD Salient features of the National Food Security Act, 2013. [(accessed on 12 September
2017)]
59. DFPD Targeted Public Distribution System. [(accessed on 9 September 2017)]; Available
online: http://dfpd.nic.in/public-distribution.htm
60. Dhamija G, Ojha M, Roychowdhury P. Hunger and health: Reexamining the impact of
household food insecurity on child malnutrition in India. The Journal of Development Studies.
2022 Jun 3;58(6):1181-210.
61. Dharmaraju NM, Sonam S, Arulappan N, Thomas B, Marconi D, Sam P, Sherin S, Mohan VR.
Household food security in an urban slum: determinants and trends. J Fam Med Primary Care.
2018;7(4):819–22.
62. Diehl JA, Oviatt K, Chandra AJ, Kaur H. Household food consumption patterns and food
security among low-income migrant urban farmers in Delhi, Jakarta, and Quito. Sustainability.
2019 Mar 6;11(5):1378.
63. Drewnowski A, Specter SE. Poverty and obesity: the role of energy density and energy costs.
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2004 Jan 1;79(1):6-16.
64. Drèze J, Gupta P, Khera R, Pimenta I. Casting the Net: India's Public Distribution System after
the Food Security Act. Available at SSRN 3177691. 2018 May 13.
65. Dreze J, Sen A. Hunger and public action. Clarendon.
66. Drèze J. Famine prevention in India. The political economy of hunger. 1990;2:13-22.
67. Drèze, Jean P, Prankur Gupta, Reetika Khera and Isabel Pimenta (2019), "Casting the Net:
India's Public Distribution System after the Food Security Act", Economic and Political
Weekly, 54(6), 9 February 2019.
68. Drèze, JP and R Khera (2020), 'Getting cash transfers out of a JAM', The Hindu, 13 May 2020.
69. Dutta B, Ramaswami B. Targeting and efficiency in the public distribution system: Case of
Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Economic and Political Weekly. 2001 May 5:1524-32.
70. Economic survey of India. Ministry of Finance.
71. Ellis EC, Ramankutty N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2008 Oct;6(8):439-47.
72. Expenditure Budget, Union Budget 2017-18" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 6
January 2018
73. FAO (2009). Declaration of the World Food Summit on Food Security (PDF). Allen, R. G.,
Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
74. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World
Food Summit Plan of Action: World Food Summit 13-17 November 1996, Rome, Italy. FAO;
1996.
75. Food security and nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030" (PDF)
76. Food Security in the United States: Measuring Household Food Security". USDA
77. Frongillo EA, Nanama S. Development and validation of an experience-based measure of
household food insecurity within and across seasons in northern Burkina Faso. J
Nutr. 2006;136(5):1409S–S1419.
78. Frongillo Jr EA. Validation of measures of food insecurity and hunger. The Journal of
nutrition. 1999 Feb 1;129(2):506S-9S.
79. Gaiha, R.; Kulkarni, V.S.; Pandey, M.K.; Imai, K.S. On Hunger and Child Mortality in India. J.
Asian Afr. Stud. 2012, 47, 3–17.
80. Gangopadhyay S, Lensink R, Yadav B. Cash or in-kind transfers? Evidence from a randomised
controlled trial in Delhi, India. The Journal of Development Studies. 2015 Jun 3;51(6):660-73.
81. Garcia SM, Rosenberg AA. Food security and marine capture fisheries: characteristics, trends,
drivers and future perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences. 2010 Sep 27;365(1554):2869-80.
82. Geetha S, Suryanarayana MH. Revamping PDS: some issues and implications. Economic and
Political Weekly. 1993 Oct 9:2207-13.
83. George E, Daga A. Food security among preschool children. Indian J Pediatr. 2000;67(7):483–
485. doi: 10.1007/BF02760472.
84. George PS. Public distribution system, food subsidy and production incentives. Economic and
Political Weekly. 1996 Sep 28:A140-4.
85. George, N.A.; McKay, F.H. The Public Distribution System and Food Security in India. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3221.
86. Ghosh GN. Food Insecurity-The Greatest Challenge of the Millennium. Indian Farming.
2000;50(7):7-9.
87. Gödecke T, Stein AJ, Qaim M. The global burden of chronic and hidden hunger: trends and
determinants. Global food security. 2018 Jun 1;17:21-9.
88. Godfray HC, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson
S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. science.
2010 Feb 12;327(5967):812-8.
89. Goel, V. India’s Food Security Strategy and its Impact on the Food Surplus State of Punjab. J.
Food Prod. Mark. 2011, 17, 487.
90. Griffiths P, Bentley M. Women of higher socio-economic status are more likely to be
overweight in Karnataka, India. European journal of clinical nutrition. 2005 Oct;59(10):1217-
20.
91. Gulati IS, Krishnan TN. Public Distribution and Procurement of Foodgrains: A Proposal.
Economic and Political Weekly. 1975 May 24:829-42.
92. Gupta A, Pathak H. Climate change and agriculture in India. New Delhi. 2016 Jan
93. GUPTA R. NFSA: A Legal Entitlement to Right to Food. Productivity. 2017;58:166–178.
94. Gustafsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Emanuelsson A. The methodology of the FAO study:
Global Food Losses and Food Waste-extent, causes and prevention”-FAO, 2011.
95. Headey DD, Ecker O. Improving the measurement of food security.
96. Heylen EP, Siju T, Chandy S, Steward W, Ekstrand T, Maria L. Food insecurity and its relation
to psychological well-being among South Indian people living with HIV. AIDS and Behavior.
2015;19(8):1548–58.
97. Houghton L, McIntosh D, Trilok-Kumar G, Haszard J, Gibson R. Suboptimal feeding and
caring practices among young Indian children ages 12 to 24 mo living in the slums of New
Delhi. Nutr. 2020;69.
98. Howes S, Jha S. Urban bias in Indian public distribution system. Economic and Political
Weekly. 1992 May 9:1022-30.
99. http://www.fci.gov.in. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
100. https://india.un.org/en/171969-nutrition-and-food-security
101. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/ridding-india-of-food-
insecurity/article67296175.ece
102. Human Rights Measurement Initiative – The first global initiative to track the human rights
performance of countries". humanrightsmeasurement.org
103. Humphries DLD, Kirk A.: Crookston, Benjamin T.: Fernald, Lia C.: Stein, Aryeh D.:
Woldehanna, Tassew: Penny, Mary E.: Behrman, Jere R.: Young lives, determinants:
 consequences of child growth project, team. Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations
between household food security and child anthropometry at ages 5 and 8 years in Ethiopia,
India, Peru, and Vietnam. J Nutr. 2015;145(8):1924–33.
104. IndiaSpend (2020), 'More than 100mn excluded from PDS as govt uses outdated Census
2011', IndiaSpend, 16 April 2010.
105. Indrakant S, Harikishan S. Food security in Andhra Pradesh in retrospect and prospect.
Towards a food secure India: issues and policies. 2003:170-85.
106. Indrakant S, Rao N. Working of Food Coupon Scheme in Andhra Pradesh. Centre for
Economic and Social Studies (CESS). Hyderabad. India. 2003.
107. Indrakanth S. Coverage and leakages in PDS in Andhra Pradesh. Economic and political
weekly. 1997 May 10:999-1001.
108. Jha S, Srinivasan PV. Taking the PDS to the poor: Directions for further reform. Economic
and Political Weekly. 2001 Sep 29:3779-86.
109. Jha, R.; Gaiha, R.; Pandey, M.K.; Kaicker, N. Food subsidy, income transfer and the poor:
A comparative analysis of the public distribution system in India’s states. J. Policy
Model. 2013, 35, 887–908.
110. Joshi PK. Pathways to Improve Food Security and Reduce Poverty in Emerging India §.
Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2016;29(2):171-82.
111. Jyotishi A, Bedamatta S. Indian Agricultural Sector towards Food Security: Some Policy
Issues. Amrita School of Business, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, University Amritanagar,
Tamilnaidu. 2011 Sep.
112. Kaslryap SP. Food and Livelihood Security Concerns for Rural India.
113. Keenan RJ, Reams GA, Achard F, de Freitas JV, Grainger A, Lindquist E. Dynamics of
global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest
Ecology and Management. 2015 Sep 7;352:9-20.
114. Kendall A, Olson CM, Frongillo Jr EA. Validation of the Radimer/Cornell measures of
hunger and food insecurity. The Journal of nutrition. 1995 Nov 1;125(11):2793-801.
115. Kepplea AW, Segall-Corrêab AM. Global Food Security.
116. Khera R, Somanchi A. A Review of the Coverage of PDS. Ideas for India. 2020 Aug 19;19.
117. Khera R. Trends in diversion of grain from the public distribution system. Economic and
Political Weekly. 2011 May 21:106-14.
118. Khera, R (2020), 'PM's One-Nation, One-Ration Scheme - What Not To Do', NDTV, 6
July 2020.
119. Khera, R. India’s Public Distribution System: Utilization and Impact. J. Dev.
Stud. 2011, 47, 1038–1060.
120. Kishore, A.; Chakrabarti, S. Is More Inclusive More Effective? The ‘New Style’ Public
Distribution System in India. Food Policy 2015, 55, 117–130.
121. Knueppel D, Demment M, Kaiser L. Validation of the household food insecurity access
scale in rural Tanzania. Public Health Nutr. 2010;13(3):360–367.
doi: 10.1017/S1368980009991121.
122. Kriesel S, Zaidi S. The Targeted Public Distribution System in Uttar Pradesh, India–An
Evaluation. Draft Paper, The World Bank, Washington, August. 1999 Aug.
123. Krishnamurthy, P.; Pathania, V.; Tandon, S. Food Price Subsidies and Nutrition: Evidence
from State Reforms to India’s Public Distribution System. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2017, 66,
55–90.
124. Krishnan TN. Population, poverty and employment in India. Economic and Political
Weekly. 1992 Nov 14:2479-97.
125. Kumar A, Bantilan MC, Kumar P, Kumar S, Jee S. Food security in India: Trends, patterns
and determinants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2012;67(3):445-63.
126. Kumar A., Parappurathu S., Babu S., Betne R. Public Distribution System in Bihar, India:
Implications for Food Security. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2016;17:300–315.
127. Kumar A., Parappurathu S., Babu S.C., Joshi P. Can better governance improve food
security? An assessment of the public food distribution system in Odisha, India. Food
Secur. 2017;9:1433–1445.
128. Kumar M, Savita, Singh H, Pandey R, Singh MP, Ravindranath NH, Kalra N. Assessing
vulnerability of forest ecosystem in the Indian Western Himalayan region using trends of net
primary productivity. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2019 Jul 30;28:2163-82.
129. Kumar, A.; Parappurathu, S.; Babu, S.; Betne, R. Public Distribution System in Bihar,
India: Implications for Food Security. J. Agric. Food Inf. 2016, 17, 300–315.
130. Kundu, R (2020), 'As hunger grows, Mumbai’s community kitchens may hold lessons on
ensuring nutrition for the poor', Scroll, 27 July 2020.
131. Laborde D, Martin W, Vos R. Poverty and food insecurity could grow dramatically as
COVID-19 spreads. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC.
2020 Apr 16.
132. Lal R. Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. Journal of soil and water
conservation. 2020 Sep 1;75(5):123A-4A.
133. Leroy JL, Ruel M, Frongillo EA, Harris J, Ballard TJ. Measuring the food access dimension
of food security: a critical review and mapping of indicators. Food Nutr Bull. 2015;36(2):167–
195.
134. Lewis L. Coronavirus serves up a surplus of Wagyu beef. Financial Times. 2020.
135. Mahajan S, Sousa-Poza A, Datta KK. Differential effects of rising food prices on Indian
households differing in income. Food Security. 2015 Oct;7:1043-53.
136. Maitra C, Rao DSP. An empirical investigation into measurement and determinants of food
security. J Dev Stud. 2018;54(6):1060–1081.
137. Maitra C, Rao DSP. Poverty-Food security nexus: evidence from a survey of urban slum
dwellers in Kolkata. World Dev. 2015;72:308–325. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.03.006.
138. Maitra C. Adapting an experiential scale to measure food insecurity in urban slum
households of India. Global Food Security-Agriculture Policy Economics and
Environment. 2017;15:53–64.
139. Majumder, Bhaskar (1998),’ Commodity Production and Command Differential:
Implications for Economic Development’, Productivity, Vol.38, No. 4 , January- March.
140. Mane R.P. Targeting the poor or poor targeting: A case for strengthening the public
distribution system of India. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2006;41:299–317.
141. Masiero S. Redesigning the Indian Food Security System through E-Governance: The Case
of Kerala. World Dev. 2015;67:126–137.
142. Mastiholi SC, Somannavar MS, Vernekar SS, Kumar SY, Dhaded SM, Herekar VR, et al.
Food insecurity and nutritional status of preconception women in a rural population of North
Karnataka. India Reproductive health. 2018;15(1):101–107.
143. Maxfield A. Testing the theoretical similarities between food and water insecurity:
buffering hypothesis and effects on mental wellbeing. Soc Sci Med. 2020;244:N.PAG-
N.PAG.
144. Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Bowman BA, Dietz WH, Vinicor F, Bales VS, Marks JS.
Prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and obesity-related health risk factors, 2001. Jama. 2003 Jan
1;289(1):76-9.
145. Mooij J. Food policy and the Indian state: the public distribution system in South India.
Oxford University Press; 1999.
146. Mooij JE. Public distribution system as safety net: who is saved?. Economic and Political
Weekly. 1994 Jan 15:119-26.
147. Mukhopadhyay DKS, Apurba: Saren, Asit B.: Biswas, Akhil B. Association of child
feeding practices with nutritional status of under-two slum dwelling children: a community-
based study from West Bengal, India. Indian J Public Health. 2013;57(3):169–72.
148. NABARD research Study 35, 2022
149. Napoli M, De Muro P, Mazziotta M. Towards a food insecurity Multidimensional Index
(FIMI). Master in human development and food security. 2011:1-72.
150. Narayanan S. Food security in India: The imperative and its challenges. Asia & the Pacific
Policy Studies. 2015 Jan;2(1):197-209.
151. National Sample Survey Office. Nutritional intake in India 2011–12. NSS 68th Round.
Report No 560. 2014.
152. Nations, United. "Food". United Nations
153. Olesen JE, Bindi M. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural
productivity, land use and policy. European journal of agronomy. 2002 Jun 1;16(4):239-62.
154. Osmani S, Sen A. The hidden penalties of gender inequality: fetal origins of ill-health.
Economics & Human Biology. 2003 Jan 1;1(1):105-21.
155. Padgham J. Agricultural development under a changing climate: opportunities and
challenges for adaptation.
156. Patel, R. (2013). Food sovereignty” is next big idea. Financial Times.
157. Pathak J, Mahanta TG, Arora P, Kalita D, Kaur G. Malnutrition and household food
insecurity in children attending anganwadi centres in a district of North East India. Indian
Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive &
Social Medicine. 2020 Oct;45(4):405.
158. Patil S, Kadam D, Mehtani N, Sangle S, Marbaniang I, Kulkarni V, Shere D, Deshpande
P, Dhumal G, Suryavanshi N, Gupte N. Elevated highly sensitive C-reactive protein and d-
 dimer levels are associated with food insecurity among people living with HIV in Pune, India.
Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(11):2022–9.
159. Pingali P, Stamoulis K, Stringer R. Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger: towards a
coherent policy agenda. S fip Á4r th wp fyiÁ7p pw xpy. 2006 Jan 3:167.
160. Platteau JP. Food crisis in Africa: a comparative structural analysis. Clarendon Press; 1990.
161. Prasad K. Targeted public distribution system and the food security debate. J. Gov. Public
Policy. 2013;3:45–57.
162. Priyadarshini, S. (2004). Food Security – A case study: Food security and public
distribution system today – Failures and Successes, edited by Amalesh Banerjee, New Delhi.
Kanishka Publishers
163. Rabbi F, Ahamad R, Ali S, Chandio AA, Ahmad W, Ilyas A, Din IU. Determinants of
commercialization and its impact on the welfare of smallholder rice farmers by using
Heckman’s two-stage approach. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2019
Apr 1;18(2):224-33.
164. Radhakrishna R, Indrakant S. Effects of rice market intervention policies in India: the case
of Andhra Pradesh. Asian Development Bank; 1988.
165. Rani D, Singh JK, Acharya D, Paudel R, Lee K, Singh SP. Household food insecurity and
mental health among teenage girls living in urban slums in Varanasi, India: a cross-sectional
study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8).
166. Rao VM. Beyond'Surpluses': Food Security in Changing Context. Economic and Political
Weekly. 1995 Jan 28:215-9.
167. Rao; 1991, A study of policies and practical of Public Distribution System; New Delhi
168. Rautela G, Ali MK, Prabhakaran D, Narayan KV, Tandon N, Mohan V, Jaacks LM.
Prevalence and correlates of household food insecurity in Delhi and Chennai, India. Food
security. 2020 Apr;12:391-404.
169. Reshmi RSD, Konsam Bhanot, Arti Sayeed, Unisa Menon, Gopinath T, Agrawal Neeraj,
Bhatia Vikas, Ruikar, Manisha, Abner Daniel, Bhattacharjee Sourav, Parhi Rabi N, Sachdev
HPS, Gope Raj Kumar, De Wagt Arjan, Vani Sethi. Context for layering women’s nutrition
interventions on a large scale poverty alleviation program: evidence from three eastern Indian
states. PLoS One. 2019;14(1).
170. Sahoo N, Kar MR. Evaluating Odisha’s COVID-19 response: from quiet confidence to a
slippery road. Journal of Social and Economic Development. 2021 Sep;23:373-87.
171. Sajjad H, Nasreen I. Food security in rural areas of Vaishali District, India: a household
level analysis. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2014;3(3):235–249.
172. Satabdi MMDK, Sarkar AP, Indrajit S. Are household food security, nutrient adequacy,
and childhood nutrition clustered together? A cross-sectional study in Bankura, West Bengal.
Indian J Public Health. 2019;63(3):203–8.
173. Satyasai KJ, Shukla K. Contribution of Indian Agriculture to Nutritional Security: Trend
and Patterns. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2016;29(conf):1-3.
174. Saxena A, Amin A, Mohan SB, Mohan P. Food insecurity in tribal high migration
communities in Rajasthan, India. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2020 Dec;41(4):513-8.
175. Saxena A, Mohan SB. The impact of food security disruption due to the Covid-19
pandemic on tribal people in India. InAdvances in Food Security and Sustainability 2021 Jan
1 (Vol. 6, pp. 65-81). Elsevier.
176. Schnepf R. US International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues. Washington DC:
Congressional Research Service; 2016 Sep 14.
177. SDGs UN. United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. 17 Goals to Transform our
World.
178. Sengupta P., Mukhopadhyay K. Economic and Environmental Impact of National Food
Security Act of India. Agric. Food Econ. 2016.
179. Sethi V, Maitra C, Avula R, Unisa S, Bhalla S. Internal validity and reliability of
experience-based household food insecurity scales in Indian settings. Agriculture & Food
Security. 2017;6(1):1–17.
180. Shankar K. Revamped Public Distribution System: Who Benefits and How Much?.
Economic and Political Weekly. 1997 Mar 29:629-30.
181. Sharma M, Kishore A, Roy D, Joshi K. A comparison of the Indian diet with the EAT-
Lancet reference diet. BMC Public Health. 2020 Dec; 20 (1):1-3.
182. Shaw, D. J. (2007). World Food Summit, 1996. In World Food Security (pp. 347-360).
Palgrave Macmillan, London.
183. Shukla HC, Gupta PC, Mehta HC, Hébert JR. Descriptive epidemiology of body mass
index of an urban adult population in western India. Journal of Epidemiology & Community
Health. 2002 Nov 1;56(11):876-80.
184. Singh RK, Joshi PK, Sinha VS, Kumar M. Indicator based assessment of food security in
SAARC nations under the influence of climate change scenarios. Future Foods. 2022 Jun
1;5:100122.
185. Singh RP, Chintagunta AD, Agarwal DK, Kureel RS, Kumar SJ. Varietal replacement rate:
prospects and challenges for global food security. Global Food Security. 2020 Jun
1;25:100324.
186. Subramanian SV, Smith GD. Patterns, distribution, and determinants of under-and
overnutrition: a population-based study of women in India. The American journal of clinical
nutrition. 2006 Dec 1;84(3):633-40.
187. Sujoy CD, S. A. Food insecurity in Gujarat - a study of two rural populations. Econ Polit
Wkly. 2006;41(22):2248–58.
188. Sunil Madan and Badri Narayanan Goplakrishanan, Food security and national security of
India, The financial express- Opinion, March, 2023.
189. Suryanarayana MH. PDS reform and scope for commodity-based targeting. Economic and
Political Weekly. 1995 Apr 1:687-95.
190. Swaminathan M, Misra N. Errors of targeting: Public distribution of food in a Maharashtra
village, 1995-2000. Economic and Political Weekly. 2001 Jun 30:2447-54.
191. Swaminathan M. Structural adjustment, food security and system of public distribution of
food. Economic and Political Weekly. 1996 Jun 29:1665-72.
192. Tamil Nadu's Amma canteen concept catches on in other states", Live Mint, 27 March
2017
193. Tandon S, Landes MR. Estimating the range of food-insecure households in India. 2012.
194. Tanksale A., Jha J.K. Implementing National Food Security Act in India: Issues and
challenges. Br. Food J. 2015;117:1315–1335.
195. Terazono A, Murakami S, Abe N, Inanc B, Moriguchi Y, Sakai SI, Kojima M, Yoshida A,
Li J, Yang J, Wong MH. Current status and research on E-waste issues in Asia. Journal of
Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2006 Mar;8:1-2.
196. The Gazette of India. "The National Food Security Act, 2013" (PDF)
197. Tibesigwa B, Visser M, Collinson M, Twine W. Investigating the sensitivity of household
food security to agriculture-related shocks and the implication of social and natural capital.
Sustainability Science. 2016 Mar;11:193-214.
198. Trade Reforms and Food Security: Conceptualizing the Linkages. FAO, UN. 2003.
199. Unicef. Comprehensive nutrition survey in Maharashtra. eSocialSciences; 2014.
200. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform our World. United
Nations. [(accessed on 23 July 2017)];2017
201. United States. Public Health Service. Office of the Surgeon General, United States. Office
of Disease Prevention, Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control, Prevention (US). The
Surgeon General's call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity. US
Government Printing Office; 2001.
202. Van Elsland SL, Van der Hoeven M, Joshi S, Doak CM, Ponce MC. Pressure cooker
ownership and food security in Aurangabad, India. Public Health Nutr. 2012;15(5):818–26.
203. Von Grebmer K, Bernstein J, Hammond L, Patterson F, Klaus L, Fahlbusch J, Towey O,
C Foley SG, Eckstrom K, Fritschel H. 2018 Global Hunger Index: forced migration und
hunger.
204. Webb P, Coates J, Frongillo EA, Rogers BL, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Measuring household
food insecurity: why it’s so important and yet so difficult to do. J Nutr. 2006;136(5):1404S–
S1408.
205. Wegren et al., there will be a threat to the food security of both importing and native
countries as a result of the interruption of agricultural production in Eastern Europe.
206. WFP Targeted Public Distribution System best practice solution. [(accessed on 17
September 2017)]
207. World Health Organization. (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World
2021: Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy
diets for all (Vol. 2021). Food & Agriculture Org
208. World Health Organization. The challenge of obesity in the WHO European Region and
the strategies for response. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2007.
209. Worstell J. Ecological resilience of food systems in response to the COVID-19 crisis.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. 2020 Apr 19;9(3):23-
30.