Skip to main content

'Misleading' Lancet estimates on zero food intake in infants, young children of India

By Srinivas Goli, Shalem Balla, Harchand Ram* 

India is one of the world's hotspots for undernourished children, both in terms of prevalence and absolute numbers. Successive rounds of National Family Health Surveys (NFHS) have revealed that the progress observed since the early 1990s is far from what is expected when compared to the country's economic growth.
The Lancet study reports an astonishing number (i.e. 20%, 18.2%, 10.6%, 17.2%, 17.8%, respectively in 1992-93, 1998-99, 2005-06, 2015-16, 2019-21) of infants and young children with “zero food” consumption in last 24 hours prior to the survey date of successive National Family Health Surveys. The study also reports an increase in “zero-food” intake in India during 2015-16 (17.2%) to 2019-21 (17.8%). They have also reported a rise in “zero-food” intake in several states. The increase reported for states such as Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh have certainly pushed a panic button.
Considering the serious shock waves these estimates have created among the Indian policymakers and popular media, we have evaluated the accuracy of the estimates reported by the Lancet study in this commentary note. Although we acknowledge that India’s rank (107 out of 121 countries) in the Global Hunger Index is not encouraging, the estimates reported by the Lancet study with a newly derived concept of "zero food" intake is completely misleading and technically incorrect. Below, we have systematically highlighted where they might have gone wrong.
The Lancet study used the food consumption questions of NFHS to define “zero food”. Upon reading the Lancet report, we understood that they have not considered whether a child is breastfed in a condition where they have not given any other food in the past 24 hours prior to the interview date.
Despite the authors’ recognition of the contribution of breastmilk to the overall calorific requirement of children in different age brackets (page 3, line no. 6 to 24), question arises as to why do the authors consider breastmilk as having "zero calorific” significance in their definition of “zero-food” intake, even for infants?
Further, to validate their estimates and find the true magnitude of the problem, we have replicated the authors' methodology to define “zero food” and re-produced the estimates for the latest two rounds of NFHS (2015-16 and 2019-21). The latest two rounds are better comparable in terms of their sampling design and the questions used for estimating “zero food” by the Lancet study.
However, our sample size is 92 less and 218 more for 2015-16 and 2019-21, respectively. Unlike what was stated in the Lancet study, for the latest two rounds of NFHS, there is no need to make any re-adjustment of boundaries, and we assume that this could be the one reason why there is a minor difference in the sample sizes for our estimates compared to them.
Using a similar definition of "zero food", comparison of our estimates with the Lancet study suggests a slight difference which can be attributed to sample size variations, as pointed above. However, the state-level patterns align with the Lancet study estimates.
After adjusting to breastfeeding (Figure 1), we found that the percentage of children without any food (and also not breastfed) is much less (1.1% in 2015-16 and 1.3% in 2019-21) compared to what is reported in the Lancet study (17.2% in 2015-16 and 17.8% in 2019-21). Similar differences are also observed across the states.
However, we do agree with the authors that even after adjusting for breastfeeding, both at the all-India level and also across the considerable number of states “zero food” intake have increased. Given that overall levels of zero food intake including breastfed, is very small, it is difficult to predict why these children are not given anything in the past 24 hours prior to the survey.
Apart from the assumption that these families do not have anything to feed their children, the other reason could be that these children are sufficiently fed through breastmilk. However, this can’t be verified accurately using limited information given in the NFHS.
In conclusion, we posit that the concept of "zero food" intake invented by the Lancet study is misleading to the readers and especially for the policymakers. Our main contention with Lancet study' methodology of defining "zero food” is exclusion of breast milk out of the definition of “food”.
If mothers opt for breastfeeding over complementary feeding, it can also be a conscious decision that they have taken based on their capacity to produce to sufficient breast milk for their babies, especially those with younger children i.e. 6 to 11 months.

Assessing the age-wise “zero food” intake results presented by the Lancet study in Table 6 and the age-wise contribution of children to "zero food" intake shown in Figure 2 in this note suggest that a major share (about 65%) of children with “zero food” intake belongs to 6-11 months who have a greater chance to be breastfed and accomplish calorific sufficiency.
Further, our estimates in Figure 3 show nearly 93% of children under 6 to 23 months were being currently breastfed at the time of the survey and this number is even higher for younger children i.e. 6 to 11 months. Therefore, in the absence of breastfeeding from the definition of “food”, the newly designed concept of “zero food" intake artificially inflates the numbers and creates unwarranted alarm among readers and policy makers.
---
*Srinivas Goli is Associate Professor, International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS), Mumbai; Shalem Balla is Project Officer, IIPS Mumbai; Harchand Ram is Research Analyst, IIPS Mumbai

Comments

Unknown said…
Thanks for sharing this across. This is very eye opening and shall push us to revisit a lot studies done earlier by the reputed organisations.
Vinay Singh said…
Thanks for sharing this; it is very important to revisit and closely look at the definition of indicators chosen in the studies.
vandana said…
Considering our lack of progress on complementary feeding, it defies understanding that the authors consider it reasonable to accept as being desirable that "if mothers opt for breastfeeding over complementary feeding, it can also be a conscious decision that they have taken based on their capacity to produce to sufficient breast milk for their babies, especially those with younger children i.e. 6 to 11 months."

Further they "suggest that a major share (about 65%) of children with “zero food” intake belongs to 6-11 months who have a greater chance to be breastfed and accomplish calorific sufficiency." Is UNICEF changing its recommendation on the need for complementary feeding at teh age of 6 months? Is it being suggested that caloric sufficiency is the only goal of IYCF? I am baffled by this blog from these authors.
Srinivas Goli said…
Dear Vandana,

Don't read between the lines. The full sentence is "Apart from the assumption that these families do not have anything to feed their children, the other reason could be that these children are sufficiently fed through breastmilk. However, this can’t be verified accurately using limited information given in the NFHS". We are trying to tell that the 1.3% of the children who are not eating anything in past 24 hours can belong to any of the above cited categories which can't be verified with the limited information. We are not saying that they have caloric sufficiency through anyone means.

Moreover, none of us belong to UNICEF, rather two of our RAs working in a Project funded by UNICEF at the IIPS, Mumbai. These opinions are independent views of the authors. Nothing to do with UNICEF mandate.


TRENDING

'Flawed' argument: Gandhi had minimal role, naval mutinies alone led to Independence

Counterview Desk Reacting to a Counterview  story , "Rewiring history? Bose, not Gandhi, was real Father of Nation: British PM Attlee 'cited'" (January 26, 2016), an avid reader has forwarded  reaction  in the form of a  link , which carries the article "Did Atlee say Gandhi had minimal role in Independence? #FactCheck", published in the site satyagrahis.in. The satyagraha.in article seeks to debunk the view, reported in the Counterview story, taken by retired army officer GD Bakshi in his book, “Bose: An Indian Samurai”, which claims that Gandhiji had a minimal role to play in India's freedom struggle, and that it was Netaji who played the crucial role. We reproduce the satyagraha.in article here. Text: Nowadays it is said by many MK Gandhi critics that Clement Atlee made a statement in which he said Gandhi has ‘minimal’ role in India's independence and gave credit to naval mutinies and with this statement, they concluded the whole freedom struggle.

BSF should take full responsibility for death of 4 kids in West Bengal: Rights defender

By Kirity Roy*  One is deeply disturbed and appalled by the callous trench-digging by BSF in Chetnagachh village under Daspara Gram Panchayat, Chopra, North Dinajpur District, West Bengal that has claimed the lives of four children. Along the entire stretch of Indo-Bangladesh border of West Bengal instead of guarding the actual border delineated by the international border pillars, BSF builds fences and digs trenches well inside the Indian territory, passing through villages and encroaching on private lands, often without due clearance or consent. 

A Hindu alternative to Valentine's Day? 'Shiv-Parvati was first love marriage in Universe'

By Rajiv Shah*   The other day, I was searching on Google a quote on Maha Shivratri which I wanted to send to someone, a confirmed Shiv Bhakt, quite close to me -- with an underlying message to act positively instead of being negative. On top of the search, I chanced upon an article in, imagine!, a Nashik Corporation site which offered me something very unusual. 

How GMOs would destroy non-GMO crops: Aruna Rodrigues' key submissions in SC

Counterview Desk The introduction of Bt and HT crops will harm the health of 1 billion Indians and their animals, believes Aruna Rodrigues, who has made some 60 submissions to the Supreme Court (SC) during the last 20 years. As lead petitioner who filed Public Interest Litigation in 2005, during a spate of intense hearings, which ended on 18 January 2024, she fought in the Apex Court to prevent the commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Indian agriculture. 

Social justice day amidst 'official neglect' of salt pan workers in Little Rann of Kutch

By Prerana Pamkar*  In India’s struggle for Independence, the Salt Satyagraha stands as a landmark movement and a powerful symbol of nonviolent resistance. Led by Mahatma Gandhi, countless determined citizens walked from Sabarmati Ashram to Dandi in Gujarat. However, the Gujarat which witnessed the power of the common Indian during the freedom struggle is now in the throes of another significant movement: this time it is seeking to free salt pan workers from untenable working conditions in the Little Rann of Kutch (LRK).

Jallianwala massacre: Why Indian govt hasn't ever officially sought apology from UK

By Manjari Chatterjee Miller*  The king of the Netherlands, Willem-Alexander, apologized in July 2023 for his ancestors’ role in the colonial slave trade. He is not alone in expressing remorse for past wrongs. In 2021, France returned 26 works of art seized by French colonial soldiers in Africa – the largest restitution France has ever made to a former colony. In the same year, Germany officially apologized for its 1904-08 genocide of the Herero and Nama people of Namibia and agreed to fund reconstruction and development projects in Namibia. .

Corporatizing Indian agriculture 'to enhance' farmer efficiency, market competitiveness

By Shashank Shukla*  Today, amidst the ongoing farmers' protest, one of the key demands raised is for India to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO). Let us delve into the feasibility of such a move and explore its historical context within India's globalization trajectory.

Interpreting UAPA bail provisions: Is Supreme Court setting the clock back?

By Kavita Srivastava*, Dr V Suresh** The Supreme Court in its ruling on 7th February, 2024 in   `Gurvinder Singh v State of Punjab’ held that its own well-developed jurisprudence that "Bail is the rule and jail the exception" will not apply to those charged under the UAPA.

A 'distorted narrative' of Indian politics: Congress failing to look beyond LS polls

By Prem Singh*  About 15 days ago, I told a senior journalist friend that there are not even two   months left for the Lok Sabha elections, Rahul Gandhi is roaming around on a delectation (tafreeh). The friend probably found my comment exasperating and replied that he is not on a delectation trip. The conversation between us on this topic ended there. 

Livelihood issues return to national agenda ahead of LS polls: SKM on Bharat Bandh

Counterview Desk  Top farmers' network, the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) has claimed big success of Grameen Bharat Bandh and industrial /sectoral strikes, stating, the “struggle reflected anger of farmers, workers and rural people across India”, adding, the move on February 16 succeeded in bringing back peoples’ livelihood issues in the national agenda just ahead of the general election to the Lok Sabha.