The debate on food subsidies tends to revolve around political and macroeconomic considerations which are important but not enough. Household and individual level impacts are rarely explored with adequate attention on nutrition in particular among vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women -- with a clear focus on the relatively short window opportunity for proper brain development and the foundations of good health early in life. Food subsidies tend to go to cheap, energy rich staple food hence may increase the prevalence of diets poor in proteins and micronutrients. It is widely assumed that the reason why Egypt has one of the highest double burden of both obesity and child stunting in the world has much to do with its long tradition of subsidizing food, which keep the consumption of staples like the baladi bread high. See more on this for example at http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/ifpriwfppn_egypt.pdf
Although there is evidence that social cash benefits help shifting the food intake towards better (higher quality) foods among the poor, much of that impact could either come too late for better anthropometric results (due for example to means tested targeting practices penalizing children early in their lives) or get wasted by poor access to and/or lack of uptake of parallel, nutrition sensitive interventions (good sanitation, hygiene, care practices etc). See more on related links here http://www.unicef.org/esaro/5483_social_protection.html and here http://www.thelancet.com/series/maternal-and-child-nutrition
Reform efforts require, therefore, careful context specific analysis and inputs from economists as well as nutritionist, anthropologists, sociologists and development practitioners. This may help decision makers avoiding the political, economic and population burden of half-baked ad-hoc solutions and endorsing integrated, multi-dimensional response strategies with positive individual and social returns along several dimensions of human development.
Gaspar Fajth, UNICEF
Although there is evidence that social cash benefits help shifting the food intake towards better (higher quality) foods among the poor, much of that impact could either come too late for better anthropometric results (due for example to means tested targeting practices penalizing children early in their lives) or get wasted by poor access to and/or lack of uptake of parallel, nutrition sensitive interventions (good sanitation, hygiene, care practices etc). See more on related links here http://www.unicef.org/esaro/5483_social_protection.html and here http://www.thelancet.com/series/maternal-and-child-nutrition
Reform efforts require, therefore, careful context specific analysis and inputs from economists as well as nutritionist, anthropologists, sociologists and development practitioners. This may help decision makers avoiding the political, economic and population burden of half-baked ad-hoc solutions and endorsing integrated, multi-dimensional response strategies with positive individual and social returns along several dimensions of human development.
Gaspar Fajth, UNICEF
