Fanciful Official Theories and the Reality of Declining Protein Consumption

Official quarters claim growing affluence is leading to growing demand for protein-rich foods, in turn setting off price rise. But the latest official data reveal that protein consumption is declining, not rising.

Establishment economists have been busy trying to construct a theory to explain the steep rise in food prices in recent years. The current favourite theory in official circles is that it is the result of growing prosperity. The author of this theory is Dr Subir Gokarn, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). In his paper “The Price of Protein,” he traces the rise in the overall level of food prices to the rise in demand for protein-rich foods; “as levels of affluence increase, the demand for proteins is bound to increase overall.”[1]

Examining the pattern of consumption of different income levels of the population, Gokarn finds that the composition of the diet changes significantly at a particular level of income – people begin to eat more protein-rich food. So, Gokarn argues, as an increasing share of India’s population crosses a particular threshold income, the demand for protein rich foods too would rise.[2] (George Bush would be happy with this theory: he famously attributed global food inflation to billions of Chinese and Indians eating more than in the past.)

At the same time, Gokarn observes, the production of these protein-rich foods, such as pulses, milk, eggs and meat has not risen adequately in response to the rise in demand; as a result the prices of these foods have nowhere to go but up. “Rapid economic growth is contributing to the emergence of persistent demand-supply imbalances which, in turn, are making proteins more expensive…”

This theory is now repeated in various official quarters such as RBI policy documents, and the corporate media have reproduced it dutifully. It is easy to see why. It comforts us with the notion that, while price rise is unfortunate, it is, in fact, the outcome of greater well-being all round. After all, the role of protein consumption in producing healthy human beings is well known; and among proteins, animal proteins (milk, eggs, fish, meat) have a special role which is difficult to substitute with plant proteins.

The proof of the pudding, however, is in the eating. Leaving aside the wider question whether the responsibility for general inflation (or even food inflation) can be laid at the door of rising demand for protein, let us look at just one point: Is protein consumption actually rising in India?

The recently released National Sample Survey (NSS) Report no. 540, “Nutritional Intake in India, 2009-10”, tells a very different tale.

First, protein intake per head has been falling (see Table 1 and Chart).

Table 1: Per capita protein intake in different years (grams/day)
	Rural	Urban
1993-94	60.2	57.2
1999-2000	59.1	58.5
2004-05	57	57
2009-10	55	53.5

Source: NSS Report no. 540.

It is true that there is a slight shift in the shares of different food groups in total protein intake (see Table 2). The share of cereals – the biggest source of protein in India – has declined considerably. The share of pulses has declined to some extent. There has been a rise in the share of milk and milk products, while the share of egg, fish and meat has risen very slightly.

Table 2: Percentage of protein intake by food group: 1993-94 to 2009-10
Rural	cereals	pulses	milk & milk products	egg, fish and meat	other food	all
1993-94	69.4	9.8	8.8	3.7	8.4	100
1999-2000	67.4	10.9	9.2	4.0	8.4	100
2004-05	67.4	10.9	9.2	4.0	8.4	100
2009-10	64.9	9.1	10.0	4.0	12.0	100
Urban
1993-94	59.4	11.5	11.7	5.3	12.1	100
1999-2000	57.0	13.1	12.4	6.0	11.5	100
2004-05	56.2	11.0	12.3	5.5	15.0	100
2009-10	56.4	11.3	13.8	5.6	13.0	100

Source: Same as Table 1.

However, this reallocation took place even as total protein intake fell. So the actual intake of animal proteins hardly grew (see Table 3).

Table 3: Per capita protein intake by food group (grams/day)
Rural	cereals	pulses	milk & milk products	egg, fish and meat	other food	Total
1993-94	41.8	5.9	5.3	2.2	5.0	60.2
1999-2000	39.9	6.4	5.4	2.4	5.0	59.1
2004-05	38.4	6.2	5.2	2.3	4.8	57
2009-10	35.7	5.0	5.5	2.2	6.6	55
Urban
1993-94	34.0	6.6	6.7	3.0	6.9	57.2
1999-2000	33.4	7.7	7.3	3.5	6.7	58.5
2004-05	32.0	6.3	7.0	3.1	8.5	57
2009-10	30.2	6.1	7.4	3.0	6.9	53.5

Source: Calculated from NSS Report no. 540.

In other words, in rural areas, the intake of protein from milk and milk products rose from 5.3 grams/day to 5.5 grams/day over the course of 16 years from 1993-94 to 2009-10; protein intake from egg, fish and meat remained stuck at the same level as earlier. In urban areas, the intake of protein from milk and milk products rose from 6.7 grams/day in 1993-94 to 7.4 grams/day in 2009-10; whereas protein intake from egg, fish and meat remained stuck at the same level as earlier.

Meanwhile protein intake from cereals and pulses fell quite sharply.

To get a better idea of what these figures mean: Per capita protein intake in the rural areas from milk and milk products is what one would get from a little over half a cup of milk, or one-eighth of a litre. The corresponding figure for the urban areas is about three-quarters of a cup, or less than one-fifth of a litre. Per capita protein intake from egg, fish and meat in the rural areas is what one would get from a little over a third of an egg; urban dwellers do better, with nearly half an egg.

While egg, meat and fish consumption has simply stalled, the growth of milk consumption is incredibly slow. Protein intake from milk and milk products in the rural areas has grown during this 16-year period at the compound annual growth rate of 0.2 per cent a year; in the urban areas, at 0.6 per cent a year. At this rate, it would take three centuries to double rural per capita intake. Urban dwellers are far more fortunate, doubling their intake in a mere 113 years.

Where does India’s protein consumption stand in comparison with the rest of the world? World average protein intake per capita is 77 grams/day; the average for the developed countries is 103 grams; for the ‘developing’ countries, 70 grams; for sub-Saharan Africa, 55 grams.[3] The figures for rural and urban India are 55 and 53.5 grams, respectively – a sub-sub-Saharan average.

One explanation for these findings could be that the coverage of the NSS is incomplete. Well-off households may not entertain pesky surveyors or answer long questionnaires. The consumption levels of the rich, then, may not be adequately reflected in the NSS data. But the semi-starvation of the majority of people is certainly reflected.

Perhaps proponents of the protein theory of inflation could argue that, even if actual consumption of protein fell, demand for protein-rich foods grew as people grew more affluent, and this demand translated into rising prices.[4]

But it is a pretty far stretch to call this state of affairs growing affluence. Declining cereals intake; declining pulses intake; intake of animal proteins growing at a snail’s pace, if at all; and consequently, declining total protein intake – such is the actual picture that emerges from the data. Beyond this, per capita calorie intake, too, is declining – a separate, though linked, story. Growing malnutrition during the very period in which India has been ‘opened up’ and witnessed rapid GDP growth is a telling indication of the character of that growth.

---

[1] “When we break down recent food inflation into contributions by different items, a striking feature is the role played by key sources of protein. The dominant source of protein in Indian diets is pulses, which of course vary quite significantly across regions and, to some extent, between income groups. Milk and milk products also figure quite prominently and then we have Eggs, Meat and Fish. Analysis of dietary patterns in terms of income elasticities suggest that as incomes increase, the share of proteins in representative diets also increases. In other words, as levels of affluence increase, the demand for proteins is bound to increase overall….

“[I]t appears that the price levels of Pulses began accelerating in 2005 and have continued to do so since then. There is a sustained divergence between the Pulses index and the overall Food index, which suggests a structural change in relative prices… Pulses are clearly becoming more and more expensive and, contrary to widespread perceptions, this does not appear to have much to do with the performance of the monsoons. Milk and Eggs, Meat and Fish also show a distinct upturn in price levels, though this is of somewhat more recent origin than for Pulses… the picture is unmistakable; the prices of all three protein sources are on a strong upward trajectory…” (rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Speeches/PDFs/PPIGIDR261010.pdf)

[2] “Essentially, it is the analysis of inflection points: what is the threshold level of income (or, in this case, household expenditure) at which the composition of the diet changes significantly…. Let us assume that the point of inflection on the graph reflects the expenditure level (in 2004-05 prices) at which diets shift decisively towards higher consumption of proteins. Between 2004-05 and 2009-10, per capita incomes grew by about 39 per cent. With this growth, how many people are likely to have reached this threshold by 2010? Assuming that the distribution itself remains constant, the simulation reveals that about 220 million – 180 million in rural areas and 40 million in urban areas – people would have reached the threshold level of MPCE over this five-year period. In addition to this, people who were already above the threshold in 2004-05 would, as a result of rising incomes, presumably also increase their consumption of these items….” (Ibid.)

[3] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Food Balance Sheets, 2010.

[4] The fact that the share of food expenditure devoted to milk, eggs, fish, and meat is growing (see NSS Report no. 538) doesn’t mean in this case that people are consuming larger quantities, just that they are having to spend more.