How Individual Eating Habits Impact a Nation: A Systems View
An individual action never exists in isolation. The choices we make have a bearing on much more than just our immediate world. Similarly, the choices we make are impacted by much more than our immediate world. In an interview from 2015, Rujuta Diwekar, a renowned nutritionist and sports science expert, talks about the complex system that revolves around what we eat. Using a systems thinking approach, one can break down the various elements of this system and explore how individual food choices can effect an entire country while also analysing the potential gaps in the system.
The Economics of Eating Local
The core idea of Rujuta Diwekar’s philosophy lies in eating historically local food for weight loss. In simplest terms, this means eating food that our Grandmothers used to eat when they were our age — also called ‘The Grandmom Test’. Eating local food helps one lose weight and enhance physical and mental health, which eventually contributes to increasing the national GDP. (refer to the green section of Figure 1)
On the contrary, eating non-local food has a set of adverse effects on human health and consequently national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Eating foods that are not traditionally eaten in one’s region can lead to gain weight while suffering from hidden malnutrition lifestyle diseases like Diabesity and medication to counter the effects of those diseases. (refer to yellow section of Figure 1)
Rujuta adds another layer to the system while talking about the need for ‘affluent Indians’ to give back to the ‘poor farmer’. If affluent consumers buy local produce, it will help farmers to sustain themselves and therefore contribute positively to the National GDP. (refer to brown section of Figure 1)
Influences on Food Choices
People are influenced by many factors when it comes to picking their food. (Refer to grey section of Figure 1) For example, Food trends from the global north fueled by capitalism, take over popular cultural narratives and influence our food choices. This western validation of certain foods has made them commonplace in India. For example, Quinoa, which was unheard of in India a decade ago, is now not only being imported, but also farmed in India.
Rujuta also acknowledges the influence of celebrities in food choices. In her own life, her association with Kareena Kapoor’s weight loss journey has helped her garner many followers across the country.
The other major influencer in Rujuta’s system is the government. Government can influence school education, which can teach people about eating local food. It can also facilitate the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure to ensure pedestrian friendly cities. Synergy between different government departments, like health and agriculture, for example, can impact the entire ecosystem.
Overlooked Influences on the System
While Rujuta highlights many factors that impact the ecosystem, there are some critical aspects that she doesn’t consider. Firstly, her target audience is the ‘affluent Indian’ who can afford to make food choices without any economic burden and can sustain on a vegetarian lifestyle. The focus on the economic contribution of healthy affluent Indians conveniently leaves out a majority population of the country.
Secondly, her core idea rests on equating good health with weight loss, which may not be factual. Many studies have shown that being thin does not automatically translate to being healthy, also known as the Obesity Paradox. She also establishes a direct causal relationship between eating local food and weight loss. This theory completely ignores other influences on weight like genetics, psychological or physiological disorders, etc.
Thirdly, defining ‘historically local food’ presents a separate challenge altogether. Many foods that were grown and eaten by our grandmothers, like apples and potatoes, were not native to the region. There is also a tradition of meat-eating in many parts of India, especially among non-upper caste Hindu households, which finds no representation in Rujuta’s system.
Lastly, Rujuta’s theory does not consider the changing times or needs in our world. The world today is not the same as it was for our grandmothers. Procuring and cooking local food takes more time than other ready-to-eat options. And inspite of changing gender roles, the burden of the kitchen still rests largely with women in the household. With increase in options for food choices, women can navigate this burden with more ease. Further, the food grown, cooked, and eaten by our grandmothers was in response to a certain lifestyle prevalent at a certain time. Today, when our lives are more sedentary than before and our food habits need to change accordingly. Simply put, we may need different foods for a different lifestyle.
Conclusion
Rujuta Diwekar emphasises on eating local food for good health which eventually impacts a nation’s economy. However, there is more to the picture than she suggests and a systems thinking view will enable individuals to make informed food choices which take into account various interconnected influences of the system.
