The suggestion by NEDA that P21 per meal suffices is profoundly impractical.
- NEDA claims spending P64 daily, or P21 per meal, prevents food poverty.
- Critics argue this drastically lowers the poverty threshold to limit aid.
- Surviving on P64 a day confines one to substandard, unhealthy food choices.
- The proposal neglects essential nutritional requirements and rising food costs.
The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) claims that if someone can spend P64 daily—divided into P21 per meal—they are not ‘food-poor’. This starkly lowers the official poverty threshold, limiting those who qualify for assistance.
Critics argue this calculation is a gross underestimation. Even basic staples like a kilo of rice far exceed P21, forcing sacrifices in nutritional quality. Surviving on such a meager budget dwindles food choices to unhealthy, processed options.
Spending P21 per meal isn’t sustainable. Prioritizing rice can mean skipping other essential food items like meat or vegetables. This diminishes nutrient intake severely. Processed foods like canned sardines or instant noodles become the primary options—foods linked to poor health outcomes when consumed excessively.
The rise in prices of basic commodities exacerbates the issue. Cheap, processed food might stave off hunger but doing so at the expense of nutrition is detrimental. NEDA’s suggestion overlooks the fact that proper nourishment is crucial to a healthy life.
There’s an urgent need to address the root cause: high food prices. Solutions include suspending VAT, increasing wages, and regulating prices to counteract inflation. The choices should not be between starving or being malnourished.
To ensure a healthy life, it is essential to recognize the high cost of food and implement measures to make nutritious options accessible.
Source: Lifestyle.inquirer – Youtube