NEDA’s suggestion that P21 per meal a day is enough is mind-bogglingly absurd
For those who missed the talking point for the second and third week of August, it’s the absurd declaration by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) that you’re not “food-poor” if you can afford to spend P64—P21 for three square meals—a day to eat.
This is obviously to really lower the definition of what it means to be poor in the Philippines. The lower the bar is, the more the government is able to restrict any potential help, such as assistance or the possibility of further price regulations.
Fortunately (or unfortunately) even a government apologist could see how ridiculous this calculation is. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the people over at NEDA themselves know how preposterous the claim is, being fully aware that this is just propaganda to say that everything is fine in the Philippines.
But for those who are being obtuse about it—or are simply not aware of how bad things are when it comes to affording food—let’s do the quick math.
A kilo of rice, the staple food that actually fills our bellies, of any quality is nowhere near P21 or half that, so you’ll have to sacrifice most of your purported P64 budget to buy a kilo
First of all, spending P21 for a meal is not sustainable. A kilo of rice, the staple food that actually fills our bellies, of any quality is nowhere near P21 or half that, so you’ll have to sacrifice most of your purported P64 budget to buy a kilo. Assuming you’re only feeding yourself and you eat rice with every meal (at such a low budget, you should), a kilo will likely last you two or three days. That means to prioritize rice, you’ll give up a couple of ulam, which already starves you at that point.
Speaking of ulam, which do you get with only P64 a day? It’s probably good for a small can or two of sardines or tuna, or a couple of eggs per meal. Or you can opt to go for instant noodles, an easy stomach-filler that is technically affordable with P21 a meal.
But of course, just because you could, doesn’t mean you should. Propaganda sellers will tell you that you can survive on a meager budget, but that’s not really living, and too much of it will have you not living at all. Most of us already know that processed foods heavily contribute to bad health, and they should be consumed moderately, if not skipped altogether if possible.
Whether it’s instant noodles or canned food, too much of it is slowly debilitating our poor because it’s mostly the only choices they’ve got. And needless to say, anyone who’s not swimming comfortably in money—and maybe even some who are—are already feeling the crunch of rising prices of basic commodities.
To essentially insinuate that living on canned and processed food is acceptable makes a mockery of the right to live a decent life—and anyone who agrees with this has no consideration for their fellow people
It’s strange that NEDA only looks at hunger and satiety as the metric for being fed. What good is it to be fed and avoid hunger if the food you get to eat is slowly poisoning you anyway? Last time we checked, nutrients and actual nourishment was still important to keep people alive.
Quality ingredients such as meat, fish, and vegetables cost way more than that budget, and to essentially insinuate that living on canned and processed food is acceptable makes a mockery of the right to live a decent life—and anyone who agrees with this has no consideration for their fellow people. The choices shouldn’t have to be starving or poisoned.
The solution is simple: Acknowledge that food is expensive, and then do what’s needed to bring those prices down. Suspend VAT, raise wages, regulate prices to counteract inflation. We shouldn’t have to raise the alarm and say that people don’t have to be lied to and have their intelligence insulted. People know when they’re not eating well, anyway.