E

ndy M. Bayuni'€™s opinion piece in The Jakarta Post (Jan. 11), entitled '€œPadang restaurants can help or foil rice self-sufficiency goal'€, intrigued me. Based on his recent experience at a Padang restaurant, he raised doubts about the likelihood of Indonesia becoming self-sufficient in rice and described how the popular eateries in Indonesia have a habit of giving generous servings of rice.

Indonesian people eat more rice, whereas the people in most other Asian countries define rising prosperity as less dependence on rice as their main staple. That is a very sharp observation.

The habit of eating more rice in Indonesia is definitely true. As far as I know, the word '€œeating'€ for Indonesian refers to eating rice.

Bayuni then considered this bad news for President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo'€™s goal to make Indonesia self-sufficient in rice.

I notice that Bayuni didn'€™t get the whole picture about rice self-sufficiency. He compared rice consumption and production in Indonesia and the region, based on the eating habits in each country. I assume he offered suggestions to change dietary habits in order to achieve rice self-sufficiency. In my opinion, those are two different things and have different policy responses as well.

Rice self-sufficiency means sustainable rice production at levels adequate to meet domestic demand. This explains why Bayuni glorified the past achievement in the mid 1980s by then president Soeharto, who gained a prestigious award from the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization for achieving rice self-sufficiency.

The award was given simply because total production of rice in Indonesia in the 1980s was higher than total domestic consumption.

The challenges and conditions nowadays are totally different. Rice self-sufficiency is not as simple as meeting domestic consumption. The phrase '€œself-sufficiency'€ is no longer relevant to recent global and regional situations.

It is not even stipulated in Law No. 18/2012 on food. But it doesn'€™t mean the issues are not important; it just needs to adjust to actual circumstances.

Many families in rural areas cannot afford to eat a wide variety of food in terms of quantity and diversity.

In understanding food policies, a few terms need to be understood: Mainly, food sovereignty, food resilience and food security.

There is a thick line between the three terms. Food sovereignty is the right of the state or nation to determine its own food policy, which secures '€œthe right to food'€ for its people and provides the right of the community to determine their own food system based on local resource potential.

Food resilience is the ability of the state or nation to produce diversified food domestically to supply enough food for all people through the optimal use of natural resources, human resources, social and economic potential and local wisdom, with dignity.

Food security, meanwhile, is a situation in which food is accessible for all people, from the macro level (country) to individuals, in terms of its quantity, quality, safety, nutrition, equitable distribution, affordability, diversity and compliance with belief and culture in order to have a healthy, active, sustainable and productive life.

Note that there are three key words in providing food: healthy, active and productive life. It is the government'€™s obligation to make people achieve those three key words.

What is it about the trend whereby more and more Indonesian people, as written by Bayuni, eat more rice and have bulging stomachs? There are socio-cultural matters to contend with.

The government implements food organization designed mainly to increase production of food and fulfill safety, quality and nutritional requirements for consumption. But the government cannot force the people to decide what kind of food and how much food they need to eat, as long as all the basic requirements are fulfilled, particularly those related to safety, quality and nutrition.

Well, let me simplify: The type of food and its amount on our plates are not part of government food policies. The best thing the government can do is to increase knowledge and awareness of the people concerning food safety, quality and nutrition. But, then again, the government cannot control our meals.

The efforts to increase this nutritional knowledge are part of the government'€™s food diversification policy. The Agriculture Ministry promotes many kinds of non-rice food, mainly locally sourced, that is equivalent to rice in term of quality and nutrition.

Even local authorities and regional governments undertake such a policy, such as through '€œone day, no rice'€ campaigns.

Bayuni wrote that part of the solution to Jokowi'€™s rice self-sufficiency problem must come from changing the dietary habits of the burgeoning middle class. In my view, this is similar to a food diversification policy, but the main objective of this policy is not to change dietary habits, but to increase the knowledge and awareness of the people on the need for a balanced diet. Changing habits needs great effort from all of us.

Many families in rural areas cannot afford to eat a wide variety of food in terms of quantity and diversity. The issue of food access for poor families is a combination of poverty and a limitation of purchasing power.

Far away from the big cities, rice consumption in rural areas has a different meaning. The high proportion of carbohydrate sources in food consumption patterns of the community indicates that poverty is the main factor causing malnutrition.

The main challenges are the low quality of food consumption as measured by the score of diet expectations and the inadequate access for the poor to safe and nutritious foods. Food access for people needs continuous improvement.

Many people in rural areas are not lucky enough to be able to enjoy the juicy and nutritious gulai, rendang and dendeng balado in Padang restaurants. They lack access to rice. Even if there is abundant rice in the market, they cannot afford it. The issue is not how many scoops of rice are on our plate, but how people can have access to it.