Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 May 29;20(1):812.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08951-8.

A comparison of the Indian diet with the EAT-Lancet reference diet

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of the Indian diet with the EAT-Lancet reference diet

Manika Sharma et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: The 2019 EAT-Lancet Commission report recommends healthy diets that can feed 10 billion people by 2050 from environmentally sustainable food systems. This study compares food consumption patterns in India, from different income groups, regions and sectors (rural/urban), with the EAT-Lancet reference diet and highlights the deviations.

Methods: The analysis was done using data from the Consumption Expenditure Survey (CES) of a nationally representative sample of 0.102 million households from 7469 villages and 5268 urban blocks of India conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 2011-12. This is the most recent nationally representative data on household consumption in India. Calorie consumption (kcal/capita/day) of each food group was calculated using the quantity of consumption from the data and nutritional values of food items provided by NSSO. Diets for rural and urban, poor and rich households across different regions were compared with EAT-Lancet reference diet.

Results: The average daily calorie consumption in India is below the recommended 2503 kcal/capita/day across all groups compared, except for the richest 5% of the population. Calorie share of whole grains is significantly higher than the EAT-Lancet recommendations while those of fruits, vegetables, legumes, meat, fish and eggs are significantly lower. The share of calories from protein sources is only 6-8% in India compared to 29% in the reference diet. The imbalance is highest for the households in the lowest decile of consumption expenditure, but even the richest households in India do not consume adequate amounts of fruits, vegetables and non-cereal proteins in their diets. An average Indian household consumes more calories from processed foods than fruits.

Conclusions: Indian diets, across states and income groups, are unhealthy. Indians also consume excess amounts of cereals and not enough proteins, fruits, and vegetables. Importantly, unlike many countries, excess consumption of animal protein is not a problem in India. Indian policymakers need to accelerate food-system-wide efforts to make healthier and sustainable diets more affordable, accessible and acceptable.

Keywords: Calories; Consumption; Diet; EAT-Lancet; Food system; India; NSS; Processed food; Protein; Reference diet.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Caloric intake deficit* of vegetables, fruits, legumes and animal source proteins compared to reference diet. Animal source proteins include chicken, other poultry, eggs, lamb, beef, pork and fish. Darker colour depicts higher calorie difference between actual consumption and reference diet. Maps were generated using STATA statistical software version 15.0. *Difference between actual consumption and the daily per capita calorie intake suggested by the EAT-Lancet reference. State level caloric intake calculated using population weights for rural and urban populations. Values for Telangana same as that for Andhra Pradesh. NSS-CES sampling weights were applied in calculations
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Caloric intake from various animal-based protein sources. Values in kcal. NSS-CES sampling weights were applied in calculations
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Difference in caloric intake from Vegetables and Fruits between EAT-Lancet reference diet and Indian diets. Caloric intake calculated as total kcal/person/day. NSS-CES sampling weights were applied in calculations
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Caloric intake difference for added fats between Indian diets and proposed EAT-Lancet reference diet. Indian diets across sector, MPCE fractile classes and regions. Values in kcal. NSS-CES sampling weights were applied in calculations
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Proportion of daily per capita caloric intake from processed food in India. NSS-CES sampling weights were applied in calculations

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Development Initiatives. Global Nutrition Report: Shining a light to spur action on nutrition 2018. Bristol, UK; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/nutrition/globalnutritionreport/2018_Global_Nutritio.... [cited 2019 Apr 15].
    1. WHO . A Comprehensive Global Monitoring Framework, including indicators, and a set of voluntary global targets for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. 2012.
    1. Doak CM, Adair LS, Bentley M, Monteiro C, Popkin BM. The dual burden household and the nutrition transition paradox. Int J Obes. 2005;29:129–136. - PubMed
    1. Popkin BM. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2011. Contemporary nutritional transition: determinants of diet and its impact on body composition; pp. 82–91. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Popkin BM. Nutrition Transition and the Global Diabetes Epidemic. Curr Diab Rep. 2015;15(9):64. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types