Comments on: Food commission defends sugar fortification policy https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/ Keeping you Informed Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:47:43 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 By: yezyani https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303398 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:47:43 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303398 there many sources of vitamin A,AS SOMEONE ALREADY OUTLINED ABOVE.fortification of sugar shud not be an excuse fo selling the commodity expensive locally and export it cheaply….why don’t yu get it.salt is fortified with iodine yet is one of the cheapest commodities.we protect these companies too much…hence the monopoly.vit A is just one of the many trace elements,so why so much noise about it.yes we need certain foods to be fortified but NOT to the extent of exploitation….if vit A is the reason fo zed sugar being more dear,then do away with it.luck of cheap source of energy like refined sugar is more deadly than not having it at all bcose it’s expensive-fortified.

]]>
By: kamunyama https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303294 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:45:24 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303294 The Washingtonian , Thanks. I am still sceptical about those calling for no fortificatio at all. In fact I see it as an indirect way to protect Zambia Sugar against cheap unfortified sugar from our neighbouring countries. So we just have to maintain the status quo.

]]>
By: The Washingtonian https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303286 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:27:10 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303286 I try to avoid commenting without making a suggestion.

The conflict between the profit motive (wrapped up here in the term competitiveness) and public health needs to be solved by striking balance where the cost to the sugar producer is eased. The government has to thus compensate the producer for this additional cost either through a direct transfer or subsidy or through tax relief. The latter is easier.

]]>
By: The Washingtonian https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303280 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:22:40 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303280 Kumunyama, the relationship betwn fortification and competitiveness is that the former is an added cost to the sugar production process. Fortification is important for the growth of children. There is an interesting documentary on this issue on Youtube and why the authorities selected sugar as the best avenue.

]]>
By: yezyani https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303253 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:49:37 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303253 it doesn’t make zed sugar dear but makes nakambala a sole source of sugar in the name fortification,and makes them feel they can price it anyhow.they never denied the fact that the sugar they export to europe,east africa and congo is cheaper than what they offload on the local market.if it true then leave it open to business operatpors to sell both local sugar and the unfort. forein sugar or at least let them (zed sugar) make the commodity affordable.

]]>
By: Nkeche https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303236 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:12:41 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303236 Imwe bantu fortification of sugar doesnt make it xpensive. If they had 2 hav a vitamin a week how many of u wud take ur children or urself to the health centre? Ba mubanga has xplained. Gud 2 hav vitamine a fortified food. Soon shakers n largers wil be fortified.

]]>
By: GUNDIX https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303226 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:41:37 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303226 LUSAKA TIMES,

WOULD YOU KINDLY INSERT THE REMAINDER OF MY COMMENT ABOVE, TO MAKE A COMPLETE SENSE OF MY CONTRIBUTION?

Thanks.

]]>
By: GUNDIX https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303223 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:35:15 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303223 The fortification of sugar should/could probably be seen as a good start in the right direction; and should be commended.

If there is need to review the fortification policy, it should not lead to a decision to take fortification from sugar away, but to extend it to other commodities, such as maize meal as has been named above.

This is a very high standard for other manufacturers and countries to attain, but that is what development is or is it not? The challenge is for other would be producers to rise to the challenge. In any case they will not have to re-invent the wheel. All they will have to do is invest that bit more, and they will be able to offer a good challenge to Zambia…

]]>
By: Thenjiwe Stevens (Mrs) https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303218 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:19:15 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303218 #9, Ba Honey,
this fortification issue is good innovation as people never take into account what daily nutrients are needed for the body,. They just eat food to fill their stomachs. pronto! end of story.

Good research done in here.

]]>
By: Ba Honey https://www.lusakatimes.com/2009/04/01/food-commission-defends-sugar-fortification-policy/#comment-303208 Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:50:13 +0000 http://www.lusakatimes.com/?p=10511#comment-303208 Those of you who dont know the sources of Vitamin A, look at the comment above. this is from DR Ba Honey.

]]>