[pronut-hiv] Zambia: The Case of Vitamin A Fortification of Sugar - Part 2

["Pronut-HIV" <healthnet.org>]

Zambia: The Case of Vitamin A Fortification of Sugar - Part 2

 Although no comprehensive national studies had been done, it was
assumed that from the preliminary evidence, there was a sub clinical
deficiency, widespread throughout Zambia in both rural and urban Zambia
and that this deficiency was worse in the dry season and drought years.

It was thus taken that 25 to 50 per cent of children from 0 to 59
months were Vitamin A deficient!

MITIGATION

>From this inconclusive evidence of the studies carried out in Luapula
Province, and to try and mitigate this perceived public health alert
against the effects of VAD, the Zambian Government employed three main
strategic vitamin A supplementation modest: Breast feeding promotion and
dietary supplementation.

The third was a UNICEF supported programme targeted at the six to 72
months old children and lactating mothers within one month of delivery.
The dosage was provided for through health centres during routine child
health clinics.

An exclusive breast feeding campaign was also launched in 1997
directing that mothers breast fed their children up to a minimum of six
months and encourage gradual complementary feeding and continued breast
feeding up to 24 months and beyond.

It was however noted that only infants were adequately covered because
even children older than two years did not get to visit the health
centres with the desired frequency to get the supplement. Mothers after
six moths of delivery were neither adequately catered for.

It was in that regard that food fortification was conceived as a
complementary measure aimed at increasing Vitamin A intake for all the
population.

Sugar was singled out for being a vehicle by which Vitamin A will be
transmitted to the larger population. Mealie meal is today being seen as
another mode by which supplementary nutrients could be given to the
general populous.

THE MORAL QUESTION

In 2003, another national debate over whether Zambia should accept GMO
foods or not swept the nation and it was only after President Levy
Mwanawasa intervened and sent experts globe-trotting to get a clear
picture about what the pros and cons to the matter were.

The nation made an informed decision and following a regional
decapitating famine which was ravaging at the time, Zambia refused to be
used as a dumping ground for the food aid from the USA fearing that
introduction of such foods, even if they were coming in as a donation
and free had the potential to pollute the soils apart from other generic
fall outs that may arise.

The matter about arbitrary intake of sugar fortification with Vitamin A
could be to a large extent be seen in the same light as that of the GMO
saga.

Though Government has already gone a mile to legislate law about
Vitamin A fortification of sugar, there was still need to study and
debate the matter further as so many questions than answers have so far
been generated.

An analogy of a person suffering from HIV/AIDS has been advanced as to
whether he has the right to make a choice knowing that he is dying
whether he must take the life sustaining ARVs or just wait to die.

The decision ultimately lies in who feels it and knows it.

At this point, the responsibility of Government is to sustain a
national sensitisation campaign to educate the public on the benefits of
taking the ARVs or not and maybe what side effects the different
remedies have on the body.

The patient will by his own see a physician who will lay on the table
the different types of ARVs, the toxicity of the drugs and ultimately
which one will be best suited for a particular patient.

An informed decision about what you are taking and what effects you
expect is cardinal to the ultimate well-being and route to good health
of the patient.

Similarly, the case of Vitamin A fortification of sugar and its merits
or demerits must be ultimately left to the individual consumer of the
product, whether he finds the vitamin A supplement necessary for his
family or not. He must have a choice of what he wants to eat.

The current law in Zambia prohibits anyone from manufacturing or
importing unfortified sugar for consumption here.

The law falls short of embracing the liberties of consumers on what
they want to take or not to take.

It is a serious departure of the ideals of the fundamental human rights
that as a nation we have been known to embrace with fiery conviction.