The Food Security Bill presumes that India suffers from food insecurity. Yet, that is clearly false. True, NSSO surveys show a steady decline in calorie consumption per head over the last few decades, and Leftists like Utsa Patnaik have interpreted this as lack of food. However, the same surveys also ask the question, “Have you been hungry in some or all months of the year?” The ratio of people saying they are hungry was 15% back in 1983. It fell in 1993-94 to 5.5% in rural and 1.9% in urban areas. It declined further in 2004-05 to 2.6% in rural and 0.6% in urban areas.So, hunger has largely disappeared. And, if people are not hungry, it is no tragedy that they consume fewer calories: they want better, not more, food. Surveys suggest that all income groups, even the bottom 30%, are shifting from basic foods (like cereals) to superior foods: fats, tea, sugar, eggs, meat, pulses, vegetables and fruit.The per-capita consumption of superior foods is rising even as that of cereals (and calories) is dipping. And, at every income level, people are consuming more non-food items, which shows rising prosperity. India still has substantial poverty, but has largely conquered hunger.Now, the 2% of hungry Indians comes to 25 million people, as many as the entire population of many countries. Providing them with food security entails the relatively minor task of identifying and reaching these 25 million unfortunates. It does not mean giving subsidised food to 800 million people (three-quarters of the population).Least of all does it mean subsidising cereals, from which consumers are shifting to superior foods.Strong evidence is now cited by three eminent institutions — the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), the Reserve Bank of India and the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council — to show that most of our persistent inflation in the last three years has been on account of food inflation.The biggest price increases have been not for cereals but for superior foods: eggs and meat, milk, fats, fruit and vegetables. The CACP finds that 98% of food inflation can be explained by three factors: the fiscal deficit, high global prices and rising farm wages. Rising real farm wages means the poorest people — landless labourers — can buy more food, including superior foods, reducing still further the rationale for a Food Security Bill based in cereals.The CACP discovery of a strong link between fiscal deficits and food prices is intriguing. It implies, ironically, that a Food Security Bill whose cost increases the fiscal deficit by, say, Rs 50,000 crore will end up raising food prices, mainly of the superior foods increasingly in demand from a populace with rising aspirations. A rising fiscal deficit will especially hit the price of protein-rich and iron-rich foods, which are most important for combating malnutrition. This will be a misguided subsidy for malnutrition, not food security.The CACP estimates that as much as Rs 60,000 crore can be saved by switching from subsidies for food and fertilisers to cash transfers to the needy. This may not be feasible immediately, but once the Aadhaar scheme extends everywhere — this may take some years — cash transfers will be entirely feasible. They will provide security to the needy even while shrinking the fiscal deficit, hence lowering overall food prices.There remains a case for a separate scheme to tackle widespread shortages of iron and protein in Indian diets, leading to large-scale anaemia and other ailments even in the richest 30% of the population. A recent survey revealed anaemia rates of 51-74% in women and small children. Of children under three, 47% were underweight and 45% stunted by global standards. (Caveat: economist Arvind Panagariya has argued forcefully that these measures of stunting are simply wrong, and confuse modest size with stunting.)True, nutritional security requires subsidised, universal distribution of a mix of soy and wheat flour. This would be protein-rich, and could further be fortified with iron and vitamins to help reduce those deficiencies. This cannot be diverted to the black market — as happens to cereals — since there is no mass market for this mixture.Fortified soy atta will be an unfamiliar but highly nutritious food that, unlike cereals, would actually tackle anaemia and protein deficiency. This would be achieved at a low cost since soya atta would be bought only by the needy.Well-off people will avoid this unfamiliar food, so it will be self-targeted to the needy. It will not require devices for identifying the needy such as ration cards or other administrative devices, all of which lead to leaks and corruption.Instead, to try and win the next election, the government is pushing a Food Security Bill to cover three-quarters of the population with highly-subsidised and unnecessary cereals, ignoring the provision of proteins and iron to those suffering from serious malnutrition. This illogical populism aims mainly to provide electoral security to Sonia Gandhi. Don’t confuse it with food security.