Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, with a particular focus on your industry expertise?

With over 16 years of experience, I’ve built my career as a nutrition scientist and public health expert bridging the worlds of science and business. I’ve worked both within and alongside the food industry, helping companies translate nutrition science into practical, real-world decisions—whether that’s innovating new products, reformulating existing ones, fortifying foods, advancing life sciences research, or developing initiatives that deliver social impact. My focus is always on making nutrition meaningful and actionable for businesses and the communities they serve.

I have worked closely with R&D, quality, regulatory, brand, and sustainability teams in multinational food companies to design nutrition initiatives that are grounded in science, practical to implement, and aligned with commercial goals. This has included developing fortified and diversified ingredient portfolios, supporting global nutrition and sustainability reporting, and building public–private partnerships that turn policy priorities into action.

Throughout my career, I have focused on bridging the gap between science and business. I translate complex nutrition evidence into practical strategies that build product credibility, enable partnerships, and deliver measurable health outcomes at scale. I believe nutrition should be both a growth driver and a core responsibility for the food industry.

Q2. For evidence-based nutrition compendiums influencing policy, what data aggregation methods shaped the strongest regulatory shifts, and why did fragmented academic-industry datasets limit forward-looking adoption?

In my experience, the most significant regulatory changes have come from structured, decision-ready data aggregation rather than simply the volume of evidence. The compendia that have influenced policy most effectively share three key characteristics:

Indicator harmonisation across systems

What’s worked best, in my experience, is when different datasets are brought together using a shared set of indicators. By connecting the dots between nutrition outcomes, what people eat, how many are reached, and the ways programs are delivered, we can actually compare what’s happening on the ground—across regions, programs, and time. This isn’t just theory: practical tools like the Anemia Mukt Bharat Dashboard, IFPRI Nutrition Compendiums, and Niti Ayog Nutrition Dashboard have all used this approach to make the data meaningful and actionable.

Triangulation of evidence, not siloed proof

The most persuasive compendiums integrated academic research, program implementation data, and industry feasibility inputs. 

Evidence is aggregated for implementation, not based on academic depth alone

From my work building evidence-based nutrition compendiums that sat at the interface of industry, government, and development partners, I saw that regulatory shifts in India were driven by how evidence was aggregated for implementation—not by academic depth alone. In practice, I saw that regulation moved fastest when evidence spoke the language of scale, feasibility, and risk management. Where institutions like IFPRI provided analytical coherence and programs like Anemia Mukt Bharat operationalized that evidence at scale, policy evolved. 

 

Q3. Which PPP structures for large-scale millet interventions most optimized cost-per-stunting-case-averted?

In the past I had the opportunity to work on a program and contribute as a part of a bigger team. This wasn’t just a theory—we brought together a public–private partnership that blended a fortified, locally loved nutrition product with hands-on caregiver education and real community involvement, all delivered through the same platforms that already support child nutrition.

The initiative focused on children aged 3–5 years in Maharashtra. It was structured around three pillars—nutrition, awareness, and education—ensuring that product access was matched with behavior change and caregiver understanding.

From an industry and policy perspective, this initiative served as a proof point for how science-led formulation, quality assurance, and partnership with government-aligned delivery systems can translate nutrition intent into measurable outcomes. The program generated learnings on product design, adherence, and last-mile feasibility, while also informing broader conversations on how brands can contribute credibly to national nutrition priorities.

The recipe made with multigrain and millets was well-received, with most children consuming at least three-quarters of the serving. The program was praised by government officials for its effectiveness in addressing malnutrition and improving children's nutritional health.

The result of the study highlighted the program's positive impact on community health and the importance of early intervention in tackling malnutrition.

These outcomes reflect the strength of combining millet-based, fortified nutrition with community engagement and behavior change components, and provide concrete evidence of impact in early childhood nutrition within a PPP model.
 

Q4. How do you define and measure success metrics for large-scale nutrition programs, balancing clinical outcomes, program scalability through sustained impact?

In the Indian context, success really means reducing risk at a population level—doing it fairly across states and income groups, and in a way that state systems can realistically afford and manage over time

Health Impact

What “health improvement” really means in India

Priority outcome metrics

Nutrition

• Reduction in stunting, wasting, and anemia (women, children, adolescents
• BMI normalization (undernutrition and obesity)

NCD risk

• Movement from prediabetes → normal sugar
• Blood pressure control

Maternal & adolescent health

• Hb improvement in women of reproductive age
• School attendance & energy levels in adolescents

Measurement approach

• NFHS-aligned indicators for comparability
• Frontline worker measurements (weight, MUAC, BP)
• Proxy indicators where labs are infeasible

Coverage, Reach & Equity

• % eligible population reached by state, district, block
• Urban vs rural penetration
• Participation among:
  • Women
  • SC/ST communities
  • Urban poor & migrants
• Cost per beneficiary by geography

Equity lens

• Outcome comparison across:
  • Aspirational vs non-aspirational districts
  • Public vs private health users
• Gap reduction between top and bottom quintiles

Behavior Adoption

Challenge: Low time, low nutrition literacy, high food-price sensitivity.

Practical adherence metrics

• Minimum viable compliance (e.g., 3–4 non-negotiable habits)
• Consumption verification (take-home rations, fortified foods)
• Retention at 3, 6, 12 months
• Drop-off reasons (migration, seasonal work, festivals)

Measurement tools

• ASHA/Anganwadi check-ins
• IVR/SMS nudges in local languages
• Simple plate or meal-pattern tracking

Scalability & System Efficiency

Key metrics

• Beneficiaries per frontline worker 
• Additional minutes added per household visit
• Cost per improved outcome (e.g., per anemia case resolved)
• Supply-chain reliability (especially last-mile delivery)

Sustainability & Institutional Fit 

Sustainability indicators

• Integration with:
  • Anganwadi services
  • School health programs
  • Primary Health Centres
• State budget line adoption
• Train-the-trainer models for local staff
• Community ownership (SHGs, Panchayats)
   

Q5. For millet-based fortified products targeting daily nutrient delivery claims, which processing techniques best preserved nutritional efficacy through shelf life, and why did certain stability failures undermine label claims and repeat purchases?

After years of working with millet-based fortified foods, I’ve realized that what really makes them last has very little to do with big marketing claims. It’s the quiet, unglamorous technical work that matters. The products that genuinely hold up are built on well-stabilized grains, gentle processing, and smart ways of adding vitamins and minerals so they’re protected from heat and moisture. Details like moisture control and oxygen-barrier packaging might sound mundane, but they’re what keep nutrients intact throughout shelf life. 

People notice when something’s off—if a product tastes different from batch to batch, or if it just doesn’t deliver the benefits they expect, they lose trust fast. That’s when repeat purchases disappear. In my experience, it’s the products that are durable, consistently enjoyable, and honest about what they can deliver that earn real loyalty in fortified millet foods.
 

Q6. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

• How will you make tasty, well accepted cost effective recipes that can be given at scale? Is there an opportunity to adjust guardrails to help adapt to a new region or country?
• Is your product and R and D model easy to adapt and lift across states and countries? What is the cost of B2B vs B2C vs B to the Government - how will the ingredients vary vs cost in all these scenarios? 
• Are your products based on consumer preferences, business viability, or also have a CSR or social responsibility or sustainability angle to them?
• How is the supply chain in your business connected to create less carbon footprints, improve the climate condition, support sustainable agriculture, or help support climate outputs?
• What is the one core proposition or 1 pain point that your product is solving for the consumer? Take me through a 1-day journey of consumers having the products made by you, and what's the repeat purchase rate of the products?