Second, a “hands-off policy” must never be an option. As an infant industry, it will be unfair if local four, which engages thousands (even millions) of farmers and SMEs and creates massive multiplier effects, has to compete with the powerful and well-established wheat four industry.
Third, adequate support for fiscal policy must be available, such as a budget allocation in the state (APBN), import duty rates, taxes, low-interest credit and agricultural subsidies. In the initial phase, local four prices will probably be less competitive than those for wheat and rice. Therefore, the price difference between local four and wheat and rice should be covered by subsidies. But where is the money from? A viable option is to impose import duties on wheat, and then the funds can be used to subsidize local four. Thus, local four prices can be competitive and stable.
Read: The Meaning Behind ASEAN Chairmanship And The Frailty Of Public Communication
Fourth, intensive research support should be conducted upstream, and food processing research on local four must study taste, color and texture. Research must also include a study focusing on ease of preparation and extensive complementarity with other foods. Admittedly, wheat four with its gluten offers a vast complementarity as it can be cooked for an assortment of snacks: noodles, cakes, bread and others.
Fifth, local food should be produced according to an economic scale on land that has not been used optimally. In addition, access should be facilitated – anywhere and anytime – and social engineering can be built through intense social construction, such as education, campaigns, marketing and advertising. If these moves can be carried out persistently, local food can become the leading player in the country.