Continuing the debate on the Deaton and Dreze analysis of food and nutrition in India, it is argued that the latter's analysis is defective because (i) it does not look at direct and indirect cereal consumption when examining the relationship between cereal intake and income, and (ii) it is fallacious to reason that the declining cereal consumption reflects a diversification of diets. It is also pointed out that the Deaton-Dreze critical response to the use of "direct poverty lines" is misplaced.