How the gutka industry is being killed

Eight states have banned gutkha. Others are following suit. Veenu Sandhu on the people who have brought this powerful industry to its knees Last month, policemen in Naxal-infested Gadchiroli carried out a dramatic exercise to show that they were serious about enforcing the Maharashtra government's ban on gutkha or flavoured tobacco.

They seized gutkha sachets worth Rs 30,000 from the market, piled them up in the main square and set the lot on fire. States have declared war on gutkha.

Starting April 1, eight have banned the manufacture, sale and storage of this mixture of tobacco, catechu, areca nut, slaked lime and food additives: Madhya Pradesh took the lead; Kerala, Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Haryana followed.
Three days ago, in his Independence Day speech, Narendra Modi announced that gutkha will be banned in Gujarat from September 11 to "save the youths of Gujarat from the dreaded evil of cancer."
Himachal Pradesh has also announced a ban but deferred it till October. And Uttar Pradesh has upped the value-added tax on gutkha from 12.5 per cent to 50 per cent. Some villages in Uttar Pradesh have banned the sale of gutkha.
In India, 206 million people, including women and children as young as 13, use smokeless forms of tobacco which are known to cause cancer.

The gutkha market could be between Rs 15,000 crore and Rs 20,000 crore in annual sales. Sachets are sold through paan shops where you can find hundreds of brands; it clearly takes little to get started in gutkha.

In the North-East, gutkha factories have been found to operate out of trucks. They could scoot at the sight of an excise inspector. And the gutkha lobby is strong and moneyed - so much money that the underworld got involved.

Cashing in on the rivalry between two gutkha tycoons, Dawood Ibrahim's brother, Anees, started the popular Fire brand of gutkha in Pakistan, says S Hussain Zaidi in his recent book Dongri to Dubai.

For years, the gutkha makers have resisted crackdown. But now the wheels appear to be suddenly spinning against them at dizzying speed.

A group of people, inside and outside the government, as well as some organisations have been working hard to bring this powerful industry to its knees.

Among them are Pankaj Chaturvedi, head and neck cancer surgeon at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, Ashwini Kumar Rai, former food safety commissioner of Madhya Pradesh, Keshav Desiraju, special secretary of health in the Union ministry of health and family welfare, Amal Pushp, director of the National Tobacco Control Programme, Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI), a non-profit society, and Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), a public-private initiative.

The foundation stone for the battle was laid in 2004 when the Supreme Court, while hearing the Ghodawat Paan Masala case, ruled that "since paan masala, gutkha and supari are eaten for taste and nourishment, they all come under the category of food".

Until then, those in the business had always succeeded in challenging bans on the ground that gutkha is not a food item.

The ruling had come in a case filed by gutkha manufacturers after the Maharashtra administration enforced a ban.
The apex court, however, struck that ban down and said that only the Central government had the power to ban a food item.

The Centre did nothing of that sort. The battle seemed lost. But hope soared again when, while hearing another case, the Supreme Court asked the ministry of health to study the impact of gutkha on health and submit a report. This case, filed by the Jaipur-based Indian Asthma Care Society, also led to a ban on the sale of tobacco, gutkha and paan masala in plastic pouches - an environmentally hazardous business.
The apex court's order for a health report was the opportunity which the anti-gutkha campaigners had been desperately hoping for.

Bhavna Mukhopadhyay, the executive director of VHAI, and K Srinath Reddy, the president of PHFI, were among those who stepped up their advocacy campaigns with the government. The National Institute of Health & Family Welfare was preparing the report.

On its panel of experts providing guidance and scientific proof of the havoc gutkha causes on a person's health was Chaturvedi, the cancer specialist. Having seen his patients, gutkha addicts, suffer and die of oral cancer, he had set up an organisation called Voice of Tobacco Victims in 2009.

He had realised that rattling off statistics about the ill-effects of gutkha had no impact on policy-makers; but human agony moved everybody and almost assured action. So, he had started getting cancer patients to tell their story to bureaucrats and policy makers in Maharashtra - an exercise he would later take to the national level.
The <I>gutkha</I> health report was finally submitted to the Supreme Court in February 2011. It was damning. Smokeless tobacco products, such as <I>gutkha</I> and khaini, it was found, have 3,095 chemical ingredients, of which 28 are proven carcinogens.

It was time for action. The health ministry called for a national consultation on smokeless tobacco. Mukhopadhyay and members of PHFI were among the 80-odd tobacco control experts from across India who participated. Also present was Desiraju, who is the grandson of the country's second president, Sarvepalli Radha-krishnan.

"We asked the ministry, if this is so toxic then how come there's no mention of this in the Food Safety and Standards Act," says Mukhopadhyay. "Restrictions and regulations aren't good enough. <I>gutkha</I> manufacturers always find ways around them," she says.

A ban was the only solution. Economic implications of a total ban, loss of revenue and livelihood, all came under discussion.
On August 1, four months after this national consultation, a new rule was notified under central government's Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA).

It said: "tobacco and nicotine shall not be used as ingredients in any food product". This was that critical Central government order which gave the state governments the legal standing to act against <I>gutkha</I>. But it wasn't over yet.

Dharampal Satyapal Group (DS Group), the Rs 2,200-crore conglomerate which manufactures and sells Baba and Tulsi brands of <I>gutkha</I>, and some others went to court.

In December, the director of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India submitted a counter affidavit in court on the "allegations/averments made by the petitioners".
Desiraju waited no more. The FSSA rules in hand, he acted immediately and this January onwards, started sending out letters to states he "thought would act".

One such state was Madhya Pradesh. Its then food safety commissioner, Ashwini Kumar Rai, was waiting for something like this.

He would have liked to crack down on <I>gutkha</I> earlier but decided to hold on just a few months before the licences of the 18 existing manufacturers expired on March 31.

On April 1, not only did he issue the order banning the sale of <I>gutkha</I> and barring new licences to be given out for its manufacture, he also started the raids on Day One. "All 18 went out of business in one day," he says. He did not wait for the state cabinet to order the ban.

Though the FSSA rules empower the food safety commissioner to take such action, in every other state, the ban has gone through the cabinet. "This is a politically sensitive issue," says Rai. "But my chief minister (Shivraj Singh Chouhan) was on board."

In less than two weeks, Rai had conducted over 1,000 raids in more than 50 districts. In four months, till July 25 when he became secretary (personnel), Rai had seized 4 million pouches of <I>gutkha</I> worth Rs 1 crore.

"The trade has now gone underground," he says. "Pouches which were available for as little as Rs 1 now cost Rs 10." It's both good and bad. "Enforce-ment has become tougher. But then, <I>gutkha</I> is no longer easily available to women and children who would turn to it because they didn't have to fear the stigma of lighting up."

While Rai went after <I>gutkha</I> makers and sellers, Chaturvedi and VHAI took advocacy to the highest level.

They held MLA sensitisation programmes in the state assemblies with the help of tobacco-related cancer victims and their families. "Six victims, including a widow and a 17-year-old boy who had lost his father to tobacco, told their stories to the chief minister and the MLAs in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly in March," says Chaturvedi.
Similar sessions were held in Chhattisgarh which banned gutkha, Maharashtra (banned both gutkha and paan masala and increased taxes on bidi - "a highly politically sensitive issue"), Bihar (ban) and Kerala (Chief Minister Oommen Chandy increased the no-tobacco zone around educational institutes from 100 yards to 400 metres).

"In Jammu & Kashmir, a patient who had lost his voice and was speaking through the hole in his neck told the MLAs how this was a trade of death and destruction," says Chaturvedi.

As a result, the state's food commissioner has ordered that random samples of gutkha and paan masala be tested for tobacco and/or nicotine. In Uttar Pradesh, where Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav was not present, the session with cancer patients was held with the chief secretary and health, education and finance ministers.

Uttar Pradesh has since scaled up VAT on gutkha four times. On a plea filed by the Uttar Pradesh chapter of the Indian Dental Association, the Allahabad High Court has served a show cause notice on the government asking it "why the FSSA regulation cannot be implemented in the state".

In the health ministry, Desiraju has been writing to more and more states, mentioning in his letter the FSSA rules, the Supreme Court order which says gutkha is a food item, Madhya Pradesh's ban and the Allahabad High Court's direction on the Indian Dental Association's plea.
With him in this is Amal Pushp, who took over as director of tobacco control in January. Between the two, they are responding to every query coming in from the states. "This is a central legislation," says Pushp. "The states don't have a choice but to act on it."
"Why are they just targeting gutkha?" asks C K Sharma, the business head of DS Group's tobacco division. "There is clearly the cigarette lobby working here. An addict will not give up tobacco just like that. Freeze the gutkha supply and he will turn to cigarettes," he says. "And why target paan masala which is just dried paan with no tobacco?" he asks.

Pushp says <I>gutkha</I> is just the beginning. "The ultimate aim," he says "is to reduce the consumption of all tobacco products." He has been participating in some sensitisation programmes against cigarettes as well.

In July, he was in Bihar where officers of the rank of deputy superintendent of police have been nominated in districts as nodal officers of the task force to enforce the Cigarettes and Other Products Act - a regulatory act to control the consumption of cigarettes and other such products.

The <I>gutkha</I> industry is, meanwhile, fighting the ban tooth and nail, going to court in practically every state where it's being targeted. But the Patna and Madhya Pradesh high courts have dismissed their petitions saying that the food safety commissioner has every authority to exercise the power to ban <I>gutkha</I>.

"This time," says Pushp, "we are on strong footing."

Supari is equally dangerous, say experts

PUNE: The recent initiative by Maharashtra Government to impose ban on gutka and pan masala in the state has lead the gutkha addicts to switch to other similar addictions. With the enforcement of this ban, people are switching to supari, (which is also called as areca nut / betelnut) whether in its plain form or products made of it.

In the year 2004, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of World Health Organisation (WHO) has classified areca nut (supari) as carcinogenic to humans. This means, chewing of Supari can also cause cancer, even though the contents of supari do not have tobacco or magnesium carbonate added to it.

The Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 makes it compulsory for all packets of supari and its products to mention a warning which says 'chewing of supari is injurious to health'. However, this mandate is not followed by many supari brands and hence its users are not warned of the fatal dangers.

"The habit of chewing of supari, if it lasts for years, could lead to a series of hazardous effects. Like, altered speech, increased sensitivity to heat, cold and spices, etc. Direct and repeated contact of supari with the gums, cause them to recede, which in turn results in loosening of teeth," said oral physician Alok Lathi.

Increase in mouth ulcers and rotting of the gums is also caused by betel nut chewing. These effects are termed as 'areca nut chewer's syndrome'. These symptoms have no remedy and have horrifying consequences, he added.

"Supari contains alkaloids and polyphenols which are cancer causing chemicals. Use of Supari or its products on regular basis can cause various harmful effects on the human body," Lathi said.

Dinakaran & Dinamalar News

Bombay High Court transfers anti-FSSR petition; MMMA to move apex court

Angered by the Bombay High Court's transfer of the petition filed against the Union of India and the state of Maharashtra by about half-a-dozen trade bodies engaged in the production, processing and sale of eatables without a verdict, and the lame excuses offered by top-ranking legal officials in New Delhi, a trade delegation comprising office-bearers of the Mumbai Mewa-Masala Merchants' Association (MMMA) will soon move the Supreme Court and the concerned ministries to inform them about the controversial Sections of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations (FSSR), 2011.

In a telephonic conversation with Lakhubhai, secretary, MMMA, confirmed that there were technical and legal hurdles in obtaining product approval certificates. He added, "We will comply with the Act and obtain licences, but we all feel that the regulations are not only impractical to adhere to, but biased towards food business operators (FBOs) who can use their clout to bend the law as well. Another worrisome aspect of these regulations is the increase in corrupt practices that food safety officers (FSOs) indulge in. Inspector Raj is likely to come back, and the impact will be worse." Product approval certificates are mandatory for obtaining licences under FSSR.

‘Genetically modified crops no panacea for food security’

Basudeb Acharia. ‘We are not against new technology in the farm sector but it should be in the interest of farmers without undermining the rights of consumers.

The debate on the pros and cons of genetically engineered/modified crops is universal. In India, in the face of vociferous protests, the controversy has only deepened leading to a moratorium on cultivation of Bt Brinjal crop — the first GM food crop sought to be commercialised. Gargi Parsai spoke to Basudeb Acharia, Chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, on its new report, “Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops — Prospects and Effects.”

The government asserts that GM crops are essential for food security of India’s growing population. What is your take?

GM is not the panacea. We have 2,200 varieties of Brinjal. If we allow GM Brinjal, all our varieties will get contaminated and vanish as has happened in cotton. When the committee members visited Yavatmal in Vidarbha, we asked farmers why they were growing Bt cotton if the input costs were high and profits were low. They said they had no other option as alternate seeds were no longer available.

Initially a 450 gm packet of Monsanto’s Bt cotton seeds was sold at Rs 1,700. Then after the Andhra Pradesh government challenged this in court, it was brought down to Rs.750 per packet but the royalty of Rs.250 per packet is paid to Monsanto that developed the seed. Last year, a packet was sold between Rs.1,200 to Rs.2,000 because of the monopoly of this private seed company. An artificial scarcity was created and the price was hiked. This will happen in Bt brinjal too if it is allowed.

If our quest is for food security then why must we select this technology which has nothing to do with food security? The only motive behind this is profit for the seed companies.

What are the major recommendations of your committee?

We have said that the government must not allow field trials of GM crops till there is a strong, revamped, multi-disciplinary regulatory system in place. We studied the regulatory system in different countries and found that the one in Norway was the best.

We have recommended a thorough probe into the permission given to commercialisation of Bt Brinjal right from the beginning till a moratorium was imposed in 2010. Also that there should be examination of research reports and assessment by independent scientists of Bt Brinjal by an agency other than the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which gave approval on its own assessment, to avoid conflict of interest.

The panel recommended re-evaluation of all research findings in Bt cotton seeds in the light of studies that highlighted inexplicable changes in the organs and tissues of Bt-cotton seed-fed lambs.

Having noticed several shortcomings in the functioning, composition, powers and mandate of GEAC and the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) in their regulatory role, we have recommended to our sister committees on Science and Technology and Environment and Forests to do a comprehensive examination and report to Parliament.

There should be mandatory labelling of products from GM crops, unchecked import of GM products should be stopped and we have suggested that alternate organic farming should be encouraged, for which, as of now, there is no government support. An explanation has been sought from the Department of Consumer Affairs as to why no examination was done of the lakhs of tonnes of Bt cotton seed oil extracted from Bt cotton that has entered the food chain.

What are the chief concerns?

GM technology cannot be the monopoly of one company, as in Bt cotton. The benefits that were assured from Bt cotton cultivation are not coming because new pests have appeared. Farmers have to use more pesticide and chemical fertilizers, as a result of which there has been an increase in input costs and reduction in profit margins leading to farmer’s indebtedness and suicides.

Does it worry you that GM foods can enter the country without checks? Only if the exporter or the importer makes a declaration will authorities know that GM products are entering the country.

That is the weakness in law. There is only a Food Lab in Kolkata under the Ministry of Health and which is not well-equipped. The new Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is supposed to do it. The government must enact a legislation to protect the rights of consumers. Today, consumers have no rights and no means to know which imported food contains GM. There should be compulsory testing and labelling of GM food entering the country.

Now that the report is out, what do you expect the government to do?

The moratorium on Bt Brinjal should continue. All field trials of GM crops should discontinue. They should only be done in confined area in labs, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill should be reviewed so that there is no conflict of interest as the promotion of biotech and regulation cannot be under one body. You cannot compare with the United States as in India, 80 to 82 per farmers are small and marginal.

Why do you think the government is allowing this?

Because of pressure from the United States. Because since 1991, the government is pursuing neo-liberal economic policies — all are inter-related. You will find the difference in the agrarian crisis in the pre-1991 and post-1991 period. Suicides of farmers started from 1996-97. Before that there were isolated incidents. Just as it is now — there is pressure from the U.S. on India to allow 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail trade so that Walmart can come.

The industry-based Association of Biotech-led Enterprises-Agriculture Group (ABLE-AG) has said implementation of your panel’s recommendations will hit farm growth.

I do not agree. We were producing 52 million tonnes in 1950-51 and are today producing 257 million tonnes without using GM technology. If we have increased to such an extent, where is the need for GM technology? From a food importing country we are now exporting, though it is also a fact that a large number of population is not fed, whereas godowns are full.

We are not against new technology in the farm sector but it should be in the interest of farmers without undermining the rights of consumers. As of now it is more inclined towards industry without the accompanying safeguards, regulation and monitoring on pricing, monopoly, seed sovereignty and biodiversity.

How was unanimity achieved on this sensitive subject among the 31 committee members representing different political parties and ideologies?

We wanted to make an objective report. We invited those in favour of GM crops including Monsanto and those who were not. We visited five States including Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. We examined 18,000 documents 1,000 memoranda and 56 witnesses. The panel members met 100 farmers’ widows and heard from lakhs of farmers their plight in each State. The arguments of those against were stronger. That is why the entire committee is unanimous. There was not a single amendment or dissent.

High Court to hear PIL on banning tobacco products

8 states have done away with gutkha, Delhi govt is yet to take any action

 A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to ban tobacco products in the city will come up for hearing before Delhi High Court on Wednesday. The PIL has been filed by Doctors For You, a registered society, in the wake of a spurt of oral and lung cancer in the city.

Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the central government passed a regulation in 2011 empowering a State’s Food Safety Commissioner to ban tobacco products. According to the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations, 2011, gutkha and other forms of chewing tobacco products such as zarda, pan masala, gul and bajjar which are toxic and addictive, should be banned from being sold in the state.

Eight states have already banned gutkha and associate products. These are Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Haryana, Bihar, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Goa.
“The Delhi government has not taken any action despite the Central government regulation. Oral cancer is on a rise. If law can prevent it, then why not? We all know prevention is better than cure,” said Varun Kumar Chopra, advocate who represents the petitioner in the case.

According to a World Health Organisation’s Regional Office for South-East Asia’s study  on tobacco habits in India states, about 25 per cent of the population consumes tobacco in some form in Delhi.

A statement by Doctors For You said, “Despite clear evidence of tight regulations and actions taken by other states of India, the enforcing agencies of Delhi have failed to take any appropriate action against the manufacturers, importers and distributors of tobacco products.”

“These products pose a grave threat to the health of innocent consumers who are unaware about the real nature of its contents,” the statement said.

Mandals will need FDA licence to distribute food

Ganpati mandals and other charitable organisations that distribute free food will now have to get a licence from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which says that such organisations have to take temporary permission from the FDA during festive seasons.

It is seen that when charitable organisations or mandals distribute prasad or food and people got poisoned due to contamination of food, it is hard for officials to pin them down. Keeping such past incidents of food poisoning in mind, the Central government has incorporated the provision in the Act.

Now, the FDA has decided to hold meetings with all Ganesh mandals to convey the new rule about acquiring licences for making and distributing prasad during Ganesh Festivals in the city. For this provisional licence, the mandal will have to fill up the FDA’s Form ‘B’ and pay Rs 2,000 at the time of submission.

Gujarat drug makers to move court against new Food Safety Act

AHMEDABAD: Drug-makers in Gujarat have objected to a few provisions in the new food safety act that have brought manufacturing of health supplements under central licensing. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, prepared by the Union Health ministry, was implemented in 2011 and drug makers, many of whom also make food supplements, say they are feeling the heat. Small units engaged in making these products particularly object to a non-refundable fee of Rs 25,000 for obtaining a mandatory no-objection certificate (NOC) valid for one year. "For small-sized companies, it would be a huge expense," says Chirag Doshi, chairman of Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association's Gujarat Chapter.

Various high courts have issued 17 stay orders on provisions of the act after the industry challenged them. Most cases have been filed by food and general industry associations from Tamil Nadu and only three stay orders have been vacated so far.

Sections 50 to 65 of the Act stipulate penalty for manufacturing and selling sub-standard food, misbranded items and misleading advertisements. The units fear return to the license raj where government officials tend to get unreasonable.

"The minimum penalty amount starts from Rs one lakh," says Atul Shah, secretary, Small Scale Indian Drug Manufacturers' Association. "Take the issue of hygiene. It can be easily manipulated by the food inspector as definition of hygiene differs from person to person.

It may increase corruption and harassment," adds Mr Shah who is also the treasurer at IDMA's Gujarat chapter.

Gujarat Chamber of Commerce & Industry ( GCCI), the apex trade and industry body, has already filed a suit and the first hearing is slated for August 23. The Gujarat chapter of IDMA may file a separate suit in Gujarat High Court in the next two weeks.
Doshi says the new Food Act not only has implications on the food industry, but will also direct or indirectly affect the pharmaceutical companies that make the products and chemists who sell them.
Gujarat has the highest number, 41, of USFDA approved plants. The remaining 119 plants are scattered all over the country. The state's pharma industry contributes 40% to national turnover and has a 22% share in Rs 42,263-crore pharmaceutical exports. The stakes are therefore, high in the state.

"We will file the litigation to stop implementation of the new Food Act until there is clarity on provisions affecting the drug industry," says Mr Doshi.
The act covers energy capsules, baby food, body-building drinks and popular health supplements given to growing kids.
It also makes it mandatory for food business operator having annual turnover less than Rs 12 lakh to apply for registration. "This provision is absurd. Even a kirana-wala (neighbourhood grocer) falls within the ambit of this provision," says an IDMA official.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has allowed a six-month extended period for acquiring licenses and registration after only 15% companies complied with the new act.