Processed Milk Scare Persists

New Delhi, Sept. 2: A government laboratory has detected cancer-causing fungal toxins exceeding safety limits in samples of ultra-high-temperature processed milk, suggesting that a contamination problem highlighted eight years ago remains unresolved.

Scientists at the Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, have found a compound called aflatoxin M1, a fungal product labelled a carcinogen, in about 20 per cent of the samples of UHT milk they examined.

Earlier studies in India over the past decade have identified aflatoxins in raw and pasteurised milk but, the CFTRI scientists say, this is the first report of aflatoxins in UHT milk.

Dairy experts estimate that UHT milk ' typically sold in tetrapacks as a shelf-stable product that needs no refrigeration until opened ' makes up only one per cent of India's milk market, but sales are expected to grow three-fold over the next five years.

Food safety specialist Prema Viswanath and her colleagues at the CFTRI selected 45 samples of UHT milk from retail stores in Mysore, but intentionally picked brands sold across the country. Their findings appeared last week in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.

The scientists found aflatoxin M1 levels exceeding limits imposed by India's Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA) in 10 out of the 45 samples of UHT milk, in six out of 45 samples of raw milk and in three out of seven samples of pasteurised milk. The raw and pasteurised milk was collected from milk suppliers across Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

High levels of aflatoxins in livestock feed ' such as maize residue and peanut cake ' appears to be the source of the toxins in milk, the CFTRI scientists said.

Toxicologists say the findings suggest that India's livestock sector has failed to resolve the problem of aflatoxins in feed despite repeated warnings.

"This is a complex problem which is why it persists," said Mukul Das, a biochemist and co-ordinator of food toxicology at the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow.

Das and his colleagues at the IITR had detected aflatoxin levels high enough to cause concern in samples of infant milk food, milk-based weaning cereals and liquid milk in 2004.
"It's a quality issue involving the livestock and dairy supply chain," Das said. Sections of the dairy industry that rely on milk supplies from livestock owners need to test samples for aflatoxin before they pool the milk for industry-level processing, he said.
"Clean livestock feed holds the key to clean milk," said Viswanath. Studies from outside India have indicated that aflatoxins are resistant to heat treatment. "The objective should be to reduce aflatoxin levels to as low values as possible," Viswanath told The Telegraph.
Indian livestock researchers have in the past reported high values ' up to 3,300 micrograms per kg ' of the fungal toxin aflatoxin B1 in livestock feed. Aflatoxin B1 is metabolised by animals and converted into aflatoxin M1, which is secreted in milk.
"We're aware of the problem," said Anil Kumar Srivastava, director of the National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana. "Humidity, moisture, and poor storage conditions contribute to the growth of fungi and aflatoxins in livestock feed."
Dairy researchers point out that aflatoxins have been detected in UHT milk in several countries, including Brazil, Iran, Kuwait, Spain and Turkey. But while most developed countries have set maximum permissible limits for aflatoxin levels in livestock feed, no such mandatory limits exist for livestock fodder in India.
Toxicologists view aflatoxins, produced by fungi called Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus as among the most potent of carcinogens that can cause liver cancer. Some studies indicate that aflatoxins can also lead to stunted growth.
Since the late 1990s, isolated scientific reports of aflatoxins in milk have emerged from Thrissur in Kerala and Anand in Gujarat.

The 2004 study by Das and his colleagues at the IITR had found about 10 per cent of samples of products they tested contained aflatoxin M1 levels higher than the 0.5 microgram per kg limit imposed by the FSSA in 2006.

The limit for aflatoxins in milk set by the European Commission is even lower ' 0.05 microgram per kg. "If we apply the European Commission limits to our samples, 90 per cent would exceed safety limits," said Das.

Both the CFTRI and the IITR are laboratories under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Implementation hiccups in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

The implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has run into rough weather.  The Act consolidates eight laws[1] governing the food sector and establishes the Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA) as the regulator.  It requires all food business operators (including small businesses and street vendors) to obtain a licence or registration.  The Regulations under FSSA related to procedure for obtaining a licence or registration was notified on August 1, 2011.  According to the Regulations, all food business operators had to get a licence or registration within one year of the notification.  Due to opposition from several food business operators (see here and here), the FSSA has now extended the deadline for getting a licence or registration by another six months (till February 2013).  However, some of the key concerns regarding the law have not yet been addressed.

Key issues related to the Bill raised by PRS (for more details see Legislative Brief)

• The organised as well as the unorganised food sectors are required to follow the same food law.  The unorganised sector, such as street vendors, might have difficulty in adhering to the law, for example, with regard to specifications on ingredients, traceability and recall procedures.
• The Bill does not require any specific standards for potable water (which is usually provided by local authorities).  It is the responsibility of the person preparing or manufacturing food to ensure that he uses water of requisite quality even when tap water does not meet the required safety standards.
• The Bill excludes plants prior to harvesting and animal feed from its purview.  Thus, it does not control the entry of pesticides and antibiotics into the food at its source.
• The power to suspend the license of any food operator is given to a local level officer.  This offers scope for harassment and corruption.

Other issues referred to in the media

• The Act requires a food business operator to get different licenses if articles of food are manufactured or sold at different premises.  Newspapers reported that this provision was challenged in the Madras High Court but a stay order on the Act and its Rules was refused.
• According to media reports, two hotel associations in Karnataka had challenged certain sections of the Act and Rules in the Karnataka High Court related to requirement of technical person for supervision of production process and requirement of a laboratory on the premises of food operators.  The court stayed these provisions for three months (till October 2012).
• News papers reported that the Supreme Court is examining the question whether liquor is a food.

---

[1].  (a) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.  (b) The Fruit Products Order, 1955.  (c) The Meat Food Products Order, 1973. (d)  The Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947.  (e) The Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998. (f) The Solvent Extracted Oil, De oiled Meal, and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967. (g) The Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992. (h) Any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, relating to food.

Gujarat bans gutka and pan masala completely from September 11

Gutka and pan masala will be completely banned from September 11 in Gujarat, a notification issued here today by the state government said.
The ban as per provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 on manufacturing, sale, storage and distribution of gutka and pan masala will come into effect from September 11, and initially shall be in place for one year, Gujarat's Commissioner of Food Safety Dr H G Koshia said.
"It has been done in public interest," he said.
Any violation of ban on food articles containing nicotine and tobacco as ingredients, would attract atleast six months of imprisonment and a fine upto Rs 5 lakh, Koshia said.
However, the prohibition shall not be applicable in respect of 100 per cent export oriented units.
Citing research at Tata Memorial Hospital, the notification said it was observed that consumption of gutka and pan masala causes carcinogenic and co-carcinogenic effects, leading to very high risk of oral cancer.
The Global Adult Tobacco Survey of India 2009-10 revealed that 35 per cent adults use tobacco in some or the other form, out of which 21 per cent were found to be consuming smokeless tobacco.
The Maharashtra government had recently imposed a comprehensive ban on gutka and pan masala. Gutka is banned in Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, while the Rajasthan government banned it last month.

DINAMALAR NEWS

Greens with Poisons

The revelation that neither the state agriculture department nor the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) nor the health department conduct any periodic check on market samples of vegetables and fruits for presence of pesticides beyond the permissible limit is a chilling reminder of the dangers we face every time we sit down to have a meal.
The investigations by this newspaper published on Saturday pointed to gross indifference of the state government to the health of consumers. The revelations expose the fallacy of “nutritious” vegetables and fruits bought in the markets. Pesticides are used as poisons to kill insects, and they kill them by attacking their brain systems. When we consume fruits and vegetables with high pesticide residues, they accumulate in our brains and damage our neurological systems. The damage over a period of time can be irreversible.
It is the state government’s responsibility to ensure that consumers get safe foods. At the national level, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) is entrusted with the task of enforcing food safety rules, including those relating to MRL ( Maximum Residue Limit) of pesticides in fruits and vegetables. In states, it is the state government’s responsibility to appoint and designate an appropriate authority to carry out the mandate. In other states, laboratories have been making checks on samples for MRL. In Allahabad for instance, tomatoes were found to contain traces of DDT which were 108 times above the permissible level. Apples from Himachal Pradesh were found to contain excessive traces of Cyfluthrin-Beta. In Hyderabad, Lucknow and other cities checks on MRL in vegetables and fruits are done. In some cities, civil society groups have collected samples from markets and got tests done at laboratories and found many of them contaminated. In quite a few tests, some vegetables, particularly cabbage, cauliflower, okra and brinjal were found to have much higher MRL for pesticide residues.
The whole scenario is scary: just because we do not see it or taste it does not mean we are safe. We have no idea what we are consuming. An agency designated by the state government has to conduct routine tests on fruits and vegetables – and not to miss out on fish and meat – to ensure that consumers are not taking home and cooking contaminated food. When government officers say that testing facilities are not available in the state, they are telling the truth. What they are not revealing is that the FSSAI has listed 18 testing laboratories for use of states in the western region which includes Goa. Of these 10 are located in Mumbai and Pune which are easily accessible by the state government. Why are vegetables and fruits samples from markets in the state not being sent to these laboratories for testing? Next is the question of who is responsible? Documents uploaded on the FSSAI website clearly state the names and designations of the government servants designated as food officers for the state. Besides, Mr Salim Veljee and Mr B Vijayan have been designated as food safety commissioners for Goa. The state has 13 food safety officers and 13 designated officers. So why is the government still immobile with respect to checks on fruits and vegetables?
Perhaps, it needs a direct intervention of the Chief Minister, Mr Manohar Parrikar to protect consumers from pesticide consumption. After all, pesticide residues might be going into the body and brain systems of all of us – commoners, middle classes, upper middle classes, officers and ministers. The government must make use of the laboratories in Mumbai and Pune. Testing of vegetables and fruits (and fish and meat) must start immediately. And the sooner, the better, Mr Parrikar must use his ingenious techniques of mobilizing additional resources for setting up a toxicology laboratory in Goa itself.