Maggi noodles: tale of two test results

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India declared Maggi unsafe for consumption based on the report by Kolkata-based Central Food Laboratory

In contrast to Central Food Lab, a private facility says lead content within permissible levels

KOLKATA, JUNE 11: 

If there’s one thing that the entire Maggi ban fiasco has shown up, it is the difference in test results across two labs.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) declared Maggi unsafe for consumption based on the report by the Kolkata-based Central Food Laboratory.

But Nestle challenged the findings, based on test reports by the city-based Edward Food Research & Analysis Centre (EFRAC). The privately-run laboratory declared the lead content in the 800-odd samples of the instant noodles ‘within permissible limits’.

Central Food Laboratory officials refused to divulge details of the tests or the methodology followed. Questions relating to the alleged lapse of accreditation from National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), also went unanswered.

“I have been specifically instructed not to talk to the media,” AK Adhikari, director CFL, toldBusinessLine.

Balwinder Bajwa, CEO, EFRAC, is however, clear: “I stand by my lab’s reports. We use the most advanced equipment and processes when it comes to food testing, in line with international standards,” he told BusinessLine.

He points out that it should not be made into a case of a private laboratory versus a government lab. The laboratory, he says, is accredited by 12 authorities including NABL. “We are as accredited as any other government laboratory. And there is nothing for us to hide,” he adds.

Testing process

According to Bajwa, while analysing the Maggi samples the laboratory had used ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry), an advanced spectrometer that can trace heavy metals to the smallest level.

After this, the samples were prepared using a “microwave digestion” unit -- another advanced equipment. EFRAC did not use a silica crucible or borosilicate glass jar to avoid “lead contamination from external sources”.

The lab (EFRAC) also used “pure” nitric acid (500ml of which costs nearly ₹13,000, as against local varieties at ₹500); while preparing the samples. Use of local nitric acid might lead to variation in results because of presence of impurities, he said.

EFRAC also used ultra pure water, rather than regular/distilled water for tests.

The lab is equipped with software approved by the US FDA (Food and Drugs Administration). “The software is like a black-box in an aeroplane, where no manipulation is possible. [The] Results can be retrieved at any point of time to see whether procedures have been followed or not,” Bajwa said.

Objective process

According to him, to ensure neutrality of tests, the laboratory uses “bar coded” samples making it impossible for the laboratory personnel to identify the client. The name of the client is removed to avoid any manipulation or human intervention, he stressed. EFRAC, as per norms, keep ‘retention samples’ for further independent verification.

According to Bajwa, different methodologies of testing will give different results. “I am not commenting on what the other lab (Central Food Laboratory) did or did not do or should have done. But using even another set of apparatus such as a silica crucible or borosilicate glass jar can lead to a different set of results,” he adds.