Food safety goes for a toss in T, AP

625 Food Samples Failed Quality Tests Between January And August 2015, RTI Reply Reveals

In a alarming revelation, the Nacharambased state food laboratory (SFL) has found a whopping 625 food samples collected from across the two states (but mainly within the city limits) to be unsafe, misbranded or sub-standard during the January-August period this year.

The findings, which were revealed based on an Right to Information (RTI) query , provides a detailed break of the food samples tested. Of the 3,641 samples that went under the microscope, 254 products were found to be unsafe, 226 were misbranded and 145 sub-standard ­ making it illegal for sale under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

The Act defines `unsafe food' as items whose nature, substance or quality is so badly affected as to render it injurious to health. `Misbranded' are those food articles that make misleading or deceptive claims while `sub-standard' are products that do not meet the required standards but are not unsafe to use per se.

“In just seven months, 625 out of 3,651 food samples failing the safety test is shocking as it translates into a failure rate of 17.11% for every 100 samples tested by SFL in Hyderabad. Unfortunately , the food safety authorities are not going against these defaulters,“ said Musheerabad-based RTI activist Bakka Judson.

For the record, the defaulting food articles classified as `unsafe' are led by brands companies selling processed foods like jams, jellies and dates. Out of 343 such products tested, 129 were found to be `unsafe'. This was followed by brandscompanies selling mineral water and packaged drinking water, with 20 out of 40 samples failing the test.

The defaulters that topped the `misbranded' list were brands of pan masala products (175 out of 236 tested samples) followed by companies selling butter, ghee, icecream and milk products (24 out of 219 samples).

In the case of sub-standard articles, butter, ghee, ice-cream and milk products topped the list with 79 out of 219 samples failing the quality parameters. This was followed by brands selling edible oils, fats and vanaspati, with 22 out of 457 samples failing the tests.

But, who exactly are these defaulters? That is the million dollar question which authorities in both the food safety department and SFL don't seem to want to answer.In fact, in her RTI reply , K Sailaja Devi, chief public analyst at SFL, Nacharam, said that `details of brand names, outlets and their branches are not known to the laboratory as the food safety officers just mention the code number, nature of samples and villagetown names but not shop names.' “Our job is to test the samples and pass on the results to the food safety department.The Food Safety Act is very clear on this,“ Sailaja Devi told TOI.

However, when K Balaji Raju, one of the four designated food safety officers covering the central and west zone in GHMC limits, was asked to disclose the names of some of the city-based defaulters, he said he could not do so without clearance from higher authorities.

Not surprisingly , this has prompted Judson to question the use of sending samples for testing at SFL in the first place as consumers, in their ignorance, are still buying these products and falling ill. “It is clear that the government authorities want people to fall ill as they are shielding the food business operators selling unsafe and sub-standard products. Why else are they not disclosing their names in the SFL website or any public domain?“ he asked.

Meanwhile, in the absence of the names of defaulters, Dr M Gayathri, clinical dietician, Apollo Hospitals, Hyderguda, has advised people to stay away from processed foods like jams and jellies containing additives like Butylated hydroxytoulene (BHT) and butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA). “Besides, it is always better to buy real food than going for processed products as artificial coloring agents can cause hypersensitivity and skin diseases like utricaria and dermatitis,“ she said.