Jun 7, 2016

Stale food lands SAI students in hospital

ALAPUZZAH: Students of Sports Authority of India's (SAI) water sports centre in the district complained that they were fed stale food from June 1 after 14 of them were admitted to the General Hospital following food poisoning on Sunday night.
Of the lot, 10 were discharged on Monday morning. District collector R Girija and SAI principal G Kishore have sought a report in connection with the incident from Gopalakrishnan K, who is in charge of SAI's Alappuzha centre.
Last year on May 6, four budding athletes from this very centre had tried to commit suicide to escape 'mental agony'. Rower Aparna lost her life, while her three friends recovered.
Resident medical officer Anas Salih said that students were probably served chicken and milk past their sell by date and it resulted in abdominal pain, upset stomach, diarrhoea and vomiting.
"They told me that the chicken and milk were smelly and had a foul taste. It is a case of food poisoning and their condition is stable now. Four of them are recovering from exhaustion," he said. The district collector instructed SAI authorities to procure of food items from a new dealer.
Officials of the district medical office, food safety department and the police collected food samples and recorded the statements of students. SAI Thiruvananthapuram deputy director Premjithlal and Dr George Thomas conducted an inquiry.
Rower Asif Shajahan (14) said there were no problems till June as the food was cooked and supplied by SAI. "From June 1, a private agency took over our catering needs and it was bread they supplied with chicken and milk. For breakfast and lunch, we got bread, jam, milk and two eggs. They gave bread and chicken curry for dinner. The food had a foul taste bread was mouldy," said Asif, who is undergoing treatment at the hospital.
Akshay Suresh (16) recounted Sunday night's events. "Around 8pm, 14 students ate dinner - bread, chicken and milk. The chicken and milk were stale and smelt weird. Bread was rather musty. Around 8.30 pm, we experienced stomach pain, diarrhoea and nausea. We were taken to hospital at 9 pm after we complained," he said.
Gopalakrishnan said SAI had chosen Karthika Agency from Kollam for supplying food items from June 1. "We invited tenders from private agencies to supply food items in May. However, this agency, which supplies food items to SAI centres in Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Thrissur, submitted a tender. Now, we have stopped chicken, milk and bread supplies from the agency. They only provide other grocery items," he said.
Meanwhile, North circle inspector Babu V said they had registered a case of food poisoning in connection with the incident based on the statements of doctors and inquiry was on.

Claims and counter claims over bread controversy

Ludhiana: The controversy over the use of cancer causing chemical `Potassium Bromate’ in the breads is still running high on the minds of city people. There are people who have stopped using the breads. What to speak of bead, even there are people who have stopped eating bakery products also after hearing about bread issue. Raghav Sharma, the owner of bakery, Chander Nagar said, “The sale has drastically gone down in the past few days since the controversy of the bread is in limelight. Now people prefer to buy other things but we are at great loss over it as, maximum items of the bakery are made from the bread products only.”
The Drug Inspector of the District Health department, Ludhiana, Sukhdeep Singh said, “We have received the directions from the higher authorities to take the samples of breads on regular intervals. We have taken the samples of branded and non branded breads from different areas of the city and sent them in laboratory for the test. The result of the samples will come within few days from Chandigarh, and its report will be sent to the centre authorities. Box-1 In the month of May, the government was set to ban the Potassium Bromate as food addictive.
Health Minister, JP Nadda, asserted that it will take appropriate action following a report which claimed presence of cancer causing chemicals in bread samples of virtually all top brands. As a centre for the Science and Environment (CSE) study had found nearly 84 per cent of 38 commonly available brands of pre-packaged breads including pav and buns, testing positive for Potassium Bromate and Potassium Iodate, banned in many countries as they were listed as dangerous for the health of individuals. It claimed that while one of the chemicals was a category 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans), other could trigger thyroid disorders.
All India Bread Manufacturers’ Association (AIBMA), a body of 350 professional bread makers, including Britannia, Modern, Bonn and Elite Group claimed that they would stop using the Potassium Bromate from our products because it is a non-essential ingredient that only improves the look of bread. This doesn’t mean we are guilty of using an unsafe product as they were using Potassium Bromate as per the directions of the Food Safety and Standard Authorities of India. Nadda then directed that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to take the matter seriously and submit a report at earliest.
On the orders of Health Minister, health department of every state has gone vigilant over the issue of the bread. They are taking samples of bread from different areas on daily basis to check its quality and the use of Potassium Bromate in breads by sending them to the laboratory in Chandigarh as health department official laboratory is located there. BOX-2 Managing Director Kitty bread and President of All India Bread Manufacturing Association, Ramesh Mago said, “We totally stopped using harmful chemicals in bread, despite the fact earlier also we use to use them as per FSSAI directions.
We have recovered losses but still around 6-7 percent people don’t use it. Since the controversy broke, it is causing confusion among consumers. So our bread and bakery products sales declined. Now we have decided to voluntarily withdraw its use. Today we have almost covered our losses. Only 5 to 7 percent sales are still affected. We will also work with small bakers so that they can have access and knowledge about using alternatives to Potassium Bromate. Earlier Food safety and Standard authority of India's regulations permit the use of Potassium Bromate and Potassium Iodate at 50ppm maximum for the bread and at 20ppm maximum for the bakery purpose.
But now we totally stop using it in our products. BOX-3 RESIDENTS’ SPEAK Siddak Singh, a Youngster, “It is very disappointing that one after the other breaking controversies over the use to health harming chemicals were found in the eating products. It means till the media or some authorities do not pay full attention over checking the chemicals used in product. We are not safe to eat anything in this country. Earlier Maggi and now bread, God knows which chemicals are used in others products”. Jaswinder Singh, a resident said, “I was very upset when I heard the news regarding the presence of chemicals like Potassium Bromate and Potassium Iodate in the bread and allied bakery products of the leading food manufacturers as it would cause serious health problems among humans.” Sanjeev Chaudhary, a resident, “When we came to know about the chemicals used in the bread we were shocked about it.
Now we avoid bringing bread for our family, though we were daily users of the bakery products. In fact, we stopped eating other bakery products which are made of bread due to the health risk factor." Suman Grover, a shopkeeper said, “Our bread sales have drastically gone down since, the controversy of bread has been started in the media. Even our regular customers have stopped buying breads due to which we are facing big losses as it was their routine business. We wish the problem regarding bread should be cleared soon by the authorities concerned” Cemay Madhok, a youngster said, “I usually use to eat bread in the breakfast.
But now I have stopped eating bread at all and even strictly ordered my family not to eat bread. As I am very health conscious and also told my family just to eat healthy things only. If news to be believed the chemical used in bread that is Potassium Bromate can cause cancer so it’s better not to eat it.”

Mislabelled!


The Mumbai Mix Team tells you what you should be looking for when you glance at food labels, and how to pick the gimmicky options from the truly healthy ones
We love packaged foods, but apparently, they are bad for you. And, you may have heard that even the purportedly healthy options mask their true nature, or include unhealthy components that are hidden in plain sight. So, how do you know if you are being taken for a ride or getting truly healthy products? Here, we break it down for you, telling you how to read a packaged food label, what to look for, and how to find out exactly what you’re getting. We also give you more interesting information so that you can pick out the truly healthy choices from the sea of options.
DECONSTRUCTING THE FOOD LABEL
Yes; it’s on the back of the pack and it’s supposed to give you information about the product, but what does it really tell you? Here’s how to soak in what’s on the nutritional label.
Energy
At the very top of the box or the section about nutrition, is where you’ll find the energy (also sometimes ‘Calories’) that the product gives you. This is how you will know whether a packaged food item is fattening. The higher this value, the more energy it gives you and the more potential it has to be fattening.
Constituent amounts
The next segment tells you how much of the various nutrients are present, sometimes even giving you further break-ups. It may also tell you how much each contributes to your recommended daily allowances, although this is rare in India. Here’s a tip: the constituent at the very top is present in the largest amount. So, if this is fat, you know you should stay away. Also, look for unhealthy components such as saturated fat and trans fat to find out how much of those are present.
Other nutrients
Some packaged food may even tell you how many vitamins and minerals such as calcium and iron are present, and in what quantities. This is especially useful when you need to plan to meet your daily recommended values.
Additional information
Certain packaged foods may even tell you your RDA depending on the average daily calorie intake for men and women, although this is rarely seen in India. To use this information to good effect, you need to judge how much of a particular constituent a serving of the food contains and how much you’re looking to get out of it. This should help you to set limits when you’re eating packaged foods.
DEMYSTIFYING THE INGREDIENTS
Don’t let the long list of ingredients confuse you. Companies use alternative names on things like sodium, fats and sugar. Here’s what you need to know about them.
Sugars
Sugar is a carbohydrate, so even if a product has no sugar, it may contain complex carbohydrates such as maltodextrin and sugar alcohols including mannitol, xlylitol and sorbitol. Look for these listed in the ingredients.
Fats
Since companies can put ‘no trans fat’ on the label if a product contains less than 0.5g of trans fat per serving, check the ingredients for the terms hydrogenated oil, partially hydrogenated oil and saturated fats. Trans fats don’t just increase the shelf life of the product, they also increase the shelf life of fat in your body!
MSG
This recently got a dear noodle brand in a lot of trouble. MSG is a specific sodium salt of glutamic acid and companies have been using other sodium salts of glutamic acid to divert from the issue. Other terms for MSG include yeast extraction, hydrolysed protein (both animal and plant), protein fortified, ultra-pasteurised and fermented or enzyme-fortified.
NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION
Khushboo Sahijwani, a nutritionist from the Shenmen Healing Center, Mumbai, decodes the meaning of the numbers that you see on the nutrition facts column on your food labels.
The serving size simply tells how you much quantity you should consume in one sitting.
The amount and percentage of Daily Value give you the amount of nutrients that you get from that particular serving and in what percentage they contribute to your daily requirements.
In the world of numbers, 50-55% of your total energy should come from carbohydrates, 10-15% from proteins and 20-25% from fats. And, in a day, your total fibre intake should be at least 25-30g.
The break-up given on the label must be totally accurate as it is monitored and governed by high standards. However, there is a 5-10% buffer in these values.
So, remember that when a label says it has 4% fat, it means that by consuming a serving of the product, you will fulfill 4% of the 20-25% of fat that you require.
THE SCIENCE OF PRESERVATIVES
Just like us, our food too needs to survive, which is why it requires preservatives to increase its shelf life. The idea behind any type of food preservation is to inhibit, slow down or prevent its decomposition and reduce or stop the growth of bacteria and mould. To simplify things, preservatives can be grouped into three types — antimicrobials that block the growth of bacteria, antioxidants that slow down the oxidation of fats (which otherwise lead to rancidity) and a third kind that fights the enzymes that promote the natural ripening of fresh fruits and vegetables. As far as packaged food goes, the E200 series represents preservatives.
KNOW YOUR PRESERVATIVES
E200-203 — sorbate compounds that are used in wines, cheeses and dried fruit.
E210-213 — benzoic acid and benzoate used as antibacterials and antifungals in jams, jellies, pickled vegetables and condiments.
E220-228 — sulphite compounds that are used to inhibit bacterial growth in potato products, wines and fruit preserves.
E249-252 — nitrite and nitrate compounds used as additives in meat products.
Preservatives and your health
Even though it is impossible to avoid foods that contain preservatives, it is necessary to control your consumption. Here is why you should be laying off that bag of tempting chips that you’ve been craving.
Cancer One of the most serious threats that preservatives carry is that of a risk of cancer. Added preservatives are transformed into carcinogens when they are consumed.
Heart problems Health study reviews have shown that preservatives can weaken your heart. It was found that among rats, those that consumed the highest amounts of preservatives suffered from the most heart damage.
Obesity Binge-eating packaged foods is unhealthy! And, since preservatives make you want to keep eating the wrong types of food, this often leads to obesity.
Stroke Sodium and nitrate that are present in large amounts in processed food are the main components that contribute to high blood pressure, which weakens your blood vessels.
AN EXPIRY ON HEALTH
Expiration dates on food labels can be confusing, even though the Food Safety and Standards Act tries to make it easier for consumers to understand them. We often abide by these dates without giving them a second thought. But, do you really need to toss something in the trash if it is a day beyond the expiry date on the packaging? Here’s what you need to know.
There are several types of expiration dates. The ‘Sell by’ date tells your grocer how long they should keep a product on the shelves. The ‘Use by’ or ‘Best Before’ date tells you when to use the product in order to get the best flavour out of it. This has little to do with food safety, and more to do with how a food tastes. The ‘Expiration date’ is typically meant as a suggestion for the last date that you can safely consume the food item.
Often, these dates are a rough estimate of how a food will taste or look after a particular period of time, and have nothing to do with the nutritional value or safety of this food. Companies use food grades to determine these dates. For example, if a manufacturer rates their bread as a 7/10, they deem a rating of 6.2 to be the lowest that the bread can go before its taste starts to deteriorate. Even if it goes to 6.0, it’s probably good enough for most people, but companies want their product at its best.
MISLEADING FOOD LABELS
Even though a system is in place to tell you about the nutrition you get from packaged foods, companies find ways to circumvent the rules and use clever tactics and gimmicks to keep you confused. A study conducted by the researchers at MS University’s Faculty of Family and Community Sciences (FFCS) identified over 200 food products with improper food labelling that could mislead consumers. While there’s no need to be paranoid, you should be more aware. Here are some of the most common misleading terms and what they actually mean, so you know that you’re eating healthy.
Multi-grain Even a small amount of a second type of grain is license for the manufacturer to use the term. And, there is a big difference between the terms whole grain and multi-grain. We suggest you look for the former. Whole grains have more fibre and nutrients than refined grains.
No added sugar Foods such as milk, fruits and vegetables contain natural sugars and may also contain a carb called maltodextrin, which is known to raise your blood sugar. So, don’t think this means that no sugar is present.
Gluten-free Gluten-free is the new mantra for the health-conscious. Found in wheat and rye, it can be a nuisance to those who suffer from celiac disease. These days, it has become easier to find these products, but unless you have metabolic problems, eating this kind of food won’t help you to lose weight and it may not even be good for you.
Made with real fruit Juices and snacks that claim to be made with 100% real fruit may have hardly any real fruit in them at all. There’s no way to know the quantity of real fruit in a particular packaged product, because companies are not required to disclose the percentage of ingredients such as fruit and whole grain. Be wary of products that taste like they’re made from concentrate, because these may not be very healthy.
Fat-free Products that say no trans fat on the label may contain up to 0.5g per serving. look for the term ‘hydrogenated oils’ on the label, which means that trans fats are present in your food.
Sugar-free A sugar-free label really means that it can have up to 0.5g of sugar per serving. Always compare a sugar-free product with its counterpart while looking for the carbohydrate content. If it contains fewer carbs, then it’s a better choice for you.
Cholesterol-free This doesn’t always mean that the product contains no cholesterol. In fact, for products to be labelled cholesterol-free, they must contain less than 2mg per serving, while for a product to have low-cholesterol labelling, it must contain 20mg or less per serving. Also, remember that cholesterol is made by the liver and so, only products such as meat, eggs, dairy and butter can contain it. If a plant-based product boasts of being cholesterol-free, it serves no added benefit, because vegetable oils wouldn’t contain cholesterol anyway.
Organic When a product label states that it is made from 100% organic ingredients, they are usually referring to one or more organic ingredients. And, most fragrances are synthetic, so if the label includes the words fragrance, you should know it isn’t completely natural.
This should empower you in your packaged food choices. You will know what to look for, how to pick out whether a food is healthy or the claims are misleading, and most importantly, how to get the most out of your packaged food indulgences. Either way, remember that it’s best to restrict consumption to the bare minimum in order to stay healthy.
HOW ARE THE FIGURES ON THE FOOD LABEL DECIDED?
Standards, methodologies and rules for testing and approving foods, and then labelling them accurately, have been set up by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The act provides for a scientific panel to decide the limits of many types of food additives and constituents, including flavouring agents, pesticides, chemicals and biological hazards. The regulations and rules also specify the corresponding labelling required on the package for a variety of constituents.
Each Indian state has its own Food and Drug Administration, which enforces and implements these rules, while the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which is set up according to the Act, is supposed to regulate and monitor the manufacture, processing and distribution of food as well as its import, in order to maintain healthy standards.
ADDED FLAVOURS
What does the term ‘added flavours’ mean? Do they extract the essence of an orange and add it into your food to give you a citrusy hit or is it a chemical that mimics the taste of an orange? In most cases, processing destroys the natural essence present in the food, and packaged foods might be centrifuged, pasteurised, filtered, clarified and co-stabilised in order to retain their flavour. But, there are other ways to put flavour into foods meant to last for months on the shelf. Chemicals that tickle our taste buds in similar ways to natural flavours are used to simulate the original flavour (or fool our brains into believing that we’re eating strawberries, for example). In some cases, these chemicals are naturally found in the foods, but are artificially produced and added to ramp up the flavour. For example, ethyl butyrate is one of many compounds found in orange juice. So, manufacturers add it in to give their drinks a strong orange flavour.

How to detect the mangoes artificially ripened with carbide stones

The mango season is right now at its peak. The public indulges in buying different varieties of mango fruitsavailable in the market and relish them.However, the buyers are a bit worried whether the fruits have been artificially ripened.
Mango fruits artificially ripened with carbide stones harm the body. Especially, children and senior citizenswill be affected by problems. So, the officials of the department of Food Safety have advised the public to be careful in selecting and buying good quality fruits.
Mainly because of the excess rains during the Northeast monsoon, the arrival of mangoes has increased this year. The traders informed that the public buys the varieties Sendhuram and Banganapalli and relish them. 
However, the public is alarmed while knowing about the mangoes artificially ripened with carbide stones.
The officials from the department of food safety informed that when raw mangoes are kept in hay or other heat generating material, with increased production of ethylene, the mangoes ripen in 2 days and become edible. In order to reduce time, some traders indulge in ripening the fruits artificially by keeping them in carbide stones. With the acetylene gas generated from the carbide stones, the mangoes ripen quickly within a day. However, this is not edible. Eating it may lead to complaints like the stomach ache.
Light yellow spots can be detected on mangoes ripened with carbide stones. If the stem part is cut and tested, sourness can be tasted and there will be sour smell. When it is doubtful, it is advisable to keep the fruits in the refrigerator for a day and then eat. Then, there is a possibility for the property of the fruit to change. This is also a temporary phenomenon. So, it is always better to select and buy only quality fruits.
The traders will have to take extra care not to indulge in any violations of the rules and regulations and selltheir items. The officials informed otherwise, the fruits will be confiscated from these shops

Global safety standards cannot apply: FSSAI chief

Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Chief Executive Officer Pawan Agarwal is tasked with improving food testing facilities and working with food businesses to improve manufacturing practices and hygiene standards.
The focus will be on implementing the Food Safety Management Systems (FSMS) that will cut across food businesses, whether it is the street vendor or restaurants, says Agarwal.
Efforts are on to increase the number of labs with accreditation from the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), an autonomous under the Department of Science and Technology).
There are currently 98 such accredited labs in the country.
FSSAI is promoting public-private partnership models to strengthen State food safety labs by supporting them with sophisticated and expensive equipments, he adds.
FSSAI has one lab in Ghaziabad and another in Kolkata. We might set up the third lab in Mumbai, he says.
There are also ongoing efforts to increase the number of referral labs and strengthen the infrastructure, says Agarwal.
It is desirable to harmonise domestic laws with international standards, but it would not be right to set impractical standards, he says.
If the incidence of metal or pesticide residue in raw materials is high in India, businesses cannot be expected to follow international norms, he says.
In such cases, it may recommend more flexible permissible limits of metal content or pesticide residues, he adds.
If our primary food production systems have high levels of content metal content or pesticide residues, one cannot fault the food processing sector for not being able to abide by international standards, he reasons. Therefore, national standards are important, but of course attempts should be made to harmonise them to international standards as much as possible, he says.

à®®ாநிலம் ஒட்டிய கலந்தாய்வு நடத்தாவிட்டால் உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அலுவலர்கள் வருà®®் 26à®®் தேதி போà®°ாட்டம்

சென்னை, ஜூன் 7:
à®®ாநி லம் தழு விய அள வில் கலந் தாய்வு நடத்த வேண் டுà®®் என உணவு பாது காப்பு அலு வ லர் கள் à®…à®° சுக்கு தொடர்ந்து கோà®°ிக்கை வைத்து வரு கின் à®± னர். கோà®°ிக்கை நிà®±ை வேà®±் à®±ா வி டில் ஜூன் 26à®®் தேதி தொடர் உண் ணா வி ரத போà®°ாட் டம் நடத்த à®®ுடிவு செய் துள் ள னர்.
தமிà®´் நாடு உணவு பாது காப்பு மற் à®±ுà®®் நிà®°் வா கத் து à®±ை யின் கீà®´் 2011à®®் ஆண்டு 585 பேà®°் உணவு பாது காப்பு அலு வ லர் க ளாக தமி ழக à®…à®° சால் தமி à®´ கம் à®®ுà®´ு வ துà®®் நிய à®®ிக் கப் பட் ட னர்.
தற் போது 496 பேà®°் பணி யாà®±்à®±ி வரு கின் à®± னர். இவர் க ளில் பலர் சொந்த à®®ாவட் டத்தை விட்டு விட்டு தொலை தூà®° à®®ாவட் டங் க ளில் பணி அமர்த் தப் பட் டுள் ள னர். இவர் கள் குடுà®®் பத்தை பிà®°ிந்து பணி யாà®±்à®±ி வரு கின் à®± னர். ஒட்டு à®®ொத்த பணி இட à®®ாà®±ு தல் கலந் தாய்வு நடத் திட à®…à®° சுக்கு கடந்த 5 வரு ட à®®ாக கோà®°ிக்கை வைத்து வரு கின் à®± னர்.
ஆனால், அரசு தரப் பில் ஒட்டு à®®ொத்த கலந் தாய்வு நடத் தப் ப டா மல் உள் ளது. இதனை à®…à®° சின் கவ னத் திà®±்கு கொண்டு வருà®®் வகை யில் சென்னை மற் à®±ுà®®் அதனை சுà®±் à®±ி யுள்ள பகு தி களை சேà®°்ந்த 20 பேà®°ுà®®் மற் à®±ுà®®் தமி ழக அள வில் 385 பேà®°் என தமி ழக à®…à®° சுக்கு ‘பேக்ஸ் ’’ à®®ூலம் கோà®°ிக்கை மனு நேà®±்à®±ு அளித் துள் ள னர்.
இந் நி லை யில், அலு வ லர் கள் சாà®°் பில் கூà®±ுà®®் போது, “நாà®™் கள் வெளி à®®ாவட் டங் க ளில் பணி ய மர்த் தப் பட் டோà®®். à®’à®°ு ஒன் à®±ி யத் திà®±்கு à®’à®°ு வர் பணி அமர்த் தப் பட் ட னர். தற் போது நாà®™் கள் எங் க ளது குடுà®®் பத் து டன் சேà®°்ந்து வாà®´ à®®ு டி யாத நிலை உள் ளது. ஒட்டு à®®ொத்த கலந் தாய்வு நடத்தி எங் கள் சொந்த ஊருக்கு à®…à®°ு கிலோ அல் லது à®®ாவட் டத் திலோ பணி ய மர்த்த வேண் டுà®®். ஆகவே, அரசு கவ னத்தை ஈர்க்க ‘பேக்ஸ் ’’ அனுப் பி யுள் ளோà®®்.
தமி ழக à®®ுதல் வர், மக் கள் நல் வாà®´்வு துà®±ை செய லா ளர், அரசு தலைà®®ை செய லா ளர், டிஎம் எஸ் அலு வ ல கத் தில் உள்ள மக் கள் நல வாà®´்வு மற் à®±ுà®®் குடுà®®்ப நலத் துà®±ை ஆணை ய à®°ுக்கு பேக்ஸ் அனுப்பி உள் ளோà®®். இதை ய டுத் துà®®், அரசு செவி சாய்க் க வில்லை என் à®±ால், ஜூன் 14à®®் தேதி சென் னை யில் தர்ணா போà®°ாட் டம் நடத்த உள் ளோà®®். ஜூன் 26à®®் தேதி டிஎம்ஸ் வளா கத் தில் தொடர் உண் ணா வி ரத போà®°ாட் டம் நடத்த உள் ளோà®®்” என் à®±ாà®°்.

DINAMALAR NEWS


DINAMALAR NEWS



DINAKARAN NEWS


Chemically-ripened mangoes seized from godown

Launching a drive against stocking and sale of chemically ripened mangoes, the District Food Safety wing of the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department has seized five tonnes of chemically-ripened mangoes from a godown at Perunali in Kamudhi block in the district.
Acting on a tip off, a team of food safety officials, led by M.J.C. Bose, District Designated Officer, visited the godown owned by J. Palanikumar on Monday and found that he had used ethipon and calcium carbide to speed up the process of ripening of mangoes.
Dr. Bose said the merchant, who procured the mangoes in the pre-ripening stage from Aruppukottai and Madurai, stocked them in the godown and sprayed ethipon in liquid form, using a sprayer for ripening. The officials seized the sprayer, chemicals and the entire quantity of about 500 kg of ripened mangoes.
The chemically ripened mangos were taken to the compost yard of the Sayalkudi town panchayat and destroyed by pouring phenol, he said, adding that the godown owner was served a warning notice.
Ethipon chemical in gas form was permitted to speed up ripening process but spraying in liquid form was banned, he said. The chemical in liquid form, penetrated into the pulp and caused various health hazards, he said. Use of calcium carbide for ripening was also banned, he said.
Dr. Bose was assisted in the drive by food safety officers Muthusamy, Venkateswaran, Thangasivam, John Peter and Chellapandi. The officials during the special drive found that there were no other godowns in the district.
Most of the merchants procured ripened mangoes directly from Madurai, he said.

High Court raps AP govt for delay in appointing food safety officers

HYDERABAD: Expressing displeasure over delay in taking steps for appointing food safety officers in Andhra Pradesh, a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court on Monday directed the principal secretary to medical and health department of AP to appear before the court on Wednesday to explain the reason for delay.
The bench suggested both AP and Telangana states to identify the areas from where the carbide chemical was being supplied to the vendors and take action against those responsible for it.
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Dilip B Bhosale and Justice P Naveen Rao was dealing with a PIL case which was taken up suo moto based on a news item published in a vernacular daily last year on rampant usage of the calcium carbide chemical for artificial ripening of fruits in AP and Telangana. 
On earlier occasion, the bench asked both the states to come up with an action plan for implementation of suggestions, including establishment of "Ethylene chambers" for ripening the fruits by the stake holders concerned, made earlier by amicus curiae S Niranjan Reddy on the issue.
On Monday, the amicus curie brought to the notice of the court that there was an acute shortage of food safety officers (FSOs) in both the states when compared to other states of the country.
He also pointed out the governments' failure in establishment of "Ethylene chambers" in the market yards of respective states.
In fact, both the governments have failed to create awareness among the people on adverse effects of carbide fruits during the last two months, he alleged.
Special counsel for Telangana A Sanjeev Kumar submitted that the government has already asked the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) to take steps for recruitment of food safety officers. Already, there are 20 FSOs in the state and notification will be issued shortly to fill another 23 posts, he added.
Special counsel for AP Ramesh told the bench that 28 FSOs are working in the state and proposals were sent to fill some more posts.
Not satisfied with the reply of the AP counsel, the bench pointed out that there was no progress in filling up the FSOs posts by AP government.
While posting the matter to Wednesday, the bench ordered for appearance of the principal secretary concerned to give explanation on the issue.

Toxins in food? How brands can make it safer

As controversy plagues foods again, brandification will bridge the trust deficit, critical for stakeholders, says Ambi Parameswaran. 
The latest product to come under attack of the CSE (Center for Science and Environment) is the humble bread. 
As the big brands find themselves under attack, all bakeries around the country will be feeling the heat.
Reports also indicate that FSSAI (Food Safety Standards Authority of India) regulations permit some amount of potassium bromate, while the CSE says it is a carcinogen. 
My first question is to both CSE and FSSAI: Did the two of you talk to each other before issuing the report to the press? 
Do you have a joint action plan on how to get it removed from the permitted list of ingredients? 
And do both of you report to the same government of India ministry?
That said, let me move to a bigger topic that we in need to address.
Professor Kevin Lane Keller has a term “brandification” to describe the level of branding in product categories. 
So if you were to take a product like cars or two wheelers, the category is 100 per cent “brandified”. 
If we go to a category like soaps or toothpaste the brandification may drop to less than 75 per cent. 
In India the lowest level of brandification is in food products. 
If we take cooking oils, only about 30 per cent may be consumed as branded packaged cooking oils. 
In the case of atta or bread, even if we include store brands, the level of brandification is probably in single digits.
Branding is critical for the development of any category. 
A brand stands for a level of quality that saves consumers a great amount of search time. 
For the manufacturer, a brand ensures loyalty and a price premium. Parle G is a living example of how a brand has managed to cut across all geographical, culinary and language boundaries to become a truly national processed packaged food brand. 
They achieved this by focusing on acceptable quality at an affordable price. 
If we take this mantra, acceptable quality at an affordable price, many other categories can be tapped and brandified.
In a vast country like India with huge unorganised trade and millions of small retailers, a food product, unlike soap or a detergent, starts with an inherent disadvantage. 
It has a limited shelf life and its taste rapidly declines. 
While doing a competitive strategy study in the food category, I remember a mantra of one of the large snack manufacturers: never supply goods to a retailer who is more than 200-300 km away from the factory (I could be wrong about the exact distance though). Food products have to be made, shipped and consumed in a matter of days.
Manufacturers are therefore always fighting against time to ensure that their products are tasty and edible when it reaches the final destination — the consumer’s mouth.
It is here that ingredients like potassium bromate play a role in preserving the taste of the bread.
The food sector was reserved for small scale and most big players had to resort to sub-contract manufacturing through small units.
While this is a laudable objective from the point of view of business and job creation, it adds a huge burden in terms of supply chain efficiency, GMP (good manufacturing practices) and regulatory supervision.
We, therefore, have several issues facing us. The country desperately needs reforms to kickstart the food processing industry.
We need world class large manufacturing plants that can make breads, biscuits, buns and more.
We need powerful brand building efforts to ensure consumers smoothly migrate to packaged branded foods, even if they have to pay a minor premium.
We also need these brands and plants to absorb all the foodgrains that are spoilt or wasted.
We must guard against a new era of food policing that has its own set of harmful side effects and the government needs to take a more long-term holistic view.

Analysis of Offences and Penalties under FSS Act, 2006

The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (FSSA, 2006) is an Act which endeavor to keep with changing needs/ requirement of time and to consolidate the existing laws relating to food and to establish the pioneer body, Food Safety and Standard Authority of India in order to regulate the food industry in India.
The Act was needed to bring out a single statutory body for food laws, standard setting and enforcement. It eradicate the confusion in the minds of manufactures, traders, distributors, importers and consumers on handling body and laws for matters pertaining to food.
To ensure quality and safe food to the consumer and to regulate food business in India, various standards, provisions and regulations has been set up.
The foremost monetary penalties and punishment for offences conducted under various provisions of the FSSA, 2006 is listed below:
I. PENALTIES
Section(s)Type of Offence(s)Who is PenalisedPenalty may extend up to:
50Penalty for selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demandedthe SellerRs. 5 lakh
the persons covered Section 31 (2) [e.g. petty manufacturer, petty retailer, hawker, small scale or cottage industry etc.]Rs. 25000
51Penalty for sub-standard foodany person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distribute or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standardRs. 5 lakh
52Penalty for misbranded foodany person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distribute or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbrandedRs. 3 lakh

53Penalty for misleading advertisementany person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of a misleading advertisementRs. 10 lakh
54Penalty for food containing extraneous matterOn any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacturers for sale or stores or sells or distribute or imports any article of food for human consumption containing extraneous matterRs. 1 lakh
55Penalty for failure to comply with the directions of Food Safety OfficerOn Food business operator or importerRs. 2 lakh
56Penalty for unhygienic or unsanitary processing or manufacturing of foodany person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacturers or processes any article of food for human consumption under unhygienic or unsanitary conditionsRs. 1 lakh
57Penalty for possessing adulterantmanufacture, sales, distribution or import of any adulterant-
-Where such adulterant is not injurious to healthRs. 2 lakh
-Where such adulterant is injurious to healthRs. 10 lakh
58Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is providedRs. 2 lakh
II. PUNISHMENT
SECTION(S)TYPE OF PUNISHMENTPARTICULARSIMPRISONMENT/FINE WHICH MAY EXTEND TO:
59Punishment for unsafe foodSuch unsafe food:-
does not result in injury6 Months and Rs 1 lakh
results in non-grievous injury1 year and Rs. 3 lakh
results in grievous injury6 Years and Rs. 5 Lakh
results in deathImprisonment shall not less than 7 years but extended up to lifetime and fine shall not be less than Rs. 10 lakh
60Punishment for interfering with seized itemInterference, if done without permission of Food Safety Officer6 Months and Rs. 2 lakh
61Punishment for false informationProvide any information or produce any document knowing it to be false/misleading3 Months and Rs. 2 lakh
62Punishment for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety Officer3 Months and Rs. 1 lakh
63Punishment for carrying out a business without licensea person who is required to obtain license under the Act6 Months and Rs. 5 lakh
64Punishment for subsequent offencesIf any person, after having been previously convicted of an offence under this Act subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence§ Twice the punishment which might have been imposed on a first conviction, subject to the punishment being maximum provided for the same offence
§ If offence is continuing -Further, Daily fine which may extend up to Rs. 1 lakh
§ License shall be cancelled
65Compensation in case of injury or death of consumerany person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufacturers or distributes or sells or imports any article of food for causing injury or death of the Consumer§ Rs. 5 lakh in case of death
§ Rs. 3 lakh in case of grievous injury
§ Rs. 1 lakh, in all other cases of injury
67Penalty for contravention of provision of this Act in case of import of articles of food to be in addition to penalties provided under any other ActIn addition to FSS Act, 2006 may also be Liable under provisions of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Customs Act, 1962
Important Note:
III. OFFENCE BY COMPANIES:
Every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the Company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly for an offence under this Act.
Disclaimer: We aim to ensure the content is current and accurate however, the above article is for your information only. Author is not intended to be comprehensive, and they do not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice.

About-turn: How govt went back on plastic ban

After recognising its adverse health effects, the government has now dismissed its own lab reports to conclude that the evidence against plastic is insufficient
The Union government has scripted a U-turn in a year. Until March 2015, several regulatory authorities held the common stand that PET bottles and plastic multi-layered packaging was injurious for human health, besides being a serious environmental hazard. By August 2015, this common line turned fuzzy. By March, the volte-face was complete: the government, almost unanimously, concluded that there was no proof that plastic packaging was dangerous, at least for medicines. How did the about-face happen?
The National Green Tribunal took note of this reversal. In March last year, the Tribunal concluded that various regulatory authorities and government ministries had “a commonality of stance” against plastic packaging. But by August, the Tribunal noted in exasperation, “it appears that none of the concerned ministry is prepared to take a decision which, according to them, at one time was the need of the hour in the larger public interest.” The Tribunal was hearing a case filed by an NGO asking for restriction on use of plastic packaging of non-essential goods.
The NGT’s March 2015 observations came from the fact that the Director General of HealthServices (DGHS), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) had all at one point spoken along similar lines: either recommending restrictions or ban on use of plastic and PET packaging.
CPCB had said, “It is respectfully prayed that this honourable Tribunal may restrict use of PET bottles and multi-layered packaging products in non-essential food items such as liquor, soft drink, hair oils, shampoo etc to protect the environment from unnecessary accumulation of plastics waste and to protect the health of people.”
DGHS in its affidavit referred to an earlier government report by R H Khwaja Committee on waste management to note, “It is clearly mentioned that leaching happens from PET packaging to food products even at room temperature. The chemicals thus leached may cause great harm to human health including the endocrine and neurological system.”
By 2015, the Drugs Technical Advisory Board had repeatedly warned and recommended against plastic packaging of pharmaceutical products. “Reports of environmental and health hazards because of increasing exposure to endocrine disrupter chemical known as phthalates etc are increasing,” it said, asking for application of precautionary principle. “In the first phase, the use of PET containers in liquid oral formulations for primary packaging of paediatric formulations as well as formulations meant for geriatrics, women in reproductive age group and pregnant women should be phased out in a time-bound manner and subsequently banned,” it concluded. This made the health ministry put out a draft notification ordering a ban on PET bottles in September 2014. However, it did not pursue it further after adverse comments poured in from industry and others.
FORWARD, REVERSE AND U-TURN
2013-14
  • ICMR and Drugs Technical Advisory Board recommends PET plastic bottles not be used for vulnerable sections
  • Government pre-notifies the ban but puts it on hold after adverse comments
  • Case filed before NGT for banning plastic packaging in non-essential goods2013-14
  • NGT says all regulators and ministries are on board for restrictions
  • It asks for industry commentsApril 2015
  • New lab tests commissioned by health ministryMay 2015
  • Department of chemicals and petrochemicals comes out in favour of industryAugust 2015
  • Fresh lab test results confirm leaching of toxics in pharmaceutical products
  • Results are not disclosed
  • Government sets up a high-level committee under ex-secretary M K BhanMarch 2016
  • Committee submits report
  • Says lab study is unreliable and recommends standards but no ban
  • Health ministry submits Bhan Committee report as its collective stance dissing lab testsMay 2016
  • Govt’s top pharma committee endorses latest lab tests and recommends ban on use of plastic bottles for drug packaging
On the other hand, the ministry of environment and forests consistently struck a different note. In 2014, it told the Tribunal that the key problem “is the collection, segregation, recycling and disposal of plastic waste and the considered approach lay in the implementation of proper mechanism for plastic waste management.” It asked for the petition to be dismissed.

In February 2015, on NGTs orders, it held a meeting with industry, the petitioners, health ministry and CPCB. Although the environment ministry sets up standards for different pollutants to safeguard human health, at the meeting it felt that the “subject matter of human health and food safety is the domain of Food Safety and Standards Act, administered by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.”
It said while a policy decision was required, it should be done on the basis of conclusive scientific data to be generated by new lab tests.
Mobilising support
The March order of NGT noting the near unanimity on the issue among regulators got the industry charged. In March and April 2015, the All India Plastic Manufacturers Association held meetings of all industry ‘stakeholders’.
In its monthly report, the association notes how it tried to mobilise different users and associations of plastic manufacturers to not only implead in the case — which happened subsequently — but also to speak of the safety and necessity of plastics at public forums and in the media.
The Indian Beauty and Hygiene Association, Organisation of Plastic Processors of India, Tetra Pak and PET Container Manufacturers Association had already impleaded in the case. The Confectionery Association, Beverages Association and All India Ayurvedic Association as active members contemplated joining the case later.
The April meeting of the association was attended by the secretary of department of chemicals and petro-chemicals and director general of Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology. The department of chemicals had impleaded in the case by then. It asked the associations for their views before presenting its case to the Tribunal.
On May 6, 2015, the department of chemicals put its stance before the Tribunal. It came out firmly in favour of continued use of plastic packaging. It asked for imposing exemplary cost upon the applicant for misconceived, premature and malafide application. As proof that plastic packaging was safe, the department of chemicals attached test results from the Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology, which had been carried out on the behest of and on samples provided by the Plastic Manufacturers’ Association. The institute found nothing amiss.
The plastic packaging manufacturers and many of its user industries had all along said that there was no conclusive proof of threat and that in many developed countries such as the US, PET and other packaging was being used under fixed standards. They had said the problem lay in waste management which concerned municipalities and the public at large. They persisted with this line of argument dismissing tests conducted by government institutions previously as inconclusive.
Then in July 2015, the health ministry informed it was going to set up a high-level committee with members from different ministries on it to review the entire issue. By then, it had received another government lab test showing leaching of toxic chemicals in medicines.
A new stance
The environment ministry got back to the Tribunal too in August 2015, after undertaking discussions with industry stakeholders, as asked by NGT. The ministry, in a meeting held again in the presence of CPCB, DGHS and FSSAI in July, said it had concluded that there was a lack of scientific evidence on the leaching of toxics from plastic and PET containers and this required further testing. It said the high-level committee now set up under retired secretary M K Bhan would be the final view of the government.
Oddly, FSSAI in its affidavit in August 2015 had favoured a ban on plastic. “It can be safely said that harmful effect of the packaging material leaches down to the food articles contained in the package,” it had said. It added, “Disposal of plastic waste also affects food as plastic and other waste pollute the environment including soil and underground water. In some of the western countries it is the duty of the food business operators who generate the plastic waste to collect and either recycle it or dispose it in an appropriate manner.”
Then in March 2016, the health ministry put the Bhan Committee report before the Tribunal. It trashed the government’s own lab test results — which were not submitted to the court — as well as those commissioned by the petitioning NGO to government labs. It backed the continued use of plastic packaging in pharmaceutical products, recommending long term tests in future and better standards.
Now only the DTAB and the DGHS remain outlier to this collective conclusion. In May 2016, DTAB again endorsed the government lab reports. It yet again recommended a ban on the use of these bottles to pack medicines used by vulnerable sections of society, such as children, women in reproductive phase of life and older people. 
The issue of whether plastic and PET packaging should be banned in non-essential products such as beverages, oils and liquor remains unaddressed by the Bhan Committee or the government.