Feb 11, 2015

ஓட்டல், கடைகளில் அதிகாரிகள் ரெய்டு தரமற்ற பொருட்கள் பறிமுதல்


 
சேலம், பிப். 11&
சேலம் அரசு மருத்துவமனையின் உள்ளேயும், வெளியேயும் உள்ள ஓட்டல்கள், கடைகளில் இன்று சேலம் மாவட்ட உணவு பாதுகாப்பு துறை நியமன அலுவலர் அனுராதா தலை மையில் உணவு பாதுகாப்பு துறை அதிகாரிகள் பாலு, ஜெகன்நாதன் ஆகியோர் திடீர் ஆய்வு மேற்கொண்டனர்.
அப்போது ஓட்டல்களில் இருந்த புளித்த மாவு, அழுகிய கேரட், பிளாஸ்டிக் டீ கப், பைகள் உள்ளிட்ட பொருட் களை பறிமுதல் செய்தனர்.
இது குறித்து அனுராதா கூறியதாவது: சேலம் அரசு மருத்துவமனையின் வெளியே உள்ள 6 கடைகளிலும், உள்ளே உள்ள 2 கடைகளிலும் சுகாதாரமற்ற முறையில் உணவு பொருட் கள் விற்பனை செய்து வருவதாக அரசு மருத்துவமனை முதல்வர் மோகன் புகார் அளித்தார்.
அதன் அடிப்படையில் இங்குள்ள கடைகளில் ஆய்வு செய் தோம். கடைக ளில் பிளாஸ் டிக் பேரலில் சுகாதாரமற்ற நிலையில் தண்ணீர் நிரப்பப்பட்டு இருந்தது. அதில் டெங்கு உற்பத்தி செய்யும் லார்வாக்கள் இருந்தது தெரிந்தது.
இதனால் அந்த தண்ணீரை அதிகாரிகள் ரோட்டில் ஊற்றினர். மேலும் அந்த கடைகளில் புளித்த மாவு, அழுகிய நிலை யில் இருந்த 4 கிலோ கேரட் பறிமுதல் செய்யப்பட்டது.
மேலும் திறந்த வெளியில் சுகாதாரமற்ற முறையில் உணவு பொருட்கள் விற்பனை செய்யப்படுவது கண்டுப்படிக்கப்பட்டு அதை அகற்றினோம். அந்த கடைகளுக்கு எச்சரிக்கை நோட்டீஸ் வழங்கப்பட்டது. அழுகிய நிலையில் இருக்கும் உணவு பொருட்களை பயன்படுத்த கூடாது போன்றவை அறிவுறுத்தப்பட்டன. விதிமுறைகளை மீறி செயல்பட்டால் கடை உரிமையா ளர் மீதும் தக்க நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும்.

Trade helpless; Adulterators sell Rs 25 oil at Rs 150, make huge profits


A large number of small time mustard oil manufacturers in the country seem to be violating Food Safety and Standards Regulations,2011,that insist on selling edible oils only in packaged form sans any adulterants,by selling in loose a non-edible variety of oil that is adulterated with artificial essence and colour, as mustard oil.
The said oil is a popular cooking medium, in northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and hence the adulterated oil racket, though numbers are not available, seems to be eating into a large chunk of the organised edible oil business selling mustard oil in this region.
In Uttar Pradesh, artificial essence and the colour butter yellow are added to a non-edible variety of oil to make it look and smell like mustard oil. Vijay Bahadur Yadav, deputy commissioner, Food & Drugs Administration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, explains, “An unwavering greed for profits by the traders takes hold of common people. Our team raided the traders from Meerut and Kanpur who were passing off non-edible oil of different commodities, other than mustard, costing about Rs 25 a litre, as mustard oil, which costed around Rs 150 a litre, by adding artificial essence and butter yellow.”
He added, “Our team did a surprise raid in Kanpur on January 2 and 3 and in Meerut from January 5 to 8, 2015, and we have confiscated more than 25,000 litre of mustard and refined oil from traders with licences to produce mustard oil. The seized samples have been sent for a lab for analysing. Few samples of mustard oil seized from Kanpur were found to be substandard. Action will be taken against the traders concerned.”
Yadav is alarmed. “While carrying out the raid with my team, I was surprised, not by the illegal activity of the traders but by their brazenness. Most of the traders were just eyeing profits. They had no concern for people’s health. During the day of the raid, they openly sold the adulterated oil and aggressively opposed the sampling and quality checks exercise that we were carrying out.”
As for adulterants, Yadav informed, “During the five-day raid, our team found more than 28 quintals of broken rise, more than 30 quintals of rice husk and synthetic colurs, which were used for adulteration.”
Yadav elaborated further, “These traders do not fear the law. They just focus on how to hoodwink the authorities. Their modus operandi is thus: make the inferior variety oil and sell it under various ‘brand’ names. If one trader is investigated, the others continue with the same. And, for them, it takes no time to introduce a new ‘brand.’ Representatives of some big brands are also involved with these unorganised traders in this adulteration racket.”
As for Madhya Pradesh, a food safety officer, on the condition of anonymity, stated, “Even though many organisations are opposing sale of loose edible oil because it is adulterated, the Government of Madhya Pradesh is not restricting its sale with a concern for poor people. Hence, the sale of loose edible oil is exempted from any action for another year. The government is justifying its stand by saying poor people cannot afford packed oil.”
He rued, “Because of the one year extension, we are not able to take action against edible oil traders who are involved in adulteration.” Interestingly, the authorities concerned seem to be helpless though 2.4.2 of Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011, clearly states, “Blended Edible Vegetable Oils shall not be sold in loose form.”
While authorities concerned are finding it difficult to take action against these smalltime traders due to various reasons, those representing the organised trade are concerned about the impact on their businesses. A representative from K S Oils in Madhya Pradesh, on the condition of anonymity, commented, “Due to some corrupt traders, who adulterate mustard oil, some big companies like K S Oils also come under the scanner of food safety authority.” As a deterrent, he recommended, “The traders who are involved in adulteration of edible oils should be given stringent punishment by the authority so that they don't repeat the act.”
Meanwhile, reiterating the organised industry demand for ban on sale of loose edible oil, B V Mehta, executive director, the Solvent Extractors' Association of India, stated, “Several times we have urged both Union government as well as state government to ensure that edible oil is retailed in a packaged form where the quality is ensured.” He added, “We are of the view that consumers must be educated about the advantages of packed edible oil.”

Food recall - The current scenario in India

Introduction
Food recall is an effort to limit liability for food business operators’ (FBO) negligence and avoid damage to publicity.
Recalls are costly because they often entail replacing the recalled product or paying for damage caused by use, although possibly less costly than consequential costs caused by damage to brand name and reduced trust in the manufacturer. Despite the undesirable nature of a recall event, it is in the best interest of the FBO to complete the recall quickly. Because the FBO is responsible for all of the costs involved in this process, it is critical to have a plan to cover recall expenses, to expedite the process without creating negative public opinion.
The increasing occurrence of food-borne illness due to consumption of unsafe food and frequent food recall incidences appearing in the media have emphasised the need for an organised and systematic approach to food recall. This will save the consumers from unsafe food leaving the premises of the company and immediate recall / withdrawal of implicated food from the food chain to save the company from disrepute and economic loss. Food manufacturers strive to prevent a recall, employ Food Safety Management Systems (ISO 22000), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans. It is important to be ready for a recall well before a problem occurs. 
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), a joint FAO and WHO commission, in 1969 stipulated that “Managers should ensure effective procedures in place to deal with any food safety hazard and to enable the complete and rapid recall of any implicated lot of the finished food from the market. Where a product has been withdrawn because of an immediate health hazard, other products which are produced under similar conditions, and which may present a similar hazard to public health, should be evaluated for safety and may need to be withdrawn. The need for public warnings should be considered. Recalled products should be held under supervision until they are destroyed, used for purposes other than human consumption, determined to be safe for human consumption, or reprocessed in a manner to ensure their safety.

While food recall in India is a relatively new concept, the advent of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, brought to focus this vital aspect. Awareness is growing and FBOs are looking at it as a vital link in the supply chain. Indian companies are slowly realising that the product they release in the market may need to be recalled causing enormous damage to the reputation, brand name and loss of brand relevance and economic loss. This can be minimised if the company’s recall system is well planned, implemented and understood by those who are involved in core activities of sourcing, manufacturing and distribution functions.
International scenario
The Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) brought out in 1997 by Codex Alimentarius Commission included food recall provision. It was widely implemented by food industries through certificate around the world. Also the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) brought out a more comprehensive international standard ISO 22000 on food safety in 2005 which provided requirements for product withdrawal / product recall (See Box 01).
Withdrawal / Recall Requirements
To enable and facilitate the complete and timely withdrawal of lots of end products which have been identified as unsafe by appointing personnel having the authority to initiate a withdrawal and personnel responsible for executing the withdrawal, and the organisation shall establish and maintain a documented procedure for product recall.
Withdrawn products shall be secured or held under supervision until they are destroyed, used for purposes other than originally intended, determined to be safe for the same (or other) intended use, or reprocessed in a manner to ensure they become safe.
The cause, extent and result of a withdrawal shall be recorded and reported to top management as input to the management review. The organisation shall verify and record the effectiveness of the withdrawal programme through the use of appropriate techniques (e.g. mock withdrawal or practice withdrawal). 
Current status for food recall in India
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
The Act under Section 28(4) emphasises the need for product recall. This states that if an FBO considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he / she has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with food safety norms he / she shall immediately initiate the procedures to withdraw the food in question from the market and consumers indicating reasons for its withdrawal and inform the competent authorities.
The Food Safety and Standard (Recall of Unsafe Food) Regulations
For effective implementation of the provision on food recall, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is bringing a regulation on the subject. It has stipulated classification of recall, guidelines on recall and management of the recall process.
Classification of product recall
FSSAI is bringing out a regulation on recall of unsafe food. There are different classes of food recall (See Table 01) based on the impact on the health of the consumers. The draft regulations on food recall procedure have been issued to guide FBOs on how to carry out a food recall by facilitating the efficient, rapid identification and removal of unsafe food from the distribution chain and by informing consumers (where necessary) of the presence on the market of potentially hazardous food and ensuring that unsafe food are contained and destroyed or rendered safe. 
TABLE 01 Classes of Food Recall

ClassificationDefinitionExamples
Class IThis type of recall involves a health hazard where a reasonable probability exists that eating the food would cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.Meat contaminated with L. monocytogenes in a ready-to-eat food product; E. coli O157:H7 in raw beef; allergens such as peanuts or eggs (not listed on the label).
Class IIThis type of recall indicates a potential health hazard where a remote probability of adverse health consequences from eating the food exists, or if the resulting condition is temporary or medically reversible.Presence of FD&C Yellow #5 dye in candy; presence of dry milk, a Class II allergen, as an ingredient in sausage without mention of the dry milk on the label.
Class IIIThis type of recall involves situations in which eating the food will not or is not likely to cause adverse health consequences.A package containing fewer or lower weight products than shown on the package label or improperly labelled processed meat in which added water is not listed on the label as required by federal regulations.
Guidelines for Food Recall
This also provides guidelines to FBOs on how to establish a written recall plan for carrying out food recall in order to ensure the hygiene, safety and quality of food and to protect the health of consumers and to establish a follow-up action or post-recall report in order to ensure the effectiveness of the recall and prevent a repetition. All food businesses engaged in the wholesale supply, manufacture or importation of foods must have an up-to-date recall plan (See Table 02) except food retailer, unless they are also engaged in the wholesale supply, manufacture or importation of food, food businesses within the food service sector such as restaurants and takeaways are exempted to have recall plan unless they are running multi-outlet food business chains having integrated manufacturing and distribution network. However, such food businesses in the food service sector may be part of another business ‘recall, i.e. they may need to remove recalled stock from the shelves and return it to the manufacturer, importer or wholesaler. 
TABLE 02 Steps in the preparation of food recall plan
Sl.No.
Steps
Details of Activities

Recall management team
  • Assemble the recall management team
  • Identify the persons and assign the recall duties to them
  • Small and tiny business operator may contain just one to two people to have above responsibility

Notification
  • Notify the state food authority immediately
  • Inform the consumer of the recall at the earliest possible moment in the form of press release, letter or paid advertisement in the media

Identifying the food to be recalled
  • Identify any person whom they have supplied with the food
  • Identify business and individuals to which his production has been supplied

Product recovery
  • Store the recovered food separately and keep accurate records of the recovered food
  • Correct / reprocess the food if it is fit for human consumption otherwise destroy in front of the state food authority

Effective recall
  • Conduct effective check as a part of recall
  • Amount of the food returned as a percentage of the amount of food which left the manufacturer while taking into account the retail turnover of that food
6.
Followup action
  • Provide the state food authority with an interim report as soon as recall is completed
  • The circumstances, action taken, result of recall, method of disposal and preventive measures are to be reported
7
Recall termination
  • Retain complete documentation on the food recall for inspection request for termination
  • The state food authority will terminate a recall after completing all recall activities
4. Food recall - Recent case
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Maharashtra ordered recall of candy 'Mango Bite' because the manufacturer used buffered lactic acid (adulterant) in the confectionery which is not permitted. 
Frozen Tuna from India was recalled due to Salmonella Risk. The company in India that supplied the yellowfin tuna implicated in the multistate outbreak of Salmonella infections linked to sushi recalled frozen tuna strips because they, too, may be contaminated with Salmonella. The recalled tuna strips were shipped to four wholesalers in Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. In another similar incidence, infection of Salmonella had been reported from 24 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC says frozen yellowfin tuna, called Nakaochi Scrape, imported from India is the likely source of the outbreak. Many of those sickened reported eating sushi — in particular “spicy tuna sushi” — in the week before they became ill.
Sometime back there was tremendous controversy generated due to a Delhi-based research lab's report that all MNC and Indian company made soft drinks had pesticides contents far more than internationally accepted standards. The basic cause was contaminated water in India with pesticides used indiscriminately. But that could not give excuse to producers to pass off contaminated drinks. Though the storm had settled down, but not without long-term effects on credibility of soft drinks as safe products, these being banned in most of educational institutes’ canteens and lakhs of bottles were smashed by enraged protestors in various parts of the country. It necessitated relocation of some of the water bottling plants.
Conclusion
5.1 Food safety is a scientific discipline describing handling, preparation, and storage of food in ways that prevent food-borne illness. This includes a number of routines that should be followed to avoid potentially severe health hazards. The tracks within this line of thought are safety between industry and the market and then between the market and the consumer.
5.2 Food recall is an important link in ensuring food safety to the consumer backed by regulatory control on the food service operators. FSSAI has taken steps to bring out a regulation to have systematic approach to food recall which will go a long way in providing assurance to consumer.
References
1.CAC/RCP 1-1969 (Rev.4-2003), Recommended International Code of Practice- General Principles of Food Hygiene; incorporates Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system and guidelines for its application
2.ISO 22000:2005 Food Safety Management Systems- Requirements for any organisation in the food chain
3.The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Ministry Health and Family Welfare, Government of India
(The writer is MD, Quality Care Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, and food safety expert, UNIDO, Vienna. He can be contacted at qualitycare1995@gmail.com)

Consumer activists upset over long rope to food business owners

Consumer activists from the city are upset about a government order that gives people running food businesses the time to obtain licences and registrations under Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) up to another six months from February 4, 2015. They say that an extension of around 36 months for the compliance of an act is a clear violation of the rights of consumers.
City-based NGO Anti Adulteration Consumer Society is considering moving to the court against this order issued by the ministry of health and family welfare earlier this month. Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act) which came into force on August 5, 2011 though the framing of the laws governing it had been going on since 2006. The businessmen had opposed it vehemently, asking for it to be taken back initially. Food business owners had later asked for some time to be able to adhere to all the rules of the act. This is the fourth time that an extension has been given to the food business owners for ensuring that their establishments comply with the act.
"The act is totally consumer-centric with every little detail has been made with the intention of safeguarding the consumer. The business owners have always been against the provisions made by FSS act. They had earlier got extensions saying that they need time to make necessary changes in their business in July 2012, in 2013 and in 2014. Three years is a long time for them to have made the necessary changes in operations," said president of Anti Adulteration Consumer Society Mohammed Shahid Sharif. He said that by giving the business owners more than three years for compliance of a rule, the government is favouring them over the consumers.
Meanwhile, the society has also brought to light several cases wherein traders have been clearly breaching the FSSA. These include cases of adulterating milk with water, worms and adulteration in food. "We have even caught some officials like those from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) being involved in cases to clear the name of some of the renowned companies who were caught breaking these regulations," said Sharif.

TWO MORE FOOD LABS SOON TO CURB ADULTERATION IN JHARKHAND

In the face of the challenge of addressing food adulteration and safety with eateries mushrooming all over Jharkhand, two additional food testing laboratories will soon be set up at two different locations in the State in the next financial year. With the additional laboratories, the number of food testing institutions will increase to three thus to some extent taking off the burden of the only Government-operated State Food Laboratory in Ranchi.
The State-owned laboratory situated at Namkom is currently overburdened with 100 to 150 samples submitted every month to examine adulteration and safety of a food item for consumption. The new laboratories will be set up to cater to the needs of Santhal Pargana and North Chotanagpur regions of Jharkhand.
“We have chosen Dumka that will address the needs of Santhal and another one is yet to be finalised, however, Dhanbad could be another place for setting up the lab. A Memorandum of Understanding will be signed between State Government and Government of India after it is approved by respective cabinets to set up lab as well as to upgrade the existing laboratory,” said Director-in-Chief (Food), Dr Praveen Chandra.
As the respective Cabinets will be discussing the matter of strengthening the hands of Food Safety Officers of Jharkhand, the cost for new installations and upgrading the existing food laboratory at Ranchi will be shared between the State and Central Government in the ratio of 25:75.
The new laboratories would address the primary concern of timely submission of food samples collected by Food Safety Officers, who need to rush to Ranchi with the samples collected from any part of the State. Although submission of samples were made on time without any aberrations setting up food testing facilities elsewhere was still needed to expedite the process of conviction of offenders of food adulteration and sellers of food unfit for consumption.
“This will fast pace entire process as testing takes time. With less number of cases at the disposal of the laboratory at Ranchi test results will come out in relatively less time,” asserted Chandra. Nonetheless, the existing laboratory is in dire needs of renovation and the directorate health has to travel miles before the lab at Namkom could be rated among the best in the class in India.
The only government owned laboratory has been given one-star by Government of India in terms of infrastructure and performance. Food safety in Jharkhand has been so far a compromised activity due to a myriad of problems that includes framing service rules which is needed to build up much needed human resource for curbing adulteration and ensuring food safety.
“We will do a gap analysis to find out what needs to be done for upgrading the lab. We have to frame service rules, upgrade equipments at the laboratory, create additional posts and many more things,” maintained the Director-in-Chief (Food). Notably, the quantum of funding is yet unknown as both the centre and State has to make provisions in the budget likely to be presented later this month.

CAFS receives HACCP certification from Bureau Veritas

MANGALURU: First anniversary eve of flight kitchen run by Kochi based Casino Air Caterers and Flight Services (CAFS) brought cheer to the caterers when it received the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point on Tuesday. Vinod S Panickar, business manager, Bureau Veritas, Kochi handed over HACCP certificate, food safety management system to George Dominic, managing director and CEO of CAFS. The flight kitchen completes one year on February 11.
Highlighting the significance of this achievement, J T Radhakrishna, airport director, Mangaluru International Airport said HACCP certification for a flight kitchen is a mandatory requirement for international operations. "Operation of CAFS in Mangaluru has reduced dependency of airlines to source food for their international and domestic flights from the metros," he said adding passengers are now assured of quality and fresh food from CAFS located next door to MIA.
George Dominic said CAFS which has taken a conscious decision to start flight kitchens in tier II cities presently operates such facilities in Kochi, Calicut, Chennai and Mangaluru. "We will add five more flight kitchens by 2017 in Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Raipur, Lucknow and Pune," he said adding the Jaipur facility will become operational by end of next month. CAFS incurs a cost of around Rs 15 crore on setting up each flight kitchen barring the land cost, he noted.
Noting that CAFS has excess food production capacity at its flight kitchen located at Kenjar here, Dominic said, "We intend to participate in the local food (catering) business." CAFS will set up a bakery/pastry at the City Centre Mall here shortly, Dominic said, adding entry of CAFS has made a huge difference in aviation sector. "At CAFS, we have a highly sterile area for food production as per strict guidelines laid down of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security," he noted.
Vinod said the HACCP certification is valid for a period of three years from February 10. CAFS will have to go in for re-certification after that, he said, adding CAFS will have to carry out daily audit of its kitchen. There will be surveillance audit by Bureau Veritas team - some announced and others surprise, he said, adding all these steps are aimed at ensuring that the highest possible standards at various levels of flight catering from food sourcing is maintained.