There has been little logic or clarity to the government’s actions
around banning a popular brand of noodles, and now its unbanning by the Bombay High Court is unlikely to clear the air either. In June, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) said the snack, Maggi, was found to be “hazardous and unsafe
for human consumption”. This followed from samples testing positive in
some States for high levels of lead and monosodium glutamate (MSG),
according to the FSSAI. Simultaneously, samples tested in other States
came back with a certification of safety; Nestle, the manufacturer, said
that 2,700 samples had been tested in India and abroad during the last
few months and that all of them were found to have levels of lead far
below the danger mark. The company maintains that it does not add MSG to
its noodles. However, panic set in swiftly; the product went off the
shelves across the country, partly in response to bans by individual
States, and partly as a result of consumer fears. The High Court has now
found that no opportunity was given to the company to prove its side
before the ban was imposed, and that the tests were not conducted in
accredited laboratories. While lifting the ban, it ordered further tests
that follow proper norms. A class action suit against Nestle filed by
the government before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission remains in process.
These contradictory signals leave the consumer confused and unsure where
to turn for authentic information. When taking on a powerful
multinational, the FSSAI should have been equipped with the full facts
before putting what now appears to be half-baked information into the
public space. If the food regulator is unable to follow proper norms,
the consumer is left with little confidence that it is properly
regulating the manufacture and sale of thousands of other potentially
harmful food products in the Indian market, ones that are particularly
prone to adulteration. There is little standardisation in food testing
procedures, and laboratories — there are already too few of them — may
throw up wildly differing results. In such a situation, Indian
consumers, particularly parents of little children, are often forced to
look up whether a particular ingredient in permitted by food regulators
in the United States or the United Kingdom, given the utter lack of
proactive, reliable information from their own food regulator. Companies
will meanwhile have grounds for grievance against the FSSAI for the
loss of revenue and reputation they might unfairly suffer. If India
intends to ensure stringent food norms, it will need to be armed with
the facts. Unsubstantiated warnings that have to be rolled back in no
time inspire confidence about them in neither the consumer nor the
industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment