“There is no love sincerer than the love of food”, quipped G.B Shaw. Perhaps this explains the reactions of various parties in the Maggi imbroglio. The instant noodle packets when tested in myriad of government labs revealed the presence of a taste enhancer, Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) or E-621 and lead over the permissible limits in a few states while it was found to be safe in Kerala, Karnataka and West Bengal.
While the state apparatus appeared to regulate in haste as it banned and recalled all variants of Nestle noodles, the political executive emerged as the protector of consumer’s interests. A large number of consumers reduced the consumption of instant noodles as a whole, albeit reluctantly.
In the last one hundred years or so, the society’s understanding and perceptions of food have shifted radically—the origin of processed, packaged and convenience foods, artificial beverages and globalisation of food habits contributed to this change. In fact, our great-grannies would even refuse to label majority of our modern urban food items as edible.
Yet the concerns of the previous century regarding food remain unchanged even in the food supply chains of twenty first century. One is safety and another contributing directly to the first is perishability, leaving aside food security. Except for a small minority of people, we no longer consume food grown in our backyard. All of us as consumers obtain our food items through food supply chains The concerns are further compounded by metamorphosis of food supply chains leading to lesser visibility and traceability: from local to regional and national to global.
Technology plays an important role in extending the life of food by utilising cold chain or by mixing artificial or natural additives while processing and manufacturing food—stabilisers, preservatives, thickeners, acidity regulators to name a few.
How do brands assuage these concerns? Branded food items, fresh produce or processed, sold either under individual labels or by a retail brand store carry out an important function in the supply chain—assuring quality and safety. Anybody who has ever purchased loose milk from a milkman or milk vendor would attest to the difficulty of monitoring the extent of adulteration—the amount of water mixed in it and the amount of fat content—on a regular basis. Similar is the case while buying fresh fruits and vegetables. No wonder, the consumers prefer to buy branded loose milk from a Mother Dairy kiosk in Delhi or packaged milk in a poly pack sold pan-India by cooperatives like Amul to allay their fears.
In the consumers mind, the onus for safety automatically shifts to the brand. As an inbuilt incentive, the brands ceaselessly reciprocate the trust reposed by the consumers, or else they suffer heavily. A small percentage decline in Maggi’s annual sales of around Rs.3,000 crore would cost Nestle dear notwithstanding the loss of good will—although its culpability cannot be fixed at this moment—even if it wins the legal battle. Nestle asserts that it does not add MSG but its traces could have been due to presence of glutamate from ingredients bought from other suppliers used in making of instant noodles. It may be right legally, but it dents the customers’ trust by seeming to evade responsibility for the final product.
Down the food supply chain at its base, the businesses interact with innumerable producers and do the job of inspecting, sorting and grading the items. Recording the origins of a single variety of items say apples or mangoes in terms of batches and lots but from different producers are critical, a task that only the best of supply chains are able to accomplish in part. At the apex of the chain, the consumers are the first to flag safety concerns. But if the source cannot be traced, a solution cannot be implemented. When branded food articles are sold either through organised retail or through a mom-and-pop store, the specific batches can be traced and quarantined. Maggi controversy has at least brought this aspect to the fore—brands do this task diligently and at the same time can be held accountable.
On the other hand, in the labyrinthine food supply network are the smaller ad hoc supply chains that operate with impunity and flourish with lax standards. Without brand and records, you can hardly trace anything to its origin and visibility is limited. Regulating these supply chains poses a dilemma: If the state does too much, then we are back to inspector raj; if it does not, then we are waiting for a catastrophe to happen. More importantly, the Indian central and state regulators do not have the capacity to monitor food safety standards closely. In fact we are unable to even monitor the basic standards of hygiene—another dimension of food safety. Compare the wet markets and street food in India with those in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Anyway, taking action against celebrities endorsing food brands or framing the issue as MNC vs. developing countries will not enhance food safety in supply chains. It will only create suspicion of ease of doing business or derail ‘Make in India’. Clarifying the ambiguous provisions in the rulebook, defining test procedures and implementing the statutes with a collaborative mindset alongside building capacity of the regulators only would strengthen safety in supply chains.
There is no supply chain as critical as food supply chain for nation’s wellbeing and prosperity: after all our lives depend on it.
There is no supply chain as critical as food supply chain for nation’s wellbeing and prosperity: after all our lives depend on it.
Prashant K Singh is a supply chain management and logistics professional.
Twitter: @ZenPK
Twitter: @ZenPK
