Changing definitions of safe food

We need a food safety model based on societal objectives of nutrition, livelihood and safety

My local vegetable vendor sells ordinary lemons packed in plastic bags. It has got me thinking if this is a sign of improving standards of food safety and hygiene. After all, if we go to any supermarket in the rich and food-processed world, we will find food neatly packed so that there is no contamination through human hands. Then there is the army of food inspectors, who check everything from the processing plant to the supplies in restaurants. The principle is clear: the higher the concern for food safety, the higher the standards of quality and, consequently, the higher the cost of enforcement. Slowly, but surely, small producers get pushed aside. This is how the business of food works.
 

But is this the right model of food safety for India? It is clear that we need safe food. It is also clear that we cannot afford to hide behind small producers to say that we should not have stringent standards for quality and safety. Nor can we argue that since we are a poor developing country, our imperative is to produce a large quantity of food and make it available it to the large - and unacceptable - number of malnourished people. We cannot say this because, though we are poor and hard-pressed to produce and provide more food, we cannot ignore the fact that we are eating bad food, which is making us ill. This is one of the many double burdens we carry.

The most noxious of problems is adulteration - when people deliberately add bad stuff to food for profit. In India, milk mixed with urea or chemical colour added to chilli is just the tip of the adulteration iceberg. We know we need effective enforcement against such practices.

The second worry is about the safety of what is added to food when it is processed. This is not adulteration because in this case additives permitted under food standards are used. The question is whether we know enough about their side effects. For instance, there has been a huge row over the potential dangers of artificial sweeteners, first saccharine and then aspartame. In the world of industrially manufactured food, the problem also is that each product is backed by vested interests that claim it to be safe till proved otherwise.

Often we know very little about the additives allowed in our food. For instance, we eat vanilla thinking it is the real queen of spices, flavouring ice creams and cakes. Little do we know that most of the vanilla in food is made synthetically, and that this chemical - believe it or not - has been harvested from paper mill effluent or coal tar components used in petrochemical plants. It is cheap, and it has been passed for human consumption by the food and drug administrations of different countries.

The third challenge comes from the toxins in our food - chemicals used during the growing and processing of food, even in minuscule quantities, add up to an unacceptable intake of poisons. Exposure to pesticides through our diet leads to chronic diseases. The best way is to manage the food basket - calculate how much, and what, we eat - to ensure that pesticide limits are set at safe levels. We have no option but to ingest a little poison to get nutrition, but how do we keep it within acceptable limits? This means setting safe pesticide standards for all kinds of food.

Then there are toxins, which should not be present in food at all. For instance, a few years ago, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found antibiotics in the honey sold in Indian markets. It was present because industrial honey farmers fed bees antibiotics as a growth promoter and for disease control. Ingesting antibiotics makes us resistant to drugs. After this study, the government notified standards for antibiotics in honey produced for the domestic market. It cannot be denied that small producers of honey, who do not have the capacity to handle the additional burden of paperwork and inspectors, can be hit badly. But this does not mean we should allow the use of antibiotics in our food. Or does this mean we change the business of food so that it is safe even as it protects livelihoods?

There is a fourth challenge, which may just provide answers to this question. Food has to be not just safe, but also nutritious. Today, the world's panic button has been pressed on the matter of food that is junk - high on empty calories and bad for health. There is more than enough evidence that bad food is directly linked to the explosion of non-communicable diseases in the world. There is enough to say that enough is enough.

The answer is to think of a different model for the food business. It cannot be the one-size-fits-all design of industrial production. It must be based on societal objectives of nutrition, livelihood and safety-first-and-profit-later. If we get this right, we will eat right.