Who's going to foot the health bill?

By Sunita Narain
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=2


Who has framed the Food Safety and Standards Bill, the
government or the industry?

When Parliament convenes for the monsoon session, the government
plans  to introduce the Food Safety and Standards Bill, 2005. I
am sure the government will hope there is enough mayhem to
distract the attention of legislators from the bill, which has
been crafted carefully to weaken consumer protection in the face
of the power of the growing business of food.

Food we know is a sunshine industry. And industry tells
government that the regulatory regime is cumbersome and corrupt.
This, it adds,
strangles the industry. These arguments are correct.

But, we must note, food is not only about business. Food is
about people who grow it, and small producers and manufacturers
who source and supply it to our tables. Food, most importantly,
is about health and livelihoods.

This is a crucial time for us to weigh the trade-off between
health and
nutrition on the one hand, and profit on the other. Industry has
discovered that reaching for our stomachs is a lucrative
business. The
food on our table is changing — it is less natural and more
manufactured — mirroring the situation in the ‘developed’ world.
This is a consequence of what is known as value-addition:
industries source raw material, process, mix and manufacture it,
and, most importantly,
package it.

It is said farmers will benefit. But the fact is big business
squeezes
prices in the name of reliability and quality, and the
inevitable losers
are those who grow the raw material for the food we eat.

This is part of the logic of subjecting nutrition and health to
the
mercies of the market. In this paradigm, food becomes a matter
of
marketing rather than nutrition, health or consumer rights.
Industry is
winning because Indians are beginning to crave packaged goodies
— urban Indians spend 20 per cent of their household income on
buying processed food and even rural India spends 10 per cent.
We now spend more on buying manufactured food than on buying
fruit and vegetables. We spend more on beverages than on milk.

The irony is we are taking the path of the rich world, which has
learnt
that food as business is bad for health, because lifestyle
diseases are
linked to bad food. It is also learning new definitions for safe
food as
bacteria are being replaced by tiny toxins — from chemical
additives and preservatives to contaminants like pesticides,
dioxins, hormones and other harmful things. It is responding by
turning to organic food — what we don’t want anymore.

The experience of the rich world should show us that food
legislation
has a dual purpose — to provide conditions for the growth of the
food
sector and to provide incentives and regulations so that it can
produce
safe food.

But the piece of legislation our government is pushing through,
will do
nothing of the kind. If you read between the legalese you find
that the name Food Safety and Standards Bill is a misnomer,
because: one, it deliberately dilutes the already weak
protection that consumers have; and, two, it helps large
producers by tightening the screws on small manufacturers,
vendors and distributors.

How does it do this? It obfuscates the definition of what
constitutes
safe or unsafe food. For example, we know there are
‘contaminants’ in
food — substances not added deliberately, which make our food
unsafe.   This bill does not think so. It introduces the concept
of ‘extraneous matter’. This is a contaminant, but it is not
unsafe. Meaning, the onus will be on the consumer to prove
whether pesticide in food is a contaminant, thus unsafe, or
extraneous matter, which companies will say is safe.

To compound your pain, it makes the definition of ‘unsafe’
equally
convoluted. In the current Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA)
Act, as in most food laws across the world, it is accepted that
food is unsafe if it does not meet stipulated standards set by
regulators. But this bill does not contain this provision. It
does not consider food with
contaminants unsafe, nor provide penalty for food with
contaminants or food that does not meet stipulated standards.

The industry’s justification for this law has been that the
current
regime is draconian because it puts the onus for holding
companies and individuals liable for adulterated food on corrupt
officials. It was
argued that small industries and processors were particularly
harmed by these provisions. But in the current legislation,
trickery prevails.
While the paraphernalia of the PFA Act remains intact for small
manufacturers, big companies are given escape routes.

How? 
Firstly, the bill brings into its ambit primary food, so that
all
problems of quality are blamed on the raw material used in the
manufacture and not on processed food. 
Secondly, by imposing penalties on food retailers, hawkers and
temporary stallholders, it enshrines the long-standing demands
of big companies, which argue that the real problem of quality
is because of these small players. 
Thirdly, it tightens penalties on small producers by introducing
a draconian clause allowing food inspectors to impose fines of
Rs 1 lakh on these petty manufacturers on the basis of
“reasonable belief” that an offence has been committed. But to
help the big companies, it dilutes all provisions of liability.
It also provides for equal penalties for all sizes of companies.
The fines range from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh depending on the
nature of the offence. While this will be a deterrent for the
small, it is peanuts for large companies. This is why in
countries like Japan, where the business of food is
multi-layered, governments provide for graded penalties based on
turnover.

This bill does not protect consumers, farmers or small
producers. It is
difficult to say who drafted the bill: the government or big
business?
Or are the two the same by now?





«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥««¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
This is ZESTAlternative, whose members circulate an article every alternate day 
on alternative modes to dominant ways of thinking in the modern world. Members 
are allowed to respond to an article but not initiate new discussions.

If you got this mail as a forward, join ZESTAlternative by sending a blank mail 
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or, if you have a Yahoo! ID, visit 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTAlternative/join/

==theZESTcommunity======================================

[1] ZESTCurrent: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCurrent/
[2] ZESTEconomics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTEconomics/
[3] ZESTGlobal: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/
[4] ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/
[5] ZESTPoets: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTPoets/
[6] ZESTCaste: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
[7] ZESTAlternative: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTAlternative/
[8] TalkZEST: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkZEST/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTAlternative/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to