food adulteration

REPORT

PROJECT MEMBERS

1.Vishwas Agarwal 161041272.Xyz3.Abc4.Dfv5.Fg

ACKNOWLEDEGMENT We would like to express our greatest gratitude to the people who have helped & supported us throughout our project. We are grateful to our teacher, MR/ MRS NAME OF THE TEACHER for her continuous support for the project, from initial advices & contacts in the early stages of conceptual inception & through ongoing advices & encouragement to complete it.

We would like to wish and thank our GROUP MEMBERS for their undivided support and interest who inspired and encouraged to go our own way, without whom we would be unable to complete our project.

A special thanks goes to our friends who helped us in completing the project & they exchanged their interesting ideas, thoughts & made this project easy and accurate.

INTRODUCTION

What is food adulteration?Food adulteration is the process in which the quality of food is lowered either by the addition of inferior quality material or by extraction of valuable ingredient .Nutritious substances which are added intentionally to food , generally in small quantity , to improve its appearance , flavour, texture or storage properties . Adulteration is a legal term meaning that a food product fails to meet federal or state standards. The word is proper only when the additions are unwanted by the consumer. Adulterants when used in illicit drugs are called cutting agents, while deliberate addition of toxic adulterants to food or other products for human consumption is known as poisoning.

Following are the points which government uses to declare an adulterated food.

• A substance is added which depreciates or injuriously affects it.• Cheaper or inferior substances are substituted wholly or in part.• Any valuable or necessary constituent has been wholly or in part abstracted.• It is an imitation.• It is coloured or otherwise treated, to improve its appearance or if it contains any added substance injurious to health.

• For whatever reasons its quality is below the Standard

Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of life. Pure, fresh and healthy diet is most essential for the health of the people. It is no wonder to say that community health is national wealth.

The Greek and roman classics contain allusion to wine maker and dealer who coloured and flavoured their wine. In England as early as 13th cent, bakers cheapened their wares or scanted the weight, and lawmakers for the first time made an effort to prevent fraudulent dealing on the part of butchers and brewers.

About the middle of the 19th century chemical and microscopal had reached the stage that food substance could be analysed, and the subject of food adulteration began to be studied from the standpoint of the rights and welfare of the consumers.

In India Prevention of Food Adulteration Programme has been developed to ensure safe food for the consumers. The ministry of health and family welfare in India ensures that consumer get safe food. The legislation called “Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954” was drafted for this purpose. The first law to regulate the quality of food was made in the country 1899. Up till 1954 the states made their own food laws and there were substantial differences in the rules and specification of food. A legislation called prevention of food adulteration act (PFA) was endorsed in the year 1954 for making uniformity in food laws all over India. It came into effect from 15 June 1955.

The major role of central government is as an advisory in its implementation.

In India there are three-tier system is function for ensuring food

quality and food safety. They are the:

1. Government of India2. State Government 3. Local Bodies.

Need of the studyAdulteration of food is a menace to the society and the perpetrators cannot be let off lightly, also there has been an upcoming trend of false suit filing against food produce manufactures by customers for some undue monetary advantage not only in India but globally .The paper attempt to find out the real picture and causes of increasing malpractices in food adulteration.

OBJECTIVES● To generate awareness regarding Food adulteration practices in

India ● To examine the reasons behind increasing trend in fraudulent

practices.● Some incidences and surveys of food adulteration happened in

past● Views of people regarding consumer awareness

MethodologyFollowing are the methods adopted for the collection of required data relating to the project report.

1)Case study method:

3 case studies were conducted about the adulteration on dairy

products.

2)Questionnaire and survey method:

An appropriate questionnaire was designed separately for consumer awareness on FOOD ADULTERATION with a view to ascertain their attitude & opinion of the consumer preferences towards various

Brands of milk and dairy products. 3) Collection of data:

For the purpose of the required project report, data was collected from primary as well as secondary sources.

1) The primary data has been collected from field survey with the help of online feedbacks. This has been collected through questionnaires.

2) The Secondary data has been collected through, published sources, unpublished sources, records etc.

Reasons for food adulteration - To get more profit To increase the weight To increase volume of trade by showing lower prices Rising population Lack of effective coordination Lack of proper food laws Lack of government initiatives

Politicians are not raising their voices

What is an adulterant?An adulterant is a pejorative term for a substance found within other substances such as food, fuels or chemicals even though it is not allowed for legal or other reasons.

Types of adulterants 1. Intentional –

Substances added in food to improve appearance flavour texture or storage prosperities (food additives)

Example sand marble stones

2. Unintentional –

Pesticides growth promoters, components of packing materials solvents and enzymes used in food processing

Examples pesticides, rodents

Some adulterated food products there adverse effects

Turmeric , dals and pulses such as moong or channa :Here adulterant is metanil yellow and keasri dal. Its harmful effect is that it is highly carcinogenic and if

consumed over a continuous period of time it can also cause stomach disorders

Green chilies , green peas and other vegetables :Here adulterant is Malachite green. Argemone seeds to add bulk and weight.Affects humans if consumed over a long period of time

Ice cream: Here adulterant is pepperoni, ethyl acetate, butraldehyde, ethyl acetate, nitrate which are not less than a poison .pepper oil is also used a pesticide and ethyl acetate causes terrible disease affecting lungs, kidneys and hearts

Mustard seeds and mustard oil: Here adulterant is argemone seeds (used to add bulk and weight). Papaya seeds (used to add bulk) that the consumption of these could epidemic dropsy and severe glaucoma. Young children and senior citizens with poor immunity are more susceptible this.

Paneer, khoya, condensed milk and milk: Here adulterant is starch (used to give it thick, rich texture). Its harmful effect is that it is unhygienic, unprocessed water and starch can cause stomach disorders. Starch greatly reduces the nutritional value of the ingredient.

Black pepper: Here adulterant is papaya seeds (used to add bulk). Its harmful effect is that papaya seeds can cause serious liver problems and stomach disorders.

Coffee powder: Here adulterant is tamarind seeds, chicory powder. Its harmful effects is that it can cause diarrhea ,stomach disorders, giddiness and severe joint pains

As per the data released by the FSSAI, the percentage of the food samples found adulterated is on the rise. In 2011-12, 64593 samples

were tested out of which 8247 samples were found adulterated. This percentage went up to 14.8%in 2012-13 and to 18.8% in 2013-14. Out of the 72200 samples tested in 2013-14, 13571 samples were found adulterated. Surprisingly, the no of prosecution launched has been decreasing since 2011-12. While prosecutions were launched in 83% of the adulterated cases in 2011-12, this percentage went down to 56.3% in 2012-13 and went up to 75.4% in 2013-14

Food laws and standards Adulteration of food stuff was so rampant , widespread and persistent that nothing sort of a somewhat drastic remedy in the form of a comprehensive legislation became the need of the hour To chehk this kind of anti social evil a concerted and detemined onslaught was launchesd by the government by introduction of the PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERRATION BILL in the parliament to herald an era of much needed hope of consumers at large.adulteration of food stuffs and other goods is now included in the concurrent list (iii) in the constution of India. it has , therefore ,become possible for the central government to enact an all India legislation on this subject. the bill replaces all local food adulteration laws where they exist and also applies to those states where there are no local laws on the subject. Among others , it provides for :

a Central food laboratory to which food samples can be referred to for final opinion in disputed cases (clause 4)

a Central Committee for Food Standards consisting of representatives of Central and State Governments to advise on matters arising from the administration of the Act (clause 3)

the vesting in the Central Government of the rule – making power regarding standards of quality for the articles of food and certain other matters(clause 22)

 PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954The Prevention of Food Adulteration Bill was passed by both the house of parliament and received the assent of the president on 29 september 1954 .It came into force on 1st June 1955 as THE PREVENTION OF FOOD

ADULTERATION ACT ,1954

In this act

Adulterant means any material which is or could be employed purposes of adulteration;

Adulterated- An article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated.

LIST OF ADAPTATION ORDER AND AMENDING ACTS THE ADAPTATION OF LAWS( NO 3 ) ORDER,1956. THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT)

ACT,1964 (49 OF 1964)

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT) ACT,1971 (41 OF 1971)

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT) ACT,1976 (34 OF 1976)

THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT) ACT,1986 ( 70 OF 1986)

Standards

I.S.I. StandardsVarious committees, including representatives from the government, consumers and industry, formulate the Indian Standards Institution (ISI). Standards are laid for vegetable and fruit products, spices and condiments, animal products and processed foods.

The products are checked for quality by the ISI in their own network of testing laboratories at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Chandigarh and Patna or in a number of public and private laboratories recognized by them.

The AGMARK StandardThe AGMARK standard was set up by the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection of the Government of India by introducing an Agricultural produce Act in 1937. The word ‘AGMARK’ seal ensures quality and purity

Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

It is an autonomous body established under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. The FSSAI has been established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which is a consolidating statute related to food safety and regulation in India. FSSAI is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety.

Case study 180% OF MILK WAS ADULTERATED WITH WATER UREA

STARCH AND DETERGENT

INTRODUCTION:One of the most common adulterants in milk is added water, which increase the bulk of the milk but decrease it is specific gravity. Normal whole cow's has a specific gravity of (1.027-1.035), while the specific gravity of the skim milk produced from this by removal of fat is 1.042. Since the milk fat globules have a specific gravity of less than 1, their removal in the manufacture of skim milk causes an increase in specific gravity.

Another way of detecting adulteration by water is to determine the total solids content of the milk. Normal whole cow's milk contains 11.5% solids.

The specific gravity of milk adulterated with water might be maintained at a normal value by the addition of starch, another form of adulteration. Starch is easily detected by it is formation of a purple complex with iodine.

The growth of microorganisms may also be prevented, however, by the addition of numerous prohibited preservations, for each of which there is a specific method of detection. Alternatively, milk might be boiled in order to improve it is keeping quality.

Cow milk consist water, fat, lactose and mineral

Fat 3-3.3%

Solid not fat 8.5%

Total solid 11.7%

OBJECTIVES: To collect the samples of milk and its dairy products from

different local vendors To identify the adulterants present in the samples and compare

with the standard products

PROCEDURE: Survey Method:The local milk vendors were chosen via random sampling method. 50 samples from various vendors were collected in a sterilized container and subjected to laboratory techniques to determine the adulterants present in milk and its products. Study Design: Random Sampling Design Sample Size: 5 milk and its products were collected from 10 different local vendors (milk, buttermilk, curd, ghee, butter) located in Hyderabad (India). Total 50 samples were collected. Samples were kept in a sterilized container in fridge at 40 which are analysed for adulteration properties which include (water test, urea test, starch test, detergent test,). Test: 5 adulteration tests were conducted to detect common adulterants in milk and milk product samples collected from various areas in and around the campus of Osmania University College for women, Koti Hyderabad the tests conducted are as follows: 1) Water test: To know the percentage of water added in the milk, as water is the most common adulterant added in the milk [12]. 2) Urea test: To know if urea is added in the milk to increase its SNF value.

3) Starch test: To know the amount of starch added in the milk and milk product samples. 4) Detergent test: To detect the presence of detergent in the milk and milk products.

Discussion: Adulteration tests for milk sample:All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample 1, 3, 4 & 8 were showing same results in all the adulteration tests. were samples 2, 5 & 9 were adulterated with water and starch similarly sample 6, 7& 10 were showing same results and they were adulterated with more amount of water and starch only sample 3 was differing from all the five samples as it was adulterated with water and detergent. Adulteration tests for curd sample: All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample 3, 6 & 9 was adulterated with water, urea and detergent. Sample 1, 5, 7 & 9 was adulterated with water and detergent. 2, 4 & 8 were showing same results and they were adulterated with more amounts of water and urea only sample 5 was adulterated with water, urea and detergent. Adulteration tests for buttermilk sample: All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample 1, 3 & 5 was adulterated with water, urea and detergent. Sample 2, 4

& 6 was adulterated with 25% water and detergent. 7 & 9 was adulterated with 50% water and urea. Sample 8 &10 were showing same results and they were adulterated with 50% water, urea and detergent. Adulteration tests for butter sample: All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample 2, 3& 7 was adulterated with 25% water, and urea starch and detergent. Sample 1, 5 &10 was adulterated with 25% water and detergent. 4 & 9 were showing same results and were adulterated with25% water and urea. Sample 6 & 8 was adulterated with 25% water, urea and detergent. Adulteration tests for ghee sample: All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample 1, 4, 8 &10 was adulterated with 25% water and starch. Sample 2, 7 & 9 was adulterated with 50%water and detergent. 3& 5 was adulterated with 25% water, urea and starch. Sample 6 was adulterated with 50% water, urea and detergent. Sample 5 was adulterated with 25% water, urea and detergent.

Case study 2Details of National Survey on Adulteration of Milk:1. Objectives: The survey was conducted by FSSAI with the following objectives: To identify milk’s common adulterants in rural and urban areas. To identify the common adulterants in loose and packed milk.

2. Sample Size: A random sample was taken and analyzed from 33 Indian states. The total sample size was 1791. The following table summarizes the number of samples drawn from various Indian states.

3. Testing Laboratory: The samples were tested in government laboratories for neutralizers, acidity, hydrogen peroxide, sugar,

starch, glucose, urea, salt, detergent, skimmed milk powder, formalin, and vegetable fat to determine the presence of common adulterants.

4. Results: Approximately 32 percent of the samples analyzed conformed to Indian food laws. The remaining 68 percent failed.

5. Conclusion: The study concludes that:

Water is milk’s most common adulterant. Water reduces the nutritional value of milk and may also spread water-borne illnesses.

The second highest parameter of non-conformity was skim milk powder (SMP) in 548 samples, (out of total 1791 samples or 44.69 percent). Of the 548 SMP-positive samples, glucose was present in 477 out of 548 samples (87 percent).

Detergent is present in milk. Consumption of detergent-adulterated milk is a health hazard and indicates a lack of hygiene and sanitation in milk handling.

Case study 365% of the milk you drink may be adulterated: Study Samples across India Fail Government TestNew Delhi: Beware, your daily glass of good health could actually be doing you harm. As much as 100% of milk samples picked up in parts of the country by a government agency failed to conform to standards.

In a 33 state and UT study conducted by the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), not a single sample tested met the prescribed norms in West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,

Orissa and Mizoram. Other prominent states fared just a shade better. Around 89% of the samples tested from Gujarat, 83% from Jammu & Kashmir, 81% from Punjab, 76% from Rajasthan, 70% from Delhi and Haryana and 65% from Maharashtra failed the test. Around half of the samples from Madhya Pradesh (48%) also met a similar fate.

Only in Goa and Puducherry did 100% of the samples tested conform to required standards.

Of the 71 samples randomly taken from Delhi for testing, 50 were found to be contaminated with glucose and skimmed milk powder.

(SMP), which is usually added to milk in the lean season to enhance volumes. Elsewhere, milk was found adulterated with detergent, fat and even urea, besides the age old practice of diluting it with water. Across the country, 68.4% of the samples of milk were found contaminated. 68% milk samples fail quality test.

States with comparatively better results included Kerala, where 28% of samples did not conform to the FSSAI standards, Karnataka (22%), Tamil Nadu (12%) and Andhra Pradesh (6.7%).

The samples for testing were collected randomly and analyzed from 33 states and Union Territories totalling a sample size of 1,791. These were sent to government laboratories for testing against the presence of common adulterants such as fat, neutralizers, hydrogen peroxide, sugar, starch, glucose, urea, detergent, formalin and vegetable fat. Just around 31.5% (565) of the total samples tested conformed to the FSSAI standards while the rest 68.4% (1,226) failed the test. Detergent was found in 103 samples (8.4%). “This was because the milk tanks were not properly washed. Detergents in milk can cause serious health problems,” an FSSAI official said.

The nonconforming samples in rural areas numbered 381 (31%) out of which 64 (16.7%) were packet milk and 317 (83.2%) were loose

samples. In urban areas, the number of non-confirming samples were 845 (68.9%) out of which 282 (33.3%) were packed and 563 (66.6%) were loose. The most common adulteration was that of fat and solid not food (SNF), found in 574 (46.8%) of the nonconforming samples. This is because of dilution of milk with water. The second highest parameter of nonconformity was skim milk powder (SMP) in 548 samples (44.69%), which includes presence of glucose in 477 samples. Glucose would have been added to milk probably to enhance SNF. “The study indicates that addition of water to milk is most common adulterant,” the report said.

Times View: This only confirms that food adulteration is common in India. Even milk, consumed primarily by children, isn’t spared. What’s particularly worrying is the kind of substances used to adulterate, including toxic chemicals. This shows that the trade off between the risk of getting caught and the ‘reward’ of huge profits is skewed heavily in favour of the latter. The government must focus on raising the risks to the adulterator. One way of doing this is by hiking the penalty, including making it analogous to attempt to murder in extreme cases. It’s equally important to regularly check foodstuff for adulteration and ensure speedy trials.

Survey with respect to consumer awareness on food adulteration

CONCLUSIONA recent survey revealed that more than 68 percent of milk sold in India was adulterated. Given how much milk is a part of the Indian diet, the shocking number showed the need for new national milk safety standards in the country. And now, after 60 years, we will finally be getting them. The new standards will include milk sources as camel and yak along with flavoured and fortified milk, says this report by Hindustan Times. Currently, safety standards follow guidelines set in 1954 which only considers milk from cow, sheep, buffalo and goat. “There is a need to revisit old standards to ensure people eat and drink quality food,” said Pawan Agarwal, CEO, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the country’s food-safety regulator to the newspaper. The new standards will be implemented uniformly across all the states. As per the current standards, fat and solid non-fat (SNF) content varies from state to state, the report adds. Recently, detergent and frozen fat have been found in milk across the country on many occasions, confirmed by recognised laboratories.

NEW MEASURES BY GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL FOOD ADULTERATION PRACTICES

Any food Inspector can enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured or stored for sale or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale or exposed or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or kept and take samples of such article of food or adulterant for analysis.

The dairy department has put in place measures to prevent adulterated milk reaching the public. Dairy development deputy director Biji V. Eesso said that milk, including that sold in packets, would be tested. This is in addition to collecting milk for testing from bakeries, shops and packaged milk outlets with the help of health officials. Milk arriving in the State through the border check posts would also be tested. Vehicles bringing in food articles, including milk, would be allowed entry only after ensuring that the contents contain no harmful elements. Consumers have been advised to purchase milk of branded companies. Milk in plastic covers having no information of the branded firm, date and time of packaging should not be purchased, he said.

Expressing concern over alarming level of milk adulteration+ in the country, the Supreme Court on Friday favored stringent punishment of life imprisonment for the offence which at present is punishable only up to six months jail term or fine.

LIMITATIONS1 TIME CONSTRAINTTime allotted to conduct the survey was around 20 days. So it was difficult to cover entirely a large number (e.g. 1000s) of people. However the key areas were aptly covered.

2 AVAILABILITY OF DATAMost of the localities and people were not interested in conducting these surveys as they think it as a wastage of time.

Non willingness of respondents to answer the questionnaires was also a big hurdle.

3 RELIABILITY OF DATAReliability of data remains a primary concern when it comes to human surveys. Unclear questions, poor understanding and unwilling participations may lead to some deviation from the correct data.

4 MODE OF SURVEYSince the survey was conducted more in online mode rather than physically, we can say that some common people missed the survey

Bibliography

1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act & Rules (as on 1.10.2004).

2. Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases (FAC) including Food Safety & Standards Act, Rules, Regulations Cases 1972 to 2012(2) (80 bound volumes).

3. An Exhaustive Commentary on - The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act & Rules (Central and States with State Amendments) - A Book Review

4. PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION, ACT 1954.

5. The fight against food adulteration.

6. Websites-

1 http://www. Muzffarangarwikipedia.com.

2 http://www.muzaffarnagr.in

3 http// www.wikipedia.org/wiki/muzaffarnagar –district

4 http:// www.consumer education .in

5 http://www.mightylaws.com

6 http://consumergreevance.com

7 http://www.consumerlaw.in

8 http/www.plannigcommission.nic.in

9 http://www.saharanpur.nic .in

10 http://www.merasaharanpur.com

11 http:// www.mapsofindia.com

12 http:// www.legalhelpindia.com

13 http://www.jetexconsumerlaw.com

14 http://www.consumergoodsindiabizclub.com

15 http://www.wisbar.org/am/temblet.com

16 htpp://www.indiastudychanel.com

17 http://www.consumercourt.netfirms.com

18 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com