Food Adultration in India: Issue of Policy or Social System

Food Adultration in India: Issue of Policy orSocial System?

Deviprasad Ghosh

MBA (Marketing) SP Jain Institute of Management, Mumbai (1994-1996)

ABSTRACT

The author critically evaluates the policy and legal issues pertaining to foodAdulteration in India by analyzing real life cases of adulteration and adulterants,but argues that legislation or government alone cannot tackle the problem ofadulteration, corporate social responsibility and society at large needs to worktowards its elimination. Economic development cannot be separate from the Socialdevelopment of the country.The case discussed on how food sellers and also reputed companies are takingadvantage of weak regulations and even weaker enforcement.This paper will be best suited to students of management and practitioners ingovernment bodies, social organizations and company professionals associated tofood industry. As the issues discussed here are faced by almost every individualin the country it is suitable for general public. This paper also has potential foruse as case study for educational purpose for business environment study.

Keywords: Food adulteration, Food Policy Reforms, Corporate Social Responsibil-ity, Social System, PFA Act, Business Environment

Introduction

India has made a business of adulteration which if measured could size over rupeesseveral thousand crores. Take mineral water for instance. It is easily over Rs 1,000crore business today. Capitalising on the citizen’s fear that water supplied by civicbodies is not clean, the bottled water industry sprung up. Today, bottled water or so-called mineral water is available even in remote rural hamlets.

How safe is it? It looks clear, but ask the Consumer Education and Research Centrein Ahmedabad. The organisation, which has been fighting to create consumerawareness, did a study of 13 leading brands of bottled water. The results are shocking.Ten were found to have foreign objects floating in it. None were free from bacteria.Two of them contained toxic heavy metals! (Outlook November 2003)

It is not just water. Adulterators flourish in every sphere of activity. They continue

: 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

*Corressponding Author:Present Address:

Ghosh

50 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

their business without any check or hindrance. And laugh all the way to the bank.Almost everything that we use is adulterated.

In September 1998, the Canadian government warned its citizens not to consumeany foodstuff cooked or processed in oil from India as it could be adulterated withargemone. Scores had died or were crippled in north India as unscrupulous tradersmixed the fatal argemone oil to mustard oil to raise their profits. Human lives havesuch low value in India that it just passed off as another tragedy.

Do you have a problem getting your child to have his daily glass of milk? Maybe, itis a blessing in disguise. Milk is being adulterated with synthetic chemicals anddetergent powder that could cause irreparable damage. It is another flourishingbusiness. In the trade, it is known as synthetic milk. The Delhi police in May 2000seized 76,000 litres of adulterated milk packed in pouches similar to the ones ofMother Dairy run by the prestigious National Dairy Development Board. Elsewhere,in places like Bangalore, fat is being removed from milk and then sold after mixingit with harmful chemicals to whiten and thicken the thin liquid.

Foodstuff is increasingly becoming the target. We just have to watch what we eat.Sugar could have tiny chalk crystals. Salt could have powdered stone. Chilli powdercould have brick powder. Dhania could have sawdust or even powdered cow dung.Jaggery syrup is added to honey. Mouthwatering barfis could have harmful dyesand colours that can cause cancer. Cumin seeds could have coal particles. Ironfilings are being added to tea leaves. Coloured sawdust are added to many fooditems like sooji. Now, fruits have also got added to the list. Reports had come inthat traders were injecting red colour into the watermelons to make them moreattractive.

As a normal individual the delectable and the luscious colour of the sweetmeats or“Mithai” attract you? Decorated with an equally attractive silver foil or so youbelieve! “Besan ladoos”, the color so attractive, that you almost want to devour it.It is the whiteness of the puffed rice that you loved rather than the puffed rice itself?Or the taste of that spicy deep yellow colored Indian snack called “Pakoda”? Andyou wonder why whenever you make it at home, you never get that same yellowcolour?

When you move about in the market and see the attractively decorated sweets andother edible items your appetite becomes almost insatiable. And that’s what it ismeant to do to you. Attract you to buy and eat. But wait! In the process you may beeating “Metanil yellow” a non-permitted coal tar dye commonly known as ‘KishoriRang’, “Rhodamin-B”, “Lead Chromate” or perhaps “Ultra Marine Blue”. Theseare all non-permissible and banned colours and they cause serious health hazardsand may also cause cancer in the long run. They are carcinogenic.

We may be eating a dangerous dye, sawdust, soap stone, industrial starch, Aluminumfoil and believe it, even cow-dung! Invite disease rather than good health. But whereis the law enforcing authorities? What are they doing? Every adulteration case is

Food Adultration in India: Issue of Policy or Social System

: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 51

discovered by social organizations, companies or individuals, other than the enforcingauthorities?

What is Food Adulteration

Food adulteration can be called as deliberate contamination of food materials withlow quality, cheap, non-edible or toxic substances. While the substance that degradesor lowers the quality of food is an adulterant.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, an Act that defined food safety normsin the country, defined that a food article is considered adulterated, if

a. the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demandedby the purchaser or which it purports to be;

b. the article contains any substance affecting its quality or of it is so processedas to injuriously affect its nature, substance or quality;

c. any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or partly forthe article, or any constituent of the article has been wholly or partly abstractedfrom it, so as to affecting its quality or of it is so processed as to injuriouslyaffect its nature, substance or quality;

d. the article had been prepared, packed or kept under in sanitary conditionswhereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;

e. the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten,decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance or being insect-infested, or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;

f. the article is obtained from a diseased animal;

g. the article contains any poisonous or other ingredient, which is injurious tohealth;

h. the container of the article is composed of any poisonous or deleterioussubstance, which renders its contents injurious to health;

i. the article contains any prohibited colouring matter or preservative, or anypermitted colouring matter or preservative in excess of the prescribed limits;

j. the quality or purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard, or itsconstituents are present in proportions other standard, or its constituents arepresent in proportions other than those prescribed, whether or not renderingit injurious to health.

Thus, additions of water to milk amount to adulteration, within the meaning of sub-clauses (b) or (c).

Adulteration in food is normally present in its most crude form; prohibited substancesare either added partly or wholly substituted. In India normally the contamination/

Ghosh

52 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

adulteration in food is done either for financial gain or lack in proper hygieniccondition of processing, storing, transportation and marketing. This ultimately resultsthat the consumer is either cheated or often become victim of diseases. However,adequate precautions taken by the consumer at the time of purchase of such producecan make him alert and avoid procurement of such food. It is important that consumeris educated on common adulterants and their effect on health.

Common Adulterants/ Contaminants in Food

Adulteration in food is normally present in its most crude form; prohibited substancesare either added partly or wholly substituted. In India normally the contamination/adulteration in food is done either for financial gain or due to carelessness and lackin proper hygienic condition of processing, storing, transportation and marketing.This ultimately results that the consumer is either cheated or often become victimof diseases. Such types of adulteration are quite common in developing countries orbackward countries. However, adequate precautions taken by the consumer at thetime of purchase of such produce can make him alert to avoid procurement of suchfood. It is equally important for the consumer to know the common adulterants andtheir effect on health.

Cases of Food Adulteration by Reputed Companies

1. Soft Drinks: High Level of Pesticide in Pepsi and Coca-Cola drinks

Tests conducted by Pollution Monitoring Laboratory of Centre for Science andEnvironment (CSE) showed cold drink brands sold by the firms in India containedfour toxic pesticides and insecticides: lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos.The independent environmental group said it had found no pesticides in tests ofCoke and Pepsi soft drink brands sold in the United States. The CSE said its tests,conducted over the past six months, showed the amount of DDT in Pepsi was 16times higher than EU norms and 9 times higher in Coca-Cola.

The Indian government has ordered an investigation into why as many as12 brandsof cold drinks owned and marketed by Coca-Cola and Pepsi allegedly found thatthey contained on average more than 30 times the EU legal limit for pesticides.

Issue: Soft drinks have been exempted from India’s food regulations. It is clear thatthere are loopholes in regulations, which companies have exploited. The result alsoshowed that the same company complied to norms in countries where the enforcementof rule was stringent.

2. Confectionery: Worms found in Cadbury chocolate packet

A Cadbury stockist found worms coming out of Dairy Milk chocolates. He informedthe manufacturer. But when they did not act on his complaint, he approached FDA.”

The Cadbury spokesman said chocolates are vulnerable to infestation if they arestored near grains and cereals, or in unhygienic conditions. The company, therefore,


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 53

Inju

riou

s A

dult

eran

ts/C

onta

min

ants

In

Foo

ds A

nd T

heir

Hea

lth

Eff

ects

S.N

oA

dult

eran

t/ C

onta

min

ants

Foo

ds C

omm

only

Invo

lved

Dis

ease

s or

Hea

lth

Eff

ects

Adu

lter

ants

:1

Arg

emon

e se

edsA

rgem

one

oil

Mus

tard

see

dsE

dibl

e oi

ls a

nd f

ats

Epi

dem

ic d

rops

y,G

lauc

oma,

Car

diac

arr

est

2A

rtif

icia

lly

colo

ured

for

eign

see

dsA

s a

subs

titu

te f

or c

umin

see

d,P

oppy

see

d, b

lack

pep

per

Inju

riou

s to

hea

lth

3F

orei

gn l

eave

s or

exh

aust

ed t

eaT

eaIn

juri

ous

to h

ealt

h, c

ance

rle

aves

, sa

w d

ust

arti

fici

ally

col

oure

d4

TC

PO

ils

Par

alys

is5

Ran

cid

oil

Oil

sD

estr

oys

vita

min

A a

nd E

6S

and,

mar

ble

chip

s, s

tone

s, f

ilth

Foo

d gr

ains

, pu

lses

etc

.D

amag

e di

gest

ive

trac

t7

Lat

hyru

s sa

tivu

sK

hesa

ri d

al a

lone

orM

ixed

in

othe

r pu

lses

Lat

hyri

sm (

crip

plin

g sp

asti

c pa

rapl

egia

)C

hem

ical

Con

tam

inat

ion:

8M

iner

al o

il (

whi

te o

il,

Edi

ble

oils

and

fat

s,B

lack

pep

per

Can

cer

petr

oleu

m f

ract

ions

)9

Lea

d ch

rom

ate

Tur

mer

ic w

hole

and

pow

dere

d, m

ixed

spi

ces

Ane

mia

, ab

orti

on,

para

lysi

s, b

rain

dam

age

10M

etha

nol

Alc

ohol

ic li

quor

sB

lurr

ed v

isio

n, b

lind

ness

, de

ath

11A

rsen

icF

ruit

s su

ch a

s ap

ples

spr

ayed

ove

r w

ith

lead

ars

enat

eD

izzi

ness

, ch

ills

, cr

amps

, pa

raly

sis,

dea

th12

Bar

ium

Foo

ds c

onta

min

ated

by

rat

pois

ons

(Bar

ium

car

bona

te)

Vio

lent

per

ista

lsis

, ar

teri

al h

yper

tens

ion,

mus

cula

r tw

itch

ing,

con

vuls

ions

, ca

rdia

cdi

stur

banc

es13

Cad

miu

mF

ruit

jui

ces,

sof

t dr

inks

, et

c. i

n co

ntac

t w

ith

cadm

ium

‘Ita

i-it

ai (

ouch

-ouc

h) d

isea

se,

Incr

ease

dpl

ated

ves

sels

or

equi

pmen

t. C

adm

ium

con

tam

inat

edsa

liva

tion

, ac

ute

gast

riti

s, l

iver

and

kid

ney

wat

er a

nd s

hell

-fis

hda

mag

e, p

rost

rate

can

cer

14C

obal

tW

ater

, li

quor

sC

ardi

ac in

suff

icie

ncy

and

myo

card

ial f

ailu

re15

Lea

dW

ater

, na

tura

l an

d pr

oces

sed

food

Lea

d po

ison

ing

(foo

t-dr

op, i

nsom

nia,

ane

mia

,co

nst

ipat

ion

, m

enta

l re

tard

atio

n,

bra

inda

mag

e)

16C

oppe

rFo

odV

omit

ing,

dia

rrho

ea17

Tin

Food

Col

ic, v

omit

ing

Con

td.

Ghosh

54 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

S.N

oA

dult

eran

t/ C

onta

min

ants

Foo

ds C

omm

only

Invo

lved

Dis

ease

s or

Hea

lth

Eff

ects

18Z

inc

Food

Col

ic, v

omit

ing

19M

ercu

ryM

ercu

ry f

ungi

cide

tre

ated

see

d gr

ains

or

mer

cury

B

rain

dam

age,

par

alys

is,

deat

hco

ntam

inat

ed f

ish

Bac

teri

al c

onta

min

atio

n:20

Bac

illu

s ce

reus

Cer

eal

prod

ucts

, cu

star

ds,

pudd

ings

, sa

uces

Foo

d in

fect

ion

(nau

sea,

vom

itin

g, a

bdom

inal

pain

, di

arrh

oea)

21Sa

lmon

ella

spp

.M

eat

and

mea

t pr

oduc

ts,

raw

veg

etab

les,

sal

ads,

she

ll-

Sal

mon

ello

sis

(foo

d in

fect

ion

usua

lly

wit

hfi

sh, e

ggs

and

egg

prod

ucts

, war

med

-up

left

over

sfe

ver

and

chil

ls)

22Sh

igel

la s

onne

iM

ilk,

pot

ato,

bea

ns,

poul

try,

tun

a, s

hrim

p,S

hige

llos

is (

baci

llar

y dy

sent

ery)

moi

st m

ixed

foo

ds23

Stap

hylo

cocc

us a

ureu

sEnt

ero

Dai

ry p

rodu

cts,

bak

ed f

oods

esp

ecia

lly

cust

ard

orIn

crea

sed

sali

vati

on,

vom

itin

g, a

bdom

inal

toxi

ns-A

,B,C

,D o

r E

crea

m-f

ille

d fo

ods,

mea

t an

d m

eat

prod

ucts

, lo

w-a

cid

cram

p, d

iarr

hoea

, se

vere

thi

rst,

cold

sw

eats

,fr

ozen

foo

ds,

sala

ds,

crea

m s

auce

s, e

tc.

pros

trat

ion

24C

lost

ridi

um b

otul

inus

tox

ins

Def

ecti

vely

can

ned

low

or

med

ium

-aci

d fo

ods;

mea

ts,

Bot

ulis

m (

doub

le v

isio

n, m

uscu

lar

para

lysi

s,A

,B,E

or

Fsa

usag

es,

smok

ed v

acuu

m-p

acke

d fi

sh,

deat

h du

e to

res

pira

tory

fai

lure

)fe

rmen

ted

food

etc

.25

Clo

stri

dium

.per

frin

gens

Mil

k im

prop

erly

pro

cess

ed o

r ca

nned

mea

ts,

Nau

sea,

abd

omin

al p

ains

, di

arrh

oea,

gas

(Wel

chii

) ty

pe A

fish

and

gra

vy s

tock

sfo

rmat

ion

26D

ieth

yl s

tilb

estr

ol (

addi

tive

Mea

tSt

eril

itie

s, f

ibro

id t

umor

s et

c.in

ani

mal

fee

d)27

3,4

Ben

zopy

rene

Sko

ked

food

Can

cer

28E

xces

sive

sol

vent

res

idue

Sol

vent

ext

ract

ed o

il,

oil

cake

etc

.C

arci

noge

nic

effe

ct29

Non

-foo

d gr

ade

or c

onta

min

ated

Food

Blo

od c

lot,

angi

osar

com

a, c

ance

r et

c.pa

ckin

g m

ater

ial

30N

on-p

erm

itte

d co

lour

or

perm

itte

dC

olou

red

food

Men

tal

reta

rdat

ion,

can

cer

and

othe

r to

xic

food

col

our

beyo

nd s

afe

lim

itef

fect

.31

BH

A a

nd B

HT

bey

ond

safe

lim

itO

ils

and

fats

All

ergy

, li

ver

dam

age,

inc

reas

e in

ser

umch

oles

tero

l et

c.32

Mon

osod

ium

glu

tam

ate

(flo

ur)

Chi

nese

foo

d, m

eat

and

mea

t pr

oduc

tsB

rain

dam

age,

men

tal

reta

rdat

ion

in i

nfan

ts

Con

td.


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 55

S.N

oA

dult

eran

t/ C

onta

min

ants

Foo

ds C

omm

only

Invo

lved

Dis

ease

s or

Hea

lth

Eff

ects

(bey

ond

safe

lim

it)

33C

oum

arin

and

dih

ydro

cou

mar

inF

lavo

ured

foo

dB

lood

ant

icoa

gula

nt34

Foo

d fl

avou

rs b

eyon

d sa

fe l

imit

Fla

vour

ed f

ood

Cha

nces

of

live

r ca

ncer

35B

rom

inat

ed v

eget

able

oil

sC

old

drin

ksA

nem

ia,

enla

rgem

ent

of h

eart

36Su

lphu

r di

oxid

e an

d su

lphi

teIn

var

iety

of

food

as

pres

erva

tive

Acu

te ir

rita

tion

of t

he g

astr

o-in

test

inal

trac

tsbe

yond

saf

e li

mit

etc.

37A

rtif

icia

l sw

eetn

ers

beyo

nd s

afe

Sw

eet

food

sC

hanc

es o

f ca

ncer

lim

itF

unga

l co

ntam

inat

ion:

38A

flat

oxin

sA

sper

gill

us f

lavu

s-co

ntam

inat

ed f

oods

suc

h as

Liv

er d

amag

e an

d ca

ncer

grou

ndnu

ts,

cott

onse

ed,

etc.

39E

rgot

alk

aloi

ds f

rom

Cla

vice

psE

rgot

-inf

este

d ba

jra,

rye

mea

l or

bre

adE

rgot

ism

(St

.Ant

hony

’s f

ire-

burn

ing

purp

urea

Tox

ic a

lkal

oids

, er

gota

-se

nsat

ion

in e

xtre

mit

ies,

itc

hing

of

skin

,m

ine,

erg

otox

in a

nd e

rgom

etri

nepe

riph

eral

gan

gren

e)gr

oups

40To

xins

fro

m F

usar

ium

Gra

ins

(mil

let,

whe

at,

oats

, ry

e,et

c)A

lim

enta

ry t

oxic

ale

ukia

(A

TA

) (e

pide

mic

spor

otri

chio

ides

panm

yelo

toxi

cosi

s)41

Toxi

ns f

rom

Fus

ariu

mM

oist

gra

ins

Uro

v di

seas

e (K

asch

in-B

eck

dise

ase)

spor

otri

chie

lla

42To

xins

fro

mP

enic

illi

um i

nsla

ndic

umY

ello

w r

ice

Tox

ic m

ould

y ri

ce d

isea

seP

enic

illi

um a

tric

um,P

enic

illi

umci

treo

vire

de,F

usar

ium

, R

hizo

pus,

Asp

ergi

llus

43St

erig

mat

ocys

tin

from

Asp

ergi

llus

Foo

d gr

ains

Hep

atit

isve

rsic

olou

rAsp

ergi

llus

nid

ulan

san

d bi

pola

ris

44A

scar

is l

umbr

icoi

des

Any

raw

foo

d or

wat

er c

onta

min

ated

by

hum

anA

scar

iasi

sfa

ces

cont

aini

ng e

ggs

of t

he p

aras

ite

45E

ntam

oeba

his

toly

tica

Vir

al

Raw

veg

etab

les

and

frui

tsA

moe

bic

dyse

nter

y46

Vir

us o

f in

fect

ious

Hep

atit

is (

viru

s A

)S

hell

-fis

h, m

ilk,

unh

eate

d fo

ods

cont

amin

ated

wit

hIn

fect

ious

hep

atit

is

Con

td.

Ghosh

56 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

S.N

oA

dult

eran

t/ C

onta

min

ants

Foo

ds C

omm

only

Invo

lved

Dis

ease

s or

Hea

lth

Eff

ects

faec

es, u

rine

and

blo

od o

f in

fect

ed h

uman

47M

achu

po v

irus

Foo

ds c

onta

min

ated

wit

h ro

dent

s ur

ine,

suc

h as

cer

eals

Bol

ivia

n ha

emor

rhag

ic f

ever

Nat

ural

Con

tam

inat

ion:

48F

lour

ide

Dri

nkin

g w

ater

, se

a fo

ods,

tea

, et

c.E

xces

s fl

uori

de c

ause

s fl

uoro

sis

(mot

tlin

g of

teet

h, s

kele

tal

and

neur

olog

ical

dis

orde

rs)

49O

xali

c ac

idS

pina

ch,

amar

anth

, et

c.R

enal

cal

culi

, cra

mps

, fai

lure

of b

lood

to c

lot

50G

ossy

pol

Cot

tons

eed

flou

r an

d ca

keC

ance

r51

Cya

noge

neti

c co

mpo

unds

Bit

ter

alm

onds

, ap

ple

seed

s, c

assa

va,

som

e be

ans

etc.

Gas

tro-

inte

stin

al d

istu

rban

ces

52P

olyc

ycli

c A

rom

atic

Sm

oked

fis

h, m

eat,

min

eral

oil

-con

tam

inat

ed w

ater

,C

ance

rH

ydro

carb

ons

(PA

H)

oils

, fa

ts a

nd f

ish,

esp

ecia

lly

shel

l-fi

sh53

Pha

lloi

dine

(A

lkal

oid)

Toxi

c m

ushr

oom

sM

ush

roo

m p

ois

on

ing

(H

yp

og

lyce

mia

,co

nvul

sion

s, p

rofu

se w

ater

y st

ools

, se

vere

necr

osis

of

live

r le

adin

g to

hep

atic

fai

lure

and

deat

h)54

Sola

nine

Pot

atoe

sS

olan

ine

pois

onin

g (v

omit

ing,

abd

omin

alpa

in,

diar

rhoe

a)55

Nit

rate

s an

d N

itri

tes

Dri

nkin

g w

ater

, sp

inac

h rh

ubar

b, a

spar

agus

,M

etha

emog

lobi

naem

ia e

spec

iall

y in

infa

nts,

etc.

and

mea

t pr

oduc

tsca

ncer

and

tum

ours

in

the

live

r, k

idne

y,tr

ache

a oe

soph

agus

and

lun

gs.

The

liv

er i

sth

e in

itia

l sit

e bu

t aft

erw

ards

tum

ours

app

ear

in o

ther

org

ans.

56A

sbes

tos

(may

be

pres

ent

in t

alc,

Pol

ishe

d ri

ce,

puls

es,

proc

esse

d fo

ods

cont

aini

ngA

bsor

ptio

n in

Kao

lin,

etc

. an

d in

pro

cess

ed f

oods

)an

ti-c

akin

g ag

ents

, et

c.pa

rtic

ulat

e fo

rm b

y th

e bo

dy m

ay p

rodu

ceca

ncer

57P

esti

cide

res

idue

s (b

eyon

d sa

fe l

imit

)A

ll ty

pes

of f

ood

Acu

te o

r ch

roni

c po

ison

ing

wit

h da

mag

e to

nerv

es a

nd v

ital

org

ans

like

live

r, ki

dney

, etc

.58

Ant

ibio

tics

(be

yond

saf

e li

mit

)M

eats

fro

m a

ntib

ioti

c-fe

d an

imal

sM

ult

iple

dru

g r

esis

tan

ce h

ard

enin

g o

far

teri

es,

hear

t di

seas

e

Not

e: S

afe

lim

its

need

to

be p

resc

ribe

d fo

r m

etal

s in

dif

fere

nt f

ood.

Con

tinu

ous

use

of f

ood

cont

amin

ated

wit

h m

etal

s be

yond

saf

e li

mit

s m

ay c

ause

men

tion

ed d

isea

ses.

Sour

ce:

http

://a

gmar

knet

.nic

.in


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 57

provides retailers with storage dispensers and visicoolers to give adequate protectionto its products. Additionally, every Cadbury product label mentions the careinstruction: ‘Store in a cool, hygienic and dry place.’ The company had offered theplea that faulty storage by a dealer was responsible for the incident and thereforecompany cannot be blamed.

Issue: Company as well as the stockist is trying to blame each other as this is a greyarea of the food regulation act and therefore difficult to fix responsibility.

3. Packaged Water: BISLERI & AQUAFINA :Is packaged/mineral water safefor drinking

“Around 213 units which have either not submitted test report conforming to thenorms, or are performing below the laid-down quality standards have been issued‘stop-marking’ order by the government and can therefore not manufacture bottledwater,”

They said the units debarred from using ‘ISI mark’ and thus not allowed to producebottled water include at least three, which are manufacturing and selling the Kinleybrand, eight (Bisleri) and two (Kingfisher). Fantastic Aqua Products, Satara andKing Aqua, Guwahati.

Of the 1018 licences issued, only 802 units deposited samples in line with the newnorms. The ‘stop-marking order’ has been imposed on 158 units due to non-submission of test report on pesticide residues. It has also been imposed on another55 units on grounds of unsatisfactory performance.

The debate over pesticide-laced bottled soft drinks — as also packaged drinkingwater — is raging, but it seems consumers will have to wait till January before theyget ‘safe’ packaged drinking water. The new norms regulating the safety of bottledwater will come into force from January, 2004.The Ministry of Health and FamilyWelfare released a notification in July, 2003 laying down the quality standards tobe followed by the manufacturers of packaged drinking water.

A study conducted by the Centre for Science and Environment says that most of thebrands of packaged/mineral water available in the country contain pesticides —several of them banned — significantly higher than permissible limits, which cancause serious physical impairment ranging from damage to the central nervous systemto lung cancer.

Evian, which is imported from France and not bottled in India, is the only brand inwhich no traces of pesticides were found.

Coca-Cola’s Kinley has 4.6 times more than the prescribed limits of pesticides.Other brands that find a mention in the list include No.1 McDowell and Kingfisherfrom the UB stables, Pepsi’s Aquafina, Nestle India’s Pure Life and DS Foods’mineral water Catch and Prakash Chauhan’s Bailley.

Issue: Companies are exploiting the weak enforcement of rules in the country. The

Ghosh

58 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

result also showed that the imported products of same company complied to normswhere the enforcement of rules was stringent.

Prevention of Food Adulteration

1. Loose food – Bring balance between supply and demand

Private agencies that sell loose food products often are the main cause of sellingadulterated food items. All types of loose foods, whether it is oil, milk or essentialcommodities, we find adulteration in all. It takes place normally due to supply anddemand situation. If demand increases and supply is less then it leads to adulteration.In other words we can say that adulteration takes place due to scarcity ofcommodities. There cannot be any mechanism to estimate the level of adulterationat any given point.

2. Packaged Food-Can packaging Help

Once the product is packed well, then that packaging ensures that the content aswell as the freshness of the packed food remains intact. Packaging also ensuresresponsibility. For example, once packaging is introduced to a product it cannot bemarketed till it is branded. Branding ensures credibility of the packaged productand is accountable to the consumers. It also helps in presenting the details of thepacked product, like the constitution of the content, the dates of production, expiryand the preservatives used. Mere packaging cannot ensure any check on adulterationas the process is based on the system of garbage-in-garbage-out.

3. Governing Bodies – Public or private to owe responsibility

The governing bodies, which is administering the process, certainly ownsresponsibility of the failure of any system, which leads to adulteration. Thegovernment should lay down stringent rules as well as ensure that the rules arefollowed.

Since adulteration takes place due to scarcity of a commodity, the government orthe governing body should also anticipate shortfalls and put a strict check on anti-elements of the society who can cause adulteration.

4. Public Awareness Programme

Public opinion and concern over adulteration of food products has probably neverbeen more exacting as now. Yet, general public awareness about the food safetyand knowledge about taking up quality issues with enforcement agencies remainsdismally low, according to an interim study report conducted by the ConsumerCoordination Council (CCC), a coalition of consumer groups.

Ministry of Food Processing Industries recently initiated a survey to understand thelevel of public awareness on food quality. The study was conducted in seven citiesacross four regions - North (Delhi), West (Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Bhopal), East


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 59

(Cuttack, Rourkela), and South (Pondicherry), with a total sample size of about400 people.

Two types of questionnaires were developed- one for consumers and the other forthe enforcement agencies.

Results across all locations surveyed showed that packaged food products scoredover loose ones on account of quality, quantity and packaging details such as dateof manufacture. Further, over 90 per cent consumers preferred to buy fresh foodproducts over processed foods, which the respondents perceived either as not beingfresh or containing harmful preservatives.

Also, consumer awareness about the need for food quality was satisfactory in thecities covered, given that majority of consumers in all locations surveyed said theyassess the quality of loose and processed food before buying. While the one attributethat consumers were most concerned about, was the manufacturing details of thefood product, ISI/Agmark indication and quality of seal were other areas of concern.Interestingly, while levels of awareness about lodging complaints under thePrevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act were reasonable, knowledge aboutprocedures for registering complaints remained poor.

The respondents were found to be comparatively more aware about the PFA Actand Standard of Weights & Measures Rules (for packaged commodities), than rulespertaining to Packaging and Labeling of foods products. Besides, no more than 6%of consumer to have acted on the basis of food quality legislations and took uprelevant issues with the enforcement agencies.

The majority of consumers in the cities felt the level of general public consciousnessabout food safety and quality standards was poor. Steps suggested to increaseawareness levels about such issues include campaigns in schools and colleges,circulation of pamphlets and literature, and TV and print media campaigns.

The number of prosecution cases regarding food products was found to be the highestin Ahmedabad (234) in year 2002-03, and the highest number of inspections oflicensed establishments also took place in Ahmedabad (11,140) in year 2002-03.

A number of publicity materials on food safety and quality control have been broughtout. These have been distributed free of cost to the States/UTs and ConsumerOrganization. A kit for detection of adulterant which could be used by housewiveshave been developed and a few of these kits were distributed free of cost to theconsumer organizations. 13 training programmes for consumer’s organizations havebeen organized at different places to acquaint them with the importance of foodsafety and quality control activities. Approximately, 190 Consumer Organizationshave been imparted training.

Monitoring Bodies and Policy

Food safety through Food Quality Control Programme is of Paramount importance

Ghosh

60 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

in achieving the objective of “Health for all”. It can be achieved through the combinedefforts and cooperation of food industry (Self-Disciplined Programmes and Codesof Practices) and the Government Authorities (Legislative Measures). In all thecases, the co-operation of the Consumer Organizations/Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) is a must.

The legislative measures adopted for food safety are provided under the Preventionof Food Adulteration (PFA) Act- a piece of Central Legislation promulgated in1954 which repealed all earlier Acts of the State Governments.

(A) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954- Prohibitions andrestrictions

The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 aims at making provisions for theprevention of adulteration of food. The Act, “which came into effect from 1st June,1955 has been amended thrice, in 1964, 1976 and 1986 for plugging the loopholesand making the punishments more stringent and empowering the consumers andvoluntary organizations to play more effective role in its implementation. Thefollowing preventions and restrictions are at present provided in the act to preventadulteration:

a. Prohibition on the manufacture, storing, sale or distribution of certain foodarticles

No person shall manufacture, store, sell or distribute-

(i) any adulterated food,

(ii) any misbranded food,

(iii) food articles to be sold under licence without fulfilling the conditions of thelicence,

(iv) any food article the sale of which is prohibited by the Food (Health) Authorityin the interest of public health,

(v) any food article in contravention of any other provision of the Act or theRules, or

(vi) any adulterant.

The act of storing an adulterated article of food would be an offence only if storingis for sale. The sale of a part of the stored article constitutes an offence distinct andindependent from the offence of storing for sale.

b. Prohibition on use of certain expressions while labeling of edible oilsand fats: The package, label or the advertisement of edible oils and fatsshall not use the expressions Super-Refined, Extra-Refined, Micro-Refined,Double-Refined, Ultra-Refined, Anti-Cholesterol, Cholesterol Fighter, Sooth-ing to Heart, Cholesterol Friendly, Saturated Fat Free or such other expres-


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 61

sions which are exaggerations of the quality of the product.

c. Prohibition on sale of certain admixtures: For example, cream which hasnot been prepared exclusively from milk; milk which contains any addedwater; ghee which contains any added matter not exclusively derived frommilk fat; a mixture of two or more edible oils as an edible oil; and turmericcontaining any foreign substances, etc.

d. Prohibition on use of acetylene gas (carbide gas) in artificially ripening offruits.

e. Prohibition on sale of food articles coated with mineral oil, except inaccordance with the permitted standards.

f. Restriction on sale of ghee having less than specified Reichert value exceptunder the “AGMARK” seal.

g. Prohibition on sale of admixtures of ghee or butter or on its use as an ingredientin the preparation of an article of food.

h. Any food item resembling honey, but not pure honey, shall not be marked“honey”.

i. Restriction on sale of kangra tea except only after it is graded and marked inaccordance with the provisions of Agricultural Produce (Grading andMarketing) Act, 1937 and the Rules made there under.

j. Conditions for sale of flavoured tea only by those manufacturers. Who areregistered with Tea Board and the package bearing the label, ‘FLAVOUREDTEA’ (Common name of permitted flavour, percentage and Registration No.)

k. Restriction on sale of common salt No person shall, sell or offer or exposefor sale or have in his premises for the purpose of sale, common salt fordirect human consumption unless the same is iodised.

l. Restriction on use and sale of artificial sweeteners except that saccharinsodium can be added to carbonated water, supari, pan masala and panflavouring material within the specified maximum limit and aspertaine maybe sold for diabetic use under medical advice.

m. Prohibition on sale of permitted food colours, i.e. Synthetic colours, or theirmixtures or any preparation of such colours, except under a licence.

n. Prohibition on sale of permitted food additives, except only under the ISIcertification marks.

o. Flavouring agents: prohibition on use of coumarin and dihydro cocumarin,tankabean (dipteryl adorat) and b-asarane and cinamyl authracilate, asflavouring agents. Any extraneous addition of flavouring agent should bementioned on the label attached to any package of food so flavoured, in capitalletters in the following manner:

Ghosh

62 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

“Contains Added Flavour”

p. Restriction on use of preservatives: Preservative means a substance whichwhen added to food, is capable of inhibiting, retarding or arresting the processof fermentation, acidification or other decomposition of food.

Addition of Class I preservatives i.e. Common Salt, Sugar, Dextrose, Glucose(syrup), Spices, Vinegar or acetic acid, honey and edible vegetable oil, in any foodis not restricted, provided that the food article to which the preservative has beenadded conforms to the specifications laid down in the Act.

Class II preservatives such as Benzoic acid and its salts, sodium diacetate andsodium, potassium and calcium salts of lactic acid, etc. can be used only restrictively.Use of more than one Class II preservative is prohibited.

q. Conditions for sale of a food article: Every utensil or container, used formanufacturing, preparing or containing any food or ingredients therefore,and second hand tin containers for packaging of edible oils and fats, meantfor sale, shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition, away fromimpure air or dust, properly covered at all times, and such utensils or containersshall not be used for any other purpose. Use of rusty containers, improperlytinned copper or brass containers, containers of aluminium or plastic notconforming to ISI specifications, etc., in preparation of food, is also prohibited.Besides, certain special conditions for sale of certain articles such asasafoetida, salseed fat, lactic acid, edible oils, katha, margarine, milk powder,etc. have also been laid down.

With effect from 22.2.95, no person shall sell powdered spices except in packedform. No person shall sell or serve food in any commercial establishment in plasticarticles used in catering and cutlery, unless the plastic material used in catering andcutlery articles, conform to the food grade plastic.

r. Purchaser may have food analysed: A purchaser of any article of food, or arecognised consumer association, may also get an article of food analysed bythe public analyst on payment of the prescribed fees, provided that the vendoris informed of this intended action at the time of purchase. Thereafter, thepurchaser or the consumer associations, have to follow the same procedureas discussed above in the case of Food Inspectors. If the article of food isfound to be adulterated, the fees paid by the purchaser or the associationshall be refunded.

s. Offences and penalties: Import, manufacture, storage, sale or distribution ofany food article, which is adulterated by allowing its quality or purity to fallbelow the prescribed standard, or is misbranded, or in contravention of anyprovision of the Act or Rules. Penalty is minimum imprisonment of six monthsthat may extend upto 3 years and minimum fine of Rs 1000.


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 63

Import, manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of any adulterant not injurious tohealth. Penalty is minimum imprisonment of six months that may extend upto 3years and minimum fine of Rs 1000.

Preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample or exercising his powers. Penaltyis minimum imprisonment of six months that may extend upto 3 years and minimumfine of Rs 1000.

Giving a false warranty in writing in respect of any food article. Penalty is minimumimprisonment of six months that may extend upto 3 years and minimum fine of Rs1000.

Import, manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of any food article, which isadulterated within the meaning of any of the sub-clauses of the PFA Act; or anyadulterant, which is injurious to health. Penalty is minimum imprisonment of oneyear that may extend upto 6 years and minimum fine of Rs 2000.

Sale or distribution of any food article containing any poisonous or other ingredientinjurious to health, which is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Penaltyis minimum imprisonment of three years that may extend upto life and minimumfine of Rs 5000.

B. Role of Central Government

Central government bodies are given the responsibility to perform the followingfunctions:

(i) To review the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Rulesand Standards in consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards,a statutory Advisory Committee under the Act and its 9 technical Sub-Committees.

(ii) To conduct examination for the chemists for their appointment as PublicAnalysts under the Act.

(iii) To organize training programmes for various functionaries (viz., Senior levelOfficers, Chemists, Food inspectors and Consumer Organizations) under the Act.

(iv) To approve the State Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

(v) To examine and approve the labels of Infant Foods.

(vi) To evaluate and monitor the progress of implementation of the Act in theStates/ UTs. by collecting periodical reports and spot visits.

(vii) To liaise with National and International Food Quality Control Organizationsi.e. Bureau of Indian Standards (associated with certification of processedfood articles). Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Operating AgmarkScheme, Ministry of Food Processing Industries implementing Fruits ProductsOrder (FPO) and Codex Alimentarious Commission.

Ghosh

64 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

(viii) To ensure quality of food imported into India under the Provisions of the PFAAct.

(ix) To create Consumer awareness.

(x) To augment the Food Testing Laboratories.

C. Central Food Laboratories

Four Central Food Laboratories have been established under the Act, which workas appellate laboratories for the purpose, of analysis of appeal samples, of foodarticles lifted by the Food Inspectors of States/UTs and Local Bodies. The twolaboratories-Food Research and Standardization Laboratory, Ghaziabad and CentralFood Laboratory, Calcutta are under the administrative control of the DirectorateGeneral of Health Services and the other two Laboratories viz., (a) Central FoodLaboratory, Pune and (b) Central Food Laboratory, Mysore, are under theadministrative control of Government of Maharashtra and Council of Scientificand Industrial Research, Government of India, respectively.

D. State Food Laboratories

There are 81 Food Laboratories under the administrative control of States/UTsGovernments and Local Bodies to look into implementation of Food Safetyregulations.

E. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

As a response to emerging challenges, FDA has reorganised itself by creatingspecialised centres.

FDA Mission are listed below:

1. Consumer must get safe, unadulterated and good quality food items

2. Prevention, evaluation of adverse reactions and hazards.

3. Developing, enforcing guidelines for eateries.

4. Preparation of – Minimum safety standards, Standard operating procedures,Good kitchen practices.

5. Centre for information resources.

6. Inspection, sampling, evaluation and monitoring.

FDA Activities:

1. Collection of statistical data on manufacturers, wholesalers, traders

2. Collect information on types of confectionery milk and milk productsmanufactured, location of manufactures Gram panchayat, Municipal orcorporations areas, Area of manufacturing units, Qualification and experience


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 65

of the person in-charge and other persons responsible for manufacturing. Inhouse and outside testing facilities.

3. Chalk out planned Inspection programmes and sampling programme

• Evaluate results of inspection sampling

• Assess compliance level upgradation

• Administrative and legal action to penalize offenders.

F. WHO assisted activities

(i) Under WHO assisted –activities, the Government of India has arrangedtraining programmes for Analysts/Chemists working in the food laboratoriesof the States/UTs in the field of sophisticated analysis for presence of heavymetal, Aflatoxin, pesticide residues, microbiological analysis and foodpackaging materials.

(ii) Survey on the quality of Plastic Containers in use for Food Packaging wascarried out at Central Food Laboratories, Calcutta and Pune.

(iii) Survey to find out Pesticide Residues in Food Articles was carried out atCentral Food Laboratories, Calcutta, Pune, Mysore and National Institute ofNutrition, Hyderabad.

(iv) Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, Central FoodLaboratory, Pune and Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta have carried outsurvey on Quality of food packaging material.

(v) Training programme for the Chemists in detection of adulteration in milk hasbeen arranged.

(vi) Training programmes were organized for recognised Consumer Organizationsso as to acquaint them with the latest developments of the programme ofSafety & Quality Control of Food.

(vii) A workshop on involvement of Consumer Associations (N.G.Os) in theprogramme of Food and Drug Safety and Quality Control was held atConstitution Club, New Delhi on January 14th and 15th, 1997, incollaboration with the Central Health Education Bureau, New Delhi.

Food Policy Reforms – Issues Still Persist

1. No clear definitions: Manufacture, Storing, Sale and Distribution is regulatedby the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Unlike Drugs andCosmetics Act, 1940, the PFA Act, 1954 does not stipulate separate licensesfor manufacturing, selling by wholesale or retail. It does not also provideelaborate conditions to be complied before a license is granted or renewed.The concept of Good Manufacturing practices, Good laboratory practices,

Ghosh

66 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

quality assurance, and minimum level of hygiene is ambiguous and open tomisinterpretation. Sanitation is not incorporated under the Act. Minimumstandards are prescribed for number of food articles and if the article conformto these standards, food article is considered not adulterated though it maybe still of poor quality.

2 Ambiguity of law in terms of fixing responsibility of adulteration: Mostof the sale of food articles is in loose condition. Therefore, most of the times,the responsibility cannot be fixed on the person responsible for adulteration.Food articles like Oil, Milk are adulterated with cheaper oils or by additionof water. Cases of food poisoning due to bacterial contamination resultingfrom unhygienic conditions and improper storage of food articles arecommon.With the continuous economic liberalization, manufacturingprocesses are expected to become more elaborate and sophisticated, thedistribution network to widen and more integrated. This will only increasethe challenges before enforcement agencies.

3 Enforcement is Weak: The rules are stringent but its enforcement is weak.For instance as a part of FPO, every food producing factory should have pre-requisite facility to ensure quality. In the milk dairy system we have theMPO, which has laid down stringent orders to mention the day and time ofpackaging of milk in the containers. Prevention of Food Adulteration Actalso lists down the strict rules, which, if not followed, are punishable by law.

Management techniques are also available in the country, which can helpprevent food adulteration. But adulteration is more of ethics including thevalue system of the society. No straightjacket management technique canhelp in preventing this menace. Only media campaign can generate awarenessand enforce accountability on those who are involved in the system.

4 Punishment for offence is inadequate: We have seen that the monetarygains out of adulteration are huge. Given that the punishments under the acteven if convicted is hardly 6 months to 3 years jail term and penalty rangingfrom Rs.1000 to Rs.5000 is no deterrent for agencies who are involved inadulteration for profit enhancement.

5 NGOs and also Government are concentrating on Packaged food which isconsumed by merely 10-15% of the population and account for merely 1 out of100 times of food item purchasing, while the loose food product sellers, Halwaiand eateries are overlooked where 90% of the population is exposed toadulteration. Therefore, there is need for government to shift its focus on eateries,hawkers and loose food products agencies in greater interest of public health.

Way Forward

1. Consumer to be educated on safety norms, common adulterant and waysto detect adulteration themselves: Selection of wholesome and non-


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 67

adulterated food is essential for daily life to make sure that such foods do notcause any health hazard. Although it is not possible to ensure wholesomefood only on visual examination when the toxic contaminants are present inppm/ppb level. However, visual examination of the food before purchasemakes sure to ensure absence of insects, visual fungus, foreign matters, etc.Therefore, due care taken by the consumer at the time of purchase of foodafter thoroughly examining can be of great help. Secondly, label declarationon packed food is very important for knowing the ingredients and nutritionalvalue. It also helps in checking the freshness of the food and the period ofbest before use. The consumer should avoid taking food from an unhygienicplace and food being prepared under unhygienic conditions. Such types offood may cause various diseases. Consumption of cut fruits being sold inunhygienic conditions should be avoided. It is always better to buy certifiedfood from reputed shop.

2. Trust of people in the system is very low: Very few people have so farreported or acted on adulteration issue. This is because of peoples don’t expectaction from the enforcement agencies on grounds of corruption and overallattitude of the officials. Government needs to make the overall functioning ofthe department transparent and resort to media campaign to make peopleaware of the process and functioning of the department. This will build trustof people in the system.

3 People aware of PFA Act, 1954 but have poor knowledge of how toregister complain: The awareness of consumer about various foodadulteration act was reasonable, but amongst those aware, most did not knowhow and where to register complain. In this regard, government needs toexpand its contact points and also campaign to make it popular like police,fire, and medical emergency services for achieving expected response fromconsumers.

4. The Government should set up mobile testing laboratories in order to createawareness on adulteration as well as speedy redressal of consumer complaints.

Also, frequent raids should be conducted by enforcement agencies to bringthose violating the norms to book. License renewal system should be mademore stringent so that organisations will refrain from violating norms on fearof likely non-renewal of their license.

5. The Government should bring about legislation to prevent food and relatedbusiness without a valid license and also simplifying some sections in thePFA Act, to help easy interpretation of act by consumers as well as enforcementagencies.

6. There should be differentiation between adulteration and substandard foodquality.

Ghosh

68 : 2(1)49-69, June, 2012

The mixing of one substance with another material causing harm to healthhad to be defined as true adulteration. Food Products not upto mark but nomixing found should be treaded as case of substandard quality. Punishmentsshould also be given accordingly.

7. Government should make it mandatory for the manufacturer of food items toissue quality analysis certificate by an authorised public analyst with everysale. This is similar to the way industrial goods must carry testing and qualitycertification from authorized certification agencies.

8. All types of food products should be covered under the PFA Act and providefor mandatory testing of Food additives, besides bringing microbiologicalspecifications for food products under the purview of the PFA Act. Soft drinksare one such example.

Questions

1. In light of the case, identify the steps that you expect from the new centraland state government to curb food adulteration in the country?

2. If you were the CEO of the company in food business, what would youpractice- Corporate Social Responsibility or Leverage Business Opportunity?Justify your comment.

3. In light of the violation of norms by multinational companies, if you were theenforcement officer, what action you would have taken to prevent repeat ofthe event?

4. Do you think that government while doing Policy Reforms in any sector hascompletely ignored the consumer protection issues? Can you cite examplesfrom other sectors where the companies have flouted consumer protection?

5. Do you agree with the conclusions drawn in the case? Justify your comment

Teaching Note

Overview

In the above case we have discussed how food companies are taking advantage ofweak regulations and even weaker enforcement. The case points out real lifesituations of adulteration, which the reader is likely to have faced so that he comesout with solutions to control such menace. The case also bring alive the case ofsociety also responsible for food adulteration.

Application

This case will be best suited to government bodies, social organizations and companyprofessionals related to food industry. It is also suitable for general public as it willeducate them of their social responsibility. As the issues discussed here are facedby almost every individuals in the country it is suitable for general public.


: 2(1)49-69, June, 2011 69

Management students could get an insight into the social responsibilities of company,government bodies and general public. Economic development cannot be separatefrom the social development of the country.

Objective of the Case

The case is a type of Complex case. This case will present the readers an insight of:

1. Social issues arising out of Food Adulteration in the country.

2. The case will provide insight into various harmful food contaminations &adulterations, which go unnoticed in day-to-day life.

3. The case points out real life situations of adulteration, which will encouragereader to come out with alternative solutions to curb menace on case-to-casebasis.

4. Case also points out that legislation or government alone cannot tackle theproblem of adulteration. Society at large needs to work towards its elimination.

Referenceshttp://mofpi.nic.in site for information on PFA Act, 1954 and government bodies.http://agmarknet.nic.in for information on Adulterants.The textbook “Economic Environment of Business” by Mishra and Puri.Outlook November 2003.

Food Adultration in India: Issue of Policy or Social System

Documents

Transcript of Food Adultration in India: Issue of Policy or Social System