Your ultimate adoption resource


ncsap.org keyword stats



Most current MSN search phrases:

adoption bunny
gambling Arnie's Party Warehouse
lawsuit against tattoo artist adoption clipart
child adoption clipart family
older adoption party supplies  

Food Safety in India: Challenges and Opportunities

Md. Wasim Aktar*a number of food safety problems in its
Pesticide Residue Laboratory, Departmentspice exports including high pesticide
of Agricultural Chemicals,residues, aflatoxin contamination and
Bidhan Chandra Krishithe use of prohibited food colorants. In
Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur-741252, Nadia,the mid-nineties, Indian dry chili
West Bengal, Indiaexports faced several rejections
1. Introductionincluding rejections in Spain due to
Rising incomes and urbanization, anpesticide residue in excess of
expanding domestic consumer basepermissible MRLs, and in the United
concerned about food quality and safety,States because residues of quinalphos, a
and rapidly growing agricultural exportspesticide not registered in the United
have been important drivers for theStates (Jaffee, 2005). Between 1998 and
increased attention to food safety in2000, Indian dry chili exports also
India. But the development of effectivefaced rejection in Germany, Italy, Spain
food safety systems is hampered by aand the U.K. due to the presence of
number of factors, including:aflatoxin.8 More recently, exports of
restrictive government marketingchili and curry powder faced problems
regulations, weak policy and regulatorydue to the use of the prohibited red dye
framework for food safety, inadequateSudan 1 (Jaffee, 2005). In February
enforcement of existing standards, a2005, a massive recall of some 600 food
multiplicity of government agenciesproducts took place in the UK because of
involved, weak market infrastructure andthe detection of Sudan 1 in Worcester
agricultural support services. The smallsauce. This was the largest ever food
farm structure further limits farmerrecall in the U.K. and it affected all
capacity to meet increasing domestic andmajor retailers as well as large numbers
export food safety and SPS requirements.of food manufacturers and food service
Addressing food safety concerns in Indiacompanies, as the Worcester Sauces had
will require adoption of appropriatebeen used in the preparation of a large
legislation, strengthening capacity tonumber of different products. It is
enforce rules, promoting adoption ofestimated that this recall, and
good agricultural, manufacturing andassociated expenses, cost the U.K. and
hygiene practices, greater collectiveother European food manufacturers some
action, and some targeted investments.200 million Euros (Jaffee, 2005). The
Implementing these actions will requiresource of the Sudan 1 dye in the
joint efforts by the government and theWorcester sauce was traced to chili
private sector.powder imported from India in 2002.
Developing countries are payingFish and Fish Product Exports. Fish and
increased attention to food safety,fish products are one of India's
because of growing recognition of itslargestagricultural export earners,
potential impact on public health, foodtotaling US$1.3 billion in 2004/05. Over
security, and trade competitiveness.the years, India hasencountered several
Increasing scientific understanding offood safety problems with its fish and
the public health consequences of unsafefish product exports. Most prominent, in
food, amplified by the rapid global1997, the European Commission found the
transmission of information regardingindustry to be non-compliant in
the public health threats associatedmaintaining hygiene standards in fish
with food-borne and zoonotic diseasesprocessing plants. In May 1997 the
(e.g. E. coli and salmonella,European Commission banned Indian
bovine-spongiform encephalopathy (BSE),exports of fresh crustaceans and
severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARs)cephalopods and imposed border testing
and H5N1 avian flu) through variousfor Salmonella and Vibrio spp. for
forms of media and the internet hasfrozen products (Henson, Saqib and
heightened consumer awareness about foodRajasena, 2005). Because of continued
safety risks to new levels globallydetection of salmonella, all exports of
(Lindsay 1997, Unnevehr 2003, Buzby andfish and fishery products to the EU from
Unnevehr 2003, Kafersteing 2003, Ewen etIndia were banned in 1997. While India
al. 2006, Bramhmbatt 2005). Increasedhas for the most part been able to
understanding of the impact ofaddress the hygiene-related problems
mycotoxins, which can contaminateplaguing its export of fishery products
dietary staples such wheat, maize,in the late nineties, Indian exports are
barley and peanuts, has further raisednow under scrutiny because of problems
food security and public health concernsrelated to antibiotic residues and
in many developing countries (Dohlmanbacterial inhibitors (antibiotics,
2003, Bhat and Vasanthi 2003, Unnevehrpreservatives and chlorine) (Henson,
2003).Saqib and Rajasena, 2005). It is widely
As developing countries seek to expandacknowledged that in the future, heavy
agricultural exports especially tometals and other contaminants could be
OECDcountries, many are receiving aan emerging issue particularly because
wake-up call on the challenges ofof the increased attention to heavy
meeting both government and privatemetals in the EU. Surveillance of
sanitary and phyto-sanitary (SPS)fisheries products for heavy metals has
standards in export markets (Otsuki etalready begun in the U.K.
al. 2001, Henson 2003, Unnevehr 2003,Although India has been able to broadly
World Bank 2005a). Private standards orcomply with food safety requirements for
supplier protocols have grown ineach of the export commodities mentioned
prominence over the past decade as aabove, it continues to face problems
means to further ensure compliance withacross a range of agro-food exports.
official regulations, to fill perceivedEvidence of continuing trouble is
gaps in such regulations, and/or toclearly apparent from Import Refusal
facilitate the differentiation ofReports issued each month by the USFDA
company or industry products from thosefor food and drug imports into the
of competitors. Trends in privateUnited States. Most recently, in both
standards increasingly tend to blendApril and May 2006, India had one of the
food safety and quality managementhighest rejections among all countries
concerns (i.e. the recent creation ofexporting to the USA; India faced 176
ISO 22000), or to have protocols whichrejections in May, 2006 and 211
combine food safety, environmental, andrejections in April, 2006.9 While a
social (child labor, labor conditions,significant number of the 176 rejections
animal welfare) parameters (Willems etwere issued for drugs and cosmetics, the
al. 2005, World Bank 2005). At the samegrounds for rejection among the various
time, increasing globalization of tradefood items included salmonella and/or
introduces greater risks of cross-borderfilth in raw peeled shrimp, prepared
transfer offood-borne illnesses. RecentIndian breads (paratha, roti), basmati
cases of disease episodes in the Unitedrice, sesame seeds, pepper, coriander
States resulting fromimported foodand chili powder; pesticide residues in
produce, such as cyclospora fromlentils; failure to declare the color
raspberries, hepatitis A fromadditive FD & C Yellow No. 5 in banana
strawberries and salmonella fromchips; and unsafe coloring in cream
cantaloupe (Calvin 2003), illustrate tobiscuits. The number of rejections and
developing countries the potential foodthe range of problems reveal extensive
safety challenges that can arise in asafety problems in Indian food products.
more globalized market.It is also reasonable to assume that the
Weaknesses in food safety systems canextent of the problems faced by domestic
have a high cost to society and theconsumers is far more serious as there
global economy. The World Healthmany more micro, small and medium
Organization (WHO) estimates that 2.2enterprises that cater to domestic
million people worldwide die fromconsumers and generally pay less
diarrheal diseases caused by a host ofattention to food safety issues. By
bacterial, viral and parasiticcontrast, exporters are likely to be
organisms, which are spread bymore well-established and larger firms
contaminated water (WHO 2006a). Inwith better technology and relatively
India, it is estimated that 20% ofmore cognizant about food safety
deaths among children under five areconcerns.
caused by diarrheal disease (WHO 2006b).7. Challenges to Improve Food Safety in
The SARs outbreak in 2003 in East AsiaIndia
is estimated to have caused an immediateImproving food safety in India, whether
economic loss of about 2% of thefor the domestic market or for export
Region's GDP in the second quarter oftrade, is hampered by a number of
that year, even though only 800 peoplestructural, policy, institutional,
died from the disease (Brahmbatt 2005).1technical and cultural barriers.
The Lowy Institute for InternationalPolicy and Regulatory Environment. A
Policy (2006) estimates that a mildnumber of policies and regulations
global outbreak of the avian flu cangoverning agricultural marketing and
cost the world 1.4 million lives andfood processing complicate the
close to 0.8% of GDP (US$330 billion) inimplementation of food safety measures
lost economic output. At the same time,by the government and by the private
country reactions to protect itssector. Two critical marketing
citizens from food safety risks can alsoregulations are the State level
have large consequences for exportingAgricultural Produce Marketing
countries. Otsuki et al (2001) examined(Development and Regulation) Acts and
the projected impact of the EU's newthe Small Scale Industry Reservation
harmonized aflatoxin standard on thePolicy. Almost all states in India have
value of trade flows to 15 Europeanan Agricultural Produce Marketing (APM)
countries from 9 African countries andAct, which gives state governments the
found that it could decrease Africansole authority to establish and manage
exports by 64% (US$670 million).wholesale markets.10 The Act, adopted by
Food safety concerns are gettingmost states in the 1960s and 1970s,
widespread attention in India. Theprescribes the setting up of a network
country's rural development strategy,of state controlled "regulated markets"
for which a key element is the promotionor mandis and the establishment of
of increased agricultural exports as aMarket Committees to operate each. All
means to foster rural growth and poverty"notified" agricultural commodities
reduction, is coming up againstgrown in areas surrounding the market
tightening food safety and SPS standardsare required by law to be sold only
in prospective markets (World Bankthrough these markets, with the number
2006a, 2006b). From a domesticof notified commodities varying by state
perspective, the large national marketand market. Implementation of the Act
of 1.2 billion people is undergoingand its enforcement vary considerably by
rapid change. Increasing incomes, astate. In 2005, there were nearly 8,000
growing middle class, increasedregulated markets in the whole
urbanization and literacy, and acountry.11 The requirement that all
population highly tuned to internationalagricultural commodities be channeled
trends fueled by the informationthrough the regulated markets not only
technology boom are creating a largeincreases transactions costs, but is
consumer base giving increasing value toalso a major obstacle to preserving
food quality and safety. Improving foodproduce quality and traceability. In
safety systems, to meet domestic and2003, the GOI formulated a model
export requirements, however, face aAgricultural Produce Market Act for
number of policy, regulatory,state governments to adopt, which
infrastructural and institutionalremoves the restrictions on farmer
obstacles.direct sales and permits entities
2. OBJECTIVESoutside of government to establish and
(i) To review the main drivers for theoperate wholesale markets. To date only
increased priority to addressing food10 of the 28 states and Union
safety risks in India in both the exportTerritories have adopted the model
and domestic markets, (ii)To examine theAct.12
nature and effectiveness of governmentThe Small Scale Industry (SSI)
and private responses to the food safetyReservation restricts the processing of
challenges, with special focus on highcertain commodities to the small scale
value agriculture; (iii)To identify thesector. Although the list of commodities
constraints to more effective responses;subject to this restriction has been
(iv) To examine the implications forreduced significantly during the last
policy; v) To review food safety withdecade, several processed agricultural
special relation to Pesticides; and vi)products are still subject to SSI
To discuss briefly about the food safetyreservation, such as rapeseed, mustard
from consumer point of view.and ground nut oil,13 bread, pastry,
3. Types of Food Safety Riskspickles and chutneys, and hard boiled
Food safety risks, as they relate tosugar candy (Department of Small Scale
human health, arise from of a number ofIndustries 2006). The SSI reservation
factors. These include: (i) microbialimposes constraints on enterprises'
pathogens (bacteria, viruses, parasites,ability to undertake the necessary
fungi and their toxins); (ii) pesticideinvestments (e.g. HACCP) and
residues, food additives, livestockcertifications required to meet the
drugs and growth hormones; (iii)domestic and international food safety
environmental toxins such as heavyand SPS requirements.14
metals (e.g. lead and mercury); (iv)There is a complex web of laws governing
persistent organic pollutants (e.g.the processed food sector which
dioxins); and (v) zoonotic diseasescomplicate implementation of food safety
(e.g.Avian flu, Japanese encephalitis,measures. These laws are enforced by 8
tuberculosis) (Buzby and Unnevehr 2003,different ministries. Some of the most
Ewen et al. 2004).2 The health riskscritical are: Prevention of Food
associated with these agents impact theAdulteration Act 1954 implemented by the
whole food supply chain, starting fromMinistry of Health and Family Welfare;
input supply to the farm to the consumerMilk and Milk Products Order 1992 and
table (Figure 1).Agricultural Produce Grading and Marking
Figure 1 Food Supply Chain: PotentialAct 1937 implemented by the Ministry of
Sources of Food Safety HazardsAgriculture; the Essential Commodities
Common use of pesticides in modernAct 1955, Standards of Weights and
farming inevitably leaves some residuesMeasures Act 1976, Consumer Protection
on food crops.Act 1986, and Bureau of Indian Standards
Potential food safety hazards at HOMEAct 1986 implemented by the Ministry of
can be divided into three categories:Food, Consumer Affairs and Public
1. BiologicalDistribution; the Fruit Products Order
2. Chemical1955 implemented by the Ministry of Food
3. PhysicalProcessing Industries; import and export
While all the above type of hazards areregulations implemented by the Ministry
important from viewpoint of prevention,of Commerce; Trade in Endangered Species
the focus here will be on theAct implemented by the Ministry of
microbiological hazards and in that onForest and Environment; Atomic Energy
foodborne bacteria, which can lead toAct 1962/Control of Irradiation of Food
illness if the food is mishandled,Rule 1991 implemented by the Ministry of
particularly for those more at risk --Science and Technology; and Infant Milk
the very young, the elderly and theSubstitutes, Feed Bottles and Infant
immuno-compromised.Foods (Regulation of Production, Supply
Certain processes or handling practicesand Distribution) Act 1992 implemented
by consumers in the home have beenby the Ministry of Human Resource
identified as being essential orDevelopment (Patnaik 2005).
critical in preventing foodborneThese laws also authorize several
illness. These practices, which preventagencies to lay down standards for food
or control the "meals" microbialproducts: (i) Bureau of Indian Standards
contamination associated with foodborne(BIS) of the Ministry of Food, Consumer
illness, are under the direct control ofAffairs and Public distribution under
the consumer, from food acquisitionthe BIS Act, (ii) Ministry of Food
through disposal.Processing Industry under the Fruit
They are purchasing, storing,Products Order, (iii) Ministry of
pre-preparation, cooking, serving, andAgriculture under "Ag Mark" and the FPO,
handling leftovers. Failure to take(iv) Ministry of Health and Family
appropriate action at these criticalWelfare (MOHFW) under the PFA Act; (v)
points could result in foodborneExport Inspection Council under the
illness.Export-Import Policy, and (vi) the
4. Pesticides and Food SafetyDefense Ministry for their own
Fruits, vegetables and cereal cropspurchases.
treated with pesticides are perceived byThese laws and associated regulations in
some as a health risk, and this beliefsome cases prescribe contradictory or
along with affordability, and timediffering standards. For example, while
pressures may all play a role inthe Fruit Products Order (FPO) allows
limiting consumption of plant foods,the use of artificial sweeteners in
such as cereal grains, fruit andfruit products, the Prevention of Food
vegetable consumption of consumers inAdulteration (PFA) Act bans it.
Asia. The World Health OrganisationMandatory declaration labels required by
(WHO), the World Cancer Research Fundthe PFA differ from those of the
(WCRF) and many other national andPackaged Commodity Regulation Rules
inter-governmental agencies recommend(1977) under the Standard Weights and
that adults consume at least 400g ofMeasures Act. The emulsifier and
fruit and vegetables per day and 25-30stabilizers permitted for use in jams
grammes of dietary fibre per day, butand chutneys under the PFA differ from
analysis of current dietary patternsthose allowed under the FPO.
around the world indicate that manyIn 1998, the GOI began the process of
consumer are not achieving these dietaryrationalizing the legal and regulatory
goals, particularly those who are lessframework for food and food processing.
affluent. AFIC's Short Briefing onThe Prime Minister's Council on Trade
Pesticides, Food Safety and Health isand Industry established a Task Force on
intended to provide a science-basedFood and Agro-Industries Management
factual overview of the issue, to enablePolicy to recommend options for
consumers to make better informed choicerationalizing the various policies and
about their diet, in particular fruit,regulations. The outcome was a new Food
vegetables and grains consumption, andSafety and Standards Bill, which was
allay unwarranted anxieties andsubmitted to Parliament in August 2005
concerns.and is awaiting approval. The Bill aims
Definition of Pesticide: The Food andto consolidate the laws relating to
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) defines afood. The key provisions of Bill
pesticide as 'any substance or mixtureinclude: (i) the repeal of a number of
of substances intended for preventing,Acts and Orders;15 (ii) the
destroying, attracting, repelling, orestablishment of a Food Safety and
controlling any pest including unwantedStandards Authority of India; (iii)
species of plants or animals during thedefinition of the standards for food
production, storage, transport,additives, contaminants, genetically
distribution, and processing of food,modified and organic foods, packaging
agricultural commodities, or animaland labeling, and food imports; (iii)
feeds or which may be administered toaccreditation of laboratories, research
animals for the control ofinstitutions and food safety auditors;
ectoparasites'(iv) licensing and registration of food
Natural Toxins: Substances that arebusiness and setting penalties for
capable of causing cancer are virtuallyoffenses; and (v) establishment of a
everywhere, even in natural compounds.Food Safety Adjudication Tribunal
The FDA estimates that the intake of(Ministry of Food Processing Industries
carcinogens from man-made pesticide2005). Approval of the Bill will be an
residues is extremely small compared toimportant milestone in strengthening
carcinogenic residues that plantsfood safety systems in India.
produce naturally.There are a large number of government
According to Bruce Ames, a professor ofagencies involved in agricultural
molecular biology and biochemistry atmarketing activities, more broadly or
the University of California, more thanwith respect to specific commodities,
99.99 percent of the pesticideswhich complicates effective
Americans ingest are "nature'simplementation of a coherent food safety
pesticides" or "natural toxins"strategy for the country. As in the case
(Hotchkiss, 1992; Moore, 1989).of the soft drink contamination, the
Natural toxins are present in all plantsmultiple laws and agencies added to the
and such food products as beans,confusion. The BIS was charged with
lettuce, apple juice, wine, blacksetting the standards for pesticides in
pepper, spinach, peanut butter and manysoft drinks, while the MOHFW is charged
others. Of the known natural toxins,with setting the pesticide standards for
which concentrate in parts per thousandbottled water.
versus parts per billion in syntheticSmallholder Agriculture. The current
pesticides, none has been shown to causestructure of the farm sector in India
cancer (Hotchkiss, 1992; Moore, 1989).constrains farmer capacity to meet
Reasons of pesticide residues in fooddomestic and international food safety
Pesticide residues may be present instandards. Farming in India is dominated
food because of the following reasons:by small farmers - the average farm size
1) Direct use of pesticides on foodin 1990/00 was 1.8 ha (NABARD 2002).
crops;Most farmers face credit constraints
2) Animal feeding on pesticide treated(World Bank 2004), and literacy rates
feed;are low.16 These constraints impose
3) Environmental contaminationlimits on the number of farmers capable
Pesticide Use on the Farm: Many ofto adopt more sophisticated farm
today's food producers are taking anpractices and undertake the necessary
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)investments (e.g. land improvements,
approach to preventing, reducing orobtaining necessary certifications, cold
eliminating pest problems. Growers andstorage) to meet more stringent food
processors must make complicatedquality and safety requirements. They
decisions prior to planting, during theincrease the cost of transacting
growing season, and during postharvestbusiness and monitoring compliance with
handling. Scientific IPM strategies givefood safety standards. Stringent land
the grower economic incentives forpolicies, e.g. land ceilings and
sustaining long-term crop protectionrestrictions on land rental, limit
with minimal disruption to thepossibilities for greater land
environment. The agricultural communityamalgamation (World Bank 2006c).
typically will use pesticidesInternational experience indicates,
judiciously as part of the IPM strategyhowever, that farm size constraints may
whenever proven alternatives are notbe overcome through innovative
available for pest control. Growers areinterventions such as organizing farmers
hiring professional crop consultantsinto producer groups, establishing
with increasing frequency for advice oncollection centers (by supermarkets and
maintaining or increasing productionexporters), using contract farming
through the utilization of IPM programsarrangements, and by creating
structured toward their specificpublic-private partnerships to assist
agronomic situations.farmers in a variety of ways, including
Integrated pest management: It is anhelp in obtaining the capital required
ecological approach to pest managementto make on-farm improvements and other
in which all available controlinvestments (e.g. grading or cooling
techniques are consolidated into afacilities), developing and improving
unified program so that pest populationsfarming skills through joint extension
can be managed in such a manner thatprovision, and assistance in acquiring
economic damage is avoided and adversethe required national and international
side effects are minimized. Practicescertifications (Berdegué et al. 2003,
used as a part of this managementBoselie et al. 2003, Dries et al 2004,
philosophy include the following: 1)Reardon and Swinnen 2004, Reardon and
destruction of crop debris, 2) havingTimmer 2005a, 2005b).
pests feed and concentrate on trapIn order to address various food safety
crops, 3) crop rotation, 4) selectivityconcerns in both the spices and fresh
of planting and harvest dates, 5) soiland processed fruit and vegetable
test analysis for crop nutrient needs,sectors, some exporters initiated
6) planting crop species adapted forcontract farming operations or "vendor
local conditions, 7) using geneticallyscreening" programs. One industry that
improved crop varieties with resistancehas been especially successful in
to specific pests, 8) using biologicalestablishing contract farming
control, 9) predicting pest outbreaksarrangements and meeting stringent food
with computers, 10) pheromones forsafety and quality standards is the
trapping pests, 11) scouting andpickled gherkin industry. The industry,
monitoring for pests, 12) economicconsisting of some 42 companies and
thresholds as guides to pest control,nearly 50,000 smallholder outgrowers, is
13) better timing and application ofconcentrated in Karnataka, Andhra
pesticides, 14) use of biologicalPradesh, and Tamil Nadu. The leading
insecticides, 15) improved pesticidegherkin exporting companies each have
application efficiency, 16) adaptingseveral thousand farmers under contract.
promising technology, including the useThe companies provide intensive
of infrared scanners, satellite photos,oversight and maintain extensive records
gene-splicing biotechnology, and newof farmer practices, especially related
pesticide delivery systems thatto pesticide use. At least one company
incorporate farm-specific information onbegan the process of getting outgrowers
tractor mounted computers.certified under EurepGAP (World Bank
Pesticide Limits and Regulation:2006b). Contract farming has worked
Approval for use of any pesticide in arelatively well in the case of gherkins
country is subject to its safetyas almost the entire production from
evaluation. Safety levels for anyIndia is exported and there is no local
pesticide are calculated over a numbermarket. Hence contract enforcement has
of formal assessments. The Codexnot been a major challenge as in the
Alimentarius Commission is ancase of other commodities where the
international body which setsexport intensity is much lower and the
international guidelines on manymajority of production is consumed
elements of food safety, includingdomestically.
pesticides residues on food. TheseUntil recently, contract farming was
guidelines are not mandatory, but manyillegal in India as per the provisions
countries in Asia use these guidelines,of the APM Act. The only way
sometimes with additional scientificentrepreneurs can legally enter into
data determined by their nationalcontract farming with farmers is to
regulatory agencies to establish limitsobtain a special waiver from the APM Act
on use and also acceptable residuefrom the State Government. The new model
levels at point of sale.APM Act provides the legal framework and
Acceptable Daily Intake: One of the mostguidelines for contract farming. The
important tools in the safety evaluationprovisions in the model Act allow
of pesticide use on food crops is thecontract buyers to directly purchase
calculation of what is an Acceptablecommodities from farmers under
Daily Intake (ADI). The ADI for anyindividual contracts or from farmers'
given pesticide is a measure of themarkets. It also allows the direct sale
quantity of a particular chemical inof farm produce at the farmers' fields
food that can be consumed daily over awithout having them routed through
lifetime without any known risk toregulated markets. Adoption of the model
health. It is expressed in relation toAct by state governments will therefore
bodyweight.facilitate not only more efficient
ADI is derived by first conducting dietmarketing, but also improved food safety
trials on laboratory animals andand the adoption of improved
observing the maximum level of pesticideagricultural practices.
that can be consumed by the animal withWeak Extension Systems. The public
no observable adverse effect on health.agricultural extension systems at the
This level expressed as percentage ofstate level are very weak and have not
body weight is known as the Noeffectively caught up to the changing
Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAELneeds of farmers and the market (World
or NOEL), The investigations includeBank 2005b). In view of the GOI's
checks for birth defects, cancer,earlier concentration on food
reproductive changes, damage to theself-sufficiency, the state-level
nervous system, harm to organs such asDepartment of Agriculture (DoA)
the kidney or liver, and many otherextension systems generally focused on
measurable health indicators.cereals, particularly rice and wheat,
A safe level for human consumption iswith an emphasis on the transfer of
estimated by dividing the NOAEL onimproved varieties and management
humans by an uncertainty factor (usuallypractices. The weak coordination between
100) to allow for the possibility thatthe state DoAs and the other line
humans may more sensitive than thedepartments (e.g. Departments of
animals used for testing and also toIrrigation, Horticulture, Livestock,
account for possible variation inMarketing, etc) and the limited staff
sensitivity to the pesticide betweencapacity beyond the Department of
human individuals, for example adultsAgriculture also often translated to
and children. These results in an ADIlimited extension activities beyond
for humans which is 100 times lower thancereals, limiting its impact on
the NOAEL consumption rate establishedagricultural and market diversification
from trials on laboratory animals.trends. The weak coordination with
Acute Reference Dose: Safety evaluationresearch at the central level further
of all pesticides also requires anincreased the difficulty of ensuring
estimate of the acute refrence doseeffective research-extension-farmer
(ARfD). The ARfD is an estimate of thelinkages at the state level. In many
amount of a substance in food orstates, tight fiscal constraints
drinking water expressed as percentagecontributed to the breakdown of the
of body weight, that can be consumedstate extension machinery (Hanumantha
over a short period of time, usually oneRao 2003). Private extension provision
meal or one day, without any known(fee for service) is emerging. There are
effect on health. This figure is alsoan increasing number of input suppliers,
expressed as a percentage of bodytraders, contract buyers, supermarkets,
weight.and exporters which provide extension
Maximum Residue Levels: A maximum resideservices to farmers as an integral part
levels (MRL) is the maximum permissibleof their trading arrangements (World
quantity of pesticide that may still beBank 2005b). However in the national
present on the crop at point of sale. Itcontext, private extension remains
is derived from an assessment of thelimited.
residues found when the crop is treatedThe findings of a World Bank
according to good agriculturalagricultural marketing survey, covering
practices. The MRL is the maximum1,579 farmers producing high value crops
concentration of a pesticide residue(tomatoes, potatoes, mangoes, maize and
that is legally permitted in, or on, atumeric) in four states in India
food commodity, and is set by national(Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and
governments if the approval is given forMaharashtra) conducted during February
the use of the pesticide on specifiedto May 2005, confirm the limited
crops. MRLs are set to determine legaleffectiveness of the national extension
trading limit, and are not an indicatorsystem. Farmers primarily depended on
of risk to health. MRLs are set atpersonal observation or on other farmers
levels which would result in consumptionfor information about crop prices, post
of any residue at a level substantiallyharvest practices, irrigation,
lower than the ADI or the ARfD for thefertilizer and pesticide use (Table 2).
pesticide, and any pesticide whose MRLAlthough food safety concerns have not
could result in dietary intake whichbeen a major focus in the extension
might exceed the ADI or ARfD would notprogram, it is partly addressed through
receive approval.the increased Ministry of Agriculture
Pesticide Residue Monitoring: Under(MoA) priority to integrated pest
FFDCA, the Food and Drug Administrationmanagement (IPM). MoA established the
(FDA) and USDA share responsibility forNational Center for Integrated Pest
monitoring levels of pesticide residuesManagement in1988 to develop and promote
on foods. FDA enforces pesticideIPM technologies. Notably there has been
tolerances for all domestically produceda decline in total pesticide consumption
food shipped in interstate commerce andin India from 75,000 mt in 1990/91 to
in imported foods, except for meat,48,400 mt in 2003/03 (Directorate of
poultry and some egg products, which arePlant Protection and Quarantine 2006).
monitored by USDA. ManyPoor Infrastructure and Services in the
agriculturally-intensive states such asMarketing System. Reducing food safety
California and Florida also conductrisks from the farm to domestic and
extensive pesticide residue monitoringexport markets is constrained by
programs. FDA uses three approaches forinadequate infrastructure and
pesticide residue monitoring: 1)facilities, particularly at the
incidence/level monitoring, 2)wholesale markets. The World Bank
regulatory monitoring, and 3) Total DietAgricultural Marketing Survey also
Study (FDA, 1994).collected information on the operations
Total Diet Studies: To assess potentialof 78 wholesale markets in the four
health problems from contaminants, bothstates. The survey found that the
natural and man-made in the food supply,infrastructure and facilities in these
the WHO recommends total diet studiesmarkets are limited and rudimentary.
(TDS) as the one of the mostOverall, Maharashtra and UP had slightly
cost-effective means for assuring thatbetter infrastructure than the other two
people are not exposed to unsafe levelsstates. About 83% of markets had covered
of toxic chemicals through food. TDSshops, but only 18% had paved roads
provides an additional tool to assesswithin the market and 51% had public
whether or not any pesticides may betoilets. Access to warehouses is
present in the diet at levels whichlimited, except in Maharashtra (85%).
might pose a risk to health. A TDS isLess than 40% of markets had a drying
conducted by purchasing through standardarea and no markets in Orissa or Uttar
retail outlets a typical selection ofPradesh had cold storage facilities
foods commonly consumed in the country(compared to 5% in Tamil Nadu and 20% in
or region. The 'basket' of foods isMaharashtra).
processed and prepared as if for normalTable 2: Farmer Sources of Information.
consumption and then analysed in theWaste management and pest control in the
laboratory to measure total levels ofmarkets are very weak. Officials working
the substances of interest, for examplein the wholesale markets were asked how
pesticides. Drinking water and waterthe spoiled produce and waste products
used in cooking are also included in thewere disposed off. Fifty-four percent
assessments. The TDS provides a measureresponded that market employees or
of the average amount of the pesticidecontracted firms handled garbage
consumed by different age/sex groupsdisposal and waste management; 29%
living in a country. See box for anreported that they were just left to rot
example of an actual TDS and results forin the market, while 13% reported that
estimate of pesticide consumption.they were left for the animals to eat.
Risk Calculation: Risk = exposure xMarket officials were also asked about
toxicity. Risk of harm from a chemicalthe pest control measures they
depends on both the level of exposure toundertake. Fifty-nine percent indicated
the chemical and on the toxicity of thethat no particular control measure for
chemical (Chaisson et al., 1991).rats and insects are implemented in
Therefore, to quantify potential riskstheir market, 32% indicated it was up to
from consuming minute quantities of athe individual shop owners to take care
particular chemical residue in food,of their rat problems. Only 8% reported
scientists consider the toxicity of thethe market management or association or
chemical, the residue content of foodsa subcontracted firm took care of rat
and the amounts of these foods eaten byproblems. Reducing food safety risks
population subgroups. Populationwill require significant public and
subgroups such as infants, children,private investments to upgrade the
women, women of child-bearing age andmarket infrastructure and services. For
ethnic subgroups may be considered inregulated markets, this will also
risk assessments in addition to therequire improving the operational and
total population. The groups consideredfiduciary management to ensure that more
depend on the toxicologicresources are re-invested back into the
characteristics of a particularmarkets.
chemical. Risk assessments that considerCultural Issues. Religious beliefs
regional and seasonal variations alsofurther constrain the kinds of food
are performed.safety measures that could be adopted in
Exposure = residue concentration in foodIndia. The sacred value attached to
x amount of food consumed. Potentialcattle imposes limits on disease control
exposure to a chemical in a specificmeasures to address food safety and
food is assessed by multiplying thepublic health (BSE, foot and mouth
residue concentrations in food times thedisease), such as culling to limit
amount of food consumed by each persondisease spread or to create disease free
in the population. This exposure iszones.
expressed as milligrams of residue perInadequate grades and standards for the
kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kgdomestic market and poor enforcement.
BW/day). Potential dietary exposure to aThe Directorate of Marketing &
chemical is assessed by adding togetherInspection under the Department of
residue intakes from all foods.Agriculture and Cooperation is
Different assumptions regarding residueresponsible for enforcing and
concentrations in food may be used toimplementing the Agricultural Produce
assess exposure. A worst-case exposure(Grading and Marking) Act. Its mandate
scenario may be calculated usingincludes promoting standardization and
tolerance levels for pesticides in food.grading of agricultural products. Grades
This exposure assessment is theand standards have been prescribed for
theoretical maximum residue164 commodities under the APM Act for
contribution. Exposure may also bedomestic trade, for export trade and for
calculated using anticipated residuegrading at the producer's level. The
levels (Chaisson et al., 1991;AGMARK grades are primarily voluntary
California Agriculture,1994).grades covering aspects such as size,
5. Food Safety and the Indian Domesticvariety, weight, color, and moisture
Marketlevels. For certain items they also
Increasing incomes, urbanization, andcover parameters such acceptable levels
literacy, improved infrastructure andof organic and inorganic foreign matter
closer ties to global trends, especially(in pulses, for example) and other
during the last decade, are drivingchemical properties such as specific
changes in consumer demand andgravity for essential oils. Different
preferences in India. Sustained economicgrades and standards are laid out under
growth (6.0% per year in real terms fromAGMARK for domestic consumption versus
1990/91 to 2003/04) resulted in GDP perexports.
capita increasing by about 70%, fromThe Directorate provides third party
about US$315 in 1990 to US$538 in 2004certification under the AGMARK quality
(constant 2000 dollars). Nationalcertification scheme. The 'AGMARK' seal
poverty rates (headcount) declined fromis supposed to ensure quality and
38.9% (Central Statistical Organizationsafety. Any consumer, trader or
2002) in 1987/88 to 28.5% in 1999/00manufacturer can have products tested at
(Deaton and Dreze 2002).3 The middleone of the 23 regional AGMARK
class, which now accounts for about 15%laboratories for designated commodities.
of the 1.2 billion people in India, isTypically, testing is only carried out
the fastest growing income group and isfor adulteration prone commodities such
a major force shaping the dietas oils, ghee, whole and ground spices,
revolution that is occurring (Landes andhoney, and whole and milled food grains.
Gulati 2003).Blended edible vegetable oils and fat
Figure 2: Diversification on Foodspreads are compulsorily required to be
Consumption Expenditurescertified under AGMARK. The Prevention
These structural changes are reshapingof Food Adulteration Act also sets
consumer demand. The Indian foodstandards for food products including
consumption basket is diversifying awayaspects such as permissible food
from cereals towards higher value andcolorings, preservatives, pesticide
more perishable products, such as fruitsresidues, packaging and labeling. As
and vegetables, dairy, meat and fishillustrated by the bottled water and
(Figure 2). Increasing femalesoft drink pesticide residue incidents,
participation in the work force andinadequate standards and weak
higher disposable incomes to spend onenforcement remain a problem.
non-home cooked foods are driving growthThe grades specified under AGMARK and
in demand for prepared and semi-preparedstandards as laid out in the PFA are
foods, and thus the growth of thedesigned to facilitate trade as well as
processed food industries (Pingali andensure food safety. The food safety
Khwaja 2004). These trends bringstandards under the PFA in general need
increased attention to safety concernsto be aligned with international
in the handling, processing andstandards. However there are many
marketing of foods.commodities that are not grown or
In addition, growing consumer preferenceconsumed outside of India. For these
for shopping convenience, increasedcommodities it may not be possible to
exposure to the media (TV, cable and thealign domestic standards with
internet) and ownership of durables suchinternational standards because there
as refrigerators and cars are fosteringare no established international
the growth of modern retailing (i.e.standards. In these instances it is
supermarkets and hypermarkets), which inimportant for research to be conducted
turn demand greater efficiency and foodin India to set appropriate standards
quality and safety standards in thefor the domestic market.
supply chain Mukherjee and Patel 2005,Lack of pro-activity in addressing
Chenggapa, et al 2005).food-safety issues. Domestic food safety
Increased vigilance by NGOs, consumerscares and the more notable food-safety
groups, and local research institutes isproblems faced by Indian agro-exports,
also raising awareness and spurringreveal the overall absence of any
action among consumers and policy makerspro-activity in addressing food safety
to address food safety risks. Findingsconcerns in India. Several factors
of high levels of pesticides in bottledcontribute to this. In the case of
water and soft drinks in 2003 by theexports, many if not most of the
Centre for Science and Environmentemerging SPS and international standards
(CSE), an NGO, shook the country andare widely viewed as not scientifically
forced the Government of India (GOI) tobased and as representing unfair
take swift action (Mathur et al 2003,"barriers to trade" (World Bank, 2006b).
CSE 2004). The CSE tested 30 bottledThese measures are viewed as efforts to
water brands from the major cities ofprotect foreign farmers or processors
Delhi and Mumbai in Maharashtra andfrom competition, or are being fueled by
found that all except one containedunreasonable consumer fears in high
pesticide residues.income countries and improved
Figure 3: Pesticide Residues in Softtechnologies for detecting hazards.
Drinks in India, 2003Consequently, the approach of the
The Delhi brands on average containedgovernment and private sector has been
pesticide residues 36.4 times theto try to negotiate away the problems
maximum pesticide residues stipulated bywith trading partners and, failing that,
the European Union standards for bottledaddressing the various measures in
water (CSE 2004). Shortly thereafter,international standard-setting or
Mathur et al. (2003) tested 12 brands ofdispute flora. As a consequence,
soft drinks sold in Delhi for 16insufficient attention is devoted to
organochlorine and 12 organophosphorusmonitoring the requirements of official
pesticides and 4 synthetic pyrethroidsand private standards, interpreting
commonly used in agricultural fields andtheir implications for Indian
homes in India. Their analysis foundagriculture and using current and
that all brands exceeded the EU maximumanticipated requirements as catalysts to
pesticide residue limit of 0.0005 ppmupgrade existing operations and
(Figure 3).strengthen supply chain management
To deal with the back-to-back crises,(World Bank 2006b).
the GOI established a special JointThis absence of pro-activity has meant
Parliamentary Committee on "Pesticidethat India has either had to adopt a
Residues in and Safety Standards for"defensive" strategy avoiding markets
Soft Drinks, Fruit Juice and Otherwith more stringent food safety and
Beverages" in August 2003 to investigateagricultural health standards or launch
the allegations. Two GOI Laboratoriesinto a fire-fighting mode when it faces
were instructed to conduct tests on thepotential disruption or loss of trade
12 brands (but using different samples)due to noncompliance with standards.17
and their findings showed that 9 of theThe absence of pro-activity is well
12 samples exceeded the EU limits (Hinduillustrated through examples of problems
Business Line 2003).faced with exports of fishery products
Weak regulations and inadequatein the late nineties and the more recent
standards were major causes of thesetroubles with grape exports to Europe.
high profile food safety crises. In theIn both cases, although there were signs
case of bottled water, while theof potential problems for a considerable
existing norm set out by the Bureau ofperiod of time, the food safety problems
Indian Standard (BIS) required that "nowere not given serious attention until
pesticides should be detectable," theIndia was faced with a crisis.
prescribed methodology could only detectIn the case of exports of fish and
pesticides at extremely high levels.fishery products, necessary monitoring
Consequently, GOI issued a notificationand enforcement measures for ensuring
revising the standards for pesticidethat exports complied with food safety
residues on bottled water, adopting theconcerns were not put in place until the
EU single residue limit of 0.0001 ppmloss of EU markets in 1997 (Henson,
and multiple residue limit of 0.0005 ppmSaqib and Rajasena, 2005). This was
(CSE 2004). In the case of soft drinks,despite the fact that India had
the BIS only had voluntary standards,continually faced rejections because of
not mandatory standards for pesticidefailure to meet hygiene standards and
residues. To address the problem, BISother food safety requirements since the
constituted a 39 member committee,80s, and in spite of regulatory reforms
consisting of representatives from theto provide safety assurance for fish and
soft drinks industry, governmentfishery products undertaken in 1995
scientists, NGOs and consumer groups to(Henson, Saqib and Rajasena, 2005).
formulate the new BIS standards. TheSimilarly, in the case of grape exports
outcome was the Indian Ready to Serveto the EU, pesticide residue problems
Non-Alcoholic Beverages Specifications,hadsurfaced since the late nineties.
which established the limits for 16During this period, some limited testing
pesticides in the finished productwas done for pesticide residues in
(0.0001 mg/l for individual pesticidesexport-oriented grapes. Testing was made
and total pesticide residue limit ofmandatory in 2000, but most of the
0.0005 mg/l) (CSE 2004).available testing equipment was not up
Even the government-sponsored Mid-dayto date, could not test to the same
Meals program encountered serious foodlevel of detection as was common in
safety incidents. The National ProgramEurope and was unable to detect certain
for Nutritional Support to Primaryheat-sensitive chemicals such as
Education (NPNSPE), more popularly knownacephate and methomyl (World Bank,
as the Mid-Day Meals Scheme, aims to2006b).18 Only after EU Rapid Alerts
improve child enrollment in primarywere issued in 2003 did the Government
school and encourage regular attendanceand industry step into action to address
by providing supplementary feeding,the problem. In general India has not
while improving their nutritionalviewed complying with food safety and
status. It covers children enrolled inagricultural health standards as a means
classes I to IV in government andto both improve its competitive position
government-aided schools in the wholeand to enhance the effectiveness of its
country (Jha and Umali-Deininger 2003).negotiations on particular technical and
In June 2006, 85 students from a Chennaicommercial matters, which is in stark
primary school were admitted to thecontrast to the approach of leading
hospital because of food poisoning afteragro-food exporting countries (World
consuming food prepared under mid-dayBank, 2006b).
meal scheme.4 In February 2004, 281A consequence of the lack of
children attending municipal schools inpro-activity and the crisis management
Delhi fell ill and were admitted to themode of operation has been the adoption
hospital after consuming their mid-dayof very rigorous and strict controls for
meal.5 There have been many other cases,commodities threatened with the loss or
despite quality norms being establisheddisruption of trade. This has led to
for the mid-day meal program.extremely high costs of compliance in
While issues related to pesticides insome cases (e.g. grapes) (World Bank,
bottle water and carbonated drinks, and2006b) or rather onerous requirements
out-breaks of food-borne illnesses(e.g. requirements for processing
received wide media attention, there arefacilities exporting fishery products)
other serious domestic food safety(Henson, Saqib and Rajasena, 2005). In
concerns that have been identifiedthe case of grapes, the Government of
including heavy metal contamination inIndia (GOI) Agricultural and Processed
foods. Marshall, et al. (2003), testedFood Products Export Development
fresh cauliflower, okra, and spinach -Authority (APEDA), formulated an
common vegetables in the Indian diet -integrated system of intensive grape
in 5 production sites around the Delhisupply chain oversight that included
region and in Delhi's Azadpur wholesale• A requirement that all farms growing
market from May 2001 to June 2003. Theygrapes for export to Europe have to
found that 72% of the 222 spinachregister with the Department of
samples exceeded the Indian MRLs forAgriculture. About 6200 growers
lead of 2.5 mg/kg, and 100% exceeded theregistered for the 03/04 season;
Codex MRL of 0.3 mg/kg. They attributed• Three field inspections (for
the high lead content to a number ofregistered exporters) during the crop
possible causes, including contaminationcycle by a newly constituted cadre of
of the irrigation water by sewage andhorticultural field inspectors. Some 244
industrial effluent and industrialsuch officers were initially appointed
pollution.6 Contamination wasand trained. There are now 291 such
exacerbated by their locations-theofficers;
production sites and market were in• The inspection and registration of
peri-urban and urban areas. When testedall grape export packinghouses by APEDA.
for zinc, 21% of samples exceeded both• Mandatory pesticide residue testing
the Indian and international standards.from each registered field of export
Currently, however, no regular testinggrapes. Testingwould be done prior to
for heavy metals in vegetables isharvest and only if the tests were
undertaken by government agencies inpassed would authorization be given for
India. Tests undertaken by the Indianharvesting for export. Grapes from
Council for Agricultural Research foundfields with failed results would need to
pesticide residues above the MRL in 5.3%be sold in other markets or re-tested.
of 666 samples of vegetables in 2003 and• Every consignment would be checked
15% of 468 samples of milk tested inby AGMARK to ensure conformity with EU
2001 (Directorate of Plant Protectionquality specifications for grapes.
and Quarantine 2006).AGMARK would issue certificates.
The long term use of pesticides in• Obtaining a phytosanitary
agriculture and for disease controlcertificate issued by Plant Protection,
(e.g. DDT for malaria control) isQuarantine and Storage for every
manifesting itself in the blood, humanconsignment; and
milk and fatty tissue in the population• Later, in 2005, another procedure
in many states. Table 1 presents thewas added whereby National Research
results of micro-research studies inCenter for Grapes would take a 5% sample
selected states in India from 1980 toof ex-packhouse grape consignments to
2005.re-test for pesticide residues.
Table 1: Level of DDT and HCH Content inThe extensive system of checks and
Human Blood Samples in Selected Statescontrols primarily focused on
in India.end-of-the-pipeline solutions. In
Location Year Number of Samples Totaladdition to the protocols that potential
DDTexporters to the EU have to follow, the
(ppm) Total HCHgovernment also invested heavily in
(ppm)upgrading laboratory testing equipment,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 1980training field inspectors, subsidizing
25packhouse upgrades, and strengthening
0.020 00.022the National Research Centre for Grapes.
Delhi 1982 340 0.710 0.049Overall, it is estimated that the cost
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 1983 48of this control system for pesticide
0.028 0.075residues (to government and the private
Delhi 1985 50 0.301 -sector) is about US$1.2 million,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat (rural) 1992 31equivalent to 7.9% of the FOB value of
0.048 0.148India's grape trade to Europe in 2005
Ahmedabad, Gujarat (urban) 1997(Table 3). If all other costs associated
14with the oversight of the grape supply
0.032 0.039chain are added to the costs of
Punjab (rural) 2005 20 0.0652 0.057pesticide residue testing, SPS
Note: HCH - Hexachlorocyclohexanecompliance costs are estimated to
Source: ICMR 2001, Mathur et al. 2005.account for 13% of this FOB value.
6. Food Safety Concerns in IndianTable 3: Estimated Annual Cost of
ExportsMeeting EU SPS Standards-2005 US $
Increased globalization andWhile it is arguable that there are many
liberalization of markets, facilitatedspillovers and important lessons that
by the World Trade Organization (WTO),have been learned from the handling of
are opening new export markets forthe pesticide residue problem with grape
Indian agricultural products, both freshexports, and that these measures have
and processed. Indian agriculturalbeen "successful" in that they have not
exports grew at an average annual rateresulted in further alerts or
of 7.2% from 1990/91 to 2003/04. Inrejections, the heavy handed approach
response to these new opportunities,with which the problems were addressed,
India's agriculture exports diversifiedand the costs involved, clearly suggest
from traditional exports of tea, spices,that it is not a strategy that should be
and coffee to include horticultural,replicated. Although India has not faced
fish and livestock products. Between thefurther rejections of exports to the EU,
triennium ending (TE) 1991/92 and TEroutine laboratory testing still reveals
2003/04, the value of fresh andviolative residues, indicative of the
processed fruit and vegetable exportscontinuing need to focus on improving
rose from US$84 million to US$394overall agricultural practices to assure
million in real terms (1993/94 dollars)food safety.
while marine product exports rose fromLack of good agricultural, manufacturing
US$516 million to US$1.5 billion duringand hygiene practices. In addition to
the same period (Figure 4).constraints that arise due to small farm
As Indian agricultural exportssizes, the lack of good agricultural,
diversified, and the value of exports tomanufacturing and hygiene practices
high income countries increased, Indiaremain a major challenge for improving
has had to confront new food safetyfood safety both for the domestic and
challenges. Concerns over numerousexport market. It is only recently that
rejections of Indian agro-food exportsefforts are being made to promote good
on food safety grounds have spilledpractices. For example, Marine Products
overdomestically, generating greaterExport Development Authority (MPEDA)
domestic attention to pervasive foodpromoted codes of good practice,
safety problems in the supply chainparticularly with regards to addressing
including high levels of pesticideantibiotic use. To this extent the
residues, presence of heavy metals inorganization was involved in monitoring
food, and micro-biologicalantibiotic usage levels, providing
contamination. The following sectiontraining and disseminating information
describes recent food safety challenges(Henson, Saqib and Rajasena, 2005). In
in Indian horticultural, spice andthe spices sector, the Spices Board (SB)
fisheries exports.undertook measures to address problems
Figure 4: Trend in Agricultural Exports,with regards to pesticide residues and
Triennium Ending (TE) 1990/91 to TE 2003aflatoxin. The SB, in conjunction with
04State Departments of Agriculture and
Horticultural Exports. In 2004, Indiavarious NGOs, supported measures to
exported US$575 million of fresh andpromote integrated pest management (IPM)
processed fruits, vegetables andand the production of organic spices
flowers. Traditionally India's fresh(Jaffee, 2005). They helped address the
fruit and vegetables exports wereaflatoxin concern by promoting better
targeted to markets in neighboring Southdrying practices. The Ministry of Food
Asian countries, to the Middle East andProcessing Industries and APEDA have
to East Asia. Since the early 1990sboth been promoting adoption of HACCP
India achieved some success in exportingand ISO certification among processed
fresh horticultural produce to Westernfood manufacturers through a range of
Europe. India has been quite proud oftraining initiatives and private sector
its penetration into the U.K,investment grant for upgrading
Netherlands and German fresh grapeprocessing plants to obtain HACCP/ISO
markets. Grapes are a highly seasonalcertification.
crop and Indian exporters have beenHowever, the adoption of good practices
targeting a crucial March to Aprilremains limited. Much remains to be done
window in the European market, whichin improving practices with regards to
falls at the end of the main southernthe manufacture and use of pesticides
hemisphere production season (in Southand improving post harvest techniques.
Africa and Chile) and before Egypt andAlthough there have been some limited
Turkey enter the market. Virtually allspillovers from the export sector into
of India's grape exports are of thethe domestic market, in terms of
Thompson Seedless variety.improving production practices, for most
The Indian grape export crisis in Maycommodities, including spices and fresh
2003 was a pivotal wake-up call tofruit and vegetables, farmers do not
Indian exporters concerning the costs ofnecessarily see any advantages or
failing to meet food safety standards.necessity for altering their production
In the midst of a commercial disputepractices since the vast majority of
with an Indian grape exporter, a Dutchproduction is consumed in the domestic
importer had samples of the Indianmarket. Until domestic consumer
grapes tested by a private laboratory.awareness and willingness to pay for
On finding that the grapes containedimproved food safety becomes more
residues of the insecticide methomyl inwidespread, it is unlikely that
excess of the EU maximum residue limitaddressing food safety concerns will
(0.05 microgram/kg.), the importerbecome standard practice nationally.
placed an advertisement in the localSimilarly, significant measures are
paper warning that grapes from thisneeded to improve the safety of
Indian supplier contained "poison"processed foods. In the food processing
(World Bank, 2006b). Dutch authorities,sector there are a growing number of
who were alerted about the finding,firms with modern factories and good
tested samples from the 28 containers ofquality assurance systems, but this
Indian grapes then in Rotterdam port andsegment co-exists with large numbers of
found that about 75% of the samplessmall and older firms that would need to
exceed the MRLs for methomyl and/ormake significant upgrades to implement
acephate.7 The problem was reported onHACCP and other quality assurance
the EU Rapid Alert system, causing notsystems.19
only significant short term economicIn the short term, developments in the
losses, but also considerable longerfood retail sector in India are likely
term reputation damage. The price ofto bring about improvements in food
Indian grapes dropped sharply, and thesafety. International experience shows
Indian grape shippers incurred losses,that modernization of the food retail
either in Dutch sales or by divertingsector is an important driver for change
the shipments to other markets.not only in the structure of production
Spice Exports. India is the world'sand wholesale marketing of produce, but
largest consumer and producer of spicesalso in fostering adoption of improved
and is also a significant exporter ofgrades and food safety standards
spices (Jaffee, 2005). In 2004/05,(Berdegué et al 2003, Reardon and
India's spice exports totaled US$399Timmer 2005a, 2005b).
million. India, however, has encountered



1 A B C D 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107