The Hindu : Confusion confounded

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Aug 23, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Confusion confounded

THE GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT in Parliament on the quality of soft drinks produced in the country does not satisfactorily address concerns about the health standards of these products. In fact, the statement only adds to the prevailing confusion about the degree of risk posed by consumption of these carbonated drinks. The result is that what should have been a relatively straightforward issue to settle has now been sent to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for discussion.

There can be no questions about the capabilities or the independence of the Central Food Technological Research Institute and the Central Food Laboratory, the two institutions that were asked by the Government to test for levels of pesticide residues in the soft drinks. There can be no doubt either about the results of these tests. In nine of the 12 samples tested, the residues were above the norms prescribed in the European Union. The residue levels were at the same time lower in the Government tests than in those conducted by the CSE. However, the fact is that a majority of the samples reported pesticide residues higher than permissible according to E.U. norms. The question then is: are the residues found in the new tests within acceptable limits? On this, the Government's case, as made out by Sushma Swaraj, Minister of Health and Family Welfare, is extremely weak. The Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Rules decree that water used in the production of any food should be free from chemical constituents that impair health. However, the PFA Rules on carbonated water do not prescribe any separate limits on pesticide residues, although they do for metal contaminants. The Bureau of Indian Standards too does not prescribe norms on pesticide residues in soft drinks. It is then a mystery how, in the absence of such norms, Ms. Swaraj has claimed that the tests show that it is safe to consume the soft drinks. The Government's argument is that the residues in the soft drinks meet the standards prescribed for packaged drinking water at present. The operative phrase here is "at present," for following the furore earlier this year on pesticide in bottled drinking water, produced in many cases by manufacturers of soft drinks, the Government has prescribed new and tighter E.U.-based norms. If the Government is convinced that it has to raise standards for bottled drinking water to meet E.U. standards, then pesticide residues in soft drinks in excess of these norms cannot entirely be "within safety limits" as it has claimed in Parliament. Indeed, the Government is now thinking of raising the standards for water used in the preparation of soft drinks to E.U. norms. Until that is done and the new standards are met, the suspicion will linger in the public mind about the health risks in the consumption of soft drinks.

Only the Government knows why it was in a rush to clear the manufacturers of any blame in the care taken with the preparation of their products. It will now be up to the JPC to clear the air on the accusations, counter-accusations and the Government's role in the affair. A larger issue that has already been sidelined is why pesticide residues leach into groundwater resources. A related question is what the Central and State Governments should be doing, first, to prevent this leaching of pesticide and, secondly, to test for the presence of the residues in groundwater used to supply drinking water. The health risks posed by the irrational and at times excessive application of pesticides are far greater than those arising from the presence of these residues in soft drinks.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion