IS LIVING INJURIOUS TO HEALTH

In an international symposium, I was asked what post-independence India’s biggest achievement. My answer, laced with pride, was that today, not only do we grow enough food for a billion-plus people, but also generate a surplus. Not due to supernatural interventions or socio-political reasons, but because we could save more than 30% of our potential food production by making pesticides integral to our agriculture.

So, in the short term, are pesticides a necessary evil? Medical students are taught that “poison is a dose-dependent function”, which means anything in excess is poisonous. We take alcohol in homeopathic and ayurvedic medicine but it is in moderation. Mere distilled or deionised water is not as good as mineral water. But, does that mean minerals in any quantity are good for health? The experts can argue on these larger issues.

As a part of the scientific fraternity, it has become morally compelling for me to shed some light on a report that was not presented by a scientist, may not be read by the scientific department (if it exists) of the media, and that would be relied upon by a public with little understanding of the technical logic (or its absence). What does the CSE report on pesticides in soft drinks show for a layman? Some technical mumbo jumbo, testing methods that read like rocket science, referrals, history, graphs, and so on… But how much effort was taken to understand what the report meant before pressing the panic button? As for all other testing procedures, some of which we encounter daily in medical science, what if the data in this report was inaccurate? It is tragic to see such a waste of public time and valuable resources, coupled with emotional blackmail in a case unworthy of trust and/or attention.

Pesticide residue testing is costly. Very few laboratories have the experience and skills for this specialist field. If laboratories, scientists, governments and firms accept one another’s data, it would reduce the need to verify or contest others’ findings significantly.

To build capacity for mutual recognition of data requires labs to work with the same standards of quality control and quality assurance. Mutual recognition of quality assurance is only possible for labs complying with recognized international standards. For safety studies submitted to regulatory bodies, the work must normally be undertaken in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice. For testing laboratories, the most appropriate international standard is ISO/IEC 17025:1999 General requirements for competence of testing and calibration laboratories.

Mutual recognition of quality control for pesticide residue analysis requires agreement on what constitutes appropriate quality control. The EU has produced a guidance document, currently in its second edition, to address this. It is currently under review and the third edition will be out soon. With the guidelines established, labs must then implement procedures to ensure these are followed.

Testing instruments like GC-MS and X-ray machines have much in common. Both need experience and qualification to decipher what comes out of them. Buying a great X-ray machine does not make you a great orthopedic surgeon. The CSE report is a similar venture, not trustworthy with glaring anomalies that could warrant a court martial had the media some scientific understanding of it.

How can CSE claim to be the first lab in the world to detect using GC levels of less than 1 PPB? This is a discovery in itself – like seeing the pimple in the dimple in the left cheek of a red ant, by the naked eye. How can you confirm detecting a needle in a haystack using sunglasses? These equipment are not black boxes that give out results. Even then, what use is a GC-MS to the power n when n has been silent? I wonder if the utility of this n is understood.
The confirmation of pesticides in this report was based on a principle that is illegal and wrong as per the analytical world; comparison is done on similar data types. Full range data can’t be compared with selective ion monitoring mode data. Apples were compared with watermelons to confirm the presence of grapes. It is like confirming a fingerprint of a man using his height and weight. If you want to find a PPB level, why calibrate using a PPM level (1,000 times higher)? A judgment was pronounced not on 100% identification of the culprit, but merely on a 30% assumption of probability where the GC-MS data does not match at important ion numbers. Heptachlor, a pesticide, was confirmed merely by a 30% probability. What if there was 31% resemblance to some other organic compound or ingredient?
The cause may have been holier than thou; the designs are way close to evil. If the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) was the benchmark for the second report in three years, then why was the result not validated by a third-party lab, as clearly defined in the JPC report, Page 1557.

In the 60 years of our independence, the scientific body has been a trustworthy fraternity, but such aberrations in reporting will send a wrong message; that scientific tools can be misused for ulterior motives. Stakeholders have to decide to believe only in mutually recognizable data. It is time we realize our emotions must not be kindled without scientific proofs, that the public domain is not used to create panic, that we moved to accurate reporting and stopped sensationalizing and taking emotional decisions.

- An article in ‘The Financial Express’ by Shubh Gautam, President of SRISOL Research Foundation.

Alufoil based Meal trays

Light weight, easy disposal and the guarantee that tasty meals can be served hygienically, make Alufoil trays very popular with airline and train caterers.

Key attributes of alufoil are its good thermal resistance and conductivity for heating meals.

The alufoils are made from Aluminium foils and have lacquer coating which are safe for Food. The lacquer which is applied on Alufoil are specific, as they meet stringent requirements of USFDA and EU norms. The lacquer is applied as a very thin film on the aluminium foil and is process resistant, oil resistant, it is flexible as it takes the forming of the aluminium foil without any peel off or crack. It has excellent chemical and corrosion resistance. The lacquer is odourless and has zero migration levels, so the food packed or served in Alufoil Meal trays is 100% safe, hygienic and eatable.These lacquered containers comes in a variety of shapes and sizes along with multi-colored printed lids. Lidding can also be embossed with company logo.

SRISOL Group who are a name to reckon with in the Food and Beverage Industry with innovative products, have come out with special lacquers for Alufoil Meal trays which are meeting the requirements of USFDA and EU norms.

The coating is packaged through a filtering process. Product cleanliness is monitored at this step.