Milk in India largely safe, quality issues persist: FSSAI
New Delhi, Nov 13: Milk in India is largely safe, even though quality issues persist, an interim report released by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said Tuesday.
The report of the National Milk Quality Survey, 2018, FSSAI said is by far the largest systematic study of milk, both in terms of sample size (6,432 samples) and number of parameters.
The study, found that, little less than 10 per cent samples (638) had contaminants (mainly from poor farm practices and quality of feed) that make milk unsafe for consumption, while over 90 per cent of samples were found safe, said FSSAI CEO Pawan Agarwal while releasing the interim survey.
"Milk in India is largely free from adulterants which render it unsafe for consumption. Merely 12 out of total 6,432 samples had adulterants that affect the safety of milk," he said.
The occurrence of such adulterants is statistically insignificant considering the sample size in the survey, he added.
The survey tested for 13 adulterants including vegetable oil, detergents, glucose, urea and ammonium sulphate.
Milk samples were also tested to check level of contaminants like antibiotic residue, pesticide residue and aflatoxin M1.
The FSSAI official, however did not specify samples from which part of the country contained adulterants.
He said the findings will be shared with stakeholders and state governments, and then preventive and corrective action would be taken to further improve the quality of milk in the country.
Agarwal said there is "no concern" at all due pesticides residues. Only 1.2 per cent of the samples failed on account of antibiotics residues above tolerance level and it was mainly due to oxytetracycline used to treat animals with bovine mastitis.
The survey found that non-compliance on fat and SNF (solid non fat) quality parameters is higher in raw milk (sourced directly from milkman) than processed milk.
"Non-compliance on quality parameters in processed milk is quite large, even though it is lower than raw milk. This is a matter of concern and needs to be addressed through various measures," Agarwal said.
He, however added that high percentage of non-compliance samples does not suggest that proportionate volume of processed milk is non-compliant.
Agarwal said, the survey provides solid baseline data and a robust framework for continuous monitoring of safety and quality of milk.
"Whereas there should be zero-tolerance to adulteration in milk, concerns of quality due to contaminants need to be addressed over a period of time by taking large scale awareness drive and public education," he said.
In 2011, FSSAI had conducted a quick survey of adulteration of milk through its regional offices. Another milk survey was attempted in 2016 through state food authorities.
Agarwal said the 2011 survey suffered from several drawbacks. It was based on 1,791 samples and focussed mainly on quality parameters rather than safety concerns. Only qualitative analysis was done and the survey did not include parameters related to contaminants.
The 'National Milk Quality Survey, 2018' panned 29 states and 7 union territories and 1,100 towns with population of over 50,000 were covered. It was conducted over about six months (May-October).
Only about 20 per cent of the milk sold in the country is processed milk.
Of the total 6,432, 41 per cent samples were from processed milk.
The milk was tested for residues of 18 pesticides in the survey, and only in one case, the pesticide level exceeded the minimum residue level permitted by FSSAI.
Also, Ammonium sulphate was detected in 195 or 3 per cent of the samples. Currently, FSSAI regulations do not prescribe any limits for ammonium sulphate in milk.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Resolution against LS Speaker to save Constitution, dignity of House: Cong's Gogoi
New Delhi (PTI): Congress MP Gaurav Gogoi on Tuesday said the opposition was compelled to bring a resolution for Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla's removal to "save the Constitution", as he accused Birla of partisan behaviour.
Initiating the debate on the resolution for the removal of Birla from the Speaker's post, Gogoi claimed that the environment of Parliament has become such that the LoP is not allowed to speak in the House during the debate on the motion of thanks to the President's address in February because the leadership of the country is "weak".
Giving reasons as to why the opposition was compelled to bring the resolution, the MP from Assam's Jorhat said, "We stated that in February, when the LoP wanted to speak on the motion of thanks to the President's address, he was interrupted 20 times by the Speaker, members of the chairpersons' panel, senior members of the treasury benches. He was interrupted in a premeditated manner."
"The Speaker did not allow the LoP to speak. The LoP was repeatedly interrupted while attempting to place a few critical issues mandatory to be known to the House and the people of the country," Gogoi said.
ALSO READ: Will follow all legal processes, says Sisodia on Delhi HC notice over CBI plea in excise policy case
He pointed out that Gandhi wanted to speak about former army chief MM Naravane's remarks in his unreleased book, in which he reportedly talked about taking direction from the political leadership and the country's "mukhiya" told him "'Jo uchit samjho wahi karo" (Do what you feel is right).
At this point, Jagdambika Pal, who was in the chair, urged Gogoi to stick to the reasons for bringing the resolution against Birla.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju intervened, saying this was a discussion on the Speaker, and if the opposition is talking of other issues, they should not interrupt when "we reply".
Gogoi claimed that if a research of transcripts was done, Rijiju would be found to interrupt opposition members most often.
Home Minister Amit Shah then quipped that it is true that Rijiju has interrupted the most, but there has never been an opposition like the current one.
After several interruptions, Gogoi resumed his speech and said that Rahul Gandhi, in February, wanted to raise the issue of the ongoing investigation in the US against a businessman, which also mentions a minister, but was not allowed.
Gandhi also wanted to talk about the trade deals between the EU and the US with India. "He (Gandhi) asked what made India rush into a deal (with the US) and make concessions to the US that would be detrimental to our farmers," Gogoi said.
"When the leader of the opposition wanted to bring critical issues to light, the Speaker demanded authentication, and the LoP agreed to do so. However, treasury benches repeatedly opposed it and did not allow the LoP to speak," Gogoi said.
Earlier, the Congress MP cited the case of Nabam Rebia versus the deputy speaker, to state that the Supreme Court had said that the Speaker is expected to have a "sense of elevated independence, impeccable objectivity, irreproachable fairness and above all absolute impartiality".
"I want to ask, the Speaker set up the panel of chairpersons. But who decided who would preside over the proceedings on the resolution for the removal of the Speaker? Who appointed Jagdambika Pal ji to preside?" Gogoi asked.
He said all members have good relations with Birla on a personal level, and that is why the opposition members are saddened that they had to bring the resolution. "But it is our responsibility to protect the dignity of the House and save the Constitution. It is to protect the faith of the people in democracy," he said.
The Congress' K Suresh, Mallu Ravi and Mohammad Jawed moved the resolution against the Speaker, after which over 50 members stood up in support, and the resolution was admitted.
The speaker can be removed from office if a resolution is passed by the House by a simple majority. Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move. Article 96 allows the speaker to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps run the House in the speaker’s absence.
The opposition resolution has alleged that Speaker Birla acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
Three Lok Sabha speakers - G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987) - faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were all negatived.
