[Editorial # 88] Increasing the cost of violation is the only way to tackle food adulteration : The Economic Times

[Following editorial has been published in The Economic Times on 21st March 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer-writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

Nearly 70% of the milk in India is adulterated. This, simply, is not acceptable. The government has said that a new scanner has been developed for quick detection of adulteration, and is now working towards developing a portable test kit based on this technology. While this development will help improve detection, addressing the problem of adulteration of this essential food item will require changes in the regulatory and legal framework and the manner in which the food safety administration discharges its duties.

The adulteration of milk can be grouped into two broad categories: contamination arising from poor hygiene, handling and packaging; and deliberate addition of water to increase the quantity and, along with the water, other substances that mask the dilution, such as urea, detergents, shampoo, caustic soda, hydrogen peroxide and oil, which apparently enhance viscosity, never mind if the milk is transformed into a poisonous cocktail. This is an egregious violation and must attract stiff penalties: jail terms and heavy fines, besides closure of offending units. Identifying the point of adulteration is crucial. Therefore, testing must be made mandatory across the supply chain, from the primary collection point to the processing and packaging plant. No producer or aggregator will be able to sell without a test. Each unit should be required by law to submit its daily test results, and these should be publicly available. This will make it possible to identify the source of adulteration. Adulteration must be made a cognisable offence.

The only way to tackle adulteration of essential food items like milk is to increase the cost of violation. Failure to do so will mean continuing to expose the millions of Indians, particularly children, to a public health time bomb.

Questions:

1. How much is the annual milk production in India? How much is Per Capita Availability of milk in our country? Which are the top 5 milk producing states of India?

2. What is the composition of milk? What are various tests to find out adulteration in milk?

3. What is meant by adulteration? What are common food adulterants?

4. What are various legal provisions for checking adulteration in food?

5. What are the harmful effects of food adulteration on human body? 

6. Mention a few international standards in the area of ensuring food safety?

7. Who regulates food safety standards in India? How does is enforce food safety standards?

8. What are the challenges in maintaining food safety standards in a country like India? How can they be tackled? 

[Editorial # 50] A debate beyond ‘clicktivism’ : The Hindu

[Following editorial has been published in The Hindu on 26th January 2016. Read through it and try to answer the questions that follow. Please do not copy and paste answers. The objective of this exercise is to get you in the groove of answer -writing. Try to write in your own words. Don't hesitate to write in a bulleted-format, if you are uncomfortable in writing in paragraph form.]

The consultation process set in motion by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on the issue of differential pricing of cellular data has set off a full-scale and no-holds-barred war of words between the authority and Facebook. The spat came into the public domain last week when TRAI released its e-mail exchanges with the social networking giant. The telecom regulator is clearly concerned about the unabashed enthusiasm demonstrated by Facebook to utilise — indeed, exploit — the consultation process to drum up support for its Free Basics product. TRAI was scathing in its criticism of Facebook’s high-intensity lobbying exercise. The regulator minced no words, and accused Facebook of converting its consultation process into a “crudely majoritarian and orchestrated opinion poll’’. Also, TRAI is convinced that the campaign by Facebook to defend its free Internet platform “is wholly misplaced” as the consultation paper is only on differential pricing for data services and not on any particular product or service. The social networking giant has been collating responses from users of its platform, and forwarding them to TRAI. Somewhere in this process, Facebook felt that somebody with access to the TRAI e-mail account had blocked the receipt of its e-mails. That accusation was enough to provoke a confrontation with TRAI. More than anything else, the stand-off between the two has brought the focus on the efficacy of the consultation process in an environment where private enterprise is increasingly gaining greater clout. Also, it raises serious questions on the lobbying practices followed to shape outcomes in a consultation process, and the potential impact on policy formulations.

In the Information Age, where communication enterprises are not just controlling but also redefining the way we interact, it is imprudent and even risky to let them have a free run in setting the policy agenda. The right to do business does not automatically give them the freedom to misuse their platforms to hijack policy initiatives by swaying public opinion. By means of its action, Facebook clearly has walked into the ‘conflict of interest’ argument. In the wake of rising support for net neutrality, Facebook launched a multi-million dollar campaign late last year to support Free Basics, a re-branded version of its internet.org. How tenable is it for an interested enterprise like Facebook to play a facilitating role in the consultation process initiated by TRAI? The ‘template response’ that it has procured from its users naturally has no articulation on the points made by TRAI. Moreover, Facebook cannot arrogate to itself the right to represent users just because they use its platform. The TRAI-Facebook face-off, unfortunately, has deflected the focus from the real issue: what kind of Internet access will suit a country like India with over a billion people? A solution must focus on providing maximum benefit to the poor.

Questions:

1. What are various regulatory bodies in India? What are various roles of these bodies?

2. What is TRAI? What are its roles and functions?

3. What do you understand by Social Media? What are various Social Media platforms available today?

4. Do you think access to internet should be considered as a basic right? Why or why not?

5. What is Facebook's Free Basic Program? How is it going to impact the people who do not have an access to internet?

6. What is meant by Digital Divide? Does India also have a Digital Divide? What measures are being taken by the government to bridge this divide?

7. What do you understand by "Conflict of Interest". Explain with a few examples.

8. What is the current confrontation going on between TRAI and Facebook?

9. What kind of Internet access according to you should be suitable for India? Justify

10. Access to internet should be provided to each and every one but not at the cost of Net Neutrality. Do you agree? Justify your answer with suitable examples.