The ‘Maggi’ noodles row has raised a number of questions relating to labelling, testing methodology and interpretation of food safety regulations. But how did a 33-year-old brand, the first to introduce instant noodles in India, vanish from supermarket shelves in a matter of days?
How it all began In March 2014, an officer of the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration (FDA) picked up Maggi samples as part of a routine test. The samples, taken from Barabanki, were sent to a laboratory in Gorakhpur, which ‘confirmed’ the presence of monosodium glutamate (MSG).
The dispute, which could have been settled with a fine, escalated after Nestle decided to appeal against the finding. The samples were sent to Kolkata’s Central Food Laboratory (CFL) but for unexplained reasons found their way to Himachal Pradesh before being forwarded to the right quarter many months later.
Almost a year later, CFL confirmed not only the presence of MSG, but widened the controversy by pointing to presence of lead at 17.2 parts per million (ppm) or nearly eight times the prescribed limit of 2.5 ppm.
The FSSAI moves in The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Centre then swung into action and each state FDA was asked to test Maggi samples. No one could have fathomed that this would snowball into the biggest food product recall not only in India but in Nestlé’s history.
In the face of a hostile media and calls from many activists for Maggi’s recall, Nestle was before a firing squad from the very outset. Strangely, the company did precious little to halt the barrage of criticism – some of it misinformed. Its deafening silence and its extremely poor public relations seemed to only reinforce suspicions that it had much to hide. By the time, the company’s global CEO Paul Bulcke flew in for damage control, the damage was already done.
Even as he was addressing the press on June 5, the FSSAI ordered the recall of all nine variants of Maggi noodles, prohibiting their production and sale.
By then, the probe had already widened and other instant noodle brands also came under the scanner.
Some states have found similar issues with other instant noodle brands. But a few such as Karnataka, West Bengal, Goa and Chhattisgarh differed, saying the instant noodles samples tested did not have unsafe levels of lead.
The testing conundrum Why did the tests throw up such radically different results? It is hard to say but officials at various state FDAs whom BusinessLine spoke to said they were following FSSAI norms for testing lead as in the Department General of Health Services manual.
The food regulator prescribes either the Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) or the Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) test for metals such as lead.
Food safety experts say that AAS and ICP-MS tests are unlikely to throw up wide variations. However, a senior executive working for another instant noodle brand, which is also being tested across states, disagreed. “States either use the AAS or the ICP-MS test and that can lead to variations. We were shocked at the results of tests conducted by one state because of the methodology used, while several others have given us a clean chit,” he said.
Lead and levels Nestle has submitted in the Bombay High Court that some of the tests – presumably those conducted in Kolkata – were done after the shelf-life of the product had expired. But whether this influenced the results or whether the tests were conducted properly or otherwise is not possible to comment on. But there is a related issue that goes to the heart of the controversy, which is about how ppm levels of contaminants should be estimated for instant noodles.
Nestle has argued that lead levels in its instant noodles must be estimated ‘as consumed’ – which means calculated as a whole for noodles and tastemaker. Nestle has claimed this is in keeping with international practice, a position that the EU spokesperson has endorsed to BusinessLine (see story on page 1).
In its June 5 recall order, the FSSAI has disputed this, contending that the prescribed standard [2.5 ppm] has to be met independently by both noodles and tastemaker and that the two have “no linkage to the processing of the end product.”
In justification, the FSSAI noted that the tastemaker or masala is always contained in a separate sachet in the same packet – implying that their physical separation demanded that they be tested independently. But what if the masala was sold mixed up with the noodles? Says an expert in the processed food sector: “In such cases, there would be no option but to test them as an end product or ‘as consumed’.
He adds: “If a packet of bhujia mixed with spices is tested as a whole, why shouldn’t the same standard be applied to instant noodles? The physical separation of the tastemaker is irrelevant to food safety standards.”
If a separate sachet is the basis for demanding that both foodstuff and masala conform to a single norm, then a clutch of other products may end up facing regulatory problems. Take bhelpuri sold as a proprietary food. The dry chutney is contained in a separate packet. Ironically, the product made by one famous Indian manufacturer is sold on amazon.com with a ‘No MSG’ declaration.
Related and unsettled questions are whether a processing factor should be applied to products with multiple ingredients such as bhelpuri or instant noodles – which means determining that each ingredient used complies with the prescribed maximum contaminant level. Or, whether the tastemaker qualifies as a spice flavouring under the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011, where the permissible lead limit is 10 ppm.
“Technically, the company could have argued for the permissible limit of 10 ppm for the tastemaker and 2.5 ppm for the noodles to be applied, since the product is consumed as a whole. The question of interpretation arises since the FSSAI directed that the overall level to be tested should be 2.5 ppm which is far more stringent,” Ashwin Bhardi, CEO, Equinox Labs, told BusinessLine .
But is the latter interpretation consistent with the way food standards are generally assessed? Asks Deepa Bhajekar, Director of d technology, “For nutritional content the sample has been tested together, possibly the same logic could apply for the other tests”.
The FSSAI as well as the states that banned Maggi noodles have been reluctant to divulge the testing methodology used in arriving at their conclusions. For instance, the order of the Commissioner of Food Safety in Tamil Nadu, which banned instant noodles by various manufacturers only states that the amount of lead present in the tastemakers was beyond the permissible norm of 2.5 ppm. When asked for details of the testing methodology, Central Food Laboratory officials in Kolkata refused to entertain questions, its director AK Adhikari went as far as admitting he had been specifically instructed not to talk to the media.
MSG muddle It was the alleged presence of the flavour enhancer that triggered the entire controversy. MSG is essentially the sodium salt of glutamic acid, a common amino acid, which is present in the human body and in various food items. It has been commercially produced in 1909 since it was first extracted by Japanese professor Kikunae Ikeda from a seaweed broth called kombu a year earlier.
The FSSAI does not specify a limit for added MSG. The US FDA, which classifies added MSG as a ‘generally recognised as safe’ product, sets permissible limits. .
“MSG is permitted up to 10g per kg in finished products. In case MSG is present in separately packed flavouring spices, it can be added quantum satis (as much is considered needed),” said the EC spokesperson.
While there is no specific Indian regulation that prevented Nestle from using a ‘No added MSG’ on its packets, the FSSAI cited a general regulation that “Pre-packaged food shall not be described or presented on any label or in any labelling manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect.”
The FSSAI also referred to a paragraph on the US FDA website which said that food products containing naturally occurring MSG should refrain from using labels such as ‘No Added MSG’ on the packaging. While it is debatable whether Nestle gained any commercial advantage as alleged, the practice of using ‘No added MSG’ is prevalent in instant noodles packets made by a clutch of South-East Asian countries, including Singapore. These are freely available in India.
Nestle agreed to remove the ‘No added MSG’ tag from its packs, but mislabelling was relatively the less grave issue. The cause for the ban was the alleged health risk posed by toxic contamination, and so it is the lead issue that Nestle will have to contend with if it is going to be back on the shelves.
Asked why the authorities failed to proceed against Nestle for allegedly erroneous labelling much earlier, government authorities privately admit that the FSSAI is still finding its feet, being less than a decade old. “Failure to act earlier does not imply that the action taken now is wrong,” said one.
What now? The future of Nestle’s biggest brand will depend on what happens in the Bombay High Court. In a minor victory, the Court has allowed the company to export its products.
While its petition raises issues of interpretation of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2011 and seeks a review of the FSSAI order, the key may lie in engaging with the authority’s officials to evolve a consensus on testing methodology. The FSSAI recently — that is, after the Maggi controversy broke — issued a set of draft regulations for heavy metal contaminants including lead to strengthen the Food Safety and Standards (contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.
But there is still a considerable degree of ambiguity on this subject, something that has concerned other manufacturers of proprietary foods.
Hopefully, when there is resolution to this controversy – which has generated more heat than light – there will be more clarity and transparency in relation to the country’s food safety standards.
Also read: Did regulatory over-reach land Nestle in the soup?