Food Adulteration

[Sanjeev Goyal]

PMOPG/E/2024/0086837

23/05/2024

 

Sub: Food Adulteration

In our country, sweets have traditionally been adorned with silver foil, both for decorative purposes and purported health benefits. Historically, real silver was used for this purpose, believed to possess medicinal properties. However, the fact that these foils were prepared with animal traces was concealed for centuries. Recently, courts have mandated that silver foils containing animal traces must bear a red dot for identification. Despite this ruling, there is a widespread disregard for this directive, one would not find any sweet box with red dot.

 

Adding to the complexity of this issue is the difficulty for the average consumer to distinguish between silver foil and its cheaper counterpart, aluminium foil. The vast price difference between the two, with silver being nearly 100 times more expensive, provides a strong incentive for adulteration.

 

Aluminium, while inexpensive, poses serious health risks, particularly it chokes liver, with its consumption akin to ingesting poison. Despite these concerns, state enforcement agencies have failed to take action against violations such as using the incorrect marking on sweet boxes or substituting aluminium foil for silver. There is not even a single charge against any one.

 

This lack of enforcement not only reflects a systemic lethargy but also raises doubts about the integrity of regulatory oversight. Consequently, to safeguard public health from potential harm, it is requested that a complete ban be imposed on the use of silver foil in food products.