The public food fortification programme under India’s food safety regulator has come under scanner after a report alleged flagrant conflicts of interest behind it.
Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), an umbrella organisation of scientists, intellectuals and non-governmental organisations, has alleged that Food Fortification Resource Centre (FFRC) members are benefiting financially from the programme.
The report, Do India’s Food Safety Regulator (FSSAI) and Indian Citizens Need Saving From (Foreign & Indian) Private Players Behind Food Fortification Initiatives?, was released February 16, 2023.
FFRC is an industry-led organisation under the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), India’s food safety regulator.
FFRC members, directly and indirectly, benefit financially from the expansion of food fortification programmes in India, the report said.
It questioned the organisation’s position under FSSAI, given the profit motive, as the FSSAI is a statutory regulatory body aimed at protecting citizen health and is expected to act independently.
“In addition, such people are co-implementing fortification programmes, providing funding and advisory services, selling proprietary technologies to state programmes and conducting so-called ‘independent’ evaluation studies of the government,” the report said.
The presence of FFRC within FSSAI deserves further investigation and intervention to avoid conflict of interest, ASHA further said.
The mandates of FSSAI and FFRC are polar opposites — FSSAI is supposed to be guided by principles of food safety, which include risk assessment in an independent manner, transparent public consultation, protection of consumer choice and interest among others.
FFRC, on the other hand, has a sponsored promotional role. In view of such concerns, this report highlighted the structural problem of private interests within a regulatory body like FSSAI and urges that their sphere of influence in matters of public health and food safety be examined in accordance with the laws of India.
Fortified foods are now being included in public food schemes like Public Distribution System (PDS), Integrated Child Development Services, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana and Mid-Day Meal Scheme/Poshan. A large part of the country’s population depend on these food programmes.
In fact, these food schemes are a legal right for most Indians and the scale of these schemes is huge, the report said.
So far, no independent risk analysis has been done within the country, while evaluation studies are still not publicly available for a three-year pilot on fortified rice in the PDS. The pilot was launched in 2019 by the government in partnership with external non-profits, who are also associated with the nutraceutical industry.
Besides this, citizen groups have also revealed how the statutory guidelines are being violated in implementing the schemes.
For example, even though FSSAI’s statutory regulations caution against consuming iron-fortified food by patients with thalassemia and sickle cell anaemia, this is without any medical intervention for such patients to fulfil their entitlements under the Right to Food Act.
All are being given indiscriminately, without a process of screening for status or a choice.
The authors of the report said they were surprised after an RTI response from the Government of India revealed FFRC as the leading authority for food fortification in India. On further investigation, they found that FFRC is an industry body.
While the FFRC claims to be only a resource centre, the report claims its importance and role in policy making is clear, showing how FFRC members have publicly stated their lobbying efforts to make fortification mandatory in India.
The paper detailed each corporate presence inside the FFRC and the non-profits and their financial interest in fortification, based on public information that can be gathered about the entities.
Examples of FFRC partners include Tata Trusts, a founding partner of FFRC and affiliated with the Tata Group, Wella Nutrologicals and Tata Global Beverages. All of these stand to benefit from fortification.
Several other examples provided in the report show that these corporate classes stand to benefit economically from a push for fortification in India.
Many of these entities are, in turn, linked to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has played a role in lobbying groups to fund open markets, obtain favourable tax rates and expedite regulatory reviews for large food corporations in other countries.
Major concerns with the FFRC’s place within the FSSAI were highlighted by the report. Apart from the significant issue of potential conflict of interest, there is also a one-sided portrayal of fortification as a ‘cure-all’ without any other significant scientific perspective and evidence on fortification.
Individual expert members of the FSSAI Scientific Panel on Fortification have, in fact, been publishing articles advising against the push for iron fortification in the country. However, decision-making in FFRC, which pushes iron fortification, remains opaque.