CERC finds leading brands have copper and arsenic beyond permissible limits
| ||
5 mg/kg is the highest allowed limit for Copper in turmeric
| ||
That organic turmeric, you pay a bomb for, to ensure that you get a chemical free product may actually be laced with heavy metals. For, a Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC) study has found presence of heavy metals beyond the safe limits in some leading brands of organic turmeric powder.
Pritee Shah, Chief General Manager, CERC said several brands had been making claims of being organic and it was the perfect time to test. “We chose turmeric because it is a commonly used product. Moreover, people pay a high price for organic products in the belief that they are getting better quality things that is chemical free and safe to consume. But our study has proved otherwise,” said Shah.
CERC tested six popular national organic turmeric powder brands for safety, specially for the presence of pesticide residues and heavy metals, namely lead, copper, tin, zinc, cadmium, arsenic and mercury.
Heavy metals can be individuals and compounds and many of them are necessary to support life. However, if consumed in larger amounts, they become toxic. They build up in the biological system and are a significant health hazard.
Because of lack of analytical standards for organic food in India, CERC followed the standards applicable to conventional turmeric powder as per the standards set by the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins & Residues) Regulations, 2011.
Of the six brands that were tested, none were found to have chemicals or lead or tin. Mercury and cadmium were within limits but copper and arsenic were found in three and four brands respectively
Fab India had the highest level of copper 7.20 mg/kg as against the limit of 5 mg/kg while Asal had the highest level of arsenic of 0.52 mg against the standard limit of 0.1 mg/kg.
Shah said they will pursue the matter further so that action is also taken in this matter. “We have also written to the various concerned authorities including the ministry of health,” said Shah.
On what precautions customers need to take Shah said, “Before consumers buy such products they need to read the label carefully. Write to the company and ask them what makes their product organic. These days we have companies calling their product organic and display certificate from several organisations both local and international,” said Shah.
|
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
However,Consumer Education Research Centre's recent study reveals the presence of heavy metals beyond the safe limits in six popular brands of organic turmeric powder. The study was conducted with the objective to check the presence of pesticide residues and heavy metals like lead, copper, tin, zinc, cadmium, arsenic and mercury. The amount of arsenic and copper present in the organic turmeric brands is proved to be harmful for health. However, none of the brands tested was found to contain pesticide residues. Lead and tin were also not detected in any of the brands.
Other metallic elements like zinc, mercury and cadmium were within the limits in all brands. The six brands Asal, 24 Mantra Organic, Fab India Organics, Morarka Organic Down to Earth, Sattvic Organic and Natural and Vikalp Organic Product were tested in the study. But samples of three brands did not conform to the limits for copper. Fab India had the highest level of 7.20 mg/kg as against the limit of 5.0 mg/kg. The level in 24 Mantra was 5.47 mg/kg and that in Sattvic was 5.71 mg/kg. Copper is one of a relatively small group of metallic elements which are essential for human health but longterm exposure to excessive amounts could cause liver damage, kidney failure, coma and death.
Copper also brings a significant fall in the percentage of motile sperms in humans. When contacted, customer care executive Mamta at Fab India Organics said she was not authorised to provide any information regarding this and suggested sending an email for further clarification. Arsenic was also found to be beyond the safe limit in four brands. While the standard limit is 0.1 mg/kg (maximum), Asal had the highest level of 0.52 mg/kg followed by Sattvic with 0.44 mg/kg. The level in Fab India was 0.18 mg/kg and in 24 Mantra 0.25 mg/kg.
Long-term exposure to arsenic from food can cause cancer and skin lesions. It has also been associated with developmental effects, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity and diabetes. Consumption in childhood can cause health problems later in life. The samples were tested against the values set by the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins & Residues) Regulations, 2011. Uday Dhakan, Manufacturer of Sattvic Organics said, "Sattvic is a certified brand, we export it to various countries too. I will look into the matter and once I know all the details of the findings of the study conducted by CERC, I can comment."
Dimple Mehta, a home-maker who has been using organic food items for years said, "This is disappointing as now I don't know what a consumer should use? These companies charge lot of money from consumers as they brand their products as "organic'." Pritee Shah, CERC Chief General Manager, said, "Consumers pay high for organic food as they believe it to be good for their health. But the findings are shocking which implies consumers are not getting what they pay for. There are no analytical standards for organic food in India so, we have written to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the Ministry of Health and brought this issue to their notice."
Monday, October 13, 2014
Tenants harassed by builders in a development project can approach the consumer forums.
More and more old and dilapidated buildings are going in for redevelopment. The builder makes money by selling flats to new buyers, but considers it onerous to provide accommodation to the existing tenants without charging money. Since free services are excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, would the tenants be entitled to file a consumer complaint for deficiency in service against a builder?
Case Study: Jagdishbhai had a tailoring shop on tenancy basis in Moon House. The landlord sold the property to Surbhih Realtors, which decided to demolish the old building and construct a commercial property. Jagdishbhai was to be given shop No. 1, measuring 26.29 sq m in the new property. An agreement was executed, under which the builder agreed to bear expenses of registration of the sale deed. Possession of the shop was to be given in a month. In case of delay, builder agreed to pay Rs 10,000 a month.
The builder failed to give possession of the shop and offered an alternative one on the rear side of the complex. Since it was not acceptable to Jagdishbhai, he filed a complaint before the district forum for a direction to the builder to hand over shop No. 1 and to pay Rs 10,000 per month for the delay. The builder contended that Jagdishbhai was not a consumer since the transaction did not involve any payment or consideration and argued it was a landlord-tenant dispute and not maintainable before the forum.
A dilapidated house in Mumbai's Ghatkopar with residents living in it. (TOI file photo by Anil Shinde)
The district forum overruled these objections and directed the builder to hand over shop No. 1 and execute the sale deed. If this was not complied with within 30 days, the builder would also be liable to pay Rs 10,000 per month.
Both parties appealed to the Gujarat state commission. While Jagdishbhai wanted the compensation enhanced, the builder wanted the order set aside. The commission concluded that Jagdishbahi was not a consumer as the transaction was in respect to transfer of tenancy rights to ownership property and as the service was not hired for consideration. It allowed the builder's appeal and set aside the forum order.
Jagdishbhai filed a revision before the national commission, pointing out that the earlier landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist with the execution of the agreement for allotment of the shop on ownership basis. He also argued that consideration need not be in cash but could be in kind.
A dilapidated house in Mumbai's Lower Parel. (TOI file photo by Uma Kadam)
So, handing over the old tenanted premises would form consideration for allotment and possession of the shop in the redeveloped property. The commission allowed his revision, holding that he was a consumer, entitled to file a complaint against the builder for deficiency in service.
Since 10 years had gone by, it directed that the builder should either give possession of the shop to Jagdishbhai, else allot another shop of the same area at a prominent place in the complex. The builder was also asked to pay Rs 15 lakh, so that it would fetch a monthly interest of Rs 10,000. A compensation of Rs 2 lakh for harassment was also awarded.
Impact: Tenants harassed by builders in a development project can approach the consumer forums.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the government of India's national youth award for consumer protection. His e-mail address is jehangir.gai.articles@hotmail.com)
Source: Times of india
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
