Poultry And Anti-Biotic, A Battle Of Food Safety Fought Before Gullible Public.

1. Poultry And Anti-Biotic, A Battle Of Food Safety
Fought Before Gullible Public.
Shri Biswajit Das, Advocate, Supreme Court of India,
Managing Partner, Juris & Juris, B-4/115, Safdarjung Enclave, New
Delhi- 110029.
Another day, another news, both on front
page of the India’s highest circulating
daily newspaper, Times of India.
One on 22nd February, 2018 (First
publication) claimed that India’s farmed
chickens dosed with antibiotics are
hazardous to health especially for
children’s. Another counter
advertisement published on 27th
February, 2018 (Second publication)
counter-claimed that India’s farmed
chicken is healthy and benefits you.
Front Page advertisement Published in Times of India (Delhi)
daily Newspaper dated 22nd February, 2018.
While the first publication claimed to
have been issued in public interest by
one M/s Mobius foundation, the
second publication also claimed to
have been issued in public interest by
one M/s All India Poultry
Development and Services Private
Limited.
Both the advertisements though
claimed to be issued in public interest
indirectly justifying their publications,
they claimed in complete opposition
to each other on the issue of benefit
of Indian chicken.
Front Page advertisement Published in Times of India (Delhi) daily
Newspaper dated 27
th
February, 2018.

2. While both were meant for consuming public, their claims and counterclaims
were confusing to the public at large. Since the whole front page was used on
both the occasions on a widely circulated leading newspaper in India, the effect
was telling, confusing and terrifying.
The story pertains to safety of Indian Chicken to consuming public. While the first
publication claims that Indian poultry is not safe for human consumption, the 2nd
publication claims it is healthy for it. In the first publication, it is stated that Indian
poultry industry uses antibiotic to grow chicken which causes resistance to deadly
micro-organisms. It’s true that antibiotic is used in poultry industry but its also
true that Indian industry under the Food regulator undertakes the Food Safety
Management System (FSMS) besides maintaining all regulatory mandate such as
the science based standards. Even if anti-biotic is used for raising the chicken,
their residue is within the permissible limit under the law. One may debate if the
standards are safe and in compliant of all procedures of scientific requirements.
But then that debate must be raised before the appropriate statutory body such
as the Scientific Committees and Scientific Panels under the FSSAI etc.
While both the stories based their claims on different parameters and references,
what was common therein was the subject of science.
Now the question is,
a. Should a subject matter on science, which is divided on their independent
assessment from their respective points of view, be put to the public
domain directly?
b. Can such an exercise be called scientific where an issue of science is a fed to
the wider public in a non-science newspaper?
c. What an ordinary citizen will gather from this?
d. Will this information in a manner beneficial to them?
My answer to the aforesaid questions is, these advertisements/news/ information
are an act of irresponsibility and, if I may say so, is criminal. Anything which
pertains to science and whose findings on science are not conclusive, should not
be put to the consuming public directly and at least not in the newspaper meant

3. for ordinary news and not concerned with science. This causes panic, intimidation
and greater damage to the public discourse. These kind of issues must be brought
to the notice of independent scientific bodies including statutory authorities such
as FSSAI, in the case of food items like poultry, which is established under the
Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 and which is mandated and indeed discharging
its duties to lay down science based standards for articles of food so as to ensure
availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption. It has its
Scientific Panel and Scientific Committees established under a statute to look into
these possible threats and apprehensions concerning food safety. Even if one may
differ with the findings of these scientific bodies having statutory recognition, the
recourse is to bring these differences for a scientific debate amongst the scientific
community.
Unfortunately however, India is passing through a phase where established
system and institutions are not trusted wholly, not without their own past track
records. This gave rise to mushrooming of NGOs vying to take the their space not
realizing the fact that they no saints either. These NGOs are also instrumental to
bring about PIL’s handing over executive functions to courts. While these
statutory institutions and bodies operate on some bedrock principles of
transparency and accountability, which exposed their wrong-doings resulting in
losing their credibility, which is missing in the case of these NGOs for they do not
have any layers and levels of transparency and accountability that justifies such
shifting of powers. Thus the new methodology or discourse, surreptitiously
imposed and/or inflicted by non-state actors by which the executive functions are
discharged elsewhere and differently from that of the established system and
roots, have a huge potential for manipulations.
These fault lines have often been, as experience shows, mis-utilised. We as a
society must take some pro-active steps not only to be informed about the
reason, rationality and truth but also guard against any misinformation and mis-
utilization of available avenues.
Government must explore new tools and avenues to deal with this changing
phenomenon by initializing an approach that can serve these causes in the

4. demonstrable transparent manner with involvement of all stakeholders
preferably through public deliberations streaming them live directly to the
drawing rooms and bedrooms of every Indian citizen.
This will at least enable avoiding to a considerable level, if not entirely, any
speculation and/or misrepresentation on any public discourse. I firmly believe
that this method is full proof and is the only way forward. Should there be any
grievance still left thereafter the same should be treated as fate accompli, after all
this shall fall within the territory of limitation of transparency, which we must be
prepared to digest.
…………………………….