Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Studies(IGIDR), and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) on ‘Harnessing Opportunities to Improve Agri-Food Systems’ on July 24-25 , 2014 in New Delhi. The two day conference aims to discuss the agricultural priority of the government and develop a road map to realise these priorities for improved agri food systems.

1. Food Safety Issues in India: Opportunities and
Challenges
Anjani Kumar
International Food Policy Research Institute
IFPRI-South Asia Regional Office, NASC Complex, Pusa
New Delhi 110 012 India
E-mail: anjani.kumar@cgiar.org
Web: www.ifpri.org

2. International Food Policy Research Institute
 Changes in consumer demand and preferences
 Increasing demand for greater food safety,
 Increasing awareness among consumers and policy makers
 NGOs, consumer groups, research institutes, media
 Complex nature of food safety hazards,
 Advances in contamination detection methods
 Emergence of private standards driven by supermarkets and modern
value chains
 Integrated approach to ensure food safety
 Greater attention on compliance with FSM at farm level
Growing concerns of food safety

3. International Food Policy Research Institute
Past studies and gaps
 Evolution and implementation of regulatory framework
 Henson & Jaffee, 2006; Henson & Reardon, 2005; Buzbey & Frenzen, 1999; Buzbey,
Frenzen, & Rasco, 2001; Antle, 1999; Roberts & Marks, 1995.
 Impact of SPS and TBT on trade
 Hooker & Caswell, 1999; Maskus & Wilson, 2001a, 2001b; Otsuki, Wilson, &
Sewadeh, 2001.
 Welfare effects of food standards
 Calvin & Krissoff, 1998; Kumar & Kumar, 2003; Moenius, 2004; Otsuki et al., 2001;
Paarlberg & Lee, 1998.

4. International Food Policy Research Institute
Past studies and gaps
 Consumers’ willingness to pay for food safety attributes
 Roberts, 2007; Rozan, Stenger, & Willinger, 2004; Zhiang, Mao, & Gale,2007;Goldberg
and Roosen, 2007; Annett et al., 2008; Roy et al., 2010.
 Cost of compliance-focused on processing
 Gould, Smukowski, & Bishop, 2000; Jensen & Unnevehr, 2000; Mortlock, Peters, &
Griffith, 2000.
 Majority of these studies carried out in developed countries
 Studies in developing countries context are scarce
 status of adoption
 cost of compliance
 determinants for adoption and
 impact on performance

5. International Food Policy Research Institute
Potential Sources of Food Safety Hazards
Agri Input
Supply
Farming Assembly
Storage
Processing
Value addition
Wholesaling
Export/Import
Retailing
Consumption
Sale of banned or
restricted
pesticides
Contaminated
water and soils
Improper storage,
drying and pest
control
Contaminated water Improper storage Contaminated
water
Seed borne and
animal born
diseases
Improper pesticide
application
Poor waste
management
Use of banned food
additives/substances
Unhygienic
transport
Poor sanitation
Improper waste
water
management
Improper animal
health practices
Industrial
pollutants
Poor sanitation Improper handling
and packaging
Improper storage
Industrial
pollution
Unhygienic
handling and
transport
Cross contamination
Use of prohibited
chemicals
Improper packaging
Inadequate pollution
control and waste
management

6. International Food Policy Research Institute
Food safety and the Indian domestic market
Consumers
19th Century 20th Century 21st Century
Emphasis on staples
Food security
Food adulteration
Traditional recipes, locally
produced food
Knowledge of food benefits
limited
Eat to sustain body function
and enjoyment
Protect public from food
supposed to cause illness and
death
Diversification towards HVF
and perishables
Global food supply
Processed food-complex
products & ingredients
Increased awareness about
link between diet and health
Eat to enhance health and
quality of life
Demand for regulated safe
food and information

7. International Food Policy Research Institute
Food safety and Indian export market
Country Items
European communities Lack of harmonization of egg products
standards
Different MRLs for pesticides, drugs and other
contaminants
Russian Federation Problem in market access for bovine meat, egg
products, and ban on plant products
China Delay in finalization of protocols, Approval of
processing units for meat, market access for
basmati rice
Japan Stringent plant quarantine procedures, unfair
trade practices for flowers, ban on import of
fresh grapes

8. International Food Policy Research Institute
Food safety and Indian export market
Country Items
USA Mangoes (HCC), Litchi (AMF), Pomegranate, Grapes
((Use of Sulphur Pads), organic standards
Australia Ban on mango and other fruits (fruit flies and weevil)
New Zealand Ban on mango and other fruits (fruit flies and weevil)
Mexico Market access for Basmati rice

9. International Food Policy Research Institute
Why Regulate?
 Ensure safety of food produced/manufactured
 Ensure consumer gets what he pays for
 Protect consumer from being misled

10. International Food Policy Research Institute
How?
By ensuring
1. Hygiene and Safety of Food Manufactured
1. Safety of ingredients
2. Safe level of usage of Additives (chemicals)
3. Safe level of nutrient addition
2. Proper Consumer information and ways & means to Trace the
Product - Labeling Regulation
3. Consumers are not misled – Claim Regulation

11. International Food Policy Research Institute
Responsibility lies with all stakeholders
1. Regulators /Advisors
2. Industry
3. Consumer
4. Scientists & researchers

12. International Food Policy Research Institute
Governance
 Domestic market
 Department of health
 Export
 EIC
 APEDA/MPEDA
 Import
 Quarantine
 Entry points
 Nodal agencies

13. International Food Policy Research Institute
Measures for Food Safety Compliance
 Export inspection council of India
 Quality control and pre-shipment inspection to ensure minimum standards
 1000 products have been notified
 Export certification are mandatory for dairy, poultry, egg, meat and meat products
 System of export inspection and certification
 Consignment –wise inspection
 System based approach for in-process quality control
 Self-certification
 Food safety management system based certification
……..

14. International Food Policy Research Institute
Challenges of Food Safety Compliance
 Policy and regulatory environment
 Smallholder agriculture
 Weak extension systems
 Poor infrastructure and services in the marketing system
 Cultural issues
 Inadequate grades and standards for domestic market and poor
enforcement
 Dominance of informal markets
 Lack of pro-activity in addressing food safety issues
 Huge investment
 Increase in cost which may affect competitiveness
 To build trained manpower
 Impact on trade flow
 Social conflict

15. International Food Policy Research Institute
Impact on industry structure
 Small firms may become suppliers to large firms and may
go out of business.
 The standard appears to favour larger establishments, not
because of economies of scale but also because of the
infrastructure facilities required by such standards.

16. International Food Policy Research Institute
Challenges for smallholders
 How to produce safe food
 How to be recognized as producing safe food
 How to be competitive
 How to deal with asymmetry of information about
consumer demands and safety

17. International Food Policy Research Institute
Opportunities
 National market of more than 1.3 billion people
 Structural change in demand towards HVCs
 Better market access for expanding global food trade
 Higher price in world market
 Expanding market of functional foods

18. International Food Policy Research Institute
Constraints/problems in implementation
 Lack of Transparency
 Complexity of SPS standards
 Varying threshold limits
 Insufficient participation in standard setting process
 Irrelevance of the standard to the production environment
 Domestic regulatory problems
 Infrastructure and resource related problems

19. International Food Policy Research Institute
Determinants for Food Safety Compliance
 Education/skill
 Scale
 Integration with modern chains
 Collective action
 Infrastructure
 Price

20. International Food Policy Research Institute
 Consumers
 Ability
 Willingness
 Producers
 Efficiency
 Access to markets
 Government
 Funding aid programmes
 Creating infrastructure
Who should bear the additional cost?

21. International Food Policy Research Institute
NationalCentreforAgriculturalEconomicsandPolicyResearch,NewDelhi
Anjani Kumar
Policy Implications
 Scale of production and compliance
 Adoption intensity non-neutral to scale
 Predominance of smallholders likely to continue
 Motivation of encouraging smallholders for higher adoption of food safety practices
 Cost of compliance and smallholders
 Cost of compliance against interest of smallholder farmers
 Economies of scale in the adoption of food safety measures could exclude
smallholders
 Funding and policy support of the government to minimize the cost burden for the
smallholders
 Adoption intensity and market price of produce
 Positive association between price and adoption intensity
 Expenditure incurred on compliance does have a payoff

22. International Food Policy Research Institute
Thank you