it's a report on food adulteration in India mainly concentrating on dairy products

1. FOOD ADULTERATION
REPORT
PROJECT MEMBERS
1.Vishwas Agarwal 16104127
2.Xyz
3.Abc
4.Dfv
5.Fg

2. ACKNOWLEDEGMENT
We would like to express our greatest gratitude to the people
who have helped & supported us throughout our project. We
are grateful to our teacher, MR/ MRS NAME OF THE TEACHER for
her continuous support for the project, from initial advices &
contacts in the early stages of conceptual inception & through
ongoing advices & encouragement to complete it.
We would like to wish and thank our GROUP MEMBERS for their
undivided support and interest who inspired and encouraged
to go our own way, without whom we would be unable to
complete our project.
A special thanks goes to our friends who helped us in
completing the project & they exchanged their interesting ideas,
thoughts & made this project easy and accurate.

3. INTRODUCTION
What is food adulteration?
Food adulteration is the process in which the quality of food is
lowered either by the addition of inferior quality material or by
extraction of valuable ingredient .Nutritious substances which
are added intentionally to food , generally in small quantity , to
improve its appearance , flavour, texture or storage properties .
Adulteration is a legal term meaning that a food product fails to
meet federal or state standards. The word is proper only when
the additions are unwanted by the consumer. Adulterants when
used in illicit drugs are called cutting agents, while deliberate
addition of toxic adulterants to food or other products for human
consumption is known as poisoning.
Following are the points which government uses to declare an
adulterated food.
• A substance is added which depreciates or injuriously affects
it.
• Cheaper or inferior substances are substituted wholly or in
part.
• Any valuable or necessary constituent has been wholly or in
part abstracted.
• It is an imitation.
• It is coloured or otherwise treated, to improve its appearance
or if it contains any added substance injurious to health.
• For whatever reasons its quality is below the Standard

4. Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of life. Pure, fresh
and healthy diet is most essential for the health of the people. It is
no wonder to say that community health is national wealth.
The Greek and roman classics contain allusion to wine maker and
dealer who coloured and flavoured their wine. In England as early as
13th cent, bakers cheapened their wares or scanted the weight, and
lawmakers for the first time made an effort to prevent fraudulent
dealing on the part of butchers and brewers.
About the middle of the 19th
century chemical and microscopal had
reached the stage that food substance could be analysed, and the
subject of food adulteration began to be studied from the standpoint
of the rights and welfare of the consumers.
In India Prevention of Food Adulteration Programme has been
developed to ensure safe food for the consumers. The ministry of
health and family welfare in India ensures that consumer get safe
food. The legislation called “Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954” was drafted for this purpose. The first law to regulate the
quality of food was made in the country 1899. Up till 1954 the states
made their own food laws and there were substantial differences in
the rules and specification of food. A legislation called prevention of
food adulteration act (PFA) was endorsed in the year 1954 for
making uniformity in food laws all over India. It came into effect from
15 June 1955.
The major role of central government is as an advisory in its
implementation.
In India there are three-tier system is function for ensuring food
quality and food safety. They are the:
1. Government of India

5. 2. State Government
3. Local Bodies.
Need of the study
Adulteration of food is a menace to the society and the perpetrators
cannot be let off lightly, also there has been an upcoming trend of
false suit filing against food produce manufactures by customers for
some undue monetary advantage not only in India but globally .The
paper attempt to find out the real picture and causes of increasing
malpractices in food adulteration.
OBJECTIVES
● To generate awareness regarding Food adulteration practices in
India
● To examine the reasons behind increasing trend in fraudulent
practices.
● Some incidences and surveys of food adulteration happened in
past
● Views of people regarding consumer awareness
Methodology
Following are the methods adopted for the collection of required
data relating to the project report.
1)Case study method:
3 case studies were conducted about the adulteration on dairy
products.
2)Questionnaire and survey method:

6. An appropriate questionnaire was designed separately for consumer
awareness on FOOD ADULTERATION with a view to ascertain their
attitude & opinion of the consumer preferences towards various
Brands of milk and dairy products.
3) Collection of data:
For the purpose of the required project report, data was collected
from primary as well as secondary sources.
1) The primary data has been collected from field survey with the
help of online feedbacks. This has been collected through
questionnaires.
2) The Secondary data has been collected through, published
sources, unpublished sources, records etc.
Reasons for food adulteration -
 To get more profit
 To increase the weight
 To increase volume of trade by showing lower prices
 Rising population
 Lack of effective coordination
 Lack of proper food laws
 Lack of government initiatives
 Politicians are not raising their voices

7. What is an adulterant?
An adulterant is a pejorative term for a substance found within other
substances such as food, fuels or chemicals even though it is not
allowed for legal or other reasons.
Types of adulterants
1. Intentional –
Substances added in food to improve appearance flavour texture or
storage prosperities (food additives)
Example sand marble stones
2. Unintentional –
Pesticides growth promoters, components of packing materials
solvents and enzymes used in food processing
Examples pesticides, rodents
Some adulterated food products
there adverse effects
 Turmeric , dals and pulses such as moong or channa :
Here adulterant is metanil yellow and keasri dal. Its
harmful effect is that it is highly carcinogenic and if
consumed over a continuous period of time it can also
cause stomach disorders

8.  Green chilies , green peas and other vegetables :
Here adulterant is Malachite green. Argemone seeds to
add bulk and weight.
Affects humans if consumed over a long period of time
 Ice cream: Here adulterant is pepperoni, ethyl acetate,
butraldehyde, ethyl acetate, nitrate which are not less
than a poison .pepper oil is also used a pesticide and ethyl
acetate causes terrible disease affecting lungs, kidneys
and hearts
 Mustard seeds and mustard oil: Here adulterant is
argemone seeds (used to add bulk and weight). Papaya
seeds (used to add bulk) that the consumption of these
could epidemic dropsy and severe glaucoma. Young
children and senior citizens with poor immunity are more
susceptible this.
 Paneer, khoya, condensed milk and milk: Here adulterant
is starch (used to give it thick, rich texture). Its harmful
effect is that it is unhygienic, unprocessed water and
starch can cause stomach disorders. Starch greatly
reduces the nutritional value of the ingredient.
 Black pepper: Here adulterant is papaya seeds (used to
add bulk). Its harmful effect is that papaya seeds can
cause serious liver problems and stomach disorders.
 Coffee powder: Here adulterant is tamarind seeds,
chicory powder. Its harmful effects is that it can cause
diarrhea ,stomach disorders, giddiness and severe joint
pains

9. As per the data released by the FSSAI,the percentage of the food
samples found adulterated is on the rise. In 2011-12,64593samples

10. were tested out of which 8247 samples were found adulterated. This
percentage went up to 14.8%in 2012-13and to 18.8% in 2013-14.Out of
the 72200 samples tested in 2013-14,13571 samples were found
adulterated. Surprisingly, the no of prosecutionlaunched has been
decreasing since 2011-12.While prosecutions were launched in 83% of
the adulterated cases in 2011-12,this percentage went down to 56.3%
in 2012-13and went up to 75.4% in 2013-14
Food laws and
standards
Adulteration of food stuff was so rampant , widespread and
persistent that nothing sort of a somewhat drastic remedy in the
form of a comprehensive legislation became the need of the hour
To chehk this kind of anti social evil a concerted and detemined
onslaught was launchesd by the government by introduction of the
PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERRATION BILL in the parliament to
herald an era of much needed hope of consumers at large.
adulteration of food stuffs and other goods is now included in the
concurrent list (iii) in the constution of India. it has , therefore
,become possible for the central government to enact an all India
legislation on this subject. the bill replaces all local food adulteration
laws where they exist and also applies to those states where there
are no local laws on the subject.
Among others , it provides for :
 a Central food laboratory to which food samples can be
referred to for final opinion in disputed cases (clause 4)
 a Central Committee for Food Standards consisting of
representatives of Central and State Governments to advise on
matters arising from the administration of the Act (clause 3)

11.  the vesting in the Central Government of the rule – making
power regarding standards of quality for the articles of food
and certain other matters(clause 22)
PREVENTION OF
FOOD ADULTERATION
ACT, 1954
The Prevention of Food AdulterationBill was passed by both the house
of parliament and received the assent of the president on 29 september
1954 .It came into force on 1st June 1955 as THE PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTERATION ACT ,1954
In this act
 Adulterant means anymaterial which is or could be employed
purposes ofadulteration;
 Adulterated-An article offood shall be deemed to be adulterated.
LIST OF ADAPTATION ORDER AND AMENDING ACTS
 THE ADAPTATION OF LAWS( NO 3 ) ORDER,1956.
 THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT)
ACT,
1964 (49 OF 1964)
 THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT)
ACT,
1971 (41 OF 1971)
 THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT)
ACT,
1976 (34 OF 1976)
 THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION (AMMENDEMANT)
ACT,
1986 ( 70 OF 1986)

12. Standards
 I.S.I. Standards
Various committees, including representatives from the government,
consumers and industry, formulate the Indian Standards Institution
(ISI). Standards are laid for vegetable and fruit products, spices and
condiments, animal products and processed foods.
The products are checked for quality by the ISI in their own network
of testing laboratories at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Chandigarh
and Patna or in a number of public and private laboratories recognized
by them.
 The AGMARK Standard
The AGMARK standard was set up by the Directorate of Marketing and
Inspection of the Government of India by introducing an Agricultural
produce Act in 1937. The word ‘AGMARK’ seal ensures quality and
purity

13.  Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India
It is an autonomous body established under the Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. The FSSAI has
been established under the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 which is a consolidating statute related to food safety and
regulation in India. FSSAI is responsible for protecting and
promoting public health through the regulation and supervision
of food safety.
Case study 1
80% OF MILK WAS ADULTERATED WITH WATER
UREA STARCH AND DETERGENT
INTRODUCTION:
One of the most common adulterants in milk is added water, which
increase the bulk of the milk but decrease it is specific gravity.
Normal whole cow's has a specific gravity of (1.027-1.035), while the
specific gravity of the skim milk produced from this by removal of fat
is 1.042. Since the milk fat globules have a specific gravity of less
than 1, their removal in the manufacture of skim milk causes an
increase in specific gravity.

14. Another way of detecting adulteration by water is to determine the
total solids content of the milk. Normal whole cow's milk contains
11.5% solids.
The specific gravity of milk adulterated with water might be
maintained at a normal value by the addition of starch, another form
of adulteration. Starch is easily detected by it is formation of a purple
complex with iodine.
The growth of microorganisms may also be prevented, however, by
the addition of numerous prohibited preservations, for each of which
there is a specific method of detection. Alternatively, milk might be
boiled in order to improve it is keeping quality.
Cow milk consist water, fat, lactose and mineral
Fat 3-3.3%
Solid not fat 8.5%
Total solid 11.7%

15. OBJECTIVES:
 To collect the samples of milk and its dairy products from
different local vendors
 To identify the adulterants present in the samples and compare
with the standard products
PROCEDURE:
 Survey Method:
The local milk vendors were chosen via random sampling method. 50
samples from various vendors were collected in a sterilized container
and subjected to laboratory techniques to determine the adulterants
present in milk and its products.
 Study Design:
Random Sampling Design
 Sample Size:
5 milk and its products were collected from 10 different local
vendors (milk, buttermilk, curd, ghee, butter) located in Hyderabad
(India). Total 50 samples were collected. Samples were kept in a
sterilized container in fridge at 40 which are analysed for
adulteration properties which include (water test, urea test, starch
test, detergent test,).
 Test:
5 adulteration tests were conducted to detect common adulterants
in milk and milk product samples collected from various areas in and
around the campus of Osmania University College for women, Koti
Hyderabad the tests conducted are as follows:
1) Water test: To know the percentage of water added in the milk, as
water is the most common adulterant added in the milk [12].
2) Urea test: To know if urea is added in the milk to increase its SNF
value.

16. 3) Starch test: To know the amount of starch added in the milk and
milk product samples.
4) Detergent test: To detect the presence of detergent in the milk
and milk products.
Discussion:
 Adulteration tests for milk sample:
All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample
1, 3, 4 & 8 were showing same results in all the adulteration tests.
were samples 2, 5 & 9 were adulterated with water and starch
similarly sample 6, 7& 10 were showing same results and they were
adulterated with more amount of water and starch only sample 3
was differing from all the five samples as it was adulterated with
water and detergent.
 Adulteration tests for curd sample:
All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample
3, 6 & 9 was adulterated with water, urea and detergent. Sample 1,
5, 7 & 9 was adulterated with water and detergent. 2, 4 & 8 were
showing same results and they were adulterated with more amounts
of water and urea only sample 5 was adulterated with water, urea
and detergent.
 Adulteration tests for buttermilk sample:
All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample
1, 3 & 5 was adulterated with water, urea and detergent. Sample 2, 4

17. & 6 was adulterated with 25% water and detergent. 7 & 9 was
adulterated with 50% water and urea. Sample 8 &10 were showing
same results and they were adulterated with 50% water, urea and
detergent.
 Adulteration tests for butter sample:
All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample
2, 3& 7 was adulterated with 25% water, and urea starch and
detergent. Sample 1, 5 &10 was adulterated with 25% water and
detergent. 4 & 9 were showing same results and were adulterated
with25% water and urea. Sample 6 & 8 was adulterated with 25%
water, urea and detergent.
 Adulteration tests for ghee sample:
All the ten milk samples were analysed for adulteration test, sample
1, 4, 8 &10 was adulterated with 25% water and starch. Sample 2, 7
& 9 was adulterated with 50%water and detergent. 3& 5 was
adulterated with 25% water, urea and starch. Sample 6 was
adulterated with 50% water, urea and detergent. Sample 5 was
adulterated with 25% water, urea and detergent.

18. Case study 2
Details of National Survey on Adulteration of
Milk:
1. Objectives: The survey was conducted by FSSAI with the following
objectives: To identify milk’s common adulterants in rural and urban
areas. To identify the common adulterants in loose and packed milk.
2. Sample Size: A random sample was taken and analyzed from 33
Indian states. The total sample size was 1791. The following table
summarizes the number of samples drawn from various Indian
states.
3. Testing Laboratory: The samples were tested in government
laboratories for neutralizers, acidity, hydrogen peroxide, sugar,

19. starch, glucose, urea, salt, detergent, skimmed milk powder,
formalin, and vegetable fat to determine the presence of common
adulterants.
4. Results: Approximately 32 percent of the samples analyzed
conformed to Indian food laws. The remaining 68 percent failed.
5. Conclusion: The study concludes that:
 Water is milk’s most common adulterant. Water reduces the
nutritional value of milk and may also spread water-borne
illnesses.
 The second highest parameter of non-conformity was skim milk
powder (SMP) in 548 samples, (out of total 1791 samples or 44.69
percent). Of the 548 SMP-positive samples, glucose was present in
477 out of 548 samples (87 percent).
 Detergent is present in milk. Consumption of detergent-
adulterated milk is a health hazard and indicates a lack of hygiene
and sanitation in milk handling.
Case study 3
65% of the milk you drink may be
adulterated: Study Samples across India Fail
Government Test
New Delhi: Beware, your daily glass of good health could actually be
doing you harm. As much as 100% of milk samples picked up in parts
of the country by a government agency failed to conform to
standards.
In a 33 state and UT study conducted by the Food Safety Standards
Authority of India (FSSAI), not a single sample tested met the
prescribed norms in West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,

20. Orissa and Mizoram. Other prominent states fared just a shade
better. Around 89% of the samples tested from Gujarat, 83% from
Jammu & Kashmir, 81% from Punjab, 76% from Rajasthan, 70% from
Delhi and Haryana and 65% from Maharashtra failed the test.
Around half of the samples from Madhya Pradesh (48%) also met a
similar fate.
Only in Goa and Puducherry did 100% of the samples tested conform
to required standards.
Of the 71 samples randomly taken from Delhi for testing, 50 were
found to be contaminated with glucose and skimmed milk powder.
(SMP), which is usually added to milk in the lean season to enhance
volumes. Elsewhere, milk was found adulterated with detergent, fat
and even urea, besides the age old practice of diluting it with water.
Across the country, 68.4% of the samples of milk were found
contaminated. 68% milk samples fail quality test.
States with comparatively better results included Kerala, where 28%
of samples did not conform to the FSSAI standards, Karnataka (22%),
Tamil Nadu (12%) and Andhra Pradesh (6.7%).
The samples for testing were collected randomly and analyzed from
33 states and Union Territories totalling a sample size of 1,791. These
were sent to government laboratories for testing against the
presence of common adulterants such as fat, neutralizers, hydrogen
peroxide, sugar, starch, glucose, urea, detergent, formalin and
vegetable fat. Just around 31.5% (565) of the total samples tested
conformed to the FSSAI standards while the rest 68.4% (1,226) failed
the test. Detergent was found in 103 samples (8.4%). “This was
because the milk tanks were not properly washed. Detergents in milk
can cause serious health problems,” an FSSAI official said.
The nonconforming samples in rural areas numbered 381 (31%) out
of which 64 (16.7%) were packet milk and 317 (83.2%) were loose

21. samples. In urban areas, the number of non-confirming samples
were 845 (68.9%) out of which 282 (33.3%) were packed and 563
(66.6%) were loose. The most common adulteration was that of fat
and solid not food (SNF), found in 574 (46.8%) of the nonconforming
samples. This is because of dilution of milk with water. The second
highest parameter of nonconformity was skim milk powder (SMP) in
548 samples (44.69%), which includes presence of glucose in 477
samples. Glucose would have been added to milk probably to
enhance SNF. “The study indicates that addition of water to milk is
most common adulterant,” the report said.
Times View: This only confirms that food adulteration is common in
India. Even milk, consumed primarily by children, isn’t spared.
What’s particularly worrying is the kind of substances used to
adulterate, including toxic chemicals. This shows that the trade off
between the risk of getting caught and the ‘reward’ of huge profits is
skewed heavily in favour of the latter. The government must focus
on raising the risks to the adulterator. One way of doing this is by
hiking the penalty, including making it analogous to attempt to
murder in extreme cases. It’s equally important to regularly check
foodstuff for adulteration and ensure speedy trials.

22. Survey with respect to consumer
awareness on food adulteration

26. CONCLUSION
A recent survey revealed that more than 68 percent of milk sold in
India was adulterated. Given how much milk is a part of the Indian
diet, the shocking number showed the need for new national milk
safety standards in the country. And now, after 60 years, we will
finally be getting them. The new standards will include milk sources
as camel and yak along with flavoured and fortified milk, says this
report by Hindustan Times. Currently, safety standards follow
guidelines set in 1954 which only considers milk from cow, sheep,
buffalo and goat. “There is a need to revisit old standards to ensure
people eat and drink quality food,” said Pawan Agarwal, CEO, Food
Safety and Standards Authority of India, the country’s food-safety
regulator to the newspaper. The new standards will be implemented
uniformly across all the states. As per the current standards, fat and
solid non-fat (SNF) content varies from state to state, the report
adds. Recently, detergent and frozen fat have been found in milk
across the country on many occasions, confirmed by recognised
laboratories.
NEW MEASURES BY GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL FOOD
ADULTERATION PRACTICES
 Any food Inspector can enter and inspect any place where any
article of food is manufactured or stored for sale or stored for
the manufacture of any other article of food for sale or exposed
or exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured
or kept and take samples of such article of food or adulterant
for analysis.

27.  The dairy department has put in place measures to prevent
adulterated milk reaching the public. Dairy development
deputy director Biji V. Eesso said that milk, including that sold
in packets, would be tested. This is in addition to collecting milk
for testing from bakeries, shops and packaged milk outlets with
the help of health officials. Milk arriving in the State through
the border check posts would also be tested. Vehicles bringing
in food articles, including milk, would be allowed entry only
after ensuring that the contents contain no harmful elements.
Consumers have been advised to purchase milk of branded
companies. Milk in plastic covers having no information of the
branded firm, date and time of packaging should not be
purchased, he said.
 Expressing concern over alarming level of milk adulteration+ in
the country, the Supreme Court on Friday favored stringent
punishment of life imprisonment for the offence which at
present is punishable only up to six months jail term or fine.

28. LIMITATIONS
1 TIME CONSTRAINT
Time allotted to conduct the survey was around 20 days. So it was
difficult to cover entirely a large number (e.g. 1000s) of people.
However the key areas were aptly covered.
2 AVAILABILITYOF DATA
Most of the localities and people were not interested in conducting
these surveys as they think it as a wastage of time.
Non willingness of respondents to answer the questionnaires was
also a big hurdle.
3 RELIABILITYOF DATA
Reliability of data remains a primary concern when it comes to
human surveys. Unclear questions, poor understanding and unwilling
participations may lead to some deviation from the correct data.
4 MODE OF SURVEY
Since the survey was conducted more in online mode rather than
physically, we can say that some common people missed the survey

29. Bibliography
1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act & Rules (as on 1.10.2004).
2. Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases (FAC) including Food Safety &
Standards Act, Rules, Regulations Cases 1972 to 2012(2) (80 bound volumes).
3. An Exhaustive Commentary on - The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act &
Rules (Central and States with State Amendments) - A Book Review
4. PREVENTIONOF FOOD ADULTERATION, ACT1954.
5. The fight againstfood adulteration.
6. Websites-
1 http://www. Muzffarangarwikipedia.com.
2 http://www.muzaffarnagr.in
3 http// www.wikipedia.org/wiki/muzaffarnagar –district
4 http:// www.consumer education .in
5 http://www.mightylaws.com
6 http://consumergreevance.com
7 http://www.consumerlaw.in
8 http/www.plannigcommission.nic.in
9 http://www.saharanpur.nic .in
10 http://www.merasaharanpur.com
11 http:// www.mapsofindia.com
12 http:// www.legalhelpindia.com
13 http://www.jetexconsumerlaw.com
14 http://www.consumergoodsindiabizclub.com
15 http://www.wisbar.org/am/temblet.com
16 htpp://www.indiastudychanel.com
17 http://www.consumercourt.netfirms.com
18 http://www.lawyersclubindia.com