Consumer Voice :: Mazza Bug!

REPORT

Consumer analyst have a different view on a food contamination

The first reaction of Rajesh Choudhary to the problem of contamination was that the bottle might not be a genuine one. Says Choudhary, "sometimes this situation arises when a consumer asks for Maaza, and then changes his mind in favour of Limca. In that case, if the vendor has already opened the crown, he puts the seal back and contaminants may creep in at that point."

Moon Beverages' view was that the bottling plant follows all quality control measures that are prescribed by Coca Cola Atlanta, as also those enshrined in HACCP (to know more about HACCP, read "Is your kitchen HACCP-safe?", Consumer VOICE July 2006).

Moon Beverages claimed that itsplant that is currently running on a 16-hour shift, has food inspectors at every point and they do not work for more than two hours at a stretch to minimise the chance of straying of attention or setting in of fatigue. If the bottler was slightly circumspect in disowning responsibility for what is a clear case of lax standards, Coca Cola was even more forthright in attributing the lapse to "a spurious product." Coca Cola's spokesperson (Ms Sohini Bhattacharya, based in Gurgaon), in her telephonic conversation with Consumer VOICE refused to accept that anything could have possibly gone wrong with the company's product quality standards, and questioned the authenticity of the soft drink bottle. In another telephonic communication, when Consumer VOICE contacted Coca Cola, its spokesperson, Viraj Chauhan (Senior Manager—Corporate Communi-cations) alleged that Consumer VOICE was "not being objective in its reportage", and threatened Consumer VOICE with legal action.

"It has become a common excuse for manufacturers to absolve themselves of any responsibility by simply stating that the product in question is spurious," comments consumer activist Pushpa Girimaji. "This kind of response clearly gives the impression that either the manufacturerdoes not care, or is already acquainted with the fact that such lapses are happening," adds Ms Girimaji.

However, options available to a consumer to seek redress are not easy. The Prevention of Food Adulteration (that oversees cases of food contamination) department, or a Food Inspector, on its part would make a consumer go through certain legal rigours, as well as demand at least three samples of the suspect food. Now in the event of foreign particles being found in soft drinks, it is well nigh impossible to locate three bottles that would have the same problem!

A leading laboratory expert in Delhi cited other practical difficulties that a lone consumer generally faces. In a recent case some leading laboratories in Delhi turned down a consumer organisation's request for testing of contentstents of a sealed Limca bottle for toxicity (the sealed bottle had foreign particles settled at the bottom), as laboratories feared that if the tests could not pinpoint a specific problem, it may lead to loss of face for the labs.

Sujit Singh does not plan to drop his complaint against Maaza! Read More….

Coca Cola’s Explanation, Read More….

What’s in your Maaza? Read More….

The safest recourse, apparently, is to approach a consumer court, where the court itself seals the product in question and sends it for testing in a laboratory. Ever since the Centre of Science and Environment's testing-generated cola controversy broke out, both government as well as private-sector agencies have increasingly
become wary of commenting on food product quality or safety on record. The PFA-official whom Consumer VOICE interviewed refused to be quoted by name for this article.