Toxic Milk Collection and Production in Pakistan

Sanaullah (1)

Toxic Milk Collection and Production in Pakistan – A summary:

• The most important standard that the local dairy farmers fail to fulfil is the acceptable level of toxins in milk. The @World Health Organization’s Codex Alimentarius stipulates that this level should never exceed 0.49 parts per billion (ppb)
• Zeeshan Suhail, public affairs manager at #Nestlé Pakistan, explains. “Toxins arise in milk from feed which is of inferior quality.” When farmers use such feed, he says, they are asked to “improve their quality of milk”. He chooses to stay silent when asked what his company does to milk found with higher-than-permissible level of toxins
• Muhammad Ibrahim, a dairy farmer in Pattoki, about 80 kilometres to the southwest of Lahore, tests his milk produce in front of me (testing kits made in China are available in the market at 1,600 rupees per piece, but most farmers don’t know how to operate them) and shows me the high level of toxins in it. Yet, he claims, Nestlé never rejects his milk supply even when it has been highly toxic. Fiaz Ahmed, another dairy farmer operating near Raiwind Road just outside Lahore, tells me how once toxin levels in his milk consignment reached 1.05 ppb yet the milk company bought the consignment since “there was shortage of supply”. A third farmer, living near Balloki headworks on the Ravi River, about 60 kilometres downstream from Lahore, similarly claims having sold milk to Nestlé Pakistan in spite of high level of toxins in it.

A volunteer pours milk for devotees to break their fast in Lahore, on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 AP-KM Ch
• Farmers say they cannot control toxin levels because they feed their animals whatever they can afford — which is generally green and dry fodder, supplemented with khal, the residual cake produced during oil extraction from cotton seed. The cake rots quickly and acquires fungus rapidly. Farmers working with very low production budgets cannot afford to throw away the rotten khal and keep feeding it to their animals. (Large-scale dairy farms do not use khal. They, instead, use soybean and other nutrients which do not produce toxins.)
• Farmers say they cannot control toxin levels because they feed their animals whatever they can afford — which is generally green and dry fodder
• Milk companies claim they offer farmers all possible help to improve animal feed. Nestlé Pakistan officials say they regularly send out field staff to give farmers detailed presentations on the need for using non-toxic feed and have helped local entrepreneurs set up 29 feed-manufacturing plants meant for supplying quality feed at affordable prices. Most dairy farmers that the Herald interviewed deny having received presentations on feed. They also do not know about the location of feed manufacturers in their area, or their sale points.
• On the other hand, they claim the company uses high-toxin contents as an excuse to purchase milk at a reduced rate. “For every litre of high-toxin milk, I get three rupees less than I otherwise would,” says Ibrahim. The deduction goes into paying for taking the toxins out, he quotes the company officials as telling him. Nestlé Pakistan rejects his claim. It says it never imposes price penalties on farmers. Yet, the company says it purchases milk with higher than acceptable toxin content.
• No amount of heating, pasteurisation and homogenisation (different procedures done on milk before it is packed) can rid milk of the toxins which once get into it. The companies acknowledge this, but claim the quantity of milk with high level of toxins is always much smaller in relation to the overall amount of milk they collect. Once low-toxin and high-toxin milk are mixed, ppm count goes down substantially, making milk safe for consumption, they argue.
• No independent study has been done so far to confirm or deny this assertion, raising another difficult question: What if the actual situation is the other way round and high-toxin milk is more than the low-toxin one in a company’s total purchase? The way most dairy farmers feed and treat their animals, it is highly likely that most milk consignments have higher than accepted toxin levels.

 

How milk producers like #Nestle and #Olpers are selling toxic milk!

Buffaloes are a source of pride for families in Punjab (1) rs

 

Toxic Milk Collection and Production in Pakistan – A summary:

• The most important standard that the local dairy farmers fail to fulfil is the acceptable level of toxins in milk. The @World Health Organization’s Codex Alimentarius stipulates that this level should never exceed 0.49 parts per billion (ppb)
• Zeeshan Suhail, public affairs manager at @Nestlé Pakistan, explains. “Toxins arise in milk from feed which is of inferior quality.” When farmers use such feed, he says, they are asked to “improve their quality of milk”. He chooses to stay silent when asked what his company does to milk found with higher-than-permissible level of toxins
• Muhammad Ibrahim, a dairy farmer in Pattoki, about 80 kilometres to the southwest of Lahore, tests his milk produce in front of me (testing kits made in China are available in the market at 1,600 rupees per piece, but most farmers don’t know how to operate them) and shows me the high level of toxins in it. Yet, he claims, Nestlé never rejects his milk supply even when it has been highly toxic. Fiaz Ahmed, another dairy farmer operating near Raiwind Road just outside Lahore, tells me how once toxin levels in his milk consignment reached 1.05 ppb yet the milk company bought the consignment since “there was shortage of supply”. A third farmer, living near Balloki headworks on the Ravi River, about 60 kilometres downstream from Lahore, similarly claims having sold milk to Nestlé Pakistan in spite of high level of toxins in it.

Hygiene (2)
• Farmers say they cannot control toxin levels because they feed their animals whatever they can afford — which is generally green and dry fodder, supplemented with khal, the residual cake produced during oil extraction from cotton seed. The cake rots quickly and acquires fungus rapidly. Farmers working with very low production budgets cannot afford to throw away the rotten khal and keep feeding it to their animals. (Large-scale dairy farms do not use khal. They, instead, use soybean and other nutrients which do not produce toxins.)
• Farmers say they cannot control toxin levels because they feed their animals whatever they can afford — which is generally green and dry fodder
• Milk companies claim they offer farmers all possible help to improve animal feed. Nestlé Pakistan officials say they regularly send out field staff to give farmers detailed presentations on the need for using non-toxic feed and have helped local entrepreneurs set up 29 feed-manufacturing plants meant for supplying quality feed at affordable prices. Most dairy farmers that the Herald interviewed deny having received presentations on feed. They also do not know about the location of feed manufacturers in their area, or their sale points.
• On the other hand, they claim the company uses high-toxin contents as an excuse to purchase milk at a reduced rate. “For every litre of high-toxin milk, I get three rupees less than I otherwise would,” says Ibrahim. The deduction goes into paying for taking the toxins out, he quotes the company officials as telling him. Nestlé Pakistan rejects his claim. It says it never imposes price penalties on farmers. Yet, the company says it purchases milk with higher than acceptable toxin content.
• No amount of heating, pasteurisation and homogenisation (different procedures done on milk before it is packed) can rid milk of the toxins which once get into it. The companies acknowledge this, but claim the quantity of milk with high level of toxins is always much smaller in relation to the overall amount of milk they collect. Once low-toxin and high-toxin milk are mixed, ppm count goes down substantially, making milk safe for consumption, they argue.
• No independent study has been done so far to confirm or deny this assertion, raising another difficult question: What if the actual situation is the other way round and high-toxin milk is more than the low-toxin one in a company’s total purchase? The way most dairy farmers feed and treat their animals, it is highly likely that most milk consignments have higher than accepted toxin levels.

 Summary of article published in Herald, May 2015: Link to article

‪#‎Nestle‬ ‪#‎NestlePakistan‬ ‪#‎Toxic‬ ‪#‎Contamination‬ ‪#‎FoodSafety‬ ‪#‎PFA‬ ‪#‎FDA‬‪#‎Shakarganj‬ ‪#‎Olpers‬ ‪#‎Goodmilk‬ ‪#‎TetraPak‬ ‪#‎Milkpak‬ ‪#‎Infertility‬ ‪#‎Steroids‬‪#‎Hormones‬

[Reblog] How Nestle’s Handling of the Maggi Mess is a Huge PR Disaster

By Nikita Mishra

How Nestle’s Handling of the Maggi Mess is a Huge PR Disaster
(Photo: Reuters)

The #MaggiMuddle is one of the biggest PR disasters for a company in the social media age.

Trust, betrayal of nostalgia, public perception and brand value were all at stake, yet the Nestle CEO’s response on Friday was a classic case of a little too less, a little too late. It was wimpish, dishonest, lacked empathy, bordering on utter disregard for the Indian sentiment.

The first notice which Nestle India got for unhealthy food practices and deceitful labelling was in March 2014. That is 15 months back. In July last year, Nestle appealed regarding the issue and Maggi was sent for testing in the Kolkata Central Food Laboratory, a NABL accredited government lab. In April this year when the results found high levels of lead and MSG, Nestle did not even respond the FDA warnings.

Nestle may have assumed that the government would be indifferent, that the media would move on, and the controversy would die a natural death. They were wrong.

Nestle’s Poor PR Machinery

Nestle India let Maggi boil in a soup of its own making (Photo: PTI)
Nestle India let Maggi boil in a soup of its own making (Photo: PTI)

 

The startling findings of lead and MSG in Maggi was confirmed in April 2015, the mainstream media picked up the issue, a month later, on May 20th.

There was a one month window for the food giant to get its act together.

They could’ve recalled the product voluntarily (Nestle did that in USA in 2014 over one complaint of incorrect packaging of Häagen-Dazs ice-cream), and come clean saying that the safety of Indians takes precedence over everything else.

But instead:

1) They blocked all lines of communication with consumers. For more than a fortnight, barring a computer-generated statement, there was no word from Nestle. Nearly all beat journalists, including myself, wrote and re-wrote to Nestle for a more human, in-depth response, but Nestle was too arrogant for a 2-minute reply.

2) Their social media response was a disaster. Robotic replies, sharing heavy PDF files in the name of responses; Nestle India’s social media damage control has been a joke. Just look at the cookie-cutter responses in the photo below, clearly Nestle India was unwilling to establish consumer connect.

When your trust is jolted, the least consumers expect is a living, breathing, human response. Too much is it, Nestle India? (Photo:  Twitter/MaggiIndia)
When your trust is jolted, the least consumers expect is a living, breathing, human response. Too much is it, Nestle India? (Photo: Twitter/MaggiIndia)

3) Nestle stayed in denial. For a situation of this magnitude, the Nestle global site does not even acknowledge the controversy in India.

Maggi is Nestle India’s mascot. It is baffling to think why the company will let it boil in a soup.

Not the First Time Nestle is in a Soup

June seems to be the crisis month for Nestle (Photo: Reuters)
June seems to be the crisis month for Nestle (Photo: Reuters)

In June 2010, Nestle was trapped in a PR nightmare when the environmental group Greenpeace said that the company’s Kit Kat chocolate contained palm oil, whose production was leading to the destruction of rain forests in Indonesia, threatening Orangutans. To get their message across, Greenpeace created a spoof of a Kit Kat commercial where a man bored at work was eating the finger of an Orangutan.

Within a few hours, Nestle found itself in a ‘Twitstorm’ . Angry fans took to social media asking Nestle to “give the Orangutans a break”. It was trending on Twitter with 2.15 lakh tweets.

Instead of standing up for a good cause, Nestle got defensive and responded by warning users not to use altered versions of its logo and taking a snarky tone with its critics. It later apologised.

Food Crisis’ in the Past

2003: Cadbury Worm Controversy: Worms were found in Cadbury’s iconic product, Dairy Milk in Mumbai. Cadbury stopped advertising for a month, went into an overdrive mode to show consumers that they care. They imported state-of-the-art machinery for 15 crores, started Project ‘Vishwas’ – an education initiative for 2 lakh retailers, and roped in Big B to assure quality practices.

Source: http://www.thequint.com/india/2015/06/06/maggi-row-biggest-pr-disaster-in-the-social-media-age

Cash cows: Pakistan’s ‘white revolution’ is going astray’ (Herald Dawn May 2015)

11270198_10155510246700405_8138868124255633025_oProud to announce that I wrote one of the cover stories for Herald this May 2015…
The story discusses in great detail, the evolution of the dairy industry in Pakistan… It is one of the most well-researched and difficult pieces I have ever written! I was also able to travel all across Punjab! I met a lot of cattle, buffaloes and farmers on the way!
I am highly thankful to the editorial team for printing the article, along with my photos…
While the story looks at the history briefly, it also highlights a multitude of concerns, which affect the consumers deeply…
A lot of people have asked me to email them the article. I can only say that if you can watch a two hour movie and pay 600 rupees, you could buy a magazine for 150 PKR too, and read not just my article, but tons of other articles!
So kindly purchase a copy before the book-stores run out of stock…

You can read the excerpt here: http://herald.dawn.com/news/1153053/cash-cows

I bugged a lot of people for this story… thank you! you know who you are!