Food Adulteration: Is it an Innocent Crime?

A. Yes, a bit of water in milk or starch in paneer never killed anyone.

B. It’s serious – even if subtle, it compromises health, trust, and fairness.

C. Depends on the item – chalk in masala is worse than waxed apples.

A. Low cost, high profits, and almost no punishment — what else do you need?

B. People don’t care enough to report or question.

C. It’s just the way business has been done for generations.

A. Not really – how many people go to jail for mixing starch in milk?

B. Laws are strong, but implementation is missing.

C. Only big scandals make headlines. Daily cheats go unnoticed.

A. Not much – maybe a few hundred crores.

B. Thousands of crores – it's a huge silent drain.

C. I’ve never really thought about it that way.

A. Maybe ₹1,000–2,000 – not a big deal.

B. At least ₹5,000–₹10,000 – and I feel cheated.

C. I don’t know. But now I want to start tracking.

A. Yes, always – I’m super alert

B. Sometimes – only if something looks or smells off

C. Never – I assume things are mostly okay

A. Yes – there are home tests and kits now

B. Maybe, but it’s a hassle – who has the time?

C. No – I don’t think it’s possible for a layperson

A. Yes – the price was too tempting

B. No – I’d rather go without than risk it

C. I don’t know – I can’t really tell what’s adulterated

A. Less than 10% – not a big deal

B. Maybe 20–30% – that sounds believable

C. Probably over 50% – everything feels compromised now

A. Yes – citizens must rise when systems fail

B. Only partially – I expect government to handle it

C. Not really – I just want safe food, not extra work

A. Maybe a few hundred crores – can’t be that big

B. Thousands of crores – but I doubt it’s well documented

C. Lakhs of crores – it’s one of India’s biggest silent scams

A. Small traders just trying to survive

B. Middlemen and dishonest manufacturers

C. Everyone in the chain – and consumers are the only losers

A. Maybe ₹1,000 to ₹2,000 – not a huge dent

B. ₹5,000–₹10,000 – could be more if I think harder

C. ₹10,000+ – and nobody talks about it

A. Because the profits are high and risks are low

B. Because government enforcement is too slow and understaffed

C. Because most consumers don’t raise their voice

A. Yes, laws are strong – FSSAI is doing enough

B. No – it’s treated like a petty offence, not a public health crime

C. Not sure – I’ve never seen anyone punished for it

A. I quietly throw it away and avoid that brand/vendor

B. I tell a few friends or post on WhatsApp, but that’s it

C. I file a complaint or at least tag a public body/social handle

A. Because they think “It’s always been like this” – normalised crime

B. Because they feel it’s pointless – no one listens anyway

C. Because they don’t know how or where to complain

A. Yes, there are rules, fines, and periodic inspections

B. No, it’s mostly reactive and not consistent or strict enough

C. I think they try, but without public support, they can’t fix it alone

A. Because the effects are slow and invisible – not like a bomb blast

B. Because it mostly hurts the poor and rural – so elites ignore it

C. Because there's little media drama — no TRP in slow poisoning

A. No, that’s the job of government and inspectors

B. Yes, but only if it's safe, anonymous, and user-friendly

C. Absolutely! Only public pressure and people’s data can fix this

A. I can start checking food at home using basic DART tests

B. I’d prefer reporting on an app or portal anonymously if I spot something

C. I’d love to be part of a community that monitors & rates vendors locally

A. Very likely – I want to be part of the solution

B. Maybe – if it’s simple, doesn’t ask for KYC, and feels safe

C. Not sure – I don’t trust such things will lead to action

A. Yes – this is a great social enterprise idea

B. Maybe – but it’ll need real training and credibility

C. Not sure – who will pay for it all?

A. Social recognition – badges, points, community status

B. Cash or coupons – cashback for valid reports or tests

C. Sense of justice – just knowing I helped stop fraud

A. Yes – with tech, community action, and pressure on authorities

B. Maybe – only if we combine smart laws with smarter citizens

C. Not unless public apathy ends and media joins in