top of page

By:

Amol Deshmukh and Vaibhav Mathkari

5 March 2025 at 11:13:08 pm

Can Maharashtra’s Food Industry Take Civic Responsibility?

The food industry can turn everyday business practices into everyday civic action. AI generated image We all love eating out. Maharashtra’s food culture is inseparable from its identity. From a small vada pav stall to a five-star hotel, and from a family restaurant to a large wedding caterer, food businesses are part of everyday life. What responsibility does a food business have towards the citizen? Is serving tasty food enough? Or should restaurants also minimise food and plastic waste,...

Can Maharashtra’s Food Industry Take Civic Responsibility?

The food industry can turn everyday business practices into everyday civic action. AI generated image We all love eating out. Maharashtra’s food culture is inseparable from its identity. From a small vada pav stall to a five-star hotel, and from a family restaurant to a large wedding caterer, food businesses are part of everyday life. What responsibility does a food business have towards the citizen? Is serving tasty food enough? Or should restaurants also minimise food and plastic waste, maintain clean kitchens, use safe ingredients, manage waste responsibly and avoid traffic problems outside their premises? Several countries are already asking these questions. Japan has made reducing food loss a national priority, bringing businesses, government agencies and citizens together to prevent usable food from becoming waste. France has taken steps to reduce single-use plastics, including plastic drinking-water bottles in collective catering. Singapore requires large commercial premises to segregate and manage food waste. The European Union is also working to reduce unnecessary single-use plastics and promote circular packaging. Maharashtra need not copy them. But they offer one lesson: civic responsibility cannot rest with the government alone. The food industry has a major role to play. What if Maharashtra took up an 11-point challenge? Imagine major hotels, restaurants, caterers and food establishments voluntarily adopting a civic charter. First, reduce food waste. Large kitchens should track daily waste and aim to cut it by 25 per cent and then 50 per cent. Food safe for consumption should, wherever possible and legally appropriate, be redirected for human consumption. The rest should go for composting, biogas or other scientific treatment. Second, reduce unnecessary plastic water bottles. If safe drinking water is available, why automatically give every customer a plastic bottle? Maharashtra can develop a model using glass, steel and refill systems. Third, rethink packaging. Food delivery has created mountains of packaging. Do we really need all this plastic? Reusable, recyclable and genuinely sustainable alternatives should be preferred. Fourth, end open dumping of food waste. Restaurants should not send organic waste to roadside dumping points. Segregation and treatment should be part of commercial food-waste management. Fifth, make healthy choices available. Menus should include lower-salt, lower-sugar and nutritionally balanced options. This is about choice, not telling people what to eat. Sixth, use cooking oil responsibly. Restaurants should record its use and replacement and ensure used oil goes through authorised channels. Food safety and environmental responsibility should go together. Seventh, make kitchen hygiene a culture, not a certificate. The World Health Organization’s principles are simple: keep clean; separate raw and cooked food; cook properly; maintain safe temperatures; and use safe water and raw materials. The challenge is making them daily habits. Eighth, give consumers a voice. A QR code could allow customers to report serious food-safety concerns through a system that records and follows up complaints. Ninth, use technology intelligently. Artificial intelligence, sensors and digital systems can monitor temperature, hygiene schedules, waste segregation and other safety parameters. Tenth, think beyond the kitchen. If customers block footpaths, roads or emergency entrances, restaurants should help manage the situation. A successful restaurant should not become a problem for its neighbourhood. Finally, the Safe Food Oath. Can Maharashtra’s food industry voluntarily pledge that no known unsafe substance will knowingly be used in food? The proposed oath could state: “We pledge that we shall not knowingly use any carcinogenic, teratogenic, hepatotoxic, nephrotoxic or allergenic substance as a colouring agent, flavour or taste enhancer, adulterant, sweetener, or preservative or for any other food-processing purpose. We shall use only legally permitted and scientifically evaluated ingredients and additives and maintain transparency and accountability in the preparation and serving of food.” This is not a call to ban every chemical or synthetic food additive. Many are legally permitted after safety evaluation. The point is simple: unsafe substances should never be shortcuts for making food cheaper, brighter, sweeter or more attractive. Civic Food Industry Award Maharashtra could take the idea further by inviting the food and hospitality industry to adopt an 11-point Civic Food Industry Charter. Those meeting the standards could be independently assessed and recognised through a Maharashtra Civic Food Industry Award. The award would ask not only, “How good is your food?” But also, how much food did you save? How much plastic did you eliminate? How safely do you manage your kitchen? What happens to your food waste? Are your ingredients safe? Do you respect the neighbourhood? That would give “hospitality” a deeper meaning. Maharashtra has the institutions, entrepreneurs, technology and, most importantly, a food industry large enough to make a difference. The government can make regulations. Citizens can demand better standards. But the food industry can lead by choice. So the question before Maharashtra’s hotels, restaurants, caterers and food businesses is simple: Are you ready to accept the challenge — not just to serve citizens, but to take responsibility for them? (Deshmukh is a forensics scientist. Mathkari is co-founder, Civic Engineering Foundation.)

Theatrics First

Rahul Gandhi’s latest intervention in the Lok Sabha offered yet another study in intellectual recklessness that the Congress leader apparently enjoys revelling in. By attempting to indict the Modi government on the basis of an unpublished memoir filtered through a magazine article, the Leader of Opposition reduced debate on national security to political ventriloquism. Critiquing decisions using material that cannot be read, verified or contextualised is not parliamentary vigilance scrutiny.


During the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address, Gandhi waved a magazine article based on General M. M. Naravane’s unreleased memoir, Four Stars of Destiny and sought to read out purported excerpts. Senior ministers objected by invoking parliamentary rules that bar members from quoting unpublished material. Speaker Om Birla repeatedly cautioned Gandhi under Rule 349(i) but Gandhi persisted and the House descended into chaos.


What Gandhi presented as fearless truth-telling was an assault on the basic grammar of parliamentary reasoning. Memoirs are not depositions. They are retrospective narratives shaped by hindsight and personal framing.


Gandhi’s repeated invocation of Chinese tanks entering Indian territory was calculated to shock. The claim may or may not be borne out when Naravane’s book eventually appears. But Parliament is not a rumour mill, nor a preview hall for embargoed manuscripts.


More damaging still was Gandhi’s disregard for the authority of the Chair. Parliamentary democracy rests not merely on free speech but on agreed procedures that make speech meaningful. By repeatedly defying the Speaker’s ruling, Gandhi conveyed that rules matter only when they suit his argument. It is an irony he seemed blind to. Having long accused the government of undermining institutions, he chose to trample one of the few institutions where the Opposition still commands moral leverage.


The episode also exposed a deeper confusion in Gandhi’s political method. He appears to mistake provocation for persuasion. Raising questions about the 2020 Ladakh crisis is legitimate. The clash at Pangong Lake and the subsequent standoff revealed serious shortcomings in India’s China policy. But serious questions demand serious sourcing. A Leader of Opposition worthy of the title would have marshalled official statements, sought clarifications on record or demanded a structured debate. Instead, Gandhi opted for a shortcut with his ‘shock-and-awe’ tactics.


His defence, that the magazine article was “100 percent authentic,” was absurd. If unpublished books become fair game, the Parliament opens itself to fabrication masquerading as foresight. Today it is a former Army Chief’s unseen memoir; tomorrow it could be any phantom text conjured to smear an opponent.


Gandhi has spent years attempting to shed the reputation of impulsiveness and superficiality. By racing ahead of publication and substituting insinuation for argument, he reinforced the very caricature he claims to resist.


Oppositions exist to test power, not to cheapen argument. In doing the latter, Rahul Gandhi weakened not just his own case, but the standards of parliamentary accountability he claims to champion. 

 

 

Comments

bottom of page