|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are food testing labs finding that consumers never see?
|
|
Tuesday, 13 October, 2026, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
Ashwin Bhadri
|
A food sample can look completely normal when it enters a testing laboratory. That is often the first thing people forget about food safety. The packet may be sealed. The colour may look right. The product may smell perfectly fine. Nothing about it may suggest that there is a problem. Then the sample is tested. And suddenly, there is information that the consumer could never have seen. For more than two decades, I have seen how different the story can look once food moves from the shelf to the laboratory. Testing can reveal microbiological contamination, chemical contaminants, heavy metals, pesticide residues, nutritional deviations, or other parameters that cannot be judged simply by looking at a product. That is what makes food testing so important it tells us about the part of the food journey that consumers cannot see.
Take something as ordinary as a spice. A consumer sees its colour, packaging and brand. A laboratory looks at a much longer list of questions. Does it meet the applicable quality requirements? Are contaminants within permissible limits? Is the product consistent with what it is supposed to be? The same applies to water. Clear water looks clean. But appearance is not a laboratory test.
This is where I think our understanding of food adulteration needs to become more nuanced. Food safety problems are not always dramatic. Sometimes they are not about a product being obviously fake. They can be about a contaminant, an unsafe level of a particular parameter, a microbiological issue, or a process that has slowly drifted away from where it should be. And sometimes the most important finding is not a single failed sample at all.
A business may discover that one supplier's raw material keeps showing variability. Another may find that a particular product starts moving closer to a specification limit over successive batches. A microbiological result may point towards a sanitation problem rather than a problem with the finished product itself.
A test report should never become a piece of paper that gets filed away after a “pass” or “fail”. If something fails, the obvious question is what went wrong. But if something passes repeatedly, there is another question worth asking: what is making it pass, and are those controls actually being maintained? This is why I have always believed that testing cannot sit separately from the food-safety system. Food safety procedures tell you what should happen and testing helps verify what is actually happening. And that gap between the two is where many businesses learn the most.
Regulatory testing also gives us a glimpse into risks that consumers rarely see. FSSAI's testing framework covers a wide range of parameters and food categories, while surveillance and sampling help identify non-conformities that are impossible to judge from appearance alone. But we should be careful about what a laboratory result means. One failed sample does not automatically make an entire category unsafe. One passing sample does not prove that every batch will be safe either. Sampling, test methods, frequency, and interpretation all matter. That is why better food safety is not simply about testing more. It is about testing intelligently.
Testing the right material. At the right stage. For the right risk. And, most importantly, doing something with the result. Consumers should not have to look at a packet and wonder what might be hiding inside it. They should be able to trust that the invisible checks have already happened. Because the most valuable laboratory finding is sometimes the one that never becomes a headline. It is the problem caught early. The batch stopped before it moved further. The supplier questioned before the issue became recurring. The process corrected before the consumer ever knew there was something to worry about. That is the part of food testing consumers never see. And perhaps that is exactly how it should be. Our job is to make sure we understand everything that happened before it reached them.
(The author is CEO at Equinox Labs)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|