Why huge price difference between same ISI Marked Products under different brand names ?

How shelf life of food products is certified ? 

On 26 November 2012, I had sent following e-mail to the firm marketing the product, WRO, DDGW, Secretary (CA). As no body replied, I sent a reminder on 14 December 2012.

"Recently I purchased a 500 ml PET bottle of Packaged Drinking Water (PDW) at Cafe Coffee Day in New Delhi. This PDW has been manufactured by Om Shanti Agro Industries, Dhule (Maharashtra) under their BIS License No. CM/L- 7699108 under brand name Coffee Day.

I have two queries which I hope you will answer in a pro-active manner:
1) The price charged is Rs. 15 for 500 ml whereas other manufacturers are charging Rs. 12 for 1000 ml. PDW under all these brands are marked with ISI Mark as per IS 14543. Why this difference in price?
2) You have specified shelf life of PDW as "Best Before 6 months From DOM". On what basis this shelf life has been specified? Were any shelf life studies were done and if yes then please inform the details of these studies.

Will you please enlighten me on above queries?

I am marking this e-mail to WRO BIS also for enlightening me on above queries and Secretary (CA) for appropriate action.

WRO, BIS
WRO may please inform me the results of tests carried on shelf life by the licensee and by BIS on factory and market samples derawn by BIS. Please also inform if BIS also has any role to play in fixing the price of ISI Marked products. After all BIS is under Ministry of Consumer Affairs. Recently Secretary (CA) addressing the gathering on Vigilance Awareness Week organized by BIS in New Delhi emphasized the need to build up confidence of the common consumers in BIS certified products which are procured/purchased commonly by the organized consumers as well as common consumers (TOI of 6th November 2012).

Secretary (CA)
This matter relates to the interest of consumers. Please take necessary action on the feedback as you consider appropriate."

You are all aware that BIS is under administrative control of Department of Consumer Affairs. I think the marketing firm, BIS and controlling ministry should  answer these queries. As a consumer it is my right and I hope that this right has not been put in abeyance as I was compulsorily retired from BIS and is in the habit of sending complaints against wrong doings of BIS top management.

Note - If anybody in BIS or elsewhere finds anything defamatory in this post/comments, he or she is welcome to bring it to my notice for needed modification or deletion.

ISI Mark - Has it become a tool for cheating consumer

Part III - Packaged drinking water in 250 ml PP Glasses

Today in a family  function, guests were served packageddrinking water in 250 ml PP Glasses. Click on the image to see the marking details. Batch No, and Packing Date are not marked. I checked thecardboard carton also. It was blank, no information printed.

Is this the way licensees are allowed to market PDW with ISI Mark?

Manufacturer has declared shelf life as 90 days from date of manufacturing. WHICH DATE OF MANUFACTURING? Also, had BIS ever checked and verified this shelf life as declared by the manufacturer?

I also visited BIS Website. Variety covered (at S. No. 36 of List of Licensees for Delhi) - 20 litre PET Jar. When I clicked on this a page was opened where variety covered is litre PET Jar and 250 ml PP Glasses. Which is correct? 

No batch No., no Packing date, this is how manufacturers market drinking water with ISI Mark without testing and hide production to save on MF. BIS officers take bribe and turn a blind eye. The are not even bothered that such untested drinking water is a health hazard for consumers. 

ISI Mark – Has it become a Tool For Cheating Consumer

Part II Packaged Drinking Water

Govt. of India has made ISI Marking mandatory for Packaged Drinking Water (PDW) for safety and health of consumers. In this part I will demonstrate if ISI mark is ensuring the quality of PDW or is cheating the consumer.

As per GOI order, PDW should conform to Indian Standard, IS 14543. The STI prescribed for this by BIS is Doc: STI/14543/6, August 2005 as per IS 14543: 2005 with 2 amendments. Let us find out how BIS ensures compliance of following requirements of STI:

Clause 1.0 LABORATORY- A laboratory shall be maintained, which shall be suitably equipped and staffed, where different tests given in the specification shall be carried out in accordance with the methods given in the specification. AND

Clause 13.0 STOP MARKING - The marking of the product shall be stopped under intimation to the Bureau if, at any time, there is some difficulty in maintaining the conformity of the product to the specification, or the testing equipment goes out of order. The marking may be resumed as soon as the defects are removed under intimation to BIS.

In December 2009, Vigilance department of BIS carried out raids on three licensees of PDW in Mumbai. During this raid following serious discrepancies amongst others were found:

a)       QC in-charge, responsible for testing of PDW, was found incompetent.

b)      Some testing equipment were found missing and some were found faulty.

c)       Test records were maintained without doing actual testing.

d)      PDW dispatched in the market without testing.

After the raids, local BIS office was informed and routine actions were taken. Licensees were advised to stop marking, they took corrective actions which were verified by local office and self-marking rights were restored.

Now let us see, what was not checked and how consumer was cheated.

It was clear that Packaged Drinking Water was sent in the market without testing but BIS officers did not check from which date it was being marketed without testing. They did not advise the licensees to immediately withdraw all Packaged Drinking Water available in the market. They did not advise the licensee to issue a notice in the media that consumers should not buy and consume Packaged Drinking Water of their brands as the same was not tested. Inspite of knowing it that Packaged Drinking Water available in the market (of these brands) could cause health problems to consumers as it has not been tested, BIS officers did not take any corrective and preventive action.

Under clause 13.0 of STI, licensees were required to stop marking on their own and inform BIS about it, but they did not comply with this statutory requirement. BIS officers also failed to record this serious discrepancy and did not seek licensees’ explanation on this. This is one requirement which is not checked in any BIS inspection and consumer, unknown of the potential health hazard, is left to consume hazardous ISI marked products. If this is not cheating and stabbing the consumer in the back then what else will constitute cheating and stabbing in back?

Were these BIS officers incompetent or they intentionally failed to protect consumer interest for some favour from the licensees. I have posted these “cheat the consumer” real stories of BIS on my blog MANAK. If you want to read the details then click on the following links:

Unit 1                Unit 2                Unit 3