The issue of ethics in the food industry never really goes away, but there are times when

it garners more
than its usual share of headlines. About a month ago, the New York Times published a lengthy piece
called The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food, by Michael Moss, author of Salt Sugar
Fat. The piece is a riveting look at the often-cynical moves made within the food industry within recent
decades to use our tastebuds against us, to use our love of salt and sugar and fat to persuade us to buy
products that are making us more overweight and less healthy.
The next headline had to do with NYC Mayor Michael Bloombergs attempt to push back by banning
supersized sugary drinks. The move had many fans. Not among those fans: Starbucks, which said it
simply would not comply, the American Beverage Association, and New York State Court Judge Milton
Tingling, who accepted the ABAs request to block Bloombergs plan.
Most recently, and related to all of the above, the New York Timesrecently ran an opinion piece on the
need to impose stricter regulations on food companies in order to slow the industrys otherwise
seemingly inexorable march toward ever more addictive, and less healthy, prepared foods. The piece
was written by a guy named Michael Mudd, a former executive VP at Kraft, no less.
Mudds key point is essentially that if the food industry is going to be reined in, government is going to
have to do it, since the industry shows little interest in restraining itself. In other words, to borrow
Mudds words, government is going to have to force ethics on the industry.
There are at least two significant problems with framing the issue this way.
The first problem has to do with chalking it all up to a lack of ethics. This is entirely the wrong diagnosis.
Or, to be precise, even if the food industry suffers from an ethics deficit, that deficit is not necessarily
the root cause of the problem. The unfortunate truth is that there are some problems for which more
ethics simply is not a viable solution. Ethics is about finding rules that make social living better, but it
assumes some overlap of interests. In particular, ethics only works where we have a shared sense that
our livesor our businesseswould go better if we followed a few rules. Ethics isnt fundamentally about
self-sacrifice; its about mutual restraint for mutual benefit. Thats why ethics is generally important in
business: harmony is good for business. But its still a competitive game, and at the end of the day all
the competitors want to win. Unless you can show the food industry that its interests will somehow be
promoted by playing by a different set of rules, then an ethical solution just isnt in the cards.
Theres a second reason why ethics isnt enough. Ethics involves restraint on self-interested (or profitseeking) behaviour. But the notion of restraint presumes some understanding of where to draw lines. But
consider the dilemma faced by any company that sells a fundamentally sugary or fatty food, like Coke or
Twinkies or Doritos. These products are delicious, and harmless if consumed as most of us consume
them, namely in moderation. When the Coca Cola Company sells me a can of coke, it does absolutely
nothing remotely unethical. Im a grownup, well-informed about the nutritional characteristics of Coke,
and besides this one coke is meaningless, health-wise.
But, yes yes, we all know that anyone drinking too much Coke is going to suffer ill effects, and a society
that drinks too much Coke is going to suffer too. But how much is too much? No one can say. And simply
imploring the Coca Cola Company to be more ethical is useless, here. True, we can implore them not
to advertise in a way that targets kids, or not to promote ridiculously huge servings, but that leaves the
fundamental paradox of their product untouched. Even a scrupulously ethical indeed, saintly Coca
Cola Company would still find itself uncertain as to how to market its product. How would you sell a
product that many people enjoy harmlessly, but that in the aggregate causes trouble?
Finally, the plea for more ethics in the food industry misses entirely the fact that that the food
industrys pattern of supplying us with excessive quantities of fat and sugar and salt constitutes a classic
social dilemma, a situation in which each persons (or companys) behaviour is individually reasonable,
but collectively disastrous. Were poisoning ourselves with junk food for the same reason were
burdening our atmosphere with giant quantities of carbon dioxide. Not because were stupid or unethical,
but because my own efforts to reduce carbon emissions (or yours, or yours, or yours) are neither
necessary nor sufficient to make a difference. Coke cant solve the obesity problem. Nor can McDonalds.
Nor Kraft. Nor you get the picture.
So, yes, feel free to call for greater regulation of the food industry. But recognize that in doing so youre
not calling for more ethics. Youre admitting that even ethical companies can produce unwanted
outcomes. A good understanding of the role of ethics in business must include some appreciation of the
range of problems at hand, including the ones for which ethics is unnecessary, as well as the ones for
which ethics simply is not enough.

By MICHAEL MUDD
Published: March 16, 2013
FACEBOOK
TWITTER

GOOGLE+

SAVE

EMAIL

SHARE

PRINT

REPRINTS

A COURT has struck down, at least for now, New York Citys attempt to slow the growth
of obesity by limiting the portion size of sweetened beverages.
But governments should not be deterred by this and should step up their efforts to
protect the public health by limiting the marketing tactics of food companies. Anyone
who believes these interventions are uncalled-for doesnt know the industry the way I do.
I was part of the packaged food and beverage business for more than 20 years. As the
national waistline grew, the industry sought refuge in the fact that the obesity epidemic
has many causes. It has insistently used that fact to fight off government regulators and
justify why it should not have to change what it sells or how it sells it.
With tobacco, the link between product and disease is direct and singular. But it is less
clear with food: the rise in obesity is the result of multiple factors. Suburban life
discourages walking. Escalators have replaced stairs. Schools have eliminated gym class.
Kids play video games now, not kickball. Even the vast increase in two-income
households over the past 40 years has had an impact, discouraging cooking and
increasing reliance on packaged foods and chain restaurants. It all adds up.
So when its time to pick the guilty party out of the police lineup, the food industry cries
foul whenever critics point to it. Hey, the industry complains, why pick on us when
everybody in the lineup is guilty?
But thats not true. Everybody in this lineup of cumulative social and environmental
changes may have played a role in the growth of obesity, but none are culpable the way
the big food processors and soft drink companies are.
The industry is guilty because it knew what the consequences of its actions might be.
Large food processors employed a flock of Ph.D. nutritionists and food scientists. The

connection between calorie consumption and weight gain was always as plain as the
number on the bathroom scale. But instead of acknowledging this and taking corrective
action to sell a better product more responsibly, food processors played innocent by
blending in with the crowd of causes. Its time to end the charade and mandate the
needed changes that the industry has refused to make.
For much of my time in the food business, I defended the status quo. Then, as obesitys
prevalence increased in the 90s, I argued for change. Today, more than eight years after
leaving the industry because of its failure to reform, I still struggle with the paradox that
defined the business. In so many other ways, these are good people. But, little by little,
they strayed from the honorable business of feeding people appropriately to the
deplorable mission of increasing shareholder value by enticing people to consume
more and more high-margin, low-nutrition branded products.
Confronted with this, the executives who run these companies like to say they dont
create demand, they try only to satisfy it. Were just giving people what they want. Were
not putting a gun to their heads, the refrain goes. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Over the years, relentless efforts were made to increase the number of eating
occasions people indulged in and the amount of food they consumed at each.
Even as awareness grew of the health consequences of obesity, the industry continued to
emphasize cheap and often unhealthful ingredients that maximized taste, shelf life and
profits. More egregious, it aggressively promoted larger portion sizes, one of the few
ways left to increase overall consumption in an otherwise slow-growth market.
All this tells us two very important things. First, the food industry knows it has a
problem, potentially a very big one if the forces against it ever do coalesce effectively. So,
in maneuvering for protection by managing public opinion and policy formation, the
industry will always try to camouflage itself as just one of many causes in the growth of
obesity. Just as the National Rifle Association points to mental illness and violent video
games as a way to deflect attention from the inherent dangers of guns, food processors
will wring their hands about physical activity and, yes, video games. We shouldnt fall for
it.
Next time you hear of a big food or beverage company sponsoring an after-school
physical activity program in your community, you can be sure theyll say its to show our
companys concern for our kids health. But the real intent is to look angelic while
making consumers feel good about the brand and drawing attention away from the
unhealthful nature of the companys products. Posing for holy cards, as one of my
colleagues used to put it.

Second, as more is revealed about their deliberate indifference, food companies must be
made to change their worst practices. After years of foot dragging and hundreds of
millions of dollars in lobbying fees, its obvious the industry wont change on its own.
Quite simply, change will have to be forced by public pressure, media attention,
regulation and litigation. Yes, companies will point to some better-for-you versions of
their traditional products and they will trot out a few smaller-portion-size packages to
show the choices theyve provided. But left alone, the industry will concentrate on
selling its problematic core product lines.
The needed changes could take many forms. Here are some of the most promising:
Levy federal and state excise taxes on sugared beverages and a few categories snack
foods, candy, sweet baked goods that most undermine health. These taxes could help
pay for education programs, subsidize the healthiest foods for low-income individuals
and, maybe, discourage consumption.
Make mandatory the federal guidelines for marketing food to children that were
proposed in 2011. These guidelines written jointly by the Federal Trade Commission,
the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and
the Department of Agriculture were only to be voluntary, and still lobbyists for the
food industry persuaded Congress to block them.
Communicate more actively with people about their food choices. Require prominent
disclosure of calories for every item on the menu in chain restaurants and vending
machines. And create a front-of-the-package labeling system to encourage healthier food
choices. Finally, the government should back community-based campaigns to inform
and inspire better eating and more exercise.
I left the industry when I finally had to acknowledge that reform would never come from
within. I could no longer accept a business model that put profits over public health
and no one else should have to, either.
Michael Mudd is a former executive vice president of global corporate affairs for Kraft
Foods. He retired in 2004.

ETHICAL FOOD CHOICES

For many people, it can be quite overwhelming to realize just how much suffering
and injustice goes into the familiar products that line our store shelves. Whether its
the abuse of animals, the exploitation of workers, the failure to offer healthy foods,
environmental devastation, or all of the above, there can be a temptation to throw
up our hands in defeat and conclude that its just not possible to make ethical food
choices.
We understand that impulse, and it truly does feel overwhelming at times, for
everyone. Its our hope that the resources on this website will help make these
choices easier for you. The fact that the problems loom large surely doesnt mean we
shouldnt do what we can to address them. And, armed with knowledge about the
issues, we can do quite a lot through the choices we make.
One of the easiest things we can do is to identify particularly bad actors in the
corporate world, so we know what products and companies to absolutely avoid. With
that in mind, the following are a few examples worth highlighting.
Coca-Cola

Even among companies with egregious

environmental and workers rights records, Coca-Cola stands out.[1]
In India, Coke unlawfully pumped 1.5 million liters (400,000 gallons) of water a day
from local reserves, leaving farmers without enough water to irrigate their crops, and
draining the communitys drinking water supply. The company also contaminated
fields, wells, and canals in the process leading to widespread misery and
community upheaval[2] and have sought to mislead investors about the
environmental consequences.[3] The worlds largest beverage company, Coke used
283 billion liters (73.5 billion gallons) of water in 2004 a fact put into perspective
when remembering that we live in a world where over 1 billion people cannot meet
their basic water needs.[4]
In China, separate investigative reports[5] have found a shocking range and systemic
pattern of workers rights abuses at Coke facilities. These include providing
inadequate (or no) protective equipment, an excessive use of so-called dispatch
labor[6] to avoid standard employer obligations (similar to employee
misclassification in the U.S.[7]), forced overtime, having workers sign blank contracts,

refusal of back-pay, and the denial of the right to unionize. Workers who have
protested their treatment were rewarded with beatings from supervisors.
In Colombia[8] and Guatemala[9], there is a long, documented history of anti-union
activities[10] at bottling plants on par with the worst episodes in labor history
anywhere. This includes the intimidation, kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of
labor organizers and their loved ones, often via paramilitary forces in collaboration
with local management[11]. Union-busting efforts in Pakistan have included extortion,
blackmail, abduction, and death threats.[12] Workers in the Philippines report vast
labor abuses, as well.[13]
In El Salvador, Cokes sugar suppliers have been caught using child labor in the
fields[14].
In Mexico, Coke has engaged in a range of predatory activities. To name just a few,
their aggressive retaliation against whistleblowers and massive fraud [15], their
standard over-exploitation of water resources[16], and aggressive marketing of their
product to school children and the rural poor (by some counts, 80% of Mexican
schools lack decent access to water).[17]
The scope of these abuses is staggering and difficult to process, but one thing is
clear: Anyone concerned with issues of worker justice, environmental responsibility,
and the integrity of local communities worldwide should avoid Coca-Cola and its
products.[18]
Nestl

The Swiss corporation Nestl is the worlds largest

food and beverages company, with a net profit in 2011 of 9.5 billion Swiss francs
($10.35 billion).[19] It produces iconic products like Nesquik chocolate powder and
syrup, as well as Nescafe, Nestea, and popular candies like Baby Ruth, Butterfingers,
and Kit-Kat. All told, Nestl owns more than 6,000 brands worldwide, in markets
ranging from petcare to infant formula.[20]
Nestl got its start in 1905 by developing a cow-milk formula for babies whose
mothers couldnt nurse; over a century later, its use and marketing remain
controversial. While its well established that breast milk provides numerous health
advantages for infants, including protection against infection and disease, Nestl has
aggressively and specifically marketed its formula to some of the most vulnerable
communities in the world.[21] This promotion is dangerous to public health because
formula must be mixed with water (often either contaminated or in short supply in
many countries) and requires sanitation protocols that could easily be misunderstood
or difficult to achieve (leading to diarrhea and other life-threatening symptoms for
the very young).
Such marketing also flies in the face of the 1981 World Health
Organizations International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (PDF),

which prohibits ads for formula with pictures or text () which may idealize the use
of infant formula and give the impression that formula is safer or more nutritious,
stipulating that all such products should inform the public that breastfeeding is best.
These are mandates that Nestl has violated for decades.
Instead, Nestl has a robust internet presence specially tailored to sell its infant
products across the globe, including extensive multi-lingual translations of ads,
superimposed on invariably light-skinned babies, to boost its worldwide sales.
As International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) documents, Nestl formula is
advertised in Lithuanian magazine ads, and provided free of charge in Bulgaria. A
leaflet distributed in Botswana claims that by using Nestl formula diarrhoea and its
side effects are counteracted, without mentioning the risks of unsafe water. In
Thailand and South Africa, Nestl has directly given out samples to new mothers,
provided health facilities with free supplies, promoted formula to pregnant women
and mothers in health facilities, and distributed gift packets to obstetricians,
pediatricians, nurses, and general health workers. In Armenia and Indonesia, special
displays and posters in grocery stores promote Nestl formula. The company has
given out special branded baby suits and distributes prescription forms to clinics
for new mothers to take to the store; in return, doctors receive a 10% commission
when their patient purchases the formula. In China, Nestl sends sales reps to shops
and supermarkets and donates infant formula to hospitals.
Like fellow beverage giant Coca-Cola, Nestl uses vast quantities of limited water
supplies. It has taken full advantage of water privatization trends around the world,
including in the U.S. It has drained aquifers, employed price-gauging tactics, and
polarized communities. The production, distribution, and packaging of its brands of
plastic-bottled water Arrowhead Springs, Calistoga, and Poland Spring also come
with an enormous environmental cost.
The chocolate the company uses for its ubiquitous candies is among the most
unethical available. Sourced from West Africa, particularly Cote dIvoire [22], its
harvesting relies heavily on child labor[23]. This is unsurprising, given its abuses of
workers rights elsewhere in the world[24]. A lawsuit in California, filed by International
Rights Advocates, implicates Nestl, along with agribusiness giants Cargill and
Archer Daniels Midland, in the trafficking of Malian children to Cote dIvoire to work
on cocoa farms.
Nestls subsidiaries have considerably ugly stories of their own to tell. For instance,
the company also has a significant stake in the pet food market, second only to
Mars, Inc. in market share worldwide. Nestl brands include Puppy Chow, Purina One,
Fancy Feast, Alpo, Beneful, and Friskies. [25] All of these brands have engaged in
animal testing. For instance, a paper presented at the 2011 Nestl Purina Veterinary
Symposium details how healthy puppies were infected with canine distemper virus,
then fed a probiotic to compare results to a test group; a similar study was later
performed with cats.[26] It is a particularly sad irony that some animals are tortured to
produce food products for other animals. This is often done simply to enable
companies to boast that products are New and Improved. Even the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration has called for the the development of new methods that could
reduce or replace animal testing.[27]
For all of these reasons, Food Empowerment Project recommends that consumers
avoid Nestl products.
Monsanto

Its hard to overstate the influence that

Monsanto, the chemical and agricultural sciences giant, has had over the food weve
eaten in the last hundred years.[28] One of the largest corporations in the world and a
mainstay of the Forbes 500, the company is effectively a gatekeeper to the global
food supply.[29]
Beginning the 20th century as a pure chemicals company (producing, among other
things, the food additive saccharin[30], supplied to a fledgling Coca-Cola), Monsanto
has had a hand in everything from plastics to digital optics. In the 1930s, it began
producing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for industrial use as lubricants, coatings,
and sealants; PCBs are also carcinogens associated with reproductive,
developmental, and immune system disorders[31]. Dioxin, a cancer-causing byproduct
of PCB production, is very much still with us, and remains a concern for workers,
farmers, communities, and consumers[32]. People who consume animal products are
at greatest risk: according to a 2003 National Academies of Science report, animal
fat in the diet accounts for close to 90% of dioxin exposure in the United States. [33]
Monsantos life sciences arms are most associated with insecticides, herbicides,
and defoliants, as well as genetically modified organisms. The company
manufactured some of the most infamous chemicals that exist, including DDT
(notably profiled in Rachel Carsons Silent Spring and banned in the US in 1972)
[34]
and the defoliant known as Agent Orange, which killed at least half a million
people in Southeast Asia, sickened millions more [35] and left a poisonous legacy that
impacts local communities to this day.[36]
The company also developed and manufactures bovine growth hormone (rBGH),
which has contributed enormously to animal suffering and led to such environmental
and public health concerns that it has been banned outright in many places outside
the U.S., including Japan, Canada, and the European Union.[37] In order to combat the
financially undesirable (and horrifically painful) infections that rBGH and similar
hormones cause for cows raised for milk, farmers have dramatically increased the
amounts of antibiotics they use.[38] Today, farmed animals consume 80% of the
antibiotics sold in the U.S.[39]
Monsanto is one of the most aggressive forces pushing for genetically modified
organisms. Alongside acquiring patents for products like Calgenes FlavrSavr tomato
(the first genetically modified food reviewed and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for human consumption[40]), it has patented numerous GMO seed
lines, aggressively marketed them worldwide, attacked traditional methods of seedsaving, and both threatened and sued farmers.[41] It has also patented Terminator
seeds, which can be planted only once, compelling farmers to buy a new supply
every year instead of saving seeds from previous seasons.
Roundup, the worlds most used herbicide, and Roundup Ready seeds provide a
similar insight into Monsantos corporate philosophy. After developing and
distributing the highly toxic (and lucrative) chemical, Monsanto genetically
engineered Roundup Ready seeds, which are specifically resistant to it. This has led
not only to large amounts of Roundup being used in the first place, but to
superweeds that have developed resistances of their own.[42] There are also
concerns about possible gene migration to non-GMO crops[43], effects on the health of
humans and wildlife[44], and the basic fact that a single company produces both an
extremely toxic herbicide and patented seeds tailored to resist it.

Given that it is, at root, a chemicals company, its no surprise that Monsanto has
engaged in horrific animal testing, including contracting tests out to the notorious
Huntingdon Life Sciences. It has also had activists opposed to its business practices
surveilled, hiring a subsidiary of the military firm Blackwater to conduct intelligence
operations on animal rights and environmental groups.[45]
Given the vast reach of its products, and the scope of its ambitions, Monsanto differs
from other companies profiled here. Its relatively easy to avoid buying Coca-Cola
products, for instance, which are generally non-essential junk foods anyway. When a
corporation controls most of the worlds corn, it is more difficult to avoid.
Complicating matters further, Monsanto also owns a vast network of subsidiaries,
many of which, unlike their parent company, market and sell organic and vegan
products.[46]
Rather than conceding victory to Monsanto on the basis of its market share,
however, there are a few things we can do. Avoiding Monsanto subsidiaries, to
whatever degree we can, is essential, and simply going vegan will already eliminate
your participation with many of those products. Whenever possible, we can also
support local, organic farmers through CSAs and farmers markets or even grow our
own food.
These acts may seem small, but they are powerful. At the same time, Monsantos
dominance over the worlds food systems that is, peoples access to food
worldwide, our ability to produce it, the integrity of local agriculture, and even what
constitutes food in the first place requires organized and sustained activism on
many fronts. There are efforts afoot to legally require the labeling of GMOs, and
many coalitions of concerned people have been confronting Monsanto head-on.
Palm oil
Palm oil, an edible oil derived from the pulp of fruits of the oil palm, is used in
margarine, shortening, cooking oil, soups, sauces, crackers, and other baked goods.
After soybean oil, it is the worlds most widely used oil. In the U.S., palm oil is used
primarily in processed foods and often in combination with the more familiar soy and
canola varieties.[47]
The plantations on which palm oil is produced have required a tremendous amount
of deforestation and fostered significant injustice. In Indonesia, more than 27,000
square miles are devoted to supplying the palm oil market, with a huge increase
nearly 11 million tons between 2000 and 2009. This expansion includes tropical
lowland forests and could realistically wipe out entire species.[48] The story is similar
in Malaysia.[49] In Cameroon, proposed locations of palm oil development lie at
ecologically sensitive nexus points between already protected national forests,
threatening wildlife in numerous ways and overriding local opposition. [50] In Colombia,
peasant families have been forced off their land and their houses destroyed to make
way for palm oil plantations.[51]
Deforestation necessarily involves threats to animals living in the regions affected,
including direct threats like poaching or forced removal and indirect threats like
habitat loss, which has been a catastrophe for already endangered Sumatran tigers,
Sumatran rhinos, and Asian elephants.[52]Orangutans have been shot, kidnapped, and
killed in order to clear land for palm oil plantations and to prevent them from eating
and destroying young palms. In March 2012, hundreds are believed to have died in
fires deliberately started for that purpose.[53]
Palm oil is not only a food commodity; it was once the great hope of biofuels. Its
cultivation has turned out instead to be a climate change disaster. Establishing a
plantation typically requires clearing massive tracts of land and the addition of large
amounts of chemical fertilizer to the soil. The process often involves draining and
burning peatland, which sends huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.
Because of palm oil cultivation, Indonesia has recently become the worlds third
largest producer of climate change-causing greenhouse gases, behind the U.S. and
China. Leaked data from the European Commission shows that palm oils carbon

footprint is actually greater than crude oils and is only slightly less than that of oil
from the tar sands.[54]
Due to growing consumer concern about the consequences of palm oil production,
industry has joined forces with large environmental organizations like the World
Wildlife Fund to promote more sustainable methods. Through efforts like the
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), major producers and processors promise
to both continue large-scale production while also allegedly protecting the rainforest
and its inhabitants, primarily through complicated off-sets, land concessions, and the
use of already degraded rainforest. As the German news outlet Der Spiegel
reported in May 2012, however, these promises havent amounted to much: one
former WWF employee remarked, Sustainable palm oil, as the WWF promises with
its RSPO certificates, is really nonexistent. [55]
Workers are routinely exploited at every stage of palm oil production around the
world. In Colombia, the worlds 5th largest producer, workers struck by the
thousands in late 2011 to protest cuts in benefits, subcontracting practices, and
precarious work. Carloads of people were brought in to break the strike.
[56]
Throughout Asia and the Pacific, the extraordinarily toxic herbicide paraquat is
being used on palm plantations[57] and endangering workers.[58] Indentured servitude
and outright slavery are not uncommon, along with similar human rights abuses of
workers.[59]
Given how pervasive palm oil is and the wide range of products in which its found
(including many vegan products), its important to read the label to know what
youre buying. F.E.P. suggests you avoid palm oil whenever possible.
How can I help?
Learning about the bad actors in the corporate world makes it easier for us to
make informed and empowered choices for ourselves and for our communities, even
as we mobilize together for more systemic change. A little bit of knowledge goes a
long way in making that change and helping create a more just world for all. To make
finding vegan food easier, Food Empowerment Project has created a finding vegan
food guide, please take a look!

Introduction
The Indian food industry is poised for huge growth, increasing its contribution in world food trade
every year. In India, food has become a high-profit industry by reason of the scope it offers for value
addition, particularly with the food processing industry getting recognised as a high-priority area in this
liberalised era.
Accounting for about 32 per cent of the country's total food market, the food processing industry is
one of the largest industries in India and is ranked fifth in terms of production, consumption, export
and expected growth. The total food production in India is likely to double in the next 10 years with the
country's domestic food market estimated to reach US$ 258 billion by 2015.
The role of the Indian government has been instrumental in the growth and development of the
industry. The government through the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MoFPI) is making all
efforts to encourage investments in the sector. It has approved proposals for joint ventures (JVs),
foreign collaboration, industrial licences and 100 per cent export oriented units.
Market size
The Indian food industry stood at US$ 135 billion in 2012 and is expected to grow at a compound
annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10 per cent to about US$ 200 billion by 2015, according to a report by
KPMG.
Indian agricultural and processed food exports during April-May 2014 stood at US$ 3,813.63million,
according to data released by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority (APEDA). In 2013-14, the total processed/value added agricultural products exported and
the foreign exchange equivalent earned therefrom stood at Rs 4,627.99 crore (US$ 752.39 million) as
compared to Rs 3,689.26 crore (US$ 599.89 crore) during the previous year.
The branded quick service restaurant (QSR) market in India, which has attracted international brands
such as McDonald's, Subway, Nando's, Domino's and KFC currently stands at US$ 13 billion and is
set to get bigger with new emerging players.
Marine product exports from India touched US$ 5.01 billion during FY14, according to Ms Leena Nair,
Chairperson, Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).
Investments
The foreign direct investment (FDI) equity inflows in food processing industries during April 2000-July
2014 stood at US$ 5,949.21 million, as per data released by Department of Industrial Policy and
Promotion (DIPP). The following are some of the investments and developments in the sector:
ITC Ltd plans to foray into new categories such as beverages that include fruit juices, tea and coffee, and
chocolates and dairy products. As a part of its plan to enter the dairy sector, the company is constructing a

milk processing unit at Munger in Bihar.

Bisleri International Pvt Ltd has launched its first branded soda in Hyderabad. "This is our first experiment in
the country. We will scale it up to other states in the days to come," said Mr Santosh AS Borkar, Director South Zone, Bisleri International Pvt Ltd. The company would also be setting up eight water plants in

Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Nissin, owner of Top Ramen Noodles, has launched a differentiated noodle - Scoopies Mad Masala Short
Noodle. The company commissioned its third factory in Odisha earlier this year, with an investment of Rs 100

crore (US$ 16.25 million), from where the product would be manufactured.
Food Bazaar plans to tap the under-branded food and beverages space in the Indian domestic market with the

help of private labels to offer more choice to the consumers.

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages, the Coca-Cola Company's largest bottling partner in India, plans to set up a
Rs 1,000 crore (US$ 162.48 million) bottling plant in Telangana and has also sought land for the proposed

venture.
Caf Coffee Day (CCD), in a bid to expand its market in India, plans to add 150 cafes and 120 more Xpress
outlets across the country during FY15.

Government Initiatives
The Government of India is running various schemes for promotion and development of food
processing industries in the country. Some of the major initiatives undertaken include the following:

The government has allocated Rs 180 crore (US$ 29.24 million) to various States/Union Territories (UTs)
during FY15 for the schemes of National Mission on Food Processing (NMFP) including that of scheme of

Technology upgradation/Establishment/Modernisation of food processing industries.

The General Council for National Food Security Mission (NSFM) has approved Rs 2,100 crore (US$ 341.24

million) for the scheme in FY15, which will focus to improve the production of oilseeds and pulses.
The MoFPI is exploring the potential and possibility of developing agro processing clusters in smaller areas of
25-30 acres. A national consultation was organised by the Ministry on 'Development of Agro Processing

Clusters' in Delhi on August 8, 2014.

Spices Board of Department of Commerce under Ministry of Commerce & Industry has established a Spice
Park at Puttady, Idukki district of Kerala as a processing centre for cardamom andpepper. The facilities in the
Park include e-auction centre, grading and colour sorting machine, and Poly Urethane Form (PUF) godown for

cardamom.
To make farming competitive and profitable as well as to step up investment, both public and private, in agrotechnology development and creation and modernisation of existing agri-business infrastructure, the
government has proposed to establish two more institutions of excellence in Assam and Jharkhand at par with
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Centre at PUSA, New Delhi. For this purpose, an initial sum of
Rs 100 crore (US$ 16.24 million) has been provided in the Union Budget 2014-15.

Road Ahead
In order to promote food processing industries, increase level of processing and exploit the potential
of domestic and international market for processed food products, Vision Document-2015 was
prepared by the Ministry, which envisaged trebling the size of investment in the processed food sector
by increasing the level of processing of perishables from 6 per cent to 20 per cent, value addition from
20 per cent to 35 per cent and share in global food trade from 1.5 per cent to 3 per cent by 2015. To
achieve these targets, an investment of Rs 100,000 crore (US$ 16.24 billion) is required by the year
2015.
Further,the adoption of food safety and quality assurance mechanisms such as Total Quality
Management (TQM) including ISO 9000, ISO 22000, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
(HACCP), Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and Good Hygienic Practices (GHP) by food
processing industry enables adherence to stringent quality and hygiene norms and thereby protects
consumer health, prepares the industry to face global competition, enhances product acceptance by
overseas buyers and keeps the industry technologically abreast of international best practices.
The allocation of Rs 2,000 crore (US$ 324.84 million) as a separate National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development (NABARD) fund for food processing industries during the Union Budget 2014-15,
is all set to give a big boost to this sector in India.
Exchange rate used: INR 1 = US$ 0.0162 as on September 26, 2014