By Jyotsna Bhatnagar

The large requirement of iodised salt to combat iodine deficiency disorders (IDDs) was what prompted the government to permit private participation in the production of iodised salt. Under the National Goitre Control Programme (adopted in 1962), the government also adopted the policy of universal salt iodisation (USI).

A notification was issued banning the sale of non-iodised edible salt at state and union territory level under the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954. All iodised salt producers and repackers were required to ensure that the salt marketed by them conformed to the standards prescribed under the Act. Food inspectors were empowered to conduct random checks on samples to ascertain whether they conformed to prescribed specifications, failing which a manufacturer could be prosecuted and imprisoned for six months to three years and fined a minimum of Rs 1,000.

But the goal of universal salt iodisation has remained elusive.

For one, of the total annual salt production of 135 lakh tonnes, a sizeable 30 per cent is produced by the non-licensed sector comprising salt works of less than 10 acres. At present, there are about 10,000 licensed and unlicensed producers of common salt of which a minuscule 593 are registered producers of iodised salt. The total number of iodised salt manufacturers including non-registered units is estimated at 750.

The total production of iodised salt in the country touched 40.17 lakh tonnes in the year 1998-99 against a target of 60 lakh tonnes.

According to the Salt Department, one of the major hurdles in the implementation of the USI goal was the rampant production of baragara (big crystal) salt by the inland salt manufacturers in the Little Rann area. Taking advantage of the high concentration sub-soil brine in the area, the salt manufacturers of the region had been producing baragara salt with an average crystal size of 25-35 mm. Apart from rural Gujarat, this variety of salt was largely consumed by the rural population in UP, MP and Delhi.

Studies have shown that the manufacturing practices of the inland salt manufacturers, their practice of bulk packing salt in 75 kg gunny bags, and open and improper storage at the wholesale and retail level rendered this salt unsuitable for proper iodisation.

Of late, however, the government has succeeded in phasing out the manufacture of baragara salt altogether and has got manufacturers to agree to producing multiple harvested phoda salt that has smaller crystals.

Unfortunately, even though the crystals of phoda salt are smaller than the baragara variety, there has not been much reduction in crystal size. It has also been observed that consumers of crystal salt wash and dry the crystals before consuming them. All the iodine on the surface gets washed off, defeating the whole purpose of iodisation. "Undoubtedly, crushed salt is the best and most effective carrier of iodine," admitted a ministry official.

But manufacturers of phoda salt have been pleading for permission to despatch iodised phoda salt without crushing it. They have steadfastly resisted attempts by the government to make them take a minimum of two crops and crush the salt before iodisation. "We are up against a mindset," admitted the official. He revealed that the government had supplied at least ten salt crushing units to small salt manufacturers. But these were lying idle as the manufacturers were opposed to using them. He, however, hastened to add that at least some salt manufacturers were making attempts to overcome this mindset. They were actually working out logistics, and acquiring land and uninterrupted power supply to operate the crushers.

The Salt Department officials also admit that in order to achieve the USI objective, small producers whose holdings are less than 10 acres, numbering at least 7,000 in the non-licensed sector and 1,500 in the licensed sector, need to be roped in. It has been assessed that about 40 salt iodisation plants would be required to meet the needs of co-operatives of small producers. The government has taken an initiative in this direction and has started providing iodisation plants to co-operative societies in some states. Small producers are also being supported in forming co-operatives, and establishing iodisation units. They are provided a year's supply of potassium iodate. Establishment of crushing and packaging units is also being supported.

The manufacturers, however, have numerous complaints about the iodisation programme. Foremost among these, according to the Gujarat Inland Salt Manufacturers' Association, are the stiff terms of prosecution set under the PFA Act. They feel that a non-bailable warrant is too stiff a penalty.

They also want the word "adulteration " to be substituted by "not up to specifications." They contend that "substandard iodised salt cannot harm or give adverse effect to the health of people and therefore substandard salt and adulteration cannot be placed on the same footing for penalising the industry". They have been demanding that iodised salt be deleted from the PFA Act. They have suggested that monitoring of iodisation be handed over to the Salt Department.

The manufacturers have also been quibbling over the iodine specifications set by the government. They contend that the range of iodine content in salt should be revised from the existing 30 ppm at the manufacturing level and 15 ppm at consumer point to 15 ppm anywhere or 20 ppm at manufacturing level and 15 ppm at the point of consumption. They feel that "the present margin is too much and is unnecessarily causing a national loss of crores of rupees since the prevailing iodine cost is about Rs 1,000 per kg and moreover it is an imported item".