Most people think contamination starts after harvest.

At the collection centre.

During transport.

Inside processing units.

That belief is comforting — and dangerously wrong.

Contamination usually begins much earlier.

Often silently.

Often invisibly.

Often with good intentions.

________________________________________

The myth of the “clean harvest”

There is a popular assumption:

“If the crop looks clean at harvest, it is clean.”

Reality is less forgiving.

By the time produce is harvested,

many contamination decisions have already been made:

• in soil preparation,

• in water sourcing,

• in pest control,

• in animal housing,

• in human habits.

Harvest only reveals outcomes.

It does not create them.

________________________________________

A field near Kotputli

It’s August, near Kotputli.

Bhindi is ready.

The plants look healthy.

Pods are glossy.

Yield is good.

But upstream:

• irrigation water passes through a drain,

• cattle graze near the field,

• labourers wash hands in the same water source.

No malicious intent.

No negligence.

Just everyday life colliding with food safety.

By harvest time, contamination is already embedded —

even if invisible.

________________________________________

Why farmers rarely see contamination as a “problem”

Most farmers associate contamination with:

• chemicals,

• adulteration,

• or deliberate malpractice.

They do not associate it with:

• shared water sources,

• open defecation nearby,

• reused fertiliser bags,

• sick animals wandering fields,

• or human handling during milking.

Not because they don’t care —

but because these risks feel normal.

Governance must translate invisible risk into visible understanding.

________________________________________

Milk exposes this fastest

Milk contamination teaches humility.

Milk may look fresh.

Smell fine.

Taste normal.

Yet contamination can occur through:

• unwashed udders,

• sick animals,

• contaminated water,

• reused containers,

• human illness.

This is why milk systems obsess over:

• hygiene routines,

• animal health,

• and daily discipline.

Vegetable and animal procurement often underestimate this — until something goes wrong.

________________________________________

Contamination is behavioural, not technical

Most contamination is not caused by lack of technology.

It is caused by:

• shortcuts,

• habits,

• convenience,

• and fatigue.

A farmer uses the nearest water source.

A worker skips handwashing once.

A container is reused one extra time.

Each action feels harmless.

Together, they create risk.

Governance must address behavioural defaults, not just standards.

________________________________________

The danger of assuming “we will handle it later”

Many buyers rely on this logic:

“We will wash it.”

“We will sort it.”

“We will process it.”

This creates a false sense of control.

Some contamination cannot be washed away:

• chemical residues,

• microbial infiltration,

• stress-induced animal conditions.

Late-stage correction is expensive — and often ineffective.

Prevention is not idealism.

It is economics.

________________________________________

Live animals multiply ethical responsibility

With live animals, contamination and ethics merge.

Stress, overcrowding, dehydration, and rough handling:

• reduce weight,

• increase mortality,

• and compromise meat safety.

None of this is visible at purchase time.

All of it is caused before aggregation.

Ignoring this shifts ethical and biological risk downstream — unfairly.

________________________________________

Why “not our farm” is not a defence

Once you procure directly from farms,

you inherit moral responsibility — even without legal ownership.

Saying:

“It happened before we bought it”

may protect contracts,

but it does not protect:

• brands,

• consumers,

• or conscience.

Governance begins where excuses end.

________________________________________

Contamination risk is unevenly distributed

Small farmers face higher contamination risk because:

• resources are limited,

• infrastructure is shared,

• and labour is informal.

Punishing them later for risks created earlier

is unjust and ineffective.

Governance must:

• recognise asymmetry,

• support behavioural correction,

• and design practical safeguards.

________________________________________

A simple contamination governance test

Ask this honestly:

“If I were consuming this product with my family, would I accept how it was produced?”

If the answer depends on:

• luck,

• washing later,

• or hoping nothing went wrong,

the system is already compromised.

________________________________________

Why this chapter matters

Most food safety conversations start too late.

They focus on:

• testing,

• certification,

• and blame.

Real governance starts earlier:

• in habits,

• in awareness,

• in design.

Contamination is not a failure of farmers.

It is a failure of systems that ignore lived realities.

________________________________________

What comes next

If contamination begins before harvest,

it does not end at harvest.

Once produce leaves the farm,

new risks emerge — faster, messier, and harder to control.

That is where we go next.