Articles on 25 April 2025

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Egg Mayonnaise Ban Tamil Nadu Latest News
• Mayonnaise
• Raw Eggs Can Be Dangerous
• Impact on the Food Industry
• Egg Mayonnaise Ban Tamil Nadu FAQs

Egg Mayonnaise Ban Tamil Nadu Latest News

• The Tamil Nadu government has imposed a one-year ban, effective from April 8, on the manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale of mayonnaise made with raw eggs, citing public health concerns.

Mayonnaise

• Mayonnaise is a semi-solid emulsion made from egg yolk, vegetable oil, vinegar, and seasonings. 
• It is traditionally prepared using three basic ingredients: oil, egg yolk, and an acid like lemon juice or vinegar.

How It’s Made

• Egg yolks and seasonings are mixed with oil to form a thick, pale yellow sauce. 
• An acid is then added. The protein in the egg acts as an emulsifier, helping blend the oil and water content into a stable mixture.

Origin and Global Use

• Though its origins are traced to France or Spain, mayonnaise is now widely used in fast food globally. 
• It serves as a popular spread in sandwiches and burgers and accompanies various foods like shawarmas and momos.

Raw Eggs Can Be Dangerous

• Raw eggs can carry harmful pathogens that are normally destroyed during cooking. 
• In mayonnaise, which is often made using raw eggs, these pathogens remain active, posing health risks.

Risk in Indian Conditions

• The Tamil Nadu government noted that raw egg-based mayonnaise is a high-risk food, especially in India’s hot and humid climate. 
• Improper preparation and storage increase the likelihood of contamination by bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli.

About Salmonella and E. Coli

• Salmonella bacteria thrive in warm, moist conditions and are a major cause of foodborne illness globally. 
• Symptoms include diarrhoea, vomiting, and stomach cramps.
• E. coli bacteria, while mostly harmless, have certain strains that can cause serious infections in the gut, urinary tract, and other areas.

Vulnerable Groups

• Children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals are especially at risk of severe illness from these bacteria.

Expert Opinion

• Experts support the ban, stating that although mayonnaise is energy-dense, using raw eggs can expose consumers to Salmonella, making the government’s decision a wise public health measure.

Impact on the Food Industry

• Mayonnaise has become a common ingredient in urban Indian fast food. 
• The ban in Tamil Nadu will likely push food businesses to use eggless or pasteurised-egg alternatives, at least until a detailed risk assessment is completed. 
• Fortunately, the Indian market is already dominated by eggless mayonnaise.

Not an Isolated Move

• Tamil Nadu is not the first state to impose such a ban—Telangana enforced a similar one-year ban on egg-based mayonnaise in November. 
• TN’s decision aligns with earlier bans on gutka and paan masala, which were also deemed hazardous to health.

Broader Public Health Trend

• This move is part of a growing trend of public health interventions. 
• For instance, Punjab recently banned the sale of caffeinated energy drinks to children and near schools due to potential health risks.
• A scientific study is underway there to evaluate its effects on minors.

Egg Mayonnaise Ban Tamil Nadu FAQs

Q1. Why did Tamil Nadu ban egg mayonnaise?

Ans. Due to health risks from raw eggs in hot, humid Indian climate.

Q2. What bacteria are involved?

Ans. Salmonella and E. coli, both cause severe foodborne illness.

Q3. Who is most vulnerable?

Ans. Children, elderly, and immunocompromised individuals face the highest risk.

Q4. Will the food industry adapt?

Ans. Yes, many businesses will shift to eggless or pasteurised alternatives.

Q5. Is this a unique move?

Ans. No, Telangana had already imposed a similar ban earlier.

Source: IE | ToI | IT

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Simla Agreement Latest News
• Introduction
• Understanding the Simla Agreement
• Key Provisions and Outcomes
• Why Pakistan Suspended the Agreement
• Potential Impact on the Line of Control
• India’s Stance and Future Outlook
• Conclusion
• Simla Agreement FAQs

Simla Agreement Latest News

• Pakistan has suspended the 1972 Simla Agreement as a reaction against stringent measures taken by India amid nationwide grief over the terrorist attack in Pahalgam.

Introduction

• In a significant move with wide-ranging geopolitical implications, Pakistan announced the suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement. 
• This decision, coming amid heightened tensions following a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, marks a potential turning point in India-Pakistan relations. 
• The Simla Agreement, long seen as the cornerstone of bilateral diplomacy between the two nations, was designed to ensure peaceful conflict resolution and maintain the status quo along the Line of Control (LoC). 
• Pakistan's unilateral withdrawal from the pact signals a departure from this framework and may reopen old hostilities.

Understanding the Simla Agreement

• Signed on July 2, 1972, by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Simla Agreement was a diplomatic response to the 1971 Indo-Pak war, which led to the creation of Bangladesh. 
• The treaty aimed to restore peace and normalise bilateral relations, establishing key principles for future engagement:
  • Peaceful Coexistence: Both nations committed to resolving conflicts bilaterally and refraining from third-party mediation.
  • Respect for Sovereignty: Each side was to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of the other.
  • Non-Interference: The agreement explicitly prohibited any interference in each other’s internal affairs.
  • Bilateral Negotiation Framework: Issues such as Kashmir were to be resolved without international intervention.

Key Provisions and Outcomes

• Line of Control (LoC):
  • The ceasefire line from the 1971 war was converted into the LoC, a de facto boundary in Jammu and Kashmir. Both nations agreed not to alter this line unilaterally.
• Return of Captured Territory:
  • India returned over 13,000 sq. km of Pakistani territory captured during the war, reinforcing its commitment to peace, though strategic areas like Turtuk and Chalunka were retained.
• Recognition of Bangladesh:
  • While not part of the agreement directly, it paved the way for Pakistan’s eventual diplomatic recognition of Bangladesh.
• UN Charter Alignment:
  • The agreement reaffirmed both countries’ adherence to the principles of the UN Charter, including peaceful coexistence and abstaining from use of force.

Why Pakistan Suspended the Agreement

• Pakistan's decision appears to be a reaction to India's domestic measures, particularly those concerning Jammu and Kashmir, such as the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. 
• With bilateral engagement stalled and tensions escalating, Islamabad has opted for a symbolic but potentially destabilising move.
• This suspension allows Pakistan to:
  • Distance itself from the bilateral framework, possibly to seek third-party intervention.
  • Reclaim diplomatic leverage by internationalising the Kashmir issue through forums like the UN or OIC.
  • Signal strategic recalibration, especially amidst domestic political and security pressures.

Potential Impact on the Line of Control

• The LoC has historically been volatile, marked by frequent ceasefire violations and infiltration attempts. 
• The Simla Agreement, by codifying mutual respect for the LoC, provided a framework to de-escalate tensions. With that framework now in question:
  • Ceasefire Stability May Erode: Without a binding commitment, the risk of increased skirmishes and military escalation grows.
  • Loss of Diplomatic Buffer: The absence of a shared agreement removes a key diplomatic restraint, potentially inviting brinkmanship.
  • Greater Global Involvement: Pakistan may use the suspension to justify third-party mediation, a stance India opposes.

India’s Stance and Future Outlook

• As of now, India has not issued an official response. Historically, India has emphasised bilateralism, rejecting foreign intervention in its disputes with Pakistan. 
• The suspension of the Simla Agreement could further shrink the space for any meaningful dialogue, at least in the near term.
• Going forward, the situation could evolve in two ways:
  • Escalation: Without the agreement, LoC violations and political provocations could increase, particularly during sensitive periods like elections or terror attacks.
  • Diplomatic Re-engagement: Pressure from global powers may push both sides to re-establish a formal mechanism for engagement, possibly under a new framework.

Conclusion

• Pakistan's suspension of the 1972 Simla Agreement represents a significant strategic pivot. 
• It removes a key pillar of bilateral engagement, increases the risk of conflict along the LoC, and may revive global involvement in South Asia’s most contentious dispute, Kashmir. 
• While the long-term impact remains to be seen, the move undeniably weakens a foundational peace structure built over decades.

Simla Agreement FAQs

Q1. What was the Simla Agreement?

Ans. A 1972 peace treaty between India and Pakistan to resolve conflicts through bilateral dialogue and uphold peace along the LoC.

Q2. Why did Pakistan suspend the Simla Agreement in 2025?

Ans. In protest against India’s actions in Kashmir and to move away from the bilateral framework it mandated.

Q3. What does the agreement say about the Line of Control?

Ans. It converted the 1971 ceasefire line into the LoC and prohibited unilateral changes to its status.

Q4. What are the implications of the suspension?

Ans. It may increase LoC tensions, invite third-party intervention, and strain regional stability.

Q5. Has India responded to the suspension?

Ans. As of now, India has not issued an official statement.

Source: TOI

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Global Pandemic Treaty Latest News
• Need For a Global Pandemic Treaty
• Key Provisions of the Pandemic Treaty
• Criticism of the Global Pandemic Treaty
• Global Pandemic Treaty FAQs

Global Pandemic Treaty Latest News

• After over three years of negotiations, WHO member states (excluding the United States) have agreed on a draft of a legally binding treaty aimed at improving global preparedness and response to future pandemics. 
• This treaty, set to be ratified at the World Health Assembly in May, marks only the second legally binding accord in WHO’s history—the first being the 2003 tobacco control treaty.

Need For a Global Pandemic Treaty

• Unequal Vaccine Distribution During COVID-19
  • When the Omicron variant surged in late 2021, vaccine-producing countries hoarded doses, leaving low-income nations with limited or no access. 
  • This highlighted deep global inequities in pandemic response.
• Preventable Loss of Lives
  • A 2022 study in Nature estimated that over one million lives could have been saved with fairer vaccine distribution. 
  • By that time, COVID-19 had already taken more than seven million lives globally.
• Systemic Failures in Global Response
  • A 2021 report by the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response blamed poor strategic choices, inequality, and lack of coordination for turning the pandemic into a major humanitarian disaster.
• A Call for Coordinated Global Action
  • In response to these failures, WHO member states began negotiating a pandemic treaty in December 2021. 
  • After 13 rounds of talks over nearly three-and-a-half years, a draft agreement was reached to ensure better preparedness, equity, and coordination in future pandemics.

Key Provisions of the Pandemic Treaty

• Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing
  • The treaty introduces a system where pharmaceutical companies gain access to scientific data—like pathogen samples and genomic sequences—in exchange for a commitment to equitably share the resulting vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics during a pandemic.
• Production Allocation to WHO
  • Manufacturers participating in the agreement must allocate:
    • 10% of their pandemic-related products (vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics) to WHO free of charge, and
    • An additional 10% at affordable prices.
• Technology and Knowledge Sharing
  • Member states are expected to encourage or incentivize the transfer of technology and know-how, enabling developing countries to manufacture their own medical tools during pandemics.
• Conditions on Publicly Funded Research
  • Countries must create policies that require any publicly funded research—whether at universities or private companies—to ensure equitable and timely access to resulting treatments or diagnostics during health emergencies.
• Government Intervention for Public Benefit
  • The treaty empowers governments to intervene when life-saving medicines, developed using public funds, are unaffordable or inaccessible, ensuring availability for citizens and vulnerable populations worldwide.

Criticism of the Global Pandemic Treaty

• Limited Authority of the WHO
  • While the treaty is considered a major step forward, it does not grant the WHO any legal power over individual countries.
  • Clause 24 explicitly states that the WHO cannot direct or change any national laws or policies. 
    • It also cannot enforce travel bans, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or any public health measures.
• No Enforcement Mechanism
  • The WHO has no power to ensure compliance. In a future crisis, countries could again prioritize national interests—such as hoarding vaccines—without facing consequences. 
  • This weakens the treaty’s enforceability.
• Concerns from the Pharmaceutical Industry
  • Pharma leaders argue that unclear rules around intellectual property and benefit-sharing may discourage investment in high-risk pandemic research.
  • They emphasized the need for legal certainty to maintain innovation and public-private partnerships in future health emergencies.
• Lack of Clarity in Key Provisions
  • The “pathogen access and benefit sharing” system—central to the treaty—lacks detailed implementation guidelines, raising concerns about its practicality and effectiveness.
• Absence of the United States
  • The U.S., a major player in vaccine and drug production, withdrew from negotiations after Donald Trump’s return to power. 
  • Its absence significantly weakens the treaty’s impact.
  • Experts described the lack of U.S. participation as a “gaping hole” in global pandemic preparedness efforts.

Global Pandemic Treaty FAQs

Q1. What is the global pandemic treaty?

Ans. A legally binding WHO accord to improve pandemic preparedness and equitable access.

Q2. Why was the treaty needed?

Ans. To address COVID-19-era vaccine hoarding and global health inequality.

Q3. What are key treaty provisions?

Ans. Fair vaccine sharing, tech transfer, and publicly funded research access.

Q4. Does WHO have enforcement power?

Ans. No, the treaty gives no legal authority over national governments.

Q5. Why is US absence significant?

Ans. The US dominates vaccine production; its absence weakens treaty impact.

Source: IE | WHO | BBC