K Chandramouli, chairperson, FSSAI (Food Safety & Standards Authority of India), has indicated the Tamilnadu Foodgrains Merchants Association Ltd that a change in the August 5-implemented Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2011 could be possible after due consultation with the government, scientific committee and scientific panels.
He gave this assurance while speaking to the association representatives at a protest organised by them in Chennai on Wednesday. While the association is keen for an early solution to the issue, the entire consultation and review process for the amendment is likely to take at least 19 months.
Shankar, secretary, Tamilnadu Foodgrains Merchants Association Ltd, explained over the telephone, "The Act will force small and medium level food business operators out of their business. Hence, we are seeking few changes in the Act, so that it will help small food business operators."
He added, "In the current format, the Act will only help multinational companies. Further, India is a vast country and climatic conditions differ from region to region, so the food and agricultural products will differ. Therefore, there should be changes made to the Act." The association is also seeking a shorter and quicker review process.
The association has written to the authority on the shortcomings of the regulation, thus;
1. Government of India has enacted the FSSA 2006 from August 5, 2011. Though this law has been enacted, the state level authorities who are in charge of implementing this Act, are lacking knowledge and cannot give explanations regarding this Act. Only during the last month, they are attending awareness programmes conducted by various associations. We request you to conduct more awareness programmes both for the authorities as well as trade bodies in this business and then implement the Act. Further we feel that enacting this Act now, will force small and medium level food business operators out of their business and make way for the multinational companies and big Indian players.
2. Present food quality standards are more like American and European standards. These developed countries mainly import agricultural produce from other countries for their need. But India is mainly an agriculture-based country, our agriculture contributes more than 51% of our GDP. We harvest many types of cereals, pulses and grains and are mainly dependent on climatic conditions. Our soil quality, climatic conditions differ throughout the country and fertiliser and pesticide input to the soil has also definitely changed our quality of the agricultural produces.
The quality standards defined for commodities in Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 is almost same as that of old PFA Act, 1954. During this period of say almost 55 years our soil quality, climatic conditions, fertilisers and pesticide input to the soil must have changed. So these facts have to be definitely considered while setting up the quality standards.
3. Unexpected torrential rain can damage the crops during harvest. Qualities like nutritional value, proteins, sugar content, and moisture of the damaged grains may not be exactly matching with the standards of the new Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. We request you to consider these facts, and not describe these qualities as an adulterant, instead allow us to market these products with low quality value as 'substandard' printed on their labels.
4. In FSS Act "Adulterant" means any material which is or could be employed for making food unsafe or substandard, misbranded or containing extraneous matter. "Substandard" and "Misbranded" should be deleted in this definition as it is not in the nature of Adulteration.
5. "Misbranded Food" defined in the Section 3(1) is focussing mainly on misleading or deceptive claims, contents on the package or label etc. which has nothing to do with the food product and its contents. The "Misbranded Food" deviates from adulterated food as both terms altogether connote with distinct meaning and therefore misbranded food product cannot be said to be adulterated and vice versa. Adulteration is a heinous crime and it cannot be equated or treated on par with any infirmity for non-compliance in the printing of label or package called misbranded. Thus, the offence of misbranding has to be dealt with separately with lesser fine otherwise it would be nothing but mere harassment and unreasonable to treat the unequal equally.
6. Government before enforcing the FSSA 2006 should establish quality control food analytical laboratories in every district and fix reasonable charges. Government should also give accreditation to the labs, serving this field and encourage them by giving reasonable subsidies.
7. Since the contents of agricultural produce vary from place to place depending on climatic conditions, nature of soil, pesticide and fertiliser usage, nutrient levels also vary due to different storage conditions and climate. Hence the law should allow declaring "approximate" nutritional values instead of "exact" values.
8. Only single licence system should be enough for a food business operator. When a manufacturer sells his products through mobile van, he is forced to take licence in each and every village the van travels. This is cumbersome procedure and humanly impossible. Hence this has to be changed.
For a food item if no standards are prescribed, it is classified as "proprietary food." The Act insists the manufacturer to get licence for each proprietary food. Licensing procedures should be made simple and one licence will help the manufacturer to concentrate on his growth rather than going to pillar to post for getting licences.
9. If changes are announced regarding labels the law should permit 12 months time to change the labels due to practical difficulties in it.
10. The picture of gulab jamoon or chicken pieces, poori printed on the label should not be treated as "Misbranded."
11. Regarding the "Principal Display Panel" of the label, the unnecessary confusion should be withdrawn. It is enough if the declaration regarding weight, price and nutritional contents should be printed in a legible manner, so that it can be seen easily by the consumer.
12. In conventional foods certain preservatives, colors, flavours etc., need to be added in certain proportions as per GMP without which such products cannot be manufactured.
Example: Appalam (South Indian Pappad) is manufactured with rice flour, urad dhall flour as its main raw materials along with salt, edible oil, sodium bicarbonate asafoetida in small quantities. The Act prohibits sodium bicarbonate and insists on sorbic acid. Sodium bicarbonate is not harmful to health and is allowed to use in other food products such as instant mixes and is commonly used in household kitchens. Appalam manufacturing is a traditional cottage industry and without using this ingredient, manufacture of Appalam is not possible. Hence the conditions stipulated for the manufacture of proprietary food should be removed or allowed to use as per GMP so as to manufacture conventional foods without any problems.
13. The new FSS Act insists food business operators or manufacturers should employ Supervisor with technical qualification, at least a degree in science for their food processing units. To avoid the practical problems, the new rule must be amended as food business operator should employ supervisor with technical qualification when the strength of the workers working in their units crosses above 100 persons.
14. The new Act has the provision that a purchaser can take the samples from a dealer and send it for food analysis. This may be misused by the unscrupulous elements and they may use this to extract money or other undue advantage from the manufacturer. So this should be modified. If there is a strong suspicion of food adulteration about a particular dealer, he should inform the concerned food inspectors and they should only take the samples for analysis.
15. Food samples should be taken in clean, sterilised bottles which jars or should be wooden/plastic, air tight treated container instead of packing it in wrapper/polythene packets, as there is a chance that same unscrupulous officials may tamper the samples by mixing water, salt, chemicals, drug etc., through a syringe so as to penalise the manufacturer for some ulterior motive.
16. Food safety officer may inspect food business operator premises at any time and may take samples. He should not be allowed to seize the books of accounts. He may get xerox copy of the records.
17. The manufacturer should not be punished if the sample lifted after the best before declaration date of the product and the seller is only responsible for the sale of barred goods.
18. In the definition of food business, in Section 3(n) the word "transportation" should be removed as food business operators do not carry out any transportation activities as transportation is carried out only by the transport operators. How can the lorry operators would be able to check up the quality before accepting for transportation.
19. The food safety officer is authorised to take samples of any adulterant found in possession of the food processor even during preprocessing stage. Foodgrains and pulses are transported to the food processors in bulk quantities in lorries and goods wagons. Such lorries and goods wagons also transport base products like cement and coal. The processors should not be penalised for particles of such products found in the sample. Such extraneous matters will automatically removed after cleaning, grading and sorting processes. Hence sample should be taken from the food processors only after these processes are completed and not from the raw material. Similarly water kept for cooking would be boiled before using and hence such water supplied by the local bodies should not be subjected to testing.
20. The requirement for removal of extraneous matters and wastages daily by non-perishable food processors is literally impractical and can be undertaken only in stages. Hence processors should not be penalised for having such wastages in their premises.
21. The FSSR 2011 prescribe various qualifications for food safety officers and they should undergo a specialised training within a period of two years from the commencement of FSS Act. When two years has been given for training of the enforcing officials, it is imperative more time should be given for the innumerable food business operators who are mostly illiterate in the country to be fully acquainted with the provisions and the implications of the new Act Rules and Regulations. Otherwise, they will be subjected to severe hardships.
22. The new FSS Act fines over 100 times when compared to the old PFA Act. Such a hike is unheard of anywhere in the world. There is a clear difference between deficiency to follow an Act and committing willful offences. The law should give opportunity to set right the deficiency as well as to correct the mistakes. Also maximum penalty should be Rs 25,000 instead of proposed Rs 10 lakh.
23. Central Advisory Committee for FSSA should have adequate representation from various food products producers to express their just demands. We propose at least 2/3 members of the committee should be from food industry.
24. The manufacturers are in no way responsible for improper storage by shopkeepers/dealers, places of selling and transportation. So they should not be held responsible for any penal action for improper storage etc. of dealers/shopkeepers. It is impossible for a manufacturer to control proper storage in a place which is not in his control.
25. In case of marginal variations found in analytical results, they should be viewed leniently, since such variations occur from lab to lab and they are not in anyway under the category of adulteration. Natural defects like excess/shortage of contents in the agricultural products as compared to the standards prescribed under the Act will not affect health. For this natural deficiency manufacturers should not be punished.
26. The small and medium food business operators may have to spend their whole investments in setting up their workplace clean, tidy and hygienic as per norms mentioned by FSSA.
27. Under the new law, rules and regulations of packing and labelling are very stringent. E.g., the name of the product should be displayed in English or Hindi. Regional language alone cannot be displayed, If it is the case, it has to be printed along with English or Hindi. All punishments are made severe under the new law for misbranding, minor labelling and packaging errors. Self Help Group (SHG) products traditional food, snacks like Murukku, Pappad, Pickles, Athirasam, Boondi, Sevu, Mixture etc., which are mainly produced and marketed by women will have a tough time in producing and marketing their products due to stringent rules and regulations under the new Act.
He gave this assurance while speaking to the association representatives at a protest organised by them in Chennai on Wednesday. While the association is keen for an early solution to the issue, the entire consultation and review process for the amendment is likely to take at least 19 months.
Shankar, secretary, Tamilnadu Foodgrains Merchants Association Ltd, explained over the telephone, "The Act will force small and medium level food business operators out of their business. Hence, we are seeking few changes in the Act, so that it will help small food business operators."
He added, "In the current format, the Act will only help multinational companies. Further, India is a vast country and climatic conditions differ from region to region, so the food and agricultural products will differ. Therefore, there should be changes made to the Act." The association is also seeking a shorter and quicker review process.
The association has written to the authority on the shortcomings of the regulation, thus;
1. Government of India has enacted the FSSA 2006 from August 5, 2011. Though this law has been enacted, the state level authorities who are in charge of implementing this Act, are lacking knowledge and cannot give explanations regarding this Act. Only during the last month, they are attending awareness programmes conducted by various associations. We request you to conduct more awareness programmes both for the authorities as well as trade bodies in this business and then implement the Act. Further we feel that enacting this Act now, will force small and medium level food business operators out of their business and make way for the multinational companies and big Indian players.
2. Present food quality standards are more like American and European standards. These developed countries mainly import agricultural produce from other countries for their need. But India is mainly an agriculture-based country, our agriculture contributes more than 51% of our GDP. We harvest many types of cereals, pulses and grains and are mainly dependent on climatic conditions. Our soil quality, climatic conditions differ throughout the country and fertiliser and pesticide input to the soil has also definitely changed our quality of the agricultural produces.
The quality standards defined for commodities in Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 is almost same as that of old PFA Act, 1954. During this period of say almost 55 years our soil quality, climatic conditions, fertilisers and pesticide input to the soil must have changed. So these facts have to be definitely considered while setting up the quality standards.
3. Unexpected torrential rain can damage the crops during harvest. Qualities like nutritional value, proteins, sugar content, and moisture of the damaged grains may not be exactly matching with the standards of the new Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. We request you to consider these facts, and not describe these qualities as an adulterant, instead allow us to market these products with low quality value as 'substandard' printed on their labels.
4. In FSS Act "Adulterant" means any material which is or could be employed for making food unsafe or substandard, misbranded or containing extraneous matter. "Substandard" and "Misbranded" should be deleted in this definition as it is not in the nature of Adulteration.
5. "Misbranded Food" defined in the Section 3(1) is focussing mainly on misleading or deceptive claims, contents on the package or label etc. which has nothing to do with the food product and its contents. The "Misbranded Food" deviates from adulterated food as both terms altogether connote with distinct meaning and therefore misbranded food product cannot be said to be adulterated and vice versa. Adulteration is a heinous crime and it cannot be equated or treated on par with any infirmity for non-compliance in the printing of label or package called misbranded. Thus, the offence of misbranding has to be dealt with separately with lesser fine otherwise it would be nothing but mere harassment and unreasonable to treat the unequal equally.
6. Government before enforcing the FSSA 2006 should establish quality control food analytical laboratories in every district and fix reasonable charges. Government should also give accreditation to the labs, serving this field and encourage them by giving reasonable subsidies.
7. Since the contents of agricultural produce vary from place to place depending on climatic conditions, nature of soil, pesticide and fertiliser usage, nutrient levels also vary due to different storage conditions and climate. Hence the law should allow declaring "approximate" nutritional values instead of "exact" values.
8. Only single licence system should be enough for a food business operator. When a manufacturer sells his products through mobile van, he is forced to take licence in each and every village the van travels. This is cumbersome procedure and humanly impossible. Hence this has to be changed.
For a food item if no standards are prescribed, it is classified as "proprietary food." The Act insists the manufacturer to get licence for each proprietary food. Licensing procedures should be made simple and one licence will help the manufacturer to concentrate on his growth rather than going to pillar to post for getting licences.
9. If changes are announced regarding labels the law should permit 12 months time to change the labels due to practical difficulties in it.
10. The picture of gulab jamoon or chicken pieces, poori printed on the label should not be treated as "Misbranded."
11. Regarding the "Principal Display Panel" of the label, the unnecessary confusion should be withdrawn. It is enough if the declaration regarding weight, price and nutritional contents should be printed in a legible manner, so that it can be seen easily by the consumer.
12. In conventional foods certain preservatives, colors, flavours etc., need to be added in certain proportions as per GMP without which such products cannot be manufactured.
Example: Appalam (South Indian Pappad) is manufactured with rice flour, urad dhall flour as its main raw materials along with salt, edible oil, sodium bicarbonate asafoetida in small quantities. The Act prohibits sodium bicarbonate and insists on sorbic acid. Sodium bicarbonate is not harmful to health and is allowed to use in other food products such as instant mixes and is commonly used in household kitchens. Appalam manufacturing is a traditional cottage industry and without using this ingredient, manufacture of Appalam is not possible. Hence the conditions stipulated for the manufacture of proprietary food should be removed or allowed to use as per GMP so as to manufacture conventional foods without any problems.
13. The new FSS Act insists food business operators or manufacturers should employ Supervisor with technical qualification, at least a degree in science for their food processing units. To avoid the practical problems, the new rule must be amended as food business operator should employ supervisor with technical qualification when the strength of the workers working in their units crosses above 100 persons.
14. The new Act has the provision that a purchaser can take the samples from a dealer and send it for food analysis. This may be misused by the unscrupulous elements and they may use this to extract money or other undue advantage from the manufacturer. So this should be modified. If there is a strong suspicion of food adulteration about a particular dealer, he should inform the concerned food inspectors and they should only take the samples for analysis.
15. Food samples should be taken in clean, sterilised bottles which jars or should be wooden/plastic, air tight treated container instead of packing it in wrapper/polythene packets, as there is a chance that same unscrupulous officials may tamper the samples by mixing water, salt, chemicals, drug etc., through a syringe so as to penalise the manufacturer for some ulterior motive.
16. Food safety officer may inspect food business operator premises at any time and may take samples. He should not be allowed to seize the books of accounts. He may get xerox copy of the records.
17. The manufacturer should not be punished if the sample lifted after the best before declaration date of the product and the seller is only responsible for the sale of barred goods.
18. In the definition of food business, in Section 3(n) the word "transportation" should be removed as food business operators do not carry out any transportation activities as transportation is carried out only by the transport operators. How can the lorry operators would be able to check up the quality before accepting for transportation.
19. The food safety officer is authorised to take samples of any adulterant found in possession of the food processor even during preprocessing stage. Foodgrains and pulses are transported to the food processors in bulk quantities in lorries and goods wagons. Such lorries and goods wagons also transport base products like cement and coal. The processors should not be penalised for particles of such products found in the sample. Such extraneous matters will automatically removed after cleaning, grading and sorting processes. Hence sample should be taken from the food processors only after these processes are completed and not from the raw material. Similarly water kept for cooking would be boiled before using and hence such water supplied by the local bodies should not be subjected to testing.
20. The requirement for removal of extraneous matters and wastages daily by non-perishable food processors is literally impractical and can be undertaken only in stages. Hence processors should not be penalised for having such wastages in their premises.
21. The FSSR 2011 prescribe various qualifications for food safety officers and they should undergo a specialised training within a period of two years from the commencement of FSS Act. When two years has been given for training of the enforcing officials, it is imperative more time should be given for the innumerable food business operators who are mostly illiterate in the country to be fully acquainted with the provisions and the implications of the new Act Rules and Regulations. Otherwise, they will be subjected to severe hardships.
22. The new FSS Act fines over 100 times when compared to the old PFA Act. Such a hike is unheard of anywhere in the world. There is a clear difference between deficiency to follow an Act and committing willful offences. The law should give opportunity to set right the deficiency as well as to correct the mistakes. Also maximum penalty should be Rs 25,000 instead of proposed Rs 10 lakh.
23. Central Advisory Committee for FSSA should have adequate representation from various food products producers to express their just demands. We propose at least 2/3 members of the committee should be from food industry.
24. The manufacturers are in no way responsible for improper storage by shopkeepers/dealers, places of selling and transportation. So they should not be held responsible for any penal action for improper storage etc. of dealers/shopkeepers. It is impossible for a manufacturer to control proper storage in a place which is not in his control.
25. In case of marginal variations found in analytical results, they should be viewed leniently, since such variations occur from lab to lab and they are not in anyway under the category of adulteration. Natural defects like excess/shortage of contents in the agricultural products as compared to the standards prescribed under the Act will not affect health. For this natural deficiency manufacturers should not be punished.
26. The small and medium food business operators may have to spend their whole investments in setting up their workplace clean, tidy and hygienic as per norms mentioned by FSSA.
27. Under the new law, rules and regulations of packing and labelling are very stringent. E.g., the name of the product should be displayed in English or Hindi. Regional language alone cannot be displayed, If it is the case, it has to be printed along with English or Hindi. All punishments are made severe under the new law for misbranding, minor labelling and packaging errors. Self Help Group (SHG) products traditional food, snacks like Murukku, Pappad, Pickles, Athirasam, Boondi, Sevu, Mixture etc., which are mainly produced and marketed by women will have a tough time in producing and marketing their products due to stringent rules and regulations under the new Act.
Sodium Silicate,Water Glass,Potassium Silicate,Sodium Silicate brazil,Potassium silicate brazil,Silicate India,sodium silicate manufacturer,Detergents Raw Materials,Sodium Silicate India,Water Glass India,Potassium Silicate India,Sodium Silicate
ReplyDeleteVisit more: http://www.kiranglobal.com/products/sodium_bi_carbonate.html