Court refuses to stay food safety rules - THE HINDU

The Madras High Court has refused to stay the operation of various provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act and its rules.
Justice V. Ramasubramanian dismissed a batch of miscellaneous petitions from Sakthi Masala Pvt. Ltd. and association of manufacturers and exporters of agricultural products.
Earlier, the court had granted an interim stay in respect of Section 31 (7) of the Act. Under the provision, a manufacturer who had a chain of distribution outlets throughout the State or throughout the country should obtain as many licences as the number of stores.
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India filed a petition to vacate the stay.
What had been inserted in the provision was not something which was not already in existence. The requirement to obtain different licences had been in vogue for the past more than 30 years. In such circumstances, there was no question of issuing an order of injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing the provision, Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian said dismissing the petitions seeking injunction.

Confusion over deadline: Registration for food joints Health dept sticks to Aug 5 deadline

Amritsar, August 3
There is a confusion over the extension of deadline for traders, eating joints etc dealing in food products to register under the Food Safety and Standards Act.
While the Punjab Pradesh Beopar Mandal claim that the deadline has been extended by six months by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the health department said the deadline of August 5 stands as it has not received any communiqué in the regard.
The traders had claimed that they have received a copy of the decision of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India regarding the new deadline.
Importantly, the deadline for traders to get registered and to obtain licence has already been extended twice.
So far there has been a lukewarm response from the traders, manufacturers and others involved in food businesses to comply with the norms under the said Act.
Sources said the department has so far received only 700 applications from the food businesses. The instructions for registration were issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 which was implemented in the state on August 8, 2011.
Earlier, the businesses were given time till April 31 to register under the Act. But only 150 applicants submitted applications in this regard.
Till June end, only 400 businesses cared to abide by the instructions. Later, the department organised camps at various places to make the process easier for the traders.
However, representatives of the industry demanded another extension of deadline.
Civil Surgeon Dr Hardeep Singh Ghai said the deadline for getting registered or obtaining licences ends on August 5. He said it is mandatory for all traders whether big or small or involved at any stage of the business to get registered. He urged the traders to follow the instructions before the deadline ends.
Traders claim that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had extended the deadline by six months
The health department says it has not received any communiqué in the regard, and hence the deadline of August 5 stands

Know what you eat!

With the amendment of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA), 1954, the newly formed, Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, makes it binding on all the eateries, dhabas, to obtain a license and register the eatery with the Food and Drug Administration Department.

Chandrashekhar Salunke, assistant commissioner, Food, FDA, Pune district, said, "All establishments are made mandatory to obtain license from FDA, only to function smoothly. This decision will curb and bring down the low quality of food and hygienic conditions while preparing will be maintained.”
“It is a good decision to implement the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations 2011. Unfortunately actual regular inspection is not done from concerned authority. Mere imposing new regulation will not solve the hygiene problem. As we see generally same cloth is used to clean the utensils for long time in a day, the food cooked in the morning is served for the whole day or two etc. create hygiene problems. Encroachment, hotel parking problems will be solved at the initial stage only,” said Dinesh Hole, member, zonal railway committee.
While the owner of Rasoi Hut was aware of the new amendment, KC Chandak said, “The law was there but it was PMC’s food departments responsibility, it seems they have FDA looking into it directly. It is a good thing meaning all the encroachments will be off the road especially over night tapris which are serving unhygienic food. I will welcome any such new lciense and will happily apply for it whatever be the cost. It will not hamper my menu prices. I will immediately take it.”
Baibhaw Bibhu, an IT professional said, “There are certain measures that should be taken to keep a check on the food quality. However the officials fail to do the needful. Also the roadside eateries attract a lot of commuters despite of them being aware of the unhygienic surroundings.”

According to the act…
The Act says that all street food vendors with an annual turnover of less than Rs 12 lakh will have to obtain a certificate. Those having a turnover of over Rs 12 lakh will have to obtain a license. The licensing fee is Rs. 100 per year while registration fees are around Rs. 2000. The obtainer can apply for a license and registration for a period of Five years at once.

Eateries wash their hands of hygiene

It is commendable that Mumbai’s restaurateurs (okay, some of them) are willing to improve hygiene and food safety in their kitchens, thanks, among other things, to DNA’s cleanliness campaign. As one who eats out more often than not, I can’t but rejoice at their commitment.
But I have a grievance against public eateries (and rest rooms) of Mumbai. By eateries I mean not just restaurants but canteens/cafeterias at offices, cinemas, theatres, railway stations, and malls as well. Not just the kitchen and the seating space, even the wash basin area needs urgent attention. To be precise, four key aspects need to be improved.
Space: For goodness’ sake, make the wash basin bay spacious. Sure, space is at a premium in Mumbai, but it would be a fallacy to stretch this argument to wash basins. Tiny, cramped wash basin bays, smaller than aircraft toilets, are often found adjacent to the kitchen. It is plain disgusting because patrons have to brush against each other, or come into contact with slimy side-walls and surface areas, to access the water tap.

Soap: Has anyone ever seen a public eatery/toilet in Mumbai where good quality soap is dispensed? Usually, it is either a horribly cut tiny cake of cheap, hard soap or excessively diluted, hence ineffective, liquid soap that is on offer — that too in grimy plastic soap-holders or much-used dispensers. Don’t restaurants make enough money to afford good quality soap? A wash basin is meant to encourage and enable customers to be hygienic. Why cut corners and defeat the very purpose? This amusing, laughable and deplorable practice is rampant everywhere, including at top-end restaurants. It must end.
Cleanliness: The wash basins, water taps, surface areas, tiled walls, mirrors, etc, it appears, are not thoroughly cleaned and sanitised every day. And to think these dingy, damp potential health hazards are located in close proximity to kitchens at most eateries.
Aesthetics and maintenance: In developed countries, wash basin bays (and public toilets) are tidy, fragrant, well-designed and clean. They are used as an opportunity to make a statement about the local standard of living, the society’s attitude to life and community itself. Here in Mumbai, they serve as reminders of Third Worldliness. Typically, you will find some/all of the following at a public wash basin bay: leaking or dysfunctional water taps, cracked tiles, fading wall paint, dim lights, exposed masonry, stinking pipes, misty mirrors, dirty and wet towels, cobwebs and slippery floors.
Mumbai’s eateries can afford fancy CCTV systems alright, but why can’t they spend a little more on decent wash basin bays and improve the overall experience of their patrons? Wouldn’t it generate goodwill and loyalty which, in turn, could help restaurateurs in their pursuit of profit-maximisation?
In the context of unhygienic food leading to illness or death, a restaurateur is liable for a penalty of up to Rs10 lakh and a jail term of up to six years. But proving his/her guilt is not always easy. How exactly can one do this? I have no clue. I haven’t heard or read about any such sentencing so far either.
Maybe patrons should turn mobile-cam vigilantes and expose ugly, untidy premises? And highlight exceptionally clean eateries so as to inspire/shame others into following suit.

Hoteliers fume over FDA demands

With the new Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2011 in place, restaurant owners want authorities to be encouraging, rather than discouraging them by making impractical demands.
After the FSSA came in place, a restaurant owner who had applied for a license received an improvement letter from the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) officials, who then inspected the restaurant.
The letter, which was issued in June, mentions 13 improvement points that the FDA wants the restaurant to follow.
Guruprasad Shetty, owner of the restaurant Status in Lower Parel, said, “While a few of the FDA’s suggestions were good, there were a few impractical ones such as having registration details of the vendors we buy raw materials from. If a vendor is not registered, how can we be held responsible or asked to produce it in a month’s time?”
Another impractical requirement, said Shetty, is maintaining the first in, first out (FIFO) procedure—a method of stock rotation wherein new supplies are shelved behind old supplies, so that the old supplies get used first. “FIFO is for raw food products applies only to five-star hotels, while small hotel owners like us shop for food products on a daily basis,” he added.
While food experts want both authorities and restaurateurs to come together for the sake of food safety, Ashwin Badri, head (business relations), Equinox Lab, a food hygiene expert professional agency, said, “Food safety officers need training in conducting inspections and what needs to be looked after. Also, restaurant owners would need workshops so that they are clear about the law.”
About maintaining records, Badri said, “City restaurants already do 80% of the work needed to maintain food safety and hygiene. Taking extra steps and getting documents will only give them an edge.”
However, FDA commissioner Mahesh Zagade said that the FSSA has a provision which allows the hotelier to appeal to the commissioner directly if he is not happy with the improvement letter. “If there is something that they feel is impractical, they can approach me. We have to improvise the law,” he added.
The improvement letter emphasised on maintaining documents on the food safety steps undertaken by the restaurant . These include details on when was the pest control carried out, records of raw material used, and other such data.

Stay on Food Safety Act vacated

 

An interim order passed in November 8 last year staying the operation of Section 31(7) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, was vacated by the Madras High Court on Friday.
Justice V Ramasubramanian vacated the stay after hearing the arguments of R Suresh Kumar, the counsel for Food Safety and Standards Authorities of India (FSSAI). Sec 31(7) stipulated that if the food was manufactured, stored, sold or exhibited for sale at different premises, separate applications should be made and separate licenses should be issued.
Originally, while entertaining a batch of writ petitions from Sakthi Masala and others challenging certain provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Rules, 2011, Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar had stayed the operation of 31(7) alone. Aggrieved, the FSSAI filed petitions to vacate the stay. Vacating the stay, Justice Ramasubramanian said what was under sub-section (7) of Sec. 31 was not something which was not already in existence.

உணவு பாதுகாப்பு விதிமுறைகள் தடையை நீக்கி ஐகோர்ட் உத்தரவு

சென்னை: உணவுப் பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் தர ஆணையம் பிறப்பித்த விதிமுறைகளை அமல்படுத்த விதிக்கப்பட்டிருந்த தடையை, சென்னை ஐகோர்ட் நீக்கியது.

உணவுப் பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் தரச் சட்டம், 2006ம் ஆண்டு கொண்டு வரப்பட்டது. இந்தச் சட்டத்தை அமல்படுத்த, பல விதிமுறைகளை உணவுப் பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் தர ஆணையம் வகுத்தது. ஓட்டல், உணவு விடுதிகள் என, உணவு வர்த்தகத்தில் ஈடுபட்டிருப்பவர்கள், உரிய அதிகாரியிடம் உரிமம் பெற வேண்டும், உணவுப் பொருட்களை பேக்கிங் செய்து லேபிள் ஒட்டி விற்க வேண்டும், உணவுப் பொருள் உற்பத்தி நிறுவனங்கள், பரிசோதனைக் கூடங்களில் உணவு மாதிரியை சோதிக்க வேண்டும் என, பல்வேறு விதிகள் வகுக்கப்பட்டன.

தடை
இந்த விதிமுறைகளை எதிர்த்து, சென்னை ஐகோர்ட்டில் தமிழ்நாடு உணவு விற்பனையாளர்கள் நலச் சங்கம் மனு தாக்கல் செய்தது. விதிமுறைகளுக்கு தடை விதிக்கவும் கோரப்பட்டது. மனுக்களை விசாரித்த ஐகோர்ட், விதிமுறைகளை அமல்படுத்த இடைக்காலத் தடை விதித்தது. தடை உத்தரவை நீக்கக் கோரி, உணவுப் பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் தர ஆணையத்தின் வழக்கறிஞர் ஆர்.சுரேஷ்குமார், ஐகோர்ட்டில் மனு தாக்கல் செய்தார். மனுவை, நீதிபதி ராமசுப்ரமணியம் விசாரித்தார். ஆணையம் வகுத்த விதிமுறைகள், பார்லிமென்டின் இரு சபையிலும் தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டு, அவற்றுக்கு ஒப்புதல் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என, ஆணையத்தின் வழக்கறிஞர் ஆர்.சுரேஷ்குமார் வாதாடினார்.

மனுவை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி ராமசுப்ரமணியன் பிறப்பித்த உத்தரவு: ஏற்கனவே, 1955ம் ஆண்டு முதல் இருக்கும் விதிமுறைகளை தான் இந்தப் புதிய விதிமுறைகளிலும் கையாண்டுள்ளனர். உணவுப் பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் தரச் சட்டம், விதிமுறைகளை அமல்படுத்துவதை சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் கண்காணித்து வருகிறது. இந்தச் சட்ட விதிகளை அமல்படுத்தாததற்காகவும், விதிமுறைகளை அறிவிக்காததற்காகவும், ஒரு கட்டத்தில் அதிகாரிகளை சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் கண்டித்துள்ளது.

சட்டப் பிரிவுகள் மற்றும் விதிமுறைகள் குறித்த உத்தரவுகள், சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் உத்தரவினால் தான் வந்துள்ளது. இந்தச் சூழ்நிலையில், விதிமுறைகளை அமல்படுத்துவதற்கு தடை விதிக்கக் கூடாது. சட்டத்தை ஏன் அமல்படுத்தவில்லை என, ஒரு கோர்ட் கேள்வி கேட்கும் போது, சட்டத்துக்கு மற்றொரு கோர்ட் தடை விதிப்பது என்பது முரண்பாடாக இருக்கும். எனவே, இடைக்காலத் தடை கோரிய மனுக்கள் தள்ளுபடி செய்யப்படுகின்றன. தடை நீக்கப்படுகிறது. இந்த உத்தரவில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ள காரணங்கள் எல்லாம், வழக்கின் இறுதி விசாரணையின் போது முன்வைக்கப்படும் வாதங்களுக்கு பாதிப்பை ஏற்படுத்தாது. இவ்வாறு, நீதிபதி ராமசுப்ரமணியன் உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளார்.

சக்தி மசாலா நிறுவனம் மற்றும் விவசாயப் பொருட்கள் உற்பத்தியாளர்கள் மற்றும் ஏற்றுமதியாளர்கள் சங்கம் சார்பில், உணவுப் பாதுகாப்பு மற்றும் தரச் சட்டப் பிரிவுகளை எதிர்த்து, மனுக்கள் தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டன. சட்டத்தில் குறிப்பிட்ட பிரிவு 31(7) க்கு மட்டும் ஐகோர்ட் தடை விதித்திருந்தது. உணவு வர்த்தகத்தில் உள்ளவர்கள் உரிமம் பெற வேண்டும் மற்றும் பதிவு செய்திருக்க வேண்டும் என, இந்தப் பிரிவு வலியுறுத்துகிறது.

இந்த தடையையும் நீக்கக் கோரி, ஆணையத்தின் சார்பில் வழக்கறிஞர் ஆர்.சுரேஷ்குமார் மனு தாக்கல் செய்தார். மனுவை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி ராமசுப்ரமணியன், "இது ஒன்றும் புதிய பிரிவு அல்ல. வெவ்வேறு பகுதிகளுக்கு வெவ்வேறு உரிமம் பெற வேண்டும் என்பது, 30 ஆண்டுகளாக நடைமுறையில் உள்ளது. எனவே, இந்தப் பிரிவுக்கு தடை விதிக்க வேண்டியதில்லை. தடை நீக்கப்படுகிறது' என கூறியுள்ளார்.

DAILY THANTHI NEWS

²Šg‹ «è£˜†´ è‡è£EŠH™ àœ÷ àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ê†ìˆ¶‚° MFˆî î¬ì c‚è‹ ªê¡¬ù ä«è£˜†´ àˆîó¾

ªê¡¬ù, Ýè.4&
ñˆFò Üó² ªè£‡´ õ‰¶œ÷ àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ìˆ¶‚°‹, ܬî Üñ™ð´ˆ¶õ à¼õ£‚Aò MFº¬øèÀ‚°‹ MF‚èŠð†ì î¬ì¬ò c‚A ªê¡¬ù ä«è£˜†´ àˆîóM†ì¶.
ñˆFò Üó² ê†ì‹
ñˆFò Üó², àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ì‹ â¡ø ê†ìˆ¬î 2006&‹ ݇´ à¼õ£‚Aò¶. Þ‰î ê†ìˆ¬î Üñ™ð´ˆ¶õîŸè£ù MFº¬øè¬÷ àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó‹ G˜íò ݬíò‹ 2011&‹ ݇´ à¼õ£‚Aò¶.
Þ‰î MFº¬øèO¡ð®, àí¾ ªð£¼†èœ îò£Kˆ¶ 𣂪膴èO™ MŸð¬ù ªêŒ»‹«ð£¶, ÜF™ «ôHœ å†ì«õ‡´‹. æ†ì™ ñŸÁ‹ àí¾ àŸðˆF GÁõùƒèœ àí¾ ªð£¼œ îó ÜFè£KJì‹ àKñ‹ ñŸÁ‹ ðF¾ ªêŒò«õ‡´‹. àí¾ àŸðˆF GÁõùƒèœ, ðK«ê£î¬ù Ãì‹ Ü¬ñ‚è «õ‡´‹ àœðì ð™«õÁ MFº¬øè¬÷ à¼õ£‚Aò¶.
î¬ì MFŠ¹
Þ‰î MFº¬øè¬÷ óˆ¶ ªêŒò¾‹, MFº¬øè¬÷ Üñ™ð´ˆî î¬ì MF‚è «è£K»‹, ªê¡¬ù ä«è£˜†®™, îI›ï£´ àí¾ ªð£¼†èœ Mò£ð£Kèœ êƒè‹ ꣘H™ õö‚° ªî£ìóŠð†ì¶.
Þ‰î ñ¬õ Mê£Kˆî cFðF, àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ìˆ¬î Üñ™ð´ˆî à¼õ£‚èŠð†ì MFº¬øèÀ‚° î¬ì MFˆ¶ 30.5.2012 Ü¡Á àˆîóM†ì£˜. Þ¬îò´ˆ¶, Þ‰î î¬ì¬ò c‚è‚«è£K ªê¡¬ù ä«è£˜†®™ àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó‹ G˜íò‹ ݬíò‹ ꣘H™ ñÂ î£‚è™ ªêŒòŠð†ì¶.
Þ¼ ܬõèœ åŠ¹î™
Þ‰î ñÂ‚èœ â™ô£‹ cFðF M.ó£ñ²ŠóñEò‹ º¡¹ Mê£ó¬í‚° õ‰î¶. ÜŠ«ð£¶, àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó‹ G˜íò‹ ݬíòˆF¡ ꣘H™ õ‚W™ ݘ.²«ów°ñ£˜ Ýüó£A, ÔÞ‰î ¹Fò MFº¬øè¬÷ «ô£‚êð£ ñŸÁ‹ ó£xò êð£M™ î£‚è™ ªêŒ¶, Þ¼ ܬõèO½‹ åŠ¹î™ ªðŸø H¡ù«ó Üñ™ð´ˆîŠð†ì¶. ÞF™ â‰î îõÁ‹ Þ™¬ôÕ â¡Á õ£î‹ ªêŒî£˜.
Þ¬îò´ˆ¶ cFðF HøŠHˆî àˆîóM™ ÃPJ¼Šðî£õ¶:&
àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ìˆ¬î»‹, ܬî Üñ™ð´ˆ¶õîŸè£è à¼õ£‚èŠð†ì MFº¬øè¬÷»‹ ²Šg‹ «è£˜†´ è‡è£Eˆ¶ õ¼Aø¶.
å¼ è†ìˆF™, Þ‰î ê†ìˆ¬î Þ¶õ¬ó ã¡ Üñ™ð´ˆîM™¬ô â¡Á ñˆFò Üó² ÜFè£Kè¬÷ ²Šg‹ «è£˜†´ 臮ˆ¶œ÷¶.
î¬ì c‚è‹
Þ‰î ê†ìˆ¬î»‹, MFº¬øè¬÷»‹ ²Šg‹ «è£˜†´ àˆîó¾ð®î£¡ ªè£‡´õóŠð†´œ÷¶. âù«õ Þ‰î MFº¬øè¬÷ Üñ™ð´ˆî î¬ì MFˆî£™, ܶ êKò£è Þ¼‚裶.
å¼ «è£˜†´ àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ìˆ¬î ã¡ Üñ™ð´ˆîM™¬ô â¡Á «èœM â¿Š¹õ¶‹, ñŸªø£¼ «è£˜†´ ܉î ê†ìˆ¬î Üñ™ð´ˆ¶õ î¬ì MFŠð¶‹ ºó‡ð£´ ãŸð´‹.
âù«õ Þ‰î ê†ì MFº¬øè¬÷ Üñ™ð´ˆî MF‚èŠð†ì î¬ì¬ò c‚è‹ ªêŒA«ø¡.
Þšõ£Á ÜF™ ÃøŠð†´œ÷¶.
ê†ìˆ¶‚° î¬ì
Ü«î«ð£ô, àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ìˆ¬î âF˜ˆ¶ ê‚F ñê£ô£, Mõê£ò ªð£¼œ àŸðˆFò£÷˜ ñŸÁ‹ ãŸÁñFò£÷˜ êƒè‹ ÝA«ò£˜ õö‚° ªî£ì˜‰îù˜.
܉î õö‚° ñÂM™, Ôàí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ì‹ HK¾ 31(7)¡ ð®, àí¾ àŸðˆF ªêŒõ àKñ‹ ñŸÁ‹ ðF¾ ªêŒò£ñ™ ªî£N™ ªêŒò‚Ã죶. «õš«õÁ ÞìƒèO™ ªî£N™ ªêŒî£™, ܉î ÞìƒèO½‹ àKñ‹ ªðø«õ‡´‹ â¡Á ñˆFò Üó² ÃP»œ÷¶. Þ‰î HK¬õ óˆ¶ ªêŒò«õ‡´‹. HK¾‚° î¬ì MF‚è«õ‡´‹‘ â¡Á ÃPJ¼‰îù˜. Þ‰î HK¾‚° ªê¡¬ù ä«è£˜†´ ãŸèù«õ î¬ì MFˆ¶ Þ¼‰î¶.
¹Fò ê†ì‹ Þ™¬ô
Þ‰î î¬ì¬ò c‚è‚«è£K àí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó‹ G˜íò‹ ݬíò‹ ñÂ î£‚è™ ªêŒî¶.
Þ‰î ñ¬õ Mê£Kˆî cFðF M.ó£ñ²ŠHóñEò¡, Ôàí¾ ð£¶è£Š¹ ñŸÁ‹ îó„ê†ì‹ HK¾ 31(7) èì‰î 30 ݇´è÷£è ÜñL™ àœ÷¶. àí¾ ªð£¼œ àŸðˆF ñŸÁ‹ MŸð¬ù ªêŒõ ¬ôê¡v ªðø«õ‡´‹ â¡ø MFº¬ø 1981&‹ ݇´ ºî™ àœ÷¶. Þ¶ ¹Fò ê†ì‹ â¡Á Ãø º®ò£¶. âù«õ Þ‰î MFº¬ø‚° MF‚èŠð†ì î¬ì¬ò c‚èŠð´Aø¶Õ â¡Á àˆîóM†ì£˜.