Dec 31, 2011
Dec 28, 2011
25% of city eateries still to apply for FDA licence
AS the city preps up to celebrate the New Year in a few days from now, about 25 per cent of restaurant owners are yet to submit forms to procure licences from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In this case, those restaurants would be declared illegal, said Assistant Commissioner of FDA Chandrakant Salunke.
According to the amended Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) of 2006, it is mandatory for all food manufacturers, including small eateries, to register or renew their licence from the FDA. December 31 is the last date to submit applications.
Salunke said, "Those who have submitted forms but are yet to get licences can run their establishments. Eatery owners who do not submit applications in time will be declared illegal. So far only 75 per cent restaurant owners in the city have applied for the licence."
Ganesh Shetty, president of Restaurants and Hoteliers Association (RHA), said 150 restaurant owners took forms from the RHA office yesterday.
Food Safety Becoming More Critical to C-stores
NATIONAL REPORT -- The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which was signed into law by President Obama on Jan. 4, 2011, has already begun to leave its mark. However, convenience store operators can expect it to become much more prevalent in 2012.
The law was signed in an attempt to protect the 48 million Americans who get sick from foodborne diseases annually. According to the U.S. government, 128,000 of those people are hospitalized following exposure and 3,000 die annually.
Although not every guideline within the FSMA affect c-store owners, several aspects of the law could matter at your store. Here's a look at some of those mandates:
The law was signed in an attempt to protect the 48 million Americans who get sick from foodborne diseases annually. According to the U.S. government, 128,000 of those people are hospitalized following exposure and 3,000 die annually.
Although not every guideline within the FSMA affect c-store owners, several aspects of the law could matter at your store. Here's a look at some of those mandates:
- Mandatory controls for food facilities: Food facilities are required to implement a written preventative controls plan. This involves evaluating the hazards that could affect food safety; specifying what preventative steps, or controls will be put into place to prevent the hazards; specifying how the facility will monitor these controls to ensure they are working; maintaining records of the monitoring; specifying what actions the facility will take to correct problems that arise.
- Mandatory produce safety standards: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must establish science-based, minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits vegetables.
- Mandated inspection frequency: The FMSA establishes a mandated inspection frequency, based on risk, for food facilities.
- Records access: The FDA will have access to records, including food safety plans. Other aspects of the law dramatically increase your responsibility if you import food. For the first time, importers must verify that foreign suppliers have adequate preventative controls to ensure the food that is produced is safe. The FDA can deny entry into the United States any foreign food where the government agency is denied access by the country in which the facility is located.
Food Recall – Effective tool for ensuring food safety and FSS Act, 2006
While Food Recall is a relatively new concept in India, with the FSS Act, 2006, focussing on this vital aspect, awareness is growing and companies are looking at it as a vital link in the supply chain.
Indian companies are slowly realising that at times the product they have released in the market, needs to be recalled. And this can be minimised if the company’s recall system is well planned, implemented and understood by those who are involved in core activities of sourcing, manufacturing and distribution functions.
With the kind of emphasis, which is being given to food safety nowadays, consumers are also very much aware and at the same time concerned about the safety of the product they consume.
Section 28 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, of Government of India emphasises the need for product recall. This states
If a food business operator considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with this Act, or the rules or regulations, made thereunder, he shall immediately initiate the procedures to withdraw, the food in question from the market and consumers indicating reasons for its withdrawal and inform the competent authorities thereof.
Every food business operator shall follow such conditions and guidelines relating to food recall procedures as the Food Authority may specify by regulations.
In the past, in order to strengthen food safety, the FSSAI had released the draft regulation known as Food Authority’s Food Recall Procedures Regulations, 2009, which shall come into force from date of its notification in the official gazette.
Salient features of yet-to-be adopted regulations:
Objective
● To guide food business operators on how to carry out a food recall through an efficient, rapid identification as well as removal of unsafe food and food that violate the Act and Rules & Regulations made thereunder from the distribution chain and informing consumers (where necessary) of the presence of potentially hazardous food in the market and ensure that unsafe food are contained and destroyed or rendered safe;
● To guide food business operators on how to establish a written recall plan for carrying out food recall in case the food does not meet the requirements of the hygiene, safety and quality of food and to protect the health of consumers; and
● To establish a follow-up action / post-recall report in order to ensure the
effectiveness of the recall and prevent a recurrence.
Scope
● These regulations apply to the recall of food that presents a threat to the public health or whose quality does not conform to the Act and Rules & Regulations made thereunder.
● All food businesses engaged in the wholesale supply, manufacture or importation of food regulated by Food Authority must have an up-to-date recall plan except food retailers, unless they are also engaged in the wholesale supply, manufacture or importation of food.
● Food businesses within the food service sector such as restaurants, caterers and takeaways are exempted to have recall plan unless they are running multi-outlet food business chains having integrated manufacturing and distribution network.
● The food retailers and businesses within the food service sector which do not need a recall plan, shall remove recalled stock from shelves and return it to the manufacturer, importer or wholesaler and must ensure that food that is subject to a recall is separated and identified from other food until it is disposed of in accordance with the instructions provided as part of the recall plan.
● A recall plan must be available in written form and shall be made available to the state food authority / food authority on request.
● The food business operator is required to comply with the plan it has developed when it recalls food.
● In the case of alcoholic beverages the mandatory mentioning of warning “consumption of alcohol is injurious to health” may not be treated as unsafe unless the beverage is otherwise not containing any harmful and dangerous substance that may cause serious health problems or is unsafe to the consumer.
Recall Classification
FSSA Guidelines: Steps in Developing Recall Procedures
A Typical Composition of Recall Team
(Example from other established systems adopted internationally)
(Ensure that all functions are covered if various departments do not exist in your organisation)
Contents of food recall notifications
● Name of the food business operator recalling the food.
● Name of the food, brand name, pack size, batch & code number, date of manufacture, used by date or best before date.
● The contamination / violation in the food / reason for recall.
● The “do not consume message if the food is unsafe.”
● Health warning and action.
● The places / outlets where the food is found.
● The action to be taken by the consumer.
● A contact number for queries.
The recalling food business operator shall respond to each query from the state food authority / food authority within 24 hours of the receipt of the query.
Contents of recall status report
● Number of downstream food business operators or individuals notified, and date and method of notification;
● Number of food business operator responding to the notification and quantity of the particular food in their possession;
● Number of food business operator or individuals not responding to the notification and quantity of food dispatched to them. (if needed, the identity of non-responding food business operator may be requested by the state food authority / food authority);
● Quantity of recalled food and result of investigation;
● Proposed method of disposal or otherwise of recalled stock with records of destruction;
● Anticipated time limit for completion of the recall.
Dealing with the recovered food
● The recalling food business operator shall store the recovered food in an area which is separated from any other food and is identified by a label plate with prominently written Recalled Product.
● The recalling food business operator shall maintain accurate records of the recovered food and their lot no. / batch code, pack size, brand name, date of manufacture, best before date etc. Proper recording system shall be available to ensure that all the foods are retrieved and their details recorded.
● The recalling food business operator may correct or reprocess the recovered food if appropriate in consultation with state food authority and ensure that it is fit and safe for human consumption before release to the market.
● In all other cases, the recalling food business operator will ensure appropriate destruction of such food in consultation with / presence of the state food authority representative.
● A complete record of the disposal of such product shall be maintained.
Post-recall report
● The recalling food business operator shall submit post-recall report after the completion of the recall to assess the effectiveness of the recall.
● The effectiveness of a recall shall be assessed on the basis of the quantity / amount of food returned as a proportion of the quantity / amount of food that left the recalling food business operator while taking into account the retail turnover of the food.
● In addition to assessing the effectiveness of a recall, it is necessary to follow up by investigating the reason for the recall and taking action to prevent a recurrence of the problem.
Termination of a recall
● The recalling food business operator may request termination of its recall by submitting a written request to the state food authority / food authority along with latest recall status report / post-recall report stating that the recall was effective.
● A recall may be terminated when the state food authority / food authority determines that all reasonable efforts have been made and it is reasonable to assume that the food subject to the recall has been removed and proper disposition or correction has been made.
● Written notification to the effect that a recall is terminated will be issued by the state food authority / food authority to the recalling food business operator within two weeks of the request submitted by the recalling food business operator.
● In case of unsatisfactory reports, the state food authority / food authority may consider further action like stepped-up inspection, seizure or any other legal action, against the recalling food business operator.
(The writer is food safety and system expert and consultant. He can be contacted at udai.saxena@gmail.com)
Indian companies are slowly realising that at times the product they have released in the market, needs to be recalled. And this can be minimised if the company’s recall system is well planned, implemented and understood by those who are involved in core activities of sourcing, manufacturing and distribution functions.
With the kind of emphasis, which is being given to food safety nowadays, consumers are also very much aware and at the same time concerned about the safety of the product they consume.
Section 28 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, of Government of India emphasises the need for product recall. This states
If a food business operator considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with this Act, or the rules or regulations, made thereunder, he shall immediately initiate the procedures to withdraw, the food in question from the market and consumers indicating reasons for its withdrawal and inform the competent authorities thereof.
Every food business operator shall follow such conditions and guidelines relating to food recall procedures as the Food Authority may specify by regulations.
In the past, in order to strengthen food safety, the FSSAI had released the draft regulation known as Food Authority’s Food Recall Procedures Regulations, 2009, which shall come into force from date of its notification in the official gazette.
Salient features of yet-to-be adopted regulations:
Objective
● To guide food business operators on how to carry out a food recall through an efficient, rapid identification as well as removal of unsafe food and food that violate the Act and Rules & Regulations made thereunder from the distribution chain and informing consumers (where necessary) of the presence of potentially hazardous food in the market and ensure that unsafe food are contained and destroyed or rendered safe;
● To guide food business operators on how to establish a written recall plan for carrying out food recall in case the food does not meet the requirements of the hygiene, safety and quality of food and to protect the health of consumers; and
● To establish a follow-up action / post-recall report in order to ensure the
effectiveness of the recall and prevent a recurrence.
Scope
● These regulations apply to the recall of food that presents a threat to the public health or whose quality does not conform to the Act and Rules & Regulations made thereunder.
● All food businesses engaged in the wholesale supply, manufacture or importation of food regulated by Food Authority must have an up-to-date recall plan except food retailers, unless they are also engaged in the wholesale supply, manufacture or importation of food.
● Food businesses within the food service sector such as restaurants, caterers and takeaways are exempted to have recall plan unless they are running multi-outlet food business chains having integrated manufacturing and distribution network.
● The food retailers and businesses within the food service sector which do not need a recall plan, shall remove recalled stock from shelves and return it to the manufacturer, importer or wholesaler and must ensure that food that is subject to a recall is separated and identified from other food until it is disposed of in accordance with the instructions provided as part of the recall plan.
● A recall plan must be available in written form and shall be made available to the state food authority / food authority on request.
● The food business operator is required to comply with the plan it has developed when it recalls food.
● In the case of alcoholic beverages the mandatory mentioning of warning “consumption of alcohol is injurious to health” may not be treated as unsafe unless the beverage is otherwise not containing any harmful and dangerous substance that may cause serious health problems or is unsafe to the consumer.
Recall Classification
FSSA Guidelines: Steps in Developing Recall Procedures
A Typical Composition of Recall Team
(Example from other established systems adopted internationally)
(Ensure that all functions are covered if various departments do not exist in your organisation)
Contents of food recall notifications
● Name of the food business operator recalling the food.
● Name of the food, brand name, pack size, batch & code number, date of manufacture, used by date or best before date.
● The contamination / violation in the food / reason for recall.
● The “do not consume message if the food is unsafe.”
● Health warning and action.
● The places / outlets where the food is found.
● The action to be taken by the consumer.
● A contact number for queries.
The recalling food business operator shall respond to each query from the state food authority / food authority within 24 hours of the receipt of the query.
Contents of recall status report
● Number of downstream food business operators or individuals notified, and date and method of notification;
● Number of food business operator responding to the notification and quantity of the particular food in their possession;
● Number of food business operator or individuals not responding to the notification and quantity of food dispatched to them. (if needed, the identity of non-responding food business operator may be requested by the state food authority / food authority);
● Quantity of recalled food and result of investigation;
● Proposed method of disposal or otherwise of recalled stock with records of destruction;
● Anticipated time limit for completion of the recall.
Dealing with the recovered food
● The recalling food business operator shall store the recovered food in an area which is separated from any other food and is identified by a label plate with prominently written Recalled Product.
● The recalling food business operator shall maintain accurate records of the recovered food and their lot no. / batch code, pack size, brand name, date of manufacture, best before date etc. Proper recording system shall be available to ensure that all the foods are retrieved and their details recorded.
● The recalling food business operator may correct or reprocess the recovered food if appropriate in consultation with state food authority and ensure that it is fit and safe for human consumption before release to the market.
● In all other cases, the recalling food business operator will ensure appropriate destruction of such food in consultation with / presence of the state food authority representative.
● A complete record of the disposal of such product shall be maintained.
Post-recall report
● The recalling food business operator shall submit post-recall report after the completion of the recall to assess the effectiveness of the recall.
● The effectiveness of a recall shall be assessed on the basis of the quantity / amount of food returned as a proportion of the quantity / amount of food that left the recalling food business operator while taking into account the retail turnover of the food.
● In addition to assessing the effectiveness of a recall, it is necessary to follow up by investigating the reason for the recall and taking action to prevent a recurrence of the problem.
Termination of a recall
● The recalling food business operator may request termination of its recall by submitting a written request to the state food authority / food authority along with latest recall status report / post-recall report stating that the recall was effective.
● A recall may be terminated when the state food authority / food authority determines that all reasonable efforts have been made and it is reasonable to assume that the food subject to the recall has been removed and proper disposition or correction has been made.
● Written notification to the effect that a recall is terminated will be issued by the state food authority / food authority to the recalling food business operator within two weeks of the request submitted by the recalling food business operator.
● In case of unsatisfactory reports, the state food authority / food authority may consider further action like stepped-up inspection, seizure or any other legal action, against the recalling food business operator.
(The writer is food safety and system expert and consultant. He can be contacted at udai.saxena@gmail.com)
Ex-health secy K Chandramouli likely to take charge as FSSAI chief in January
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), apex regulatory body for the food and beverage industry, is likely to get its new chairperson by the first week of January. A source informed that K Chandramouli's appointment as head of the Authority has been cleared by the PMO's Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC).
The source further informed that Chandramouli emerged as a clear choice from among all the contenders which included R K Srivastava, ex-director-general of health services, and K Sujatha Rao, former health secretary. All the three have been among those being considered for the post since last September.
Chandramouli, who would be replacing P I Suvrathan, who superannuated in September this year, was the Uttar Pradesh cadre IAS officer of 1975 batch and retired this October as union health secretary under the ministry of health and family welfare. He functioned in that post December 2010 onwards, prior to that he worked as secretary, AIDS control, in the same ministry.
Chandramouli's appointment is a good decision for the FSSAI but only that he comes from health industry background and may have to study the intricacies of the food industry deeply, the source said.
However, his stint with the labour and employment ministry would provide him the required aid in managing the working of the FSSAI, which was yet in its infancy stage, added the source.
CEO V N Gaur was given the additional charge of the chairperson after Suvrathan's retirement.
Dec 27, 2011
Dec 26, 2011
Adjudication under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
“Legislation and adjudication must follow, and conform to, the progress of society,” so said Abraham Lincoln.
With the much-awaited transition from a plethora of food laws and manifold control points to the single-integrated Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as FSSA) regime, there has been a critical shift in the process of adjudication as well envisioning expeditious disposal of cases related to food safety issues.
Special courts, summary trials and appellate tribunal have been provided for. The Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, deals inter alia with adjudication proceedings, procedure for appeal to tribunal, qualification of the presiding officer of the tribunal etc.
Five judicial forums for trial / adjudication have been provided for under the FSSA and Rules thereunder - Adjudicating Officer, Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, Judicial Magistrate of the First Class / Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court and the High Court.
Adjudicating Officer
Section 68 of the FSSA provides for the appointment of an Adjudicating Officer (not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate) by the state governments. He has powers of civil court and limited jurisdiction of criminal court too.
The Adjudicating Officer has been empowered to hold an inquiry for purpose of adjudicating the following offences - selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded (Sec 50), sub-standard food (Sec 51), misbranded food (Section 52), misleading advertisement (Sec 53), food containing extraneous matter (Sec 54), failure to comply with the directions of Food Safety Officer (Sec 55), unhygienic or unsanitary processing or manufacturing of food (Sec 56), food products possessing adulterant (Sec 57), contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided (Sec 58), subsequent offences (Sec 64), compensation in case injury of death of consumer (Sec 65), offences by companies (Sec 66) and penalty for contravention of provisions of this Act in case of import of articles of food to be in addition to penalties provided under any other Act (Sec 67).
For holding an inquiry for the purpose of adjudication as to whether any person has violated any of the provisions of FSSA as mentioned above of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the Adjudicating Officer is mandated in the first instance to issue a notice indicating the nature of offence alleged to have been committed and the date of hearing (along with a report of the Food Analyst) to such person giving him an opportunity to make a representation in the matter within a specific period.
The Adjudicating Officer has been empowered to summon and enforce the attendance of any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to give evidence or to produce any relevant document. The state government may also appoint a presenting officer from amongst the panel of advocates of the court of local jurisdiction, in an inquiry.
The Adjudicating Officer may impose appropriate penalty to violators after due consideration of the evidence produced.
Food Safety Appellate Tribunal
Section 70 of the FSSA provides for the constitution of one or more Food Safety Appellate Tribunal(s) by the state government to hear appeals from the decisions of the Adjudicating Officers. The tribunal consists of a single member designated as “Presiding Officer” mandated to have occupied the position of a District Judge and attained the age of 65 years on the date of appointment.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Adjudicating Officer may file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date on which the copy of the order against which the appeal is filed, is received by the appellant. The provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, shall be applicable to an appeal made to the Tribunal, except otherwise provided by the FSSA.
The Tribunal has vested with the same powers, which a civil court has under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) while trying a suit, in respect of - (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) directing the discovery and production of documents or other electronic records; (c) receiving evidence in form of affidavits; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (e) reviewing its decisions; (f) dismissing an application for non-appearance of the appellant, or deciding it ex-parte; (g) any other matter prescribed by the Central government.
The Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down by the CPC but should be guided by the principles of natural justice. It can regulate its own procedure and decide on the place of its sittings. The Tribunal has vested with certain powers of criminal courts too under the FSSA.
Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court of the state concerned. Normally this appeal is to be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Tribunal to him though the High Court can grant a further period of 60 days on reasonable reasons.
While adjudging the quantum of penalty, the Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal is mandated under Section 49 of FSSA to follow the general provisions as follows - (a) the amount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the contravention, (b) the amount of loss caused or likely to cause to any person as a result of the contravention, (c) the repetitive nature of the contravention, (d) whether the contravention is without his knowledge, and (e) any other relevant factor.
Civil Courts not empowered
The FSSA bars a Civil Court for entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal is empowered by or under the FSSA to determine (Section 72).
Special Courts
Section 74 of the FSSA empowers the Central government or the state government to constitute Special Courts for the trial of offences relating to "grievous injury or death of the consumer" for which punishment of imprisonment for more than three years has been prescribed. A public prosecutor and one or more Additional Public Prosecutor may be appointed for every Special Court. Special Public Prosecutor can also be appointed for any particular case or class or group of cases.
Special Court may, on its own motion, or on an application made by the Public Prosecutor and, if it considers it expedient or desirable so to do, sit for any of its proceedings at any place other than its ordinary place of sitting. Any person aggrieved by an order of a Special Court may prefer an appeal to the High Court within 45 days from the date of serving of Order though the High Court can grant further period on reasonable reasons.
Summary trial
Summary Trial by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or by a Metropolitan Magistrate has been further provided under Section 73 for offences not triable by a Special Court according to procedure prescribed for summary trials in Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the CPC. In a summary trial, the Magistrate can pass a sentence of imprisonment up to one year only. If it appears to the Magistrate that summary trial is not desirable in a particular case because the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment of more than one year is to be imposed, or for other reasons, the Magistrate can pass an order to that effect after hearing the parties, and thereafter reexamine any witness and hear or rehear the case in the manner provided by the Code.
Compounding of offences
The FSSA under Section 69 also provides that designated officers empowered by the Commissioner of Food Safety can compound offences committed by petty manufacturers who himself manufacture and sell any article of food, retailers, hawkers, itinerant vendors, temporary stall-holders, by accepting from them a sum up to Rupees one lakh as compensation, and can discharge him if in custody. In such cases no further proceedings relating to that offence should be taken against him. However, offences for which punishment of imprisonment has been prescribed under the Act cannot be compounded.
Time limit for cognisance of offences
No court can take cognisance of an offence under the FSSA after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of an offence. However, the Commissioner of Food Safety can, for reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years.
(The writer is advocate, corporate law group, New Delhi)
Clearance for imported food items in India can be based on Japanese model
Delay in obtaining clearance for imported food items is a major problem for the importers, who have time and again tried to bring the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI) attention to the issue. This was informed by Pankaj Shah, vice-president, the Bombay Custom House Agents' Association.
"The total time taken for clearance of imported food items is anywhere between five to 10 days, as sample testing itself needs five days. We have repeatedly approached the Authority on the issue but in vain. However, one good thing happened is that procedure for clearance has been placed online, which reduced our effort in approaching the authority a number of times," said Shah.
The situation is aggravating also because there is not enough infrastructure backup for storage of imported food items. Items which do not come in reefer vessels lie in open.
One suggestion made by Shah to the Authority was that the samples to be tested should be sent to those labs which were in the port area itself. "As Nhava Sheva port, where the imported food items land, is very far from the city, bringing the samples from there to the laboratory itself takes a day or two. If the lab is in the vicinity itself at least a day would be saved," he said.
Pankaj Jaiminy, assistant vice-president, food, health and beauty, TUV SUD South Asia, had another suggestion. He said clearance model akin to Japan could be adopted in India.
"Imported food items are cleared in Japan in a day or two, however, Indian imports take minimum five days. The system for testing of imported food items needs to be evaluated for workload.
The system adopted in Japan can be easily adopted by India for testing imported food items," Jaiminy said.
Interestingly, Japan is able to deliver results for testing of imported food items within a day or two. This is because it has approved different labs in the exporting countries. On arrival of import it would ask for the lab report from the exporting country. Then, Japanese authorities simply do a random sample testing for food items instead of testing each and every product. If the result of the sample tested does not match with that in the report received, the matter is reported to the Export Inspection Council which in turn issues an alert warning or suspends the services of the approved lab for time being.
Meanwhile, a delegation is sent to inspect the operations of the lab and the food business in the exporting country. This way cross and balances are maintained, informed Jaiminy.
"The total time taken for clearance of imported food items is anywhere between five to 10 days, as sample testing itself needs five days. We have repeatedly approached the Authority on the issue but in vain. However, one good thing happened is that procedure for clearance has been placed online, which reduced our effort in approaching the authority a number of times," said Shah.
The situation is aggravating also because there is not enough infrastructure backup for storage of imported food items. Items which do not come in reefer vessels lie in open.
One suggestion made by Shah to the Authority was that the samples to be tested should be sent to those labs which were in the port area itself. "As Nhava Sheva port, where the imported food items land, is very far from the city, bringing the samples from there to the laboratory itself takes a day or two. If the lab is in the vicinity itself at least a day would be saved," he said.
Pankaj Jaiminy, assistant vice-president, food, health and beauty, TUV SUD South Asia, had another suggestion. He said clearance model akin to Japan could be adopted in India.
"Imported food items are cleared in Japan in a day or two, however, Indian imports take minimum five days. The system for testing of imported food items needs to be evaluated for workload.
The system adopted in Japan can be easily adopted by India for testing imported food items," Jaiminy said.
Interestingly, Japan is able to deliver results for testing of imported food items within a day or two. This is because it has approved different labs in the exporting countries. On arrival of import it would ask for the lab report from the exporting country. Then, Japanese authorities simply do a random sample testing for food items instead of testing each and every product. If the result of the sample tested does not match with that in the report received, the matter is reported to the Export Inspection Council which in turn issues an alert warning or suspends the services of the approved lab for time being.
Meanwhile, a delegation is sent to inspect the operations of the lab and the food business in the exporting country. This way cross and balances are maintained, informed Jaiminy.
“I do not feel FSSA, 2006, is within the priority of our present government”
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India had been assigned with the implementation of a science-based uniform food law in the country that repealed several other laws and brought the industry under one umbrella—Food Safety and Standards Act. However, the FSSAI had to meet with a number of impediments even before it started to sail, a chat with Bejon Misra, consumer expert and member, FSSAI, throws more light on the issue
Tell us about your role in the FSSAI.
I was made a member of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in the year 2008, when it was formed and founded for the first time as the new law "Food Safety and Standards Act 2006." I was representing the interest of the consumers within the FSSAI.
What are the consumer concerns you have presented to the Authority and the outcome of your action?
Well, these would be:
a. Empowering consumers to demand safe and quality food through effective communication initiatives and making public the "Citizens’ Charter of FSSAI Consumers" to ensure accountability and transparency in its working.
b. Resources to be provided to registered consumer organisations with good track record to organise consumer education programmes.
c. A robust tracing and tracking system to alert consumers on food contamination and unhealthy food.
d. Strong labelling information on the GMOs and other harmful additives and ingredients as prescribed in the law. The outcome has been that work has started in all the four issues but no tangible results in the interest of the consumer till date have taken place and we are still struggling to make these issues a tangible reality in India.
What has been the biggest achievement of the FSSAI so far?
A structured office with a secretariat, several consultations and meetings with the various stakeholders including participation by the FSSAI officials at various events in India and overseas Codex Committee meetings…
Is the leadership strong enough to bring about the intended reforms?
I do not feel FSSA (Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006) is within the priority of our present government. We do not have a chairperson for more than six months and there has been a complete disconnect between the policy-makers and the implementation authority. The state governments are yet to wake up on the new law and its implementation and the Central government is unable to mobilise the support from the states on its prompt implementation. After five years the rules have got finally notified and the rollout plan seems unclear and direction-less.
Are there any difficulties in setting up the required machinery / infrastructure and pooling resources in bringing about the implementation of the Act?
Yes, lack of strong leadership with a commitment and passion for reforms in the food standards and its implementation programme. The biggest difficulty is lack of right kind of resources and involvement of technically competent experts on the subject who have the time to work at the district level of our country in an unbiased manner in the interest of all the stakeholders. We must create good models at the state level and encourage good players from the food industry who demonstrate best practices in the interest of the consumer.
Do you think members and the Authority as a whole have the right spirit to inculcate a culture of food safety in the industry and the masses?
The involvement of the members is only confined to the three meetings during the year and invitation to some events or seminars. The members selected within the Authority are experts on their respective clusters but unfortunately their involvement is not as desired because of lack of motivation and proper working processes. Of course, the members could have done much better if the FSSAI governance would have been more efficient and effective. Lots can be achieved, only if the processes are made accountable and transparent.
Would you call the Act industry-friendly or consumer-friendly? Why?
The law is excellent in its present form but could be made more consumer-friendly by strengthening the rules on enforcements and prompt redressal on complaints and violations with deterrent penalties to ensure effective implementation of the existing law.
The Authority has been questioned for delaying the implementation of the Act. Do you agree that procedural delays could be avoided?
Yes, I agree. The implementation of the Act has got delayed beyond acceptable timeline. Of course they could have been avoided provided the chairman was more independent and was given a free hand to ensure he could select his own team and work in a manner which would provide the best results. The FSSAI should get insulated from political and bureaucratic interference. The Authority should meet more regularly and be free to use the public resource in an efficient and transparent manner.
FSSAI is completely an autonomous body. However, the Supreme Court had to intervene several times...Is there a need to have a watchdog to monitor its functioning? Why?
As I mentioned, we do not need to create another body to become a watchdog to FSSAI. We have scarce resources in our country and already have several watchdogs like CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) and others. What we need is an independent working culture with clear accountable processes and active involvement of the members on a day-to-day basis to ensure the secretariat is working in an efficient and effective manner. We have to bring best management practices and learn from other countries which have similar regulators. We have enough bodies in our country as regulators or watchdogs, which are expensive and a burden to the consumers. What we need is lean governance with efficient outcomes in the interest of all the stakeholders.
Do you think we have a competitive team in terms of scientific panels and committees to bring in regulatory reforms for the industry?
I cannot comment on this because I have really not studied this aspect yet but I am happy that these committees are now devoid of representatives from industry who are still on their roles or engaged as consultants. All such committees should have neutral and competent persons of repute to bring reforms in the food sector in India.
What are the challenges that the Authority would now need to overcome in terms of standard-making, implementation and enforcement?
The biggest challenge is to make FSSAI the official standards-setting body in India on food and not BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). This will ensure harmonising the process and making it accountable. The next big task is to bring all the state governments on the same page and encourage prompt reforms by providing incentives and support systems by engaging private sector with the best track record and not depend on public structures, which should be made accessible at a competitive price. The state governments should only ensure implementation and enforcement and not be service providers but service purchasers from the best entities.
Will the new Act benefit the Indian consumers in a big way?
Of course, the new Act is supposed to benefit the Indian consumer in a big way and that is why we agreed to support this new legislation but not in the manner it is handled today. By now we should have notified the best standards as per Codex Guidelines, we should have had an excellent tracing and tracking system in place, studies conducted on food contaminants and adverse effect of unhealthy food, penalties on misleading and deceptive advertisements, consumer awareness and education on access to safe and quality food and finally a strong regulatory mechanism at the Central and state level.
Are the consumer concerns sufficiently being represented to the Authority?
No. Unfortunately the consumer organisations in India lack the technical competence and resources required to intervene before the FSSAI and it is for the government to find a solution to this unfortunate state of affairs with the consumer organisations in India. Even though the Planning Commission has provided substantial budget to the various ministries on empowering the Indian consumer, I still find very little is done to institutionalise the process of intellectual intervention before the FSSAI to represent consumer concerns. Whatever representations are done are also not encouraged and implemented in the manner desired by the consumer. The law provided two consumer representatives within the Authority but their concerns are rarely heard and recognised by the secretariat of the FSSAI.
Tell us about your role in the FSSAI.
I was made a member of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India in the year 2008, when it was formed and founded for the first time as the new law "Food Safety and Standards Act 2006." I was representing the interest of the consumers within the FSSAI.
What are the consumer concerns you have presented to the Authority and the outcome of your action?
Well, these would be:
a. Empowering consumers to demand safe and quality food through effective communication initiatives and making public the "Citizens’ Charter of FSSAI Consumers" to ensure accountability and transparency in its working.
b. Resources to be provided to registered consumer organisations with good track record to organise consumer education programmes.
c. A robust tracing and tracking system to alert consumers on food contamination and unhealthy food.
d. Strong labelling information on the GMOs and other harmful additives and ingredients as prescribed in the law. The outcome has been that work has started in all the four issues but no tangible results in the interest of the consumer till date have taken place and we are still struggling to make these issues a tangible reality in India.
What has been the biggest achievement of the FSSAI so far?
A structured office with a secretariat, several consultations and meetings with the various stakeholders including participation by the FSSAI officials at various events in India and overseas Codex Committee meetings…
Is the leadership strong enough to bring about the intended reforms?
I do not feel FSSA (Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006) is within the priority of our present government. We do not have a chairperson for more than six months and there has been a complete disconnect between the policy-makers and the implementation authority. The state governments are yet to wake up on the new law and its implementation and the Central government is unable to mobilise the support from the states on its prompt implementation. After five years the rules have got finally notified and the rollout plan seems unclear and direction-less.
Are there any difficulties in setting up the required machinery / infrastructure and pooling resources in bringing about the implementation of the Act?
Yes, lack of strong leadership with a commitment and passion for reforms in the food standards and its implementation programme. The biggest difficulty is lack of right kind of resources and involvement of technically competent experts on the subject who have the time to work at the district level of our country in an unbiased manner in the interest of all the stakeholders. We must create good models at the state level and encourage good players from the food industry who demonstrate best practices in the interest of the consumer.
Do you think members and the Authority as a whole have the right spirit to inculcate a culture of food safety in the industry and the masses?
The involvement of the members is only confined to the three meetings during the year and invitation to some events or seminars. The members selected within the Authority are experts on their respective clusters but unfortunately their involvement is not as desired because of lack of motivation and proper working processes. Of course, the members could have done much better if the FSSAI governance would have been more efficient and effective. Lots can be achieved, only if the processes are made accountable and transparent.
Would you call the Act industry-friendly or consumer-friendly? Why?
The law is excellent in its present form but could be made more consumer-friendly by strengthening the rules on enforcements and prompt redressal on complaints and violations with deterrent penalties to ensure effective implementation of the existing law.
The Authority has been questioned for delaying the implementation of the Act. Do you agree that procedural delays could be avoided?
Yes, I agree. The implementation of the Act has got delayed beyond acceptable timeline. Of course they could have been avoided provided the chairman was more independent and was given a free hand to ensure he could select his own team and work in a manner which would provide the best results. The FSSAI should get insulated from political and bureaucratic interference. The Authority should meet more regularly and be free to use the public resource in an efficient and transparent manner.
FSSAI is completely an autonomous body. However, the Supreme Court had to intervene several times...Is there a need to have a watchdog to monitor its functioning? Why?
As I mentioned, we do not need to create another body to become a watchdog to FSSAI. We have scarce resources in our country and already have several watchdogs like CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) and others. What we need is an independent working culture with clear accountable processes and active involvement of the members on a day-to-day basis to ensure the secretariat is working in an efficient and effective manner. We have to bring best management practices and learn from other countries which have similar regulators. We have enough bodies in our country as regulators or watchdogs, which are expensive and a burden to the consumers. What we need is lean governance with efficient outcomes in the interest of all the stakeholders.
Do you think we have a competitive team in terms of scientific panels and committees to bring in regulatory reforms for the industry?
I cannot comment on this because I have really not studied this aspect yet but I am happy that these committees are now devoid of representatives from industry who are still on their roles or engaged as consultants. All such committees should have neutral and competent persons of repute to bring reforms in the food sector in India.
What are the challenges that the Authority would now need to overcome in terms of standard-making, implementation and enforcement?
The biggest challenge is to make FSSAI the official standards-setting body in India on food and not BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). This will ensure harmonising the process and making it accountable. The next big task is to bring all the state governments on the same page and encourage prompt reforms by providing incentives and support systems by engaging private sector with the best track record and not depend on public structures, which should be made accessible at a competitive price. The state governments should only ensure implementation and enforcement and not be service providers but service purchasers from the best entities.
Will the new Act benefit the Indian consumers in a big way?
Of course, the new Act is supposed to benefit the Indian consumer in a big way and that is why we agreed to support this new legislation but not in the manner it is handled today. By now we should have notified the best standards as per Codex Guidelines, we should have had an excellent tracing and tracking system in place, studies conducted on food contaminants and adverse effect of unhealthy food, penalties on misleading and deceptive advertisements, consumer awareness and education on access to safe and quality food and finally a strong regulatory mechanism at the Central and state level.
Are the consumer concerns sufficiently being represented to the Authority?
No. Unfortunately the consumer organisations in India lack the technical competence and resources required to intervene before the FSSAI and it is for the government to find a solution to this unfortunate state of affairs with the consumer organisations in India. Even though the Planning Commission has provided substantial budget to the various ministries on empowering the Indian consumer, I still find very little is done to institutionalise the process of intellectual intervention before the FSSAI to represent consumer concerns. Whatever representations are done are also not encouraged and implemented in the manner desired by the consumer. The law provided two consumer representatives within the Authority but their concerns are rarely heard and recognised by the secretariat of the FSSAI.
Dec 25, 2011
Dec 24, 2011
Seminar on Implementation of Food Safety and Standards Act
Port Blair, Dec. 23: An inter-active Seminar on the implementation of Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules is being organised by the Commissioner of Food Safety (DHS) A&N Administration on 4th January 2012 at 10.00 am in the auditorium of the G.B. Pant Hospital, Port Blair. The seminar is for the benefit of the businessmen/ traders of these islands.
During the seminar, discussions and power point presentation will be held on various aspects of FSS Act, Rules and Regulations. The President ACCI in a communication has requested all its members dealing with trades and business to attend the seminar and make full use of it. The seminar is also being organised as per the request made by the ACCI.
10,000 containers of Ayyappa prasadam found to be of poor quality dumped
Some 10,000 containers of Aravana, the sweet made from jaggery, rice and ghee, as prasadam offering for Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala in Kerala have been dumped near the incinerator at Malikappuram in the southern state.
M Satheeshkumar, executive officer, Travancore Devaswom Board, informed FnB News, "The stocked containers of Aravana were found burst out and this had happened due to the use of poor quality sarkara (molasses)."
Further, another three tonne molasses that were brought to the temple town for the purpose of making Aravana were sent back as they were of poor quality. A sample of the same was sent to Central Lab, Trivandrum, for analysis.
The molasses were found to be of poor quality in spite of the fact that they were brought after conducting a lab test at the Analytical Lab at Pampa.
Dec 22, 2011
Hotels form panel to study new food law
The core committee had 15 members of the association, which had more than 1,000 members from Dakshina Kannada and Udupi. They include hoteliers, ice cream, and soft drink manufacturers and those who run bakeries. Mangalore had 150 members and they were all hoteliers.
This decision was taken at a meeting of the association to discuss the Act here on Tuesday.
The association had urged the Government to give the industry the infrastructure to check adulteration of food, he said. “Even the water which we get is not clean. Although we clean the water with water purifiers, the source is not ok, so why blame us?,” he said.
A food safety consultant, Ananthaprasad, earlier addressing the members of the Dakshina Kannada Hotels and Restaurants Association, said they must get ready for the implementation of the Food Safety Act. He said that awareness and education about the Act was very important. He said that big and medium restaurants, hoteliers, small “darshinis”, and bakeries should make a task force and study the Act.
The meeting was held in the context of notices sent to food safety officers (earlier known as health inspectors) that they should check the licences of hotels and restaurants and charge penalties from those not maintaining safety standards as defined in the rules and regulations framed this year under Act, said Devi Prasad, Secretary, Mangalore Hotel and Restaurants' Association.
Mr. Ananthaprasad said since there was no infrastructure in hotels to test the quality, putting the onus on hotels and restaurants for safety of foods was not correct. The hoteliers were not consulted on whether or not they could implement the quality standards. The hotels and restaurants did not have the infrastructure or the money to implement what has been asked of them, he said.
He told the members that they must keep records such as the source of the material they used in the hotels and the name of their vendors. “Please specify quality parameters, control the supplies,” he said.
Dec 20, 2011
New title for food inspectors
The new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, has re-designated all existing full-time food inspectors in the state as Food Safety Officers. The new entrants to the post requires an MSc in chemistry or food technology.
Dr Sudhakar Rao, joint food controller, Institute of Preventive Medicine, said, “We have 54 food inspectors in the state, including six inspectors from the GHMC. As per the new regulations, they have been notified as FSOs. Most of them hold an MSc degree. The new entrants too are required to possess an MSc in chemistry or food technology as the basic qualification. The responsibilities of the FSOs remain same as food inspectors, such as collecting samples inspecting eateries and food manufacturing units.”
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1956 has been repealed and replaced with FSS Act from this month.
The Act aims to bring a paradigm shift in the method of licencing, disposal of pending cases, role of private laboratories, food labeling, introduction of uniform laws, deemed licencing for the first time and so on.
Dr Sudhakar Rao, joint food controller, Institute of Preventive Medicine, said, “We have 54 food inspectors in the state, including six inspectors from the GHMC. As per the new regulations, they have been notified as FSOs. Most of them hold an MSc degree. The new entrants too are required to possess an MSc in chemistry or food technology as the basic qualification. The responsibilities of the FSOs remain same as food inspectors, such as collecting samples inspecting eateries and food manufacturing units.”
The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1956 has been repealed and replaced with FSS Act from this month.
The Act aims to bring a paradigm shift in the method of licencing, disposal of pending cases, role of private laboratories, food labeling, introduction of uniform laws, deemed licencing for the first time and so on.
State Safety Commissionerate understaffed?
Short of 130 Food Safety Officers (FSOs), the State Food Safety Commissionerate is finding it difficult to enforce the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. Karnataka requires 234 Food Safety Officers, but the state has managed to train only 104 officers.
Speaking to Express B S Rama Prasad, State Food Safety commissioner, says the appointment of FSOs is not an easy procedure.
“It is easy to say these vacancies have to be filled. But the work is technical and we need officers who are specially trained under the new Act. No ordinary training will suffice,” he explained. He added that the commissionerate needed to re-designate, retrain and re-orient existing officers. Despite that, there is still a shortage of officers.
“We have forwarded our proposal to the state government for the appointment of an independent cadre. We have framed the cadre requirement rules as well,” he added. The rules specify that to be an FSO, one needs to have a degree in ‘Food Technology/Dairy, Technology/Biotechnology/Oil Technology /Agricultural Sciences or Veterinary Sciences, and must be trained by the Food Authority in a recognised institute approved for the purpose (as per the Rules).
Due to the shortage, existing officers are forced to handle a vast area making it difficult to enforce the provisions of the Act. Additionally, the officers also lack sufficient awareness and education about the new Act. Dr Srinivasa Gowda, Joint Director of Public Health Institute, Government of Karnataka, said that even in the category of designated officers, some officers in the state lack training.
“Out of 30 designated Ooficers, 19 have been trained. The remaining 11 will have to be trained by the ones who have already received training,” he explained.
Since the Act and its rules have come into force only in August 2011, officials believe that the commissionerate will be able to consolidate itself soon. “The proposal for appointment is with the state government. We expect a reply soon,” said Gowda. Replacing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) came into force on August 5, 2011.
According to these rules, a food safety team is appointed in each state.
Speaking to Express B S Rama Prasad, State Food Safety commissioner, says the appointment of FSOs is not an easy procedure.
“It is easy to say these vacancies have to be filled. But the work is technical and we need officers who are specially trained under the new Act. No ordinary training will suffice,” he explained. He added that the commissionerate needed to re-designate, retrain and re-orient existing officers. Despite that, there is still a shortage of officers.
“We have forwarded our proposal to the state government for the appointment of an independent cadre. We have framed the cadre requirement rules as well,” he added. The rules specify that to be an FSO, one needs to have a degree in ‘Food Technology/Dairy, Technology/Biotechnology/Oil Technology /Agricultural Sciences or Veterinary Sciences, and must be trained by the Food Authority in a recognised institute approved for the purpose (as per the Rules).
Due to the shortage, existing officers are forced to handle a vast area making it difficult to enforce the provisions of the Act. Additionally, the officers also lack sufficient awareness and education about the new Act. Dr Srinivasa Gowda, Joint Director of Public Health Institute, Government of Karnataka, said that even in the category of designated officers, some officers in the state lack training.
“Out of 30 designated Ooficers, 19 have been trained. The remaining 11 will have to be trained by the ones who have already received training,” he explained.
Since the Act and its rules have come into force only in August 2011, officials believe that the commissionerate will be able to consolidate itself soon. “The proposal for appointment is with the state government. We expect a reply soon,” said Gowda. Replacing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) came into force on August 5, 2011.
According to these rules, a food safety team is appointed in each state.
Hitches hamper functioning of food safety officers
Though tempting, roadside eateries can cause stomach ailments
Transition period problems are being overcome: officialsToo many hitches seem to hamper the functioning of food safety officers (FSO).
Delay in issue of a GO bringing them under the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare has prevented the 500-odd food safety officers from receiving their first month's salary till date.
Repealing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 was brought in creating the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Food safety officers come under the Food Safety Commissionerate.
The State, which implemented the new system, brought in 385 FSOs for rural areas, 148 for urban areas, besides 30-odd in reserve.
Sanitary inspectors in local bodies were designated as food safety officers.
The first hitch the FSOs now faced was that they have not received their first month's salary.
Enquiries revealed that tallying of pay particulars and creation of a separate code and head of account for the treasury to disburse the salary had led to the delay.
Sources also clarified that the disbursement of salaries for the FSOs would take place within the next three to four working days.
Going by the number of trades listed and merchants existing, Tamil Nadu is the only State to have gone in for creation of more than 500 FSO posts, so that the objective of food safety could be achieved preventing adulteration by frequent inspections. However, the FSOs initially faced a problem of not having any National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration of Laboratories (NABL) accredited laboratory. The FSOs need to lift food samples in the event of a suspicion of adulteration. The samples need to be sent to a laboratory.
Food Safety and Standards Act stipulates that testing of food samples done only by laboratories which have the certification by the NABL.
There are six laboratories in Tamil Nadu at Coimbatore, Madurai, Thanjavur, Pudukottai and two at Chennai. However, the Government notified that the samples could be tested at the existing laboratories and a GO has already been issued and one-year transition time is given enabling the utilisation of the existing laboratories.
These laboratories have already commenced the process for NABL certification.
Sources also pointed out that making sanitary inspectors as food safety officers and bringing them under Department of Food and Drug Control under the Public Health and Family Welfare was in contravention to the constitutional provision. Sources said that Article 243 (w) of the Constitution and XIIth schedule says that Food Safety under Public Health is the power and responsibility of the local self governments i.e., local bodies.
Officials disputing the contention said that almost all the States excepting in only one local body in Gujarat, the food safety has come under the purview of the Government relieving the local bodies of that responsibility.
The objective of taking away food safety from the local bodies to a separate department was to ensure undivided attention on the department.
If the FSOs continued with the local bodies, the chances of they being frequently drafted for other pressing works of the local body was more, thus defeating the objective of food safety.
Experts stress on strict enforcement of food safety measures at workshop
To educate food regulators on the importance of hygienic and safe food for consumers in India, a one-day workshop on the benefits of food safety was held in Bangalore recently.
The workshop, Food Safety – The Way Forward, stressed on ensuring safe and wholesome food to consumers and saw eminent scientists, regulators, and legal experts brainstorm on how to eliminate risks and prevent food-related health hazards. The workshop was jointly organised by the Nestle Nutrition Institute and State Food Authority at The Chancery Pavilion in Bangalore.
“The safety aspects of food should be more of an education awareness programme and an important strategy to educate the regulators on the practical aspects of food safety,” said Dr Prathap Kumar Shetty, reader & head, department of food science and technology, Pondicherry University.
“New food regulation (FSSA) emphasises heavily on the science-based approach besides the importance of educating food regulators and people on food safety,” he said.
The workshop was held to benefit the food safety officers of Karnataka about the pertinence of implementing food safety measures. Food safety officers are the sole authority for registration and are the initial contact for the food business operators. They ensure necessary precautions are taken at the appropriate time and varied stages of food from the farm to the consumer.
In fact, to ensure necessary safeguards for public health and prevent potential hazards, the government implemented the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, Rules and Regulations 2011.
It is the final authority to regulate the manufacture, processing, storage, distribution, sale and import of food articles through the Food Safety Authority by implementing the scientific standards. It gives adequate information to the consumer to make his own choices. The function was inaugurated by B S Rama Prasad, state food safety commissioner, Government of Karnataka.
Speaking on the occasion, Dr Anandavally, FAO/WHO consultant said, “FSOs should focus on the controls implemented by the FBOs to prevent food-borne diseases and high risk foods and avail the resources available to protect public health. There is an element of risk involved with food and the risk control parameters include food from unsafe sources, inadequate cooking, improper temperature maintenance, cross contamination, contaminated equipments, poor personal hygiene, health status of food-handlers, poor quality of water, lack of pest management and TCS system.
“The inspection will stress on these so that the food business operators are well informed about the controls which ensure food-borne diseases are controlled. This will better communication between the regulators and FBOs and help protect consumers and promote the trade of safe foods,'' she felt.
Dr Ashok R Patil, associate professor in law & chair on consumer law & practice
(ministry of consumer affairs, Government of India), stressed on Community Health as National Wealth. He added, “Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of life. It is no wonder to say that community health is national wealth. Public health can be improved only by raising the level of nutrition.” Stringent rules have to be in place to bring about the prohibition and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs which are injurious to health. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which came into force from August 5, 2011, by repealing the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, imposes special responsibilities for manufacturers, distributors and sellers on food safety.
New Act imposes special responsibilities for manufacturers, distributors and sellers on food safety. Stringent punishments are prescribed to reduce the offences under this Act and also it helps to avoid exploitation of consumer. Enforcement authorities have got more powers to control the menace at different levels of food chain. Because of establishment of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, Food Safety Appellate Tribunal & Special Courts and appointment of Adjudicating Officer, Public Prosecutors for speedy justice. On conviction the court may publish the offenders name, address, offences and penalties in the newspaper with the offender’s expense. The object of the new law will be successful only if enforcement machinery uses all powers given under this Act.
Food inspectors are the real backbone as far as the regulation and implementation of food safety standards is concerned. They know the practical aspects while investigating food illness including food poisoning from the field perspective. Food inspectors with scientific knowledge of food-borne diseases play a vital role in the documentation of these cases and scientifically develop strategies for the prevention and control of food poisoning which happens at the community level.
Food-borne disease outbreaks involving agents such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella and chemical contaminants highlight problems with food safety and increase public anxiety. Modern farming systems, food processing and marketing do not provide adequate safeguards for public health.
“Factors like improper agricultural practices; poor hygiene at all stages of the food chain; lack of preventive controls in food processing; misuse of food additives in processed foods, etc., largely contribute to food-related hazards,” said Dr M N Krishnamurthy, former director, central food laboratory, CFTRI, Mysore.
“Consumers expect protection from hazards occurring along the entire food chain. It is the foremost responsibility of food laws regulatory agency to enforce food laws to protect the consumer against unsafe, impure and fraudulently presented food. Among other things, this can be achieved by prohibiting the sale of food not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser,” he added.
The function was attended by Dr Krishnamurthy; S B Dongre, director, FSSAI, New Delhi; Dr Anandavally; Ashok Patil; Dr Prathap Kumar Shetty; and Dr Srinivasa Gowda, joint director, Public Health Institute, Government of Karnataka.
Hailing Nestle Nutrition Institute’s efforts to draw attention towards food safety, the speakers stressed on the importance of mobilising opinion on the issue. Identifying priority areas and making specific interventions, they said, is the way forward.
Dec 19, 2011
Balancing the Scales: Food 'Sovereignty' and Food Safety
The movement to shift control of food systems to local governments and local communities, sometimes referred to as "food sovereignty," has gained increased notoriety with the recent lawsuit filed against raw milk producer Dan Brown in Blue Hill, Maine. "Food sovereignty," as a concept and movement, is not new nor is it defined by local food movements such as the ones in Maine.
La Via Campesina's "Food Sovereignty" Movement
La Via Campesina first defined the notion of food sovereignty at the World Food Summit in 1996. La Via Campesina is "an international movement which brings together millions of peasants, small and medium-sized farmers, landless people, women farmers, indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around the world. It defends small-scale sustainable agriculture as a way to promote social justice and dignity. It strongly opposes corporate driven agriculture and transnational companies that are destroying people and nature."
La Via Campesina's model of food sovereignty focuses on empowering the poor and other socially disadvantaged peoples to regain and maintain control over food systems. Food sovereignty is a matter of food security and of fairness. In 2003, La Via Campesina described food sovereignty as:
" ... the right of peoples to define their own food and agriculture; to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade in order to achieve sustainable development objectives; to determine the extent to which they want to be self reliant; to restrict the dumping of products in their markets ... Food sovereignty does not negate trade, but rather, it promotes the formulation of trade policies and practices that serve the rights of peoples to safe, healthy and ecologically sustainable production."
The document further asserts that it is the role of government to "uphold the rights of all peoples to food sovereignty and security, and adopt and implement policies that promote sustainable, family-based production rather than industry-led, high-input and export oriented production." In order to accomplish those goals, governments must address a number of issues, including food safety.
Food Safety as Part of Food Sovereignty
The food safety element of La Via Campesina's food sovereignty declaration includes controlling pests and disease, protecting against environmental pollution, prohibiting the use of antibiotics and hormones in aquacultures, and banning irradiation of food. Governments must establish food quality standards that reflect the culture and values of its people and establish quality control measures to comply with environmental, social and health quality standards.
Further, the declaration maintains that governments must "ensure that all food inspection functions are performed by appropriate and independent government bodies, and not by private corporations or contractors." La Via Campesina envisions governments having an active role in protecting and promoting food safety, and therefore food sovereignty.
The Expansion of Food Sovereignty
The underlying problem La Via Campesina seeks to change is the degree of power and control that corporate interests have over food systems. The focus is on localizing trade and providing local producers with access to their own markets. In 2003, Peter Rosset, former Co-director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, wrote:
"... [w]hat Via Campesina and others say is that we face a clash of economic development models for the rural world. The contrasts between the dominant model, based on agroexports, neoliberal economic policies, and free trade, versus the food sovereignty model, could not be more stark. Where one model sees family farmers as an inefficient anachronism that should disappear with development, the other sees them as the basis of local economies and of national economic development."
In 2011, in the face of continued corporate control and increasingly visible injustices within the food system, people around the world are taking action to regain control of their own food systems. The original driving issues - land reform, ending harmful international trade agreements, removing corporate control of food systems, etc. - have remained the same.
How the food sovereignty movement manifests itself is shaped in large part by issues like the 2008 food riots and the Occupy Wall Street movement (called Occupy the Food System). In the United States, this movement includes increased participation in urban gardening, farmers' markets, community supported agriculture, and school gardens, and through the promotion of sustainable, local economic development.
Maine's "Food Sovereignty" Movement
The five towns in Maine that passed Local Food Ordinances in the past year are considered part of the food sovereignty movement in the United States. These ordinances reject any state or federal involvement in the town's local food production. The ordinances are a response to allegedly over-burdensome regulations and a desire for the community to sell food to one another like they did one hundred years ago - without government interference.
One of the concerns driving these local food ordinances is fear that FDA will shut down things like church suppers and bake sales. This is based on a misunderstanding of the law. Setting aside the practicality of such action for FDA, the Food Safety Modernization Act exempts small local producers, farmers, and direct-to-consumer transactions from most federal regulations. The FDA is not going to interfere with church suppers and bake sales.
However, what makes this lawsuit and the legality of these local food ordinances more complicated is that Dan Brown was selling raw milk. Raw milk is a hot-button issue with passions running high on both sides. Raw milk cannot be sold interstate, as per FDA rules, but each state has the authority to decide whether raw milk can be sold within its borders and how to regulate its production and sale.
Maine allows the sale of raw milk as long as certain licensing and inspection procedures are followed. According to the State, Mr. Brown did not comply with those procedures and a sample of raw milk tested from his dairy was found to have levels of bacteria high above the state's standards. This is not only an issue of government involvement in food but of food safety.
Reconciling "Food Sovereignty" with Maine's Local Food Ordinances
The desire to place control over local food systems and transactions in the hands of local people is an important one. The part of the Maine movement to empower, support, and grow local producers is something that should be pursued. It is also something that falls squarely within the goals of the food sovereignty movement.
However, advocating for no government oversight of the food system is less aligned with food sovereignty and more aligned with something like a Libertarian perspective. It is ok for these Maine towns to take that stance, but to call it "food sovereignty" is misleading.
The food sovereignty movement as envisioned by La Via Campesina does not reject government involvement - especially in food safety. It seeks thoughtful, smart, and necessary regulation that will not harm the development of local markets. Ensuring a safe food supply - for example, by testing each batch of raw milk to ensure its safety - is something that La Via Campesina would likely support.
Whether you call the local food ordinances "food sovereignty" or something else, the issue of food safety must be taken into account. The supporters of the local food ordinances need to identify the specific regulations that are too burdensome and come up with ways to lessen the burden, rather than reject outright all government involvement. If what the supporters in Maine are seeking truly is no government regulation or no oversight of the food system, they need look no further than China to see the potential consequences.
Dec 18, 2011
SMC seals milk processing unit at Khonmoh
'TAAZA milk not fit for human consumption
Srinagar, Dec 17: Health officer SMC accompanied by team of food safety officers along with police party of police station Pantha Chowk Saturday sealed the milk processing unit M/S Daily Need Processing and Milk Products, at industrial area Khonmoh, selling pouched milk under brand name of “TAAZA Milk”.
Pertinent to mention that the milk was being supplied to Army personnel based in Kashmir. “Public in general and army personnel in particular have been advised to immediately stop consumption of the said branded pouch milk as the same is not safe for human consumption,” a statement issued by SMC has cautioned. Action as warranted as per the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006 has been initiated against the said processing unit.
New Food Safety Act a tough nut to crack
Discussions: Delegates at a workshop, ‘Food safety – the way forward', in Bangalore on Saturday.
The transition from the old Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 to the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which came into being from August 5 this year, has turned out to be a big challenge for the State Health and Family Welfare Department's Food Safety Commissionerate.
Without a proper database on the number of business enterprises in the food industry, including roadside petty eateries, and inadequate staff and infrastructure, the department has now taken up a pilot project on effective implementation of the Act in Jayanagar and Banaswadi wards.
State Food Safety Commissioner B.S. Ramaprasad, who is also the State Health Commissioner, told The Hindu on the sidelines of the workshop, ‘Food safety – the way forward', held in the city on Saturday, that the project was being carried out by the Centre for Sustainable Development (CSD) in association with the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.
Based on the project, a survey of all food outlets and eateries in the State would be carried out. Admitting shortage of qualified food safety officers, Mr. Ramprasad said: “We require 234 food safety officers, but we have only 104. We have five laboratories to test food samples, including the Public Health Institute in Bangalore. But there is a shortage of analysts to test the samples: we have only eight while we need at least 20.”
Website, call centre
CSD Chairperson A. Ravindra said his organisation was readying a website for the Karnataka State Food Safety and Standards Authority. “Aimed at enabling proper implementation of the Act, it will also function as a call centre for people to complain about any food safety issues.”
Designated food safety officers would reply to the complaints with action taken reports within a stipulated time. “A team of researchers from IIMB, led by professor Gopal Naik, has prepared a framework on how the Act should be implemented in the State,” he said. The 104 food safety officers attended the workshop which was organised by the State Food Safety Commissionerate along with Nestle Nutrition Institute.
Dec 16, 2011
AIFPA hosts ‘All India Food Safety Summit — 2011’
An important part of the Summit was the session on the standards for food additives, packaging and labeling. | |
| |
Bottled water ‘safer’ – but industry still needs improvement
The survey showed that two per cent of samples failed microbiological standards last year, in comparison to 7 per cent in 2007. However, researchers warn the industry is still in need of improvement as four of the 748 samples taken were marked as unsafe for human consumption due to the presence of E.coli and/or Enterococci, and subsequently removed from the market.
The FSAI said that in all cases where non-compliance was noted manufacturers were required to take immediate corrective actions, and in the cases where safety was breached the manufacturers recalled the affected batches from the market and the FSAI issued alert notices on its website.
“Bottled water receives no further treatment by the consumer before consumption so its safety and quality are of paramount importance,” said Dr Wayne Anderson, Director of Food Science and Standards, FSAI. “The FSAI welcomes the significant improvements in the microbiological safety and quality of bottled water but there is still work to be done to ensure that no harmful bacteria make it into water and we would urge manufacturers to review their food safety management systems.”
The samples were taken from a range of retail outlets and bottled water manufacturers throughout the country between September and December 2010.
The main findings included:
- Nineteen of 748 bottled water samples collected were unsatisfactory on at least one microbiological safety standard
- Four samples were found to contain E.coli and/or Enterococci
- Four (separate) samples were found to contain P.aeruginosa which, while not a health risk to the general population can be considered a risk for severely immunocompromised people in hospital
- Eleven samples tested positive for coliforms which indicate possible poor hygiene during the bottling process or poor quality of the source water
- Three unsatisfactory samples (two positive for E.coli and one for P.aeruginosa) were part of batches of bottled water distributed outside of Ireland
Labelling
The survey also showed that improvement was required in relation to labelling standards, as 55 per cent of samples labelled as natural mineral water or spring water were not compliant with existing legislation.
Certain bottled water requires the name of the spring, as well as the location at which the spring is exploited, to be printed on the label – but just 45 per cent of the 323 water samples labelled as natural mineral water carried both of these statements.
Anderson commenting that labelling was clearly an area for improvement, saying: “Labelling must be compliant with all requirements in the legislation so that consumers are informed correctly about the nature of the product they are consuming”.
Dec 15, 2011
Ahmedabad civic body makes licensing for streateries mandatory
The health committee of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) held a meeting on Wednesday and discussed making provisions for the licensing of street food shops and vendors. This will require extra efforts from the laari walas and the street food shop owners, if they want to stay in business.
Currently it is mandatory for street food shops to have a licence of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954. "However, the new Food Safety and Standard Act 2006 demands that they obtain a licence under this Act," said Suresh Patel, chairman of the health committee of AMC, while addressing the meeting.
Under the new Act introduced by the central government, it is mandatory for street food joints to have this license and also maintain hygienic conditions at the food outlets.AMC officials will work towards the registration of all the street food outlets. Also, the street food joints with a turnover above Rs12 lakh per annum will have to register themselves, for which, identity cards will be issued to them. Renewal of the same will be done at a cost of Rs100. However, for lesser turnover, a renewal form costing Rs50 will be issued. The committee also discussed about the reform to be introduced in the AMC hospitals where part time doctors will be asked to work full time.
Dec 13, 2011
3M Food Safety Unveils Innovative Molecular Detection System for Dangerous Foodborne Pathogens
After decades of transforming the food processing industry with 3M™ Petrifilm™ Plates, 3M is once again revolutionizing the industry – this time in the area of pathogen detection. Today, 3M Food Safety introduces the 3M™ Molecular Detection System: a fast, accurate and easy-to-use method of detecting dangerous pathogens, like Salmonella, E. coli O157 and Listeria, that can shut down businesses and threaten public health.
“Leveraging 3M’s record of innovation, including close collaboration with our customers, we believe we’ve found a transformational solution that makes for a faster and simpler way of accurately detecting pathogens,” said Francine Savage, vice president and general manager, 3M Food Safety. “Just as 3M Petrifilm Plates succeeded by melding sophistication with simplicity, the 3M Molecular Detection System optimizes technicians’ time and productivity, improving bottom lines, protecting brands and ensuring public health.”
Sensitive, uncompromised results in a compact unit
The 3M Molecular Detection System delivers highly sensitive results by targeting and amplifying nucleic acid in enriched samples. The automated technology has been evaluated with a variety of food types, including produce, meats, processed foods, pet food and food processing-related environmental samples. The instrument is sleek and compact – taking up less counter space than a laptop computer, making it portable and adaptable to various lab environments.
“Pathogen testing has now been made simple and affordable,” said Niki Montgomery, 3M Food Safety global marketing development manager. “Food processors will benefit greatly from the system’s affordable accuracy and fast time to results, minimizing downtime in the lab. Numerous organisms can be tested in a single run and it was designed to help our customers perform fewer repeat tests and make critical decisions faster.”
Three assays available, validation efforts underway
As part of the 3M Molecular Detection System platform, individual, pathogen-specific assays, or procedural tests, will be sold as a test kits. Each assay test kit uses the same software interface and same DNA extraction protocol for testing between one and 96 samples per run. Assays for Salmonella, E. coli O157 (including H7) and Listeria are available immediately; a test for Listeria monocytogenes is expected in early 2012. 3M will continue to invest in developing a full portfolio of pathogen testing solutions to address customer needs.
Independent laboratory studies with the 3M Molecular Detection System are currently underway to pursue global method recognitions.
“In our evaluation of the Listeria species assay, we liked the small footprint of the system as well as the quick delivery of results after sample enrichment,” said Dr. Martin Wiedmann, a professor in Cornell University’s Department of Food Science who studied the system’s analyses of samples taken from meat-packing, seafood processing and retail locations. “This system definitely illustrates the potential of isothermal methods for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens.”
For more information, www.3M.com/
3M Food Safety is a leader of innovative solutions that help the food and beverage industries optimize the quality and safety of their products to enable consumer protection. At every step, 3M Food Safety provides solutions that help mitigate risk, improve operational efficiencies and impact the bottom line.
3M captures the spark of new ideas and transforms them into thousands of ingenious products. Its culture of creative collaboration inspires a never-ending stream of powerful technologies that make life better. 3M is the innovation company that never stops inventing. With $27 billion in sales, 3M employs about 80,000 people worldwide and has operations in more than 65 countries. For more information, visit www.3M.com or follow @3MNews on Twitter.
“In our evaluation of the Listeria species assay, we liked the small footprint of the system as well as the quick delivery of results after sample enrichment”Available worldwide, the 3M Molecular Detection System is based on an innovative combination of unique technologies involving isothermal DNA amplification and bioluminescence detection. The system was designed with 3M’s customer testing needs in mind, which translates into a compact, simple, robust system that offers easy implementation and low maintenance without compromising accuracy and reliability.
“Leveraging 3M’s record of innovation, including close collaboration with our customers, we believe we’ve found a transformational solution that makes for a faster and simpler way of accurately detecting pathogens,” said Francine Savage, vice president and general manager, 3M Food Safety. “Just as 3M Petrifilm Plates succeeded by melding sophistication with simplicity, the 3M Molecular Detection System optimizes technicians’ time and productivity, improving bottom lines, protecting brands and ensuring public health.”
Sensitive, uncompromised results in a compact unit
The 3M Molecular Detection System delivers highly sensitive results by targeting and amplifying nucleic acid in enriched samples. The automated technology has been evaluated with a variety of food types, including produce, meats, processed foods, pet food and food processing-related environmental samples. The instrument is sleek and compact – taking up less counter space than a laptop computer, making it portable and adaptable to various lab environments.
“Pathogen testing has now been made simple and affordable,” said Niki Montgomery, 3M Food Safety global marketing development manager. “Food processors will benefit greatly from the system’s affordable accuracy and fast time to results, minimizing downtime in the lab. Numerous organisms can be tested in a single run and it was designed to help our customers perform fewer repeat tests and make critical decisions faster.”
Three assays available, validation efforts underway
As part of the 3M Molecular Detection System platform, individual, pathogen-specific assays, or procedural tests, will be sold as a test kits. Each assay test kit uses the same software interface and same DNA extraction protocol for testing between one and 96 samples per run. Assays for Salmonella, E. coli O157 (including H7) and Listeria are available immediately; a test for Listeria monocytogenes is expected in early 2012. 3M will continue to invest in developing a full portfolio of pathogen testing solutions to address customer needs.
Independent laboratory studies with the 3M Molecular Detection System are currently underway to pursue global method recognitions.
“In our evaluation of the Listeria species assay, we liked the small footprint of the system as well as the quick delivery of results after sample enrichment,” said Dr. Martin Wiedmann, a professor in Cornell University’s Department of Food Science who studied the system’s analyses of samples taken from meat-packing, seafood processing and retail locations. “This system definitely illustrates the potential of isothermal methods for rapid detection of foodborne pathogens.”
For more information, www.3M.com/
3M Food Safety is a leader of innovative solutions that help the food and beverage industries optimize the quality and safety of their products to enable consumer protection. At every step, 3M Food Safety provides solutions that help mitigate risk, improve operational efficiencies and impact the bottom line.
3M captures the spark of new ideas and transforms them into thousands of ingenious products. Its culture of creative collaboration inspires a never-ending stream of powerful technologies that make life better. 3M is the innovation company that never stops inventing. With $27 billion in sales, 3M employs about 80,000 people worldwide and has operations in more than 65 countries. For more information, visit www.3M.com or follow @3MNews on Twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)