Caterers to get tips from FDA

Food guide: The food regulator has decided to frame guidelines, and will conduct a training session this week for caterers across the state. Pic for representation

After food poisoning incident in Bandra, FDA to organise training session for caterers across state, frame guidelines for catering industry to avoid repeat

After Sunday’s incident in which some 150 guests at a Bandra wedding party took ill due to suspected food poisoning, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will now initiate measures to train and certify caterers in the state. The food regulator has decided to frame guidelines, and will conduct a training session this week for caterers across the state to avoid such untoward situations in future.
G H Rathod, joint commissioner (food), FDA, said, “We have invited caterers from across the state where we will issue guidelines and conduct a training session for them. Caterers cook food for thousands of people. Hence the responsibility to maintain the quality of food should be their utmost priority.”
On Sunday, 148 people were admitted to various suburban hospitals, following complaints of vomiting and dysentery, after they had consumed food at a wedding reception in Bharat Nagar, Bandra-Kurla Complex road the night before. “The place where the food was prepared was unhygienic. Also, the caterer was not a licensed caterer. It’s a cause for concern for everyone, as chances of bad quality food being served in future cannot be ruled out. Hence, the department will frame guidelines for caterers to maintain hygiene and serve quality food,” said an official on condition of anonymity.
“We request people to hire only licensed caterers so that such incidents are avoided. We will also appeal to the caterers to only tie up with licensed food vendors so that the quality remains intact,” said Rathod. Rathod further added that under the new Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) Act, 2011, every vendor would need to register and acquire an FSSAI licence for selling food products. Not only this, new hygiene standards are also being re-defined for the food industry. 

PRODUCT APPROVAL - FSSAI Clarification Letter

Traders opposes against Food Safety and Standard Act

A delegation of the Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) met senior officials of Food Safety Authority of India on controversial Food Safety & Standard Act today at New Delhi. The CAIT while presenting a detailed memorandum to the Authority drew its attention towards various contradictions, discrepancies, ambiguity & disparity in the said Act and its Rules & Regulations. The CAIT also pointed out several contradictory provisions between the Act and Rules and Regulations.

Beside CAIT National President B.C. Bhartia and Secretary General Mr. Praveen Khandelwal the Authority officials include it?s Director (Enforcement) Mr. S.S. Ghankrokta, Assistant Director (Enforcement) Mr. K. Madhavan among others.
While challenging the merits of the Act and its Rules, the CAIT expressed utter dismay over provisions of taking license by several entities including religious places like Temple or Gurdwara etc, Transporters, Warehouse keepers, Landlords or by persons delivering Food & other items by mobile distribution vehicles and called for necessary clarifications from the Authority. The CAIT also drew the attention of the Authority over turn over limit of Rs. 12 lakh for the Cottage and Small Industries, which contravenes the definition of Cottage, and Small Industries under the SSI Act.
The CAIT also said that many provisions of the Rules and Regulations are superseding the Act, which is a legal infirmity. The Rules and Regulations of FS&SA therefore needs a careful study and re-consideration-stressed the CAIT.
The Authorities gave patient hearing to the delegation and assured that the intention of Law or Authority is never to put the food business operators in to any sort of difficulty. The issues raised by the CAIT will be given due consideration by the Authority and hoped that clarity will surely emerge in the next meeting which will be held shortly.

Anti-FSSA agitation intensifies; trade leaders to deliberate at national meet

The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) is organising a national conference of trade leaders in New Delhi on May 10 and 11, 2012. The controversial Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006 is on top of the agenda.

Confirming the news, B C Bhartia, CAIT's Nagpur-based secretary-general told, “The Act is not broad-based. In fact, we believe it is of no relevance to the country; it seems the rules and regulations merely ape the West. Anyway, it favours multi-national companies.”

“Overseas, people eat ready-to-eat foods. A 'best-before' date is printed on every pack. Here, we buy ingredients from the market and use them to cook food. We see absolutely no point in printing information on the pack if it is not going to be used,” he said.

“Coming back to the Act, its motive is pretty clear. Those who framed these draconian and unreasonable rules and regulations obviously support foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail. Food business operators are a major constituent of the retail business,” Bhartia said.

“Our issue is against those who are keen to wipe out our local food industries, especially the small and petty manufacturers and vendors, and ensure that the market becomes flooded with expensive branded products,” he explained.

“We will raise this in our meeting with the Food Authority on May 2 as well. There are over 70 issues to discuss with them. Our objections to every contentious Section of the Act will be put forth,” Bhartia stated.

“Multi-nationals will ensure that every product is sold in a packed condition. The traditional Indian food business operators will not even be able to compete with large Indian corporate if this ridiculous rule were made compulsory,” he said.

“We can't understand why those who drafted the Act are so eager to hike the prices. In addition to that, we'll have to deal with food audits and stringent food testing norms. They now insist that samples of raw material can only be analysed in accredited labs,” Bhartia said.

“The traditional food business operators will have to bear the increased financial burden of non-product expenses. And as a result, the consumers will be forced to pay more when they buy their wares,” he said.

“Throughout the supply chain, a stipulated temperature has to be maintained. It is possible to do so in the West, where the weather conditions are more or less the same. In India, it is mostly hot and humid, and there are variations,” Bhartia said.

“And there's the Inspector Raj, which is getting consolidated. If you give them the kind of powers this Act vests in them, they'll obviously abuse them in the name of 'doing their duty'. The small and petty food business operators wil also have to keep records,” he explained.

“However, our main grouse,” said Bhartia, “is that adulteration, which this Act's predecessor (the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954) aimed at curbing, has virtually been ignored in the new Act. Instead of this heinous crime, it defines misbranded and sub-standard food.”

Paramakudi bakers' case solved amicably after traders' body secretary intervenes

The bakers in Paramakudi, whose premises were raided by food safety officers (FSOs) last week, are a relieved lot. The case was resolved amicably after Jabarullah Khan, secretary, Paramakudi Vyabarigal Sangam (a traders' association), intervened.

“Their ire was directed at seven food safety officers, who barged in to the bakeries, and asked them why the macaroons (light cakes or cookies) they made are white in colour,” R Kaleeswaran, honorary secretary, Karaikudi Bakery Owners' Association (KBOA), said.

“The FSOs do not know about the product. Macaroons are white because they are made with cashewnuts and egg whites. There is no artificial colouring. They cost about Rs 450 per kg,” he said.

Many food business operators (FBOs) across Tamil Nadu levelled allegations of bribery against FSOs last week. Bakers in Thanjavur and Trichy reported that they were forced to pay between Rs 30,000 and Rs 50,000.

Royal S Kumar, propreitor, Royal Bakery and Restaurant, Udumalpet, Tiruppur District, and president, Tamil Nadu Bakers' Federation, confirmed these charges and condemned the conduct of the FSOs.

VTA delegation meets BJP MPs Javadekar, Ahir to raise issues concerning FSSA

A delegation of Vidarbha Taxpayers' Association (VTA), led by Shrawankumar Malu, its vice-president, met Prakash Javadekar, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, and national spokesperson, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Hansraj Ahir, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, BJP, to submit a detailed memorandum appealing to raise the issue of the unreasonable Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006 and its unbalanced Rules and Regulations, 2011, in the respective Houses.

The delegation said that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had prepared the FSSA and its Rules and Regulations in such a haste that it failed to consider the socio-economic conditions of the country.

Further, Schedule IV in Regulation 2.1.2 of Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, had many ambiguities, which would raise differences of opinion resulting in unnecessary litigations. Even some of the requirements of Schedule IV were impossible to be implemented, the delegation said.

Similarly, the requirements and parameters mentioned in Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, were such that drinking water needed to be tested on 51 counts. Likewise, there were stringent requirements are for vegetables, fruits, milk, etc. The delegation asked, "How would a Food Business Operator be responsible for any banned chemical used by agriculturists?".

The penalty clauses (Sections 51 to 58) of the FSSA, 2006 had no clarity. Similarly some unprecedented powers had been authorised to the food safety officer (FSO), which were likely to promote Inspector Raj.

Javadekar and Ahir agreed with the grievances of the FBOs over the vagueness in the Act and assured the delegation that they would study the matter and initiate appropriate measures.

Also present in the delegation were Tejinder Singh Renu, secretary; Hemant Trivedi, joint secretary; Amarjeet Singh Chawla and Saqib Parekh, executive members, and Advocate Ajay Somani.

Javadekar appreciated the formation of associations like the VTA. He said that such associations were very strong overseas and more such associations needed to be formed, as taxpayers had the right to know where their money was utilised.

TNFMA challenges various Sections of FSSA; obtains interim injunction on all

The mood in the Madurai-based Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants' Association (TNFMA) camp at the weekend was one of jubilation, because the body successfully challenged various Sections of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

“We have not only obtained interim injunction on the Sections pertaining to licensing and registration, but also on the one which defines adulterants; the one about packaging and labelling; the one which specifies the time limit for prosecutions, etc.,” P Subash Chandra Bose, vice-president, TNFMA, told in a telephonic conversation.

“There are sixteen Sections pertaining to penalties and punishments in the Act, namely Sections 50 to 65; and the Madurai Bench has granted us interim injunction on all of them. We are aware that this relief is temporary, and a lot of work still remains to be done. We will have to be on our toes,” Bose said.

Numerous bones of contention

Section 3 (1) (a) defines an adulterant as, “Any material which is, or could be, employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or misbranded or containing extraneous matter.”

Section 3 (1) (zf) defines misbranded food as, “an article of food –

(A) if it is purported, or is represented to be, or is being –

(i) offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims either;

(a) upon the label of the package, or

(b) through advertisement, or

(ii) sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or

(iii) offered or promoted for sale under the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article as borne on the package or containing the article or the label on such package;

or

(B) if the article is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer bearing his name and address but -

(i) the article is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character; or

(ii) the package containing the article or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents; or

(iii) the article is offered for sale as the product of any place or country which is false;

or

(C) if the article contained in the package –

(i) contains any artificial flavouring, colouring or chemical preservative and the package is without a declaratory label stating that fact or is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or regulations made thereunder or is in contravention thereof; or

(ii) is offered for sale for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be specified by regulation, concerning its vitamins, minerals or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such use; or

(iii) is not conspicuously or correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability laid down under this Act.

[Note: The TNGMA challenged the monetary penalty stipulated for violators of this Section (Rs 5 lakh) and obtained interim injunction on the same.]

Section 5 (1) (a) deals with the composition of the Food Authority and specfies the qualifications for appointment of its chairperson and other members

(1) The Food Authority shall consist of a chairperson and the following twenty-two members, out of which one-third shall be women, namely:-

(a) seven members, not below the rank of a joint secretary to the Government of India, to be appointed by the Central Government, to respectively represent the ministries or departments of the Central Government dealing with -

(i) Agriculture;
(ii) Commerce;
(iii) Consumer Affairs;
(iv) Food Processing;
(v) Health;
(vi) Legislative Affairs, and
(vii) Small Scale Industries

who shall be members ex-officio;

(b) two representatives from food industry of which one shall be from small scale industries;

(c) two representatives from consumer organisations;

(d) three eminent food technologists or scientists;

(e) five members to be appointed by rotation every three years, one each in seriatim from the zones as specified in the First Schedule to represent the states and the Union Territories;

(f) two persons to represent farmers’ organisations; and

(g) one person to represent retailers’ organisations.

[Note: One of the members was found to be a grape-grower; and the other was engaged in prawn culture.]
Section 13 is about scientific panels.

(1) The Food Authority shall establish scientific panels, which shall consist of independent scientific experts

(2) The scientific panel shall invite the relevant industry and consumer representatives in its deliberations

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Food Authority may establish as many scientific panels as it considers necessary in addition to the panels on:

(a) food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food;

(b) pesticides and antibiotics residues;

(c) genetically modified organisms and foods;

(d) functional foods, nutraceuticals, dietetic products and other similar products;

(e) biological hazards;

(f) contaminants in the food chain;

(g) labelling; and

(h) method of sampling and analysis.

(4) The Food Authority may from time to time re-constitute the scientific panels by adding new members or by omitting the existing members or by changing the name of the panel as the case may be.

Section 14 is about scientific committees.

(1) The Food Authority shall constitute a scientific committee, which shall consist of the chairpersons of the scientific panels and six independent scientific experts not belonging or affiliated to any of the scientific panels

(2) The scientific committee shall be responsible for providing the scientific opinions to the Food Authority, and shall have the powers, where necessary, of organising public hearings

(3) The scientific committee shall be responsible for the general co-ordination necessary to ensure consistency of the scientific opinion procedure and in particular with regard to the adoption of working procedures and harmonisation of working methods of the scientific panels

(4) The scientific committee shall provide opinions on multi-sectoral issues falling within the competence of more than one scientific panel, and on issues which do not fall within the competence of any of the scientific panels

(5) Wherever necessary, and particularly, in the case of subjects which do not fall within the competence of any of the scientific panel, the scientific committee shall set up working groups and in such cases, it shall draw on the expertise of those working groups when establishing scientific opinions.

Section 23 deals with packaging and labelling of foods.

(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any packaged food products which are not marked and labelled in the manner as may be specified by regulations:

Provided that the labels shall not contain any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food products contained in the package or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value implying medicinal or therapeutic claims or in relation to the place of origin of the said food products

(2) Every food business operator shall ensure that the labelling and presentation of food, including their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the manner in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed, and the information which is made available about them through whatever medium, does not mislead consumers.

Section 31 deals with the licensing and registration of food businesses.

(1) No person shall commence or carry on any food business except under a licence

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a petty manufacturer who himself manufactures or sells any article of food or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business operator; but they shall register themselves with such authority and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, without prejudice to the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption or affecting the interests of the consumers

(3) Any person desirous to commence or carry on any food business shall make an application for grant of a licence to the designated officer in such manner containing such particulars and fees as may be specified by regulations

(4) The designated officer on receipt of an application under sub-section (3), may either grant the licence or after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant a licence to any applicant, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of public health and shall make available to the applicant a copy of the order:

Provided that if a licence is not issued within two months from the date of making the application or his application is not rejected, the applicant may start his food business after expiry of the said period and in such a case, the designated officer shall not refuse to issue a licence but may, if he considers necessary, issue an improvement notice, under section 32 and follow procedures in that regard

(5) Every licence shall be in such form and subject to such conditions as may be specified by regulations

(6) A single licence may be issued by the Designated Officer for one or more articles of food and also for different establishments or premises in the same area

(7) If the articles of food are manufactured, stored, sold or exhibited for sale at different premises situated in more than one area, separate applications shall be made and separate licence shall be issued in respect of such premises not falling within the same area

(8) An appeal against the order of rejection for the grant of licence shall lie to the
commissioner of food safety

(9) A licence unless suspended or cancelled earlier shall be in force for such period as may be specified by regulations: Provided that if an application for a renewal of licence is made before the expiry of the period of validity of the licence, the licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application

(10) The licence shall subsist for the benefit of the deceased’s personal representative or any other member of his family, until the expiry of –

(a) the period of three months beginning with his death; or

(b) such longer period as the designated officer may allow.

Section 40 states that the purchaser may have food analysed.

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent a purchaser of any article of food other than a food safety officer from having such article analysed by the food analyst on payment of such fees and receiving from the food analyst a report of his analysis within such period as may be specified by regulations:

Provided that such purchaser shall inform the food business operator at the time of purchase of his intention to have such article so analysed:

Provided further that if the report of the food analyst shows that the article of food is not in compliance with the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, the purchaser shall be entitled to get refund of the fees paid by him under this section

(2) In case the food analyst finds the sample in contravention of the provisions of this Act and rules and regulations made thereunder, the food analysts shall forward the report to the designated officer to follow the procedure laid down in Section 42 for prosecution.

Sections 50-65 deal with different kinds of penalties and punishments.

Section 50: Penalty for selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded

Any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not in compliance with the provisions of this Act or the regulations made thereunder, or of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding Rs 5 lakh

Provided that the persons covered under sub-section (2) of section 31, shall for such non-compliance be liable to a penalty not exceeding Rs 25,000.

Section 51: Penalty for sub-standard food
Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

Section 52: Penalty for misbranded food

(1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 3 lakh

(2) The adjudicating officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such article of food shall be destroyed.

Section 53: Penalty for misleading advertisement

(1) Any person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of an advertisement,

(a) falsely describes any food; or

(b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of any food or gives false guarantee, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 10 lakh

(2) In any proceeding the fact that a label or advertisement relating to any article of food in respect of which the contravention is alleged to have been committed contained an accurate statement of the composition of the food shall not preclude the court from finding that the contravention was committed.

Section 54: Penalty for food containing extraneous matter

Any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption containing extraneous matter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 55: Penalty for failure to comply with the directions of food safety officer

If a food business operator or importer without reasonable ground, fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or the rules or regulations or orders issued thereunder, as directed by the food safety officer, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 56: Penalty for unhygienic or unsanitary processing or manufacturing of food

Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or processes any article of food for human consumption under unhygienic or unsanitary conditions, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 57: Penalty for possessing adulterant

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, if any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distribute any adulterant shall be liable –

(i) where such adulterant is not injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding Rs 2 lakh;

(ii) where such adulterant is injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding Rs 10 lakh

(2) In a proceeding under sub-section (1), it shall not be a defence that the accused was holding such adulterant on behalf of any other person.

Section 58: Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided

Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 59: Punishment for unsafe food

Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,–

(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh;

(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to Rs 3 lakh;

(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to Rs 5 lakh;

(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than Rs 10 lakh.

Section 60: Punishment for interfering with seized items

If a person without the permission of the food safety officer, retains, removes or tampers with any food, vehicle, equipment, package or labelling or advertising material or other thing that has been seized under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 61: Punishment for false information

If a person, in connection with a requirement or direction under this Act, provides any information or produces any document that the person knows is false or misleading, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 62: Punishment for obstructing or impersonating a food safety officer

If a person without reasonable excuse, resists, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, impersonate, threaten, intimidate or assault a food safety officer in exercising his functions under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 63: Punishment for carrying out a business without licence

If any person or food business operator (except the persons exempted from licensing under Sub-section (2) of section 31 of this Act), himself or by any person on his behalf who is required to obtain licence, manufacturers, sells, stores or distributes or imports any article of food without licence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with a fine which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

Section 64: Punishment for subsequent offences

(1) If any person, after having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under this Act subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence, he shall be liable to —

(i) twice the punishment, which might have been imposed on a first conviction, subject to the punishment being maximum provided for the same offence;

(ii) a further fine on daily basis which may extend up to one lakh rupees, where the offence is a continuing one; and

(iii) his licence shall be cancelled

(2) The Court may also cause the offender’s name and place of residence, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published at the offender’s expense in such newspapers or in such other manner as the court may direct and the expenses of such publication shall be deemed to be part of the cost attending the conviction and shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine.

Section 65. Compensation in case injury of death of consumer

(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Chapter, if any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or distributes or sells or imports any article of food causing injury to the consumer or his death, it shall be lawful for the adjudicating officer or as the case may be, the court to direct him to pay compensation to the victim or the legal representative of the victim, a sum—

(a) not less than Rs 5 lakh in case of death;

(b) not exceeding Rs 3 lakh in case of grievous injury;

and

(c) not exceeding Rs 1 lakh, in all other cases of injury

Provided that the compensation shall be paid at the earliest and in no case later than six months from the date of occurrence of the incident:

Provided further that in case of death, an interim relief shall be paid to the next of the kin within thirty days of the incident

(2) Where any person is held guilty of an offence leading to grievous injury or death, the adjudicating officer or the court may cause the name and place of residence of the person held guilty, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published at the offender’s expense in such newspapers or in such other manner as the adjudicating officer or the court may direct and the expenses of such publication shall be deemed to be part of the cost attending the conviction and shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine

(3) The adjudicating officer or the court may also,—

(a) order for cancellation of licence, recall of food from market, forfeiture of establishment and property in case of grievous injury or death of consumer;

(b) issue prohibition orders in other cases.

Section 77: Time limit for prosecutions

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court shall take cognisance of an offence under this Act after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of an offence:

Provided that the commissioner of food safety may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years.

Bench stays implementation of some provisions of Food Safety Act - THE HINDU

Restrains Centre from giving effect to nearly 25 provisions of the Legislation

The Madras High Court Bench here has restrained the Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry and the Commissioner of Food Safety in Chennai from giving effect to certain provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the regulations framed under it with respect to members of Madurai Managar Anaiththu Vanigargal Nala Sangam (MMAVNS), Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants Association (TNFMA), and Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TNCCI).
Justice K. Venkataraman granted the interim orders in individual writ petitions filed by the three associations. In so far as the case filed by MMAVNS was concerned, the judge had stayed the operation of certain provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011; and Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.
He also restrained the Commissioner of Food Safety from enforcing the Regulations against members of the association and directed a Central Government Standing Counsel to take notice returnable by June 5. In the cases filed by TNFMA and TNCCI, the judge had restrained the Union Ministry from giving effect to about 25 provisions in the 2006-Act with respect to their members. In these cases too, the judge ordered notices to the Ministry and adjourned the matters to June.
The judge stated that he was inclined to pass such orders as the High Court had already granted similar interim orders on November 8 last year in two other writ petitions. The provisions that were stayed included Sections 3(1)(a), (za), (zf), 5(1)(a), 13, 14, 23, 31, 40, 50 to 65 and 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to the petitioners, the Legislation enacted in 2006 and implemented from August 5 last year severely affected those engaged in food business.
While the first three Sections that were challenged related to the definitions of adulterant, licence, and misbranded food, the other provisions related to composition of Food Authority, scientific panels, and scientific committees for implementing the Act. The Sections dealing with packaging and labelling of foods and licensing and registration of food business were also under challenge. The petitioners were also aggrieved against provisions imposing penalties, which they termed as very high.
Sections 50 to 65 of the Act stipulated the penalties and punishments that could be imposed for manufacturing and selling sub-standard food, misbranded food, food containing extraneous matter and for issuing misleading advertisements.
They also impose punishments for failure to comply with the directions of Food Safety Officer, providing false information, carrying out a business without licence, interfering with seized items and for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety Officer.

FBO AWARENESS MEETING BY FSO