Food labelling requirements – Identification of Lot/Code/Batch number : Module 9

Identification of Batch, Code, Lot 

A batch number or code number or lot number is a mark of identification by which the food can be traced in the manufacture and identified in the distribution, shall be given on the label. 

All the packages of food product having the same batch number or code number are considered to be having the same substance of the same nature, quality and same in all respect. 

In case there is any consumer complaint about any package of food product, then the first step of investigation is to find out the Batch no/ Lot no of that food package and the food packages having the same batch/lot no are examined with respect to the complaint.Either following the consumer complaint or otherwise,if the food business operator considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with the FSS Act, or the rules or regulations, he shall immediately initiate procedures to withdraw the food in question from the market and consumers indicating reasons for its withdrawal and inform the concerned competent authorities . 

In case, if the regulator is suspicious about the quality of any packaged food ,then he takes the sample of the packaged food product of the particular Batch or Lot No. for its quality check.He takes the required number of the food packagings having the same batch/ lot number and sends it for analysis. In case of any violation in the sample of food packages the entire quantity of the same batch or lot is considered to be in violation of the food laws . The legal action may be initiated against the offenders and/ or the manufacturer or the processor may be directed that the entire quantity of the particular Batch or Lot No is traced and the food be recalled. 

“Recall” means action taken to remove a marketed food product from distribution, sale and consumption that may pose a safety hazard to consumers and the procedure followed for the same is called food recall procedure. 

When the circumstances require for Food Recall , it is the responsibility of every food business operator to inform the competent authorities of the action taken and to follow such conditions and guidelines relating to food recall procedures as the Food Authority may specify by regulations. In this regard the Food Authority has yet to notify the regulation, however draft regulation for Food Recall Procedure has appeared on the FSSAI website for public objections and suggestions. 

From the Food Business Operator point of view, it is better, if smaller quantity of the food product is processed in one lot. 

The Food Business Operator may note that the packages containing bread and milk including sterilised milk are not required to mention Batch/Code/Lot No. 

A food has to bear a label of lot/batch/code from the time of its raw shape like at farm level till it becomes a final product for sale. Information like date of harvest, farm identification and who handles the produce from grower to receiver, scanning a product at the point of picking or loading, the recognition through batch/code/lot number is required to be maintained to track the culprit in cases of complaints. 

Every food business operator has to define & mention Batch, Lot, Code number on all the containers of the product, to be referred under incidents of examination on suspicion by the regulatory body or on action upon consumer complaints.

Most juice outlets in Kochi function by flouting food safety norms

Fruit shops in the city continue to violate the guidelines prescribed by the Food Safety Commissioner, with the department officials unable to check flouting of norms. A scene from a city juice shop in Kochi on Thursday. 

Water and other ingredients used is suspected to be contaminated 

Locating a juice shop in the city fully complying with the guidelines prescribed by the Commissioner of Food Safety may be a Herculean task this summer.

With shops mushrooming in every nook and cranny in Kochi, Food Safety officials seem groping in the dark on how to curb the violations.

Even though reports on use of contaminated ice have come down gradually, they admitted that the majority of the shops store ice in thermocol boxes against the prescribed rules. As per the guidelines, ice should not be stored in polystyrene boxes, but in freezers or ice boxes.

Many juice shop owners now claim that they use water supplied in cans by private manufacturers of bottled drinking water. But there is little check on whether these suppliers meet the safety standards.

Food safety guidelines recommend that the water being used should be from a source of impeccable quality and the quality of the water source should be tested every six months at a government-approved analytical laboratory. Shop owners should also keep these reports in the shop.

A ride along the main city roads reveals that only a few shops adhere to another major guideline recommending prominent display of the licence or registration details as per the Food Safety and Standards (FSSA) Act, 2006.

Use of low quality milk, especially that brought from outside the State, is also rampant in juice shops offering milk shakes. 

The Food Safety Department has no clues on whether the shops were storing milk in freezers well beyond the expiry period.

Customers can report cases where they found juice being prepared in unhygienic environments. 

They should also ensure that shop owners clean the implements used for preparing juices mainly mixers, juicers and strainers after every use.

The Food Safety guidelines also prescribe that the refrigerator and freezer should be cleaned regularly and the last date on which it was cleaned should be displayed on the fridge.

All food items, including water, in the shops should be stored in covered containers of food grade quality. The fruits should be of good quality, with no trace of fungus. The fruits should be washed and refrigerated.

All employees in juice shops should have medical fitness certificates. They should strictly follow hygienic practices in handling food. Those with any skin conditions or infectious diseases should not be allowed as employees in food businesses.

Organic food may not lower cancer risk

 

Scientists found no evidence that regularly eating a diet that was grown free from pesticides reduced a woman's overall risk of cancer.

Summary

Eating a well-balanced diet which is high in fruit and vegetables – whether conventionally grown or not – can help reduce your cancer risk. 

High-fat diet in puberty may up breast cancer risk

Eating chicken may stave off colon cancer in teens

Eating organic foods may not lower the risk of developing cancer, a new study has claimed. 

Women who always or mostly eat organic foods are no less likely to develop cancer than women who eat a more conventional diet, according to the study published in the British Journal of Cancer.

to help us personalise your reading experience.

Cancer Research UK scientists from the University of Oxford found no evidence that regularly eating a diet that was grown free from pesticides reduced a woman’s overall risk of cancer. 

The researchers asked around 600,000 women aged 50 or over, who were part of a project, named Million Women Study, about whether they ate organic foods, and tracked the development of 16 of the most common types of cancer in a nine year period following the survey. 

Around 50,000 women developed cancer in this period. 

The scientists’ analysis found no difference in overall cancer risk when comparing the 180,000 women who reported never eating organic food with around 45,000 women who reported usually or always eating organically grown food. 

When looking at the results for 16 individual types ofcancer they found a small increase in risk for breast cancer but a reduction in the risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women who mostly ate organic food, although these results could be partly due to chance and other factors. 

“In this large study of middle-aged women in the UK we found no evidence that a woman’s overall cancer risk was decreased if she generally ate organic food,” said Professor Tim Key, a Cancer Research UK epidemiologist based at the University of Oxford and one of the study authors. 

“More research is needed to follow-up our findings of a possible reduction in risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma,” Key said. 

“This study adds to the evidence that eating organically grown food doesn’t lower your overall cancer risk. But if you’re anxious about pesticide residues on fruit and vegetables, it’s a good idea to wash them before eating,” said Dr Claire Knight, Cancer Research UK’s health information manager. 

“Scientists have estimated that over nine per cent of cancer cases in the UK may be linked to dietary factors, of which almost five per cent are linked to not eating enough fruit and vegetables. 

“So eating a well-balanced diet which is high in fruit and vegetables – whether conventionally grown or not – can help reduce your cancer risk,” Knight said.

Appeals court rules in favor of meat labels

Appeals court rules in favor of meat labels, denies industry attempt to block them

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court is allowing labels on certain cuts of meat to say where the animals were born, raised and slaughtered. 

The appeals court decision issued Friday dismissed an attempt by the meat industry to block the rules, which took effect last year and require packaged steaks, ribs and other cuts of meat to include country of origin labels. The industry has long fought the labels, saying they are costly and provide no health benefits to the consumer. 

In court, the meat industry said the rules go beyond what Congress intended and violate First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. The industry argued that the rules violate the U.S. Constitution because they force meat producers to provide information about their products, and that the information is of no real value to the consumer. 

Judge Stephen F. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled those claims were unlikely to succeed in court and refused to block the labeling rules, agreeing with a lower federal court. 

Williams wrote that the labeling "enables a consumer to apply patriotic or protectionist criteria in the choice of meat," and "enables one who believes that United States practices and regulation are better at assuring food safety than those of other countries, or indeed the reverse, to act on that premise." 

He said those goals are worthy of what he called a "minimal" intrusion on the meat industry's First Amendment rights. 

The lawsuit was led by the American Meat Institute, which represents the nation's largest meatpackers, and joined by other meat industry groups. In a statement, the American Meat Institute said it was disappointed by the ruling and disagreed with it. James H. Hodges, interim president and CEO of AMI, said the group is "evaluating our options moving forward." 

The meat industry has argued that the paperwork to make the labels possible is burdensome and that it's not practical to keep cattle and hogs from other countries separate from domestic animals. 

The labeling rules have support from consumer groups, environmental groups and some farm groups. Cattle ranchers who raise cattle near the northern border and compete with Canadian ranchers have been most supportive of the rules, which Congress first wrote in 2002 and later revised in 2008 after years of haggling with the meat industry. 

Under the rules, labels must specify that a meat product was "Born in Mexico, raised and slaughtered in the United States" or "Born, raised and slaughtered in the United States." 

The Agriculture Department has also prohibited meat processors from mixing meat from animals born, raised or slaughtered in other countries with meat from the U.S.

Is GM the way to go?

The Hindu Environment Minister Veerappa Moily’s decision to allow field trials of genetically modified food crops marks a major shift in official policy on a highly contentious issue. 

We asked you if you think India needs GM crops. Here are some of our best responseGenetically modified seeds in India can cause incalculable harm to our environment and human health. These seeds are subjected to a genetic material from soil bacterium (Bacillus thuringiensis) which releases toxins that kill both pest and beneficial insects. Due to the effect of Bt in soil, many weeds called the super weeds and super bugs start dominating the field which is herbicide-resistant that plague farmers. Furthermore, these seeds do not produce second generation seeds for sowing. The bitter truth is that these seeds are the brainchild of some multinational companies that are interested only in making money.

B.Deepna, Class VIII, Amrita Vidyalayam, Ettimadi, Coimbatore. 

*** 

Genetically modified (GM) crops have many potential advantages in terms of raising agricultural productivity and reducing the need for pesticides. They might also pose hazards to human health, from toxicity and increased risk of allergies, for example. However, particularly in Europe, regulations designed to ensure adequate safety of GM technologies may go too far. 

K.Thendral, Class VIII, Nava Bharath International School, Annur 

*** 

Even though India is an agricultural country, there is not enough crops for its people. In some lands, cultivating hybrid variety crops will produce good crops. People can get good food and become healthy because of this hybrid variety crops. This will allow them to do their duties correctly which will rise the productivity of India. 

B.Gokulnath, Class XI, Cheran MHSS, Karur 

*** 

In many developed countries GM foods are illegal. When it is not good for them, how can it be good for us? I prefer organic food as it is much healthier than GM food. I don’t understand why Mr. Moily has taken such a hasty decision when the issue is in the Supreme Court. 

M. Keerthi, Class X, Teja Vidyalaya, Kodad 

*** 

GM crops need less pesticides. The cost of growing decreases, due to this. Food prices even decrease. But there are even disadvantages using them. The taste of food changes. It causes harm to other organisms. Possible damages may occur to the environment. Even unforeseen risks and damages may take place. So, it is better if we do not use GMO crops for our food. 

G. Amit , Class VI, Sri Gowthami Smart School, Rajahmundry.

Indians consuming imported GM-processed food, parliamentary panel says

NEW DELHI: India doesn't allow commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops but Indians may well be consuming GM processed food- knowingly or un-knowingly. 

A Parliamentary panel has brought this out in the open by pointing out shortcomings in the functioning of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), which has failed miserably to check import of such products. 

Taking note of the government's response over various issues concerning GM food crops, the committee on agriculture - which submitted its report to Lok Sabha speaker on March 15 - pointed out that "there is no check on GM processed food and other items coming from outside the country or being produced here" in India. 

It gave an example of cotton seed oil, produced in the country from Bt Cotton which is the only genetically modified crop allowed for commercial production. The cotton seed oil is, incidentally, widely used in India as cooking oil. 

After making its point, the panel - headed by CPM Lok Sabha MP Basudeb Acharia - also asked the government to "investigate the matter without further loss of time". 

The panel's report comes at the time when the ministry of environment and forest (MoEF) is planning to keep in abeyance its controversial August, 2007 notification - which allows the import of GM foods into India without its prior permission - for another three or six months, beginning April 1. 

The required order will be notified by the ministry soon as the period of existing notification will expire on March 31. 

The ministry has continuously been keeping the notification in abeyance since February 2008. At present, any genetically engineered organism can be imported (either for research or for restricted lab trial) only after the prior permission Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). 

The ministry's order, keeping the 2007 notification in abeyance, has been in tune with what the Supreme Court's direction in response to a petition six years ago. The court had directed the ministry to put such order on hold till the controversial issue of transgenic crops is finally decided by it. The apex court will begin its hearing on April 14.