New Delhi
In the winter session of Parliament, Union health minister J P Nadda had announced creation of Task Force to review the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, and Regulations, 2011, comprehensively. The task force was scheduled to submit its recommendations in 45 days. But no further developments have been noted in this regard.
Interestingly, the ministry of health and family affairs is not aware of why the report has not yet been submitted. When questioned, all it could say was, “We have no idea.”
However, there has been an unease amongst the industry with several of the FSSR norms being a cause of concern. From language of the regulations to advisories on product approval, licensing, legal proceedings, to punishment, the industry has many reservations.
There are some 37 sections and clauses wherein the industry wants a review of the language and terminology.
According to sources in the ministry, it would take some time before the final draft of the review is out for the public comment. The Task Force is yet to submit the report while post filing of report, a cabinet note will be prepared by the ministry to raise it before the prime minister and the Cabinet. Thereafter comments will be invited from the law ministry on the proposed draft.
An official privy to the matter stated that it was highly unlikely that the review draft would be ready in this Budget session. “Even it can go beyond the Monsoon session,” the official added.
Further, according to sources in the industry, the government is not appearing keen on having discussion on this issue. Though some meetings were held in the health ministry office, they had fewer representation from the industry.
Meanwhile, most industry bodies have submitted their representation to the health ministry. Some of the demands:
Section 31 and Section 63: Licensing
The industry says that appropriate drafting is needed to ensure that the intended objective behind single-window mechanism for licence to operate is achieved. “We strongly feel that there should be only one licence applicable for business entity as was envisaged during the drafting and review of FSS Bill 2005, with an understanding that all licences of food business operations (factories, warehouses) where food products are manufactured/packed/handled should be endorsed in same licence.”
Moreover the licences should be on food-category not for every single-food. Multiplicity in either licensing or registration or related matters at Central and/or state authorities is not only a retrograde step bringing back the complex licensing system and inspector raj but multiple approvals leads to move away from intended objective behind the FSSR while putting significant distress on FBOs.
“Therefore we propose to review the whole aspect around licensing now considering a small part of licences have been issued by the authority in last couple of years,” says a representation from All India Food Processors’ Association (AIFPA) to the ministry of health.
It added, licence application should be simplified to focus on requirement related to food safety viz. contact and legal information (name, location(s), address/contact, etc.), activity related information (type of activity, categories of food to be handled / manufactured, size of business if relevant, etc.) and commodity related information (commodity type, countries from which commodities are typically imported).
Section 63 refers to punishment for carrying out a business without a licence whereas it has been observed and represented that despite efforts even from Central Food Safety Authority many states did not progress with the institutional mechanism of receiving the applications less said about approval, hence this provision needs to be modified considering vast majority of licences still pending to be issued/renewed by the authorities both in Central and states. To this effect, the Central Advisory Committee’s report providing the status of licensing applications processed may be reviewed by the government and therefore appropriately modify the provision in Section 63 while simplifying licensing provisions under the Act as well as under the Regulations thereunder.
Additional critical observations and proposals by the industry
1. To make Provision for Adjudication and Legal Proceedings relating to a Food Sample in the State of Registration of the FBO
As per present laws, legal proceedings against an FBO are pursued in the city/place where the sample has been taken. We are aware that samples of food products are taken randomly without any pre-evidence from millions of retail stores and restaurants all over the country. The entrepreneur has to run to spread over locations in the country to attend these proceedings leading to critical loss of time, energy and resources besides causing undue exploitation and unmanageable mental stress and subjecting him to severe uncertainties of legal schedules and multiple visits. The entrepreneur cannot do much else leave alone attending to improve production and packaging systems or product innovation.
This cumbersome and archaic procedure of food legislation needs to be rationalised to save unproductive loss of time, energy and resources and to enable the entrepreneur to devote to consumer needs and bring about the much needed growth of the sector.
To make the system more efficient and productive it has been suggested that after a food sample has been taken the adjudication and legal proceedings of the same should be conducted in the state of registration/licensing of the FBO. This will save critical resources of the government and the FBO and will also enable the Authority to focus on product improvement instead of only doing a legal exercise. Moreover, many times the same product has been sampled from different locations thereby making multiple proceedings of one product happening at spread over locations. This extra wastage of precious time, energy and resources both of the entrepreneur and the Authority can be saved.
2. Fines/Penalties should be only on the Business Entity and not on the Business Entity plus on every Director/Partner. This increases the Fine/Penalty manifold and is not justified.
3. The Turnover of Rs 12 lakh for Registration is too low. It calculates to a sale of only Rs 3,000 per day which is not even enough to sustain. The Turnover level for Registration should be calculated on the basis of a sale of at least Rs 10,000 per day or also consider the number of direct employee FBO employs as a cut-off / deciding factor.
4. FSS Act to consolidate the laws relating to food (as per the preamble)
The objective of FSS Act is to consolidate the laws relating to food. However, there are discrepancies in this regard. Parallel provisions relating to food exit in State Regulations also whereby states have in the past exercised certain powers beyond FSS Act. This leads to harassment and non-uniformity in the implementation of food laws in the country and is contrary to the basic spirit of FSS Act. This is a serious distortion which needs to be rectified to ensure a scientific and transparent implementation of food legislation in the country. This can be done by making an appropriate provision in Sec.97 of FSS Act which covers 'Repeal and Savings.'
5. Integrate Provisions of "Packaged Commodities Rules" with FSS Act
Provisions relating to packaging and labelling of food products also exit in the 'Packaged Commodities Rules' under the 'Weights & Measures Act.' This a serious anomaly vis-a-vis the objective of FSS Act to consolidate the laws relating to food. This anomaly needs to be urgently removed by making an appropriate provision in Sec.97 of FSS Act covering 'Repeal and Savings.' This duality causes confusion, unnecessary harassment and prosecution.
6.Labelling Changes
There is a critical need to move to uniform compliance date as is the practice in the international food regulatory regime, with compliance and tolerance criteria clearly spelt out in the guidelines or annex to Regulations, Guidelines for claims in general and considering the significant inventory losses the industry is supposed to bear with frequent and piece-meal changes in the regulations relevant from labelling of pre-packaged foods. The infrastructure for compliance by the enforcement authorities also needs to be improved considering the subject being so vast and needs continuous capability building – for example, a food analyst may not be qualified to interpret the claims and can trigger enforcement actions leading to more trivial matters progressed to the courts and involving significant amount of time of officials, FBOs, judiciary in such matters which may have emanated from such matters.
7. It is paramount to highlight one concern from food industry that the excessive and unclear regulations are placing a high burden on businesses, the public sector and also the civil society, not-for-profit organisations and includes judicial resources involved, so hinders effective delivery of intended objectives and benefits behind the regulations such issued. Government of India is progressing a very challenging but very relevant to review and revise/repeal regulatory measures which are not enforced properly to reduce regulatory burden on society and businesses while reducing the number of competing statutory rules and regulations in force.
8. We also request that for the benefit of every FBO in the country and those who export into India, a comprehensive and explanatory User Guide to the Food Safety and Standards Act, and Rules and Regulations made thereunder are provided to share the intended objectives. Also it is pertinent that we have a 3-5 years strategic plan for the food standards development and related regulatory measures, including options to ‘how to make submissions to seek revisions to Act or Rules or Regulations’ and sharing progress report on the Food Safety Development Work-plan. It is also very important that public consultations are held frequently by the Food Safety Authority.
