Guidelines on FSSAI Restrictions on Labels of Food Products

Guidelines on FSSAI Restrictions on Labels of Food Products

According to food regulations, labels on all pre-packaged foods are mandatory and no food product can be sold without proper labelling as specified in the Food Safety and Standards(Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. Labels on food products are important for two major reasons

For the consumer they are important because the label information is used by the consumer to evaluate the food, the ingredients, nutritional value, weight, price etc. before buying the product.

For the manufacturer it is a way of communicating with the customer and informing them about the quality and the important aspects of the food product

The information on the label is important because it allows consumers to make an informed choice. While it may be easy to understand what has to be mentioned on the label it is also equally important to know what is not permitted on labels. Food Business Operators need to understand that any statement, design or claim on labels that turns out to be false could lead to penalization so they must be sure that the information on labels is correct. Accordingly FSSAI in the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011has also laid down the restrictions on product labels that are to be followed by all food business operators dealing with packaged foods.

Restrictions on product labels

• Labels on the products shall carry no reference to the FSS Act or FSSAI regulations that seek to qualify, modify or contradict it in any manner and which could be misunderstood whether it is directly or by implication or explanation.
• Labels cannot mention that the product has been recommended, prescribed or approved by any person in the medical profession or that the product can be used for medical purposes cannot be suggested on the label.
• Unauthorised use of words like the following are not permitted to be mentioned on the label like.
• Words that show that the food product is an “imitation” or a “substitute” for another product cannot be mentioned on the labels or in any statement attached to the product. Such words are permitted for use only for those foods that are mentioned in the regulations and the words have been permitted for using.
• Any fruit syrup, fruit juice, fruit squash, fruit beverages, cordial, crush or any other fruit products cannot be described according to these names unless these products contain the permitted levels that standardizes them according to regulations.
• The label on food products cannot contain words or pictures that imply or give the wrong impression to the consumer that the product contains the specified amount of fruit. If the fruit is not used in the product then it has to be clearly mentioned on the label ADDED (NAME OF THE FRUIT) FLAVOUR or it will be seen as deceiving or misleading the consumer.
• If a product does not contain the fruit it cannot be described as a fruit product on the label if it contains only fruit flavours even if they are natural or they are natural flavouring substances or nature identical flavouring substances, artificial flavouring substances as single fruit flavour or a combination of fruit flavours. The label in this case also shall mention the product as ADDED (NAME OF FRUIT) FLAVOUR.
• Carbonated water that does not contain fruit juice or fruit pulp cannot have a label that misleads the consumer into believing that this is a fruit product.
• If a fruit or vegetable product is fortified with Vitamin C than it has to contain 40mgms of ascorbic acid per 100 gm. of the product or it cannot be mentioned that it is fortified with Vitamin C.
• The word “PURE” or any other words that imply purity cannot be mentioned on the label if it is an imitation of the product.

Drinking water label prohibitions for packaged and mineral water

• The labels cannot claim that the water has medicinal, preventive, curative or alleviative effects or that it has any other beneficial effects on the health of the consumer.
• The name of any locality, place or village may not be part of the trade name unless the packaged water has physically been collected in the place mentioned.
• No picture, graph or statement can be used on water that can confuse the public or mislead them about the nature, origin, composition or properties of the water in the package.

Restriction on advertisement

• No food can be advertised in a manner that contradicts the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 or the rules and regulations written there under or which can mislead the public about the benefits or contents of the food.
• Food Business Operators must ensure that all packaged food products are labelled in accordance with regulations and that they provide full information so that consumers can make informed choices. They must also keep in mind that any food product that has labels that promote sales by misleading or making tall claims can be termed as misbranding and misbranding invites heavy penalties.

Only 17 food safety officers for Bihar's 11 crore population

With only 17 staffers to administer the food safety of 11 crore people, the situation of food safety in Bihar lies in doldrums.

According to Food safety act, every state is supposed to have one state health officer (SHO) per one lakh population but even though the population of Patna has crossed 27 lakhs, the city still has only one SHO.

With a population of more than 27 lakhs and more than 50,000 small and big hotels, shops, restaurants and stalls, the job of giving license, checking of safety norms and inception becomes a tedious job for one SHO.

The SHO is the one to keep track of law-breakers and see that they are punished and changes are brought in as per the norms. In this situation, the food safety law has become a joke.

The nation celebrated world food safety day on April.7, but the situation of food safety in Bihar lies in doldrums. Food safety officer and his team of 16 members (14 SHOs and two Designated officers) heads the responsibility of the state which has a population of around 11 crore.

63 raids in three years:

The food safety and standards act was brought in action in Oct 2011 and since then only 63 cases of food safety issues have come up in Bihar. During this period, 14 cases were brought up from the other five districts, Bhojpur, Buxar, Rohtas, Kamur and Nalanda. In most of the cases, a mere formability was done and the matter is forgotten over time or remains pending in the courts.

Only 2520 shop and hotel owners from these six districts have taken license from food safety office, till date.

According to an official from food safety department, collection of food sample becomes a tedious task for the officials due to lack of security system.

“The wrong doers do not allow us in their shops, some even start arguing and fighting. In these situations it becomes difficult to collect sample and we have to return without sample. We do have the right to use police force if necessary but the long process of requisition form, application for number of employees needed, then telling them the exact time of raid, and then excuses like higher official is not here, creates unnecessary delay,” said the official.

It would be better if we have police deployed in our department itself, added the official.

Only 17 staffs to administer the food safety of 11 crore people

According to Dr. Mukeshjee Kashyap, food safety officer cum registering authority for Hajipur, Mothihari, Bettiah, Sitamarhi and Seohar, the state had its last recruitment for food safety department in 2004.

The department started functioning with 30 members initially, but with time, the members started retiring and now have only 17 members.

“The department has only 30 sanctioned posts. At the time of Bihar Jharkhand division, the officials were also shifted to Jharkhand,” said Kashyap.

The department has also raised the qualification criteria for the recruitment. M.SC in chemistry plus food safety training has become the minimum qualification, hence it has also become difficult to find people with high qualification, added Kashyap.

According to Kashyap, they have filed an application for recruitment of 625 SHOs (1 SHO per block, and also 1 SHO per 1 lakh population), 39 DOs (one officer each for the 38 district in the state and one for the headquarters), 101 assistant DOs, and four special DOs for raid team, 9 deputy food commissioners, (one for each division in the state) and one food safety officer for the whole state.

“The file has been cleared by the health department and is now in the finance department, and we hope that all the appointments will be made in the coming two-three month,” confirmed Kashyap.

Norms of food safety:

The food safety law has divided the owners into four categories:

• Owners with yearly turnover of less than 12 lakhs do not need to take license, they only need to get themselves registered every year by paying a minimal charge of Rs100.
• Owners with turnover of more than 12 lakh need to get license every year by paying Rs 2000 as charge.
• Manufacturing units with less than 1 ton of manufacturing need to pay Rs 3000 per year for license.
• One can get the license or registration for only 5 years at one time.

The laboratory also lies dysfunctional due to absence of analyst:

United manure and drug laboratory (Sanyukt Khad avam aushadi prayogshala) of Patna is lying dysfunctional due to lack of food analyst. The samples are sent to other states for testing and it takes at least 40 days for the results to come, leading to unnecessary delay in the work.

Ramdhani Singh, health minister, Bihar has said that attempts are being made to resolve all the problems and the cabinets will work towards it.

“We are trying our best, due to lack of man power it’s difficult to carry the work and follow the act,” said Singh.

‘No traces of paraffin in coconut oil’

The government has informed the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) that as per the checks conducted across the State, the presence of liquid paraffin or mineral oil has not been detected in any samples of coconut oil.

Of the 105 samples of coconut oil examined, 26 have been found to be of low quality. The government has banned nine brands of coconut oil, as these have not adhered to quality norms and have been adulterated.

SHRC directive

The government has given orders to check coconut oil samples following a directive of the SHRC after the latter received a petition that much of the coconut oil available in the market is adulterated.

The government informed SHRC that it has checked samples of all brands of coconut oil being sold in the State. Tests have been conducted around the inter-State check-posts too.

The oil samples collected by the Food Safety officers have also been tested at the lab of the Coconut Development Board in Ernakulam. The manufacturers of adulterated brands of coconut oil have been served notices, the government informed the commission.

Don’t take action against tobacco sellers: HC

Justice Rajiv Shakdher issued notice to Food Safety Commissioner of the Delhi government while restraining it from taking any action against sellers till the next date of hearing on May 20.

“Issue notice. The respondent should not take any coercive action the sellers and the manufacturers till the next date of hearing,” the judge said. The court’s notice was issued on a plea by a manufacturer Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd, which has sought quashing of the notification by the Arvind Kejriwal government, banning sale, purchase and storage of all forms of chewable tobacco including “gutkha, khaini and zarda” in Delhi.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, assisted by Vivek Kohli, appearing for the manufacturer, contended that the state government has no power to issue such a notification under the Food Safety and Standards Act.

The counsel further stated that Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd was manufacturing a pure tobacco product governed by Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003.

The manufacturer also said only the Centre has the power to regulate sale or ban and not the state government. The manufacturer moved the high court after the Delhi government had on March 27 announced the ban on sale, purchase and storage of chewable tobacco in the city.