FSSAI justifies Maggi noodles ban before Bombay HC; says would give hearing to Nestle

MUMBAI: Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) today justified the ban on Maggi noodles before the Bombay High Court, saying that the popular instant snack contained lead beyond permissible limit. 

FSSAI lawyer and Maharashtra Advocate General Anil Singh argued that the food regulator had studied the representation of Nestle India (Maggi manufacturer) and was ready to give the company a hearing. 

"We have still not revoked our approval to the product....we are ready to hear them and if they are prepared to abide by conditions laid down in law, then they would be allowed to manufacture and sell it in the market," he said. 

The division bench of Justices V M Kanade and B P Colabawalla was hearing a petition filed by Nestle India against FSSAI's June 5 order banning nine variants of Maggi and Maharashtra government's order prohibiting their sale. 

Singh argued that FSSAI had collected samples of various batches of Magge in different states. In all, 72 samples were tested and 30 of them were found to contain lead beyond the permissible limit, he said. 

To a question by Justice B P Colabawalla, Singh said FSSAI had tested three variants of Maggi. 

"If three variants were tested, then why should you ban all the nine variants? Also, why only Maggi was selected for the test and why not other noodle manufacturing companies?" the judge said. 

"From what you say, the quality of 30 samples of Maggi was found to be sub-standard, but 42 other samples were found to be in order," the judge noted. 

The FSSAI counsel argued that after the lab tests found that Maggi contained lead beyond permissible limit, the food regulator immediately issued order asking Nestle to stop manufacture and sale. 

However, it also issued Nestle a notice asking why the approval granted to Maggie should not be cancelled in the wake of such tests, said advocate Singh. 

"We have not asked Nestle to withdraw the product...we have only asked them to stop production and sale of Maggi," the counsel said. 

FSSAI was entitled to ban the production because under FSSAI Act it has powers to do so, he submitted. 

"We found lead content in 30 samples of Maggi to be beyond the permissible limit and this is dangerous to public health. In such a situation, there was no need to give the company a show-cause notice and hear it. Hence, the impugned order to stop production and sale of Maggi was passed. 

"FSSAI was not against Nestle India or on inimical terms with it. We are ready to give it a hearing. If it complies with the conditions in law, we have no objection to the company producing and selling Maggi in Indian market," Singh said. 

The arguments would continue tomorrow. 

Nestle has argued that a certain batch of Maggi may have contained lead beyond permissible limit but the decision to impose a blanket ban was "unfair and illegal." 

The company has claimed that it had tested the product in 2,700 laboratories in India and also abroad and the tests indicated that the lead content was less than the permissible limit of 0.5 per cent.

Bombay HC on Maggi ban: Why no showcause notice issued?

In a boost to Nestle India, the Bombay High on Thursday questioned the blanket ban on Maggi 2-minute noodles.

In a boost to Nestle India , the Bombay High on Thursday questioned the blanket ban on Maggi 2-minute noodles. 

The Court asked the government why the entire product was banned if just one batch was found to be bad. The Bombay HC further questioned why a showcause notice was not issued before imposing the ban. 

"If 32 out of 73 samples were found to have lead above permissible limits, didn't it warrant a showcause notice?" said the High Court. 

The observations by the court came a day after the Food Safety Standards Association of India (FSSAI) on Wednesday argued in the Bombay High Court that a mere suspicion about a food snack being sub-standard in quality would be a reasonable ground to take appropriate steps to stop the sale of the product. 

This was stated by FSSAI Counsel Anil Singh after a bench of Justices V M Kanade and B P Colabwala raised a query whether the food requlator should ban a particular batch of a food item whose quality was found sub-standard or stop the sale of the entire product line. 

The court was hearing a petition filed by Nestle India against FSSAI's June 5 order banning nine variants of Maggi and Maharashtra government's order prohibiting the sale of Maggi.

Maggi ban: Alcohol should be banned first as it is injurious to health, says High Court

Nestle India’s senior counsel Iqbal Chagla, who concurred with the court’s view, said that no alcohol in the country has received product approval from the food safety regulator.

A Bombay High Court bench, which is hearing Nestle India’s plea against ban on Maggi noodles, observed on Wednesday that alcohol should be “banned first” as it is harmful and schoolchildren are nowadays consuming liquor.

“The first thing that you should ban is alcohol. Nowadays, even schoolchildren have started consuming alcohol. It is injurious to health and is a food product. Cigarette is not because it does not fall in the category of food products,” said Justices V M Kanade and B P Colabawalla after the counsel of food safety regulator — Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) — defended the ban on Maggi noodles saying it was injurious to health.

Nestle India’s senior counsel Iqbal Chagla, who concurred with the court’s view, said that no alcohol in the country has received product approval from the food safety regulator.

Defending the ban on behalf of the FSSAI, Advocate General Anil Singh said that mere suspicion about a food product being sub-standard was sufficient ground for the authorities to take action or test samples.

The court, however, said the judiciary would test whether any action taken by the government was arbitrary or justified. “We are here to test whether your action was arbitrary or justified. We can test executive action whether you (state) like it or not,” the bench told the FSSAI counsel. The court also said that it was time to put section 22 of the Food Safety Act to test.

The said section deals with all such food items that are banned unless the food regulator approves it.

Section 22 of the Act states: “Save as otherwise provided under this Act and regulations made thereunder, no person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or import any novel food, genetically modified articles of food, irradiated food, organic foods, foods for special dietary uses, functional foods, neutraceuticals, health supplements, proprietary foods and such other articles of food which the central government may notify in this behalf.”

To Nestle India’s contention that the FSSAI had conducted the initial tests on Maggi noodles in a laboratory which was non-accredited and non-notified by the authority, the advocate general said that although accreditation was necessary, a notification was not required.

He also said that Nestle India was giving an “erroneous impression” by putting a “no MSG (monosodium glutamate)” label on its products. A high content of MSG became the bone of contention over which Maggi noodles was banned on June 5.

While the arguments will continue on Thursday, the FSSAI has been told to present the 42 test reports from across the country where a high percentage of lead was not found.

Mere suspicion about sub-standard food item enough for action: FSSAI

Mumbai: Food Safety Standards Association of India (FSSAI) Wednesday argued in the Bombay High Court that a mere suspicion about a food snack being sub-standard in quality would be a reasonable ground to take appropriate steps to stop the sale of the product.

This was stated by FSSAI Counsel Anil Singh after a bench of Justices V M Kanade and B P Colabwala raised a query whether the food requlator should ban a particular batch of a food item whose quality was found sub-standard or stop the sale of the entire product line.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Nestle India against FSSAI's June 5 order banning nine variants of Maggi and Maharashtra government's order prohibiting the sale of Maggi.

When the matter was called out for hearing today, the government lawyers, representing FSSAI and FDA, were not present, prompting the bench to reprimand the authorities for not taking this matter seriously.

"We (India) have been going around from country to country seeking business but commercial matters (litigations) remain pending for years. These matters are important and that is why Parliament is considering to set up 'Commercial benches' (in courts). People (MNCs) prefer to go to Singapore and London because of this, instead of India for arbitration," Justice Kanade observed.

Anil Singh, senior counsel and acting Advocate General of Maharashtra, said that in the case of Maggi there have been violations of law. Their (Maggi's) label was misleading as it said "No MSG" in contents. Also, the presence of lead in the product was beyond permissible limits, he added.

Singh said that even tobacco was banned in some states because it is harmful for adults. But Maggi was basically consumed by many children in the age group of 1 to 5 years. If lead is found in Maggi beyond the permissible limits, the health of children would be seriously hit, he submitted.

A food article cannot contain contaminated material or heavy metal toxic substance, the FSSAI counsel said. 

The judges further observed "we are here to test whether your (FSSAI's) action was reasonable and proper or arbitrary. You (FSSAI) may like it or not...Fortunately under article 226 of the Constitution (which empowers the court to interfere in such matters), we can examine the executive action and legislative competence."

The court asked FSSAI to formulate issues and continue its argument tomorrow.

During last hearing, Nestle India had told the Bombay High Court that a certain batch of its instant food product may have contained lead beyond permissible limit but government's decision to impose a blanket ban was unfair and illegal.

If a particular batch was substandard, it could have been banned but stopping the entire production was not justified, Nestle's lawyer, Iqbal Chhagla had argued.

"Without receiving any complaint, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has banned our product, due to which we lost goodwill, reputation and suffered huge losses running into crores of rupees," Nestle had submitted.

The company claimed that it had tested its product in 2700 laboratories in India and also abroad and the tests have indicated that the lead content was less than the permissible limit of 0.5 percent.

Would Samosa, bhel need prior approval for sale too, Bombay HC asks FSSAI

MUMBAI: A bench of the Bombay high court comprising justices V M Kanade and B P Colabawalla asked Food regulator FSSAI to make a table for justification of action taken in banning the 2-minute Maggi noodles. 

Additional solicitor general Anil Singh who represented FSSAI said, "The regulator has power to ban a product on grounds of reasonable doubts." 

Singh said Sec 22 of the Food Safety Act prohibits sale of proprietary food without prior approval of the regulator. He said approval granted to Nestle for Maggi variants was on their application and information given. 

The bench sought clarity on the interpretation of section 22. It asked, "Would traditional food like Samosa and Bhel need prior approval for sale. These can also be categorised as proprietary food as standards are not set for them also." 

Justice Kanade also said, "alcohol should be banned immediately, going by the argument of proprietary and non-standardised food." 

Unrattled, Singh replied, "Maggi is consumed by more people across age groups. Alcohol cannot be legally consumed by those under 21 years." 

Defending its stance on the ban, Singh said, "if an officer have suspicion that any food has health hazard elements for human consumption, then appropriate action can be taken even in the absence of evidence ... we have collected samples from many states and we found the excessive Lead content," said Singh on Wednesday. He said it was the government's primary responsibility to ensure safe and wholesome food for human consumption. 

Nestle had earlier argued that laboratories where Maggi was tested were not accredited and hence the test results unrealiable. However, the counsel said under the act the regulator can send to accredited laboratory only upon request of product manufacturer.

Justify ban on Maggi noodles, HC tells food safety authority

The court will decide if banning Maggi noodles was reasonable, arbitrary or just, the Bombay high court (HC) told the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on Wednesday, asking the latter to justify the validity of the ban on the product on Thursday.

A division bench of justice VM Kanade and justice BP Colabawalla was hearing a petition filed by Nestlé India, objecting to the FSSAI ban on all nine variants of Maggi.

The FSSAI has banned Maggi stating it has noted three violations — the presence of lead in excess of the maximum permissible level; misleading label reading ‘No added MSG’, and the release of a non-standardised food product, Maggi Oats Masala Noodles with Tastemaker, in the market, without risk assessment and product approval.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, counsel for FSSAI, told the court that mere suspicion is enough for them to take action, and suspicion does not require evidence. He also said the lead content in Maggi noodles was beyond the permissible limit.

Responding to the contention raised by Nestle India that the laboratories that tested Maggi were not notified by the nodal body, National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), Singh said it is important for the laboratory to be recognised and authorised, even if it is not notified.

The court asked Singh to clarify his stand on calling Maggi a proprietary product. The HC asked if food categories can’t be manufactured or sold unless they are approved by the FSSAI and if only those items that are notified by the Centre can be banned.

Singh said the risk involved was high as Maggi noodles had a misleading label and was of substandard quality. He said the action was taken based on the available scientific information and the legal provisions.

The court has asked Singh to formulate answers and state the sections under which the decision to ban the noodles was taken. The court went on to say that they could test the executive and legislative actions under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Bombay HC asks FSSAI to justify actions against Maggi

Court also asks for clarifications on terms such as accreditation, notification and recognition used in connection with labs

Mumbai: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) began its arguments in the ongoing Maggi ban case before the Bombay high court on Wednesday by saying it can act against products even if there is “mere suspicion” that the food may present a risk to human health.

The food regulator is empowered to issue directions for sale and distribution of safe and wholesome food, and can act on the basis of available information and pending scientific assessment, Anil Singh, additional solicitor general representing FSSAI, told the two-judge bench, citing various sections of the FSSAI Act 2006.

According to Singh, laboratories can even conduct the tests without being accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Laboratories (NABL) if they are recognized by the regulator.

However, the bench comprising justices V.M. Kanade and B.P. Colabawalla was not satisfied. It asked Singh to formulate the actions of the food regulator by validating and justifying them. It also asked for clarifications on terms such as accreditation, notification and recognition used in connection with labs.

“We are here to test the actions of the regulator as to whether they are reasonable, arbitrary, proper or wrong. Under Section 226, we have the authority to test executive action and also to test legislative action,” said justice Kanade, while noting that the food regulator has the authority to override legislative acts.

In its argument, Nestle India Ltd had called the ban on Maggi noodles illegal and arbitrary. “The authorities did not have any such power, nor does the state,” Nestle India’s lawyer Iqbal Chagla had told the court earlier.

Chagla had also questioned the validity of the tests as the government labs are not equipped to conduct the tests as they were not accredited by NABL to test either for lead or cereals and spices used in the product.

FSSAI banned Maggi noodles on 5 June following reports from various states about high levels of lead and the presence of taste enhancer monosodium glutamate. The food regulator termed the noodles “unsafe and hazardous” for human consumption.

Maharashtra, which had also imposed a ban on 6 June following its own tests, is also a respondent in the case along with the FSSAI. It will present its arguments later in the week.

Nestle misled authorities, FSSAI tells HC

Said the product approval given to Nestle, with respect to Maggi, was on the basis of the information provided by the company

Rebutting Nestle India's claim that the Maggi ban order of June 5 was arbitrary, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) said on Wednesday that the company had misled authorities about the contents of the product.

Appearing on behalf of FSSAI, Maharashtra's Advocate General Anil Singh said the product approval given to Nestle, with respect to Maggi, was on the basis of the information provided by the company. "But there were violations pertaining to labelling of food products by Nestle," Singh argued before a division bench headed by judges J M Kanade and B P Colabawala.

"The samples tested showed high lead content. Section 20 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, prohibits heavy metals. Lead is a heavy metal, which can have a grave effect on children," he said.

Singh also contended that FSSAI had first sent a showcause notice to Nestle India informing the company on why it sought to ban all nine variants of Maggi.

This came after test results from various states showed that lead content in Maggi was beyond the permissible limit. He also said that while Nestle India opted to withdraw Maggi stock from the marketplace including those of Maggi Oats, for which it had no product approval at all, the company chose not to respond to FSSAI's showcause notice. Therefore, Nestle's claim that the ban violated the principle of natural justice doesn't hold, Singh said.

The Advocate General also said that the chief executive of FSSAI had the powers of the Commissioner of Food Safety under the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. "The Food Authority (that is, FSSAI) can take action against any food product even on reasonable ground of suspicion of health hazard to consumers. Section 16 (g) of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, says the entire product range can be banned. It is the duty of the authorities to ensure not only good, but also wholesome food is sold in the market," he said.

In response to Nestle's claim that the tests were not reliable, Singh said that laboratories could be authorised to carry out tests without being notified under Section 43 of the Act.

"Section 43 (1) is an enabling provision. Food authorities may notify laboratories and research institutions accredited by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) to conduct tests, but it is not mandatory.

Also, samples need not be sent to an accredited laboratory unless request is made by a food business operator. In this case, Nestle did not make any such request. Hence, they were not sent to an accredited laboratory for testing."

The AG will continue his arguments on Thursday.

FSSAI can act on mere suspicion: ASG

Indian food regulator Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) told the Bombay High Court on Wednesday that authorities can take action against manufacturers on the basis of mere suspicion about the quality of their food products.

Referring to the Food Safety and Standards Act, Additional Solicitor-General Anil Singh representing the FSSAI said: “The scheme of the Act is that authorities can take action on mere suspicion. Suspicion does not require evidence. The Act gives wide powers to the authorities. They can act even despite conformity if the safety of food is suspect.”Three major violations

Mr. Singh said Maggi products were deemed unfair due to three major violations, misleading labelling on msg (monosodium-glutamate), presence of lead in excess and launching of oats tastemaker without assessment.

‘Not a product for adults’

“Samples were collected in various States and were found to exceed the limits for lead. Maggi is not a product for adults. Consider the effect of lead on children. Lead is a heavy metal,” Mr. Singh said. He refuted Nestle’s contention that labs which tested Maggi were not accredited. Labs which were recognised by the FSSAI did not need accreditation by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

The court asked the regulator to furnish submissions about how to interpret Section 22 of the Act that deals with non-standard proprietary foods like Maggi.

“Does it mean that items notified by the Centre as proprietary foods cannot be sold and manufactured unless approved? For instance is ‘samosa’ or ‘bhel’ proprietary foods?” the Bench asked.

The FSSAI said that traditional foods like ‘samosa’ did not need approval.

The court pulled up the State and government authorities for delay in appearing before the court.

“We go around from country to country telling the world to do business but commercial matters remain pending. This is a sorry state of affairs. People prefer to go to Singapore and London because of this instead of coming to India,” a Division Bench of Justices V.M. Kanade and B.P. Colabawalla said.

Domino's outlet's license suspended for 'below standard' sauce

License of a Domino's Pizza outlet at NH-24 Gajraula in Amroha district was suspended today by the authorities for allegedly supplying "below standard" sauce, the District Food Safety authority said. 

"The decision came after samples taken from the outlet on failed a lab test," Amrohha Chief Food Safety Officer Anil Singh told PTI. 

Singh said he had sent the samples for testing at the state food laboratory and the report came yesterday. 

On the basis of the report the license of the outlet has been suspended till further decision, he said. 

Singh said that the report has been sent to Amroha District Magistrate Ved Prakash. "Domino's Pizza may go and appeal to the Food Safety Commissioner Lucknow. They can not supply till the decision (on the appeal)," he said. 

Domino's are yet to respond to the development.

Bar on Domino's Pizza UP Outlet After 'Below Standard' Sauce Detected

AMROHA: The licence of a Domino’s Pizza outlet at Gajraula area on NH-24 here has been revoked by the authorities after its sauce was found to be “below standard” in lab test.

The District Food Safety authority suspended the licence after the samples of tomato ketchup collected from the outlet failed to pass the lab tests.

“The decision came after samples taken from the outlet failed lab test,” Amrohha Chief Food Safety Officer Anil Singh told PTI.

However, Jubilant FoodWorks Ltd, which operates Domino’s Pizza brand in India and Sri Lanka, contested the findings and described the test as “invalid”.

“We are raising this case with the relevant respected authorities to check the validity of the suspension order, given this background,” Jubilant FoodWorks spokesperson said.

According to the company spokesperson, the tomato ketchup snack dressing product was procured by Domino's from a third party, which goes through regular testing for food safety from government accredited labs.

“The particular sample under question, was manufactured in September 2014 and collected for testing in October 2014. It failed test on ground of “package label non-compliance”, as the label was detaching from the package but “passed “on all other parameters of food safety.

Leave milk out of draft rules, panel tells FSSAI

‘It cannot be clubbed with other agri products given its perishable nature’

NEW DELHI, JULY 22: 

The fear of an ‘inspector raj’ created by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) clearly has the Centre worried.

After Minister for Food Processing Harsimrat Kaur Badal articulated the concern earlier this month, an inter-ministerial committee met with FSSAI officials here on Monday seeking exemption for dairy products.

Sources in the Agriculture Ministry told BusinessLine that the committee has suggested that milk and other dairy items not be clubbed with other commodities in the Draft Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Amendment Regulation, 2015. It also suggested bringing back the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, (MMPO) that had been repealed in 2011.

“The committee said there needs to be a different regulation for milk and it cannot be clubbed with other agricultural commodities like corn and wheat given its perishable nature. The process of procurement, collection and processing is completely different,” a senior official said. “It was also suggested that the MMPO be treated as a separate regulation under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA). The order had shown good results with respect to milk standards and safety before it was repealed,” he added.

Those in the know pointed out that the MMPO had created a network of Milk Commissioners who were present in each State and worked closely with milk federations. Between them, these officials had decades of experience regarding the sector and quality control, but were made redundant after the order was repealed.

The draft regulations, issued on June 5, introduce a stringent permissible limit of 0.02 ppm for lead in milk, secondary milk products and infant formula. Objections and suggestions are to be conveyed to the FSSAI by August 24. Currently, the regulator prescribes a limit of 0.1 ppm of arsenic in milk and imposes ceilings on a range of crop contaminants like insecticides. It also prescribes limits for lead, copper, tin, zinc and cadmium, for infant milk substitutes.

Arbitrary change

While the move has been welcomed by analysts in the aftermath of the Maggi fiasco, the unpredictable manner of introducing amendments in regulations and methods of testing has the food industry concerned.

“Take the Mother Dairy case: the agency’s way of testing it was completely incorrect, and an apology was issued in four days,” the official added.

Maharashtra govt extends ban on gutkha, pan masala, tobacco products for another year

States that these products are detrimental to health, causing cardiac arrest, oral cancer, stomach cancer, affect fertility and cause respiratory ailments among other diseases

The Maharashtra government has extended the ban on gutkha, pan masala and related products for the fourth year in a row. The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), Maharashtra State, issued a notification on Monday extending the ban for a period of one year effective from July 20, 2015.

The government has also included sale, purchase and storage of manufactured chewable tobacco in the ban.

“In the interest of public health, manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of tobacco and areca nut (betel nut) which is either flavoured, scented or mixed with any of the said additives and whether going by the name or form of gutkha, pan masala, flavoured scented tobacco, flavoured/scented supari, manufactured chewing tobacco with additives, kharra, mawa has been prohibited for a period of one year from July 20, 2015,” said Dr Harshadeep Kamble, Food Safety Commissioner, in the notification.

The ban notification states that gutkha, pan masala, supari, tobacco products etc are detrimental to health causing cardiac arrest, oral cancer, stomach cancer, affect fertility and cause respiratory ailments among other diseases.

Gutkha was first banned in the state in 2012 under the Food Standards and Safety Act, 2006. In the following year, the state expanded the embargo and banned khaini (flavoured tobacco), supari (processed betel nut) and mawa or kharra (a mix of processed tobacco, betel nut and lime).

In 2004, the World Health Organization had classified areca or betel nut as carcinogenic to humans even without the addition of tobacco to it.

DINAMALAR NEWS

DINAMALAR NEWS

DINATHANTHI NEWS