Relief for Nestle as panel to hear testing issue

Wednesday's development is significant for the company since arguments in the Bombay High Court over testing and sampling went in Nestle's favour, too

In what looks like another victory for Nestle India, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has decided to hear the issue of alleged improper sampling and testing methodology undertaken by various state food regulators. Accepting an appeal by Nestle to not to conduct fresh tests on samples collected earlier by the authorities from the market, the commission on Wednesday asked the government and the company to appear before it on October 8.

Wednesday's development is significant for the company since arguments in the high court in Bombay over testing and sampling went in Nestle's favour, too. While, the Commission on Wednesday asked both the parties to explain their positions next week, hearing on the core issue of whether Nestle was liable to pay Rs 640 crore as damages has been postponed till October 30.

Test reports showing presence of lead at higher-than-permissible levels (2.5 parts per million) and monosodium glutamate (MSG) in Maggi noodles from various Food Safety and Standards Authority of India-approved laboratories led to a country-wide recall of the product on June 5, followed by Nestle approaching the Bombay High Court.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) had, meanwhile, forwarded its claim of the product being hazardous for human consumption and said it was right to ban Maggi at the earliest.

Nestle India's arguments over the procedure of sample collection and conditions of laboratories, eventually, proved to be helpful for the company. The court, questioning the tests conducted earlier, ordered fresh tests and struck down the ban on Maggi. In the meanwhile, the consumer affairs ministry took suo moto congnisance and filed a class-action suit against Nestle India in NCDRC, a first in the country, and claimed Rs 640 crore in damages.

"We have already done over 3,500 tests of Maggi in independent as well as in our own accredited laboratories. All results showed Maggi is safe to eat. Food regulators in the US, UK, Singapore, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have also found Maggi manufactured by Nestle India to be safe. Nestle India is fully committed to working with all stakeholders to get Maggi back on the shelves," a Nestle India spokesperson said.

During Wednesday's hearing, Nestle said the entire litigation in NCDRC should be set aside, since after the Bombay High Court order it did not have any more significance. "The company has been "singled out" and victimised by the authorities," it argued. The commission, however, has not accepted the plea for rejecting the case. "Nestle India, in response to the complaint filed with the NCDRC, has raised concerns over the maintainability of the complaint. This is based on the fact that the complaint makes allegations similar to those leading to the ban of the product on June 5, which was quashed by the Bombay High Court on August 13," the spokesperson said.

While in Bombay High Court, Nestle India ultimately brought the wind in its favour on the same line of arguments, lawyers indicate the strategy may become handy this time, too. However, pointing towards it counter side, Ashish Prashad, partner, Economic Law Practise, said, "The issue that has been opened in front of NCDRC has already been decided by the Bombay High Court. It may lead to a retrial."

Apex consumer court hearing on fresh Maggi tests next week

The apex consumer court on Wednesday said it will hear Nestle’s arguments on fresh tests conducted on its popular Maggi noodles on October 8, and take up the larger class action suit filed against the Swiss giant by the end of next month.

The decision was taken after an initial hearing of arguments regarding the class action suit filed by the central government against Nestle India for alleged unfair trade practices.

Appearing for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain sought more time from the commission to present the fresh tests on the 27 sealed samples of different variants of Maggi collected from the market, to which Nestle had raised objections.

Mr. Jain, along with counsels Mrinalini Sen Gupta and Prabhsahay Kaur, also placed the samples of different variants they wished to be tested before the court. But the Nestle counsel wanted to know from where they had been, since the product was withdrawn from the market on June 5.

A bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice V.K. Jain and Justice B.C. Gupta, said the court will meet again on October 8 to hear the arguments of Nestle India over the fresh tests.

The commission also questioned why Nestle India should have a problem with the testing of their own products, and said, “The government wasn’t producing the product”.

The government’s counsel had also filed an application to allow the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) as a party to assist the commission.

During the hearing Nestle India said the company has been singled out and questioned why its competitor brands weren’t being tested.

Responding to some test reports done by the government, which were missing from the application filed before the court and marked as “Not Applicable”, Nestle’s counsel said material supporting their company was being concealed and needed to be produced.

Maggi controversy fallout: Govt may exclude stuff like dietary supplements, which will be subject to tighter regulations

NEW DELHI: After the recent controversies involving the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, the central government proposes to change the definition of food to widen its scope and close loopholes.

The new definition will exclude nutraceuticals, health supplements, functional food and dietary supplements, which will be subject to tougher regulations, officials from the industry and the health ministry said. The definitions of traditional and proprietary foods will be broadened. "The earlier definition of food had certain loopholes of which some companies, especially pharma companies, were taking advantage," said a senior official in the ministry of health. "Since regulations are more stringent for pharma products, companies tried to pass off nutraceuticals and health supplements as food, where regulations are slightly relaxed." According to the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, food is defined as "any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food." It excludes "drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances."

The proposed draft also intends to broaden the definitions of traditional food and proprietary food. The current definition of proprietary food is "food that has not been standardised under these regulations." The draft definition of proprietary foods includes "food with additives added with a view to preserve such food and provide it with a distinct aroma or flavour or taste and a shelf life...," according to the proposal sent by the ministry to the industry.

Traditional food, which is described as food that has been and is "traditionally being consumed in the country" will be broadened to "food which is prepared in accordance with the knowledge normally transmitted from one generation to another, conforms to the gastronomic heritage of the country, or local area, or region of the country, with little or no processing or manipulation through addition of preservatives or otherwise and retains the sensory property."

The ministry of health and family welfare said on its website on September 3 that the government plans to review and amend the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. It sought suggestions and comments from stakeholders by September 24. While a ministry can change rules, an act can be amended only in parliament. Representatives of the food industry, citing procedural lapses in the proposed changes, have alleged that the government wants to "sharpen their teeth and extend their reach beyond the normal to target the industry."

"It is not understood as to how and why all of a sudden an unscientific and adhoc, restrictive definition has been flashed to food industry for comments," said Amit Dhanuka, president of the All India Food Processors' Association. The industry bodies said the government is trying to avoid a discussion on the matter.

Food & beverage industry seeks early solution to labelling and claim issue

Not only Product Approval but the regulations with regards to labelling and claim have also put the food & beverage industry in a tight spot. In this regard, FSSAI seems to be still using erstwhile PFA regulations to regulate the food industry’s labelling and claim issues largely along with issuing norms for different products separately, like in case of nutraceuticals. It lacks an overall comprehensive labelling and claim regulation feels many.

According to FSSAI officials, the regulation with this aspect of food industry was being deliberated upon and there were certain issues and language which was being finalised. However, the apex food regulator had come up with a draft regulation in 2012, and its fate was still hanging in balance.

No clarity

According to one industry insider who does not want to be named, there is no clarity on labelling and claim policy of FSSAI, as yet. The issues largely rest with proprietary food, wherein labelling and claim issue together with Product Approval denial is making the situation worse.

Without Product Approval there is no licence and if supposedly the licence is lapsed, the company has to get a newer licence and subsequently it has to change the whole packaging to accommodate the new licence number. There should be provisions for licence renewal, according to an industry insider.

Furthermore, sometimes FSSAI issues notices which are contrary in nature. For instance, in case of canola oil, which was asked to be labelled as ‘low erucic acid rapeseed oil.’ The notification in this regards was later quashed by the Bombay High Court.

Importers’ issue

Food importers were also at the receiving end due to labelling and claim issue, particularly the ones who import in lesser quantity. The problem was that the exporter refuses to acknowledge the labelling requirement of India. There should be a way out says another industry representative.

Currently, the labelling norms were defined for FSSAI logo, licence number, nutritional values and so on under new regulations while date of manufacture and best before date are being used according to the erstwhile PFA rules. 

Labelling is largely related to the name of food, list of ingredients, declaration of food additives, net quantity or net weight, lot/code/batch identification, name and address of the manufacturer, date marking (best before, date of manufacture and/or packing & use by date/expiry date) for different product category like veg/ non-veg declaration and size of the vegetarian/ non-vegetarian logo.

Further display of declaration and labels, the height of numeral in the declaration and product specific labelling requirements also come under labelling. 

கலப்படம் எதிரொலி தமிழக ஜவ்வரிசியை வாங்க வடமாநில வியாபாரிகள் தயக்கம் விலை சரிவால் உற்பத்தியாளர்கள் கலக்கம்

சேலம், அக்.1:

கலப் ப டம் செய்து ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத்தி செய் வ தால், வட மா நி லங் களில் தமி ழ கத் தில் இருந்து ஜவ் வ ரிசி கொள் மு தலை குறைந் துள் ள னர். அத னால் கலப் பட ஜவ் வ ரி சியை தடுக்க நட வ டிக்கை எடுக்க வேண் டும் என்று நேச் சு ரல் ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தி யா ளர் கள் வலி யுத் தி யுள் ள னர்.

தமிழ் நாடு நேச் சு ரல் ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தி யா ளர் கள் சங்க தலை வர் முத் து லிங் கம் சேலத் தில் நிரு பர் களி டம் கூறி ய தா வது:

தமி ழ கத் தில் சேலம், நாமக் கல் ஆகிய மாவட்டங் களில் 220க்கும் மேற் பட்ட ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத்தி ஆலை கள் உள் ளன. இந்த ஆலை களில் கடந்த 1946 முதல் 2000ம் ஆண்டு வரை ஜவ் வ ரிசி, ஸ்டார்ச் உள் ளிட்ட வற் றில் எந் த வித கலப் ப ட மும் இல் லா மல் உற் பத்தி செய் யப் பட்டு வந் தது. ஆனால் 2000ம் ஆண் டுக்கு மேல் ஜவ் வ ரிசி வெண் மை யாக இருக்க வேண் டும் என் ப தற் காக ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தி யில் ‘ஹைப்போ பிளீச் சிங் வாட்டர் மற் றும் சல்ப் யூ ரிக் ஆசிட்’ கலந் தும், மர வள்ளி கிழங் கில் தோலை நீக் கா ம லும், மக்கா சோள மாவு, சாக் பீஸ் மாவு உள் ளிட்ட வற்றை கலந்து உற் பத்தி செய்து வரு கின் ற னர். இத னால் கடந்த சில மாதங் க ளாக வட மாநி லங் களில் ஜவ் வ ரிசி கொள் மு தல் செய் வதை வியா பா ரி கள் பாதி யாக குறைத் துள் ள னர். இதன் கார ண மா க இ ஆண் டுக்கு 30 முதல் 40 லட் சம் மூட்டை கள் உற் பத்தி செய்து வந்த நிலை யில், தற் போது 20 லட் சம் மூட்டை கள் தான் உற் பத்தி செய் யப் ப டு கின் றன.

கடந்த காலங் களில் 90 கிலோ கொண்ட ஜவ் வ ரிசி மூட்டை ரூ.7500 என விற் பனை செய் யப் பட்டது. தற் போது வியா பா ரம் இல் லா த தால் விலை படிப் ப டி யாக ரூ.4 ஆயி ரம் வரை குறைந் துள் ளது. இத னால் ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தி யா ளர் கள் கடு மை யாக பாதிக் கப் பட்டுள் ள னர். இந் நி லை யில் கள் ளக் கு றிச்சி வெள் ளா ளப் பட்டியை சேர்ந்த விவ சா யி கள் முன் னேற்ற சங் கத் தின் செய லா ளர் சந் தி ர சே க ரன் என் ப வர், ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தி யில் கலப் ப டம் செய் யப் ப டு வ தால், ஆலை உரி மை யா ளர் களும், பொது மக் களும் பாதிக் கப் ப டு கின் ற னர் என சென்னை உயர் நீதி மன் றத் தில் வழக்கு தொடர்ந் தார்.

இந்த வழக்கை விசா ரித்த நீதி மன் றம் ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தி யில் கலப் ப டம் இல் லா ம லும், இயற் கை யான முறை யில் ஜவ் வ ரிசி தயா ரிக்க தமி ழக அரசு தகுந்த அர சா ணை கள் வெளி யிட்டு கலப் பட ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத் தியை தடுக்க வேண் டும். மேலும் ஆலை களில் உணவு பாது காப்பு துறை அதி கா ரி கள் கண் கா ணிக்க வேண் டும் என வும் நீதி மன் றம் உத் த ர விட்டுள் ளது. இந்த உத் த ரவை தமி ழக அரசு அமல் ப டுத்தி கலப் ப டம் இல் லா மல், இயற் கை யான முறை யில் ஜவ் வ ரிசி உற் பத்தி செய்ய நட வ டிக்கை எடுக்க வேண் டும்.

இவ் வாறு முத் து லிங் கம் கூறி னார்.

காரைக்காலில் அதிகாரிகள் அதிரடி 20ஆயிரம் புகையிலை பொருட்கள் பறிமுதல்

காரைக் கால், அக்.1:

காரைக் கால் மாவட்டம் முழு வ தும் தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யிலை பொருட் கள் அண் மைக் கா ல மாக தாரா ள மாக கிடைத்து வரு கி றது. பள்ளி, கல் லூரி மற் றும் வழிப் பாட்டுத் த லங் கள் உள்ள பகு தி களில் இது போன்ற பொருட் களின் விற் ப னையை தடை செய்ய வேண் டும் என சமூக ஆர் வ லர் கள் மாவட்ட நிர் வா கத்தை வலி யு றுத்தி வந் த னர்.

மாவட்ட கலெக் டர் வல் ல வன் மற் றும் உணவு பாது காப் புத் துறை அதி காரி ரவிச் சந் தி ரன் ஆகி யோர் இது கு றித்து பல முறை எச் ச ரிக்கை விடுத் தும், அதி ரடி சோத னை கள் நடத் தி யும் விற் பனை தொடர்ந்த வண் ணம் இருந் தது. இந் நி லை யில், காரைக் கால் நகர் பகு தி யில் அமைந் துள்ள ஓர் மொத்த வியா பாரி குடோ னில், தடை செய் யப் பட்ட பொருட் கள் பதுக்கி வைத் தி ருப் ப தாக, உணவு பாது காப் புத் து றைக்கு வந்த ரக சிய தக வ லை ய டுத்து, உணவு பாது காப்பு அதி காரி ரவிச் சந் தி ரன் மற் றும் ஊழி யர் கள் சம் பந் தப் பட்ட குடோ னில் திடீர் ஆய்வு நடத் தி னர். அப் போது ரூ.20 ஆயி ரம் மதிப் பி லான தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யிலை பொருட் கள் இருப் பது தெரி ய வந் தது. அனைத் தை யும் பறி மு தல் செய்த அதி காரி, சம் பந் தப் பட்ட குடோன் யாரு டை ய து? அங் குள்ள தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யிலை யாரு டை ய து? எங் கி ருந்து வந் த து? யார் உரி மை யா ளர்? என் பது குறித்து விசா ரணை நடத்தி வரு கின் ற னர்.

மேலும், இனி வ ரும் காலத் தில் இது போன்ற புகை யிலை பொருட் களை விற் பனை செய் யும் சிறு மற் றும் பெரும் வியா பா ரி கள் மீது கடும் நட வ டிக்கை எடுக் கப் ப டும் என அதி கா ரி கள் எச் ச ரிக்கை விடுத் த னர்.

Buying edible oil? Watch the packets

Activists say customers are sold cheaper oils marked as groundnut oil

Spending a few seconds, poring over the tag of any product, will make a lot of difference in the way people buy them. Not all packets of groundnut oil have the same content, according to a recent finding of Consumers Association of India (CAI).

In a meeting held on Wednesday, CAI members said 14 samples of edible oil collected across the State, including Chennai, carried pictures of groundnuts on the packs. However, tests revealed shocking details — only one of the six samples had 10 per cent of groundnut oil, while the rest of it contained palm oil and cotton seed oil.

G. Santhanarajan, director (Food safety), CAI, says: “Customers are targeted with cheaper oils that are sold as groundnut oil. We could test only six samples as it was an expensive process.”

Only 36 per cent of the samples tested had Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) licence number and 21 per cent had FSSAI logo – a requirement as per Food Safety Standards Rules, 2011.

Moreover, 42 per cent of the packets did not carry Agmark logo, which is also mandatory. “We also tested a sunflower oil brand and found it contained cotton seed soil and palm oil. Consumers must read the contents on the and complain if not satisfied,” he cautions.

OIL CONSUMERS IN TN TAKEN FOR A RIDE: CAI

THE LIABILITY OF CELEBRITIES ENDORSING FAST FOODS - INDIAN SCENARIO!!

Recently enough, the very famous global brand Nestle has been under scanner for their 2-minute Maggi noodles due to the presence of excessive content of lead than the permissible limit and mislabeling with regard to monosodium glutamate (MSG) content on the packets. According to the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, MSG, a “flavour enhancer,” is harmful for human health, mainly for children. It is mandatory for companies to specify on the packaging if MSG has been added. The fire for the controversy ignited with the Indian state Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration Association detecting much higher levels of lead than the permitted levels apart from the presence of MSG in its packets.

This was followed by Gujarat, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Bihar, Assam, Punjab, Karnataka, Haryana, Goa, Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and other Indian states sending samples of Maggi for laboratory tests to determine safety for the popular brand’s noodles and thereafter banning of the same.

After a series of events, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in Maharashtra and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) issued orders banning all variants of Nestle India's Maggi noodles, terming them as "unsafe and hazardous" for human consumption. Upon approaching the Bombay High Court for interpretation of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2011 and seeking a judicial review of the orders passed by FDA and FSSAI, Bombay HC rejected Nestle's plea for interim relief over the ban on Maggi noodles. 

What is more interesting is a Police Complaint filed against Bollywood stars Amitabh Bachchan, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta, for endorsing the brand over the years (even when two among the three endorsed the brand years back!). 

In our previous article “Celebrities’ Accountability for Misleading Advertisements??” published in April, 2014, we had provided a detailed insight into how far and under what provisions of law the celebrities can be held accountable for the brands they endorse and the advertisements they feature in. Little did we know then, that we would be witnessing such an embroiling issue of Celebrity Endorsement so soon and on such a scaled level!!

 

The Indian provisions available with respect to holding Celebrities accountable for the endorsements include: 

1. Filing a case in a consumer court for ‘unfair trade practice’ which has been defined under section 2(1)(r) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and includes false claims made for promoting sale of any goods.

2. Specifically in context of food items, Section 24 of Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) states that any person who makes false claims about the nutritional value of the product or the efficacy of the product without providing any scientific justification stands in violation of the Act. The FSSAI Act states that whosoever is a party to a misleading advertisement or its publication can be fined up to approx. 15,660 USD.

3. Besides these Acts, if an ad is released in India with false claims, a person can write their complaint to Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a self-regulatory voluntary organization of the advertising industry, and depending on whether the ad is in alignment with the ASCI code and law of the land, the complaint is reviewed and if upheld then the ad is voluntarily either withdrawn or modified. 

None of the above-mentioned provisions specifically hold the celebrities featuring in such ads making false claims, accountable for their acts. However, proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection Act has provisions to issue direction for discontinuation of such advertisements and even reporting such violations to police or any other law enforcing agency for criminal prosecution. One of the measures suggested in the proposed amendments is to hold actors accountable i.e. claim compensation for false claims in cases of false claims made in advertisements for products which they endorse. 

However, a closer look at the real issue in the present controversy seems to revolve around allegations of a banned substance (MSG) and excess levels of lead being found in a product and NOT a case of misleading advertisement or the brand ambassadors’ endorsements. The issue at hand is a purely manufacturing and production issue to be dealt by FSSAI with the manufacturers rather than shifting the blame game on the endorsers. What is to be noted here is that for any failures and transgressions in manufacturing norms, advertising and brand ambassadors are not the ones to be held responsible. The company and government officials who allowed those products to be sold are more liable than the celebrities, who merely lend their names to these products. 

Thus, suing the stars for Maggi or any other product for that matter seems completely unjustified. A clear safety certificate by the government is a proof enough that a product is safe and the celebrities further cannot be held liable for endorsement of such a product. However, with the present controversy raising the issue, the advertising agencies and celebrities in the future will become more careful, putting in more effort in due diligence on the safety of the products they endorse. This could well impact the contours of endorsement contracts, which are likely to change, bringing in more due diligence as well as clauses to protect celebrities. All endorsement deals will now undergo more careful scrutiny. There would be no place for verbal or implied conditions, as is common today. Despite presence of 'indemnification' clauses in most major endorsement deals, they would now become watertight to the extent that the endorser could even demand an insurance to cover a crisis, should it occur. This might also lead to some sort of brand speed-dating, celebrities would embrace and discard brands frequently. The case seems to clearly showcase the perils of celebrity engagements in a digitally connected world. 

THE AFTER EFFECTS

Despite the Celebrity liability being dragged into this issue, what is more worrying for Nestle is the fact that they have been battling its worst-ever branding crisis in India since this controversy. In addition, what is being termed as the MAGGI EFFECT is a phenomenon catching up as a result of Maggi Controversy where buyers of popular brands like Parle, KFC, Wendy's & others are turning into activists and are over cautious of the food they buy. Brands such as ITC's Sunfeast Yippee, Nissin’s Top Ramen, HUL's Knorr and GSK Consumer's Foodies have also witnessed sales dropping by more than three-fourths after the Maggi controversy. The headlines such as “After Maggi, FSSAI to test GSK, ITC fast food brands,” “HUL’s Knorr Chinese noodles not in FSSAI approved list,” “Customer finds earthworm in Wendy’s burger” and the like have become more apparent than ever before leading to a mix of heightened concern about food safety and the prospect of being able to benefit from the paranoia that's gripped companies like Nestle and the others by claiming big damages from big companies. 

This Maggi effect has now spread its wings to the International market too with United Kingdom's food safety agency deciding to test a few samples of Maggi noodles stressing the same as a move of precaution. Also the Singapore authorities have ordered local importers to temporarily suspend the sale of Nestle's Maggi noodles imported from India. Besides this, precautionary tests have been conducted on Maggi and similar food products in Asian, East Asian Saarc nations and few European countries. 

Underlying the “BIG MAGGI BAN” are the hidden positives of the launch of a robust, nationwide process of reassuring consumers and valued stakeholders of food safety. This controversy has also compelled other companies too to take corrective measures on their own. We believe that the FSSAI would now tighten the labelling, packaging and testing norms for the entire sector, which in turn is positive for the consumers. 

What emerges from the “BIG MAGGI BAN” is the fact that companies today cannot overlook/compromise with the safety standards of the consumers. However, dragging others for the faults of manufacturers seems unjust on the part of media and consumers and the same should be taken care of in the future.