Ashish Bahuguna, Chairperson of FSSAI tells Nitin Sethithat government has dropped the Rs 1,750 crore plan for expanding the authority’s reach across the country. He explains his internal note recommending that FSSAI move away from enforcement of food safety law, leaving it to states.
Earlier, the government was considering a central scheme investing Rs 1,750 crore in expanding the enforcement and other capabilities of FSSAI and states across the country. But now you have been instructed to revise that proposal and relook at the role of FSSAI with enforcement being left to states.
Well there is no final decision at this stage. At the moment it is not final, it is still at a proposal stage.
So you are saying it is still a proposal
Yes. You see, if you look at it from another point of view. I mean the idea is to realise certain objectives. And whatever we strategize as plans of actions or whatever we plan to use as instruments to use for those objectives – I think what we have done is to rethink things through and look at whether those instruments are appropriate or not. Or whether, they would amount to, in lots of cases, re-inventing the wheels. So the objectives have not been compromised or changed. The instruments that we are using to fulfil those objectives have been changed.
For instance, we are mandated by law basically to ensure that safe and wholesome food is available to people of this country and to that end frame standards for this purpose. Framing of standards is…
…One essential part of the…
Is probably the first step in some sense. That of course has to be done centrally.
Which is why section 2 of the law says food safety is being taken under central powers in public interest…
Yes, so there the strengthening of FSSAI would remain the same. We would need a strong central organisation here that can draw upon talent from within and from outside academia, industry and so on so forth and frame standards that are appropriate for the country. The second is to get people to implement those standards and then if necessary to enforce them. We are still to a large extent in the first stage of setting standards. A fair bit of work has been done over recent past but we still have way to go on that. That would remain our number one priority and will remain within the ambit of FSSAI. Now the other two, of how to get the message across to stakeholders and how to enforce, what are the instrumentalities to be used, on that we can have differing opinions. Now the earlier CCEA note set a lot of store by…
...expanding the reach of FSSAI…
Yes, putting more investment to this, which is one way of looking at it.
Tremendous amounts actually. The CCEA note said Rs 1750 crore for FSSAI and states
But that is one way. The other way is to that the existing structures can be used to do the same work. For instance for imports do we need to have a separate set of officers or can we use the custom authorities to do the same work as long as we get our message across. So that would mean enhancing their capacities and capabilities to deal with safety of food articles.
Again in regard to testing and analysis, whether to use government labs or private accredited labs as long as the sanctity of the testing procedure is maintained. A person is at liberty to chose whichever option there is.
We have now, after putting a lot of thought in this issue, we have though that we should try make use of the available structures rather than try reinvent the wheels…
…expand?
Expand in a way so as to cover everything – that is not what we plan to do now. While, we shall definitely expand and enter into areas where there is little likelihood of other structures either being available or coming in the near future, there we will have to step in. Otherwise, we have taken a conscious decision of using the existing infrastructure.
So my understanding is the note (of CCEA on expansion of FSSAI and state food safety infra) is to be revised and at the moment this is a proposal. Somewhere in mid January you discussed these issues internally of the revision of the route – focusing on three areas – that private labs can be used, enforcement being given over to states and FSSAI looking at standard setting as primary objective.
In any case, enforcement even now and even at the time was the mandate of the state…
No, both the state and the centre…
Centre was marginal to the enforcement issue
But under the regulations you have clear list of enforcement and other activities that only central FSSAI can implement
There are two different issues. One is, the issue relating to central licensing, where only central government can give licences to certain kind of food businesses. The other is, central enforcement.
On that there has been a rethinking…
There certainly has been a rethinking because enforcement cannot take place in a vaccum, it can either take place in a state or a union territory where there already ought to be a structure for enforcement. So duplication can create confusion. What is more necessary is to get all of us, that is the states food regulators and state food authorities and us on the same board so we are thinking along the same lines and what to look for what not to look for rather than things which are not necessarily..
Procedurely…
Please let me complete.
Sure..
So, licensing also when we are conducting most of our transactions electronically there is really not much purpose in having offices outside except for actual visual inspection. And actual visual inspection if you look at the data, for the past, they have never been the forte of this organisation – that is not what they have been doing..
But one would argue that if there was more staff and better infrastructure for the regional offices they would do so…
So therefore, the focus of these offices needs to shift to actual site inspections so if there is a problem it is corrected at site.
But if you shut down your regional offices …
I am not saying we need to shut them down. We need to rethink the role of these offices.
But in your January 6 note you say that FSSAI should consider shutting down the regional offices and leave enforcement to states
No, I don’t think that has been ever suggested. In fact that note doesn’t really touch upon that. What really we would like to do is refocus our enforcement – and when we say ‘our’ it is not just ours but also states – on manufacturing facilities rather than retail facilities.
So less testing and sampling …
It is not about less testing at all. See, at the retail outlet what is the bang you get for your buck?
You get a Maggie kind of situation…
No you go to a shop that something is out of place so you seize it. The source of contamination…we are into this to ensure safety of food. How do you ensure it – at the manufacturing level where the maximum possibility of contamination lies. So that is where we ought to be focussing. We ought to be relating to standards relating to storage, to transportation…
As well as random sampling and testing, which is part of the law, I presume…
Random sampling can be will continue to take place but it cannot be the focus. If you are looking at public safety, you have to look at the manufacturing units. Let me give you an outlandish example, you buy a car which has some defect – individual defect you can go to the nearest garage and get it repaired but if it is endemic we have to go down back to the factory. The focus we would like to shift to those places. And that all these places follow all the standards.
So if I am not mistaken Mr Bahuguna, there have been several reviews at the PMO level of the workings of FSSAI since last year. Initially they were agreeable to the CCEA note for expansion of FSSAI but at some point the PMO changed its views on where it needs to go and you were instructed to look at where FSSAI needs to go and consequently in January you sent the note to your officers talking about the changing you propose. The three prongs in that – private labs instead of expanding public labs, two withdraw central FSSAI from enforcement and leave it to states and three focus more on standard setting in Delhi. Till a year ago we were still saying there is not enough manpower at central and state level – we need to invest Rs 800 crores for states alone…
The earlier proposal was to provide for infrastructure for various people populating their food regulatory system…
But now you have suggested the state officials can do this as an additional duty and not full time.
We are not suggesting anything of the kind
In your note you suggested that…
We are not suggesting anything of the kind. Our experience suggests that officers in most of the states looking at food related work are actually in additional charges…in a large number of states
But legally they are supposed to be full time officers, if I am not mistaken?
That does not happen and it is wishful thinking that this would happen overnight. Also this staff is housed under different departments in different states, somewhere in the medical department, somewhere in the food department, some states are progressive to have separate departments. It all depends on the kind of emphasis that state governments are giving. Just to give money to construct an office building will not necessarily result in either of two things – adequate personnel would be posted for food regulation or even a building will be exclusively used for food regulatory purposes. It doesn’t work that way. That, couple with the fact, post the finance commission devolution larger monies are going to the state governments it’s really for the state governments to invest in their own infrastructure.
But at the moment, if you now consider allowing states to do the food safety work as additional duties and you also withdraw the central regional offices from enforcement – does that create a lack of enforcement in the states till the states now invest on their own because both are withdrawing?
No, no, who suggested that I am withdrawing,
Your note suggested that regional offices of FSSAI be shut down and you have shut down two sub-regional offices already.
Those are sub-regional offices. The Lucknow office had three people, one officer, one clerk and one peon.
But instead of expanding it …
No no one second, what work can that office do?
But instead the office could have been expanded which was the original plan
Yes if my aunt had moustaches she would be my uncle. That is no logic. The point is that there is no particular gain – and it is only the north zone that has these sub-regional offices. There is something unique about the north zone.
In your note you suggest that other regional offices also be closed
No we haven’t suggested that.
Your note specifically talks about it.
The point we are making it the functions of the regional offices need to be revisited to make them more oriented towards actual field level inspection and monitoring of systems, rather than…
Sorry for cutting in but..
I don’t know what note you are talking of…
January 6 note that you circulated to your officers here which suggested that one way to go ahead is to shut down the regional offices of FSSAI
One second, one second, the note circulated - I don’t know whether it was by me or the CEO…
By you…
It does not mean that that becomes the policy. That becomes the basis for brainstorming. The point is you can either go for incremental improvements or you can shock and awe. You shock the system so much so as to compel people to think out of the box.
So this was your shock and awe option?
So if I provoke you it is not necessary that I provoking you to merely irritate you or get you angry. It is to illicit some kind of response.
So this was your shock and awe option …
What my strategy is, is my strategy but these kind of…no person is infallible or all-knowing so you have to draw in ideas from all quarters to the extent possible. So that was one of the ideas. So the point is.
So how long will it take to have a revised cabinet note now?
You don’t necessarily need to do that. There is a certain amount above which it goes to the CCEA. Also that is merely a procedural aspect of who approves. Before that, what is more important for FSSAI to understand what it wants to do and why and what it hopes to get out of it.
So, you are saying from the point that you wrote the note in January till today you have revised ideas of not shutting down the regional offices?
I am not saying it was an idea in the first place…
It was in your note...
Like I said, it was a brainstorming thing. That is not the point. The point is, we need to discuss to come up with an acceptable framework.
So, it would be fair to say …
One second, there can be a lot of things that need to be done. Theoretically I can think of a lot of things that I can do at present. But I also need to understand the practicality of it. What is possible and what is not. You have to take everyone aboard. It is not the central government alone. The state governments have to be co-opted as equal members of this mission. It is not a question of getting an idea and ramming it down someone’s throat. It is throwing up an idea, seeing a flower bloom and then taking everyone along.
How long before this revised strategy, if I might call it that, will be ready for the road for FSSAI because the PMO always asks for time bound action to its instructions.
You see, that may well be so but and we can give responses regarding the time-limits within which we perform the science related works.
Setting standards etc…
On for instance just the labs. Just by mandating private labs it will not happen. The state governments also have to understand – some state governments might well say we have a lab here and it is good enough and well equipped and we will continue to use it and they shall be free to do so. So you cannot – I mean the age of dictates is over – all we can do is to provide platforms and options for people.
Now for imports I am in discussion with the industry if industry can set up labs within the port premises on a PPP basis with us.
Instead of sending the samples….
…outside because the time taken to get the stuff out of the port to the lab, there is a whole lot of problems attached to that especially in case of perishable food products. So therefore, where you can and everyone sees advantage in this we are implementing it straight away provided everything else falls in place. In this case the industry is ready, I am ready, but we need to get the land from the port authority and after getting the land you have to set it up and it still takes time. That is one part of it. But where the state governments are involved it is really for them to exercise…
So out of the reforms that are possible, which you think are more in your domain and control, what are the ones that can be done faster and which are the ones which shall take bit longer.
The first and foremost are the regarding the entire process of approvals of various products. That is entirely in our hands so this is something that will be certainly done and framing the requisite standards and regulations to facilitate …we have done a little bit and we need to do a lot more. Second is anything governing imports is in our hand and there also we can straight away we can implement what we have in mind. Enforcement is a tricky subject, which we have to take the state governments on board. But where we can actually start doing a lot of work is on dissemination on information. Enforcement comes at a later stage to my mind.
It is all very well to say that theoretically everyone should know the law and should comply with it but the fact remains with the level of literacy being what it is, the level of awareness being what it is, most people are not aware of a lot of requirements that the law mandates upon them. So what we are trying to do – and some effort has been made in Delhi at least – get in touch with state governments and hold campaigns so as to both, one generate some kind of demand from consumers – at the end of the day if consumers want something that will happen – and secondly make the food business operators of what they should be doing and lots of times most of us tend to think of this sector as the packaged food industry.
The proprietary food industry…how much would that be, 10%?
Maybe even less, no one really knows. But that accounts for a very small fraction of the total food industry.
But that is what involves a lot of money and safety against junk food etc arise?
No, junk food is not necessarily only in the packaged food sector. A lot of our traditional foods are also junk food. That debate can go on a separate tangent all together. What I am trying to say is there is a whole eco-system out there that is untouched. At least 90% is untouched by the organised food industry in that sense and which is where a lot of people feel that is more prone to contamination and lacks the usual health and hygiene and sanitation practices.
Do you agree with that?
I am not sure I agree, there are certain segments of it. The point I am trying to make is slightly different. Just last month we held and have been holding campaign in Delhi for street food in which we are giving among other things, training to the street food vendors along with a little bit of help with aprons and other things. Nobody can argue against the fact that there can be better health and hygiene standards especially given to the consumers passing through the hands of somebody. Now there are small things that can be done and their practice will make a huge difference and the consumers then start expecting it.
So this is where FSSAI’s focus will increase?
It will certainly increase
Less on process food and more on this segment.
No, we will certainly look at the processed food sector as well but yes, but this is where the major food sector lies in the unorganised area and this is where we need to be more proactive because what the general people of the country eat is of more concern to eat than what a very small minority eat.
How much would be the volume of processed food industry be roughly?
It is difficult to say, the ministry of food processing would have an idea.
Thank you this has helped bring some clarity. Would you say this is the post Maggie episode phase of FSSAI?
The Maggie case is still in the courts. See, what problem the FSSAI faced at that time was that the law does not have any clarity and is open to multiple interpretations. The same phraseology can be interpreted by different people in different ways depending upon the kind of positions we occupy, the ideology we have and the baggage we carry. Now that will always create problems of inconsistency and that is something that the industry wants is not necessarily concurrence to all their demands. It wants a climate of consistency - whatever is the law is applied to everyone uniformly and in all regions of the country equally.
Would you look at amendments to the law to rectify these problems?
I am nobody to look at the amendments.
But would you propose so?
Certainly the law needs to be changed. There is no doubt in my mind at all the law needs to be changed...but what we shall do is when the regulations come out (under the law) we shall try to put the logic of the regulations together with the regulations so that it becomes more comprehensible to all concerned of why we have gone the way we have.
But presumably, a lot can be done through amendment to regulations and rules but somethings will require amendment to the law?
Rules and regulations can only take place as per the law.
The food safety law is being amended?
Yes, the law certainly has to be sharpened.
Has the process for amending the law started?
The process started some time back. There is a committee constituted by the government and they have made some suggestions. I personally feel that it requires not amendments but it needs complete replacement of the law.
But I guess that is a decision to be taken at a higher level in the government
Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment