TNFMA challenges various Sections of FSSA; obtains interim injunction on all

The mood in the Madurai-based Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants' Association (TNFMA) camp at the weekend was one of jubilation, because the body successfully challenged various Sections of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

“We have not only obtained interim injunction on the Sections pertaining to licensing and registration, but also on the one which defines adulterants; the one about packaging and labelling; the one which specifies the time limit for prosecutions, etc.,” P Subash Chandra Bose, vice-president, TNFMA, told in a telephonic conversation.

“There are sixteen Sections pertaining to penalties and punishments in the Act, namely Sections 50 to 65; and the Madurai Bench has granted us interim injunction on all of them. We are aware that this relief is temporary, and a lot of work still remains to be done. We will have to be on our toes,” Bose said.

Numerous bones of contention

Section 3 (1) (a) defines an adulterant as, “Any material which is, or could be, employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or misbranded or containing extraneous matter.”

Section 3 (1) (zf) defines misbranded food as, “an article of food –

(A) if it is purported, or is represented to be, or is being –

(i) offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims either;

(a) upon the label of the package, or

(b) through advertisement, or

(ii) sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or

(iii) offered or promoted for sale under the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article as borne on the package or containing the article or the label on such package;

or

(B) if the article is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer bearing his name and address but -

(i) the article is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold, and is not plainly and conspicuously labelled so as to indicate its true character; or

(ii) the package containing the article or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents; or

(iii) the article is offered for sale as the product of any place or country which is false;

or

(C) if the article contained in the package –

(i) contains any artificial flavouring, colouring or chemical preservative and the package is without a declaratory label stating that fact or is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or regulations made thereunder or is in contravention thereof; or

(ii) is offered for sale for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be specified by regulation, concerning its vitamins, minerals or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such use; or

(iii) is not conspicuously or correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability laid down under this Act.

[Note: The TNGMA challenged the monetary penalty stipulated for violators of this Section (Rs 5 lakh) and obtained interim injunction on the same.]

Section 5 (1) (a) deals with the composition of the Food Authority and specfies the qualifications for appointment of its chairperson and other members

(1) The Food Authority shall consist of a chairperson and the following twenty-two members, out of which one-third shall be women, namely:-

(a) seven members, not below the rank of a joint secretary to the Government of India, to be appointed by the Central Government, to respectively represent the ministries or departments of the Central Government dealing with -

(i) Agriculture;
(ii) Commerce;
(iii) Consumer Affairs;
(iv) Food Processing;
(v) Health;
(vi) Legislative Affairs, and
(vii) Small Scale Industries

who shall be members ex-officio;

(b) two representatives from food industry of which one shall be from small scale industries;

(c) two representatives from consumer organisations;

(d) three eminent food technologists or scientists;

(e) five members to be appointed by rotation every three years, one each in seriatim from the zones as specified in the First Schedule to represent the states and the Union Territories;

(f) two persons to represent farmers’ organisations; and

(g) one person to represent retailers’ organisations.

[Note: One of the members was found to be a grape-grower; and the other was engaged in prawn culture.]
Section 13 is about scientific panels.

(1) The Food Authority shall establish scientific panels, which shall consist of independent scientific experts

(2) The scientific panel shall invite the relevant industry and consumer representatives in its deliberations

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the Food Authority may establish as many scientific panels as it considers necessary in addition to the panels on:

(a) food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food;

(b) pesticides and antibiotics residues;

(c) genetically modified organisms and foods;

(d) functional foods, nutraceuticals, dietetic products and other similar products;

(e) biological hazards;

(f) contaminants in the food chain;

(g) labelling; and

(h) method of sampling and analysis.

(4) The Food Authority may from time to time re-constitute the scientific panels by adding new members or by omitting the existing members or by changing the name of the panel as the case may be.

Section 14 is about scientific committees.

(1) The Food Authority shall constitute a scientific committee, which shall consist of the chairpersons of the scientific panels and six independent scientific experts not belonging or affiliated to any of the scientific panels

(2) The scientific committee shall be responsible for providing the scientific opinions to the Food Authority, and shall have the powers, where necessary, of organising public hearings

(3) The scientific committee shall be responsible for the general co-ordination necessary to ensure consistency of the scientific opinion procedure and in particular with regard to the adoption of working procedures and harmonisation of working methods of the scientific panels

(4) The scientific committee shall provide opinions on multi-sectoral issues falling within the competence of more than one scientific panel, and on issues which do not fall within the competence of any of the scientific panels

(5) Wherever necessary, and particularly, in the case of subjects which do not fall within the competence of any of the scientific panel, the scientific committee shall set up working groups and in such cases, it shall draw on the expertise of those working groups when establishing scientific opinions.

Section 23 deals with packaging and labelling of foods.

(1) No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell or expose for sale or despatch or deliver to any agent or broker for the purpose of sale, any packaged food products which are not marked and labelled in the manner as may be specified by regulations:

Provided that the labels shall not contain any statement, claim, design or device which is false or misleading in any particular concerning the food products contained in the package or concerning the quantity or the nutritive value implying medicinal or therapeutic claims or in relation to the place of origin of the said food products

(2) Every food business operator shall ensure that the labelling and presentation of food, including their shape, appearance or packaging, the packaging materials used, the manner in which they are arranged and the setting in which they are displayed, and the information which is made available about them through whatever medium, does not mislead consumers.

Section 31 deals with the licensing and registration of food businesses.

(1) No person shall commence or carry on any food business except under a licence

(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a petty manufacturer who himself manufactures or sells any article of food or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business operator; but they shall register themselves with such authority and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, without prejudice to the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption or affecting the interests of the consumers

(3) Any person desirous to commence or carry on any food business shall make an application for grant of a licence to the designated officer in such manner containing such particulars and fees as may be specified by regulations

(4) The designated officer on receipt of an application under sub-section (3), may either grant the licence or after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant a licence to any applicant, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of public health and shall make available to the applicant a copy of the order:

Provided that if a licence is not issued within two months from the date of making the application or his application is not rejected, the applicant may start his food business after expiry of the said period and in such a case, the designated officer shall not refuse to issue a licence but may, if he considers necessary, issue an improvement notice, under section 32 and follow procedures in that regard

(5) Every licence shall be in such form and subject to such conditions as may be specified by regulations

(6) A single licence may be issued by the Designated Officer for one or more articles of food and also for different establishments or premises in the same area

(7) If the articles of food are manufactured, stored, sold or exhibited for sale at different premises situated in more than one area, separate applications shall be made and separate licence shall be issued in respect of such premises not falling within the same area

(8) An appeal against the order of rejection for the grant of licence shall lie to the
commissioner of food safety

(9) A licence unless suspended or cancelled earlier shall be in force for such period as may be specified by regulations: Provided that if an application for a renewal of licence is made before the expiry of the period of validity of the licence, the licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application

(10) The licence shall subsist for the benefit of the deceased’s personal representative or any other member of his family, until the expiry of –

(a) the period of three months beginning with his death; or

(b) such longer period as the designated officer may allow.

Section 40 states that the purchaser may have food analysed.

(1) Nothing contained in this Act shall be held to prevent a purchaser of any article of food other than a food safety officer from having such article analysed by the food analyst on payment of such fees and receiving from the food analyst a report of his analysis within such period as may be specified by regulations:

Provided that such purchaser shall inform the food business operator at the time of purchase of his intention to have such article so analysed:

Provided further that if the report of the food analyst shows that the article of food is not in compliance with the Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, the purchaser shall be entitled to get refund of the fees paid by him under this section

(2) In case the food analyst finds the sample in contravention of the provisions of this Act and rules and regulations made thereunder, the food analysts shall forward the report to the designated officer to follow the procedure laid down in Section 42 for prosecution.

Sections 50-65 deal with different kinds of penalties and punishments.

Section 50: Penalty for selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded

Any person who sells to the purchaser’s prejudice any food which is not in compliance with the provisions of this Act or the regulations made thereunder, or of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding Rs 5 lakh

Provided that the persons covered under sub-section (2) of section 31, shall for such non-compliance be liable to a penalty not exceeding Rs 25,000.

Section 51: Penalty for sub-standard food
Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

Section 52: Penalty for misbranded food

(1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 3 lakh

(2) The adjudicating officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such article of food shall be destroyed.

Section 53: Penalty for misleading advertisement

(1) Any person who publishes, or is a party to the publication of an advertisement,

(a) falsely describes any food; or

(b) is likely to mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of any food or gives false guarantee, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 10 lakh

(2) In any proceeding the fact that a label or advertisement relating to any article of food in respect of which the contravention is alleged to have been committed contained an accurate statement of the composition of the food shall not preclude the court from finding that the contravention was committed.

Section 54: Penalty for food containing extraneous matter

Any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption containing extraneous matter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 55: Penalty for failure to comply with the directions of food safety officer

If a food business operator or importer without reasonable ground, fails to comply with the requirements of this Act or the rules or regulations or orders issued thereunder, as directed by the food safety officer, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 56: Penalty for unhygienic or unsanitary processing or manufacturing of food

Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or processes any article of food for human consumption under unhygienic or unsanitary conditions, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 57: Penalty for possessing adulterant

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, if any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, imports or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or distribute any adulterant shall be liable –

(i) where such adulterant is not injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding Rs 2 lakh;

(ii) where such adulterant is injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding Rs 10 lakh

(2) In a proceeding under sub-section (1), it shall not be a defence that the accused was holding such adulterant on behalf of any other person.

Section 58: Penalty for contraventions for which no specific penalty is provided

Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided in this Chapter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 59: Punishment for unsafe food

Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,–

(i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh;

(ii) where such failure or contravention results in a non-grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine which may extend to Rs 3 lakh;

(iii) where such failure or contravention results in a grievous injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six years and also with fine which may extend to Rs 5 lakh;

(iv) where such failure or contravention results in death, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and also with fine which shall not be less than Rs 10 lakh.

Section 60: Punishment for interfering with seized items

If a person without the permission of the food safety officer, retains, removes or tampers with any food, vehicle, equipment, package or labelling or advertising material or other thing that has been seized under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 61: Punishment for false information

If a person, in connection with a requirement or direction under this Act, provides any information or produces any document that the person knows is false or misleading, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 2 lakh.

Section 62: Punishment for obstructing or impersonating a food safety officer

If a person without reasonable excuse, resists, obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, impersonate, threaten, intimidate or assault a food safety officer in exercising his functions under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months and also with fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.

Section 63: Punishment for carrying out a business without licence

If any person or food business operator (except the persons exempted from licensing under Sub-section (2) of section 31 of this Act), himself or by any person on his behalf who is required to obtain licence, manufacturers, sells, stores or distributes or imports any article of food without licence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with a fine which may extend to Rs 5 lakh.

Section 64: Punishment for subsequent offences

(1) If any person, after having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under this Act subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence, he shall be liable to —

(i) twice the punishment, which might have been imposed on a first conviction, subject to the punishment being maximum provided for the same offence;

(ii) a further fine on daily basis which may extend up to one lakh rupees, where the offence is a continuing one; and

(iii) his licence shall be cancelled

(2) The Court may also cause the offender’s name and place of residence, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published at the offender’s expense in such newspapers or in such other manner as the court may direct and the expenses of such publication shall be deemed to be part of the cost attending the conviction and shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine.

Section 65. Compensation in case injury of death of consumer

(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Chapter, if any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or distributes or sells or imports any article of food causing injury to the consumer or his death, it shall be lawful for the adjudicating officer or as the case may be, the court to direct him to pay compensation to the victim or the legal representative of the victim, a sum—

(a) not less than Rs 5 lakh in case of death;

(b) not exceeding Rs 3 lakh in case of grievous injury;

and

(c) not exceeding Rs 1 lakh, in all other cases of injury

Provided that the compensation shall be paid at the earliest and in no case later than six months from the date of occurrence of the incident:

Provided further that in case of death, an interim relief shall be paid to the next of the kin within thirty days of the incident

(2) Where any person is held guilty of an offence leading to grievous injury or death, the adjudicating officer or the court may cause the name and place of residence of the person held guilty, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published at the offender’s expense in such newspapers or in such other manner as the adjudicating officer or the court may direct and the expenses of such publication shall be deemed to be part of the cost attending the conviction and shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine

(3) The adjudicating officer or the court may also,—

(a) order for cancellation of licence, recall of food from market, forfeiture of establishment and property in case of grievous injury or death of consumer;

(b) issue prohibition orders in other cases.

Section 77: Time limit for prosecutions

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no court shall take cognisance of an offence under this Act after the expiry of the period of one year from the date of commission of an offence:

Provided that the commissioner of food safety may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, approve prosecution within an extended period of up to three years.

Bench stays implementation of some provisions of Food Safety Act - THE HINDU

Restrains Centre from giving effect to nearly 25 provisions of the Legislation

The Madras High Court Bench here has restrained the Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry and the Commissioner of Food Safety in Chennai from giving effect to certain provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and the regulations framed under it with respect to members of Madurai Managar Anaiththu Vanigargal Nala Sangam (MMAVNS), Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants Association (TNFMA), and Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TNCCI).
Justice K. Venkataraman granted the interim orders in individual writ petitions filed by the three associations. In so far as the case filed by MMAVNS was concerned, the judge had stayed the operation of certain provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011; and Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011.
He also restrained the Commissioner of Food Safety from enforcing the Regulations against members of the association and directed a Central Government Standing Counsel to take notice returnable by June 5. In the cases filed by TNFMA and TNCCI, the judge had restrained the Union Ministry from giving effect to about 25 provisions in the 2006-Act with respect to their members. In these cases too, the judge ordered notices to the Ministry and adjourned the matters to June.
The judge stated that he was inclined to pass such orders as the High Court had already granted similar interim orders on November 8 last year in two other writ petitions. The provisions that were stayed included Sections 3(1)(a), (za), (zf), 5(1)(a), 13, 14, 23, 31, 40, 50 to 65 and 77 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. According to the petitioners, the Legislation enacted in 2006 and implemented from August 5 last year severely affected those engaged in food business.
While the first three Sections that were challenged related to the definitions of adulterant, licence, and misbranded food, the other provisions related to composition of Food Authority, scientific panels, and scientific committees for implementing the Act. The Sections dealing with packaging and labelling of foods and licensing and registration of food business were also under challenge. The petitioners were also aggrieved against provisions imposing penalties, which they termed as very high.
Sections 50 to 65 of the Act stipulated the penalties and punishments that could be imposed for manufacturing and selling sub-standard food, misbranded food, food containing extraneous matter and for issuing misleading advertisements.
They also impose punishments for failure to comply with the directions of Food Safety Officer, providing false information, carrying out a business without licence, interfering with seized items and for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety Officer.

FBO AWARENESS MEETING BY FSO

HC asks panel on pesticides to frame guidelines by mid August

The Delhi High Court today directed an experts committee set up by it to frame guidelines within three months to check presence of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables available in open market in the city.
A bench of justices S K Kaul and Rajiv Shakdher also accepted a plea of pesticide manufacturers seeking a direction to the panel to allow their suggestions while framing the guidelines.
The court directed the six-member committee of experts to file its report containing the guidelines by August 17.
The bench also included Dr Sandhya Kulshrestha, Secretary of the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee, in the panel.
Taking suo motu cognisance of a media report, the court had set up the committee in May 10, 2011 to periodically examine the fruits and vegetables available in the open market to check if they contain pesticide residues.
Filing an affidavit before the court, the Centre had informed that the experts committee would be headed by the joint director of the Agriculture Ministry.
On February 14, the Agriculture Ministry had convened a meeting of its senior officials with those of the food safety and standards authority of India (FSSAI) and the Delhi government's health ministry on the issue, the affidavit said.
Besides chairperson Sarita Bhalla, others members include FSSAI director Dhir Singh, scientist N K Sharma, Delhi government's food analyst S M Bhardwaj, Union Agriculture Ministry official Vipin Bhatnagar and senior advocate V K Rao in the committee, it stated.
The court also suggested eminent scientist M S Swaminathan as an "outside" expert for the panel.
However, Swaminathan informed that his hands were full and he was stuck in too many assignments at this present juncture.
As per the media report, some NGOs had conducted a survey and claimed that vegetables and fruits sold in the city's markets contain poisons capable of causing cancer and harming the nervous system and liver.

Defer implementation of FSSA: foodgrain merchants - THE HINDU

Staff Reporter

The Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants Association has urged the Central Government to defer the implementation of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006, which is being implemented since August 5, 2011, till the “defects in the Act” were rectified.
Accompanied by the Dindigul Member of Parliament N. S. V. Chitthan, an association delegation led by president S. P. Jeyapragasam met the Union Minister of Agriculture and Food Processing Industries Sharad Pawar in New Delhi, recently, and submitted a memorandum.
The association said that the FSSA prescribes food quality standards that were akin to European and American standards, which mainly import agricultural produces. Even though the climate and soil types differ across various regions of the country, the Act had specified uniform standards across the country. Qualities like nutritional value, proteins, sugar content and moisture of damaged crops would vary depending upon these factors with uniformity being difficult to achieve.
Further, the Act defines ‘adulteration' on par with other infirmities such as non-compliance in printing of labels or packages.
The offence of misbranding had to be dealt with separately with lesser fines.
Food analytical laboratories
The association contended that the Central Government must establish food analytical laboratories to test quality control in all districts and give accreditation to the laboratories in this sector before implementing the Food Safety and Standards Act.
Mr. Jeyapragasam also called for a single licence to a food business operator as the Act forces one to take a licence to each and every village where a manufacturer sells his/her product.
The Act also mandates that food business operators appoint supervisors with a minimum technical qualification of a degree in science.
As this would cause practical problems, he urged the Centre to enforce this rule only when the workforce of a unit crosses 100.
In view of these problems, he urged Mr. Pawar to defer the implementation of the Act.
He also noted that these issues have been conveyed to the Chief Executive Office of the Food Safety Standards Authority of India, which comes under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and is implementing the FSSA.

Cola maker to reduce use of controversial chemical

Coca-Cola denies US consumer group’s claim that its colouring ingredient causes cancer; yet the company says it will modify its drinks in India like it has in California 

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group in the US, had filed a petition in February 2012 with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban the use of ammonia-sulfit caramel in aerated drinks. Research was conducted on regular and diet Coca-Cola and Pepsi drinks available in Washington, DC. The group claimed the drinks contained high levels of 4-methylimidazole (commonly known as 4-MEI) which can be found in the caramel colouring used in the drinks. and is considered potentially carcinogenic.

The US FDA, however, said that there were no definite studies to prove the claim. A US FDA spokesperson said, ‘A consumer would have to drink more than 1,000 cans a day to reach the doses administered that have shown links to cancer.’

Despite the FDA’s clean bill, Coca-Cola has decided to reduce the amounts of 4-MEI used in their drinks in the US (in a phased manner, first in California). Coca-Cola’s official website states:?‘We have asked our caramel manufacturers to modify their production process to reduce the amount of 4-methylimidazole in the caramel.’

While Coca-Cola denied the “false and outrageous claims”, both Coke and Pepsi have modified the formulations of their drinks in the US. But have they done so in India as well?

Kamlesh Sharma, GM, public affairs and communication, Coca-Cola, India referred to the statement issued by Indian Beverage Association (IBA) which says that there are no adverse health implications from the use of caramel colouring. ‘This puts the issue in the right perspective,’ he said.  When asked if Coca-Cola in India would be modified to remove 4-methylimidazole, he sent us links to Coca-Cola’s official statement.  ‘We have asked our caramel manufacturers to modify their production process to reduce the amount of 4-MEI.’

Right Choice made several attempts to contact PepsiCo India for this report. The company did not respond to our calls and emails.

WHAT IS 4-METHYLIMIDAZOLE?

A statement issued by the Indian Beverage Association states, ‘The compound 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI or 4-MI) is a byproduct formed in certain foods and beverages during the heating, roasting and cooking process and is virtually ubiquitous – found in trace amount in foods and beverages that have been commonly consumed for decades.

‘It should be noted that 4-MEI is not added to food or beverage. Since 4-MEI may be formed when caramel colouring is made, caramel-containing foods such as cereals, beverages, baked goods, confectionery products, dairy products and condiments like soya sauce may contain detectable amounts of the compound.

‘The level of 4-MEI in caramel is regulated nationally by Food Safety Standards Authority of India, which is at par with that prescribed by FAO/WHO, Codex Alimentarius and the European Food Safety Authority. Leading public health organisations have reaffirmed safety of caramel. Hence, consumers have no reason at all to entertain any health concerns.’

TANUVAS taking steps to check extensive use of antibiotics - THE HINDU

“The Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (TANUVAS) is taking all steps to check extensive use of antibiotics that result in antimicrobial resistance to facilitate better livestock exports,” Vice-Chancellor of the university R. Prabakaran told The Hindu .
He was here recently to chair the World Veterinary Day celebration organised by TANUVAS and the Veterinary College and Research Institute (VC&RI), Namakkal.
The Vice-Chancellor said that the celebration's theme for this year was ‘Antimicrobial Resistance' and added that both under dose and over dose would result in antimicrobial resistance.
On steps to monitor extensive use of such medicines, he said that the varsity would soon establish two state-of-the-art facilities at an estimate Rs. 9.86 crore.
“They are funded by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) and machineries will be installed in a month or two,” the Dr. Prabakaran said. Some of the tests that can be carried out in these labs include checking residues such as pesticides, antibiotics and faecal residues.
“It would even make it possible to identify if the chicken or cattle has been fed with genetically modified crop varieties and presence of mycotoxins,” he said.The labs will grade livestock products based on presence of residue. “Each country has a minimum and maximum permissible level for importing livestock products and this grading will help exporters to reduce presence of residues or to focus on countries that fit into their based on the results”, Dr. Prabakaran observed.
“These labs will also be a boon for domestic consumers as the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 requires livestock products to have its quality and presence of microbial residues printed on them – in India”, the VC said.
“A proposal of TANUVAS to set up a facility exclusively for surveillance of emerging and remerging poultry diseases at Rs. two crore has been sanctioned by the state government at the principle level and is awaiting sanction of funds from the union government”, he said.
About reducing residues in the feed, he urged poultry farmers to use antibiotics only when it is inevitably required. “Use them only under supervision of veterinarians as dosage should not be decided by the farmer, while antibiotics should be withdrawn from broiler chicken a week before marketing it”, he concluded.

Licence and registration compulsory under Food & Safety Act

FEROZEPUR :   A meeting of the representatives of various unions with regard to implementation of Food Safety and Standard Act.  The meeting was presided over by Dr.Jasbir Singh Minhas.

 

Speaking on this occasion, Dr.Gupta, District Health Officer informed that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), has been established under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which consolidates various acts & orders that have hitherto handled food related issues in various Ministries and Departments. 

 

FSSAI has been created for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption. 

 

He further said that every person dealing with the articles of food will have to obtain a licence and registration is mandatory under Food Safety and Standard Act and the minimum fee for registration having business transactions less than Rs.12 lakhs is Rs.100 and Rs.2000 above Rs.12 lakhs per year but the registration is compulsory for doing the business irrespective of the amount of transaction. He also made it clear that in the event of both non-registration and obtaining a licence, penalty and even imprisonment under the Act can be imposed.

Unhygienic food lays students low - THE HINDU

Vasudha Venugopal

The quality of rice is poor and even the ice cream served occasionally stinks, say students

There are few checks on the quality of food served in college canteens, especially when it comes to those in residential college campuses in the city's outskirts. Last week, nearly 38 students of SSN College of Engineering were admitted to a private hospital after complaining of severe dysentery and vomiting after consuming food in the mess of the college hostel that houses nearly 300 female post-graduate students. “We ate parotha at night and the next morning, most of us were unwell. The college doctor was no help and so we went to Chettinad Hospital here,” said a student.
“However, when the hospital officials asked us for a police complaint, our hostel administration asked us to go to another hospital. There, seven of us were administered drips, while the rest were put on medication,” she added.
In the aftermath of this incident, students protested and refused to eat in the canteen leading to the intervention of lecturers who promised to look into the issue. The students pay nearly Rs. 2,000 monthly to the college for food alone, and nearly Rs. 4 lakh on the PG course. Nearly 2,200 of the 3,600 students live in the college hostels.
Students point out that this is not the first time such an incident had occurred. “The rice is of poor quality and even the ice cream occasionally smells bad. But since not many people actually fall ill, the administration brushes the issue aside saying, “You shouldn't expect very high standards,” a student said.
Kala Vijayakumar, principal, SSN group of institutions said the college has instituted a rigorous process to monitor the quality of food and hygiene. “We have already appointed additional staff. Also, the student committee decides the caterers, from a list given to them. The checks were always there but now, they will be more stringent and frequent,” she said, adding that the contactor had already been warned. “I think the students panicked. It was just a one-off incident and we will make sure it is not repeated,” she said.
Students in many colleges feel that since most canteens serve outsourced food, managements shirk responsibility if the food turns bad.
Last August, the State government integrated the Food Safety Wing of the Directorate of Public Health with the Department of Drugs Control Administration to form, ‘Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration' department (TNFS&DA). All hostels and canteens on campus will now have to register under the new Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) 2006 and the department will be responsible for ensuring food quality and safety standards.
But the fact that most colleges are outside the city also takes them outside the purview of the designated officer for the city. However, 32 designated officers have been formed to look into the quality of food served by hotels and caterers in the different districts across the State.
Many of the 79 colleges, mostly engineering campuses that fall in the purview of Kancheepuram district, are yet to seek licenses from the TNFS&DA. “Many of them do not clean their overhead tanks every 15 days as per rules,” says B. Bharanitharan, designated officer (Kancheepuram). “All colleges with canteen facilities, caterers and restaurants need to have licenses before August. It takes at least 50 days for us to process the license, to check the kitchen sites, hygiene conditions and quality of provisions,” he said.
The department, which is in the process of issuing licenses, at present, conducts checks only based on public complaints. “But we will soon have a helpline that students can call whenever they have problems with the food served in the colleges,” Dr. Bharanitharan added. EOM

Provide Quality Food during Temple Festivals

DINAKARAN & INDIAN EXPRESS

Artificial ripening hits mango business in Madurai

MADURAI: The recent raids and seizure of four tonnes of mango by Food Safety officials has caused concern among fruit vendors of Madurai, who claim they have used Ethril, an ethylene-based chemical advised by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and not calcium carbide stones, to precipitate food ripening. The fruit merchants lament that the negative publicity has greatly affected trade, with people avoiding buying mangoes. But officials stressed that the four tonnes were seized only after they found carbide stones used in the ripening and had not seized mangoes ripened with Ethril.
"We paid a heavy price last year on mango business due to use of calcium carbide stones, with people stopping consumption. Hence we have decided not to use the carbide stones and adopted Ethril as advised by TNAU. During the emergency meeting called by all fruit vendors associations in Madurai, we took a unanimous decision of banning carbide stone use in ripening," said S Muruganandam, secretary of the Madurai Fruit Commission Merchants Association. "We were in fact surprised by the overwhelming response from vendors who wanted to get rid of carbide stones as 11 of the vendors are facing cases and three were arrested last year. We urged them to do ethical business as minimum profits was better and all of them agreed. However, it was very unfortunate that the officials seized four tonnes of mangoes", he said. The vendors also said the merchant in question in fact used Ethril for ripening, but failed to remove the carbide stones stored in the godown, which invited action from officials. However, the news flashed in the media has already affected business, they said.
"Mango is the king of fruits and has the ability to beat any other fruit in the market. Even apple sales dip when mangoes come into the market. But we have observed that the "mango grace" is declining over the years with people panicking over the use of carbide stones", says M Mariappan, a fruit merchant in Yanaikal. "There were incidents when our relatives asked us to get raw mangoes assuring that they would take care of ripening due to the fear among vendors," says Muruganandam in a lighter note. The traders said mango trade is big business in Madurai, which supplies fruits to the entire southern region transacting Rs 50 to 60 lakhs in a day. Hence, the associations have decided to take measures of banning the carbide stones completely and educate the public about the use of ethril in ripening, which is a safe practice.
J Suguna, designated officer, Food Safety and Drug Administration department, insisted that the four tonnes of mangoes were seized after finding calcium carbide usage. "Artificial ripening of mangoes through carbide stones is an offence and we have issued notices to the vendors earlier. Entire stock of seized mangoes were destroyed," she said. Commenting on the use of ethril, Suguna said they found vendors using ethril in ripening but they were directly spraying on the fruits. "We have collected a few mangoes ripened in this manner and sent them for lab tests. Once the lab tests are available, we will know if spraying directly is advisable and will communicate it to the traders", she said.
The officials said they have seized another half tonne of mango ripened artificially at Arasapatti near Alanganallur. "We have warned the farmers not to indulge in such practices which will invite severe action," Suguna said.

FSSAI NEWS LETTER APRIL 2012

DINAMALAR NEWS

DINAMALAR NEWS

ஊட்டியில் கடையடைப்பு போராட்டம்

ஊட்டி : உணவு ஆய்‌வக துறையை சேர்ந்த சிவக்குமார் என்ற அதிகாரி லஞ்சம் கேட்டு வியாபாரிகளை வற்புறுத்தி வருவதாக அவரை கண்டித்து ஊட்டி தாலுகா முழுவதிலும் உள்ள வியாபாரிகள் கடையடைப்பு போராட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ளனர். ஊட்டி தாலுகாவை சேர்ந்த ஹோட்டல்கள், கடைகளை சேர்ந்த சுமார் 2000 முதல் 3000 வரையிலான வியாபாரிகள் இந்த போராட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ளனர். கோடை விடுமுறை சீசனில் கடையடைப்பு போராட்டம் நடைபெறுவதால் ஊட்டிக்கு வரும் சுற்றுலா பயணிகள் சாப்பாட்டிற்கு வழியின்றி திண்டாடி வருகின்றனர்.

FSOs misconduct: TN foodgrains association to meet Pawar, Chandramouli

With the April 26 incident of throwing out of freshly baked goodies by a team of food safety officers (FSOs) fresh in their minds, office-bearers of the Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants' Association have scheduled a meeting with Sharad Pawar, minister of agriculture and food processing industries, and K Chandramouli, chairperson, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), to put forth their objections to the licensing and registration regulations stipulated by the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006.

This was informed by S V S S Velshankar, honorary secretary, Tamil Nadu Foodgrains Merchants' Association, who would also be part of the delegation. He added, “Depending on the response of the minister and the FSSAI chief, we would decide on further course of action including legal recourse.”

The said incident pertained to Paramakudi in Tamil Nadu, where a team of FSOs visited some bakeries and threw freshly-baked bread and decorated pieces of cake in a heap of rubbish along the road.

Recounting the events, R Kaleeswaran, honorary secretary, Karaikudi Bakery Owners' Association (KBOA), said, “The FSOs’ conduct was extremely unprofessional. They quarrelled with the bakers; gave them challans and levied arbitrary charges ranging between Rs 5,000 and Rs 10,000. Those who paid were let off, but those who couldn't had to suffer considerable damage. This has caused them a great deal of distress.”

Meanwhile, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted interim injunctions to various petty food manufacturers' and traders' bodies – including Madurai Managar Anaitthu Vanigargal Nala Sangam and the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce and Industry – this week. These orders restrain the state food safety commissioner and his subordinates and FSOs from enforcing the licensing rules.

Ganesh Jeyaraj, member, Madurai Managar Anaitthu Vanigargal Nala Sangam, said, “R Viduthalai, senior counsel, and G Sankaran, advocate, argued a writ petition on our behalf and were granted injunction.” The president of this body, L Thangavel, also heads the Madurai chapter of Tamil Nadu Vanigar Sankankalin Peramaippu.

Informing that KBOA had also moved court, Kaleeswaran said, “We would appreciate it if the FSSA, 2006, is simplified, and more importantly, made more inclusive. However safe we try to make our products, we are no match for the multinational corporations and large-sized producers who are members of the panel formed to implement the Act. We face the threat of being wiped out of the industry, and that could affect the livelihood of lakhs.”

“Not only is the nomination process to this panel flawed, but vests in the food safety officers powers that they will misuse. We (small- and medium-sized FBOs) would like to run our businesses without having to resort to any unethical practices, but obtaining a licence or registration without paying an arbitrary penalty, which is often very high, is impossible. And to top it all, we have to become compliant in less than four months,” he said.

Regional techno-scientific panels mooted for smooth implementation of FSSR

Even as the confusion and chaos over the implementation of the Food Safety & Standards Regulations (FSSR), 2011, continues, the state of Maharashtra is working on a novel solution to tide over the crisis – forming techno-scientific committee.

While the proposed panel could either be a formal committee under the Centre or an informal committee. However, it would be on the lines of the system prevalent in the US and details were still being worked out, it was learnt.

Mahesh Zagade, food safety commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra, told F&B News, “The Maharashtra FDA has taken up this issue of forming techno-scientific committee with the Centre and is all for encouraging each region to come up with such a concept.”

According to him, the committee will promote interaction between implementing agencies of the Act and stakeholders in the industry thus reducing the obstacles that come in the way of enforcing the new law.

“Such committees should come up on the local level throughout the country,” he felt. He also stressed that such initiatives were needed for smooth implementation of the law and was all praise for NAFARI (National Agriculture and Food Analysis and Research Institute), which approached him with the concept.

Meanwhile, the All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA) has welcomed the move. According to the body, this could prove to be more convenient to address the issues related to implementation of the law.

In fact, “We had gone to the Centre earlier with the proposal of forming such a committee considering the problems related to the food processing sector and we had also felt that this would ease the difficulties in implementation,” explained D V Malhan, executive secretary, AIFPA.

Malhan said that though there were a number of issues concerning the interpretation and implementation of the law, the latest issue pertained to the prior approval of new food products made mandatory for food businesses falling under the central licensing authority arousing anxiety and perplexity amongst the food business operators who manufacture ethnic or traditional foods across the country.

In this regard, a national seminar would also be held on May 25, 2012, at New Delhi.

Interestingly, NAFARI is not only looking for having a committee under the Centre but also considering forming an informal committee. Vinay Oswal, director, NAFARI, stated, “We are still working on this aspect and a positive nod from Mahesh Zagade was indeed a motivation for us.” He added, “We are contemplating to form an informal committee.”

He explained that such a panel would include scientists, technologists and other experts from various organisations and the industry. The panel would evaluate the issues related to food safety and food products thus eliminating food hazards and ensuring good, healthy and nutritious food for consumers.

He pointed out, “For instance, many cases of food poisoning are being constantly reported, but the committee should be able to analyse and act quickly to bring out an effective solution to handle the situation.” He added that the US had also adopted this method.

DINAKARAN NEWS

RBI ANNOUNCEMENT

FSO STATUTORY NOTICE TO FBO

DHARMAPURI COLLECTOR ISSUED LICENSE TO FBO's

Food Safety Act is unrealistic, says traders’ association

The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, has been introduced to replace the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954. “Ironically, the major challenge of the menace of adulteration has not been dealt with in the new Act but rather more emphasis has been laid down on ‘mis-branded’ food,” the Confederation of All India Traders said

A traders association has urged the union health ministry to constitute an expert committee to look in to the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and has also announced nationwide protest against it. Calling the provisions as draconian, unrealistic and impracticable, the association feels that it will impact the businesses of small and medium traders. The Act proposes separate licences for each enterprise and separate audit reports for various products.

BC Bhartia, secretary general, Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) said, “The Act in question prescribes the traders to prepare an audit report, obtain clearance from state pollution control board, get a no-objection certificate from the municipal corporation, medical certificates of workers, graduate technologist and a separate audit report for products made from milk, which is not possible under the Indian food conditions. The Act is framed is in utter disregard of the ground realties and will promote big corporate houses to enter into food business.”

It further added that, “This would trigger further corruption and would allow government machinery to harass the traders-said CAIT,” he added.

The traders association has called upon union health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad to constitute an expert committee of food policy analysts, government officials and representative of trade to review the provisions of the Act.

The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006, has been introduced to replace the Prevention of Adulteration Act 1954. “Ironically, the major challenge of the menace of adulteration has not been dealt with in the new Act but rather more emphasis has been laid down on ‘mis-branded’ food, which does not fall under the ambit of ‘adulteration’. Adulteration is a heinous crime which cannot be misbranded because of distinction in implications of classification. Such a provision will encroach upon the rights of the consumers in the country. The Act will promote adulteration or demote it, is a question?” CAIT said in a release.

CAIT is conducting a national conference of trade leaders on 10th and 11th May at New Delhi to discuss a national agitation. Earlier, traders from Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh had already held a trade bandh for four and three days, respectively. On 25th April, Madhya Pradesh-based MP Sumitra Mahajan has also raised the issue in the Lok Sabha.

'Stop milking consumers or face action'

State govt apprises cooperative milk federations and agencies about the stringent measures of centre's new food safety Act; warns them against adulteration

It’s an aspect, which has been raised on umpteen occasions by cognisant citizens that as fundamental an issue as food safety has not received the kind of observance it deserves from the government. Many hope that with the regime of the centre’s Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 about to take full effect, their meals will be more palatable in the days to come.

The government has made it clear to milk procurement agencies, which sell the product under a brand name, that they will have a lot to answer for supply of adulterated milk rather than shifting responsibility to suppliers, officers of Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and police. Addressing representatives of cooperative milk federations and private agencies engaged in the dairy business, minister of state for FDA Satej alias Bunty D Patil apprised them of the consequences in a meeting at YB Chavan Centre on Thursday. Provisions from the new Act are stringent and punishment for adulterated milk supply is from six months to a life term, warned the MoS to the gathering. Also present were his seniors Manohar Naik and dairy development minister Madhukar Chavan.
In black and white
As an effective measure to control the supply of adulterated milk, a suggestion was made to destroy tankers carrying the spurious product at entry points of Mumbai. The idea was accepted by the ministers present. Patil directed FDA commissioner Mahesh Zagde to devise a workable plan for this. The meeting was organised as part of a sensitisation drive for the new Act. A meeting of milk suppliers and agents from Mumbai will soon be called to create awareness, along with the plan to observe June as the ‘awareness month’. The dairy development minister announced a census of the milch and non-milch cows and buffaloes to discern the exact statistics pertaining to milk collection and the extent of adulteration in the state.

 

DINAMALAR NEWS

MURKY METRO WATER

Exclude primary foods from Act, validity & renewal licenses to be clarified

With the FSS Act, 2006, and its tardy implementation across the country coming under fire from various sections of the industry, Nagendra Bhargava, chairman, The Midland Fruit & Vegetable Products (I) Pvt Ltd, and former chairman, the Processed Food Export Promotion Council [replaced by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)], has come out with some suggestions to make the enforcement better.

For example, The Act defines food as any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food (an article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture or aquaculture in its natural form, resulting from the growing, raising, cultivation, picking, harvesting, collection in the hands of a person other than a farmer) including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment.

According to Bhargava, the FSSAI should exclude primary foods from this bracket.

This is because all primary foods are sold in the mandis and the sales are made on cash basis and are unrecorded and unbilled.

Is it practical for any commission agent; wholesaler or sub-wholesaler to ensure that the retailer; hawker or rediwala who is buying from him has a valid licence or registration number?

Water, another important clause in the definition, would need an in-depth analysis. Probably a separate standard would be needed for water alone given the complex water supply structure the country currently has.

Bhargava explains: Take the example of Delhi Jal Board under the Delhi Government which sells water to all those engaged in food business operations. An advisory to the Delhi Jal Board would be needed to obtain a licence needed for supplying water for food businesses. The same holds true for all metropolitan towns, cities and union territories where municipal corporations supply water.

Time limit for conversion of existing licence
There is no time limit for conversion of existing licence after submission of application for conversion. A time frame for issuance of converted licences needs to be specified.

Though the Act says that a licence shall, subject to the provisions of these Regulations, be issued by the concerned licensing authority within a period of 60 days from the date of issue of an application ID number, but whether it is applicable for conversion of licences also and whether the deadline is being adhered to by the Authority?

Validity and renewal of Licence/Registration (Reg 2.1.7)
It stipulates that “Registration or Licence granted under this regulation can be valid for a period of 1 to 5 years as chosen by the FBO, from the date of issue of licence.”

Bhargava suggests: Validity of licence or registration should be from FY April 1 to March 31 or calendar year January 1 to December 31.

The FSSR mentions, “No license fee will have to be paid for the remaining period of the validity of the earlier licence or registration granted under any of the said Acts or Orders.”

An erstwhile FPO licence which is valid up to 31.12.2012 when applied for conversion together with 1 year licence fee on 13.03.2012 has been issued valid till 13.03.2013. Whereas, it should have been valid till 31.12.2013 as no licence fee was payable till 31.12.2012 (Regulation 2.1.2(1).

Reg 2.1.2(1) of Chapter-2 of Licensing and Registration of Food Business
This rule says that no person shall commence any food business unless he possesses a valid licence.

It stipulates, “Non-compliance with this provision by a FBO will attract penalty under Sec-55 of the Act.”

Bhargava points out a probable technical error in this clause and has asked the FSSAI to re-examine this clause. According to him, it should be Section-63 and not Section-55. Section 55 talks about “Penalty for failure to comply with the directions of Food Safety Officer” while Section 63 talks about “Punishment for carrying out a business without licence.”

Condition of Licence (Annex 3 of Reg)
It stipulates, “All FBOs shall ensure that all 14 stipulated conditions are complied with at all times during the course of food business.”

Bhargava suggests: Conditions No 4 to 12 of this Annexure cannot be complied with by re-labellers, importers, storage/warehouse/cold storage, retail trade, wholesale trade, distributors/suppliers and transporters.

Hence, they should be exempted.

Condition of Licence (Condition – 14 of Annex 3 of Reg)
Every Food Business Operator is to take either a licence (Central or state) or registration from the local Authority as the case may be, depending on the type of business and turnover.

The manufacturer; importer or distributor shall buy and sell food products only from OR to licensed/ registered vendors and maintain record thereof.

Bhargava says: There are more than five crore Food Business Operators in the country. Issuance of licence to them by the Central Licensing Authority or State Licensing Authority may not be completed by August 5, 2012.

He cites the example of Delhi’s licensing authority. On being contacted, it informed that it was yet to develop infrastructure, only then licence / registration applications would be entertained.

“It is, therefore, essential that to comply with the Condition No 14 for licence the date be deferred by at least another one year,” says Bhargava.

Transfer of registration certificate or licence in case of death (Reg 2.1.11)
There is no clear procedure defined for transfer of licences. For example, in the event of the holder of Registration Certificate or licence not having any legal representative or any family member and if he wants to retire by selling of the business to some other entity, what is the procedure to be adopted for transfer?

Display of Licence on the Label [Packaging & Labeling Reg 2.2.1.(7)]
As per Draft Notification dated December 29, 2011, mentioning of licence number on the label is mandatory. Final notification is yet to come.

Bhargava has asked the authority to advise whether display of registration number on the label is mandatory?

Traders call for expert committee on Food Act

The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has urged health minister Ghulam Nabi Azad to constitute an expert committee to look in to the provisions of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. The committee should comprise of food policy analysts, experts, senior government officials and representatives of trade, it said. 

It has also termed the Act as “draconian, unrealistic, impracticable” and said that it will ensure that street hawkers, small and medium traders are not able to perform business. It  said, the Act will kill the existing business structure. The Confederation has demanded the government to keep the Act in abeyance till the report of the proposed expert committee is received.
CAIT is holding a national conference of trade leaders on May 10 and 11 in New Delhi to draw a programme for national agitation.
BC Bhartia, national president, CAIT, said that the Act prescribes the traders to prepare an audit report, obtain clearance from state pollution control board, get no-objection certificate from municipal corporation, medical certificates of workers, graduate technologist and a separate audit report made from milk, which is not possible under the Indian food conditions. The Act is framed in utter disregard of the ground realities and will promote big corporate houses as well to enter into food business, he added.
The traders are opposing the Act as they believe it will empower authorities to impose penalties at their discretion. “This would trigger further corruption,” CII said in a statement.

Move towards Food Safety and Standards Regulations Implementation – A Good Beginning: CII Food & Bev 2012

New Delhi: In view of the recently mandated Food Regulations, CII organized an exclusive session on these regulations by CII- Jubilant Bhartia Food and Agriculture Centre of Excellence (FACE) during the CII’s Food & Bev 2012 today in Mumbai.
Dr Indrani Ghose, Principal Counsellor - Food Safety and Quality, CII- Jubilant Bhartia Food and Agriculture Centre of Excellence explained the shift from policing to self regulation, end-product testing to system standards, multiplicity of orders to a single act & focus on Risk assessment rather than control of adulteration in the new Food Safety Act in India.
The Conference was represented by industry captains from Food Processing, Manufacturing, Retail, Laboratories and Food Sanitation & Equipment manufacturers. It also saw participation from Consumers.
While the participants felt that Food Safety and Standards Regulations (FSSR) implementation was indeed a challenge, they welcomed the move by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) indicating that sooner or later the food industry needed to gear up on implementation of Food Safety and Quality systems by extensively training their in-house resources and addressing their infrastructure requirements in a planned manner. They expressed that, as consumer, intent towards FSSR implementation was a good beginning.
While India's vast population and its potential as a popular tourist destination made the FSSR imperative, some of the states were yet to overcome the constraints like administrative resource crunch and infrastructure hurdles. States such as Maharashtra, as industry representatives opined, is moving forward to address the challenges related to implementation. The participants pointed out that dearth of NABL accredited laboratories & reliability of laboratory reports were some of the other constraints they were facing. Besides these hurdles, Industry looks forward to the materialisation of FSSAI's plan for setting up laboratories in rural areas & approval of drafts on functional foods, labelling, packaging, claims and additives.

Over 15 Thousand Samples Analyzed in a Year to Check Pesticide Resudue in Food Crops

Government is implementing a Central Sector Scheme “Monitoring of Pesticide Residues at National Level” under which samples of various food commodities including rice, wheat, vegetables, fruits and water are analyzed for the presence of pesticide residues. During the period April, 2010 to March, 2011, 15321 samples of food commodities were analyzed, of which 188 samples (1.23%) had pesticide residues above Maximum Residue Limit prescribed under Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954.

The pesticide residue data generated under the scheme are shared with State Governments and concerned Ministries/Organizations to initiate the corrective action for judicious and proper use of pesticides on crops with an Integrated Pest Management approach and to generate awareness amongst farmers.

The implementation of Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 rests with States/Union Territory governments whose functionaries draw random samples of food articles regularly and take penal action in cases where the samples are found not conforming to the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

This information was given by Shri Harish Rawat, Minister of State for Agriculture and Food Processing Industries in written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha today.

Lack of awareness hampers law on ensuring food safety

Bathinda, April 26
Due to the lack of proper infrastructure at the level of the District Food Safety Office or lack of awareness among the small shopkeepers, rehriwalas, vendors and the owners of business establishments about the new Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which was implemented on August 5 last year in the country, the district health authorities have been facing problems in implementing the Act in letter and spirit so far.
Perhaps due to lack of awareness, no small shopkeeper, rehriwala, pheriwala or vendor with an annual turnover below Rs 12 lakh, has applied to the District Food Safety Office for getting himself registered in the Bathinda district while around 12 business establishments with an annual turnover above Rs 12 lakh have applied to the district office for procuring the licences so far.
As per the available information, the 12 establishments that have applied for licences, included distributors of juice, edible oils and other food products, Easyday stores and a hotel. However, out of these around 12 establishments, the licences of five have already been prepared by the district office here.
In the name of infrastructure and manpower, at present, there is only Food Safety Officer, besides a clerk who has been looking after some other work in the Civil Surgeon's office here. Besides, the District Health Officer has been made the designated officer (in-charge) for the implementation of the Act.
For creating awareness among the small shopkeepers, pheriwalas and rehriwalas who are reportedly about one lakh in number and thousands of big business establishments in the district, no separate budget has been provided for the purpose by the state health authorities, which is essential if the government wants proper implementation of the Act. Besides, the District Food Safety Office also requires a computer operator and a clerk for it.
Sources told this reporter that the Act had been enacted and implemented to protect the interests of the consumers.
Some special provisions had also been included in the Act for the protection of consumers so that they could not be deceived or misled by anyone by adopting unfair practices, including advertisements, in the case of food articles.

Food joints to come under FSSAI scanner soon

The district-level structure of Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) will have a full swing functioning soon. Even though the Authority came into effect throughout the country in August last year, the district-level structure was not functioning due to shortage of staff.
The district-level structure consists of Food Safety Officers (FSO) in each taluk, a designated officer at district-level and an adjudicating officer. The adjudicating officer is the Additional Deputy Commissioner of the district and the District Surveillance Officer (DSO) is given the charge of the district-level designated officer of the Authority.

Currently, due to lack of manpower, FSOs from other districts are given charge of the taluks in Dakshina Kannada from January onwards. The FSO of Tarikere taluk in Chikmagalur district is looking after the matters in Mangalore and Belthangady taluks.

FSO of Kollegal taluk in Mysore is in charge of Bantwal, Sullia and Puttur taluks in the district.

Speaking to Deccan Herald, District Surveillance Officer Dr Rajesh B V, who is the district-level designated officer, said that the State Government is likely to call for the posts of FSOs in State soon.

“The act is only partially implemented in the State due to lack of FSOs,” he said and added that the total FSOs in the State are below 50 per cent of which is actually required and by the month of August, we hope the vacancies will be filled.”

FSSAI
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has been established under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which consolidates various acts and orders that have hitherto regulated food related issues in various Ministries and Departments.

FSSAI has been created as a statutory body for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption.

Registration
According to the act, all Food Business Operators (FBO) should be registered under FSSAI and obtain license. FBO includes hotels, permanent or temporary stallholders, hawkers, home based canteens, Dhabawalas, manufacturers, processors, re-packers, food stalls arrangements in religious gatherings, slaughterhouses, storage houses, retail and wholesale traders etc.

Milk producers who are not a member in the Dairy Co-operative societies should also register under the Authority.

License holders who already registered under any previous acts and expiry date have not over by August 5, can continue with the existing license. Once the date expires, they can register under the FSSAI.

District Surveillance Officer Dr Rajesh B V said that the authority already conducted meetings with various associations concerned including hotel owners’ association and Kanara Chamber of Commerce and Industry. FSOs are distributing pamphlets regarding the registration process to different FBOs.

The FSSAI will soon launch awareness programme for Food Business Operators, media and public.

Karaikudi bakers body to move court for injunction; seeks inclusive FSSA

The interim stay on the enforcement of Food Safety and Standards Regulations (FSSR), 2011, granted by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently, has boosted the confidence of other traders' bodies in Tamil Nadu, including the Karaikudi Bakery Owners' Association (KBOA). In fact, the KBOA has decided to move court for an injunction in licensing and registration cases, and seems confident that many more writ petitions will follow suit.

“We would appreciate it if the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, is simplified, and more importantly, made more inclusive. However safe we try to make our products, we are no match for the multinational corporations and large-sized producers who are members of the panel formed to implement the Act. We face the threat of being wiped out of the industry, and that could affect the livelihood of lakhs,” R Kaleeswaran, honorary secretary, KBOA, said.

“Not only is the nomination process to this panel flawed, but vests in the food safety officers powers that they will misuse. We (small- and medium-sized food business operators) would like to run our businesses without having to resort to any unethical practices, but obtaining a licence or registration without paying an arbitrary penalty, which is often very high, is impossible. And to top it all, we have to become compliant in less than four months,” he said.

FSSAI - 7th CAC MEETING ON 27.4.2012

Food Safety Act: Traders to propose amendments

Traders under the aegis of MP Food Manufacturers and Sellers Federation are planning to propose amendments in Food Safety and Standards Act. The proposal would be sent to Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and Members of Parliament. “Whatever is decided for traders should be in accordance with the Indian tradition and culture. Legal provisions imported from other countries should not be imposed on the traders,” said president, MP Food Manufacturers and Sellers Federation Ramesh Khandelwal.

“Even though the act is there, there is no necessary infrastructure to enforce its implementation. For example, under the act, it is mandatory to send food samples to a laboratory of international standard, but the same is yet to be set up in the state,” claimed Khandelwal. The traders have demanded scrapping of the clauses that require having a technician with  B Sc degree for food manufacturing units and financial audit of these establishments. The traders also want the magnitude of penal provision to be lessened. Khandelwal said that while stringent punishment should be there for traders involved in adulteration, the existing provisions would only hassle honest businessmen.

The federation will also prepare a CD of these suggestions and the same would be sent to Food Safety and Standards Authority of India and Members of Parliament within a week. The traders are also seeking legal advice on these demands after studying various provisions of the act.

DINAMALAR NEWS

Mad cow illness found in dairy animal in California

The initial new box of insane cow illness in a US given 2006 has been detected in a dairy cow in California, though health authorities contend a animal acted no hazard to America’s food supply.
The putrescent cow, a fourth ever detected in a US, was found as partial of an agriculture dialect notice programme that tests about 40,000 cows a year for a deadly mind disease.
No beef from a cow was firm for a food supply, pronounced John Clifford, a department’s arch veterinary officer. “There is unequivocally no means for alarm here with courtesy to this animal,” Clifford told reporters.
Mad cow disease, or cow spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), is deadly to cows and can means a deadly mind illness in people who eat sinister beef. The World Health Organisation has pronounced tests uncover humans can't be putrescent by celebration divert from BSE-infected animals.
After an conflict in Britain that appearance in 1993, a US strong precautions to keep BSE out of US cattle and a food supply. In other countries, a widespread of a infection was blamed on farmers adding recycled beef and bone dish from putrescent cows into cattle feed, so a pivotal US step has been to anathema feed containing such material.
Clifford pronounced a California cow was an atypical box of BSE, definition that it had not got a illness from eating putrescent cattle feed.
That meant a box was “just a pointless turn that can occur each once in a good while in an animal”, pronounced Bruce Akey, executive of a New York State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory during Cornell University. “Random mutations go on in inlet all a time.”
Questions sojourn about how a cow died, and either a occurrence will prompt a cultivation dialect to change how it tests for a disease. But Mike Doyle, executive of a University of Georgia’s Centre for Food Safety, pronounced a contrast complement worked since it had held what was a really singular event. “It’s good news since they held it,” Doyle said.
Clifford did not contend when a illness had been detected or accurately where a cow had been reared. He pronounced a cow had been during a digest plant in executive California when a box was detected by unchanging representation testing.
Dennis Luckey, executive vice-president of Baker Commodities, pronounced a illness had been detected during a Hanford, California, send hire when a association comparison a cow for pointless sampling.
Luckey pronounced a cow had died during a dairy and been incidentally tagged for a notice programme.
Michael Marsh, arch executive of Western United Dairymen, pronounced a cow was an adult animal over 30 months old, and had seemed normal when it was final observed. He pronounced a cow was initial tested on 18 April.
Rendering plants routine animal tools for products not going into a tellurian food chain, such as animal food, soap, chemicals and other domicile products.
There have been 3 reliable cases of BSE in cows in a US: in a Canadian-born cow in 2003 in Washington state, in 2005 in Texas, and in 2006 in Alabama. The 2005 and 2006 cases were also atypical varieties of a disease, cultivation dialect officials said.
The dialect was pity a lab formula with general animal health officials in Canada and England who would examination a exam results, Clifford said.

Past scares about insane cow illness have influenced beef exports to Japan and other countries. Japan criminialized all US beef imports in 2003 after a initial box of insane cow illness was detected in a US. Japan resumed shopping American beef in 2006 after a shared trade agreement environment new reserve standards.

HC tells govt to consider curbs on tobacco

ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad high court in an important direction has directed the state government to now consider the appropriateness of restricting the consumption, sale and distribution of tobacco and nicotine in food products on the same lines as the MP government has already put restrictions on the consumption, sale and distribution of the tobacco and nicotine in food products.
Passing this order on a PIL filed by Indian Dental Association and UP state & others, a division bench consisting of Justice Amar Saran and Justice Anurag Kumar has asked the chief secretary of the state either to put restriction on the same lines as in MP or show cause through the appropriate secretary in this court by the next date on May 23, 2012as to why such a direction imposing the restrictions on the consumption, sale and distribution of tobacco and nicotine in food products may not be issued by this court for enforcement of regulation to 2.3.4 prohibiting the use of tobacco and nicotine as an ingredient in any food product.
The bench has also made it open to the manufactures of the paan masala and gutkha products to move intervention application for clarifying their position by the next date. The petitioner through the PIL seeking ban on the production , sale and consumption of tobacco and nicotine in food products, it has been alleged that the use of the same are causing oral cancer.
It was submitted in the court that " food safety and standards ( prohibition and restrictions on sale) regulations 2011 " under the food safety and standards act 2006 has been enacted empowering union government to frame regulation to put ban on the use of tobacco and nicotine.The court in its order referred that " according to a study conducted by the indian counsel of medical research and the WHO ( world health organization), south east asian regional office, new delhi, 2001 , 80 percent