GoI approves fat standards of cow milk in Punjab

NEW DELHI : On the personal intervention of the Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, the Government of India (GoI) has finally approved the long pending proposal of state government to allow parity in the fat standards of cow milk in Punjab with other states across the country thus bringing it down from 4% to 3.5% as permitted in rest of India by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).

Taking part in the deliberations,Nadda informed the Chief Minister that the issue related to bringing the prescribed fat standards of cow milk in Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh at par with other states of the country has been cleared by the task force group on milk and milk products constituted by the FSSAI.

The Union Minister further said the final notification in this regard would be issued by the Ministry of Health, GoI within two months after getting green signal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) as it was mandatory under the prescribed rules & regulations for the Ministry to seek its nod prior issuing a notification.

The Chief Minister said that this path breaking decision would go a long way in giving a major boost to the Dairy sector and offer a level playing field to the dairy farmers in the state.

KUNGUMAM MAGAZINE

No FSSAI role in product nod raises eyebrows

Maggi noodles were recalled, following an order by FSSAI in JuneThe Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has stated it would not continue with the process of product approvals, citing a Supreme Court order, thereby allowing food and health care products to be launched freely in the market.

The FSSAI notification said, “It is no longer possible for the FSSAI to continue with the process of product approvals, which was facilitated through the advisory dated May 11, 2013, in view of the order dated August 19, 2015, of the Supreme Court, whereby the judgment and the order dated August 1 of the Bombay High Court has gained finality and the said advisory has ceased to remain operative.”

Food companies have been upset with the regulator for delayed approvals and vetting. The industry’s concerns peaked after the FSSAI in June ordered the recall of Nestlé India’s Maggi noodles. The Bombay High Court earlier this month asked Nestlé to have its instant noodles tested in three accredited laboratories.

A LITTLE RELIEF?

Experts believe market launches can now happen seamlessly and quickly if FSSAI is removed from the process

Food companies have been upset with the regulator for delayed approvals and the vetting process that they had to go through

Asked to interpret the notification issued last evening, an FSSAI official said, “Companies understand the law very well, in fact better than us.” He added the food companies’ battery of lawyers could interpret the law for them. Most food and health care companies feel with the FSSAI being removed from the process of product approval, market launches will now be quick.

R K Sanghavi, chairman, neutraceutical sub-committee, Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association of India, said, “With the product approval advisory of May 2013 scrapped, companies go back to what existed before it was issued, which means they can launch products without any delay.” Sources said health supplements like Ranbaxy’s Revital and food and dietary supplements from Herbalife and Amway were waiting to make their way back into the market after the Supreme Court verdict. The FSSAI had rejected these products citing health and safety risks. 

V A Savangikar, a Mumbai-based food expert who advises companies, said the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, was complete enough to permit food and health care launches.

“The 2011 regulations that operationalise the 2006 Act are detailed and if there is any ingredient outside its purview, companies should write to the FSSAI providing a detailed explanation of why it is included. If there is an issue, the FSSAI will revert. If not, the company is free to launch the product,” he added.

Asked if the regulator could order recall of contaminated or adulterated items in the new arrangement, the FSSAI official said, “Recall is the obligation of the companies concerned.” The FSSAI had ordered a nationwide recall of Maggi noodles as samples were allegedly found to contain monosodium glutamate and excessive lead.

Asked what the FSSAI’s new role would be, the official said, “We will act according to the law, whatever the notifications permit us to do.” On moving the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court verdict on Nestlé, the official said, “There is no decision yet.”

FSSAI scraps existing approvals process, move leaves industry confused

The food safety regulator has done away with process of product approvals in line with a recent Supreme Court order and now plans to reintroduce the procedure through regulations.

NEW DELHI: The food safety regulator has done away with process of product approvals in line with a recent Supreme Court order and now plans to reintroduce the procedure through regulations. 

The move, however, has left the industry confused about pending applications and new product launches. 

The Food safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in a circular said, "It is no longer possible for FSSAI to continue with the process of product approvals, which was facilitated through the advisory dated 11 May 2013, in view of the order dated 19 August 2015 of the Supreme Court, whereby the judgement and the order dated 1 August of the Bombay High Court has gained finality and the said advisory has ceased to remain operative." 

The court ruled that the process introduced through an advisory had no legal standing and asked FSSAI to get the government to change the regulations to enact the procedure. 

In its circular FSSAI said, "Every endeavour will be made to expedite the regulations governing Section 22 products." 

Products specified under Section 22 include food supplements, food for special dietary uses and functional foods. 

While the move to quash the advisory was welcomed, industry association All India Food Processors Association (AIFPA) has raised concerns over lack of clarity on what will happen to pending applications and new product launches as it will take some time for the regulation to be put in place. 

"The regulator is now trying to convert the advisory on food approval into regulations but this will take some time," said Amit Dhanuka, president of AIFPA. 

"There is no clarity on what will happen till then. FSSAI did not clarify on new product launches or applications which are already in the pipeline. It may be the case that product launches may not be allowed at all until a fresh regulation comes in," he said. 

Under the earlier regime, product approval was required only if there was a new ingredient or additive being introduced. 

ET VIEW: Needed, Clarification by FSSAI The food regulator has been constrained by the Supreme Court to upgrade its advisory on food product approvals to a regulation. What are food companies supposed to do in the interim? Hold all new product launches? Launch products anyway? The regulator should clarify what food companies should do, on the applications already in the pipeline and will accumulate till new regulations are framed. Launching on trust would be a good idea, with the FSSAI cracking down on any product that it finds harmful, ex post, with heavy penalties that consumers can augment with class action suits.

Fest Food Stalls Face Safety Raids

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The special squads under the commissionerate of food safety on Thursday carried out extensive inspections at the temporary food courts opened at Kanakakunnu Palace premises, as part of the week-long Onam celebrations. Street hawkers from Tamil Nadu and other states are the primary concern of the food safety authorities as none of them has a licence, identity or registration. Scores of visitors who arrive at Kanakakunnu to enjoy the illuminated palace and festival areas are depending on the temporary food courts at the Palace premises. 

A food safety official, who took part in the raid, said that a couple of notices were issued to the vendors running food stalls to get the licence and registration from the food safety department. "We inspected around 15 shops and the conditions are satisfactory. 

But the street hawkers are an issue. They sell food items in mobile carts and do not have any licence or registration," said the official. He said that inspections would be held every day.

Product approvals to take longer: food companies

Food manufacturers and importers are unsure how to interpret the FSSAI’s statement that it had decided to scrap product approvals

Over the last two years, the FSSAI and companies have been increasingly at loggerheads as the regulator withheld product approvals. 

Food manufacturers and importers are unsure how to interpret the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI’s) statement that it had decided to scrap product approvals, after the Supreme Court on 19 August questioned the procedures followed by the FSSAI for granting such approvals.

Companies are of the opinion that it may now take longer to launch new products as the food regulator may fall back on the old procedure for product approvals for non-standardized products which come under section 22 of the FSSAI Act 2006.

“Product approvals will now be further delayed,” said Siraj Chaudhry, chairman, Cargill India Pvt. Ltd which markets the Leonardo range of olive oils, Gemini, NatureFresh, Sweekar, Rath and Sunflower Vanaspati oils in India,

The advisory of May 2013, which is now being revoked, was made to accelerate the old product approval process, he said.

The FSSAI has also shut down the facility on its website for product approval, creating more confusion as to how new products are to now be launched.

“We are unsure whether only standardized products will now get approval,” said Nagarjan S, managing director, Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.

There are only about 320 standards which govern standardized food items and the advisory of May 2013 was made to get approvals for non-standardized food items, he said.

According to FSSAI, the standards cover close to 95% of the food items available in the country. The remaining 5% come under proprietary food which are non-conventional food products or products for which the standards have not been defined.

This section also looks at food items being introduced for the first time in India. Even food items like Nestle India Ltd’s Maggi which noodles, which was recently banned by FSSAI for allegedly containing monosodium glutamate and excess lead until the Bombay high court reversed the order, came under the proprietary foods section.

Over the last two years, the FSSAI and companies have been increasingly at loggerheads as the regulator withheld product approvals.

For instance, Tata Starbucks Ltd, a joint venture between Tata Global Beverages Ltd and Starbucks Coffee Co., in April 2014 filed a case in the Bombay high court for not getting product approvals from the regulator. The case got disposed of in February 2015. However, over 30 of the company’s products are yet to get approvals; these include sauces, toppings and puddings.

The Supreme Court order upholding a Bombay high court decision to quash an advisory issued by FSSAI on the procedure for product approvals could also mean that companies no longer need product approvals and can launch their products faster. How it is implemented is still to be seen.

No role of FSSAI in product approval and recall raises troubling questions

If food products can in reality be launched in the market without any checks and balances, would the regulator be able to recall any item if found to be contaminated or adulterated or with misleading labeling?
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has formally stated that it will not be possible to continue with the process of product approvals, citing a Supreme Court order of August 19. But, does that mean food products can now be freely launched in the market without going through any regulatory process, or does it imply that there would be no launches till further orders?
These questions assume significance in the backdrop of the Maggi noodles recall order by FSSAI in June and the subsequent observations by courts. Bombay High Court had earlier this month asked Nestle India to get its instant noodles tested in three accredited labs, giving the company a fresh lease of life.
When asked to interpret the FSSAI notification issued last evening, a senior official at the central food regulatory office told Business Standard on Thursday morning that ‘’companies understand the law very well, in fact better than us.’’ Refusing to explain the essence of the FSSAI notification, the official added that the battery of lawyers that food companies have can interpret the law for them. “Í don’t want to interpret the law.’’
Meanwhile, most food companies and experts believe that with FSSAI getting removed from the process of product approval, market launches can now happen seamlessly and quickly.
If food products can in reality be launched in the market without any checks and balances, would the regulator be able to recall any item if found to be contaminated or adulterated or with misleading labeling? To that, the FSSAI official said, ‘’recall is the obligation of the companies concerned’’. In June, FSSAI ordered pan-India recall of Maggi noodles as samples were allegedly found to contain monosodium glutamate (MSG) and excessive levels of lead.
So, if FSSAI would not have anything to do with product approvals or recall, what would the regulator’s role be like from now on? “We will act according to the law, whatever the notifications permit us to do,’’ the official said. As for moving Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court verdict on Nestle India, the FSSAI official said, ‘’there’s no decision yet.’’
The Wednesday night notification by FSSAI said ‘’it is no longer possible for FSSAI to continue with the process of product approvals, which was facilitated through the advisory dated 11 May 2013, in view of the order dated 19 August 2015 of the Supreme Court, whereby the judgement and the order dated 1 August of the Bombay High Court has gained finality and the said advisory has ceased to remain operative.’’
Food companies have been upset with the regulator for delayed approvals and the vetting process that they had to go through before launching anything new in the market. The industry concerns had peaked after the Maggi noodles recall.

India food watchdog leaves foreign groups wary

Indians consume $63b worth of packaged food — including sweets, snacks and packaged drinks — each year, compared with $220b in China
New Delhi: Nestle’s Maggi noodles were not the only food to disappear from India’s shop shelves in June, after regulators banned the snack amid concerns over lead levels. Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Unilever and Japan’s Nissin Foods recalled their Knorr Chinese noodles and Top Ramen, while other companies quietly stopped selling other products, such as jams.

These foods were not withdrawn because of safety concerns, but rather fear of falling foul of the four-year-old industry regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

In its ban on Maggi, the FSSAI had censured Nestle for selling a new flavour, Maggi Oats Masala Noodles, without official consent. Scarcely noticed by a public gripped by the debate over toxic lead, the reprimand alarmed other food companies, which had also been selling products to Indian consumers while awaiting formal permission.
“It was a commonly accepted practice for food companies to apply for a licence and simultaneously launch in the marketplace, assuming they would get it,” says Nitin Mathur, an industry analyst for SG Corporate and Investment Banking. “But Nestle was an eye-opener for everyone. What they thought was an accepted practice wasn’t acceptable any more.”
The voluntary withdrawal of products reflects mounting tension between global and domestic food companies — eyeing India’s vast market potential — and the food safety regulator, seeking to assert its authority.
Indians consume $63bn worth of packaged food — including sweets, snacks and packaged drinks — each year, compared with $220bn in China. But sales of packaged foods are poised to rise rapidly in India — to $88bn by 2019, according to KPMG. This is being driven by a young, increasingly affluent and time-pressed population moving away from traditional cooking methods and eating habits.
Western companies are gearing up. Both Coca-Cola and rival PepsiCo are in the midst of $5bn Indian expansions. Mondelez International, maker of Cadbury chocolate and Oreo biscuits, is building a $190m, 54-hectare plant in India — its largest in Asia. Chocolate-maker Mars International is spending $160 million (Dh587.2 million) on its first plant in the country, while Kellogg, the US cereal maker, has invested $100 million in the past 18 months.
Large domestic food companies, such as ITC, Britannia Industries, and Dabur, are also expanding capacity and diversifying into new categories. Imports of premium processed food — including Italian pasta and European olive oil, meats and cheese — are growing fast too.
“All the big food manufacturing companies are looking at India as a high potential market because the penetration of categories is very, very low,” says Rajat Wahi, a partner at KPMG, the professional services firm. “All the fast-moving consumer goods companies are looking at significant growth in the next 10 years.”
But en route to Indian dining tables, food companies are wrestling with a murky, unstable regulatory environment, overseen by a young watchdog with a mission to ensure basic food safety and promote “healthy, wholesome food”.
In recent months, the FSSAI has rejected a number of Starbucks’ syrups and sauces, one of its decaf coffees and a spiced tea. It has also banned Kellogg’s Special K Red Berries, a General Mills’ Choco Lava Cake and mayonnaise and salad dressings made by Field Fresh, Del Monte Foods’ Indian joint venture. Imported foods, including perishables such as cheese, have often faced long delays in ports because of the regulator’s objections over the food or its labelling.
The FSSAI defends its approach, however. “If industry is coming out with a product, it has to be safe food, and it has to be wholesome,” says Yudhvir Singh Malik, chief executive. “My plea to industry is: whatever you are putting out, please think that your child is also eating it.”
For decades, India had multiple government departments charged with preventing adulteration — which is rampant — of basic products such as milk and cooking oils. In 2006, India adopted a new food safety law with a broader agenda, including promoting healthy food.
But India has fixed standards for only roughly 370 food items, compared with the 5,000 to 10,000 items common in developed markets. All other food items — except traditional Indian food — have been subjected to a controversial approval process in which regulators decide case by case whether to allow a food product or supplement to be sold in India.
As part of the process, companies have been required to submit their exact recipes and formulations for official scrutiny. But industry has complained that the FSSAI decision-making process is both time-consuming and arbitrary, with products rejected on numerous whimsical grounds — including that they should be a different colour.
“There were no standards,” says Dheeraj Nair, a lawyer who represented food supplement manufacturers in a court challenge to the FSSAI process. “It was left to the whims and fancies of whomever was sitting in the product approval committee. It was absurd.”
Companies have also objected to the requirement that they reveal their exact recipes, which is not standard practice in most markets, except when foods are using novel ingredients not previously confirmed to be safe for human consumption.
“The extent of unilateral condemnation of a sector regulator by the people whom it is meant to regulate has been unprecedented,” Mr Malik wrote in a May note to industry. “Accepting the presence of a regulator in a hitherto unregulated sector is difficult.”
Yet the regulatory system is now itself in flux. This month, the Supreme Court, acting on a complaint by food supplement makers, scrapped the product approval process, ruling that the FSSAI lacked the authority to establish such a framework unilaterally. Instead, the court said the government had to issue regulations for proprietary foods.
In a statement on Wednesday, the FSSAI confirmed it was scrapping the product approval system, and promised to “expedite” new regulations and standards for many more foods and additives. But the process — which involves public comments — could yet take many months

But that still leaves many food companies in limbo, uncertain whether they can legally introduce new products in the interim — or if foods whose applications were previously rejected can now be sold.“These are teething problems,” says Debashish Mukherjee, a partner at AT Kearney. “India is at a different stage of evolution to developed markets. Companies obviously don’t like it, but this debate will lead to a more stable environment for the future.”

Industry bodies urge FSSAI to clarify on Product Approval after SC order

New Delhi 

A delegation of industry bodies met with Ashish Bahuguna, chairman, Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), recently to seek clarity in wake of the Supreme Court order upholding the Bombay High Court order holding advisories on Product Approval as null and void.

Disclosing details on the meeting, sources in the industry stated that they did not get any concrete assurance from the apex food regulator on the issue of Product Approval as the chairman told them that Product Approvals approved or rejected so far would remain so, while new ones could be considered for NOC (no objection certificate). 

However, the industry is not convinced and expressing concern over the provisions under which the apex food regulator would deny or give NOC. It implies that despite the ruling, FSSAI would follow its principle, according to one industry representative privy to the development. 

Several product approval applications are still pending with the apex food regulator and as per norms, FBOs have to submit Rs 25,000 as fees on each application. 

In this regard, comprehensive presentation on behalf of all the associations was made on various key points like transition from PFA to FSSAI and governing principles of the new Act, current issues and challenges (industry engagement, role of vertical standards, laboratories etc.), operational concerns with regards to role of fourth sample wherein officials of the state food authority give 24 hours to appeal against sampling of the food. 

Sources, meanwhile, said FSSAI chairman appeared empathic towards the industry when industry bodies were making the presentation.

During this time, the chairman told the delegation that products which were already approved should ‘Stand approved, rejected products remained rejected’ and for products in the pipeline, FSSAI is still looking for way forward.

With regard to interpretation of the Act, the chairman said that the Act and the Regulations had shortcomings which led to issues with interpretation. He sought the industry’s help to have a fresh look and suggestion on amendments. 

Further, clarifying on distinction between food safety and health, the chairman stated, safety is non-negotiable, however, forming standards around health is debatable. He said that the system should promote healthier options instead of a ban. 

As for reason for rejection and appeal, the chairman stated that reasons for rejection could be disclosed via checklist but the option of appeal was not available under the law.

The chairman clarified on other issues as well. On adoption of BIS & Codex standards, he mentioned that Codex standards could not be indiscriminately adopted but needed to take a selective approach based on Indian population and conditions. 

On multiple licensing,he said that if duplication of licensing was occurring in states, for instance, municipal bodies licence, then FSSAI would consider the matter.On Combinatorial effect, the chairman was of the opinion that ordinary foods might not pose any risk but complex foods or specific foods could be an issue.As regards imports, the chairman suggested that past year’s data could be a basis to identify risk categories (high or low) taking into consideration country of origin of importers, nature of product and so on.

He was also open to the idea of at least having an online window facilitating the industry as a help desk.

DINAMANI NEWS

ஓமலூர் காமலாபுரத்தில் கரும்பாலைகளுக்கு சப்ளை செய்ய 280 மூட்டை சர்க்கரை பதுக்கல் உரக்கடை குடோனுக்கு `சீல்’

ஓம லூர், ஆக.27:ஓமலூர் காம லா பு ரத் தில் கரும் பா லை களுக்கு விற் பனை செய் வ தற் காக 280 மூட்டை சர்க் க ரையை பதுக்கி வைத் தி ருந்த உரக் கடை குடோ னுக்கு மாவட்ட உணவு பாது காப் புத் துறை அதி கா ரி கள் சீல் வைத் த னர்.

சேலம் மாவட்டம் ஓம லூர் அருகே காம லா பு ரம் பகு தி யில் அதி க ள வில் கரும் பா லை கள் உள் ளன. ஓம லூர் மற் றும் சுற் றுப் புற பகு தி களில் அறு வடை செய் யப் ப டும் கரும் பு களை மொத் த மாக விலைக்கு வாங்கி, சாறு பிழிந்து பாகாக காய்ச்சி எடுத்து உருண்டை மற் றும் அச் சு வெல் ல மாக தயா ரித்து விற் பனை செய்து வரு கின் ற னர். இவற் றில் ஒரு சில ஆலை கள் கரும்பு சாறுக்கு பதி லாக சர்க் க ரை யு டன் ரசா ய னம் சேர்த்து, வெல் லம் தயா ரிப் ப தாக மாவட்ட உணவு பாது காப்பு துறை அதி கா ரி களுக்கு பல் வேறு புகார் கள் வந் தன.

இதன் பே ரில், கரும் பா லை களை சோதனை செய் த தில் சர்க் க ரையை பயன் ப டுத்தி வெல் லம் தயா ரிப் பதை கண் ட றிந்து அந்த ஆலை களுக்கு சீல் வைத் த னர். தொடர்ந்து அப ரா த மும் விதித்து, பதுக்கி வைத் தி ருந்த சர்க் கரை மூட்டை க ளை யும் பறி மு தல் செய் த னர்.

இந் நி லை யில், கரும் பா லை களுக்கு தனி யார் ஒரு வர் சர்க் கரை மூட்டை களை பதுக் கி வைத்து விற் பனை செய் வ தாக புகார் கள் வந் தன. இதை ய டுத்து சேலம் மாவட்ட உணவு பாது காப் புத் துறை நிய மன அலு வ லர் டாக் டர் அனு ராதா தலை மை யி லான அதி கா ரி கள், காம லா பு ரம் பகு தி யில் அதி ரடி சோதனை நடத் தி னர். இதில், அப் ப கு தி யைச் சேர்ந்த தன ராஜ் என் ப வ ரது உரக் க டை யில் சர்க் கரை மூட்டை கள் பதுக்கி வைத் தி ருப் பது தெரி ய வந் தது. இவர், அதே பகு தி யில் விவ சாய இடு பொ ருட் கள் விற் பனை நிலை யம் நடத்தி வரு கி றார்.

அந்த விற் பனை நிலை யத் தின் அருகே குடோ னில் சர்க் க ரையை பதுக்கி வைத்து, கரும் பா லை களுக்கு மூட்டை மூடை யாக விற் பனை செய் வ தும் விசா ர ணை யில் தெரி ய வந் தது. இதை ய டுத்து, 280 சர்க் கரை மூட்டை கள் அடுக்கி வைக் கப் பட்டி ருந்த குடோ னுக்கு அதி கா ரி கள் சீல் வைத் த னர். மேலும், சர்க் க ரையை இருப்பு வைக்க எந் த வி த மான அனு மதி பெறா த தும், உரக் க டைக்கு டின்-பின் எண் கள் புதுப் பிக் கா மல் விற் ப னை யில் ஈடு பட்ட தும் தெரி ய வந் தது. இது கு றித்து தொடர்ந்து அதி கா ரி கள் விசா ரணை நடத்தி வரு கின் ற னர்.

ஆற்காட்டில் அதிகாரிகள் அதிரடி தடை செய்யப்பட்ட புகையிலை பொருட்கள் பறிமுதல்

ஆற் காடு, ஆக.27:

ஆற் காட்டில் தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யி லைப் பொ ருட் கள் மற் றும் கால வ தி யான உண வுப் பொ ருட் களை உணவு பாது காப்பு அதி கா ரி கள் நேற்று அதி ர டி யாக பறி மு தல் செய் த னர்.

பான் ப ராக், குட்கா, ஹான்ஸ் போன்ற புகை யிலை பொருட் களை தமி ழக அரசு கடந்த சில மாதங் களுக்கு முன்பு தடை விதித் தது. இந் நி லை யில் ஆற் காட்டில் தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யி லைப் பொ ருட் கள் பதுக்கி வைத்து விற் பனை செய் வ தாக உணவு பாது காப்பு நிய மன அலு வ லர் டாக் டர் செந் தில் கு மா ருக்கு நேற்று தக வல் கிடைத் தது. அவ ரது உத் த ர வின் பேரில் உணவு பாது காப்பு அலு வ லர் கள் எம்.மணி மா றன், ஆர்.செந் தில் ஆகி யோர் ஆற் காடு பஸ் நிலை யம், அண் ணா சாலை, பஜார் வீதி, வேலூர் மெயின் ரோடு உட் பட பல் வேறு இடங் களில் உள்ள கடை களில் அதி ர டி யாக சோதனை செய் த னர்.

ராணிப்பேட்டையில் பரபரப்பு

ஆற் காடு பஸ் நிலை யத் தில் உள்ள ஒரு பெட்டிக் க டை யில் தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யிலை பொருட் களை உணவு பாது காப்பு அலு வ லர் கள் எம்.மணி மா றன், ஆர்.செந் தில் ஆகி யோர் நேற்று அதி ர டி யாக பறி மு தல் செய் த னர்.

பான் ப ராக், குட்கா, ஹான்ஸ் போன்ற புகை யிலை பொருட் களை தமி ழக அரசு கடந்த சில மாதங் களுக்கு முன்பு தடை விதித் தது. இந் நி லை யில் ஆற் காட்டில் தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யி லைப் பொ ருட் கள் பதுக்கி வைத்து விற் பனை செய் வ தாக உணவு பாது காப்பு நிய மன அலு வ லர் டாக் டர் செந் தில் கு மா ருக்கு நேற்று தக வல் கிடைத் தது. அவ ரது உத் த ர வின் பேரில் உணவு பாது காப்பு அலு வ லர் கள் எம்.மணி மா றன், ஆர்.செந் தில் ஆகி யோர் ஆற் காடு பஸ் நிலை யம், அண் ணா சாலை, பஜார் வீதி, வேலூர் மெயின் ரோடு உட் பட பல் வேறு இடங் களில் உள்ள கடை களில் அதி ர டி யாக சோதனை செய் த னர்.

அப் போது அங்கு விற் ப னைக் காக பதுக்கி வைத் தி ருந்த பான் ப ராக், குட்கா, ஹான்ஸ் போன்ற புகை யிலை பொருட் க ளை யும், கால வ தி யான உண வுப் பொ ரு ்ட் க ளை யும் பறி மு தல் செய் த னர்.

FSSAI scraps product approvals after SC questions procedure

The apex court had on 19 August upheld a Bombay high court decision quashing an advisory issued by FSSAI on the procedure for product approval

The FSSAI decision on product approvals can bring relief to packaged goods companies.

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has decided to scrap product approvals, a decision that is likely to make packaged food companies happy.

FSSAI’s decision to discontinue product approvals came following a Supreme Court order on 19 August questioning the procedure followed for such approvals by the food regulator.

“It is no longer possible for FSSAI to continue with the process of product approvals, which was facilitated through the advisory dated 11 May 2013, in view of the order dated 19 August 2015 of the Supreme Court, whereby the judgement and the order dated 1 August of the Bombay high court has gained finality and the said advisory has ceased to remain operative,” FSSAI said in a public notification issued on Wednesday. “Every endeavour will be made to expedite the regulations governing Section 22 products,” it added.

The apex court had on 19 August upheld a Bombay high court decision quashing an advisory issued by FSSAI on the procedure for product approvals. A bench comprising justices J.S. Khehar and N.V. Ramana said there was no ground for interfering with the high court’s verdict and dismissed FSSAI’s appeal.

The Bombay high court had ruled that FSSAI’s advisory on product approvals “did not have force of law” and was beyond its powers as provided by the Food Safety Standards Act, 2006. The high court was hearing a plea by Mumbai-based Vital Neutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd and lobby group Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association, which challenged FSSAI’s product approval advisory, claiming that it was beyond the regulator’s powers.

FSSAI introduced the product approval advisory on 11 May 2013 “to streamline the product approval procedure with due consideration to the safety of food and public health, in supersession of earlier advisories, food products for which the standards are not specified under Food Safety Standards Act, 2006, rules and regulations made thereunder will be granted product approval”.

“Product approval has been scrapped. Now, if FSSAI wants to restart anything like this, it will have to bring a fresh regulation and get that passed by Parliament,” said Dheeraj Nair, partner at law firm J. Sagar Associates.

Nair said product approvals were not prevalent in India before 2013. “Globally, companies do not require approval from regulators to launch a product. FSSAI started this as it wanted to control end-products,” he added.

Experts remain unclear about whether companies will now be free to launch new products.

“There is no clarity on new product launches. There may be a lot of legal issues. FSSAI did not clarify on new product launches. It may be the case that product launches may not be allowed at all until a fresh regulation comes in,” said a food lawyer associated with a top law firm seeking anonymity.

Siraj Chaudhry, chairman of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd, said, “Product approvals will now be further delayed”.

Cargill India’s brands include Leonardo range of olive oils, NatureFresh, Sweekar, Rath and Sunflower vanaspati. Chaudhry added that it could mean that FSSAI will go back to following the old procedure, which is very long and cumbersome. “At the moment, there is confusion as to how the process of approval will happen,” he said.

According to a Delhi-based lawyer, product approval was introduced as a short-cut as FSSAI wanted to keep end-products under its watch.

“The whole process of product approvals was actually retrograde in nature and is not prevalent in any other country. Consumers were deprived of new and innovative products,” said Anil Dhanuka, president of the All India Food Processors’ Association.

Maneka Gandhi seeks ban on junk food for students

NEW DELHI: Junk food could be banned in cafeterias and around schools if Union minister Maneka Gandhi has her way. The minister—who holds charge of the ministry for women and child development—has written to her Cabinet colleagues HRD minister Smriti Irani and health minister J P Nadda seeking a ban on junk food in school canteens and incorporating new food guidelines that define junk food and categorize it on its nutritious value. 

The move comes following a government panel recommendation on junk food or ``HFSS'' that is foods high in fat, salt and sugar. Guidelines include ban on sale of HFSS foods in school canteens, private vendors and hawkers within 200 meters of the school during school hours (7 am to 4 pm), disallowing shops and restaurants from selling proprietary foods to children in school uniform and stocking non-standardized proprietary foods in canteens according to their nutritional value.

In her letter to Nadda, Gandhi said, ``Over the last two decades, over-nutrition and obesity have emerged as a public health problem among school going children in the age group of 6 to 18 years. This is largely the result of lifestyle related factors in terms of reduction in physical activity and non-health food choices. The major contributor of the non-healthy food choices in the younger generation is the easy availability of ``junk food'' which essentially is calorie dense high fat fast food.'' 

Gandhi has suggested that considering the ``gravity'' of the obesity problem the guidelines prepared by the working group under Hyderabad's National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) be adopted by the Food Safety Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). 

In her letter to Irani, Gandhi has urged that fast food be banned in schools and campuses and sale up to 200 meters of the school be disallowed as well. The minister has also sought the intervention of chief ministers of various states to assist in implementing the ban. 

HFSS foods are defined as foods (any food or drink, packaged or non-packaged) which contain low amounts of protein, vitamins, phytochemicals, minerals and dietary fibre but are rich in fat (saturated fatty acids), salt and sugar, high in energy (calories) that are known to have negative impact on health if consumed regularly or in high amounts.

Veggies from other States pesticide-free: Minister

The government has claimed that the import of pesticide-contaminated vegetables from neighbouring States had come down drastically following the stringent inspections by Food Safety officials at border check-posts.

Citing laboratory results, Health Minister V.S. Sivakumar said only permissible levels of pesticide residue were detected in vegetables arriving from other States.

He said neighbouring States had begun sensitising farmers after the government of Kerala initiated a series of measures to ensure the safety of imported vegetables and fruits. Food safety licensing had also become stringent.

A pressnote quoting Mr. Sivakumar said the government intervention had helped to augment domestic production of vegetables for the Onam season.

Food Safety officials had carried out 1,516 inspections since August 6 and 264 samples were given for testing.

As many as nine outlets were closed down for selling substandard products and notices were issued to 330 traders.

Inspections at border check-posts yield results

Trio in Guise of Food Safety officials Cheat Biriyani Seller

CHENNAI: Officials from the Food Safety Department are on the lookout for three people, who posed as officials and conducted a raid on a biriyani shop at Perambur on Tuesday.

Speaking to Express, P Nawaz, manager of the shop, said he received a phone call and text message on Saturday, with the person at the other end claiming to be an official from the department. The ‘official’ said he was denied biriyani by the people at the shop, and would hence send officials to conduct a raids. On Tuesday, three people posing as officials came to the shop on bikes and inspected the place,” he added.

Dr S Lakshmi Narayanan, designated officer, state Food Safety and Standards Authority of India said action would be taken on them.

Milk adulteration on the rise

Taking advantage of the lax attitude of the government and lenient laws, milkmen in the state have been indulging in adulteration for ages.

Adopting a soft stance, the Punjab Government has once again extended the date for the milkmen in the state to get themselves registered and make licence, which seems to have been causing hurdles for the health department to take strict action against those who have been indulging in this practice.

It is mandatory for the milkmen to get themselves registered and make a licence. They were supposed to get themselves registered before August 4. However, the Punjab Government has once again extended the registration deadline to February 4.

There are around 3,000 milkmen in the city, and hardly 10 per cent of them have got themselves registered.

Dr Jasbir Singh from the District Health Office said, “We regularly take samples to check the standard of the milk consumed by the residents of Jalandhar. Most of the time, milk is found far less than the standard prescribed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Since the government has once again extended the deadline for the milkmen to get licence, we cannot restrict them from selling milk.”

“A majority of the samples are found to be added with water, yet no case of synthetic milk has come up in the city,” he added.

The Dairy Department Jalandhar is equipped with two milk analyser machines apart from the adulteration kit. Despite the fact that they take samples from time to time, it doesn’t come under their jurisdiction to initiate action against those who indulge in milk adulteration.

Deputy Director, Dairy Department, Jalandhar, Balwinderjit Singh, however, said that they procure samples to educate people whether the milk consumed by them is healthy enough.

“We recently collected samples from various localities in the city. Most of the samples were substandard. We forwarded the case to the district health authorities for further action, as it doesn’t come under our jurisdiction to take action,” he added.

Speaking on same issue, the DHO said they could not take action based on the findings of the dairy department. They are to collect their own samples, which are sent to a laboratory in Chandigarh.

ITC denies receiving notice on excess lead in Yippee noodles

ITC said that the company manufactures Yippee noodles to the highest standards of safety, hygiene and quality

There were reports that the Uttar Pradesh FDA had found excess lead in Yippee noodles.

New Delhi: Domestic giant ITC Ltd on Tuesday said it has not received any communication from the UP government regarding presence of excess lead in its instant noodle brand Sunfeast Yippee. It said the company manufactures Yippee noodles to the highest standards of safety, hygiene and quality.

“The company has not received any communication from the UP government authorities on this issue. Stories such as this can be misleading and can only help create suspicion and mistrust in the minds of the consumer. This will not only damage the brand but also severely impact industry as a whole and future investment for the economy,” ITC said in a clarification to the BSE.

The company said it has tested a large number of samples of Yippee noodles and pasta, both internally and externally, recently at National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL)-accredited and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)-approved laboratories and has found that all the samples conformed to the Food Safety Regulations.

“We rigorously and regularly test our products for all parameters including heavy metals both in our in-house NABL accredited laboratory at the ITC Life Sciences and Technology Centre, Bengaluru and external NABL accredited and FSSAI approved laboratories,” it added. This was in response to media reports that the Uttar Pradesh Food and Drug Authority (FDA) had found excess lead in Yippee noodles manufactured by ITC and will soon file a case. The UP FDA said that the samples of Yippee noodles, seized from a local mall in Aligarh, have been found to contain lead “far in excess to the permissible limit”.

IDMA highlights SC ruling on Product Approval & adherence to standards

Food Business Operators (FBOs) can now introduce new products, including those with combinations of known ingredients, but these should adhere to horizontal standards as laid down under the FSS Act, according to Dr R K Sanghavi, chairman, nutraceuticals subcommittee, IDMA. He was addressing a press conference held recently by IDMA (Indian Drug Manufacturers’ Association) following the Supreme Court verdict against FSSAI advisories on Product Approval.

Sanghavi pointed out that the apex court had put an end to the Product Approval advisory dated May 11, 2013, issued by Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), according to which FBOs were required to take approval for a broad spectrum of food products. These included proprietary food, novel foods, functional foods, food supplements, irradiated foods, genetically-modified foods, and foods for special dietary uses or extracts or concentrates of botanicals, herbs or of animal sources. It also specified products that were already available and being consumed. The apex court had upheld the Bombay High Court verdict in this regard.

He stated, “The Supreme Court outcome is a win-win situation since the FSSAI, being entrusted with consumer safety as criteria of governance, now has a guided goal to focus on risk management rather than the herculean task of virtual risk assessment product-by-product.” 

However, Sanghavi cautioned that following the Supreme Court ruling, FBOs should not overenthusiastically launch products outside the purview of the upcoming regulations for nutraceuticals, functional foods, organic foods, foods for special dietary uses and so on. Any product available must ensure its safe consumption and satisfy all the standards in terms of content of pesticides, heavy metals, other contaminants, labelling norms, permitted additives, flavours and so on.

With regard to concern expressed by FBOs for nutraceuticals, dietary supplements and functional foods, Sanghavi pointed out, “Earlier there was Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, which was later replaced with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, wherein the implementation started only in the year 2011. The Act is in the best interest of food safety for the consumer today.”

“But it is FBOs who faced difficulty and later felt the regulations are arbitrary in nature. The products which were approved as per earlier Act and consumed for previous 10-20 years were not approved or later banned.”

According to Sanghavi, the current nutraceuticals market is worth Rs 6,000 crore and has the potential to garner 20% of pharma market in India.

Sandeep Gupta, VC, IDMA, who was also present at the conference, stated, “The process of approval had virtually locked the progress of the industry. There are 5,500 applications of product approval pending with authorities. There is a multi-layer product approval process. Also if there is any issue, the order should come from Parliament and not just advisory.”

Meanwhile, Ganesh Kamath, director, Vital Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd, said, “The process of approval is not practical. No scientific test of products and its ingredients is done. Sampling and testing should be done to check the safety aspect of the product. In the current scenario, only stamp on dossier is given after reading it. There are lots of products/companies that had suffered from this attitude. There is no fresh investment. SMEs too are suffering. The company Lindt chocolate has exited from India and even Ferrero Rocher has shifted base to China.”

DINAMALAR NEWS

HC slams corpn on public slaughter of camels

Sets Up Panel To Suggest Measures

Photographs showing slaughter of camels in public places and animals lying in a pool of blood for agonizingly long periods in Chennai have shocked the conscience of the Madras high court which slammed the authorities for flatly denying that animals were being killed in public.

Noting that the bench was “totally fed up“ with the unhelpful government pleader STS Moorthy and that judges had to fend for themselves while hearing and disposing of cases, the first bench com prising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam said, “The gruesome photographs filed with the petition also do not seem to trouble the authorities.These photographs show slaughter of camels in public places and yet the Corporation of Chennai has the temerity to say that no slaughter is taking place, as no permission is granted.“

Slamming authorities for telling the court that camels were being slaughtered as part of religious festivals, the bench said: “We are also surprised at the stand taken that camels are slaughtered for religious purposes and therefore any action has to be taken “cautiously“. We fail to understand how slaughtering can take place in an unregulated manner all over the city , that too in public places. Slaughtering can take place only in slaughterhouses, at designated places. Different authorities are passing on the burden to the other, giving no solution to the problem.“

The bench then formed a committee to tackle the problem and said: “Since the authorities were not able to have an effective internal coordination to examine the issue as a whole, we feel a committee has to be appointed to make necessary recommendations to this court in a short period of time. The committee would have representatives from animal husbandry , dairy and fisheries department, road transport, Chennai Corporation, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Animal Welfare Board of India and Food Safety and Standard Author ity of India.“ R Srinivas, counsel for one of the petitioners, too will be part of the committee, it said, adding that its first meeting should be held within a week and preliminary recommendations should be ready before September 14, the next date of hearing.

The judges were passing orders on the PILs of E Seshan and People for Cattle in India against illegal transport of camels into Tamil Nadu, and sacrifice of animals during festivals in violation of rules.

“This seems to suggest as if different departments of government are incapable of coordination between themselves unless directions are issued by this court,“ rued the bench.

Form Committee on Animal Slaughter: HC

DINAMANI NEWS

DINAMANI NEWS

உணவு பாதுகாப்பு அலுவலர்கள் நடவடிக்கை கடைகளில் விற்பனைக்காக வைத்திருந்த ரூ.50,000 மதிப்புள்ள காலாவதி மளிகைப்பொருட்கள் அழிப்பு

நாகை, ஆக. 26:

வேளாங் கன்னி கடைத் தெ ரு வில் கடை களில் விற் ப னைக் காக வைத் தி ருந்த ரூ.50 ஆயி ரம் மதிப் புள்ள காலா வதி மளி கைப் பொ ருட் கள் கைப் பற்றி அழிக் கப் பட்டது.

நாகை மாவட்டம் வேளாங் கன்னி புனித ஆரோக் கிய மாதா பேரா லய ஆண்டு திரு விழா வரு கிற 29ம் தேதி கொடி யேற் றத் து டன் துவங் கு கி றது. விழா விற்கு வரும் பக் தர் களுக்கு பாது காப் பான உணவு வழங் கப் ப டு கி றதா என் பதை கண் கா ணிக் கும் வகை யில் மாவட்ட உண வுத் துறை சார் பில் மாவட்ட நிய மன அலு வ லர் டாக் டர் செந் தில் கு மார் தலை மை யில் வேளாங் கன்னி கடைத் தெ ரு வில் நேற்று ஆய்வு செய் யப் பட்டது.

இதில் காலா வ தி யான மளிகை பொருட் கள், கூல் டி ரிங்ஸ், தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யிலை பொரு ட கள் விற் ப னைக் காக வைக் கப் பட்டி ருப் பது கண் ட றி யப் பட்டு பறி மு தல் செய் யப் பட்டது. பின் னர் காலா வ தி யான, தயா ரிப்பு நிறு வ னம் குறித்த விவ ரம் இல் லாத உண வுப் பொ ருட் கள், தமி ழக அர சால் தடை செய் யப் பட்ட புகை யிலை பொருட் கள் உள் ளிட்ட வற்றை விற் பனை செய் யக் கூ டாது என்று வியா பா ரி களி டம் மாவட்ட நிய மன அலு வ லர் செந் தில் கு மார் எச் ச ரிக்கை விடுத் தார்.

ஆய் வில் உணவு பாது காப்பு அலு வ லர் கள் அன் ப ழ கன், ஆண் ட னி பி ரபு, மகா ராஜா, சதீஸ், சேகர், செந் தில் கு மார், கோதண் ட பாணி பால குரு கலந்து கொண் ட னர். வியா பா ரி களி டம் கைப் பற் றப் பட்ட ரூ.50 ஆயி ரம் மதிப் பி லான பொருட் கள் அழிக் கப் பட்டது.

Food analyst gets award

His line of work has involved conducting quality tests on milk samples and probing drinking water for microbes.

G. L. Upadhyaya, senior public analyst and Deputy Food Safety Commissioner at the Department of Food and Drugs, Government of Puducherry, who has been instrumental in launching interventions such as the milk quality survey across southern States a couple of years ago, has recently been awarded the Rajiv Gandhi Excellence Award for outstanding achievements.

The award, instituted by the International Business Council, was presented to him by Dr. B.N. Singh, former Governor of Tamil Nadu in Delhi recently.

Mr. Upadhyaya also had a role in making Puducherry one of the few States/UTs to migrate the entire process of food and drugs licencing and registration renewal to an online mechanism.

“We’re one of the few governments in the country to have brought about transparency and eliminated red tape through this measure,” he said.

The lab also conducts periodic checks on noon meal samples in schools and bacteriological testing for coliform and E. coli in water samples drawn from overhead tanks of Primary Health Centres.

The public health laboratory in Puducherry is one of the 72 centres identified for upgradation by the statutory body The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India.

“We expect the upgradation to be carried out in a phased manner,” Mr. Upadhyaya said.

Comeback campaign: Nestle reaches out to consumers over Maggi

Nestle India releases three short videos on its official YouTube channel Meri Maggi as it tries to keep the brand alive in consumers’ minds

Nestle India Ltd has published a series of videos on Maggi noodles, even as it continues to fight for a clean chit from legal and regulatory authorities, in what brand experts said could be a prelude to a comeback for the popular snack.

In the past 24 hours, the Indian arm of the Swiss packaged-food multinational firm has released three short videos on its official YouTube channel Meri Maggi. The videos have been shared on Twitter with the hashtag #WeMissYouToo, as Nestle India tries to keep the brand alive in consumers’ minds, while it remains off the shelves.

On 13 August, the Bombay high court set aside a ban imposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) on sale of Maggi noodles and asked for retesting at three laboratories certified by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories in Pune, Hyderabad and Punjab. Nestle had moved the high court following the FSSAI order on 5 June asking the firm to immediately withdraw all nine variants of Maggi noodles, calling them “unsafe and hazardous” for human consumption.

“Of course, it’s their comeback campaign. But there are larger issues to be managed. While the video tugs at your heartstrings, as long as the legal and quality control issues remain unresolved, it may not open your purse strings,” said Kiran Khalap, co-founder, Chlorophyll Brand and Communications Consultancy.

Earlier this month, Nestle India managing director Suresh Narayanan said bringing Maggi noodles back to retail shelves was his priority. Narayanan, who has been sent to India as the firm’s face in its efforts to tackle the issue, said it will be spending “more on advertising, marketing and promotions across categories to counter impact on sales caused by the Maggi ban”.

He did not say how much Nestle plans to spend. Typically, Nestle India is a low spender on advertising, with just about 4-5% of revenue allocated for advertising and promotions since 2010, according to its annual reports.

Now, it could increase advertising and promotions spending to about 7%, according to Sunita Sachdev, an analyst at UBS Securities India.

“These short films reflect the spontaneity and affection between the consumers and Maggi. We are making efforts to get Maggi Noodles back on the shelves and have been overwhelmed by the messages of love and support that we receive each day. Such messages strengthen our resolve to be back with our beloved consumers. We want to share the warmth of our relationship through these films,” said a Nestle India spokersperson in an emailed statement.

“While advertising agency, Publicis India is the official creative agency for Maggi Noodles in India, we have been working with McCann WorldGroup India for some corporate projects. This is one such project,” the spokesperson added.

The first video has registered more than 100,000 views since being released on Monday night.

All the three videos show bachelors, seeking to portray their association with Maggi.

One narrates how he never cared about the home delivery leaflets as long as he had Maggi (youtu.be/wjYA6V9tdbI); another says because of Maggi he did not have to wake up his mother at midnight (youtu.be/FKvoZyz23y4); and the third talks about how he never needed to connect with his neighbours because of Maggi (youtu.be/1w1myYavVsE).

In the minimalistic and simple advertisements, all three protagonists articulate their longing with the key message: “kab wapas aayega yaar?(When will it be back, mate?)”.

The videos from Nestle’s stable with the hashtag #WeMissYouToo is in response to Maggi’s fans who have released numerous short videos with hashtags such as #MaggiInaSoup, #MaggiKeSideEffects, #WeMissYouMaggi. Through its Twitter handle @MaggiIndia, Nestle India told fans of Maggi noodles: “We are touched by your love and all we want to say is #WeMissYouToo Share this & keep spreading the MAGGI love!

Product Approval - Should it be adopted or not?

The food industry was happy when government enacted the new integrated Food Safety & Standards Act in 2006 which was given to be known as a progressive, transparent, easily understandable and implementable law.

With this law in place, it was felt that doing a food business would be easy, hassle-free and transparent as the regulator would be friendly with the food industry while regulating the food business keeping in view the safety of food products.

But it appears that the objectives of the Act have been lost sight of and perhaps it is in the knowledge of all that how much hardship is being faced by food business operators (FBOs) in obtaining licence/registration and in implementing the food regulations especially in the era of so called “Product Approval” system being thrust on the food industry.

Complexity

The FSSAI has been implementing the Product Approval system for the last 2-3 years which has caused a lot of hardship to everyone. Any subsequent clarification by FSSAI in the form of amendment or guidelines by issue of advisories from time to time (more than a dozen advisories have been issued by FSSAI in this regard) created more complexity & confusion in the matter. The “Product Approval” system appears to be as per law, not based on science, non-transparent and could be termed as short of a commercial activity. Collection of hefty fee may also be violating the provisions of FSS Act, 2006, and FSS Regulations,2011, putting the food business at the backseat thus forfeiting the very objectives of the Act.

n The country had been producing, selling, exporting / importing food items and food ingredients / additives for the past several years as per the provisions of the old PFA Act 1954/PFA Rules 1955. There had been no provision of “Product Approval” therein. There was, however, an established procedure for seeking and providing approvals for new “food ingredients/additives” except proprietary foods.

n The new legislation i.e. FSS Act,2006, has imbibed the same product standards, ingredients / additives as were provided under the repealed PFA Act,1954 / PFA Rules, 1955 and other orders like FPO / MFPO / MMPO / SEO / VOPO etc. which have been integrated into FSSA 2006. The standards of around 377 food products which were existing under PFA Rules and other orders have been taken over as it is under FSSA Regulations, 2011.

Example: The provision of "Proprietary Foods" was available under Rule 37-A in the repealed PFA and the same was carried forward to the Regulation 2.12 under FSS (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011. As such for any approval of any new ingredient / additive or “Proprietary Food,” the same procedure as was prevalent in the country from 1955 till the FSSA Regulations came into force could have been adopted in 2011.

n It is very logical to think that no new reasons have arisen to go beyond the concept of approval of food ingredients / additives used in proprietary foods. The introduction of “Product Approval” System was totally unnecessary.

n (a) Apparently, confusion appears to have arisen because FSS Act, 2006, specifies under Section 22, approval of GM foods, functional foods, novel foods, organic foods and so on. It is natural that approval of such foods may be advisable because these are new innovative food products which require risk assessment and field trials before being manufactured / sold / consumed.

(b) It is strongly felt that by reasons of default, Section 22 of FSSA, 2006, also included the word “Proprietary Food” which covers most of the traditional / ethnic Indian foods being sold in the country for centuries where no Product Approval is required for the same unless a totally new ingredient / additive is being used in such a product.

To give an example: It is evident that Roti, Chapati, Dosa, Idli, Vada, Khakra, Rice Pulav, Rasogulla, sweets such as Gulab Jamun, Kheer, Halwa and Sattu do not require any product approval unless somebody proposes to use food additive(s) which is / are not provided / under the FSS Regulations.

(a)Considering the above description, it is neither logical nor required to ask for approval of all such traditional / ethnic Indian foods unless a new food ingredient / additive which is not provided or restricted under FSSA is to be used. In fact, it will not be scientific or humanly possible to provide approvals to millions of varieties of such traditional & ethnic foods.

(b) The purpose of introducing ‘Product Approval’ system is not understandable because there are around 377 food standards under FSS Regulations. Probably no Risk Assessment of these 377 Food Products appears to have been carried out during the last more than 60 years, because these are being produced and consumed in this country for a long period and can be assumed or presumed to be safe. Is this sufficient proof of their safety?

(c) One of the objectives of introduction of ‘Product Approval’ system in the country could be to establish the safety of such new foods not falling under the category of 377 food standards. Risk Assessment for the new foods has to be carried out by FSSAI on the basis of not only the documents submitted by the concerned FBO but, if needed, also get toxicity trails conducted on animal studies.

But the mute question is whether these risk assessment studies of some other country mandated to be submitted by FBO along with Product Approval application will hold good for this country or not? Moreover hundreds of food additives permitted to be used in processing of foods under food regulations, now whether safety studies of such permitted food additives have been conducted by the authorities in this country or validated so far or not? 

It is understood that whatever risk assessment study conducted at one location/place may be safe at that location/place only but may not necessarily be safe at another location/place.

(a) Under the existing provision(s) of the FSS Act or Regulations, an initial fee of Rs 25,000 is to be paid along with the application of ‘Product Approval’ and further additional amounts of Rs 25,000 to be paid if further toxicity and field trials as per documents submitted by them are required to be carried out to establish the safety of the new product.

In this connection it is felt that the regulatory body of the government is not a commercial organisation but a Scientific Regulatory Body constituted under the Act with clear objectives to lay down science-based standards for food products. Imposition of Rs 25,000 initially and further amounts if required should not become a burden on FBOs. The cost of such trials should be borne by the FA / government in the larger interest of society.

(b) It is appropriate to mention here that Government of India allocates around 3% of the GDP for the health care sector in the country for its citizens. On the same analogy either FSSAI or the administrative ministry could have requested the government to allocate, may be, around 1% of the GDP for ascertaining and laying down science-based standards for food products based upon valid risk assessment in the country rather than copying these or relying upon the risk assessments carried out by other countries.

Collection of Rs 25,000 from the concerned FBOs may work out to be a huge amount which is again a debatable issue.

n In case the Product Approval Procedure now in vogue or regulations are made for the same, then perhaps, the country will be heading towards a regime of Trade Mark/Copyright or Intellectual Property Rights in the food/processed food sector after which the availability of food for the poor may be a matter of serious concern especially when the government is committed to food security in the country and the food may not be available to the already starving, malnourished /undernourished needy society.

n The system of “Product Approval” will kill innovation in food sector as it is not scientific in the present form and hence provisions of the FSS Act and Regulations thereunder are need to be changed.

n As most are aware there are a large number of court cases going on in the country in this respect and some courts have ruled that the “Product Approval” and/or procedure adopted by FSSAI is unconstitutional. In fact, all advisories issued by FSSAI regarding 'Product Approval' may be considered a violation of the provisions of FSS Act / Regulations and hence the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India.

n According to Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) there are over 5.5 crore FBOs in the country. 

(a) As most of the FBOs (around 80%) fall under the category of micro, small & medium sectors and in case ‘Product Approval’ system is pressed forward by FSSAI, it will slowly kill their initiative to innovate & develop new products. It may be appreciated that these segments comprise 80% of the total FBOs having a number of around 5.5 crore in the country, which are playing a vital role of serving the common man in the country, hence food industry.

(b) According to the food regulator, so far state governments/UTs could grant around 5.6 lakh licence and could register around 23.80 lakh FBOs. Whereas, around 20,000 Central licences could be issued by the Central Designated Officers under the FSS Act, 2006.

(c) By applying “Pareto’s Principle” of 80:20, there could be around 80% (5.5 crore X 80%) i.e. 4.4 crore FBOs who may fall under the category of micro, small & medium sectors whereas 20% (5.5 crore X 20%) i.e. 1.1 crore of FBOs may fall under the category of state/Central licence in the ratio of 88 lakh and 22 lakh. It is not clear that how much time it will take to obtain or grant licences/registration to such a huge number. 

Following table will amply clarify the position:

Estimated no. of FBOs granted/obtained registration and licence out of 5.5 crore S. No. Description No. of FBOs required to obtain/grant registration or licence (No. in Lakh) Registered/Licenced FBOs from 2011 till April 2015 (No. in lakh) FBOs yet to be granted/obtain registration and licence

PS: (i) In a period of around four years 29.6 lakh FBOs could either obtain/granted registration & licence. At the present speed of registration/licensing how much time period will be required to either obtain or grant registration & licence to the remaining FBOs (around 520.4 lakh) is a matter of imagination.

(ii) In my next write-up, I will try give the procedure by which the process of Registration/Licensing could be completed in a time-bound period of say four to five years. 

n Again the big question arises whether the country/ regulator is equipped /prepared to enforce/implement the Act/Regulations or the FBO is prepared to comply with the provisions of the Act/Regulations?

It is felt that decisions with broader vision are required to be taken very coolly/ calmly in a transparent manner with timeframe in mind for implementing/enforcing the Act/Regulations including empowering the huge untrained enforcement field staff (most of which is yet to be placed in position) besides helping/enabling the FBOs in the country to comply with the Act/Regulations. It if felt that the onus of the entire matter rests with the government by taking all the stockholders into confidence rather than simply enforcing/thrusting the regulations.

n Status of Product Approval System in Developed Countries 

In most of the countries there is no such provision for “Product Approval” systems.

The system or procedures are available for pre-approval/registration for some of the foods/ingredients like “specially controlled foods,” “novel foods,” “dietary foods,” “food for special medical purposes” in some of the countries.

The brief position of ‘Product Approval’ system in most countries, as also under Codex, is as follows:

i. USA: We could not find any such term like ‘Product Approval’ system/procedure in the food regulations of USA. 

ii. European Union: No ‘Product Approval’ system/ procedure could be found under EU food regulations.

However, pre-market notification in respect of certain foods like ‘foods for special medical purposes’(FSMPs) has been stipulated for labelling purposes and for dietary foods.

It may be noted that if the member states (of EU) can demonstrate that such notification is not necessary, the concerned member state may not impose that obligation on FBOs.

iii. Australia & New Zealand: No ‘Product Approval’ system/procedure could be found under the Food Regulations of these two countries.

However they do have standards for these:

a. Standards for chemical contaminants and residues

b. Standards for additives or other substances

c. Standards for processing and manufacturing

d. Standards for imported food

e. Standards for Labelling

iv. China: No ‘Product Approval’ system/procedure could be found under the food regulations of China.

v. Thailand: There are three broad categories:

Standardised Foods – Standard foods do not require any registration but their quality and labelling have to meet the standard requirements as specified in the notification of ministry of public health.

Specially Controlled Foods – Registrations are required for foods in this category. Legal provisions are related to food standard quality, specifications, packaging, and labelling requirements, as well as other aspects of Good Manufacturing Practices. 

Other Foods – Foods, raw or cooked, preserved or non-preserved, processed or non-processed, if not listed under category (a) or (b) (there is a list) will be considered as general foods. Although registrations are not required, general food products are controlled and monitored with regard to Hygiene, Safety, Labelling and Advertisement. Foods in this category may be subdivided into (a) foods that must bear standard labels and (b) other general foods.

However pre-marketing controls are in position. These are like on (a) Labelling (b) Manufacturing Licence (c) Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)(d) Manufacturing Licence (d) Advertisements and (e)Importation Licence

CODEX:

vi. There is no word/procedure like "Product Approval" laid down under Codex. India is going to align our food standards with Codex, hence there should be no word system like "Product Approval."

13. In conclusion, it is clear that the system of “Product Approval” is non-scientific, non-transparent, & a costly procedure (recently struck down by Mumbai High Court), which should not be pushed forward. If the government pushes the agenda of “Product Approval,” it will imply that Indian food industry may have to shut business sooner or later.

The food industry may consider the above and ponder to decide whether the ‘Product Approval’ system should be adopted by the regulator /country or not?

(The writer is a veteran food industry expert)

Disclaimer:

Opinions/suggestions in this write-up are exclusively of the author and may not be of any other individual or institution including AIFPA (All India Food Processors Association)

Love in the time of ban: Maggi thanks fans with #wemissyoutoo ads

A Maggi feast, titled the ‘last supper’, was organised by a few fans in South Delhi 

To a generation of Indians for whom instant noodles are a way of life, the ban on Maggi is not just about convenience -- it is also about nostalgia.

It is this sentiment that makers Nestle are targeting in a series of mushy video ads, as it preps for a comeback to shelves across the country.

The three ads promoted on social media under the hashtag #wemissyoutoo shows young men talking on camera about how life has never been the same since their 'friend' went away. 

The friend, by implication, is Maggi which was banned across the country on June 5 by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) after random tests showed the noodles contained above-permissible levels of lead and monosodium glutamate (MSG).

The most favourited one, titled 'Mom', has a teen talking about how he never troubled his mother when he had friends coming over for late night get-togethers. Apparently they partied on two-minute noodles.

"This one is for all our fans! Can't thank you enough for your support. Share it and keep spreading the MAGGI love," an official post on the Meri Maggi youtube channel says.

The other videos have two other working males, without either the time or the skills to cook a decent meal, cribbing about how they are now forced to depend on home delivery menus and friendly neighbourhood aunties.

"This one is for all our fans! Can't thank you enough for your support. Share it and keep spreading the MAGGI love," an official post on the Meri Maggi youtube channel says.

The other videos have two other working males, without either the time or the skills to cook a decent meal, cribbing about how they are now forced to depend on home delivery menus and friendly neighbourhood aunties.

The campaign has been launched immediately after the Bombay high court order of August 14 which overturned the Maggi ban and ordered fresh tests. If Maggi clears those tests, it may be back soon, maybe even before the end of the year as Nestle India promised.

"We will try and target something that is better than that. My desire is to do it before that but let's see," says Nestle India managing director Suresh Narayanan.

Going by the chord the ad campaign has struck on the social media there are quite a number of hungry souls out there wishing their favourite snack is back sooner.

P.S: A two-minute poser to the makers of Maggi. Why are the ads featured only on men? Is it implied that girls always cook full meals?