Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) which was
passed by the parliament in 2006 itself has finally come into force
three months after the gazette notification of the Food Safety and
Standards Rules on 5-5-11. FSSA which replaces eight earlier laws
(including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - PFAA - and orders
referring to food passed under the Essential Commodities Act) is in
effect all over the country from 5-8-2011. FSSA will govern any
establishment connected with food, including shops, roadside eateries
and hotels and also advertisements related to food.
The main features of the FSSA are as follows:
1. A committee of 22 members called the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has been set up to specify standards with respect to food items and to set maximum pemissible limits for the use of food additives, pesticide residues, heavy metals, etc. in food items. As of now, the standards and limits set by the PFAA hold.
2. A Commissioner of Food Safety has been appointed in every state with the responsibility of effectively implementing the Act. This is a full-time job. S.Selvakumar, who served as MCC Commissioner in 2002-3 has been appointed the Commissioner of Food Safety for Karnataka.
3. A Designated Officer (DO) has been appointed in every district to enforce the act. Dr. D.G.Nagaraj, the surveillance Officer in the District Health Office is the DO for Mysore district. The DO is in charge if issuing (and cancelling) licences to all establishments connected with food (This duty is now being handled by MCC). His responsibilities also include getting food samples tested to see if they meet standards and filing cases under FSSA against persons who sell substandard or adulterated food items.
4. Food Safety Officers (FSO) have been appointed in every Taluk. The FSOs have the responsibility of collecting food samples from various establishments. They can also close down and seal an establishment under certain circumstances. A liability clause has been written into the law and any FSO who exercises his powers in bad faith can be punished with a fine of upto one lakh rupees. H.J.Suryanarayana is the FSO for Mysore city and P.T. Mahadeva is the FSO for Mysore rural.
5. The public can not file a case under FSSA against an adulterator. They have to get the FSO take the sample and then get it tested through the DO. Only a DO or the Commissioner of Food Safety can file a case under FSSA.
6. Cases under the FSSA can not be filed in ordinary courts. To try such cases, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate has been appointed in all districts as an Adjudicating Officer. He has all the powers of a civil court.
7. An appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Officer lies with the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. Such tribunals have been established in all states.
8. The Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal can try cases in summary fashion, i.e., speedily and without the complicated procedures of the Civil Procedure Code. They are similar to consumer courts in this respect.
9. No civil court can take any case over which the Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal has jurisdiction. An appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies only with the High Court.
10. Penalties for food adulteration have been enhanced compared to the PFAA. PFAA speaks of fines in the thousands while FSSA talks only of lakhs of rupees. If violation of the law results in death, FSSA prescribes a minimum imprisonment of 7 years (extending to life imprisonment).
Some negative aspects of the new law:
11. In the versions of PFAA before 1991, there was an upper limit to insect parts, rodent hair or excreta that could be present in grains, but this restriction has been omitted from later editions of the PFAA. FSSA also omits such restrictions. The reason for this omission is not clear. In the FSSA, the only reference to the presence of insects in grains is Sec. 3(zz)(ix) which says that a food is "unsafe" if the presence of insects in it is injurious to health. Since eating rice weevils is probably not injurious to health, one can sell rice infested with weevils without attracting punishment under FSSA. This is strange.
12. The law seems carelessly drafted in a few places. For example, a purchaser can take food samples from a vendor and have them analyzed. If the food is adulterated, the purchaser is supposed to get the cost of analysis refunded. But it is not clear who will refund the fee, the food analyst, the vendor or the government. It is also not clear who will issue the order of the refund. Another example of careless drafting of the law is the following. The Adjudicating Officer is required to pass the final order within 90 days from the date of the first hearing of any case, but the law has forgotten to include a time limit for the Tribunal.
C.V. Nagaraj, Mysore Grahakara Parishat
The main features of the FSSA are as follows:
1. A committee of 22 members called the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India has been set up to specify standards with respect to food items and to set maximum pemissible limits for the use of food additives, pesticide residues, heavy metals, etc. in food items. As of now, the standards and limits set by the PFAA hold.
2. A Commissioner of Food Safety has been appointed in every state with the responsibility of effectively implementing the Act. This is a full-time job. S.Selvakumar, who served as MCC Commissioner in 2002-3 has been appointed the Commissioner of Food Safety for Karnataka.
3. A Designated Officer (DO) has been appointed in every district to enforce the act. Dr. D.G.Nagaraj, the surveillance Officer in the District Health Office is the DO for Mysore district. The DO is in charge if issuing (and cancelling) licences to all establishments connected with food (This duty is now being handled by MCC). His responsibilities also include getting food samples tested to see if they meet standards and filing cases under FSSA against persons who sell substandard or adulterated food items.
4. Food Safety Officers (FSO) have been appointed in every Taluk. The FSOs have the responsibility of collecting food samples from various establishments. They can also close down and seal an establishment under certain circumstances. A liability clause has been written into the law and any FSO who exercises his powers in bad faith can be punished with a fine of upto one lakh rupees. H.J.Suryanarayana is the FSO for Mysore city and P.T. Mahadeva is the FSO for Mysore rural.
5. The public can not file a case under FSSA against an adulterator. They have to get the FSO take the sample and then get it tested through the DO. Only a DO or the Commissioner of Food Safety can file a case under FSSA.
6. Cases under the FSSA can not be filed in ordinary courts. To try such cases, an officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate has been appointed in all districts as an Adjudicating Officer. He has all the powers of a civil court.
7. An appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Officer lies with the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. Such tribunals have been established in all states.
8. The Adjudicating Officer and the Tribunal can try cases in summary fashion, i.e., speedily and without the complicated procedures of the Civil Procedure Code. They are similar to consumer courts in this respect.
9. No civil court can take any case over which the Adjudicating Officer or the Tribunal has jurisdiction. An appeal against the order of the Tribunal lies only with the High Court.
10. Penalties for food adulteration have been enhanced compared to the PFAA. PFAA speaks of fines in the thousands while FSSA talks only of lakhs of rupees. If violation of the law results in death, FSSA prescribes a minimum imprisonment of 7 years (extending to life imprisonment).
Some negative aspects of the new law:
11. In the versions of PFAA before 1991, there was an upper limit to insect parts, rodent hair or excreta that could be present in grains, but this restriction has been omitted from later editions of the PFAA. FSSA also omits such restrictions. The reason for this omission is not clear. In the FSSA, the only reference to the presence of insects in grains is Sec. 3(zz)(ix) which says that a food is "unsafe" if the presence of insects in it is injurious to health. Since eating rice weevils is probably not injurious to health, one can sell rice infested with weevils without attracting punishment under FSSA. This is strange.
12. The law seems carelessly drafted in a few places. For example, a purchaser can take food samples from a vendor and have them analyzed. If the food is adulterated, the purchaser is supposed to get the cost of analysis refunded. But it is not clear who will refund the fee, the food analyst, the vendor or the government. It is also not clear who will issue the order of the refund. Another example of careless drafting of the law is the following. The Adjudicating Officer is required to pass the final order within 90 days from the date of the first hearing of any case, but the law has forgotten to include a time limit for the Tribunal.
C.V. Nagaraj, Mysore Grahakara Parishat