KEY QUESTIONS: THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS BILL, 2005

KEY QUESTIONS: THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS BILL, 2005 CONTEXT: The Ministry of Food Processing Industries has introduced the Food Safety and Standards Bill, 2005, in the Lok Sabha. The Bill proposes to repeal eight laws governing the food sector and seeks to establish a single regulator that would set food safety standards and regulate manufacturing, processing, import, distribution and sale of food products. The Bill has been referred to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, which is expected to present its report on 21 st February, 2006. Your detailed responses to the questions below will be critical in shaping the content of the Legislative Brief that Parliamentary Research Service will prepare and send to all Members of Parliament, a number of civil society organizations, the corporate sector and the media. On receiving your responses, and those of a select group of experts who have been requested to provide inputs on this Bill, PRS will work towards producing a Brief which presents a balanced view of the feedback from the experts. We therefore urge you to (a) Cite evidence, to the extent possible, to support the arguments that you are making. Solid evidence will strengthen your arguments immensely. (b) List in detail all the sources that you have referred to, or quoted from (including author, title of paper/ publication, publisher, date, etc.). (c) Make use of data, tables, graphs that are easily understandable, to support or substantiate your arguments. Key questions for your consideration Scope Q1. In many countries like the U.S., Japan and Malaysia food safety is governed by the Ministry of Health. In India, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA Act) was also being implemented by the Health Ministry. However, the Food Safety and Standards Bill, 2005 was drafted by the Ministry of Food Processing Industry, whose main objective is to promote and monitor the food processing industry. a) Is there a risk that the Bill might be drafted to favour the processed food sector at the cost of negatively impacting the largely unorganised food vendors in the country? b) From the point of view of consumers is it better to define stringent standards for all sectors of food vendors even if a vast majority will not be able to adhere to the law? c) Is there a middle ground between consumer food safety and food standards for various categories of food processors? Q2. The Statement of Objects and Reasons states that the main objective of the Bill is to provide for a systematic and scientific development of the Food Processing Industry. However, the duties of the Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA) appear to mainly ensure compliance of safety standards. [Refer Ch 2, Clause 16 (3) (g,h,n) and Statement of Object and Reason] C/o Centre for Policy Research, Dharma Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021

a) Should there be a greater thrust towards development of the food processing industry? For instance, if a manufacturer or distributor falls short of specified standards, should the FSSA attempt to improve his systems to achieve the requisite level before initiating penal action? Q3. The Bill defines Food Business Operator (FBO) as any person who owns or conducts the food business and stipulates that every FBO has to comply with the rules and regulation of the Act. and stipulates that every FBO has to comply with the rules and regulation of the Act. Thus, the Bill makes an attempt to bring under its purview the food processors in the organised sector as well as the unorganised household sector, and even hoteliers and street vendors. Indeed, even the unorganised sector such as those providing packed lunches and bed and breakfast/dinner (typical paying guest) would be under the purview of the Bill. The petty manufacturers, hawkers, itinerant vendors etc. have to get their businesses registered with the concerned municipality or the Panchayat. Other FBOs have to get a licence to operate a food business. [Refer Ch 1, Clause 3 (1) (o) and Clause 31] a) Is there a need to make registrations or licences a compulsory requirement for everyone in the food sector, including the unorganised sector? b) If yes, does the Bill adequately and realistically address the problems of monitoring such operators? c) If no, what would be a good mechanism to ensure that the consumer gets safe food? Q4. The Bill does not include the method of transportation of food articles within its scope. a) Would it be realistically possible to ensure food safety without monitoring the method of transportation? b) Even though storage of food articles is included in the Bill, would it remain a futile gesture without including transportation? c) Should the Bill provide regulations for an organised cold supply chain? Q5. Although the Bill mentions in its preamble that it aims to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food to consumers, nowhere does it address the wholesome (nutritional) aspect of food. Its main concern seems to be with making processed and packaged food microbiologically safe for consumers. [Refer Preamble of the Bill] Should the Bill include specifications about the nutritional aspect of the food or should these be left to consumer choice and market forces? Governance Q6. The Food Safety and Standards Bill mentions that it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the food industry. Is there a particular reason for using the word control? Q7. The purpose of the Bill is to bring out a single statute relating to food. To this end, the Bill has repealed eight food related laws 1. It has proposed to set up the Food Safety and 1 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 The Fruit Products Order, 1955 The Meat Food Products Order, 1973 The Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, 1947 The Edible Oil Packaging (Regulation) Order, 1998 The Solvent Extracted Oil, Deoiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967 The Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992

Standards Authority of India which would fix the standards and regulate the manufacturing, import, processing, distribution and sale of food in the country. The composition of the Authority includes seven ex-officio members from various ministries and five members from the States and UT. The rest of the members are: two from the industry, two from consumer organisations, one scientist/technologist, and one from a farmers organisation. [Refer Chapter 2, Clause 5 (1) (a)] a) Should all members be whole-time members, and not ex-officio members, so that they have sufficient time available for the Authority? b) Should the members be required to have a scientific/technical background and experience? c) Given the wide scope of food processing industries covered by the Bill (marine foods to milk produce to vegetable oils, etc.), should there be a higher representation of industry drawn from a cross-section of these sub-areas? d) What is a fair balance between civil servants and other stakeholders in the Authority? How would you apportion the membership of 18 across the various stakeholder (including government) categories? Definitions Q8. The Bill does not include potable water under its purview (usually provided by local authorities). But it includes packaged drinking water and water used in the manufacture of food. [Refer Ch 1, Clause 3 (1) (j)] a) Does this mean that minimum standards need not be prescribed for water supplied to households? b) How would the authorities monitor the water being used in the food without monitoring potable water? c) What would be the impact on small vendors and petty manufacturers if the water used in manufacturing food is going to be monitored? d) If the water provided by local authorities are not upto the standards prescribed, would the food manufacturers have to use their own resources to clean the water before using it for manufacturing food? Q9. The Bill defines Primary Food as.an article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture or animal husbandry and dairying or aquaculture in its natural form, resulting from the growing, raising, cultivation, picking, harvesting, collection or catching in the hands of a person other than a farmer. However, as per Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (Codex) guidelines, traceability covers the whole chain from field to fork. [Refer Chapter 1, Clause 3 (zk)] a) Are there any other laws which monitor and regulate inputs at the farm level? b) Would it be feasible for the concerned authority to check contamination in primary food without having the power to monitor farmers as the product can only be traced to the mandi level at best? c) Would a retailer, for eg. a vegetable vendor, be held accountable if the vegetable contains pesticides above the specified limits? Q10. Items like animal feed are excluded from the definition of food. But animal feed can contain drugs and other additives, which would then be fed to animals. The meat from such Any other order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 relating to food

animals may not meet the required food safety standards. Are there other laws which regulate animal feed? [Refer Ch 1, Clause 3 (1) (j)] Q11. The Bill defines Food Safety Management System as the adoption of Good Manufacturing Practices, Good Hygienic Practices, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point and such other practices as may be specified by regulation, for the food business. These terms are not defined in the Bill. [Refer Ch 1, Clause 3, (1) (s)] Are these terms defined elsewhere (some other Act) or do they need to be defined in the Bill? Enforcement Q12. The Bill has prescribed a set of graded penalties. For offences like misbranding, substandard food or misleading advertisement, the penalty is a fine. If the offence leads to grievous injury, the offender would face a prison sentence. Under the existing PFA Act, violators (adulterated, misbranded food) have to pay a fine and face a prison term of not less than six months. [Refer Ch 9, Clause 50, 51, 52, 53] [Refer PFA Act: Clause 16] a) What would be the impact of change in the penalty levels? b) Would it lead to better compliance by food business operators? Q13. The Designated Officer has the power to accept from petty manufacturers, hawkers and vendors a fine of upto Rs. 1 Lakh in case of violations. He also has the power to issue licences to businesses. But the Designated Officers are of the rank of at least Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). [Refer Ch 10, Clause 69] [Refer Chapter 8, Clause 36 (1)] a) Would an SDO have the requisite technical knowledge to establish whether a business is following all the regulations that are required in the Act? Also, would it hamper flexibility and innovation in applying the law if the SDO is a non-technical person? b) Is too much power concentrated in the hands of the Designated Officer, which could lead to corruption? Q14. The Bill provides a safeguard for consumers with a provision for Food Recall Procedure. It states that if a food business operator considers that a food which it has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with the Act, it shall immediately initiate procedures to withdraw the food in question and inform the competent authority. [Refer Ch 6, Clause 28 (1) (2) (3) (4)] Should the Bill also provide for consumers who have already bought the product to be informed in case a food has been recalled? Q15. The Food Safety Officer has to give one part of the sample to the food business operator to make available to the authorities. But the food business operator cannot get the sample tested independently. [Refer Ch 8, Clause 47, (1) (c)] Should the food business operator have the right to get his sample tested independently from an accredited laboratory?

Finances Q16. The Financial Memorandum of the Bill states that an estimated expenditure of Rs. 10 crore is expected to establish the FSSA. The amount includes non-recurring capital expenditure of Rs. 3 crore and further recurring expenditure of Rs. 7 crore towards salaries, allowances, rent for office accommodation etc. [Refer Financial Memorandum] [Refer Ch 8, Clause 43 (1) (2)] a) Is this amount (Rs. 7 crore per annum) sufficient for maintaining the infrastructure required to implement the provisions of this Bill, such as laboratories, food safety officers etc. and run awareness programmes, training programmes for food business operators and consumers? b) Would the expenditure at the state level be borne by the states? In such a case, what is the estimated financial requirement? Has a study been conducted to estimate the expenditure and compared with the current spending for implementing the PFA Act? In addition to the issues raised in the Key Questions, you are free to elaborate on any other key issues about this Bill that have not been listed in the above questions. 6 th January 2006