Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The food safety department will write to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the statutory body to ensure safe food, on the loopholes in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The move follows the high court decision to lift the ban on manufacture and sale of three Nirapara products earlier this week.
The lack of a proper act to deal with repeated offences has spoiled many efforts of the department to prevent adulteration. In the Nirapara case, food safety commissioner T V Anupama had decided to ban three of its spice products - chilli powder, coriander powder and turmeric powder - after finding that it repeatedly committed 34 offences without rectification. The department had found the presence of sub-standard starch in these products.
The department had imposed fines - ranging from Rs 10,000 to Rs 5 lakh - on Kalady-based KKR Food Products, the manufacturers, several times but it continued to sell the adulterated products. "It's a sad situation if you cannot take strong action against a repeated offence. We will soon write to the FSSAI on the situation," Anupama said.
KKR Food Products had argued in court that the food safety department could only ban products as per Section 34 of the Act, if it is unsafe for human consumption. Only adulterants that come under the 'unsafe' category warrant a ban.
The food safety dept has invoked the following provisions while moving against Nirapara: Section 29 (3) which stipulate that the authorities shall maintain a system of control and other activities appropriate to the circumstances, including public communication, on food safety risk, food safety surveillance and other monitoring activities covering all stages of food business. Section 30 (2) (d) which says the commissioner of food safety shall ensure an efficient and uniform implementation of the standards and other requirement as specified and also ensure a high standard of objectivity, accountability, practicability, transparency and credibility. Section 26 (2) (ii), according to which no food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture, store or distribute any article of food which is misbranded or substandard or contains extraneous matter. Section 36 (3) (b) which states designated officer can prohibit the sale of any article of food which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
However, the high court considered the argument of KKR Food Products that as per Section 34, that commissioner of food safety must do emergency prohibition only if the product poses a health risk.
Another recent high court order too proves that the Food Safety and Standards Act is toothless. A Kannur-based cinnamon farmer Leonard John had approached the high court recently seeking a directive to ensure that cassia is not sold in Kerala. He had claimed that low-cost cassia is sold as cinnamon in the state.
Cassia has a high presence of coumarin, which is unsafe for human consumption. John said that the official website of FSSAI had featured reports that said coumarin is toxic to liver and kidney. Even after getting a directive from the high court, the food safety department could not take a strong action against the sale of cassia.
"Cassia is a food product and action can be taken only for selling sub-standard products or misbranding. Hence, the issue is now being dealt with by the district-level food safety officials," said Anupama.
The department had sent several letters to FSSAI demanding amendments in the Act. "We had come across several such cases. For example, during the Maggi controversy, it was found that the act does not specify the permissible level for MSG. We had informed FSSAI about such issues," she said.
MLA V T Balram had written a letter to chief minister Oommen Chandy seeking the intervention of the advocate general, so that food safety department could function effectively.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The food safety department will write to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), the statutory body to ensure safe food, on the loopholes in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The move follows the high court decision to lift the ban on manufacture and sale of three Nirapara products earlier this week.
The lack of a proper act to deal with repeated offences has spoiled many efforts of the department to prevent adulteration. In the Nirapara case, food safety commissioner T V Anupama had decided to ban three of its spice products - chilli powder, coriander powder and turmeric powder - after finding that it repeatedly committed 34 offences without rectification. The department had found the presence of sub-standard starch in these products.
The department had imposed fines - ranging from Rs 10,000 to Rs 5 lakh - on Kalady-based KKR Food Products, the manufacturers, several times but it continued to sell the adulterated products. "It's a sad situation if you cannot take strong action against a repeated offence. We will soon write to the FSSAI on the situation," Anupama said.
KKR Food Products had argued in court that the food safety department could only ban products as per Section 34 of the Act, if it is unsafe for human consumption. Only adulterants that come under the 'unsafe' category warrant a ban.
The food safety dept has invoked the following provisions while moving against Nirapara: Section 29 (3) which stipulate that the authorities shall maintain a system of control and other activities appropriate to the circumstances, including public communication, on food safety risk, food safety surveillance and other monitoring activities covering all stages of food business. Section 30 (2) (d) which says the commissioner of food safety shall ensure an efficient and uniform implementation of the standards and other requirement as specified and also ensure a high standard of objectivity, accountability, practicability, transparency and credibility. Section 26 (2) (ii), according to which no food business operator shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture, store or distribute any article of food which is misbranded or substandard or contains extraneous matter. Section 36 (3) (b) which states designated officer can prohibit the sale of any article of food which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
However, the high court considered the argument of KKR Food Products that as per Section 34, that commissioner of food safety must do emergency prohibition only if the product poses a health risk.
Another recent high court order too proves that the Food Safety and Standards Act is toothless. A Kannur-based cinnamon farmer Leonard John had approached the high court recently seeking a directive to ensure that cassia is not sold in Kerala. He had claimed that low-cost cassia is sold as cinnamon in the state.
Cassia has a high presence of coumarin, which is unsafe for human consumption. John said that the official website of FSSAI had featured reports that said coumarin is toxic to liver and kidney. Even after getting a directive from the high court, the food safety department could not take a strong action against the sale of cassia.
"Cassia is a food product and action can be taken only for selling sub-standard products or misbranding. Hence, the issue is now being dealt with by the district-level food safety officials," said Anupama.
The department had sent several letters to FSSAI demanding amendments in the Act. "We had come across several such cases. For example, during the Maggi controversy, it was found that the act does not specify the permissible level for MSG. We had informed FSSAI about such issues," she said.
MLA V T Balram had written a letter to chief minister Oommen Chandy seeking the intervention of the advocate general, so that food safety department could function effectively.
No comments:
Post a Comment