|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proprietary Foods: Licensing Implications
|
|
Tuesday, 16 July, 2013, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
Ramesh Kumar Sharma
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Known to be the simplified process requiring submission of much less number of documents for the purpose of licensing, the step-wise approach to Food Categorisation System (FCS) seems to be more favourable to non-nutritive proprietary food articles e.g. ready-to-eat savouries (high fat and salt products) or sweets & confectionery articles (high fat and sugar products) than to the nutritive proprietary products.
Proprietary foods are non-standardised and are being manufactured since decades in India. FCS includes both “standardised foods” as well as “proprietary foods” being such foods which have not been standardised under Food Safety and Standards Act / Regulations.
Getting licence
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) via FCS intends to give the message that (i) proprietary foods are non-standardised and are not covered by Table 4, which provides current FSSR standards and their respective categories, but exist in Tables 1-3 (ii) proprietary foods have the full provisions of easily getting licence as per Form B of Schedule 2 in the same way as standardised foods covered by Table 4 have as per Form A (iii) proprietary foods intended for particular nutritional uses are those which are not covered by Table 4 but exist, under category 13, in Tables 1-3 (iv) manufacturers of proprietary foods intended for particular nutritional uses have to get new licence with No Objection Certificate (NOC) on case basis, while (v) several of the high fat and sugar products, under category 5 i.e. confectionery and all the high fat and salt products under category 15 i.e. ready-to-eat savouries are not covered by Table 4, hence are proprietary i.e. non-standardised foods. These foodstuffs intended for tongue taste but in no way for any nutritional use have the same provisions of easily getting licence as the standardised foods do and are not part of product approval.
Normally physicians prefer to suggest prohibition of many proprietary foods – particularly fried namkeens, bhujia, sweets and pickles – to their patients. However, nutritive proprietary foods, normally suggested by physicians to patients, are nutracetuticals, health / dietary supplements and so on. Despite being manufactured since decades, nutritive proprietary foodstuff has to be part of a slow process for getting NOC prior to applying for licences as per FCS; while non-nutritive proprietary products would not be part of product approval.
The procedure
The proprietary or non-standardised foods covered by food category 13 are nutraceuticals, health / dietary supplements, food for special dietary / medical use, proprietary infant food, milk substitutes and so on.
However getting NOC (essential as per step 2 of FCS) and so the new licence for such a product might be a cumbersome, time-consuming process. The applicant belonging to this large group of food articles will have to provide the safety data within one year for the products to support the application. All those products will be issued NOC by the FSS Authority. This procedure is same as in the earlier rules (The New Food Rule Book, Ingredients Business, November-December 2012, page 53). That means nutritive proprietary products cannot enjoy the new provisions of easily getting licence that non-nutritive proprietary products do.
Additives / nutrients
Difficulty in licensing for non-nutritive proprietary food article, generally faced in cases of confectionery and bakery articles, arises when it includes a food additive or nutrient which is approved but the food article is not defined in terms of those additives / nutrients. Therefore any food article containing all approved food additives and ingredients, despite being manufactured since decades, if not defined in terms of those in the rule or regulation would be a part of product approval. The difficulty level is much more elevated when a food business operator (FBO) dealing with proprietary food (being manufactured since decades) containing an unapproved additive or ingredient applies for licensing. Probably such article might be considered as novel food article, particularly if substances added to food are not for direct consumption as food i.e. belong to category 99. In that case, the FBO might have to apply for NOC and submit licence to Government of India bodies or FSSAI.
Communicating with labels
It is quite untenable that nutritive proprietary foodstuffs have to be part of a difficult slow process for getting NOC prior to applying for licences, while non-nutritive proprietary products would not be part of product approval. It is also untenable that non-nutritive (high fat, salt, sugar containing) food articles have provisions to print nutritional information on labels while there is a dire need of printing statutory warning on the labels of such products like sweets, namkeen, and bhujia, which are generally not recognised as safe by physicians. In fact, the words “non-nutritive, non-standardised” at least be printed on the labels of such food articles for giving true message to consumers. Nutritional information is misleading on non-nutritive food articles. Therefore as papad and pickles are exempted from printing nutritional information, in the same way other non-nutritive proprietary foods - sweets, namkin and so on as well. It will be more appropriate if FSSR allows a general exemption from printing nutritional information on the labels of all non-nutritive proprietary foods which contain high fat or sugar or salt. In case of such products, statutory warning is required on the labels to communicate the health hazards to consumers. Further as non-nutritive proprietary products are not part of product approval, the regulation should make similar provision for nutritive proprietary products. That means the non-nutritive proprietary products should not be asked to provide safety data for the products to support the application.
Further inclusion of the additives, ingredients and nutrients in definitions of number of concerned proprietary products is required at a reasonably early date so that exemption from product approval be applied for all the proprietary food articles. If proprietary foods, themselves, are not defined there is a need for thee same in regulations.
(The writer is Bikaner-based food technologist)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|