|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improper labelling, misbranding of food products; new task for regulators
|
|
Monday, 16 July, 2012, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
Akshay Kalbag, Mumbai
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Even as the deadline for food business operators (FBOs) to obtain licences and registrations under the FSS Act, 2006, - August 5, 2012 - is fast approaching, the state Food & Drugs Administration and Food & Drugs Control Administration (FDAs and FDCAs) have another key issue to deal with - labelling practices.
The regulatory officials have to deal with two types of offenders in this area. The first category is the unbranded sector which does not conform to the labelling rules laid down in the Act and the other is a part of a sector engaged in mass production of 'branded' edibles with vague labels. To be precise, the latter can be called as companies manufacturing 'misbranded' products.
Expertspeak
The unbranded food sector is highly scattered and that is perhaps the reason why it is difficult for the FDA and FDCA to track the violators, a professor of nutrition told FnB News.
Manisha Parelkar, associate professor, food science and nutrition, S P N Doshi Women's College, Mumbai, said, "The unbranded players face one major challenge - they cannot avail the services of a labelling consultant. Moreover, they lack the technical expertise their counterparts in the organised sector have, and would not be able to spend as much as them."
Speculating about the role of the regulatory body, she said, "It is a broad-based role, and isn't limited to merely framing policy and making decisions, but also includes activities such as appointing the scientific committee that will review and approve the rules."
"FSSAI currently seems to be in a state of flux and is streamlining itself to undertake its activities better. There are not enough people to make sure the branded sector is adhering to the rules and regulation, so their main focus is working in tandem with the existing players in this sector. Once the systems and core guidelines are in place, the unbranded sector will not have any grievances," Parelkar said.
Nutritional information complex
Parelkar welcomed the stipulation in the Food Safety and Standards Act that says, "All food packs should contain the nutritional information in it."
However, she added that since it is numeric information - for instance, an edible has X number of kilocalories, and its protein, carbohydrate, vitamin, mineral and fat content are Y, Z, A, B and C respectively - only a handful of people from outside the industry understand it.
"The background information about a product should be mentioned clearly on the pack, and there should be more non-numeric information. But in a nutshell, we can say that unbranded products need to become compliant with the requirements of CODEX and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006," she said.
Ajit Mota, proprietor, Mota Chips, said, "There are many home-based industries that make namkeen in Dharavi and Ghatkopar. They sell misbranded products and often deceive the customer into buying a product whose ingredients are sub-standard. They are not bound by various kinds of tax obligations. Restaurants actually prefer to purchase these because they are cheaper."
Customer's grievance
It came to FnB News' notice that a customer recently visited two stores. At one he saw a packet of ready-to-cook (RTC) chapattis costing Rs 10, and from the other, he bought the same product costing twice that.
"Both the products were obviously unbranded. While no information about the product was given on the Rs 10 pack, only half the information - namely the contact details of the company; the nutritional information; the cooking method, and a storage tip - was provided on the Rs 20 pack," said the customer, on condition of anonymity.
He added, "The pack did not contain the three most important details, namely the MRP, the batch number of the product and its use-by date. Instead, there was an instruction which simply read, 'See on pack'. Finding none on the pack, I opened it and read the information inside it, but it was illegible."
FDA's take
When contacted, K V Sankhe, joint commissioner (food), Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra, said, "The customer should write a letter, contact via e-mail or call to the office of the joint commissioner (Greater Mumbai Division), Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra, informing him about the same."
When asked what information the label on a food pack should contain, he replied, "Apart from the contact details of the company and the nutritional information, it is mandatory to include the MRP, the batch number of the product and its dates of manufacture and expiry."
If any of, or all, these details are missing on the pack's label, Sankhe said it must be reported in detail to the state FDA or the concerned zonal office, who will arrive at the outlet from which it was bought and the manufacturer's premises and conduct a raid on the same.
When quizzed about the punishment a violator is liable for, he said, "That depends on the offence. Various levels of offences are mentioned in the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, and so are the corresponding monetary fines or terms of imprisonment. It also depends on whether the result of an FDA raid matches the claim of the aggrieved customer. We cannot even take a tall claim lightly."
Prosecutions in Goa
Goa's Food and Drug Administration says that it has conducted raids on the premises of a number of establishments that manufacture unbranded food products.
Rajiv Korde, a food inspector with the state FDA, told FnB News via telephone, "We have, in fact, filed a number of prosecutions in the district collector's office. We now await the consent."
A large section of the Goan population consumes non-vegetarian food. Korde said it is mandatory to clearly indicate that the product contains meat on the pack. "The symbol for non-vegetarian food is a brown dot, and the symbol for vegetarian food is a green one," he said.
As regards the punishment for offences, Korde echoed the sentiments expressed by Mumbai's Sankhe. "The Act lays down the offences and punishments." The FDA inspector said people found violating any provision of the Act can be fined a sum ranging between Rs 1 lakh and Rs 5 lakh; and in addition, he/she could be sentenced to or imprisoned for a specified term.
Farsan, paneer samples fail
The violators are manufacturers of unbranded farsan and paneer, said Korde, who is based in Ponda, Goa. "Although they possess the licenses, about a dozen or so were found indulging in unethical practices like misbranding, and we've cracked down on a few of these players," he said.
The proceedings are yet to be initiated by the collector of North Goa (Korde's home district), who is the adjudicating officer. He mentioned the teething troubles they are facing because they are yet to make the transition from the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, which came into effect in 1954, to the FSSA.
"Once he starts the process, it is binding on him to complete the same within 60 days, as stipulated by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006," said Korde.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|