A series of food safety issues in recent weeks involving ground spices, infants and children’s foods have not only caused considerable concern among consumers, but also raised serious doubts about the ability of the food regulator, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), to ensure the safety of food sold in the country.
Following rejection of several varieties of ground spices of popular brands MDH and Everest by Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States for the presence of the carcinogen ethylene oxide and salmonella bacteria, the FSSAI has ordered countrywide inspections and testing of all branded spices. But it requires more than that to assuage consumer fears about the quality of ground spices because generally, foods that are exported, have better quality control than those manufactured for the domestic market. So, it raises several questions about the quality of these spices, our safety standards and enforcement.
Besides, the Food Safety and Standards Act prohibits the sale of unpacked ground spices, the logic being that packaged spices manufactured under licence from the food regulator are safe. So, the consumer has every right to demand that the FSSAI’s quality seal fulfils its promise of safety.
But what’s generated more anger and consternation among consumers are the issues pertaining to the safety of foods for infants and children. It is well known that sugar, except those naturally present in food, should not be given to children till the age of three years. In fact, in 2019, the World Health Organisation called for a ban on added sugar and sweeteners in food products for babies and children under the age of three years, following which many countries incorporated such a ban. The WHO urged the industry to be proactive and reformulate their baby food products. Yet, according to recent reports, Nestle sold Cerelac with added sugar in India. Of course, the blame rests squarely on the food regulator for not completely prohibiting added sugar, but Nestle would have earned the respect of Indian parents if it had brought into practice here, its healthy recipe (no added sugar) followed in Europe. The FSS (Foods for Infant Nutrition) Regulations say that “Lactose and glucose polymers shall be the preferred carbohydrates for food for infant nutrition. Sucrose/or fructose shall not be added, unless needed as a carbohydrate source and provided the sum of these does not exceed 20 per cent of total carbohydrate”.
The fact that the food regulator allowed added sugar in baby foods and high amounts of sugar in malt/dairy/cereal-based beverages touted as “health drinks” for children, despite the knowledge that children on high sugar diets are prone to obesity and are at risk for diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, casts a shadow on the capability of the food regulator to protect vulnerable groups like infants and children. It is only now, after considerable public debate on the high sugar levels in Bournvita that the regulator has asked e-commerce companies to remove drinks such as Bournvita and Horlicks from the list of “health” drinks.
Given the adverse impact of consumption of high levels of fat, sugar, and salt in all processed foods, the FSSAI ought to have mandated long ago, a specified, time-bound reduction of these ingredients and ensured compliance. However, in 2018, it opted for a voluntary pledge from manufacturers. Evaluating voluntary cutbacks requires recording the percentage of these components in the beginning. But the FSS (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 2011, did not even require food manufacturers to provide sodium content under the “Nutrition Information”, despite the direct link between sodium and hypertension and diabetes. It was only in 2022, under the FSS (Labelling and Display) Regulation, that mentioning the sodium content became mandatory. But the issue of “front of package” colour coding to warn consumers of foods high in salt, sugar and fat is still hanging fire.
From the Comptroller and Auditor General in 2017, Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2018 to the Public Accounts Committee in 2021 and 2022, all have focused on the need to formulate food standards and regulations quickly and update them at regular intervals based on not just international standards, but also new scientific research, with wider consultation of all stakeholders. They have also emphasised the need for a more transparent system of licensing, inspection, sampling and market surveillance and better handling of cases to ensure larger convictions. They have also rued the absence of adequate infrastructure that has stymied the work of the regulator.
The Public Account Committee’s “action taken report” presented to Parliament in December 2022 throws light on the low priority given to food safety by state governments. In Bihar, for example, out of a requirement of 115 Food Safety Officers, the state had only 14. The low staff and infrastructure showed in the low sampling and poor conviction rates. In 2022-23, out of 1,72,687 samples analysed in the country, 44,421 were found to be non-conforming. Out of 38,053 civil and 4,817 criminal cases launched, only 27,053 and 1,133 were convicted respectively.
The Consumer Protection Act gives consumers the right to information, informed choice, and the right to safe food, but more importantly, a fundamental right to healthy food. The Supreme Court underscored this in the Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India (2020) when it said that “any food article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A paramount duty is cast on the States and its authorities to achieve an appropriate level of protection to human life and health.”
What is needed is a complete overhaul of the food safety and standards regulatory system in the country, with full emphasis on the citizen’s right to safe food.
Girimaji is an author and specialist in consumer rights
