Editorial: Good case for a re-think

If legislation enacted by Parliament and duly approved by the President fails to be notified and enforced for long, it must be a clear indication that the government has developed second thoughts on the subject. A case in point is the Food Safety and Standards Act, which was passed by Parliament in 2006 but is yet to take effect because of the contentious nature of several key provisions. Indeed, this piece of umbrella legislation, concerning food quality and safety, has been awaited eagerly by the food industry and consumers alike because it seeks to replace at least eight outmoded laws, including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. However, the new legislation has been poorly crafted. Several clauses are as vexed as the ones they intend to replace and are, therefore, being opposed by the food industry. A typical example is the clause that concerns retail food chains, which incorporates the health ministry's incredible proposal that cooked food that is home-delivered should carry precise information on calories, protein, fat and other content, on the food packaging. As should be obvious to the meanest intelligence, this is wholly impractical, considering that home-delivered food is usually made-to-order and therefore is not standardised fare; it is no different from restaurant food, except that it is home delivered. Since each packet contains different quantities of ingredients, any labeling of the kind proposed is clearly impossible. Though the hue and cry raised by the industry has forced the government to reconsider this move, altering this provision alone is not enough.

 

A fundamental flaw in the legislation as approved is that it applies more or less the same rules and norms to the organised as well as unorganised food sectors, and also makes it mandatory for everyone in the food sector to get a licence or registration issued by the local authorities. This might sound okay in principle, but everyone knows the ever-present danger of perpetuating inspector- and licence-raj with all the scope for harassment and corruption that goes with it. Some of the provisions concerning labeling and specifications with regard to ingredients, traceability and recall procedure are said to be difficult to adhere to, even for companies in the organised food sector. Meanwhile, the soft drinks industry has gone to court, and the Supreme Court has asked the Indian Council of Medical Research to scientifically investigate some of the criticisms before it issues any decree on whether or not to force the soft drink industry to disclose ingredients which they treat as trade secrets.

This apart, the mechanism stipulated for regulating the food sector — by constituting a Food Safety and Standards Authority as the apex regulator and involving the local bureaucracy in the enforcement of set norms — has evoked criticism from several quarters. The over-riding role is assigned to bureaucrats, undermining the part that the technocrats should actually play. In view of the range of objections to the Bill as enacted, and the general unhappiness with its provisions, it would be a good idea to revisit its objectives and how those objectives are sought to be served, and thereafter to bring forth suitable amendments.