FOOD ADULTERATION LAWS- AN ANALYSIS

 

The food industry includes manufacturing, packaging, processing, wholesale and distribution of food products. Compromising quality of these products is essentially compromising the health and safety of the populace of the country. Therefore, the quality and standard of food that reaches the public has to be above a certain benchmark. The food adulteration laws basically set this benchmark.  Adulteration of food is defined as “the addition or subtraction of any substance to or from food so that the natural composition and quality of food substance is affected”. This results in an inferior quality of the food. This can either be done intentionally for making some kind of profit or it can happen unintentionally due to the negligence of the person handling the food item. In either of the case, the person is held responsible for food adulteration under the laws of the country.

Food adulteration is on a rise in the country as revealed by various statistics.

·         According to the records of health and family welfare ministry from the financial year 2012-13, 20% of our food is either adulterated or substandard.

·         The amount of adulterated food in the market has seen an increase from 8% to 20% from the year 2008-09 to 2012-13.

·         According to a survey conducted by FSSAI on the adulteration of milk, nearly 70% of the milk is adulterated with water being the most common adulterant. The surprising result of the survey was that even detergent was found to be one of the adulterants which is a major health hazard.

·         Therefore, a check on food adulteration is very crucial to keep the adulterers within check.

 

 

BACKGROUND

The adulteration of food is a subject in the Concurrent list of the Constitution. Prior to 1954, there were several state laws to regulate the quality of the food. However, there was variance in the provisions of different states and this posed problems in trade between different provinces. The need for a Central legislation was felt. Thus, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was enacted by the Union legislature to tackle the problem of food adulteration which was rampant in the country. This Act was in operation until it was repealed in 2006 by the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006. Along with it, several orders such as the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, the Fruit Products Order, 1955, the Meat Food Products Order, 1973, etc also got repealed by the 2006 Act.

 

Laws

Central Legislation

There were several defects in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thus, to remove those defects and consolidate the laws relating to food safety and standards, the Parliament enacted the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereafter referred to as ‘FSSA’). This Act repealed all the other laws in force relating to the quality of food.

 Section 91 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules under the Act. Some of these rules enacted by the Government which regulates the standard of food products are:

·         Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011.

·         Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011.

·         Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sampling Analysis) Regulation, 2011.

·         Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives) Regulation, 2011.

 

 

Position under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Apart from these laws and regulations, there are provisions under the Indian Penal Code too which deal with food adulteration. Chapter XIV of the Code lays down provisions dealing with ‘offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency, and mora-ls’.

According to Section 272 and 273, food or drink adulteration or sale of such food or drink is an offence punishable with an imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine or both. However, some states like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal considered it to be insufficient punishment and made amendments in the provision with respect to punishment in the year 1970. The state amendment has made the offence punishable with imprisonment for life along with the liability of fine.

Provisions under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006

The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 is a comprehensive legislation dealing with various aspects with respect to the regulation of food safety. The provisions under the Act can be divided into various heads.

Establishment of various authorities and their responsibilities

The FSSA establishes various authorities for the effective implementation of the provisions of the Act.

· Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) is established under Section 4 of the Act. It is the most important authority which supervises and regulates food safety and standards.

o    The Act provides that its head office shall be in Delhi.

o    Moreover, it can also establish offices in any other place.

o    FSSAI is a body corporate having perpetual succession, common seal and the right to own and dispose of property in its own name. Like any other body corporate, it can sue and be sued in its own name.

o    It consists of a chairperson and 22 members selected by a Selection Committee constituted by the Central Government.

o    The Act also provides for the appointment of Chief Executive Officer by the Central Government. He is the legal representative of the Food Authority.

· The Act provides that the Food Authority shall establish various other authorities.

o    A Central Advisory Committee for ensuring cooperation between the Food Authority and the enforcement agencies.

o    Scientific Panels in order to deliberate on certain matters in consultation with representatives of the concerned industry along with consumer representatives.

o    Scientific Committee to advice the Food Authority on various issues by giving their scientific opinion.

· The Act empowers the State Government to appoint a Commissioner of Food Safety for the State for effective implementation of the provisions at the State level.

o    The Commissioner of Food Safety is given the authority to appoint a Designated Officer for each district.

o    The Commissioner is also empowered to appoint Food Safety Officers.

·         The Act does not only lay down the establishment of various authorities but also comprehensively provides for their responsibilities and duties.

Licensing and Registration

Section 31 deals with licensing and registration of food business.

It prohibits any person to operate any food business without a license.

• The license can be obtained by applying to the Designated Officer.
• The Designated Officer has been empowered by the Act to either grant or reject the license. Such rejection is in the interest of health and safety of the public.
• However, such rejection is to be made only after allowing the applicant to be heard and the reasons for such rejection has to be recorded.
• The Act also lays down that if the Designated Officer has neither accepted nor rejected the application, the applicant may start his business on expiry of two months from the making of such application.
• The Commissioner of Food Safety is given the authority to hear all the appeals against the rejection of license.
• There are certain exceptions to the above general rule. The Act exempts certain people from the requirement of obtaining a license.
• A petty manufacturer engaged in manufacturing or selling of food products.
• A petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small-scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business operator.

 However, they still have to get them registered with the appropriate authority.

General principles of food safety

Section 18 of the FSSA provides for the general principles which are to be followed by the various authorities while implementing the provisions of the Act such as endeavour to achieve an appropriate level of protection of human life and health and the protection of consumers’ interests carrying out risk management, etc.

Further, there are general provisions related to food products contained in Chapter IV of the Act. These include the regulation of the use of additives or processing aid in the food or the presence of contaminants, insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drugs residues, etc. in the food products. There are special provisions dealing with packaging and labelling of foods. Moreover, the Act also regulates the food products which can be imported. Unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements are prohibited under the Act.

Analysis of food

The Act gives out the responsibility to the Food Authority to notify food laboratories and research institutions accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories or any other accreditation agency[5] for the analysis of food samples. This analysis is to be done by Food Analysts appointed by the Commissioner of Food Safety.

Offences and Penalties

Section 48 lays down the provision of offences. It provides the circumstances where a person shall be liable for rendering any food item injurious by the various means such as adding to it an article or substance or removing certain elements from the food which results in deterioration of its quality. FSSA provides for penalties and punishments for contravening the provisions of the Act.

The Act consists of a comprehensive list of offences in which the penalties shall be imposed.

·         A penalty for selling of food which is not of the quality as per the regulations under the Act. The penalty, in this case, shall not exceed five lakh rupees.

·         A penalty for manufacturing for sale, storing, selling, distributing, importing food of sub-standard quality which may extend to five lakh rupees.

·         A penalty for manufacturing for sale storing, selling, distributing or importing misbranded food products which may extend to three lakh rupees.

·         The Act prohibits misleading or deceptive advertisements and there is a penalty for the same which may extend to ten lakh rupees.

·         A penalty is also prescribed for manufacturing, storing, selling, distributing or importing a food product containing extraneous material and such penalty may extend to one lakh rupees.

·         The Act imposes a penalty on the food business operator or importer who fails to comply with the provisions of the Act which may extend to two lakh rupees.

·         There is a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees for manufacturing or processing food in unhygienic or unhealthy conditions.

·         The Act also imposes a penalty for the possession of adulterant.

·         Further, the Act also lays down that if no separate penalty is provided and an act is in contravention to the provisions or regulations of the Act, then a penalty shall be imposed which may extend to two lakh rupees.

Apart from penalties, there are punishments too which are laid down in the Act. The term of imprisonment differs according to different categories.

·         Manufacturing for sale or storing or selling or distributing or importing food which is unsafe is punishable under the Act.

·         The Food Safety Officer may seize food products and a person who interferes with such seized items is liable for punishment.

·         There is punishment for providing false or misleading information.

·         Punishment is also laid down for obstructing or impersonating a Food Safety Officer.

·         The Act provides for compulsory obtaining of license with the exception in a few cases and a case of non-compliance is punishable under the Act.

·         There is a provision for punishment in case of subsequent offences under the Act.

Apart from penalty and punishment, the person contravening the provisions of the Act may also be held liable to pay compensation to the victim or the legal representative of the victim if such contravention has led to death or injury.

Adjudication authority

The Act has separate provisions with respect to the adjudication of the matters related to food safety and standards such as compounding of offences, the establishment of Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, etc

Consumer Protection Bill, 2018

With respect to food adulteration laws, the Bill has added certain provisions such as penalties for misleading advertisement as well as manufacturing and selling of adulterated or spurious goods.

Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act 1954

The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 extends to the whole of India and came into force with effect from 1 June 1955. It is necessary to be familiar with some terms defined in the Act.

"Food" means any article used as food or drink for human consumption other than drugs and water and includes:

a) any article which mdinarily enters into or is used in the composition or preparation of human food.

b) any flavouring matter or condiments, and

C) any other article which the central government may, having regard to its use, nature, substance or quality, declare by notification in the official gazette, as food for the purposes of this Act.

"Food (Health) Authority" means the Director of Medical and Health Services or the Chief , Officer in charge of Health Administration in a state by whatever designation he is known and includes any officer empowered by the central government or the state government, by notification in the official gazette, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Food (Health) Authority under this Act with respect to such local area as may be specified in the notification.

Local Area" means any area, whether urban or rural declared by the central government or the state government by notification in the official gazette, to be a local area for the purposes of this Act

"Local Authority" means in the case of :

1) A local area which is :

 a) A municipality, the municipal board or municipal corporation:

 b) A cantonment, the cantonment authority;

C) A notified area, the notified area committee;

 2) Any other local area, such authority as may be prescribed by the central government or the state government under this Act.

Local (Health) Authority: In relation to a local area, means the officer appointed by the central government or the state government by notification in the official gazette to be in charge of Health Administration in such area with such designation as may be specified therein: "Manufacture" 'includes the process incidental or ancillary to the manufacture of an article of food.

"Misbranded": An article of food shall be deemed to be misbranded:

 a) if it is an imitation of or is a substitute for, or resembles in a manner likely to deceive, another article of food under the name of which it is sold and is not plainly and conspicuously labeled so as to indicate its true character:

b) if it is falsely stated to be the product of any place or country;

C) if it is sold by a name which belongs to another article of'food;

 d) if it is so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished that the fact that the article is damaged is concealed or if the article is made to appear better or of greater value than it really is:

e) if false claims are made for it upon the labels or otherwise;

 f) if, when sold in packages, which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer and which bear his name and address, the contents of each package are not conspicuously and correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability prescribed under this act;

g) if the package containing it, or the label on the package bears any statement, design or device regarding the ingredients or the substances contained therein, which is false or misleading in any material particular, or if the package is otherwise deceptive with respect to its contents; if the package bears the name of a fictitious individual or company as them manufacturer or producer of the article;

 i) if it purports to be or is represented as being, for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be prescribed concerning its vitamin, mineral or other dietary properties in order to sufficiently inform its purchaser as to its value for such uses;

 j) if it contains any artificial flavouring, artificial colouring or chemical preservative, without a declaratory label stating this fact, or in contravention of the requirements of this Act or rules made there under;

 k) if it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or rules made there under;

 

"Package" means a box, bottle, casket, tin, barrel, case receptacle, sack, bag, wrapper or other thing in which an article of food is placed or packed;

 

"Primary food" means any article of food, being a produce of agriculture or horticulture in its natural form.

 

"Adulterated"--an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated:

a) if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser and is to his prejudice, .or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be;

 

b) if the article contains any other substance which affects, or if the article is so processed as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

 

c) if any inferior or cheaper substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article, so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

 

d) if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof;

 

e) if the article has been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions whereby it has become contaminated or injurious to health;

 

 f) if the article consists wholly or in part of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or Protecting the Consumer , diseased animal or vegetable substance or is insect infested or is otherwise unfit for human consumption;

 

 (g) if the article is obtained from a diseased animal.

 

 

EXAMPLES OF ADULTERATION

Mustard oil :

Some years back there were reports of mustard oil adulteration by a very famous brand manufacturing mustard oil , with rapseed oil .

In India, Argemone oil is mixed with sunflower oil and sesame oil to increase the quantity. But, this adulteration causes health disorders. Renowned brands display 'No Argemone oil' to qualify purity.

Maggi

Last year only Maggi was included in the adulterer food item list. Maggi was banned in the markets for a very long period of time.

Some of very common adulterated food items in Indian market are following :

Vegetable oils

Castor oil, mineral oil, Argemon oil, Kranaja oil is added in vegetable oil.

Coffee

Chicory is mixed with coffee powder.

Tea

Iron fillings, colored tea leaves are mixed tea leaves. Used tea leafs are dried and coloured to look fresh and mixed with fresh tea.

Vegetables

Vegetables are bleached to look bright and white like cauliflower. Some vegetables like parwal which are green are coloured artificially with green colour to look bright green and fresh.

Wheat flour

Wheat flour is mixed with chalk powder, bran dust and sand to increase weight and volume. Wheat is grinded into very thin powder its bran is removed, sooji is also removed. The flour is left without fiber but it looks white.

Pulses

Lead chromate is added to Dal's like moong chana and arhar. Whole kesari dal is mixed in masoor whole. Split or washed kesari dal is mixed with yellow Dal's like arhar and chana. Kesari dal is grinded with chana dal to make besan. Yellow Dal's arhar, chana and moong wash are coloured with metanil yellow. Urad washer contains white powder which is harmful for health.

Confectionery

Harmful colours are added to confectionery items. These colors are harmful for body. They include copper, Persian blue, arsenic compounds, chrome yellow etc.

Spices

Spices are mixed with coloured bran.

Turmeric poder: Metanil yellow is mixed with turmeric powder. Coloured chalk powder, aniling dye, and wood powder are added to turmeric powder.

Red chilly powder

Red chilly powder is mixed with red color dye,sudanred 3 colour and red brick powder.

Cumin Seeds

Cumin seeds are mixed with grass seeds dyed with charcoal.

Milk, Paneer and khoya, :

Milk paneer and khoya are mixed with urea, starch and washing powder.

Butter

To give yellow colour to butter Anatta is added to butter. Oleo margarine a byproduct of beef fat is added in large quantities to butter. Vanaspati is also added to butter.

Cream

Cream is mixed with gelatin and formaldehyde to increase its shelf life Vanaspati is added.

Rice

 Plastic is being sold in many parts of the state. The 'rice' is supposedly made in China by mixing potatoes, sweet potatoes and plastic. The potatoes are first formed into the shape of rice grains. Industrial synthetic resins are then added to the mix. It is also found to be having high amount of Chinese polymer. The rice reportedly stays hard even after being cooked and rice soup from it is hard compared to other rice soup, and forms a plastic sheath. The sheath burns like plastics when it is burned, people say. Presently, such rice have been found in markets of Kozhikode district.

 

 

 

The Central Committee for Food Standards:

This Committee was instituted  by the Central Government to advice it and the State Governments on matters arising out of the administration of this Act and to carry out other functions assigned to it under this Act. It consists of Director General, Health Services as Chairman, Directors of the Central Food Laboratory, two experts nominated by the Central Government. Representatives of the Food and Agricultural Ministry and Ministries of Commerce, Defence, Industry, Supply and Railways, representatives of the State Governments and Union Territories, representatives of ' the agricultural, commercial and industrial interests, consumer interests, hotel industry, Indian Council of Medical Research and Bureau of Indian Standards. The Secretary to the Committee and clerical and other staff is provided by the Central Government. The Committee may make its own procedural bye-laws with Government approval and act through subcommittees.

 

Central Food Laboratory

 The Central Government shall establish one or more Central Food Laboratories for the purposes of this Act. Its functions shall consist of analysing samples of food and submitting certificates of analysis, inspecting and fixing standard of any article of food and investigating with public analysts for standardising methods of analysis.

 

Prohibition of Import of Certain Articles of Food

The Act prohibits import into India of any adulterated food, misbranded food or of any food in violation of the conditions of the import licence or any provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder. The Customs Officers are empowered to exercise their powers of seizure and arrest in respect of import of prohibited article of foods. No person shall himself or through any agent sell, store or distribute any adulterated food, any misbranded food, any adulterant or any article of food not in accordance with the conditions of the licence or of any provisions of this Act or Rule or when the same is prohibited by the Food (Health) authority In the interests of public health.

 

Public Analysts

 Both the Central Government and the State Governments may appoint persons having prescribed qualifications to be Analysts for local areas and for different articles of food. Such persons should hold a masters degree in chemistry, bio-chemistry, food technology or microbiology from recognised university or have passed an examination in food analysis conducted by the Institute of Chemists and has a minimum experience of three years in analysis of food. It is the duty of the public analysts to compare the seals on the container and outer cover with specimen impression on a food package containing a sample for analysis received from a food inspector. He shall cause to be analysed the samples of food and submit his report to the Local Health Authority within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of such samples. Where the sample does not conform to the provisions of the Act or Rules, the public analyst shall send by registered post or by hand four copies of his report to the said authority and also forward a copy of such report to the person who purchased the article of food and forward the same to him for analysis.

 

Food Inspectors

Both the Central Government and the State Governments have been empowered to appoint persons with prescribed qualifications to be food inspectors for local areas as may be assigned to them. The qualification for being appointed as a food inspector is graduate in medicine with one month training in food inspection and sampling, science graduate with chemistry or pharmacy or agricultural or veterinary science or food technology or dairy technology from recognised university with three months training in food inspection and sampling. A medical officer in charge of the health administration of a local area can also be 36 appointed as a food inspeclor. The duty of a food inspector is to inspect as frequently as may be prescribed by food (health) authority or the local authority, all establishments licenced for Law Relating to FOO~ and the manufacture or storage or sale of an article of food to satisfy himself, whether the Adulteration, Drugs and Cosmetics conditions of licence are being observed, to procure and send for analysis samples of any articles of food which are prohibited by the Act or Rules to inspect any article under the Act or the Rules to maintain record of inspection, to make necessary enquiries and inspectors can stop any vehicle suspected to contain any food for human consumption, to detain imported packages containing prohibited food and to perform other duties as may be entrusted by the health officer or the Food (Health) Authority. The Food Inspector is also to issue a receipt for any food seized by him. When he takes a sample for analysis he shall give notice of his intention to do so to the person from whom he shall take the sample. It is open to the food inspector or a recognised consumer association to have any article of food analysed by the public analysts on payment of fees as may be prescribed.

 

Report of Public Analysts After carrying out the analysis of any article of food submitted to him for analysis, the public analysts shall del~ver the reports in Form No. 3 to the Local (Health) Authority. If the report states that the article of food is adulterated, the local authority shall forward the copy of the report within 10 days after the institution of prosecution in Form 3 by registered post or by hand to the person from whom the sample of article was taken by the Food Inspector and also to the person from whom the vendor had purchased the art~cle of food. It igalso open to the person concerned to make an application to the court within a period of 10 days of the recelpt of the copy of the report to get the sample of the article of food kept by the local authority analysed by the Central Food Laboratory. The court shall require the local authority to forward the sample to the court within a period of 5 days from the date of receipt of such request. On receipt of the sample, the court shall first ascertain the mark and seal or fastening is intact and the signature or thumb impression is not tampered with and despatch the part or one of the parts of the sample under its own seal to the Director of the Central Food Laboratory for analysis. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory will within one month from the receipt of the sample report the analysis of the sample to the court. The remaining part of the sample shall be returned to the local health authority by the court which shall destroy the same after the certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory has been received by the court. Proceedings in regard to the prosecution shall commence only after the receipt of the certificate of analysis from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory.

 

Warranty as to Quality and Nature of Food

Every manufacturer or distributor or dealer in any article of food shall set such article to any . vendor with a warranty in writing in Form VI-A or in the bill, cash memo or label a warranty about the nature and quality of such article to the vendor. Where a bill, cash memo or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food is so given by the manufacturer, distributor or dealer it shall be deemed to be a warranty given by such manufacturer, distributor or seller including a commission agent. Wherever required, every vendor of an article of food

 

 

Food Poisoning Cases

The Central Government or State Government may notify and require medical practitioners in any local area to report occurrences of food poisoning coming within their cognizance and jurisdiction to the health authorities.

 

Offences and Penalties

·         All persons shall be liable to imprisonment for a term upto 6 months which may extend to 3 years and with fine of Rs.10001. If they are found to have imported directly or indirectly into India or manufacture or sell, store or distribute any article of food which is adulterated, or in contravention of any provision of this Act and the Rules. They shall also be liable if any adulterant which is not injurious to health is imported, manufactured, stored or sold. Similar 'punishment will be meted out to any person who prevents any food inspector from taking a sample of food article or prevents him from exercising any powers under the Act, or has in

 

·         Found in his possession any adulterant not injurious to health uses any report or certificate of a test or analysis made by the Central Food Laboratory or Public Analyst for advertising any article of food or gives to a vendor a false warranty in writing in respect of article of food sold by him. The court may impose a lesser punishment where adulteration takes place of primary food due to human agencies or the food article is misbranded. Similarly, importing of article of food which is adulterated or using any adulterant which is injurious to health will be punishable with imprisonment upto 6 years and with fine of Rs. 20001-. If the adulterated food or adulterant causes death or such harm would amount to serious injurypunishment is upto 3 years imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 50001-

 

·         Similarly, tampering of article of food kept in safe custody or selling the same will entail punishment of a 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs.10001-.

 

·         Where such article of food is sold or distributed and is consumed by any person which causes death or causes such harm as would amount to serious, harm he shall be punishable with 3 years imprisonment and with a fine of Rs. 50001-.

 

·         The court has power to try food adulteration cases in a summary way notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

·         Where a company is the offender the person nominated as in charge of the company for conduct of the business of the Company shall be responsible. Where no such name has been made, the person who was responsible at the material time for the conduct of the business of the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence under the Act along with the company.

 

·         If a person is convicted under the Act for contravention of any provisions therein, the article of food in respect of which there is contravention may be forfeited to the government. If the article of food can be reprocessed for human consumption, the court may order its return to the owner on condition of his executing a bond to sell subject to such reprocessing.

 

·         The court can make the manufacturer a party during the trial, if it is so satisfied about the role of the manufacturer in the offence.

 

Defence to Prosecution:

 It shall be no defence in a case of food adulteration for the vendor to say that he was ignorant about nature, substance or quality of the food sold by him or that the purchaser of the food article was not prejudiced by the sale. It shall be no offence if the vendor can prove that the adulterated or misbranded food was purchased from a licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer or that it had a written warranty. He has also to prove that the article of food while in his possession was properly stored and that he sold it in the same state as it was purchased.

 

Power of Govt. to Make Rules For carrying out the provision of the Act,

The Central Government has power to give necessary directions to the State Governments and also make Rules providing for specific regulation of various aspects of the law. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 was made accordingly and the same is in force. These Rules provide for functions of Central Food Laboratory, public analysts and food inspectors, their qualifications, duties, forms to be used for various reports and purposes, sealing, fastening and despatch of samples, colouring matter, packing and labelling of foods, prohibition and regulating of sales, flavouring material, conditions for sale and license, preservatives, contaminants, food additives, insecticides, and pesticides, irradiation of food.

REMEDY FOR THE MENACE NAMED “FOOD ADULTERATION” 

Through the detailed cause analysis, various reasons behind the adulteration of food were revealed. The major problems seen in this sector are related to and the possible remedies to them are as follows: 1. Improved Storage facilities One of the biggest problems seen in the food grains, legumes and spices is insect infestation due to the humid and unhygienic conditions of the store house. 

1. we need close monitoring of the storage conditions of food grains by professional individuals There is a scope to improve the quality of grains by keeping in track the incoming and outgoing samples along with their dates so that “first in first out” can be applied here as well. Additional care must be given to check that insect infested grains from the fields do not reach the storehouse as it might turn out to be threat for the healthy grains. During the months of monsoon, and also in highly humid areas, extra care must be taken so that grains are not spoiled. 

2. Improved Handling practices The food handlers have to be well trained on how to handle grains to prevent damage to the grains or quality loss. 

3. Prevention of Addition of extraneous matter, other oils, rice starch and other substances for monetary gains by selling cheaper quality food at a higher price Economically motivated food adulteration is widespread in our country. This can be handled in a three-fold technique by joint efforts of the consumer, food vendor and the government. First, the consumer should be encouraged keep a keen eye on the food they are buying or consuming. The DART book must be popularized among the public through advertisements and housewives can be motivated to conduct those tests. The public must be taught to any slightest of the cases of food adulteration that they encounter. All such efforts will be possible only if the consumer knows the ill-effects of consuming adulterated food. Second , the FOSTAC training must be given to the food vendors so as to educate them about the ill effects of adulterated food, inform them about the penalties they have to pay if found guilty and therefore encourage them to carry out fair trade practices. Third, the government can open “adulteration awareness cells” where people can report cases of food adulteration directly. The government can also conduct raids or sudden visits to the godown or places where food is stored so as to check if the conditions are suitable. Random sampling of foods from different vendors should be analyzed and if found adulterated then strict measures must be taken. 

 4. Introduction of newer technologies for detection of food adulteration: Food apps should be developed such that consumers can easily report cases of food adulteration. Newer machines can be developed to detect the level of food adulteration in different food items. For example, “Ksheer Scanner’, which instantaneously detects urea, salt, detergent, liquid soap, boric acid, caustic soda, soda and hydrogen peroxide, was developed by CSIR-CEERI. Such improved machinery will help to efficient detection of food adulteration. Development of well-developed laboratories with developed equipments for carrying out advanced detection techniques for food adulteration 

5. Encouraging food vendors who are found to be fair: The food vendors who are found to sell good quality foods must be rewarded in various ways so that the others are motivated to sell good quality products. Positive motivation can act better than penalizations and prosecutions. '

6. Education to food vendors and all middle men: The food vendors must be given training and told about the ill effects of adulteration. They must be made aware that the adulterated foods also harm their own family members.

CASE LAWS

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Ram, 1990 (2) FAC 231

 Liquor (including country liquor) is an article used as a drink and is meant for human consumption and for the purposes of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is included in the definition of "food" under clause (v) of section 2; 

Gauranga Aich v. State of Assam, 1990 (2) FAC 41. 

 Even mere addition of salt to chili powder makes it injurious to health as it was still considered adulterated within the meaning of sub-clause (m) of clause (ia) of section 2 of the Act on the ground that the quantity and purity of the article falls below the prescribed standard ; 

State of U.P. v. Hanif, AIR 1992 SC 1121

It is not the law that the evidence of a Food Inspector must necessarily need corroboration from independent witnesses. The evidence of the Food Inspector is not inherently suspected, nor should it be rejected on that ground. He discharges the public function in purchasing an article of food for analysis and if the article of food so purchased in the manner prescribed under the Act is found adulterated, he is required to take action as per the law. He discharges the public duty. His evidence is to be tested on its own merits and if found acceptable, the court would be entitled to accept and rely on to prove prosecution case;

Yamuna Sah v. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) FAC 16.

 Where sample was not sent by Food Inspector or by the complainant without following the procedure as laid down in the Act, cognizance is bad and is in contravention of the law;

State of Orissa v. K. Appa Rao Subudhi, 1990 (2) FAC 189; State of Assam v. Sumermal Jain, 1990 (2) FAC 223.

The Food Inspector shall call one or more persons present at the time of taking of a sample; 

Laxmidhar Saha v. State of Orissa, 1989 (1) FAC 364. 

The Food Inspector is a public servant. There is no cogent reason to disbelieve his evidence; Ram Gopal Aggarwal v. S.M. Mitra, 1989 (2) FAC 339. (v) Where outsiders who were present at the spot refused to be cited as witness and went away, then the Food Inspector did not fault in calling independent witnesses; 

State of Rajasthan v. Naresh Chand, 1989 (1) FAC 338

The requirement of section 11 of the Act is that the Food Inspector shall take the sample and divide it there and then in three parts and mark and seal each part in such a manner as its natural way permits and take signature or thumb impression of the person from whom the sample has been taken; 

Food Inspector v. Noor Mohammed, 1989 (1)FAC 371.

The responsibility of the Food Inspector is only to send the sample not later than the immediately succeeding working day to the Public Analyst

Srinivas Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 1990 (2) FAC 101.

 An accused is entitled under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act to prove his innocence by getting his sample analysed from Central Food Laboratory which supersedes the report of the public analyst for ensuring a fair trial;

Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 226.

 The sample of milk procured from the accused (milk vendor) was declared to be adulterated on the sole ground that there was some deficiency in milk solids, non-fats. Since the adulteration is of a minor nature, the conviction of accused is reduced from 3 months imprisonment to fine;

R.Banerjee v. H.D. Dubey, AIR 1992 SC 1168.

  It is clear from the scheme of section 17 of the Act that where a company has committed an offence under the Act, the person nominated under sub-section (2) to be incharge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business shall be proceeded against unless it is shown that the offence was committed with the consent/connivance/negligence of any other Director, Manager, Secretary or Officer of the company in which case the said person can also be proceeded against and punished for commission of offence.

LESSONS FROM AROUND THE GLOBE

USA

 First, facilities must conduct a vulnerability assessment, which means finding the points in their processes that pose the greatest risk for intentional adulteration. Second, facilities must put in place mitigation, or preventive, strategies to address these vulnerabilities. Third, a system must be put in place for food defense monitoring, food defense corrective action, and food defense verification, which together ensure the system is working as intended to address the vulnerabilities. Fourth is recordkeeping. Finally, there are training requirements. Personnel, and their supervisors, working at the most vulnerable points in a facility are required to take food defense awareness training and to have the education, training, or experience to properly implement mitigation strategies. In addition, preparing the food defense plan, conducting vulnerability assessments, identifying mitigation strategies, and engaging in reanalysis activities must be done or overseen by personnel with additional training or experience. Their main aim they have is to “educate and regulate”.

AUSTRALIA

 Inspection and surveillance are the most common bases of identifying specific breaches of food laws Further survey data indicates that, in conducting inspection programs, most agencies undertake systematic rather than random inspections; inspection frequency is in most cases weighted according to the assessed risk involved in particular classes of premises; and general inspections patterns are preferred to blitzes on particular areas or problems. Public complaints received a lower rating as a means of identifying specific breaches, but this reflects limits on the number of complaints received rather than the importance attached to them by the agencies. Indeed, 84 percent of agencies indicated that they give priority to public complaints, reflecting underlying notions of ‘customer service’ in many cases. The table shows that education and warnings are the most commonly used tools for rectifying specific breaches and are often used together. On identifying a breach, an enforcement officer will often issue a warning and also advise the proprietor on how to deal with the problem. Fines and prosecutions are used less frequently, and adverse publicity is rarely used.