World Food Safety Day 2025 observed annually on June 7, this year’s theme is “Food Safety: Science in Action”, reflecting a shift towards a scientific, risk-based approach in India.

India’s Approach towards Food Safety

• First Food Safety Law (1954): In 1954, India enacted the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, its first major legislation on food safety.
• Binary Classification: The Act followed a binary approach ; food was either “safe” or “adulterated”, with no scientific risk assessment in place.
• No Distinction: It made no distinction between Intentional adulterants (e.g., chalk powder in milk), Natural toxins (e.g., aflatoxins), Pesticide residues and food additive overdoses
• Quantity or Exposure: A key flaw was ignoring the amount of food consumed “the dose makes the poison” was overlooked.
• Lack of Risk-Based Evaluation: There was no risk assessment method. Judgments were binary, not based on scientific evaluation or actual health risk.

Changes in the FSSA Act

• Shift in Food Regulation: The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006 marked a major shift from an adulteration-focused approach to a science-based regulatory framework.
• Creation of FSSAI:The Act established the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) as the apex food safety regulator.
• Local Application: Drawing from the Codex Alimentarius Commission (a joint initiative by WHO & FAO), FSSAI integrated international best practices into India’s food safety system.
• Scientific Frameworks: FSSAI introduced a modern, risk-based approach through MRLs (Maximum Residue Limits) for pesticides, safe limits for food additives and Standards for natural and chemical contaminants
• Prevention: This was a major institutional reform moving from reactive adulteration control to proactive, science-driven regulation.

Scientific Implementation

• Basis for Safety Limits: Pesticide regulation evolved: if residue levels up to 0.01 mg/kg were proven harmless, they were set as the scientific safety limit.
• Veterinary Residues: Permissible limits for veterinary drug residues were defined using exposure assessment and toxicological data.
• Aligning with Global Standards: India began achieving international parity in food regulation by aligning with the global scientific consensus and trade requirements.
• Risk-Based Limits: The old “zero tolerance” model was replaced by scientifically justified limits, based on risk assessment methodologies.
• Defensible Standards: This shift enabled India to participate meaningfully in global food trade with scientifically defensible standards, enhancing regulatory credibility.

India’s Global Standing

• Global Benchmark: By 2020, FSSAI had established food safety standards across most categories that were comparable to developed nations.
• International Norms: India made strong progress in harmonizing regulations with Codex Alimentarius guidelines and global scientific standards.
• Hidden Cracks: This transformation was like building a structure rapidly efficient on the surface, but with foundational gaps that became visible over time.
• Outpaced Capacity: The pace of regulatory reform sometimes exceeded the growth of supporting infrastructure, institutional capacity, and scientific expertise.
• Gaps: While standards matched global levels, the capacity for enforcement and the scientific support system still needed significant strengthening.

Challenges Associated with India

• Lack of Toxicological studies: Setting Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) requires toxicological studies and exposure assessments tailored to local conditions.
  • India faces a critical shortage of its own toxicological studies. Most safety benchmarks rely on imported data from foreign populations with different health baselines.
• Exposure Estimates: For example, wheat intake in Europe averages 200g/day, while in India it is around 400g/day—doubling exposure to any pesticide residues in the Indian context.
• Absence of Total Diet Study (TDS): India has not yet conducted a Total Diet Study (TDS) , a comprehensive analysis of chemical exposure through the complete daily diet.
• WHO Warning: The WHO (2020) stated: “Countries without TDS often misjudge cumulative risks.” This highlights a serious gap in India’s risk assessment capacity.
• Public Confusion: Scientific safety values like MRLs (Maximum Residue Limits) or ADIs (Acceptable Daily Intakes) are expressed in ppm (parts per million) or ppb (parts per billion)—units often confusing for the general public.
• Communication Gap: This disconnect in communication can trigger public panic and mistrust, as seen in 2019 when FSSAI revised pesticide MRLs leading to alarming headlines like “dangerous food,” despite scientific validity.

Issue of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)

• Regulatory Lag: Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) illustrates how legacy food regulations can contradict established science and mislead consumers.
• Verdict on MSG: The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA):
  • 1971: Declared MSG safe
  • 1987: Assigned “ADI Not Specified”—indicating no health concern at any level of consumption
• Global Acceptance: China, USA, and Japan fully accept MSG’s safety and allow its unrestricted use in food, based on decades of scientific validation.
• Regulatory Inconsistency: In India MSG use was initially restricted to meat products
  Gradually expanded, but still carries “Not recommended for infants” warning—without scientific basis
• Occurrence: Glutamate, the active component of MSG, naturally occurs in mushrooms, tomatoes, cheese, garlic, and even breast milk. MSG is chemically identical to these natural sources.
• Public Chemophobia: When regulations portray MSG as unsafe, it fosters “chemophobia” an irrational fear of safe chemical additives in food.
• Regulatory Perception: This contradicts the scientific reality: MSG is chemically identical to naturally occurring glutamate in tomatoes, cheese, and breast milk.
  Such warnings cause unnecessary consumer confusion and market distortion.
• Erosion of Trust: Persistent unscientific labeling weakens consumer trust and damages the credibility of India’s science-based food regulatory system.
• Economic Costs: Outdated MSG restrictions hurt the domestic food industry, create competitive disadvantages globally anViolate science-based trade norms
• Case Study: The MSG controversy exemplifies India’s slow revision of outdated regulations that clash with current scientific consensus.
• Obsolete Regulations: Many scientifically obsolete rules remain active due to institutional inertia, political reluctance, and fear of public backlash.
• Capacity Gaps: A key challenge is the lack of updated risk assessment training among regulators, limiting their ability to modernize standards.

Way Forward

• Two-Tier Regulatory System: This results in a two-tier system where some regulations are science-aligned, but many others remain trapped in outdated paradigms.
• Research Investment: India must invest heavily in domestic toxicology laboratories to reduce reliance on foreign scientific data.
• Dietary Exposure Studies: Conducting exposure assessments based on Indian dietary patterns is crucial to accurately understand chemical risks unique to India.
• Implementation of Total Diet Study (TDS): A comprehensive TDS should be launched nationally to capture cumulative chemical exposure from the complete daily diet.

Conclusion

Sustained investment in long-term toxicology research will create the scientific foundation for evidence-based, India-specific food safety standards. Strengthening indigenous research capabilities will enable the formulation of context-appropriate safety limits and reduce regulatory dependence on imported studies.

DOWNLOAD PDF