Answer

India’s food safety framework, led by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, aims to ensure safe and nutritious food. Despite advancements, challenges persist in risk assessment, communication, and regulatory enforcement, impacting public health and trust.

Evolution of India’s Food Safety Standards

• Pre-2006: Fragmented Regulatory FrameworkPrior to 2006, India’s food safety was governed by multiple laws, leading to inconsistencies and regulatory overlaps with initial regulation through Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955.
• 2006 :Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), 2006
  Consolidated existing food laws into a single framework and established the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
• 2011 – Notification of Principal Regulations
  FSSAI notified six core regulations covering standards for food products, additives, contaminants, labeling, packaging, and health claims.
• 2016 – Health Supplements and Nutraceuticals Regulation
  Introduced comprehensive safety and quality standards for health supplements and nutraceuticals.
• 2017–2022 – Specialized Food Regulations Introduced
  • 2017 – Food Recall Procedure Regulation: Established procedures for recalling unsafe food products.
  • 2017 – Import Regulation: Laid down safety standards for food imports.
  • 2017 – Organic Food Regulation: Set labeling and certification norms for organic food.
  • 2022 – Ayurveda Aahara Regulation: Standardized Ayurvedic food product safety and marketing.

Gaps in Risk Assessment

• Limited Laboratory Infrastructure: India has only 112 NABL-accredited labs, falling short of the required number to ensure timely testing.
  Example: In 2024-25, Gujarat FDCA seized 351 tonnes of suspicious food items, highlighting inadequate testing capacity.
• Inconsistent Hazard Prioritization: The Risk Assessment Cell (RAC) lacks real-time data, delaying responses to emerging threats.
• Inadequate Sampling Protocols: Only 32% of labs test for pesticide residues, leading to incomplete hazard profiling.
• Delayed Sample Analysis: Backlogs in testing facilities result in prolonged analysis times.

Gaps in Risk Communication

• Technical Language Barriers: Scientific data is often inaccessible to the general public.
  Example: RAC reports lack simplified summaries, hindering understanding among consumers.
• Urban-Centric Outreach: Communication strategies predominantly target urban populations.
  Example: FSSAI’s “Food Safety on Wheels” vans have limited reach in rural areas.
• Delayed Public Alerts: Risk alerts are not issued promptly to consumers.
  Example: Food Import Rejection Alert (FIRA) portal delayed alerts on contaminated Indian spices even after bans by Singapore and Hong Kong.
• Limited Stakeholder Feedback: Mechanisms for public feedback in shaping communication are weak.
  Example: FSSAI’s Food Safety Connect app allows complaints but lacks structured use of consumer input for policymaking or label redesign.

Challenges in Implementing Science-Based Regulations

• Infrastructure Deficiencies: Shortage of accredited labs hampers timely inspections.
• Complex Regulatory Framework: Overlapping standards create confusion for Food Business Operators (FBOs).
  Example: Herbal supplements are regulated by both FSSAI and Ministry of AYUSH, causing delays and confusion in licensing.
• Limited Consumer Awareness: Public knowledge about food safety regulations is limited.
  Example: The Jago Grahak Jago program aims to educate consumers but faces challenges in reaching all demographics.
• Regulatory Gaps in Informal Markets: A significant portion of the food supply, especially from small vendors, remains unregulated.
• Emerging Contaminants: Chemical contaminants pose new challenges.
  Example: FSSAI is working on implementing Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for emerging contaminants.

Balancing Scientific Evidence with Public Perception

• Transparent Communication: Disclosing evidence behind decisions builds public trust.
  Example: In 2023, FSSAI published detailed justifications for MRL changes after resistance from farmer groups and environmentalists.
• Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement:Engaging various stakeholders ensures diverse perspectives.
  Example: FSSAI and Cargill India’s CHIFSS conducted multi-stakeholder workshops for inclusive guideline development.
• Consumer Education Campaigns: Educating consumers promotes informed food choices.
  Example: The Eat Right India initiative encourages safe food practices and nutrition awareness.
• Regulatory Adaptation to Public Concerns: Adapting regulations based on public feedback ensures relevance.
  Example: FSSAI revised labelling norms to include clearer allergen information following public demand.
• Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms: Robust enforcement ensures compliance with safety standards.

India’s food safety standards require enhanced infrastructure, streamlined regulations, and effective communication strategies. By aligning scientific evidence with public perception and ensuring robust enforcement, India can create a safer food environment that fosters public trust and health.

DOWNLOAD PDF