The Battle Against Food Adulteration

INTRODUCTION

India, a country where every corner of the street is decorated with ‘clean’ street food, and groceries are marketed in colorful aesthetic packages ensuring 99% purity, still struggles with the serious problem of food adulteration. Imagine you are enjoying every bite of a delicious Paneer Roll, only to realize later that it was greased with starch and artificial synthetic colors or in the worst case scenario, harmful chemicals. Several articles and news media mention these illegal market habits, one such most recent NDTV News article[1], exposed a vehicle carrying about 8 Quintals (800 kg) of fake paneer in Agra. Imagine the health condition of people who are going to consume these adulterated food articles.

This blog, shall deal with the legal perspective of food adulteration in India, the Judiciary’s take on such an issue and lastly, recommend some plausible ways from a consumer’s perspective to keep themselves safe.

WHAT IS FOOD ADULTERATION?

Food Adulteration, in its literal sense, means the addition of certain substances in the food products which are injurious to health of the consumers but would results in the profit of the vendor or salesperson.

Though repealed in 2011 after the enforcement of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, the Section 2 of The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 gives an overview of the legal definition of Food Adulteration as- any article is considered adulterated when it is sold by a vendor, and is different in nature, substance or quality from what was originally demanded by the consumer, or what it was originally represented to be, and such a difference is prejudicial to the buyer. Further, adulteration also means the removal of an essential ingredient of an article, and replaced by an inferior, harmful substance which revises the quality of the article, making it injurious to the consumer. An article would also be said to have been adulterated if it was stored in an unhygienic, insanitary condition.

The Act in force i.e. the FSSA,2006 does not use the word ‘adulteration’ but instead uses the terms, ‘sub-standard’, ‘unsafe food’ and ‘misbranded food’, which are defined as-

1. Unsafe Food- an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health by reasons of[2]
2. Substandard Food- An article is said to be substandard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article unsafe.[3]
3. Misbranded Food– means food items falsely labeled, misleading or deceptive in its packaging. [4]

The intention behind such an act in most of the cases is seen to be the idea of creating more profits in the business. It is now labelled as a mechanism for ‘cost-cutting’ by the vendors rather than prioritizing the health of the consumers.

THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

The Legal Battle with food adulteration started as early as in the 1950s. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, enforced in 1955 was the major law which superseded this problem. The problem of adulteration was common at that time because of the aftermath of World War II, and this Act was introduced to keep a check on it. The Act gave a wide definition of what came under the ambit of the term ‘Food Adulteration’ and stated that the ones guilty by the provisions of this act could face 6 months-life imprisonment in jail or a fine of ₹1000-₹5000 or more, for different degrees of violations.

But this Act failed as it was not uniform across India. The enforcement of this act in different states was done in a different manner, in short, there was no One single national level of standard enforcement for food safety.

Then came The Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA), 2006, implemented in 2011, which repealed the PFA and replaced the other food related laws at that time. A new governing body called, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), was created to overlook and manage the food quality regulation system in India. But this act, majorly focused more on regulating the food standards rather than punishing the guilty people. It directed the food businesses to acts as per the rules, have proper licenses and go through proper checks and inspections.

Legally, Food Adulteration would also amount to the violation of article 21 of the Constitution. In the 2013 Judgement given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India (2013) 16 SCC 279, the bench consisting of Justices K. S. Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra explicitly stated that hazardous or unsafe food threatens the right to life of an individual under article 21. Further the court also said that it is the state’s duty to protect this right and to ensure food safety for the people of the state.

Another very popular controversial development in this field is, the Maggie Case (2015)- Nestle India Limited v The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 1688 of 2015), wherein a nationwide ban was imposed on the sale of Maggie noodles due to the alleged involvement of excess lead and misleading labelling of MSG. The case was brought before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, where the court lifted the ban, stating that it was the decision violated the principles of natural justice because Nestle wasn’t given a chance for fair hearing and that the FSSAI relied on inaccurate, unaccredited lab results. The Hon’ble Court ordered for a retest starting with lab facilities being accredited, the primary requirement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court later who ordered for a further testing into the matter, which eventually lead to the relaunch of the multinational noodles brand after due compliances.

Another notable case i.e. Swami Achyutanand Tirth & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 9 SCC 69, was based on a very common adulteration threat in India, which is mixing of several substances in milk by the vendors, which may have ranged from contaminated water to chemicals like detergents and urea.

A PIL was filed by residents from many states of India such as UP, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Uttarakhand. In this case, there were some studies cited which showed the existence of a considerable number of adulterated substances mixed with the milk that was being sold. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed for a more effective implementation of the FSS Act by the state, to issue warnings to the dairy vendors that they would have to face strict legal consequences if found using chemical adulterants. Also, the rate of sampling in states was ordered to be increased in areas considered as high-risk zones and at times when there was an increased sale of milk (such as during any mass occasion). The use of mobile food testing vans was suggested which had a rapid testing mechanism for real-time detection of adulteration.

These are just a handful of cases which were important in shaping the growing threat of food adulteration at that time. These cases show at the active involvement of judiciary to safeguard the consumers’ rights while also pointing out at technical defects which are overlooked such as understaffed labs, low sampling rates, lack of technical support, etc.

CONCLUSION

Food Adulteration is not just any other legal challenge but instead is much more than that. It violates public trust and more than that is harmful to the health of the public at large, also violating the relevant constitutional provisions of right to life under article 21 (as interpreted by the judiciary from time to time).

Landmark cases such as the Maggie Case and Swami Achyutanand Case helped in reestablishing the proper code of conduct required, such as, testing methods, staff obligations, technical support, etc. A recommended solution for this problem could be increased investment in the tech sector and integration of AI based tools for better management.

From the point of consumers, it is important that one must be careful while consuming food items from vendors that are not certified, or be careful when consuming or purchasing items from street corners. FSSAI certified tags are being marked on the food products and customers are recommended to use such products because they are tested properly and are not dangerous. In today’s time, looking at the condition of this problem, it has to be a combined effort, from the concerned authorities as well as from the consumers’ side to eradicate the growing threat of food adulteration from our country. Let’s make clean and safe food a reality, one bite at a time.

Author:– Aditya Pathak,  in case of any queries please contact/write back to us atsupport@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.ndtv.com/food/ahead-of-festive-season-food-authority-busts-fake-paneer-unsafe-milk-in-up-and-jharkhand-9028966
2. https://fssai.gov.in/upload/knowledge_hub/1878035b34b558a3b48DART%20Book.pdf
3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359715030_A_STUDY_IN_PERSPECTIVE_OF_LAWS_AND_LEGAL_TREND_RELATED_TO_FOOD_ADULTERATION
4. https://ds7-backend.ndl.gov.in:8443/dlnluassam/api/core/bitstreams/2070aff3-d16e-4756-9759-e76adea057eb/content
5. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608fd42e4b014971114d9fe
6. https://blog.ipleaders.in/role-of-judiciary-in-the-implementation-of-food-adulteration-laws-in-india/
7. https://ssrana.in/corporate-laws/food-laws/food-law-india/
8. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/a-call-for-action-to-battle-food-adulteration
9. https://nyaaya.org/guest-blog/how-does-indian-law-deal-with-food-adulteration/
10. https://www.vintagelegalvl.com/post/food-adulteration-contemporary-issues-and-legal-effects
11. https://theaspd.com/index.php/ijes/article/view/2703/2086
12. https://ds7-backend.ndl.gov.in:8443/dlnluassam/api/core/bitstreams/2070aff3-d16e-4756-9759-e76adea057eb/content
13. https://jpmsonline.com/article/contaminated-consumption-unveiling-the-health-hazards-of-food-adulteration-and-its-profound-impact-on-public-health-in-india-584/
14. https://blog.ipleaders.in/role-of-judiciary-in-the-implementation-of-food-adulteration-laws-in-india/

[1] https://www.ndtv.com/food/ahead-of-festive-season-food-authority-busts-fake-paneer-unsafe-milk-in-up-and-jharkhand-9028966

[2] ―Section 3(1)(zz)- (i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is composed, whether wholly or in part, of poisonous or deleterious substances; or (ii) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal substance or vegetable substance; or  (iii) by virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence in that article of any harmful substance; or (iv) by the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance whether wholly or in part; or (v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; or (vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or (vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or (viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified in respect thereof; or (ix) by the article having been infected or infested with worms, weevils, or insects; or (x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions; or (xi) by virtue of its being mis-branded or sub-standard or food containing extraneous matter; or (xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations.

[3] ―Section 3(1)(zx)- an article of food shall be deemed to be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;

[4] ― Section 3(1) (zf)misbranded food” means an article of food– (A) if it is purported, or is represented to be, or is being– (i) offered or promoted for sale with false, misleading or deceptive claims either; (a) upon the label of the package, or (b) through advertisement, or (ii) sold by a name which belongs to another article of food; or (iii) offered or promoted for sale under the name of a fictitious individual or company as the manufacturer or producer of the article as borne on the package or containing the article or the label on such package; or (B) if the article is sold in packages which have been sealed or prepared by or at the instance of the manufacturer or producer bearing his name and address but– (i) the article 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 labelled so as to indicate its true character; or (ii) the package containing the article 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; or (iii) the article is offered for sale as the product of any place or country which is false; or (C) if the article contained in the package– (i) contains any artificial flavouring, colouring or chemical preservative and the package is without a declaratory label stating that fact or is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this Act or regulations made thereunder or is in contravention thereof; or (ii) is offered for sale for special dietary uses, unless its label bears such information as may be specified by regulation, concerning its vitamins, minerals or other dietary properties in order sufficiently to inform its purchaser as to its value for such use; or (iii) is not conspicuously or correctly stated on the outside thereof within the limits of variability laid down under this Act.