The Hindu Business Line : Food regulation must be better processed

The food regulatory framework, which can ideally ensure that safe food is produced by the industry, is under the usual `bad-implementation' shadow. There is, thus, an urgent need for the Government to look into this issue.

The regulation on the processed food industry in India is similar in many respects to a cricket team. On paper, everything seems right — from the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 to the Control Orders.

The best possible line up. Experience and youth. Sponsors with the financial muscle to support the sport. Fans to lap it all up. And, yet, the industry has a long way to go. There is such a plethora of laws governing the food processing segment that it is impossible to even imagine that unsafe food can ever be produced in India.

There is an elaborate regime of inspection to ensure that there are no slips, and licensing, to ascertain that the industry satisfies the standards stipulated by the Government. Yet, the Indian consumer does not always have access to the most hygienic processed food products.

Major slippages

The main problem with the food processing regulatory framework is there have been major slippages in all interactions between the government and the industry, right from registration to inspection.

The Government has to learn to treat these interaction points as an important exercise and not as a mundane task that earns it registration and other fees.

Are licences essential?

For instance, the basic law governing the food processing units in India is the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA), 1955. Under this law, all units manufacturing food products have to necessarily be licensed by a State government, as directed by the Health Ministry, which enforces the PFA.

Now, these licences can be obtained from the Health Departments of Municipal Corporations. For units operating in a district, but outside the limits of a municipal corporations, licences have to be obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

But why should the Health Departments or the FDA issue licences in the first place?

The idea is that the licences are followed by periodic inspections to determine whether food processing happens in conditions specified by the government as safe and hygienic. But for this to happen, the licence registration data available with the authorities have to be readily retrievable in the first place.

Retrieval of data

However, retrieval of registration data with any government authority is more often an art rather than a simple click of the mouse.

The Health Departments of Municipal Corporations issue licences not only to processed food manufacturers, but also for activities affecting public health.

Similarly, all shops that stock processed food items have to take the licence, all under a common "Health Licence"; else, the procedure becomes cumbersome.

Very often, the forms are not complete; only the name of the entrepreneur and the activity planned to be undertaken are given.

Thus, inspections are often carried out on units `known' to the inspector for historical reasons. Further, inspectors are also given targets on the number units to be inspected in different areas.

If the inspector comes across a non-compliant unit and if he makes a case out of it, it leads to unnecessary litigation forcing him to be in that area for the duration of the case, disturbing his `targets' in other areas. This leads to the inspection process itself not being very incisive.

Further, food inspection departments are really under-staffed at most places. The food processing officer, in Mumbai, for instance, works with only 10 food inspectors who are responsible for five States.

Poor implementation

Thus, the entire regulatory framework that can ideally cater to safe food being produced by the industry is under the usual bad-implementation shadow. However, there is an urgent need for the Government to look into this issue .

The Central and State authorities need to be given money, knowledge and manpower to computerise their database.

Many departments are understaffed due to the emphasis being laid on reduction of manpower for meeting the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) targets. But if this emphasis undermines the safety of the very food we eat, the move needs to be reversed, at least as far as the inspection departments are concerned. Of course, having more inspectors may not be the best state of affairs, but that is yet another issue.

(The author is Economic Advisor, Mahratta Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Agriculture, Pune. She can be reached at manasip@mcciapune.com)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Market moves

Second round of trading at Nathu La — Will it set the cash register ringing?

Lacunae in scheme of separation

Food regulation must be better processed

Indian patent law — Needed, proper definition of `inventive step'

Innovation is strongly linked to strategy and competitiveness

Power initiatives