The BL Interview. ‘Don’t panic; your bread is safe’

The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) – still taking corrective measures to deal with issues pertaining to processed and packaged food following the Maggi controversy – is now faced with another challenge: use of carcinogenic additives in bread.

But the Authority believes that consumers don’t need to panic as the potassium bromate levels found in domestically-produced bread was still lower than the existing permissible norms.

Besides, the FSSAI has, as a precautionary step, already decided to remove potassium bromate from list of additives even before the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) came out with its report.

FSSAI CEO Pawan Agarwal, in a conversation with BusinessLine, shares his views on the role of FSSAI, regulator system, and why the same regulations may not fit all countries. Excerpts:

A panic has been created following the CSE report. What is FSSAI doing on the findings?

We are talking about over 11,500 additives used in different food products. Testing by organisations such as CSE is welcome. But, it should not be projected like a panic situation.

In the CSE study, none of the samples that were tested reportedly have more potassium bromate than what is prescribed. You cannot blame the companies. I think even the consumer organisations and NGOs need to be little more responsible.

Before deriving conclusions we have to see sustained use of that particular chemical over a period of time. In one in a thousand cases, it might cause cancer. Basically, to find objective evidence around this is always very difficult and if there are any concerns they are discussed by our scientific panel. We study the evidence available globally and in India, and how far it is practical to adopt the global standards here, as not all international standards work in the Indian context.

Why the delay in notification, if the scientific panel has already recommended banning it?

There is a process followed for standard formation, we cannot take a short-cut. Views of the manufacturers and other stakeholders and impact on business, if the additive is banned have to be taken. For instance, if there is a substitute available, which is equally or more harmful then, then do we consider replacing it?

We should not be reactive. I am surprised that when the CSE did this study, why it did not refer to the FSSAI website where the recommendation of the scientific panel is there.

Standards for noodles have been work-in-progress for a while now. When will you notify them and what kind of clarity will the industry get through these standards?

There are three issues here – MSG, which has been clarified long back; lead standards, which we have kept at the same level; and standards for acid insoluble ash that have been defined.

Once you have clarity on acid insoluble ash, you have different standards or test protocols for the noodle cake and for the seasoning (tastemaker). One cannot use the standards of noodle cakes on seasoning.

All our standards have to go through a process, first the draft is approved by the Authority and then public comments are sought. Once public comments are factored, the final standards are approved by the Authority, and government approval taken.

The whole process takes six to eight month’s time. In some cases, we may expedite and operationalise standards at the draft stage itself, and keep reviewing later, depending on requirements.

Will you work on norms that ensure companies follow similar standards for products for domestic use, or exports?

Harmonisation of standards is a good and we should attempt it. But, when we are talking of food standards we have to see what raw material is used and if there are issues with it.

We cannot be setting impractical standards – for example domestically procured raw material could have a certain level of metal content or pesticide residues, but the international standards prescribe much lower levels, then how do we adopt them here? We have to have our own parameters.

We have to continuously work towards reducing levels of pesticide residues and levels of heavy metals in our food, and it has to be done in the context of the Indian scenario. Therefore, to the extent possible you harmonise it with international standards but Indian realities have to be kept in mind.

How are you strengthening the lab infrastructure?

Our final proposal is with the Health Ministry. We are focusing on continuously increasing the numbers of the NABL-accredited labs.

We are strengthening the State food safety labs by getting them technical support, as well as promoting public-private partnership model for new labs. We have our own labs – one in Ghaziabad, and the other in Kolkata. They are being strengthened as well. The third lab might be set up in Mumbai. We are also increasing and strengthening our referral labs.

When are you coming out with food recall policy and policy for e-commerce firms? Do you think as a regulator you need more powers?

Regulations for food recall policy have been finalised and will be taken up in the next meeting of the Authority. The current provision is not very clear on the process of the recall to be followed; once we have a process for recall things will get better.

As far as policy for e-commerce players is concerned, we are coming out with some regulations. We have already had the first round of consultations with firms. We have a basic draft which we are examining for consultation.

On the regulatory front, FSSAI is quiet sound legally, though there could be gaps as the law is not old.

COMMENT NOW