1.

Food safety laws govern the handling, preparation, and storage of food to prevent illness that can occur when food is handled, prepared, or stored improperly. In India, the Food, Safety and Standards Act is the primary piece of legislation regulating food safety. The law contains numerous provisions, including mandates against the use of insecticides, limitations on the use of certain substances in food, and rules relating to packaged foods. Food, Safety, and Standards Act o Food safety laws in India are governed by India's Food, Safety, and Standards Act, which was updated in 2006. Under the act, no article of food can contain any food additive or processing aid unless it is approved by the government. Processing aid is defined as a substance or material that is not a food ingredient itself, but that is used in the processing of raw materials, food, or the food's ingredients. Further, no food in India can contain any containment of naturally occurring toxic substances, toxins, hormones, or heavy metals that are in excess of the act's stipulations. The stipulations depend upon the hormone, toxin, or heavy metal in question. Insecticide Use

Another law under the Food, Safety, and Standards Act is that no insecticide can be used directly on food. The only exception to this rule is if the fumigant is registered and approved by the Insecticides Act of 1968. Further, the act stipulates that no article of food can contain insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drug residues, antibiotic residues, or solvent residues in an amount that is greater than the specified regulations (depending upon the product).

o
Packaged Foods

The act also states that no individual can manufacture, distribute, or sell to any agent any packaged food that is not marked and labeled under the specified regulations for that food. Further, the labels cannot contain statements that are false or misleading in any way concerning the food that is in the package. This might apply to misleading the customer about the quantity of food that is in the package, the nutritional value of the food that is in the package, or the therapeutic claims to the place of origin for the food products. The manufacturers of the product also must ensure that the label itself does not mislead consumers in its shape or appearance. For example, the font must be easily readable.

Sponsored Links Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006

30. Commissioner of Food Safety of the State. 1. The State Government shall appoint the Commissioner of Food Safety for the State for efficient implementation of food safety and standards and other requirements laid down under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. The Commissioner of Food Safety shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:a. prohibit in the interest of public health, the manufacture, storage, distribution or sale of any article of food, either in the whole of the State or any area or part thereof for such period, not exceeding one year, as may be specified in the order notified in this behalf in the Official Gazette; carry out survey of the industrial units engaged in the manufacture or processing of food in the State to find out compliance by such units of the standards notified by the Food Authority for various articles of food; conduct or organise training programmes for the personnel of the office of the Commissioner of Food Safety and, on a wider scale, for different segments of food chain for generating awareness on food safety;

2.

b.

c.

d. e. f.

ensure an efficient and uniform implementation of the standards and other requirements as specified and also ensure a high standard of objectivity, accountability, practicability, transparency and credibility; sanction prosecution for offences punishable with imprisonment under this Act; such other functions as the State Government may, in consultation with the Food Authority, prescribe.

Health ministry wants allocation to be doubled; Planning panel expected to meet on June 22 India will need Rs 15,000-17,000 crore in four to five years for implementing the Food Safety & Standards Rules, 2011, according to estimates by the health ministry. The Planning Commission is expected to take a call soon on the expenditure, which will be a component of the health ministrys 12th plan allocation. The ministry is expected to pitch for doubling the allocation for the overall health sector, it is learnt. Health allocation, excluding grant for areas like sanitation and potable water, is a meagre 1.1 per cent of the gross domestic product, according to officials. The commission is expected to deliberate on allocation to the health ministry for the 12th plan on June 22 at a high-level meeting. Food safety aspects will be covered under the five-year plan for the first time. The Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI) was formed years after the 11th plan was formulated. FSSAI chief executive officer V N Gaur told Business Standard the expenditure, for both the Centre and states, to implement the new food safety law would include the cost of additional manpower, modern infrastructure and laboratory upgradation. The Food Safety & Standards Rules, 2011 would replace the 50-year Prevention of Food Adulteration Act from the first week of August. But manpower shortage and dearth of quality infrastructure were major hurdles for the law to be enforced in a meaningful manner, indicated officials. India has 2,100 food inspectors or three inspectors to a district. Under the new law, Gaur said the proposal was to have 8,000 to 9,000 food safety officers, rather than inspectors, or at least 10 officers per district. Apart from upgradation of existing laboratories, the authority wants to increase the number of state labs to 250-300 from 72 at present. The integrated food safety law was passed by the government recently. Rather than having six to seven separate food laws for meat, milk, edible oil, fruits and vegetables, etc, the integrated food law would lay down uniform standards and a central mechanism on safety. The Centre, states, municipalities and panchayats will implement it. A top FSSAI official had recently highlighted the need for such an integrated food law, saying food science had changed beyond recognition. The focus of safety must be on the entire supply chain: production, pr ocessing, distribution, and marketing. For the first time, the law puts the responsibility of food safety on the manufacturer. So far, it was the inspector going and inspecting and prosecuting a person. Now, that will not work at all. Its a very complex industry, where millions of peoplFood Safety Management is an ever diverse and changing dimension of your company. More and more departments are contributing to this function in your operations, creating more data than most can reasonably analyze and process. So how can you effectively and efficiently automate your food safety program to achieve better oversight via real-time information, better results, and better safety assurance? There has been also an abundance of food safety standards in the world, and variation between standards, their implementation and auditing. With the success that the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) has with harmonization of standards, it was logical that they take on this issue with the development of an ISO Food Safety Standard. The standard, ISO 22000 was released in 2005. Since its release it has been successfully implemented in hundreds of companies around the world. The ISO 22000 Standard can be applied to any organization in the food chain, from the farm to the food packaging producer. However, the food safety landscape is rapidly changing. Public scrutiny has increased and other organizations and regulations such as the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), International Food Standard (IFS), Safe Quality Food (SQF), BRC, and FSSC 22000 are in place. In the past, your paper-based or hybrid system may have been good enough, but today's regulatory environment demands more. It's time to dig deeper into your internal quality and compliance processes. Is your existing food safety system efficient and effective? Can it handle these new requirements? SoftExpert SE Suite ease your food safety management. It leads you through creating a comprehensive food safety plan with the knowledge and procedures needed to do the job right. The main related disciplines are completely covered by SoftExpert Suite

components, including supplier management, procedures/policies, process management, CAPA management, indicator/control monitoring, audits, and more. The complete scenario for your food safety system. e and processes were involved, he added. (2) Answer: The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was enacted in India for the following reasons: * Provide more accessible protection for consumers * Provide a less formal, less expensive and faster way to seek justice relative to perceived problems/damages associated with consumer goods and services * Applies to ALL goods and services (except those specifically exempted by Central Government) * Covers all sectors (private, public and cooperative) * Drove creation of Consumer Protection Counsels at the Central and State levels Why protect the consumers?Reason for Enacting the Act Doctrine of Caveat EmptorThis implies that the responsibility of identifying goods and finding defects with them lies with buyer. 3. Why protect the consumers?Reasons for Enacting the Act Collective BargainingSellers Lobby; Forming cartels; Artificially keeping prices high!!!! Multiple LawsIndia Contract Act; Sale of Goods Act; Essential Commodities Act Hurdles in the LitigationGoing to regular court; Expensive & Time Consuming RemedyPunishment in the form of Punitive & Deterrent measure 4. Hence There wasAn Act to provide for the better protection of the inter ests of consumers andfor that purpose to make provisions for the establishment of consumercouncils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers disputes andfor matters connected therewith.Short title, extent and application:(1). This Act may be called the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.(2). It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu andKashmir.(3). Save as otherwise expressly provided by the Central Government bynotification, this Act shall apply to all goods and services. 5. CPA Impact Consumer is the king of the market Sellers market is now Buyers market & With industrial development leading to the influx of various goods and services in the market; Consumers have to protected! 6. The act was passed in:Lok Sabha on 9th December,1986 andRajya Sabha on 10th December, 1986 andAssented by the President of India on 24th December, 1986 and wasPublished in the Gazette of India on 26th December, 1986.This act was enacted in the 37th year of the Republic of India and was amendedfrom time to time in the following years i.e. 1991, 1993 and 2002. 7. Objectives of CPA, 1986 Education HeardSafety Consumer Rights Redressal Choose Information 8. DEFINITIONSSection 2 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, defines certain wordswhich are used in various sections.Appropriate Laboratory : S. 2(1)(a) : Appropriate laboratory means a laboratory or organisation :I. Recognised by the Central GovernmentII. Recognised by a state government, subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf; orIII. Any such laboratory or organisation established by or under any law for the time being in force, which is maintained, financed or aided by the Central Government or a State Government for carrying out analysis or test of any goods with a view to determining whether such goods suffer form any defect. 9. Complainant S.2(1)(b) :i. A consumer, orii. Any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or under any other law for the time being in force; oriii. The Central Government or any State Government, who or which makes a complaint;iv. One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest,v. In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative who or which make a complaint. 10. Complaint S.2(1)(c) :i. An unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provide;ii. The goods, bought by him, or agreed to be bought by him, suffer one or more defects;iii. The services hired or availed of, agreed to be hired or availed of by him, suffer from deficiency in any respect;iv. A trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price fixed by, or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this act;v. Goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used, are being offered for sale to the public in contravention of the provisions of any law for the time being in force requiring traders to display information in regard to the contents, manner and effect of use of such goods;vi. Services which hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used; are being offered by the service provider, which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety: with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this act. 11. Consumer S.2(1)(d) :Consumer means any person who;i. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or; 12. (Hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has beenpaid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under anysystem of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of suchservices other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services forconsideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, orunder any system of deferred payment when such services are availedof with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not includea person who avails of such

services for any commercial purpose)Consumer Dispute S.2(1)(c) :A dispute, where the person, against whom, a compliant has beenmade, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint.(10) The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar ... vs The Consumer Protection Council on 9 February, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 AIR 1384, 1995 SCC (2) 479 Bench: A A. PETITIONER: THE CHAIRMAN, THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: THE CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL DATE OF JUDGMENT09/02/1995 BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) MOHAN, S. (J) CITATION: 1995 AIR 1384 1995 SCC (2) 479 JT 1995 (2) 441 1995 SCALE (1)525 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: 1. The short question which arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter called 'the National Commission') constituted under Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 Act') had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim for compensation arising out of a motor vehicle accident, notwithstanding the jurisdiction conferred on a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'the 1988 Act'). The factual matrix in which this question arises for consideration, briefly stated, is as under. 2. Shri. K.Kumar was travelling from Kombakonam to Thanjavur on the night between 2nd and 3rd June, 1990 in an omnibus which met with an accident near village Vayalur while trying to avert a bullock-cart. It appears that when the bus driver was in the -process of over-taking the bullock-cart, the bullocks got panicky whereupon the driver swerved the bus to the left and ran into the branches of a tree on the road side resulting in damage to the vehicle; the window panes having been smashed. As the vehicle suddenly swerved and the driver applied the brakes Shri. K. Kumar who was sitting in the centre of the rear seat was thrown in the front and hit against the iron side-bar, sustaining a serious head injury. Subsequently he succumbed to the injury. The Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu, on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased lodged a complaint before the National Commission under the 1986 Act claiming compensation. The appellant herein con- tested the claim contending that

the claimant, i.e., the Council, had no locus standi to maintain the action and in any the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition since exclusive jurisdiction was conferred by the 1988 Act on the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder. The National Commission, contends the appellant, side-stepped the question regarding jurisdiction and without answering the same awarded Rs.5,10. lacs by way of compensation with -interest at 18% per annum from 1st May, 1992 till the date of payment. In addition thereto a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded by way of costs. The entire payment together with costs was ordered to be made within three months from the date of judgment. It is against the said decision of the National Commission that the present appeal is preferred. 444 3. In order to appreciate the principal contention relating to the jurisdiction of the National Commission, it is necessary to look to the relevant provisions of the 1986 Act. This law was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers' disputes etc. Section 2 contains the dictionary of the said Act. Section 2(c) defines a regard to the importance of the question this Court by its order dated 31st August, 1994 requested Shri R.P. Bhatt to assist this Court amicus curiae in answering the question whether or not in such cases the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In the circum- stances it is not necessary for us to go into compensation since there is no question of reversing the award in the sense of calling upon the widow and the child to refund the amount of compensation already received. The main emphasis was to decide the question of law as it was apprehended that similar cases which have become time barred under the 1988 Act may be taken to the National Commission under the 1986 Act even though that body had no jurisdiction whatsoever.6) Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243 Bench: Sahai, R. PETITIONER: LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RESPONDENT: M.K. GUPTA DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1993 BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 787 1994 SCC (1) 243 JT 1993 (6) 307 1993 SCALE (4)370 ACT:

HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHAI, J.- The question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals, directed against orders passed by the National Consumer 251 Disputes Redressal Commission (referred hereinafter as National Commission), New Delhi is if the statutory authorities such as Lucknow Development Authority or Delhi Development Authority or Bangalore Development Authority constituted under State Acts to carry on planned development of the cities in the State are amenable to Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for any act or omission relating to housing activity such as delay in delivery of possession of the houses to the allottees, non-completion of the flat within the stipulated time, or defective and faulty construction etc. Another aspect of this issue is if the housing activity carried on by the statutory authority or private builder or contractor came within the purview of the Act only after its amendment by the Ordinance No. 24 in 1993 or the Commission could entertain a complaint for such violations even before. 2. How the dispute arose in different appeals is not of any consequence except for two appeals which shall be adverted to later, for determining right and power of the Commission to award exemplary damages and accountability of the statutory authorities. We therefore come straight away to the legal issue involved in these appeals. But before doing so and examining the question of jurisdiction of the District Forum or State or National Commission to entertain a complaint under the Act, it appears appropriate to ascertain the purpose of the Act, the objective it seeks to achieve and the nature of social purpose it seeks to promote as it shall facilitate in comprehending the issue involved and assist in construing various provisions of the Act effectively. To begin with the preamble of the Act, which can afford useful assistance to ascertain the legislative intention, it was enacted, 'to provide for the protection of the interest of consumers'. Use of the word 'protection' furnishes key to the minds of makers of the Act. Various definitions and provisions which elaborately attempt to achieve this objective have to be construed in this light without departing from the settled view that a preamble cannot control otherwise plain meaning of a provision. In fact the law meets long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory. Various legislations and regulations permitting the State to intervene and protect interest of the consumers have become a haven for unscrupulous ones as the enforcement machinery either does not move or it moves ineffectively, inefficiently and for reasons which are not necessary to be stated. The importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate directly in the market economy. It attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against powerful business, described as, 'a network of rackets' or a society in which, 'producers have secured power' to 'rob the rest' and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and 252 fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life. The enactment in these unbelievable yet harsh realities appears to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot. A scrutiny of various definitions such as 'consumer', 'service', 'trader', 'unfair trade practice' indicates that legislature has attempted to widen the reach of the Act. Each of these definitions are in two parts, one, explanatory and the other expandatory. The explanatory or the main part itself uses expressions of wide amplitude indicating clearly its wide sweep, then its ambit is widened to such things which otherwise would have been beyond its natural import. Manner of construing an inclusive clause and its widening effect has been explained in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps' as under: " 'include' is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute, and when it is so used these words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they signify according to their natural, import, but also those things which the definition clause declares that they shall include." It has been approved by this Court in Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v. High Land Coffee Works of P. F.X. Saldanha and Sons2; CIT v. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad3 and State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha4. The provisions of the Act thus have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation. The primary duty of the court while construing the provisions of such an Act is to adopt a

constructive approach subject to that it should not do violence to the language of the provisions 3. Although the legislation is a milestone in the history of socioeconomic legislation and is directed towards achieving public benefit we shall first examine if on a plain reading of the provisions unaided by any external aid of interpretation it applies to building or construction activity carried on by the statutory authority or private builder or contractor and extends even to such bodies whose ancillary function is to allot a plot or construct a flat. In other words could the authorities constituted under the Act entertain a complaint by a consumer for any defect or deficiency in relation to construction activity against a private builder or statutory authority. That shall depend on ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Commission. How extensive it is? A National or a State Commission under Sections 21 and 16 and a Consumer Forum under Section 11 of the Act is entitled to entertain a complaint depending on valuation of goods or services and compensation claimed. and is not contrary to the attempted objective of the enactment.