Dissenting voice
The standing committee on agriculture has submitted a report to parliament. On the issue of jurisdiction, it recommends that a ministry responsible for looking after the interests of the food processing industry cannot administer the food safety law. "Several organisations that appeared before the committee suggested that the ministry of food processing industries, which is a promotional ministry as far as food products are concerned, should not be the regulatory ministry as well.' The committee recommended that "the Food Safety and Standards Act should be administered by the ministry of health as they have a lot of experience in the field with fully equipped labs for testing of food samples'.
The committee also recommended adding a clause that would label food containing pesticides and contaminants in excess of prescribed standards unsafe. It also said that the definition of food should include drinking water/water provided or supplied to consumers by municipal authorities/jal boards, whether free or priced.
Another key recommendation was to include more scientific expertise in the central advisory committee to be formed under the act. The committee has asked for inclusion of representatives from the Indian Standards Institute, the Indian Council of Medical Research, and recognised farmers organisations.
While the bill did not provide for a graded punishment and had clubbed together the small roadside eatery with a multi-million dollar food multinational, the committee, sensibly, asked for a difference to be made. The committee has suggested that in case of violations the ordinary vendor, petty manufacturer or hawker may pay a penalty not exceeding Rs 25,000.
The committee did not mince words while highlighting and making recommendations on the issue of misleading advertisements. "With the advent of new technology and day-to-day projections on television and media, experience has shown that food products mostly of different varieties find a place on the advertisements thus attracting the notice of the general public. No foolproof system has been proposed in the act that could deter the advertisers of sub-standard items from projecting such advertisements,' the committee noted in its report.
It recommended that "a proper mechanism needs to be evolved to check misleading advertisements, including advertisements relating to sale of soft drinks, sodas, etc manufactured by companies which also manufacture/sell liquor under the same brand name, before they are released in the print or electronic media'.