FOOD AND ADULTERATION IMPACT ON HEALTH

HEALTH LAW

Submitted by:
HARSHIT MALVIYA

2016039
SEMESTER IX
Submitted to:
Vara Laxmi Mam
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY
Visakhapatnam

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“I have taken efforts in this project. However it would not have been possible without the
kind support and help of many individuals. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of
them. I am highly indebted to Vara Laxmi Mam for her guidance and constant supervision as
well as for providing necessary information regarding the project.”
“I would like to express our special gratitude and thanks to our faculty member for their
patience, time and helping me in developing the project and people who have willingly
helped us out with their abilities.”A

AMNJABA
 ABSTRACT

“Adulteration is a very serious problem posing serious health risks to many in

India. In every product there is adulteration. Starting from our daily groceries, it
moves  on to our life saving medicines. The sinners have not spared even infants’
milk products.Food is one of the basic necessities for sustenance of life. Pure, fresh
and healthy diet is most essential for the health of the people. It is no wonder to say
community health is national wealth.Among man’s everyday needs, food plays a
major sustaining role. From the simple dish to the most elaborate haute cuisine, food
preparation is as varied and rich as a man’s taste. The lure of riches and general
apathy towards mankind has led to adulterants being added to food from the simple
stones in rice to the more harmful brick and boric powder.”
“What is food adulteration? Food adulteration is an act of adding or mixing of poor
quality, inferior, harmful, substandard, useless or unnecessary substances to food.
This act of spoiling the nature and quality of food items is considered food
adulteration.”
Types of adulteration:  “Food items, medicines, vegetables, paste, creams, products of
famous brands and so on and so forth. May be because of this adulteration, people
who consume such adulterated food suffer with upset stomach and other health related
issues. I can say more than 20 per cent patients who visit a doctor or any clinic or any
hospital are those who had consumed such adulterated food and food products.
Adulterated food is dangerous because it may be toxic and can affect health and it
could deprive nutrients essential for proper growth and development of a human
being.”
“The worst part is some adulterated food even causes cancer, the most life threatening
disease. Also, in many cases which I have come across, many pregnant women who
consumed such adulterated food ended up with miscarriages because of poor fetus
growth and in some extreme cases the women died while delivering babies.
Food adulteration is one of the serious challenges in the Indian society. Despite
various measures and penalties, the problem continues to remain a big challenge. The
saddest part is those who engage in such dirty practice do not leave even infants’ milk
products and life saving medicines.”

3
“Adulteration of food is a menace to the society and the perpetrators cannot be let off
lightly.After the arrival of  fast food concept and online order practices, the
consumers really do not bother what type of food is being served to them. They totally
forget the health aspect and only concentrate to get their order served at their
doorsteps. Taking advantage of a consumer’s laziness, many restaurants and food
joints which serve food do not bother to give importance to the quality aspect of the
food but only want to satisfy their customers by serving them on time.”
“Why do companies engage in adulteration? Their one and only intention is that they
want to increase their profit margin and want to earn big in a short time. Just to make
more profit and money, risking other’s lives is absolutely an unethical practice. But
they do not bother at all.The central government, on its part, is trying everything
possible to control this “crime”. In India, the ministry of health and family welfare is
completely responsible for providing safe food to the citizens. The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954, has laid down guidelines to provide pure and wholesome
foods to consumers. The Act was last amended in 1986 to make punishments more
stringent and to empower consumers further. But the government is planning to
enforce harsher punishment now.The FSSAI has issued the draft amendments to the
Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, which was passed in 2006 but the regulations
were notified only in 2011. Among the key amendments, the FSSAI has proposed to
include a new section to crack down on food adulteration.People need to be very
cautious when they buy products from stores and malls. They should check for
standards like ISI standard mark, Agmark for quality products, FSSAI standard mark,
date of packing and date of expiry etc. If none of the prescribed standard marks is
there, then they should totally avoid buying such products.The government must
focus on dealing strictly with those who engage in food adulteration. One way of
doing this is by hiking the penalty, including making it analogous to attempt to
murder in some extreme cases of adulteration.It is equally important to regularly
check food stuff for adulteration and ensure speedy trials through specific fast track
courts.”

4
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction
2. WHO’s evaluation of Regional Food Safety Strategy in Asia
3. LAWS FOR PREVENTION OF FOOD AULTERATION IN INDIA
4. FOOD SECURITY AND STANDARD AUTHORITY OF INDIA
5. LANDMARK CASE LAWS
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

5
 INTRODUCTION

“Adulteration is a legal term meaning that a food product fails to meet the legal
standards. One form of adulteration is an addition of another substance to a food item
in order to increase the quantity of the food item in raw form or prepared form, which
may result in the loss of actual quality of food item. These substances may be either
available food items or non-food items. Among meat and meat products some of the
items used to adulterate are water or ice, carcasses, or carcasses of animals other than
the animal meant to be consumed.Food adulteration rate in India has almost doubled
over the last 5 years according to data sourced from FSSAI annual reports. Food
adulteration rate in India stood at 13% in 2011-12 which increased to 23% in 2016-
17.Adulteration is a legal term meaning that a food product fails to meet the legal
standards. One form of adulteration is an addition of another substance to a food item
in order to increase the quantity of the food item in raw form or prepared form, which
may result in the loss of actual quality of food item. It is the process in which the
quality of food is lowered either by the addition of inferior quality material or by
extraction of valuable ingredient. It not only includes the intentional addition or
substitution of the substances but biological and chemical contamination during the
period of growth, storage, processing, transport and distribution of the food products,
is also responsible for the lowering or degradation of the quality of food products.The
adulteration of food is a subject in the Concurrent list of the Constitution. Prior to
1954, there were several state laws to regulate the quality of the food. However, there
was variance in the provisions of different states and this posed problems in trade
between different provinces. The need for a Central legislation was felt. Thus, the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was enacted by the Union legislature to
tackle the problem of food adulteration which was rampant in the country. This Act
was in operation until it was repealed in 2006 by the Food Safety and Standard Act,
2006. Along with it, several orders such as the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992,
the Fruit Products Order, 1955, the Meat Food Products Order, 1973, etc also got
repealed by the 2006 Act.There were several defects in the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. Thus, to remove those defects and consolidate the laws”

6
“relating to food safety and standards, the Parliament enacted the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 (hereafter referred to as ‘FSSA’). This Act repealed all the other
laws in force relating to the quality of food. Section 91 of the Act empowers the
Central Government to make rules under the Act.”

WHO’s evaluation of Regional Food Safety Strategy in Asia

“Food adulteration is still a problem in countries of the south-East Asia Region where
informal food production and distribution systems are deeply entrenched at the
community level. Examples of adulteration include the contamination of mustard oil
with argemone oil in 1998 and of imported milk and infant formula with melamine in
2008. These events raised food safety concerns among consumers and policymakers .
WHO regional food strategy report says that Most of the food regulations and
standards in the Asia region remain voluntary, with a generally low level of
enforcement of regulations. Authorities responsible for the enforcement of food laws
and regulations do not have clear identified scope of authority and operating
procedures. Food safety systems and standards for manufacturing food for export are
different from those for food for domestic consumption, with variable levels of
enforcement. Attempts have been made to harmonize food regulations among the
members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).The concept of a “farm-to- table”
approach has been adopted and implemented by several others. However, food control
activities in many WHO Member States continue to rely on reactive procedures, with
an emphasis on infrastructure and end-product analysis rather than preventive
activities. The low level of enforcement is a persistent problem . Food inspectors in
several WHO Member States also lack sufficient training and are too few in number
to make any real positive impact on monitoring. The human resources aspect of food
inspection remains a neglected issue in most Member States. Community awareness
of food safety and consumer protection acts has been established in some Member
States. In India, consumers‟ organizations have participated in several technical
subcommittees on food safety, and representatives from the Consumers‟ Protection
Board attended the shadow national Codex Committee. The “Consumers‟ Complaint
Service” was set up in Indonesia to handle consumer complaints and other issues
regarding food quality and safety. As part of a collaborative venture between”

7
academia and consumers, Thailand‟s Consumer Foundation collected food samples
from the market and sent these to the laboratories of the local universities for analysis.
“The mobile food courts in Bangladesh have often included the views and
expectations of a consumers‟ consortium. Seen in total, however, the extent of
participation of consumers as stakeholders in national food safety programs and in
national Codex activities still remains minimal.”

LAWS FOR PREVENTION OF FOOD AULTERATION IN

INDIA

Central Legislation
“There were several defects in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Thus,
to remove those defects and consolidate the laws relating to food safety and standards,
the Parliament enacted the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereafter referred to
as ‘FSSA’). This Act repealed all the other laws in force relating to the quality of
food. Section 91 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules under
the Act.” Some of these rules enacted by the Government which regulates the
standard of food products are:

*Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses)

Regulation, 2011

*Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011.

*Food Safety and Standards (Laboratory and Sampling Analysis) Regulation, 2011.

*Food Safety and Standards (Food Product Standards and Food Additives)
Regulation, 2011.

Position under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

8
“There are provisions under the Indian Penal Code too which deal with food
adulteration. Chapter XIV of the Code lays down provisions dealing with ‘offences
affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency, and morals’. According to
Section 272 and 273, food or drink adulteration or sale of such food or drink is an
offence punishable with an imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine or
both. However, some states like Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal considered it to be
insufficient punishment and made amendments in the provision with respect to
punishment in the year 1970. The state amendment has made the offence punishable
with imprisonment for life along with the liability of fine.”

Consumer Protection Bill, 2018

“The Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 is a revised version of Consumer Protection

Bill, 2015 after the Standing Committee referred several changes in it. The Bill seeks
to replace the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha in
January 2018. The bill contains several new provisions to tackle the new challenges
posed by the growth and development in the consumer market. With respect to food
adulteration laws, the Bill has added certain provisions such as penalties for
misleading advertisement as well as manufacturing and selling of adulterated or
spurious goods.”

Food Security and Standard Authority Of India

“Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) is an autonomous body

established under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of
India. The FSSAI has been established under the Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006, which is a consolidating statute related to food safety and regulation in
India. FSSAI is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through
the regulation and supervision of food safety.The FSSAI is headed by a non-executive
Chairperson, appointed by the Central Government, either holding or has held the
position of not below the rank of Secretary to the Government of India. Rita Teaotia is
the current Chairperson for FSSAI and Shri Arun Singhal is the current Chief
Executive Officer for FSSAI.”

9
 “The FSSAI has its headquarters at New Delhi. The authority also has 6 regional
offices located in Delhi, Guwahati, Mumbai, Kolkata, Cochin, and Chennai.14
referral laboratories notified by FSSAI, 72 State/UT laboratories located throughout
India and 112 laboratories are NABL accredited private laboratories notified by
FSSAI.”

Highlights of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006

“Various central Acts like Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954,Fruit Products

Order,1955, Meat Food Products Order,1973, Vegetable Oil Products (Control)
Order, 1947, Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order 1988, Solvent Extracted Oil,
De-Oiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) Order, 1967, Milk and Milk Products
Order, 1992 etc. will be repealed after commencement of FSS Act, 2006. The Act also
aims to establish a single reference point for all matters relating to food safety and
standards, by moving from multi- level, multi- departmental control to a single line of
command. To this effect, the Act establishes an independent statutory Authority – the
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India with head office at Delhi. Food Safety
and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the State Food Safety Authorities shall
enforce various provisions of the Act.”

Provisions related to Adulteration in FSSA

“Section 3 (a) of Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 defines “Adulterant” means
any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or
substandard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter and Section 3 (zf) defines
misbranded food.”
“Section 65 of The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 mandates to pay.
Compensation in case injury or death of consumer. Section 66 of The Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 envisages about the liability of the Companies in the event of any
offence of adulteration or misbranding.”
Article 49. General provisions relating to penalty.
While adjudging the quantum of penalty under this Chapter, the Adjudicating Officer
or the Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have due regard to the following:- (a) The

10
amount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the
contravention, (b) The Amount of loss caused or likely to cause to any person as a
result of the contravention, (c) The repetitive nature of the contravention, (d) Whether
the contravention is without his knowledge, and (e) Any other relevant factor,
Article 50. Penalty for selling food not of the nature or substance or quality
demanded.
“Any person who sells to the purchaser‟s prejudice any food which is not in
compliance with the provisions of this Act or the regulations made thereunder, or of
the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, shall be liable to a
penalty not exceeding five lakh rupees. Provided that the persons covered under sub
section (2) of section 31, shall for such non-compliance be liable to a penalty not
exceeding twenty five thousand rupees.”
Article 51. Penalty for sub-standard food.
“Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf
manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for
human consumption which is sub-standard, shall be liable to a penalty which may
extend to five lakh rupees.”
Article 52. Penalty for misbranded food.
(1) Any person who whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf
manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for
human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may
extend to three lakh rupees.
(2) The Adjudicating Officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an
offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such
article of food shall be destroyed.
Article 54. Penalty for food containing extraneous matter.
“Any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures
for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human
consumption containing extraneous matter, shall be liable to a penalty which may
extend to one lakh rupees.”
Article 57. Penalty for possessing adulterant.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, if any person who whether by himself or
by any other person on his behalf, imports or manufactures for sale, or stores, sells or

11
distribute any adulterant shall be liable – (i) where such adulterant is not injurious to
health, to a penalty not exceeding two lakh rupees; (ii) where such adulterant is
injurious to health, to a penalty not exceeding ten lakh rupees.
(2) In a proceeding under sub-section (1), it shall not be a defense that the accused
was holding such adulterant on behalf of any other person.

LANDMARK CASE LAWS

1. In M/S. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. vs. STATE OF MADHYA

PRADESH “under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sections 2(a)(a)
and 2(i)(ix)(g) Misbranded articles it is found that food article contains additional
ingredient which is not advertised on its packaging - Or, where food article is found to
be missing ingredient which is purported to be included in contents thereof in
labelling of article - Or, where food article has used inferior quality substitute but
labelling purports to use superior quality original ingredient, it would be case of both
adulteration and misbranding. It was also held that where examination of contents of
food article is integral to proving offence of 'misbranding', right to get sample tested is
available to vendor of misbranded food article also.”

2. In RAJ KUMAR vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH “Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act, 1954 Section 13(2) Adulteration in Milk - No opportunity to send
second sample to Central Food Laboratory - All courts have given a finding of fact
that notice under Section 13(2) of Act was sent to accused in year 1996 - Accused
failed to choose to exercise his option to get his sample analysed by Central Food
Laboratory.13(2) Adulteration in Milk - Plea of marginal shortfall in Milk Solid Non-
Fat - If standards are not complied with, Court not justified in acquitting accused
charged with adulteration only on ground that deficiency is marginal.”

3. In VIJENDRA vs STATE OF UP “Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

Section 13(2) Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 1955, Rule 9B - Conviction -
Sustainability - There is requirement to furnish report of Analyst to accused - Food
Clerk claimed to have dispatched report by registered post - However, no evidence
was brought on record to indicate that report was actually served or delivered to

12
accused - Purpose of furnishing such report is to enable accused to seek for reference
to Central Food Laboratory for analysis if he is dissatisfied with report” - Such
safeguard provided to accused is valuable right - “In absence of there being proof of
delivery of report to accused stands defeated - Prosecution which revolves around and
is built upon report of Analyst cannot be made basis for holding accused guilty -
Conviction set aside.”

CONCLUSION
“The food adulteration laws have been evolving with the changing needs of the time.
Earlier there were different laws for different provinces which were repealed and
consolidated by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. However, even this
Act could not stand the test of time and had to be repealed due to various defects. The
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the regulations made under the Act
comprehensively deal with the issue. However, it is important for the authorities
under the Act to be vigilant so that effective results are achieved.”

13