Food Adulteration

AN CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD ADULTERATION WITH
CONSUMER RIGHTS IN INDIA
Assignment submission in requirement for the Post Graduate Degree of Law

(LLM)
The Tamil Nadu Dr . Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

&
The Central Law College, Salem
Submitted by
Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA
Submitted to
Ms.M.SANTHAKUMARI.L.L.M.,
Assistant Professor of Law
The Central Law College – Salem
2023-2025
ASSIGNMENT
NAME : Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA
REG.NO :
YEAR : 1st Year
COURSE : MASTER OF LAW – LL.M
BRANCH : CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ADMINSISTRATION
SEMESTER : 2nd SEMESTER
SUBJECT : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
SUB CODE : PH1
COLLEGE : THE CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE-
SALEM
SUBMITTED ON :
STUDENT FACULTY
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
DECLARATION
I, Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA, Reg.No.M231002 pursuing LL.M-Criminal law and criminal justice

administration in THE CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE -SALEM-636 008, hereby declare that the Doctrinal
Research entitled "An Critical Analysis Of Food Adulteration And Consumer Rights In India ” in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the Post Graduate Degree of Law (LL.M). Under the guidance
of Mrs.M.SANTHA KUMARI.L.L.M., I have quoted titles of all original sources i.e., original documents and
name of the authors whose work has helped me in writing this paper have been placed at appropriate places. I
have not infringed copy rights of any other author.
DATE :
PLACE : SALEM
Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA
1ST YEAR OF L.L.M
THE CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE SALEM-8
Mrs.M.SANTHA KUMARI.L.L.M..,
The Central Law College Salem-8
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the Doctrinal entitled " An Critical Analysis Of Food Adulteration And Consumer Rights
In India ” is a bonafied work done by Ms.Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA bearing the Reg..No. M231002, Ist
YEAR of L.L.M, for the academic year 2023 – 2025 submitted to The Central Law College, Salem in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of degree of L.L.M under my guidance and supervision. The
report has been prepared is her original work and it has not been previously the basis for award of any degree,
diploma, associate ship, fellowship or other similar work.
DATE :
PLACE : SALEM
Mrs.M.SANTHA KUMARI.L.L.M..,
The Central Law College Salem-8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Gratitude can never be expressed in words, but this is only the deep perception which makes the
words to flow from one’s inner heart.
With great pleasure, I take this opportunity to acknowledge those who helped and supported me
during this internship. First thank to my family and God the almighty for the abundant blessings
showered upon me.
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude to our Chairman. Mr. D. Saravanan, The Central Law
College, Salem, Co- chairman, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, for giving me to
wonderful opportunity to complete this work.
I express my thanks to our college Dean Dr. T.N.Geetha and Principal Ms. Begum Fatima
Who accept me and permit me to do this research.
I would like to express my special and peculiar thanks of gratitude to my Guide Mrs.M.SANTHA
KUMARI.L.L.M., Assistant Professor of Law, for having given me a proper guidance in choosing
the topic in this Non – Doctrinal research.
I would like to extend my special thanks to my professor
Mr.K.Karnan.,B.E.,M.A.,M.S.c.,L.L.M.,P.G.C.C.L., Assistant Professor of Law , for his support
and encouragement to complete the study.
I extend my thanks to our college librarian Dr. Santhi and Mr. Murali Krishnan sir, and
Mrs. Padma mam to provide guidance on the basics of literature.
I would like to express my thanks to all the teaching and non- teaching staff of our college for their
support to complete the study.
I am thankful to my beloved Co- student who are help me and support me during this research.
I thank all the respondents/ samples who participated in my study and their co-operation throughout
the study. And I am greatly indebted to the various writers, jurists and all others from whose
writings and work I have taken help to complete this study into a great extent.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF STATUTES REFERED: ............................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF ABBRIVIATION: ........................................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF CASE LAWS REFERED:........................................................................................................... 10
LIST OF TABLES: .................................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER-I .............................................................................................................................................. 11
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY: .................................................................................................... 11
1.2.STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: ................................................................................................... 13
1.3.REVIEW OF LITERATURE: .............................................................................................................. 13
1.4.RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: ................................................................................................................ 14
1.5.RESEARCH QUESTION: ................................................................................................................... 14
1.6.RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS: ............................................................................................................... 15
1.7.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:......................................................................................................... 15
1.8.LIMITATION OF STUDY: ................................................................................................................. 15
1.9.OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: .......................................................................................................... 15
1.10.CHAPTERIZATION: ........................................................................................................................ 16
CHAPTER-II ............................................................................................................................................. 17
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FOOD ADULTERATION................................................................ 17
2.1.ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL TIMES: ................................................................................................ 17
2.2.COLONIAL PERIOD (BRITISH RULE): ............................................................................................ 17
2.3.POST-INDEPENDENCE ERA: ........................................................................................................... 18
2.4.MODERN ERA: .................................................................................................................................. 19
2.5.WHAT IS THE FSSAI LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK? .................................................................... 19
2.6.CHALLENGES AND CURRENT SCENARIO: .................................................................................. 20
2.7.RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: ............................................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER-III ........................................................................................................................................... 22
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD ADULTERATION AND CONSUMER RIGHTS............................... 22
3.1. MEANING OF THE WORD CONSUMER: ....................................................................................... 22
3.2.COMMON LAW ................................................................................................................................. 23
3.3.MEANING OF THE WORD ADULTERATION ................................................................................. 24
3.4.TYPES FOOD ADULTERATION: ..................................................................................................... 25
3.4.1.INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION ............................................................................................. 25
3.4.2.UNINTENTIONAL OR INCIDENTAL ADULTERATION ......................................................... 25
3.4.3.PREVENTION BY INCIDENTAL POISONING: ......................................................................... 26
3.4.4.METALLIC CONTAMINATION ................................................................................................. 26
3.5.FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA : ...................................................... 26
6
3.5.1.LOOPHOLES IN THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD ACT, 2006 ...................................... 27
3.5.2.SOURCES OF FOOD ADULTERATION..................................................................................... 28
3.5.3.PUNISHMENT FOR FOOD ADULTERATION UNDER FSSAI ................................................. 29
3.6.THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS ......................................................................................................... 30
3.6.FOOD SAFETY STANDARDS (LABORATORY AND SAMPLING ANALYSIS) REGULATIONS,
2011 .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.6.1.PROCEDURE OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS: .................. 31
3.7.CONSUMER PROTECTION AND LEGAL PROVISIONS ................................................................ 31
3.8.LAWS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS: ................................................................................................ 33
3.8.1.THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (COPRA) ............................................................. 33
3.8.2.INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1972 ................................................................................................ 34
3.8.3.THE SALES OF GOOD ACT, 1930.............................................................................................. 34
3.8.4.THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 ........................................................................... 34
3.8.5.THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING ) ACT, 1937 ........................ 34
3.8.6.THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954 ................................................... 34
3.8.7.THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976.............................................. 34
3.8.8.THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 ................................................................................................ 34
3.8.9.THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002 ................................................................................................. 34
3.8.10.THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS ACT, 1986 ............................................................. 34
3.9.Consumer Court ................................................................................................................................... 35
3.10.ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FOOD ADULTERATION LAWS IN
INDIA: ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.11.WHAT ARE THE INITIATIVES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION AND TACKLING
MISLEADING ADS? ................................................................................................................................ 41
3.11.1.WHAT ARE THE TAGS GIVEN TO PACKAGED FOOD?....................................................... 41
CHAPTER-IV ........................................................................................................................................... 43
COMPARITIVE STUDY OF FOOD ADULTERATION IN INDIA WITH USA, HONGKING AND
INDONESIA ............................................................................................................................................. 43
4.1.INDIA VS USA: .................................................................................................................................. 43
4.1.1.REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 43
4.1.2.PREVALENCE OF ADULTERATION: ....................................................................................... 43
4.1.3.ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS ............................................................................................... 43
4.1.4.CONSUMER AWARENESS ........................................................................................................ 43
4.1.5.PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 44
4.2.INDIA VS HONGKONG..................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.1.REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: ................................................................................................. 44
4.2.2.PREVALENCE OF ADULTERATION ........................................................................................ 44
7
4.2.4.CONSUMER AWARENESS ........................................................................................................ 45
4.2.5.PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS: ..................................................................................................... 45
4.3.INDIA VS INDONESIA: ..................................................................................................................... 45
4.3.1.REGULATORY FRAMEWORK: ................................................................................................. 45
4.3.2.PREVALENCE OF ADULTERATION: ....................................................................................... 46
4.3.4.CONSUMER AWARENESS: ....................................................................................................... 46
4.3.5.PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS ...................................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER-V............................................................................................................................................. 47
CONCLUSION& SUGGESTION ............................................................................................................. 47
5.1.CONCLUSION:................................................................................................................................... 47
5.2.SUGGESTION ................................................................................................................................ 48
REFERENCE: ........................................................................................................................................... 49
BIBILOGRAPHY: .................................................................................................................................... 49
WEBILILOGRAPHY: ............................................................................................................................... 49
8
LIST OF STATUTES REFERED:
1.The Sales Of Good Act,1930.

2.The Agricultural Product (Grading& Marking) Act,1937.
3. Constitution Of India,1950.
4.The Essential Commodities Act,1955.
5.The Prevention Of Food Adulteration,1957.
6.Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act,1969.
7.The Indian Contract Act,1972.
8.The Standard Of Weight & Measures Act,1976.
9.The Bureau Of Indian Standards Act,1986.
10.Trademarks Act,1999.
11.Competition Act,2002.
12.Food Safety & Standard Act,2006.
13. Foos Safety & Standard Rule,2011.
14.Food Safety & Standard Regulation(Laboratory & Sampling Analysis) Regulation,2011.
LIST OF ABBRIVIATION:
1. BPOM-Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan

2. CFS- Centre for Food Safety
3. DART- Detect Adulteration with Rapid Test
4. FDA- Food and Drug Administration
5. FD&C ACT- Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
6. FSMA- Food Safety Modernization Act
7. FEHD- Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
8. FSSAI- Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
9. IPC-Indian Penal Code
10. SFSA- The State Food Safety Authority
11. USDA- United States Department of Agriculture
12. WHO-World Health Organisation
9
LIST OF CASE LAWS REFERED:
1. Donoghue Vs Stevenson-1932 AC 562

2. Ram Dayal & Ors Vs Emperor-1923
3. M/S Pepsi Co India Holding Private Ltd Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh - Writ Petition No.
8254 (MB) of 2010
4. State Of Maharastra Vs Sayyad Hassan Sayyad Subbam- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1195
OF 2018
5. M.V.Joshi Vs N.Shimpi & Anr - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1195 OF 2018
6. Ganeshmal Jashraj Vs Government Of Gujarat- Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 1979.
7. Indo China Steam Navigation Co Vs Jasjit Singh- Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1962.
8. Sengupta Vs A.Mustakh- AIR 1964 TRI 48
9. Badri Narayanan Sahu Vs State Of Orissa- AIR 1992 Cr.L.Jr 3418
10. Centre Of Public Interest Litigation Vs Union Of India- WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 49 of
2019
11. Swami Achyutanand Trith & Ors Vs Union Of India- WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 159 OF
2012
12. Desi Ghee Adulteration Case(2023)
13. Sri Mahavir Agency Vs State Of West Bengal-Cri.Appeal.982 of 2023
14. Manic Hirce Jhangiani Vs State Of Mathya Pradesh- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3864 OF
2023
LIST OF TABLES:
As per the FSSAI annual report 2018-19
10
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
1.1.BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY:
Food is the basic requirements of human beings along with water, air, and shelter for
sustainment of biological life. Earlier there was no law governing against the liability of food
adulteration but after Donoghue vs. Stevenson1 case which is also known as ginger bottle case, was
a landmark judgment where the House of Lords held that the manufacturer owes duty of care
against the consumer, he would be held negligent if there is violation of his duty. This case became
the base for providing relief under food adulteration Adulterated and contaminated food is one of
the common sources of infection, can lead to malnutrition and various diseases, so the quality of
food one consumes will decide the health, productivity and wellbeing of that person. Every one
work and earn money for fulfilling their basic need of hunger, i.e. food, but most of the people are
not aware of what they are consuming, even though India is an agrarian society and in India food is
treated as a god even then Food is adulterated and it is one of the social evil in India. Every citizen
has the right to have unadulterated food i.e., for safe, clean and nutritious one. Consumers facing
difficulty in selecting the food items because of misleading advertisements, and adulteration of
food, the consumer is becoming the ultimate victim; he is suffering by consuming the adulterated
food. Consumption of safety and unadulterated food will ensure the protection of people health.
Food adulteration can not only be a result of greedy businessman but it can be due to increased
prices, shortages, lack of awareness, lethargy, negligence, indifference attitude among customers
towards food adulteration and inadequate enforcement of food laws in India. 2
In India, there are about 70% deaths related to food adulteration. Because people are not
aware of such things especially the illiterate ones, they have no idea that how the food is being
mixed with other harmful chemicals and they unknowingly consume such food item. Everyone
should be made aware of these activities taking place nowadays, campaigns should be organized to
create public awareness for the security of the people. In India, where the population is huge and the
mechanism of monitoring is lax, acts of food adulteration have become a common phenomenon.
Adulteration is the act of degrading the nature or quality of food by incidental or intentional means
through the addition or mixing of poor quality, inferior, harmful, substandard, useless, or
1
1932 AC 562
2
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/781-Article%20Text-1368-1-10-20210328%20(2).pdf
11
unnecessary substances to food. Adulteration lowers the quality of food and sometimes, toxic
chemicals are also added which can be hazardous to health.3
According to WHO, Food is one of the basic needs of every living being and is composed
of carbohydrates, water, fats and proteins, which can be eaten or drunk by animals, including
humans, for nutrition or pleasure. Food has somehow become an affliction to humans due to
adulteration. Food adulteration is the act of intentionally debasing the quality of food offered for
sale either by the admixture or substitution of inferior substances or by the removal of some
valuable ingredient. For example, water or synthetic chemicals are being mixed with milk to
increase the quantity, also sugar is mixed in honey and it has sold under the category of pure
honey. 4 When the price of the food production is higher than the price which the consumer is
prepared to pay, the seller is compelled to supply a food product of inferior quality. Thus
adulteration occurs. Low quality, cheap, non-edible substances with food and make it adulterated.
The cheap, low quality and generally non-edible substances are mixed which are purposely mixed
with food items to earn profit are called adulterants. Food adulteration is a serious crime which is
punishable under the law. Consumption of adulterated food can cause serious disorders such as
diarrhoea, asthma, ulcers, food poisoning, cancer and may even result in death.5 Recently, the Food
Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has flagged misleading claims from the Food Business
Operators (FBOs) and found them to be in contravention of the Food Safety and Standards (Advertisements
& Claims) Regulations, 2018.In 2022, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) had
issued Guidelines to Prevent False or Misleading Advertisements.6 In the most recent case of
adulteration, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), 77% of honey samples were found to be
adulterated with sugar syrup. 7 The Centre for Science and Environment recently released results of
an investigation it had conducted into the quality of honey being produced in India. It reported that
products by many popular brands were not honey, and, in fact, had been spiked with added sugar.
Therefore, they should not be branded and sold as honey. The report also said that adulteration has
become so sophisticated in the country that there are products available to cheat the tests that
Indian food testing labs conduct to measure the purity of honey.
3
https://forumias.com/blog/honey-adulteration-and-laws-related-to-food-adulteration-in-india/#gsc.tab=0
4
https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2108391.pdf
5
https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1803110.pdf
6
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/curtailing-misleading-food-ads/print_manually
7
https://forumias.com/blog/honey-adulteration-and-laws-related-to-food-adulteration-in-india/
12
1.2.STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
In India, the problem is so wide-spread that from 25% to 70% of most of the food stuffs
consumed in this country are adulterated or contaminated.To know about what are the problems that
have been faced by the customer’s or people who have consumed the food adulteration products is
whether necessary to know what are the products are to become a food adulteration.Food
adulteration is prevalent largely due to lack of awareness among common people, proper food laws,
business ethics among the money minded manufacturers and standardization of food substances. A
limited number of people die without food but large population have been suffering from
complicated diseases related to food adulteration and ﬁnally die.These factors make food
adulteration, one of the most serious problems present in our society that should be eradicated.
1.3.REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
The reviews of various e-sources, e-books have been taken to analyse the topic Food
Adulteration for getting the views of various people and their psychologies about it for better
understanding of topic which will help to get the results of research.
Vasanthakalaam.H (1996) suggested that “consumers awareness plays an important role in
preventing the food adulteration. so basic screening tests for food adulteration should be known to
common people”.
Abidfaheem T.K et al (2013) their study revealed that “majority (60%) of the respondents had
moderate knowledge about food adulteration. Chili powder were adulterated with artificial color,
common salt was adulterated with insoluble impurities, tea powder adulterated with iron fillings and
artificial color. There was significant association of knowledge about food adulteration with age and
education of the respondents”.
Bhatt Shuchi R et al (2012) in their study found that “coriander powder was adulterated with
horse dung, soil and leaf powder”.
Mohamed Ziyaina et al (2014) in their study found “lead and cadmium in turmeric powder”.
“Label declaration on packed food is very important in order to know the ingredients and its
nutritional value” (Babu and Shenolikar 1995). “The process by which the quality or the nature of
13
a given substance is reduced through the addition of a foreign or an inferior substance and the
removal of vital vitamins”. 8
Khapre MP (2011) “Ignorance of consumers regarding their rights and responsibilities towards
food adulteration resulting in faulty buying practices.
Food Adulteration And Consumer Challenges In Bangladesh-Md.Mesbah Uddin Shiffat- in
his study in Bangladesh concluded that there is a big challenge in Bangladesh in putting a stop to
the adulteration of food products.9
1.4.RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
1. To find out the status of the food adulteration in India.

2. To study existing laws for controlling food adulteration in India.
3. To review about different food adulteration practice happening in market.
4. To find out the legal awareness among consumers to fight against food adulteration in india.
5. To study the major challenges being faced in legal battle against Food adulteration in india.
6. To know about the government departments, organizations and institution working for
curbing food adulteration in india.
7. To study important litigations and landmark judgements related to food adulteration in india.
8. To recommend suggestions on availability and efficacy of laws pertaining to food
adulteration in india.
1.5.RESEARCH QUESTION:
1.What are the legal provisions available for consumer protection in food adulteration?
2.What are the laws which protect consumers when food is adultered?
3.How FSSAI protects the consumer from adulteration?
4.Which are the laws cuurently available for protection of food adulteration of consumers?
5.What is the role of Judiciary in inplmentation of food adulteration in India?
8
Consumer awareness towards food adulteration in india-Kishore Kumar.y
9
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q=food+adulteration+and+consumer+rights&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
14
1.6.RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:
The Hypothesis for the Research Study are there is strong legal framework available in India to
curb food Adulteration. There is a lack of awareness among consumers regarding food adulteration
and its impact.There is lack of awareness among consumers about legal options available to them
if they become victim of food adulteration.There is a significant gap in the performance and
mandates of government departments and organizations in controlling food adulteration in India.
1.7.RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The research is based on the consumer awareness towards food adulteration. It is used to obtain
the current information the current status of the phenomena to describe what exist. For the purpose
of the present research work the research methodology that is adopted is purely doctrinal. First
source of reference material is the enacted piece of legislations. Secondary sources cover various
judgments of the courts, articles written by the various authors. The researcher has also relied on
the reference material which is available in the net.
1.8.LIMITATION OF STUDY:
This research is based on Doctrinal in nature. No empirical data is collected during this
research. The relevant data for this research is taken from the source of Primary and Secondary
data.
1.9.OPERATIONAL DEFINITION:
1. Sec 3(f) in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 "consumer" means persons and
families purchasing and receiving food in order to meet their personal needs.
2. “Caveat Emptor” is the common maxim which means “Purchaser Beware”
3. “laissez faire” which means welfare of common people.
4. “Caveat Vendettor” which means seller beware is taken birth.
5. Sec 3 (a) in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 "adulterant" means any material
which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded
or containing extraneous matter;
6. The Codex Alimentarius is a Latin term that means “Food Law or Code”. It is a collection
15
of international food standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is
an international body responsible for the execution of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards
Programme.
7. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India(FSSAI) The organization belongs to the
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of the Indian Government.
8. According Sec-3(j) in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 "food" means any
substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for
human consumption and includes primary food, to the extent defined in clause (ZK)
genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food,
packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including
water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not
include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on
the market for human consumption, plants prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal
products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances.
9. Sec 3(m) in The Food Safety And Standards Act, 2006 "Food Authority" means the Food
Safety and Standards Authority of India established under section 4.
1.10.CHAPTERIZATION:
Chapter – 1 (Introduction): The first chapter deals with an Introduction to the whole research
study and it contains 6 background of the study, Statement of Problem, Research question,
Objective of the research, Hypothesis, Research Methodology, limitation of the study and
operational definitions.
Chapter – 2 (Historical Background of Food Adulteration): This chapter deals with the
Historical background of the concept of Food Adulteration. This chapter contains the origin of the
concept of Food Adulteration and ancient food laws in India how it evolve from the biblical time
to the medieval time and as well as modern era.
Chapter – 3 (Critical Analysis of food adulteration in India): This chapter deals with the
definition of the term food adulteration and its types.
Chapter – 4 (Comparative Analysis of Food Adulteration): This chapter deals with the
comparative analysis in other countries and their legal frame work on Food Adulteration and its
implications,and the cost comparative with law in Indian food laws and its procedures.
16
Chapter – 5 (Conclusion and Suggestions): This chapter deals with the conclusion and
suggestion part of this research and the need for the improvement in food adulteration strict laws
and consumer rights in India.
CHAPTER-II
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FOOD ADULTERATION
2.1.ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL TIMES:
Even in ancient and medieval India, there were instances of food adulteration, though it was
not regulated in any systematic manner. In India adulteration of food articles was considered to be
'adharma' (unreligious) under the Vedas which are still ancient to Kautilya's Arthsastras. It had
preached sacrifices and described acts of deceit or injurious acts as 'adharma'. The entire Vedas
(excluding Upanishads) declare to treat dharma i.e. acts of duty foremost^ amongst which are
sacrifices. During the regime of Mauryas as long as 300 B.C., the act of adulteration was
considered "adharma" and distribution of adulterated articles was probibited Traders often
adulterated spices, grains, and other food items to maximize profits. The lack of proper regulation
and oversight meant that consumers had little protection against adulteration. The various penalties
for traders using false balances as well as those guilty of the sale of adulterated commodities all
concerning the market or failed to give delivery of articles to the purchasers after payment of the
price, various other transactions of cheating were in vogue 4during the pre-Mauryan 'period , " In
the earlier periods of the development of human society man survived on a diet consisting of a
relatively few species of plants and animals, however, the advent of industrial era brought in a
change in his eating habits.
2.2.COLONIAL PERIOD (BRITISH RULE):
The wide spread menace of fcod adulteration is prevailing not only in India but almost
throughout the world. England was the first country in the English speaking world to have a
separate law for adulteration of food in 1860. It was the extensive application of the microscope to
the examination of food by A.H. Hassal that Give a new turn to the subject. Parliament appointed a
commission to consider the question of adulteration and its report in 1860 led to an Act for the
prevention of adulteration of articles of food and drugs in 1860.During British rule in India, food
adulteration became more prevalent and systematic. The colonial government introduced various
regulations to address the issue, mainly to safeguard the interests of British merchants and
17
consumers. However, enforcement remained lax, and adulteration continued to be widespread.
2.3.POST-INDEPENDENCE ERA:
After India gained independence in 1947, efforts were made to address food adulteration
through legislation and regulatory bodies.In India, the food adulteration law was enacted in Indian
Penal Code in 1860, But Indian penal Code deals with only the prevention of noxious food or
drink. In this case, Ram Dayal And Ors. v. Emperor (1923)10, the accused was selling ghee with a
mixture of pig fat. The Privy Council held that the mixing of pig fat with the ghee is noxious to the
religious feelings of the Hindus and Mohammedans but it would not come under the expression
“noxious as food”. Noxious includes “ unwholesomeness or injurious to health but not repugnant
to one’s feeling”.The law laid down in Indian Penal Code was sufficient to deal with conditions
prevailing at that time when it was enacted. But due to change of socio-economic conditions, the
law laid down in Indian Penal Code could not be proved sufficient to deal with the changed
conditions. Thus, Indian Penal Code prove inadequate to deal with the problems of food
adulteration.To meet with the situation, different States in British India, enacted separate
legislations , These legislations also did not succeed to control the menace of food adulteration
because these legislations lacked uniformity having been passed at different time without mutual
consultation between States. The problem of food adulteration had become the grave menace to the
society. The effects of food adulteration on the society were serious. The public opinion was strong
on the subject. The need for a Central Legislation for the whole country had been felt since 1937
when a committee appointed by the Central Advisory Board of Health recommended it. Therefore
the Prevention of Adulteration of Food Bill was introduced in the Parliament on 12th December,
1950. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) was enacted in 1954, aiming to regulate the
manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale of adulterated food products. This act underwent
several amendments over the years to strengthen its provisions.
Consequently, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 came into existence to deal
with the problem. The Act was amended by Act 49 of 1964, Act 41 of 1971, Act 24 of 1972 and it
was amended in 1975 to make the provisions more effective and punishment more stringent. It was
again amended in 1986 and confered power and right on consumer associations to draw samples of
food stuffs and initiate legal action if it found to be adulterated. The Prevention of Food
10
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38867/
18
Adulteration Act is as it stands now is consolidated and covers undoubtedly many things together
leaving a long hand for interpretation by courts. It has dealt with all types of foods together and by
the 11 Rules framed under the rule making powers by the Central Government and the state
Governments have precisely laid down cumbersome procedures to be rigidly adopted by the
prosecuting agencies alike. But the Act as it stands even today appears to have not achieved its
object due to increased complexities/ lack of successful administrative procedures and extending
culpability directing from vendor to distributor and manufacturer.
2.4.MODERN ERA:
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, with rapid industrialization and urbanization, the scale
and complexity of food adulteration increased. Adulterants became more sophisticated, and new
challenges emerged, such as adulteration in processed foods, dairy products, and edible oils. To
address these challenges, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) was
established in 2006 under the Food Safety and Standards Act, consolidating various food laws and
authorities into a single regulatory body. FSSAI was consequently established in 2008 but work
within the Food Authority effectively began in 2011 after its Rules and key Regulations were
notified.This marked a shift from a multi-level to a single line of control with focus on self-
compliance rather than a pure regulatory regime. Nestle India Limited Maggi Case: The maggi
noodles were reported with excess lead unfit for human consumption and FSSAI prescribed for
ban11.Cadbury India: It was reported that worms was found in Cadbury's Dairy Milk. 12 The FSSAI
declared packaging was not proper or airtight and made it mandatory to change the packaging.
2.5.WHAT IS THE FSSAI LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK?
1.HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD ACT, 2006

The Act 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.The Act established FSSAI and the State Food Safety Authorities for each State.
11
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/01/researchers-assess-impact-of-nestle-india-maggi-recall-foos-safety-
concerns-lingered/
12
https://www.studocu.com/row/document/iqra-university/bachelor-of-business-administration-bba/cadbury-case-
study/15194674
19
2.HIGHLIGHTS OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS RULE, 2011.
The Rules provides for: The Food Safety Appellate Tribunal and the Registrar of the Appellate
Tribunal, for adjudication of food safety cases.
3.HIGHLIGHTS OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS REGULATIONS 2011
It covers Licensing and Registration, Packaging and Labelling of Food Businesses, Food Product
Standards and Food Additives Regulation.It prohibits and restricts on sales or approval for Non-
Specified Food and Food Ingredients, such ingredients may cause harm to human health.It
provides for Food Safety and Standards on Organic Food and regulates Food Advertising. 13
2.6.CHALLENGES AND CURRENT SCENARIO:
Despite regulatory efforts, food adulteration remains a significant challenge in India. Factors
such as weak enforcement, corruption, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of public awareness
contribute to the persistence of adulteration. Additionally, globalization and the expansion of the
food supply chain have introduced new complexities, requiring continuous adaptation of
regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms. Wide Range of Adulterants: Food
adulteration in India involves a wide range of substances, including chemicals, dyes, pesticides,
and unhygienic processing methods. Commonly adulterated foods include milk and dairy products,
spices, oils, grains, pulses, and condiments. 14
Food adulteration is a major challenge in 2020, including the COVID-19 pandemic,
which remains at first. Adulteration disturbs our whole routine life, directly affecting our health.
The major impact of food adulteration occurs on farmers, manufacturers or enterprises, consumers,
and the government . Undertakings are affected by a deficiency of buyer trust in their items,
reviews, and annihilation of sullied items, objection costs and increments of protection
expenses and costs identified with hardware substitution or cleaning . According to there are
three sorts of food extortion chances that represent a danger to the general population:
 Immediate risk to consumers from short-term experience leading to poisonous or
toxic effects
 Long-term exposure risk with possible lasting effects.
 Technical errors such as an error in food documentation.
Example: allergic reaction caused by an unknown ingredient not included in label . Like big
enterprises, food fraud and adulteration have caused a massive impact on farmers. Numerous
13
https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-
institutions/food-safety-and-standards-authority-of-india-fssai
14
https://cultivatorphytolab.com/new-trends-of-food-adulteration/
20
farmers endured enormous misfortunes, cost increments because of taking care of costs, and cow
milk deficiency brought about by mass deals or butcher during the crisis. 15
Health Risks: Consumption of adulterated food poses significant health risks to consumers.
Adulterants such as synthetic colors, pesticides, and harmful chemicals can cause various health
problems, including gastrointestinal disorders, food poisoning, and long-term illnesses.
Regulatory Challenges: Despite the existence of food safety regulations and authorities like the
Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), enforcement remains a challenge. Limited
resources, corruption, and bureaucratic hurdles often impede effective monitoring and enforcement
of food safety standards.
Urban vs. Rural Disparities: The problem of food adulteration is more pronounced in urban areas
due to higher demand and greater market complexity. However, rural areas are not exempt, as
adulteration practices also occur in local markets and small-scale food production units.
Consumer Awareness: While there's growing awareness among consumers about food safety
issues, many people, especially in rural areas, may still lack knowledge about the risks associated
with consuming adulterated food. Increasing consumer awareness through education and outreach
programs is crucial.
Technological Solutions: Advances in technology, such as rapid testing kits and blockchain-based
traceability systems, offer potential solutions to detect and prevent food adulteration. However, the
widespread adoption of these technologies across the food supply chain remains a challenge.
Supply Chain Integrity: Ensuring the integrity of the food supply chain is essential for combating
adulteration. Strengthening quality control measures at every stage, from production to
distribution, is necessary to prevent adulterants from entering the market.
Collaborative Efforts: Addressing food adulteration requires collaboration among government
agencies, food producers, retailers, and consumers. Public-private partnerships and coordinated
efforts are vital for developing and implementing effective strategies to tackle this complex issue.
Legal Framework: There is a need for stringent enforcement of existing food safety laws and
regulations, along with periodic updates to address emerging challenges. Additionally, imposing
stricter penalties for offenders can serve as a deterrent against adulteration practices.
Global Trade Implications: As India continues to expand its exports of food products, ensuring
compliance with international food safety standards is crucial for maintaining market access and
15
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361254857_REVIEW_RECENT_DEVELOPMENT_IN_FOOD_ADULTERATIO
N_ANALYTICAL_TECHNIQUES
21
reputation on the global stage16
2.7.RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:
In recent years, there has been a growing focus on leveraging technology and data-driven
approaches to tackle food adulteration. Initiatives such as the use of mobile apps for reporting
adulteration, DNA-based testing methods for authentication, and blockchain technology for supply
chain transparency are being explored to enhance food safety and combat adulteration.
CHAPTER-III
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD ADULTERATION AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
3.1. MEANING OF THE WORD CONSUMER:

In its popular sense, we all are consumers because we all are human beings and in such an
existence of nature, we require a daily intake for our survivals. In addition to the bare needs of
man, we require many other goods and commodities, depending upon our economic capacities, for
our own selves and our households, and all these are buyed from the market in the capacity of
consumers. The person, from whom we buy, is the seller and the one producing the goods and
supplying to our seller is the manufacturer. All the same, it is a live truth of society that man is a
social-animal, depending upon one another for fulfilling their needs. And in the market, this fact
appears more naked when we notice that one is a seller for one commodity but he is a consumer
for the other one and so forth and vice- versa.
The Webster's New World Dictionary interprets the term in its economic sense, to define
consumers as: "A person who uses goods or services so satisfies his needs rather than to resell
them or produce other goods with them. 17 There is a vacuum of moral leaders like Mahatma
Gandhi in India Today who would utter:”A Consumer is the most important visitor in our
premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependents on him. He is not an interruption in our
work. He is a part of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us a favour by
giving us an opportunity to do so”. In most of the advanced countries, in the fields of
16
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/food-adulteration-major-issue-unresolved-criminal-cases-
raise-concerns/articleshow/106056704.cms
17
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consumer#:~:text=noun-
,con%C2%B7%E2%80%8Bsum%C2%B7%E2%80%8Ber%20k%C9%99n%2D%CB%88s%C3%BC%2Dm%C9%99r,buys%20a
nd%20uses%20up%20goods
22
manufacturing, advertising, labeling and selling, legislation provided a background of protection
for the consumers. However gaps remained, partly due to ignorance on the part of the consumers
themselves and partly from the reluctance of most of the governments to restrict unduly the
activities of business. Laws have been made to check the substandard goods manufacture which
may endanger the public life.
3.2.COMMON LAW
Previously, under common law, the consumer or purchaser had to take care for himself while
purchasing goods. “Caveat Emptor” is the common maxim which means “Purchaser Beware”,
purchase the goods with open eyes; if there is some defect in the goods you yourself shall be
responsible. Under Common Law onus was placed on the purchaser to protect his own interests by
ensuring that what he purchases is of worthwhile quality to meet out his needs. But with the march
of time, the doctrine of caveat emptor has been progressively modified in order to protect the
interests of the consumers to the extent that the law is now governed by exceptions than be rule
itself. The doctrine has now been accorded well with the principle of “laissez faire” which means
welfare of common people. So now the reverse doctrine “Caveat Vendettor” which means seller
beware is taken birth.
Most of the traders have profiteering tendencies. They have no feeling of sympathy towards
common consumers whom they bluff day and night. They have no moral sense about the survival
of the society which they exploit. Adulteration of food stuffs has become part of their business.
Even in Wheat, rice and pulses, they often mix small pieces of stones and earth. Milk is seldom
pure to be supplied. Oils are grossly adulterated. The tendency of traders to deceive the consumers
for making wrongful profit should be checked by strict and drastic laws and their active and swift
implementation by government machinery and courts.
Adulterated food can have a range of harmful effects on health. It can lead not only to the
toxicity in the body but can also lead the body to paralysis or may eventually cause death. Some of
the adulterants are very highly toxic for the body which may lead to heart failure, kidney disorder,
liver, disorder and many more body diseases. Therefore, it is very important to detect these
adulterants. Food adulteration is a major threat to a consumer, which is faced regularly. Therefore,
detection of adulterants is an essential requirement for ensuring the safety of foods consumed by
people. Nowadays, the more expensive the food product, a greater incentive is to be had for
23
evolving suitable strategies to imitate the unique product with reasonably-priced alternatives.
Various measures have been taken to protect the consumers from the intake of adulterated food
and also, to bring awareness among the consumer associations and individual consumer about the
adulteration of food and to know the legal provisions to protect the rights of the consumer. The
protection of consumers Right is not solely the responsibility of the state, it is also the
responsibility of each consumers. The consumers must take care by themselves with the help of
recognised consumer association and authorities.
According to the FSSAI Annual Report (2018-19)13, 28.56 percent of food samples assessed
by FSSAI were found to be adulterated or misbranded. 1,06,459 food samples were analyzed by
FSAAI's Public labs in the year 2018-19. As per the report, the highest food adulteration was
found in Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu. The report clearly indicates a consistent rise in
food adulteration in the country. The proportion of the adulterated food or misbranded food sold in
India has almost raised double in the last 8 years. In the year 2012-13, fifteen percent of the food
samples tested were found non-confirming to the prescribed standards. Over the years, this has
gradually raised and now it stands at 28.56 percent, as per the latest report. The penalties imposed
for violations has risen compared to the year 2017-18. The penalties imposed for violations in
2018-19 stood at rupees 32.57 crore to rupees 26.35 crore in the year 2017-18.The lowest food
adulteration was found in Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Uttarakhand.
As per the FSSAI annual report 2018-19
State with highest % State with lowest %
adulteration (2018-19 adulteration (2018-19)
UTTARPRADESH 52.32 ARUNACHAL 3.78
PRADESH
TAMILNADU 45.39 GOA 5.67
JHARKAND 41.68 UTTARKHAND 4.63
3.3.MEANING OF THE WORD ADULTERATION
It is an ace intentionally debasing the quality of food offered for sale either by admixture or
substitution of inferior substance or by removal of some valuable ingredients.
The dictionary meaning of adulterated food is falsifying by mixing with lesser ingredient under
law, it means to corrupt, debase or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance,
24
to prepare for sale by replacing the more valuable with the less valuable or mix with some foreign
substance.Justice K. Iyer once remarked “An insidious host internally nutritiously deficient nation
is one in a sense greater menace that a visible army of aggression at our frontiers” 18
The process by which the quality or the nature of a substance is reduced through the
addition of a foreign or an inferior substance and removal of vital element is known as
adulteration. A food is considered adulterated if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substance
which is injurious to health. The major reasons for food adulteration are to get more profit, to
increase the weight of the substance, to make food look more fresh and natural, and mostly to
increase the food production. Food adulteration may occur at any stage of food processing from
production to selling. The adulteration in food is done either for financial gain or it is done due to
carelessness and lack of proper hygienic condition of processing, storing, transporting, and
marketing. Adulteration is quite common in developing countries and backward countries to
increase the food production or to gain more profit. A food can be adulterated by various means
i.e. subtraction, which means removal of some of the necessary substances from the food, for
example removing milk fat from milk, which may be done by concealment( hiding the low quality
of ingredients or product.19
3.4.TYPES FOOD ADULTERATION:
Adulteration can be divided in to three categories based on the type of contamination,

intention of the producer and processing methodology .
3.4.1.INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION:
Intentional or willfully adulterates to increase the weight of the product whereby he can
increase his profit. Items like stones, marble, mud, sand, water, chips, mineral oil, chalk powder,
and coal tar dyes etc are mixed. Many adulterants effect the health and are harmful to the human
body.
3.4.2.UNINTENTIONAL OR INCIDENTAL ADULTERATION:
“Most common accidental adulterants are pesticides, D.D.T. and residues present on the plant
product” (Pandit et al., 2002) . The unintentional or incidental adulteration is mainly because of
18
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/4754.pdf
19
781-Article Text-1368-1-10-20210328.pdf
25
negligence, ignorance, or poor facilities. It takes place either at the time of threshing, packaging, in
warehouses, or during loading and unloading. Food prepared and packed in the unhygienic
conditions will lead to infestation, animal droppings etc. Contamination of foods with harmful
microorganisms, Vegetables which are grown on sewage more prone to contamination with
harmful microorganisms but these can be destroyed by proper processing and cooking properly.
Humid may also cause fungus to various food grains, legumes and oilseeds which can cause
serious illness to people.
3.4.3.PREVENTION BY INCIDENTAL POISONING:
Regular awareness programs should be conducted to the people about the dangerous effects
with the toxins in the food items. The most common incidental adulterants are pesticides, creating
awareness among the farmers regarding judicious usage of pesticides, farmers should avoid
spraying of Pesticides before harvest also usage of Low persistence or safer pesticides and
Cooking vegetables after proper washing with salt water and then with normal water will prevent
the incidental poisoning to a great extent.
3.4.4.METALLIC CONTAMINATION:
Metals like Lead, arsenic, mercury, etc. and the toxic elements, in small doses such as arsenic,
cadmium, Cobalt and antimony, can affect the consumer health drastically and can affect
functioning of Liver, Kidney and many more. The effects of food adulteration on the health of an
individual will depend upon many factors like the type of adulterant, period of exposure, extent of
adulteration etc. Even so there can be some symptoms or diseases that occur commonly due to
consumption of adulterated food like Vomiting, Diarrhea, Allergy, Infections, Liver disorder,
Neurological disorders, Stomach disorders, Anemia, Malnutrition, Cancer etc. 20
3.5.FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA :
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India(FSSAI) has been established under Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006 which consolidates various Acts and Orders that have hitherto
regulate food related issues in various Ministries and Departments. FSSAI has been created for
20
E:/New%20folder/781-Article%20Text-1368-1-10-20210328.pdf
26
laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage,
distribution, sale and import to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human
consumption.
The main functions of FSSAI are :-
 Framing of regulations to lay down the standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food
and specifying appropriate system of enforcing various standards.
 Laying down guidelines and procedures for accreditation of laboratories and notification of the
accredited laboratories.
 Contribute to the development of international technical standards for food, sanitary and phyto-
sanitary standards.
 To provide scientific advice and technical support to Central Government and State
Governments in the matters of framing the policy and rules in areas which have a direct or indirect
bearing of food safety and nutrition.
3.5.1.LOOPHOLES IN THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD ACT, 2006
 The unorganised sectors are ignored in the Act. It contains petty manufacturers, hawkers,
retailers which contribute a lot to the unorganised sector. It mainly emphasises the
processing industry. The primary sector is included in the Act but the agricultural sector
producing primary food is ignored.
 The financial supply is not adequate. The majority of the money allocated was used to
develop the infrastructure of the food authority and the remaining was utilized for the
establishment of laboratories, which are negligible. The lack of adequate food testing
laboratories to scrutinize the food manufacturing and processing industries which ensures
the hygiene quality, safety in the food.
 The food authority is understaffed and underfunded and is not able to pace up with the
increasing industry of food. Staff is filled with bureaucrats and non-technical persons are
holding some important office not knowing how to handle some complex issues associated
with the food. At the ground level, the food authorities are not competent to monitor the
situation. There is also a shortage of licensing officers. Provisions under the Act which
authorize the grant of a license, the penalty may lead to corruption.
 There are many undefined words and terms in the Act, which unnecessarily increase the
litigation period. The limitation time is only one year, before its expiration the case has to be
27
brought under the authority notice. Adopting international standards without realising the
compliance capacity of the domestic food sector and the implementation of these
international standards becomes challenging.
 There are doubts about the standard procedures followed by the laboratories while
scrutinizing the products. This came into focus when lead and monosodium glutamate were
found in Maggi. States like Maharashtra, Punjab, and Kerala banned the product, however,
the amount of lead found in Maggi in states like Karnataka, West Bengal, Goa, and
Chhattisgarh were under safe levels. Thus this questions the confusion around the
procedures and standards defined in different states.
In Nestle India Limited v. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (2015) (the Maggi
Case). In this, the petitioner- company was ordered to stop the manufacturing, distribution, etc of
the 9 types of a variant of products of noodles manufactured by the company. The court expressed
that the principle of natural justice was not followed. The company, a day prior to the impugned
order, recalled all the products till the authorities were satisfied with the safety of the product. And
it was also realised that the laboratories where the products were tested for high quantities of lead,
were not accredited and recognised under the Act, and relying on their test result would not be
justified.
3.5.2.SOURCES OF FOOD ADULTERATION
Food safety is an aim to provide nutritious and safe to the consumers. The prime objective of food
is not to sufficed to the menace created by the food adulteration. The food can be incidentally
adulterated by various sources like pesticide residue, metallic impurities, polluted water, fertilizers,
unhygienic conditions, etc. Whereas, in intentional adulteration the various sources could be the
unapproved additives/ chemicals, the goods may contain filth and foreign matter, preservatives, or
the quantity of preservative is more than the prescribed limit, or it contains any substitute or
inferior items like water in milk.
FSSAI has also campaigned for consumer awareness regarding food adulteration and has given
resources like DART book which will help the consumers to detect food adulteration at home. The
implementation of FSS Act (2006) , there has been nationwide campaigning against food
adulteration and penalizations have been declared who violate the standards. It is trying its level
best to identify the roots of this menace. It must be made sure that the sources of food adulterants
should also be identified and penalized as only detection of food adulteration is one side of the
28
coin.
According to a survey conducted, adulteration were detected in milk to the tune of 70% with
water, turmeric powder 43% with chalk powder, red chilli powder-100% with artificial color,
sugar 37% with chalk powder etc.8 The adulteration in food is done either for financial gain or it is
done due to carelessness and lack of proper hygienic condition of processing, storing, transporting,
and marketing. Another motive for adulteration of goods and services is outsourcing to offshore
producers. Outsourcing became possible because comparatively labour is cheap in some countries
and this is also what makes product faking easy since the cost of producing is far less compared to
the super normal profits being made.
3.5.3.PUNISHMENT FOR FOOD ADULTERATION UNDER FSSAI
The FSSAI regulations provide for various punishments to persons who adulterate food or food
products as under:
 Import, manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of any food article which is adulterated by
allowing its quality or purity to fall below the prescribed standard, or is misbranded, or in
contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules. The penalty for this offense is a minimum
imprisonment of six months that may extend up to 3 years and a minimum fine of Rs 1000.
 Import, manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of any adulterant not injurious to health.
Penalty is minimum imprisonment of six months that may extend up to 3 years and minimum fine
of Rs 1000.
 Preventing a Food Inspector from taking a sample or exercising his Penalty is minimum
imprisonment of six months that may extend up to 3 years and minimum fine of Rs 1000.
 Giving a false warranty in writing in respect of any food article. Penalty is minimum
imprisonment of six months that may extend up to 3 years and minimum fine of Rs 1000
 Import, manufacture, storage, sale or distribution of any food article which is adulterated or any
adulterant which is injurious to health is being used is punishable under Law. Penalty is minimum
imprisonment of one year that may extend up to 6 years and minimum fine of Rs 2000
 Sale or distribution of any food article containing any poisonous or other ingredients injurious to
health, which is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Penalty is minimum imprisonment
of three years that may extend up to life and minimum fine of Rs 5000. 21
21
IJCRT2108391.pdf
29
3.6.THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS
The Codex Alimentarius is a Latin term that means “Food Law or Code”. It is a collection of
international food standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is an
international body responsible for the execution of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards
Programme. FAO and WHO created the Commission in the year 1962.The programme is aimed at
protecting the health of consumers and facilitating international trade in food. The standards in the
Codex are for all principal foods, whether processed or semi-processed or raw. A country in any
one of the ways may accept this standards. In the Preamble to the Code of ethics for international
trade in Food, the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well being of the
individual and his family is proclaimed in the universal declaration of human rights of the United
Nations. Therefore, the major objective of the work of commission is to protect the health of
consumer and ensure fair practices in the trade in food .
3.6.FOOD SAFETY STANDARDS (LABORATORY AND SAMPLING ANALYSIS)
REGULATIONS, 2011
The food safety and standards (Laboratory and Sample Analysis) Regulation,2011 came into force
on 5th August 2011.The silent features of these regulation are it provides details on notified
laboratories, laboratories for imports, referral laboratories ,their functions, area of jurisdiction and
quality of sample sent for analysis. There are 140 food testing laboratories in the country for
testing of food products as per standards prescribed under the food safety and standards Act 2006
and Rules /Regulations, 2011. Out of these, 68 NABL accredited laboratories have been authorized
by Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. State Governments have set up 72 food testing
laboratories. These laboratories are equipped to check the quality of food articles as per standards
prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards, Rules/Regulations for various parameters . Four
referral food laboratories have been established under the Act which works as appellate
laboratories for the purpose of analysis of appeal samples of food lifted by the food inspectors of
the states/union territories and local bodies and imported food samples. All type of food samples
like for surveillance, sample sent by purchaser and Food Business Operators are analyzed in the
above laboratories. A purchaser and Food Business Operator can send the samples to state public
laboratories for analysis of sample. However a food safety officer can send samples to
state/regional/district public laboratories and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
30
Authorized laboratories only for analysis to check safety of food as per standards prescribed in the
food safety and standards regulation and in case of a dispute he shall send the sample to referral
laboratory whose decision shall be considered final.
3.6.1.PROCEDURE OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS:
Any food Inspector can enter and inspect any place where any article of food is manufactured or
stored for sale or stored for the manufacture of any other article of food for sale or exposed or
exhibited for sale or where any adulterant is manufactured or kept and take samples of such article
of food or adulterant for analysis. Notice will be issued by the Inspector in writing then and there
to the seller indicating his intention. four samples are taken and the signature of the seller is affixed
to them. One sample is sent for analysis to food Analyst under intimation to the Local Health
Authority. Regulation 2.3.1 prescribes the approximate quantity of different food sample to be sent
to the food analyst/Director for analysis. It also prescribes that after test or analysis, the test report
shall be signed by the Director of referral laboratory or food analyst in the standard format. i.e.,
Form A. Certificate of Analysis by the referral food laboratory, and Form B, format of report of
food analyst is attached to these regulations. It also prescribes the fees payable in respect of the
certificate of analysis. subsection (4) of these regulation defines the use of preservatives in case of
samples of any milk, dahi, khoya, candy, or paneer based products prepared foods etc. it also
prescribes the standard and limit of the preservative for preservation of samples. Regulations of
laboratories and food analysis is provides analysis of food ,recognition and accreditation of food
laboratories, research institution and referral laboratory ,food safety audit for the purpose of food
safety and checking compliance with safety management system, food analysts with its functions,
procedures for sampling and analysis of food for their regulation focusing light on sample analyses
procedures and functioning of notified laboratory like Central Food Laboratory Kolkata,
Ghaziabad, Mysore, Pune etc. to analyses internationally imported food articles and referral
laboratories like referral food laboratories Kolkata, Ghaziabad, Mysore, Pune etc. to analyses food
articles as per local areas decided by central government(FSSAI) 22
3.7.CONSUMER PROTECTION AND LEGAL PROVISIONS
Indian government has rise to the call of the time and had laid down several laws that comes to
22
https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1906695.pdf
31
the rescue of the consumers against the wicked tendencies of trades. In the case of M/S PepsiCo
India Holdings private limited and anr. v. State Of U.P.23 (2010), the state government filed an FIR
against the Company under Section 272/273 of IPC. This action of the state was challenged by Pepsico
India Holding. Their main contention was that section 272/273 of IPC was repealed by the 2006 Act. In the
case of food adulteration and food safety, the 2006 Act occupies the complete field. The High Court was of
the view that the entire procedure and inquiry was to be done under the 2006 Act and invoking the
provision of IPC would be unjustified. Thus applying the principle of generalia specialibus non
derogant, the provision of the Indian Penal Code was held inapplicable by the High Court of Allahabad in
this case.
However, in the State of Maharashtra v. Sayyad Hassan Sayyed Subham (2018), the
Supreme Court held that “if an act or an omission constitutes an offence under two enactments and
prescribes punishment for the same. The offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or
both enactments but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence”. Thus just
because the provisions of FSSA mention penalties for the offence, it does not imply that one
cannot be prosecuted under IPC.
Under Indian Penal Code Section 272 and 276 are the most important provision under the
IPC that answers the issue of food adulteration under the penal legislation. The Protection under
Dangerous Drugs Act1930 aims to keep check on the misuse of habit forming drugs such as opium
and morphine. The Protection under Food Adulteration Act 1954 act aims to provide protection to
the consumers from food that is of hazardous nature. It prohibits the manufacturers from selling or
storing to sell or distribute any adulterated food, misbranded food, or selling food without license.
Vide the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 the M.R.T.P. Act tries to
checkmate the manipulative capacity of monopoly trades in several ways. The commission is
given wide powers to investigate and make orders for modification or cancellation of restrictive
trade agreements, having effect of the increasing of cost of production, distribution and supply of
goods, increasing prices, reducing competition or deteriorating the quality of any goods or
performances of any services.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is the foremost piece of legislation, the main aim of the
act is to provide better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose; it has made
several provisions for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the
23
Writ Petition No. 8254 (MB) of 2010
32
settlement of consumer disputes. Below mentioned are some of the rights that are protected and
promoted:
(a) Protection against marketing of goods which are hazardous nature.
(b) The right to be conversant about the quality, quantity, potency, and price of goods.
(c) The right to have access to variety of goods at viable prices;
(d) The right to be heard at appropriate forums;
(e) The right to seek redressal and
(f) Right to consumer education.
These objects are aimed to be protected and promoted by the Consumer Protection Councils
established at the Central and State levels. It aims to provide speedy and simple redressal to
consumer disputes. In 2002 this Act is amended and introduced a new definition in Sec.2(O)(o)
i.e. spurious goods and services which means such goods and services which are claimed to be
genuine but they are actually not so.
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 ensures the availability of safe and wholesome food
for human consumption. This Act applies to every undertaking, whether public or private, carrying
out any activity, relating to any stage of manufacture, processing, storage, transportation and
distribution of food, whether for profit or not. Provisions under Constitution of India1950 also aims
to protect the rights of consumers through various articles such as A38, 39, 39-B, 42 and 47, 14,
249, and 261.
Unfortunately, even though the Indian Government has enacted various legislations for the
welfare of the consumers, since they are illiterate, ignorant and are unaware of their rights they are
not in a position to fight with the evil. Apart from these some of the other problems faced by the
Indian consumer for every move in part of their life are high and extraordinary prices of the
consumer goods and services, Strikes and lockouts, malpractices and adulteration of goods and
lastly false and misleading advertisements.
3.8.LAWS TO PROTECT CONSUMERS:
3.8.1.THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (COPRA)

 In this, it protects the right of the consumer and makes user aware of their rights.
 They have developed or formed three-tier system wherein there is District

Forums, State Commission, and National Commission thus to protect the right of the
consumer.
33
3.8.2.INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1972
 They lay down the conditions in which the parties promise each other of the services to be
provided and agree on certain terms.The contract is made that is binding on each other.
 They protect the interest that the contract is not breached and in case if breached the
remuneration to be provided.
3.8.3.THE SALES OF GOOD ACT, 1930

 To ensure the consumer rights in case the goods offered to the consumer is not up to the
standard which was promised and the false claim was made.
3.8.4.THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955

 To keep track of the commodities which are essential and monitor their production and
supply. Also keep a track of any hoarders, black marketers,
3.8.5.THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING ) ACT, 1937

 To implement the grading standard and hence monitoring the same whether standard checks
are been done to issue the grading. In this, AGMARK is the standard introduced
for agricultural goods.
3.8.6.THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

 This act makes sure the purity of the food items and the health of the consumers which
could be affected by the adulterated items.
3.8.7.THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976

 The Standards of Weights and Measures Act protects the right against the goods which is
underweight or under measured.
3.8.8.THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999

 This act protects users from false marks which could mislead the consumer and hence cheat
them in the ground of quality of the product.
3.8.9.THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

 The Competition Act replaced from the Monopolies and the Restrictive Trade Practices Act
following to take action against the firms which use such practice which in turn affect the
competition in the market.
3.8.10.THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS ACT, 1986

 The Bureau of Indian Standards Act ensures about the quality of the product to be used by
the consumer and have introduced BIS Mark to certify the quality of the product and have
34
set up grievance cell which can take complaints regarding the quality of the product.
3.9.Consumer Court
Consumer Courts are special courts set up by the Indian Judiciary to settle consumer grievances and
entertain consumer problems. A special consumer court is set up to ensure that justice is done
quickly and efficiently, without undue hardship to the complainant. Also to handle the sheer number
of cases, the consumer courts help lessen the burden on the judiciary system.
Another major advantage that the consumer court offers is that the whole process is fairly simple.
One does not even need to hire a lawyer or any legal professional for the hearing if he thinks it is
not required. Self-representation is possible in a consumer court. Right from submitting a complaint
to the process of hearing all procedures are kept simple and uncomplicated.
3.10.ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FOOD ADULTERATION

LAWS IN INDIA:
The law relating to food adulteration in the Indian Penal Code of certain sections punishing
adulteration and Statewide legislations was inadequate to deal with the problem. To meet with the
problem of food adulteration, consequently, with a view to do away with that diversity and also to
remove other loopholes the Central legislation. Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 came to
be implemented in form of present Act, Indeed dissatisfied with the indulgent exercise of judicial
discretion the legislature has deprived the court of its powers to be lenient. The Courts to deal with
the crimes under the Food Adulteration Act, 1954 are alert to give its version without any
hesitation. Under the Act roensrea is not a constituent part of the crime. The purpose of adulterating
an article is not a relevant fact. An act lone in contravention of the Act, no matter how innocently
would be liable to be visited with the penalty provided therefor. Legislative intent and the object of
the Act has been kept in mind while dealing with prosecution under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act by the Courts. The Supreme Court of India had accepted the legislative intent and
the object of the Act in M.V. Joshi Vs N. Shimpi & another 24 it was held that in the Indian Act,
selling butter below the prescribed standard is deemed to be adulterated if the standard is not
maintaned, ' the butter by a fiction becomes an adulterated food. The law will loose its force if a
dealer in such food is allowed to claim that not with standing the deficency in the standard it is not
24
AIR 1961 SC 1494
35
adulterated. The court observed adulterations in food stuffs are serious offences calling deterrent
punishment.
In Ganeshmal Jashraj Vs Government of Gujarat 25, a new thought was expressed. The Supreme
Court opined that sometimes small tradesman who are hand to mouth are punished because of
selling adulterated food. In fact they do not adulterate. The . adulteration is made by the wholeseller
or the manufacturer. Keeping in view the object, the statute and the ends to be achieved the
requirement of proof of mensrea has been excluded. Observations of the Supereme Court made in
26
Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Vs Jasjit Singh are pertinent. The Supreme Court held that
the statute promoting welfare activities or intending to curb a grave social evil stand on separate
footing as raper or murder. In the case of statutes dealing with social welfare the legislature may
create strict liability or absolute liability offences. The judiciary, therefore, adopts a construction
which excludes any guilty intention because of the fact that difficulty is faced in proving the
existence of mensrea and the courts do not intend to make the prohibition in such cages a dead
letter. However, it is not of course to state that the Supreme Court has shown intention to consider
mensrea in such cases.
In Sengupta vs A. Mustakh,27 the milk vendor selling adulterated milk was prosecuted and his plea
that he himself purchased the milk from others and had no knowledge about the nature substance or
quality was rejected. Ignorance, and good faith are no defence in adulteration cases. In
Badrlnarayan Sahu vs State of Qrissa,28 the Orissa High Court held under Section 16(1)(a) of the
prosecution is merely to prove that an article of food as defined in the Act (which may or may not
be meant for human consumption) which is adulterated or sale of which is prohibited under the law,
was either sold or kept for sale. From the above case material it is observed that sometimes the
attitude of the trial courts in punishing the food adulteratorgis discordant but the role of higher
courts is better in awarding deterrent punishments to food adulterators.29
From June 2016 to February 2017 there were 1722complaints received by FSSAI, of which
the maximum of 1307 were for food packaging purposes. Another 415 complaints were about
packaging or pick-ups, 98 about adulteration of food and 74 about food packages that were out
ofstock. The Government of Canada warned citizens in September 1998 not to take food cooked or
25
AIR 1977 SC 435
26
AIR 1964 SC 1140
27
AIR 1964 TRI 48
28
AIR 1992 Cr.L.Jr 3418
29
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144518302.pdf
36
processed in Indian oil because it could be adulterated with argemone. Scores were killedor
disabled in northern India as unscrupulous traders mixed the deadly argemone oil into mustard oil
in order to raise revenue.
In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (201330), the writ petitioner alleged
the adulteration of soft drinks. The Supreme Court observed that people are protected under Article
21 against the hazardous and injurious food article and it is the duty of the state to ensure such
rights are protected under Article 47. It was held that the number of insecticides and pesticides
contained in the food article was beyond the tolerable amount which is not good for children’s
health and therefore directed the state authorities to effectively implement the statutory scheme and
penal provisions and directed the food authority to conduct periodical monitoring of fruits and
vegetable markets while taking into consideration the prevalent national and international standards
and practices and shall be guided by the general principle of food safety.
In Swami Achyutanand Tirth & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors. (2016)31, the petitioner filed
public interest litigation highlighting the concern about the growing sale of adulterated and
synthetic milk, all over India. Thus Public interest litigation was filed to seek direction from the
state and central government to take appropriate steps to curb the activity. Therefore the court
issued the following directions:
 The Union and state governments should take appropriate steps to implement the FSSA in a
more effective way.
 To inform the dairy owners and retailers that stringent steps would be taken if any chemical
adulterant is found in the milk.
 The State Food Safety Authority (SFSA) should identify high-risk areas and times when
there are high chances of ingesting milk and milk products, and collect samples from those
areas.
 State Food Safety Authorities should ensure that all laboratories should obtain NABL
(National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories) accreditation along
with having well-equipped lab testing infrastructure and technical persons to handle it.
 Measures should be taken by the SFSA and district authorities for a sampling of the
products including spot testing for conducting qualitative tests of adulteration in the food.
30
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 49 of 2019
31
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 159 OF 2012
37
 Snap short survey tests should be conducted periodically at the state and national levels.
 State Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary or the Secretary of Dairy Department
and District Level Committee headed by the concerned District Collector shall be
constituted to take a review of the work done in curbing the adulteration by the authorities.
 The concerned state department shall set up a website that will be responsible for creating
awareness about complaint mechanism functioning and the responsibilities of food safety
authorities. The website will have the contact details of food safety officers and a toll-free
telephone number. Directing the concerned government to put a check on corruption and
unethical practices by Food Authorities and their officers by evolving the complaint
mechanism
 The State/ food authority/ Commissioner of food safety shall inform the general public
about the ill effect on health due to adulteration, educate the children through workshops,
etc. in determining adulterated components in food. In short, it’s their duty to increase
awareness among people.
In Desi Ghee Adulteration Case: Five persons were sentenced to life imprisonment in an
adulterated ghee case by the Bareilly district and sessions court in Uttar Pradesh. The court of
Additional District Judge Arvind Kumar Yadav awarded life imprisonment to five accused for
manufacturing adulterated desi ghee. The court also slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 on each of the five
accused. It is considered to be the highest-ever punishment against adulteration in the country so
far.Acting on a tip-off, police had raided a basement of a trading company situated in the Sarvodaya
Nagar locality of the city on October 15, 2009, where the accused were caught making spurious
ghee. Five persons were arrested by the police during the raid. Besides, the police had recovered
fake desi ghee from an aluminium drum, sealed packets of substandard ghee, refined oil, other
chemical substances, artificial fragrance and others. Around 26 quintals of spurious desi ghee were
seized from the spot by the police.Tejpal Singh Raghav, the public prosecutor, said, "The hearing
was going on in the court for the past 14 years. During the trial of the case, eight witnesses were
produced before the court. the court of Additional Sessions Judge Arvind Kumar Yadav convicted
all five accused Mahesh, Yogendra, Lokman, Satya Prakash and Subodh, all residents of Bareilly,
and sentenced them to life imprisonment. A fine of Rs 50,000 was also imposed on them. Two other
38
accused Rajneesh and Anupam were acquitted by the court for want of sufficient evidence." 32
In Sri Mahavir Agency v. The State of West Bengal.(2023)33 In a criminal appeal against the
order of Calcutta High Court, wherein the convict’s appeal against the conviction order to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months was dismissed, the Division Bench of Abhay S.
Oka and Rajesh Bindal*, JJ., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court
and held that vendor has protection under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,
1954. In the matter at hand, the convict, – a vendor, purchased food item pan masala, namely ‘pan
parag’ from the manufacturer in sealed packaged condition and sold it to consumers. The convict
was accused of offences under Section 16(1)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954 (‘the Act’). He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months by Senior Municipal Magistrate, Calcutta. The conviction
was upheld by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, the appeal before the High Court of
Calcutta against the conviction order was dismissed. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of the High
Court, the convict appealed before the Court against the impugned order. The Court referred to
Sections 14 and 19 of the Act and said that there is a bar on the manufacturer or distributor or dealer
to sell any article to any vendor unless he has given a warranty in writing about the nature and
quality of such article to the vendor, further, it said that the proviso to Section 14 states that a bill,
cash memorandum or invoice in respect of the sale of any article of food given by a manufacturer or
distributor, or dealer in, such article to the vendor thereof shall be deemed to be a warranty given by
such manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The Court noted that the convict had purchased the ‘pan
masala’ from the manufacturer and it is on record that a certification was attached to the purchase
by the manufacturer, as per the requirements of the law. Further, it was noted that Section
19(2)(a)(ii) provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to
the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased the article of
food from any manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in prescribed form and in
the present case, the convict was having a valid defence in terms of Section 19(2) of the Act as the
packed item sold by him namely ‘Pan Parag’ was having a written warranty in prescribed form from
the manufacturer. Therefore, the Court said that the convict sold the articles of food only after
purchasing the same from the manufacturer through the invoices which contained the warranty as
32
https://www.etvbharat.com/english/state/uttar-pradesh/desi-ghee-adulteration-case-ups-bareilly-court-sentences-
life-term-to-accused/na20230811223815794794630
33
AIR 2023 SC 425
39
prescribed under the act, hence, the convict had protection available under Section 19(2)(a) of the
Act.
34
In Manik Hiru Jhangiani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Case The appellant was, at the
relevant time, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited.A company that is engaged in the business of
operating retail stores under the name of 'Easy Day,' having its outlets all over the country.A Food
Inspector appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA) visited a shop in
Indore and purchased certain biscuit packets from the shop. The samples were sent to the State
Food Laboratory and the report was received.On 5th August 2011, the PFA was repealed. The same
was notified under subsection (1) of Section 97 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
(FSSA).However, sub-section (4) of Section 97 of the act provided that notwithstanding the repeal
of the PFA, cognizance of the offence committed under the PFA can be taken within three years
from the date of commencement of the FSSA.The Food Inspector filed a charge sheet on 12th
August 2011. The cognizance of the offence, under PFA, was taken against the appellant.The
appellant approached the High Court to quash the proceedings. The HC dismissed its plea noting
that in view of sub-section (4) of Section 97 of FSSA, cognizance can be taken for an offence under
PFA. The matter approached the SC.The court noted that the alleged offence is punishable under
Section 16(1)(a) of the PFA, which prescribes imprisonment for a term that may not be less than six
months and in a corresponding provision (Section 52) under FSSA, the punishment was in terms of
penalty and not imprisonment.The Court noted that though the PFA was repealed with effect from
5th August 2011, Section 3 of the FSSA which defines 'misbranded food' came into force on 28th
May 2008.Thus, the offender could have been either sentenced to imprisonment under Section 16 of
the PFA or under the FSSA, he could have been directed to pay the penalty.
The apex court quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the appellants and clarified
that this judgment will not prevent the authorities under the FSSA from taking recourse to the
provisions of Section 52 following the law. When it comes to the consequences of misbranding, the
same has been provided under both the enactments, and there is inconsistency in the enactments as
regards the penal consequences of misbranding.Thus, in a case where after coming into force of
Section 52 of the FSSA, if an act of misbranding is committed by anyone, which is an offence
punishable under Section 16 of PFA and which attracts penalty under Section 52 of the FSSA,
Section 52 of the FSSA will override the provisions of PFA.
34
AIR 2023 SC 929
40
3.11.WHAT ARE THE INITIATIVES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION AND
TACKLING MISLEADING ADS?
Food Safety and Standards (Advertisements & Claims) Regulations, 2018: It specifically deals
with food (and related products) while Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)’s
regulations cover goods, products and services.Cable Television Network Rules, 1994: It stipulates
that advertisements must not draw inferences that it has “some special or miraculous or supernatural
property or quality, which is difficult to prove.
FSS Act 2006: Product claims suggesting suitability for prevention, alleviation, treatment or cure of
a disease, disorder or particular psychological condition is prohibited unless specifically permitted
under the regulations of the FSS Act, 2006.
Consumer Welfare Fund: It was set up under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act,
2017 to promote and protect the welfare of the consumers.
Few Examples: Creation of Consumer Law Chairs/ Centres of Excellence in
Institutions/Universities of repute to foster research and training on consumer related issues.
Projects for spreading consumer literacy and awareness.
Central Consumer Protection Council: It aims to safeguard consumer interests by monitoring and
enforcing consumer protection laws, facilitating consumer education, and providing consumer
redressal mechanisms. In addition, the council also promotes consumer-friendly policies and
initiatives.
Consumer Protection Rules, 2021: The rules stipulate the pecuniary jurisdiction of each tier of
consumer commission. The rules revised pecuniary jurisdiction for entertaining consumer
complaints.
Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020: The rules are mandatory and are not advisory.
Sellers cannot refuse to take back goods or withdraw services or refuse refunds, if such goods or
services are defective, deficient, delivered late, or if they do not meet the description on the
platform.
3.11.1.WHAT ARE THE TAGS GIVEN TO PACKAGED FOOD?

Natural:
A food product can be referred to as ‘natural’ if it is a single food derived from a recognised natural
source and has nothing added to it.It should only have been processed to render it suitable for
human consumption. The packaging too must be done sans chemicals and preservatives.
Composite foods, a mixture of plant and processed constituents, cannot be called ‘natural’, instead,
41
they can say ‘made from natural ingredients’.
Fresh:
The term "fresh" can only be used for food products that have been washed, peeled, chilled,
trimmed, or cut without any other processing that alters their basic characteristics.If food is
processed in any way to extend its shelf life, it cannot be labeled as "fresh."Food irradiation is a
controlled process that uses radiant energy to achieve effects like sprouting, delay in ripening, and
killing of insects/pests, parasites, and microorganisms.If a product is frozen soon after being
harvested or prepared, it may be labeled as "freshly frozen," "fresh frozen," or "frozen from
fresh."However, if it contains additives or has undergone any other supply chain process, it cannot
be labeled as "fresh."
Pure:
Pure is to be used for single-ingredient foods to which nothing has been added and which are
devoid of all avoidable contamination, while unavoidable contaminants are within prescribed
controls.Compound foods cannot be described as ‘pure’ but can be referred to as ‘made with pure
ingredients’ if they meet the mentioned criteria.
Original:
Original is used to describe food products made to a formulation, with a traceable origin that has
remained unchanged over time.They do not contain replacements for any major ingredients. It may
similarly be used to describe a unique process which has remained essentially unchanged over time,
although the product may be mass-produced.
Nutritional Claims:
Nutritional claims in food advertisements can be about the specific contents of a product or
comparisons with another food item. If a claim states that a food contains the same amount of a
nutrient as another food, it must provide equivalent nutritional value as the reference
food.Nutritional claims may either be about the specific contents of a product or comparisons with
some other foodstuff.
42
CHAPTER-IV
COMPARITIVE STUDY OF FOOD ADULTERATION IN INDIA WITH USA,
HONGKING AND INDONESIA
4.1.INDIA VS USA:
4.1.1.REGULATORY FRAMEWORK:
In India, food safety regulations are governed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The regulations aim to ensure the safety
and quality of food products.In the United States has a comprehensive regulatory framework
overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). Key legislation includes the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C
Act) and the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which focus on preventing food
contamination and ensuring food safety throughout the supply chain.
4.1.2.PREVALENCE OF ADULTERATION:
In India,Food adulteration is a significant problem in India, affecting various food products such as
milk, spices, edible oils, grains, and fruits. Common adulterants include water, chemicals, and
substandard ingredients.In USA: While food adulteration exists in the United States, it is generally
less prevalent compared to India. The FDA and USDA implement strict regulations and conduct
regular inspections to ensure compliance. Adulteration cases in the US often involve issues like
contamination with pathogens, undeclared allergens, or fraudulent mislabeling.
4.1.3.ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS:
In India: Enforcement of food safety regulations in India faces challenges such as inadequate
resources, limited manpower, and corruption. However, efforts have been made to strengthen
enforcement through initiatives like food safety inspections and penalties for violators.In USA: The
United States has robust enforcement mechanisms, with the FDA and USDA conducting
inspections of food facilities, testing food samples, and issuing recalls when necessary. Violators
are subject to penalties, including fines, product seizures, and criminal prosecution.
4.1.4.CONSUMER AWARENESS:
In India: Consumer awareness about food adulteration is increasing in India, but many consumers
still lack knowledge about the risks and how to identify adulterated products. Public education
campaigns and media coverage play a crucial role in raising awareness.In USA: Consumer
awareness about food safety is relatively high in the United States, with consumers relying on
43
labeling information, product recalls, and media coverage to make informed choices. Consumer
advocacy groups also play a role in promoting awareness and holding manufacturers accountable.
4.1.5.PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS:
In India: Food adulteration in India poses significant public health risks, leading to illnesses,
foodborne diseases, and long-term health consequences. Contaminated food products can cause
outbreaks of diseases such as diarrhea, food poisoning, and metabolic disorders.In USA: While
foodborne illnesses occur in the United States, the incidence rate is relatively lower compared to
India due to stringent food safety regulations and surveillance systems. However, outbreaks still
occur, often linked to specific food products or pathogens.
while both India and the United States face challenges related to food adulteration, the
regulatory frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, consumer awareness levels, and public health
impacts differ between the two countries. The United States generally has stricter regulations and
enforcement mechanisms, leading to lower prevalence rates of food adulteration compared to India.
4.2.INDIA VS HONGKONG35
In India, food safety regulations are governed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
(FSSAI) under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. While regulations exist, enforcement can
be challenging due to factors such as inadequate resources and corruption.In Hong Kong: Hong
Kong has a comprehensive regulatory framework overseen by the Food and Environmental Hygiene
Department (FEHD) and the Centre for Food Safety (CFS). The regulations aim to ensure food
safety and quality, with stringent standards and regular inspections of food establishments.
In India: Food adulteration is a significant problem in India, affecting various food products such as
substandard ingredients.In Hong Kong: Hong Kong has relatively low rates of food adulteration
compared to India. The city's strict regulations, rigorous inspections, and high standards for food
safety contribute to a lower prevalence of adulteration. However, occasional cases of adulteration or
food safety incidents do occur.
35
https://samajho.com/upsc/food-adulteration-and-laws-for-its-prevention-in-india/
44
resources, limited manpower, and corruption. While efforts have been made to strengthen
enforcement, gaps still exist, leading to issues with compliance and monitoring.In Hong Kong:
Hong Kong has robust enforcement mechanisms, with regular inspections of food establishments,
strict penalties for violators, and rapid response to food safety incidents. The FEHD and CFS work
closely to ensure compliance with regulations and maintain high standards of food safety.
campaigns and media coverage play a crucial role in raising awareness.In Hong Kong: Consumer
awareness about food safety is relatively high in Hong Kong, with consumers expecting high-
quality and safe food products. Public education efforts, along with media coverage and consumer
advocacy, contribute to a vigilant consumer base that actively seeks information about food safety
issues.

outbreaks of diseases such as diarrhea, food poisoning, and metabolic disorders.In Hong Kong:
While Hong Kong has lower rates of food adulteration compared to India, food safety incidents can
still have serious public health impacts. The government's swift response to outbreaks and
contamination incidents helps mitigate risks, but occasional lapses in food safety can occur.
while both India and Hong Kong face challenges related to food adulteration, Hong Kong
generally has stricter regulations, robust enforcement mechanisms, higher levels of consumer
awareness, and lower prevalence rates of adulteration compared to India. The differences in
regulatory frameworks and enforcement efforts contribute to variations in the prevalence and public
health impacts of food adulteration between the two regions.
4.3.INDIA VS INDONESIA:
In India: India has food safety regulations governed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of
India (FSSAI) under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. While regulations exist, enforcement
can be challenging due to factors such as inadequate resources and corruption.In Indonesia:
45
Indonesia's food safety regulations are overseen by the National Agency of Drug and Food Control
(BPOM). The country has laws and standards aimed at ensuring food safety, but enforcement can
be inconsistent due to similar challenges seen in India.
In India: Food adulteration is a significant problem in India, affecting various food products such as
substandard ingredients.In Indonesia: Indonesia also faces challenges with food adulteration, with
common issues including the adulteration of spices, cooking oils, and condiments. The prevalence
of adulteration may vary depending on factors such as region and market conditions.
resources, limited manpower, and corruption. Efforts to strengthen enforcement are ongoing, but
compliance and monitoring issues persist.In Indonesia: Enforcement of food safety regulations in
Indonesia can also be challenging, with issues such as limited resources and decentralized
enforcement across different regions. While efforts are made to improve enforcement, gaps may
exist, leading to issues with compliance.
campaigns and media coverage play a role in raising awareness.In Indonesia: Consumer awareness
about food safety and adulteration in Indonesia may vary depending on factors such as education
levels and access to information. Efforts to educate consumers about food safety are important for
fostering a vigilant consumer base.
outbreaks of diseases such as diarrhea, food poisoning, and metabolic disorders.In Indonesia: Like
India, food adulteration in Indonesia can have serious public health impacts, including foodborne
illnesses and outbreaks. Improving food safety practices and enforcement efforts are essential for
minimizing health risks associated with adulterated foods.
Therefore, both India and Indonesia face challenges related to food adulteration, including
46
regulatory enforcement, consumer awareness, and public health impacts. While efforts are made in
both countries to address these challenges, ongoing improvements are needed to ensure the safety
and integrity of the food supply. Strengthening regulatory frameworks, enhancing enforcement
mechanisms, and educating consumers are key strategies for combating food adulteration in both
India and Indonesia.
CHAPTER-V
CONCLUSION& SUGGESTION
5.1.CONCLUSION:
Food Adulteration is a grievous crime as it has the potential to cause a long term injury to the
health of a person which not only hurt people physically but also economically and socially, it is the
duty of the government to protect its citizens from the hidden enemies of the society, playing with
the lives of people just for increasing their share of wealth in society. Thus, the provision of
stringent punishment must be enacted for them. In modern world one cannot think of buying of
food which is free from adulteration. Adulteration deteriously affect the health and happiness of
country and has innumerable consequences. Irreparable injury to public and public health is caused
by adulteration. One can aptly remark that adulteration is unmitigated nuisance and menace to the
society. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Consumer Protection Act are the two
important piece of legislation that answers to this menace. It is not new thing to understand that in
India consumers are many often illiterate and unorganized. At the same time it must be understood
that legislation alone cannot be panacea for all the problems or law cannot be a pill for all ills. In
such case the traders will always make such customer fool. It is the consumers who have to
understand that they must be alert and prudent. It is well said that alert consumer is an asset to the
nation. Overall, the study suggested the importance of food safety and the need for both consumers
and authorities to take action to prevent food adulteration in dairy products. By increasing consumer
awareness and implementing effective regulatory measures, we can work towards ensuring the
safety and quality of dairy products for all consumers. For adulteration controls, integrated approach
through statutory and regulatory authorities, industry, scientific community, consumer guidance,
voluntary agencies, proper counseling and IEC (Information, Education and Communication)
materials can play a vital role. The act should have a compulsory provision for black-listing of the
companies or even publication when held guilty of the offence and Food recall should be issued in
the media to inform the citizens and make them aware about the unsafe food.
47
5.2.SUGGESTION:
1. FSSAI should also bring the manufacturers under the responsibility of imposing food safety.
The focus should be on covering each person in supply chain for assessment of food
manufacturing, storing and distribution.
2. FSSAI has recently notified the draft Regulations on Food Recall Procedure to provide
guidance to Food Business Organisations (FBO). This will enhance the present regulatory
system.
3. FSSAI and the state food authorities should conduct surveys of food business activity under
their jurisdiction to ensure a comprehensive and reliable database of FBOs and ensure better
enforcement and administration of the FSS Act.
4. Increasing limits of compensation and fine in cases of injury or death and providing
adequate infrastructure such as food testing laboratories.
5. CAG has recommended that FSSAI should frame standard operating procedures on the
formulation and review of standards, and ensure that these are being followed in the near
future.
6. Strengthening Food Testing Laboratories: There is a need to Establish well-equipped and
accredited food testing laboratories across the country, especially in rural areas.These labs
should be capable of conducting rapid and accurate tests for various contaminants, including
pesticides, heavy metals, and pathogens, ensuring timely identification of unsafe food.
7. Empowering Local Communities: There is a need to encourage community participation
and awareness by organising workshops, seminars, and interactive sessions on food
safety.There is also a need to empower local communities to take ownership of food safety
issues and implement solutions at the grassroots level.
8. Ensuring Transparency in Food Stock Holdings: Using IT to improve communication
channels with farmers can help them to get a better deal for their produce while improving
storage houses with the latest technology is equally important to deal with natural disasters
and hoarding.Further, foodgrain banks can be deployed at block/village level, from which
people may get subsidised food grains against food coupons (that can be provided to Aadhar
linked beneficiaries).
9. Companies need to provide technical and clinical evidence to support their claims.
Advertisements should also be modified in a way that consumers can interpret them
48
correctly.
10. FSSAI and the state food authorities should conduct surveys of food business activity under
their jurisdiction to ensure a comprehensive and reliable database of FBOs and ensure better
enforcement and administration of the FSS Act.
11. There is a need to Increase limits of compensation and fine in cases of injury or death and
provide adequate infrastructure such as food testing laboratories.
REFERENCE:
BIBILOGRAPHY:
1.The Sales Of Good Act,1930.

2.The Agricultural Product (Grading& Marking) Act,1937.
3. Constitution Of India,1950.
4.The Essential Commodities Act,1955.
5.The Prevention Of Food Adulteration,1957.
6.Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act,1969.
7.The Indian Contract Act,1972.
8.The Standard Of Weight & Measures Act,1976.
9.The Bureau Of Indian Standards Act,1986.
10.Trademarks Act,1999.
11.Competition Act,2002.
12.Food Safety & Standard Act,2006.
13. Foos Safety & Standard Rule,2011.
14.Food Safety & Standard Regulation(Laboratory & Sampling Analysis) Regulation,2011.
WEBILILOGRAPHY:
1. https://rspublication.com/ijst/oct12/37.pdf
2. https://theamikusqriae.com/a-comprehensive-study-on-food-adulteration-laws-in-
india-and-legal-rights-of-consumers/
3. file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/781-Article%20Text-1368-1-10-
20210328%20(3).pdf
4. https://cs-india.com/remedies-available-consumers-against-food-adulteration/
49
5. https://www.journalcra.com/article/protection-consumers-rights-against-adulteration-
food-light-prevention-food-adulteration-act
6. https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop
7. https://www.scconline.com/?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwhtWvBhD9ARIsAOP
0Goh3c8Tq4x-Da0TdnltAsoe4meQ0Xu2-
zLC3Bt7NbdmhehhSuwoI0rsaAgtcEALw_wcB
50
51

Food Adulteration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Food Adulteration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD ADULTERATION WITH

CONSUMER RIGHTS IN INDIA

Assignment submission in requirement for the Post Graduate Degree of Law

The Tamil Nadu Dr . Ambedkar Law University, Chennai

The Central Law College – Salem

NAME : Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA

YEAR : 1st Year

COURSE : MASTER OF LAW – LL.M

BRANCH : CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SUBJECT : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

SUB CODE : PH1

COLLEGE : THE CENTRAL LAW COLLEGE-

I, Y.JECINTHA BENADICTA, Reg.No.M231002 pursuing LL.M-Criminal law and criminal justice

1.The Sales Of Good Act,1930.

1. BPOM-Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan

1. Donoghue Vs Stevenson-1932 AC 562

As per the FSSAI annual report 2018-19

1.1.BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY:

1. To find out the status of the food adulteration in India.

2.1.ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL TIMES:

2.2.COLONIAL PERIOD (BRITISH RULE):

2.5.WHAT IS THE FSSAI LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK?

1.HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD ACT, 2006

3.1. MEANING OF THE WORD CONSUMER:

3.3.MEANING OF THE WORD ADULTERATION

Adulteration can be divided in to three categories based on the type of contamination,

3.4.3.PREVENTION BY INCIDENTAL POISONING:

3.5.FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY OF INDIA :

3.5.1.LOOPHOLES IN THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD ACT, 2006

3.5.2.SOURCES OF FOOD ADULTERATION

3.5.3.PUNISHMENT FOR FOOD ADULTERATION UNDER FSSAI

3.6.1.PROCEDURE OF SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS:

3.7.CONSUMER PROTECTION AND LEGAL PROVISIONS

3.8.1.THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 (COPRA)

 They have developed or formed three-tier system wherein there is District

3.8.3.THE SALES OF GOOD ACT, 1930

3.8.4.THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955

supply. Also keep a track of any hoarders, black marketers,

3.8.5.THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRADING AND MARKING ) ACT, 1937

3.8.6.THE PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION ACT, 1954

could be affected by the adulterated items.

3.8.7.THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976

underweight or under measured.

3.8.8.THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999

them in the ground of quality of the product.

3.8.9.THE COMPETITION ACT, 2002

3.8.10.THE BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS ACT, 1986

3.10.ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FOOD ADULTERATION

3.11.1.WHAT ARE THE TAGS GIVEN TO PACKAGED FOOD?

4.2.5.PUBLIC HEALTH IMPACTS:

1.The Sales Of Good Act,1930.

You might also like