Consumer as per Indian Law by axi35748

VIEWS: 17 PAGES: 34

More Info
									An Evaluation Study on the
Implementation of National
   Laws on Packed Food
         Products

             Sponsored By:
        Ministry of Agriculture,
Department of Food Processing Industries,
         Government of India

                      Author
              Bejon Misra, assisted by
     P.K Dhingra, Puneet Kalra & the VOICE team
    Voluntary Organisation in
 Interest of Consumer Education
              (VOICE)
VOICE is a registered Non Government
Organisation working since 1983 to promote,
protect and educate the consumers on their
rights and responsibilities through its
activities focused on:

     Education
     Comparative Testing
     Advocacy & Campaign
     Research & Development
KEY QUESTIONS
a ) To document the existing level
    of implementation of National
    Laws concerning labeling and
    packing of imported food
    products.
 KEY QUESTIONS
b ) To analyze  and compare with
   Indian made food products and
   similar imported food products
   in terms of adherence of the
   National Laws.
     KEY QUESTIONS
c)   To prepare a well-documented
     campaign kit for the consumer
     groups in India on the study to
     sensitize and build awareness
     among consumers on seeking &
     demanding mandatory information
     on all packed food products.
   METHODOLOGY
           Stage - I
   9 markets were identified
SOUTH DELHI : Lajpat Nagar,Vasant Vihar,Chanakya Puri.

NORTH DELHI : Shalimar Bagh, Pitampura.

WEST DELHI    : Rajouri Garden.

CENTRAL DELHI : Karol Bagh.
EAST DELHI    : Faridabad, Noida.
   METHODOLOGY
              Stage - II
457 samples were purchased from 9
selected markets and were scientifically
collated and analyzed in terms of the
information available on the packs to
see whether they confirmed to the law
or not.
METHODOLOGY
          Stage -III
The final report was mailed to the
leading consumer organisations to
develop the future action plan on
sustaining a campaign on the
implementation of the national
laws   on    food   labeling   and
packaging.
 SCOPE OF STUDY
 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (1954).

 Adulterated Food- comes within the scope
  of section 2(1a) of PFA Act (1954).

 Misbranded Food- comes within the scope
  of section 2(1X) of PFA Act (1954).

 Prevention of Food Adulteration rules (1955)

 Packing and labelling of food under PFA
  Rules (1955).
    SCOPE OF STUDY
   Packing and labelling of food under PFA
    Rules (1955)
   Variations from prescribed standard: -
    Standards for different food items are laid
    down in Appendix B to PFA Rules (1955)
    and standards for foods are grouped into
    different groups i.e. spices, cereals and
    cereal products, oils and fats,
    confectionery etc.
   Packaged Commodity Rules (1977). Provisions
    applicable to imported foods Rule 33.
   Fruit Products Order (1955).
  TYPE OF SAMPLES



(a) Confectionery:Chocolate,Candy,Toffee,Biscuit,Pastry & similar.

(b) Beverages     :Juice,Carbonated,Drink, Milk, Ice Tea & similar.

(c) Meat          :Fish,Ham,Pork,Prawn & similar.

(d) Value added Food Products:Pasta,Sauce,Spices & similar.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE
    ANALYSIS
   Product Distribution of Top 5 Countries


               Germany
                 11%            USA
                                32%
    Thailand
     16%




      Malaysia
       16%                     UK
                              25%
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ANALYSIS
              Distribution by Countries



                                   Top Five
                                     44%
            Others
             56%




Other Countries:
Korea,    Italy,   Denmark,    Australia,   Indonesia,
Switzerland, Holland, Singapore, Japan, China, France,
Hong Kong, UAE etc.
             MAJOR
           VIOLATIONS
         Confectionery Beverage Meat       Value       Total
           Products    Products Products Added Food    (457)
             (357)        (39)    (21)    Products
                                            (40)
  PFA      276/357       39/39   20/21     38/40      373/457
Rules 32    (77%)       (100%)   (95%)     (95%)       (81%)
 (1955)
  PCR      282/357       39/39   19/21     31/40      371/457
Rules 33    (79%)       (100%)   (90%)     (77%)       (81%)
 (1977)
                MAJOR
              VIOLATIONS
            Confectionery   Beverage     Meat   Value Added Total
              Products      Products   Products     Food     (457)
               (357)          (39)       (21)    Products
                                                    (40)
Importers     269/357        36/39      18/21      25/40    315/457
Address        (75%)         (90%)      (86%)      (62%)     (69%)
                   MAJOR
                 VIOLATIONS
                       Confectionery   Beverage     Meat      Value      Total
                         Products      Products   Products    Added      (457)
                           (357)         (39)       (21)       Food
                                                             Products
                                                               (40)
Lot/ Batch No            179/ 357       36/ 39     39/ 21     25/ 40    279/ 457
                          (50%)         (92%)      (62%)      (62%)      (61%)
MRP                      228/ 357       27/ 39     13/ 21     27/ 40    295/ 457
                          (63%)         (69%)      (62%)      (67%)      (64%)
Separate Declaration     236/ 357       27/ 39      2/ 21     12/ 40    277/ 457
on A ddition of Non-      (66%)         (69%)      (10%)      (30%)      (61%)
Permitted Chemicals
               MAJOR VIOLATIONS
                          Confectionery   Beverage     Meat      Value      Total
                            Products      Products   Products    Added      (457)
                              (357)         (39)       (21)       Food
                                                                Products
                                                                  (40)
FPO (1955)                   7/ 357          -          -           -       7/ 457
                              (2%)                                           (1%)
PFA (1954)                   16/ 357         -          -          -        16/ 457
                              (4 %)                                          (3%)
A dulterated                 88/ 357        4/ 39     2/ 21       6/ 40    100/ 457
                             (25%)         (10%)      (9%)       (15%)      (22%)
Ingredients List             14/ 357        1/ 39        -           -      15/ 457
                              (4%)          (2%)                             (3%)
Best before                  83/ 257       10/ 39      8/ 21     15/ 40    116/ 457
                             (23%)         (27%)      (38%)      (37%)      (25%)
Non-Permitted Colour         65/ 357           -       1/ 21      7/ 40     73/ 457
/ A gent Declaration         (18%)                     (5%)      (17%)      (16%)
Separate Declaration         33/ 357       01/ 39         -          -      34/ 457
on      A ddition    of       (9%)         (2%)                              (7%)
Fats/ O ils
Common Name                  20/ 357         -          -         2/ 40    22/ 457
                              (5%)                                (5%)      (5%)
M anufacturers               64/ 357       10/ 39     15/ 21      9/ 40    98/ 457
A ddress                     (18%)         (27%)      (71%)      (22%)     (21%)
       CASE STUDY




This label of Northland Cranberry Grape juice from
West Indies does not show batch number, month and
year of production and best before. Also it has not
declared separate declaration about the use of flavour.
        CASE STUDY




This label of Licht & Roming Koffiecreamer powder from
Utrecht is proprietary item which contains anti-caking
agent and its use in Koffiecreamer is not permitted as
per Indian law. This is classified as adulterated.
        CASE STUDY




This package of Owl Kopi-O does not declare the
names of ingredients.
        CASE STUDY




The foreign languages on the package does not carry
any English or Indian language version.
         CASE STUDY




This Label of Armada Heringsfilets from Deutschland
contains aroma, which needs separate declaration
under the Indian Law is missing.
        CASE STUDY




Other than the brand name SAVING nothing else is
written in English or any Indian version.
       CASE STUDY




Similarly other than the brand name PERSONAL
COOKING nothing is written in English or any Indian
language.
        CASE STUDY




The labels of Lipton Ice Tea from Singapore is a
proprietary item, which does not display the name
and address of manufacturer or importer. It also
does not give a separate declaration about the use of
flavour.
     CASE STUDY




Some more products which were
collected from the markets under the
scope of the study.
          CASE STUDY




The label of Super Cook Milk Chocolate Chips from UK
does not give information about the name and address
of the manufacturer and also the month and year of
manufacture.
         CASE STUDY




This Label of Lyle’s Golden Syrup from England has no
information on the ingredients, month & year of
manufacture and best before date.
        CASE STUDY




This Label of Tudor gold Hazelnut from Australia does
not display the batch number and separate declaration
about the use of added flavour.
   COMMONALITY
There is only one commonality between
our labelling regulations and labels used
by foreign exporters is in the case of
ingredient’s list, as laid down under the
provisions of our existing law.
        RECOMMENDATIONS
    •   Regular Training of Custom officials,retailers,
        importers and other agencies dealing with
        packaged food products on the existing provisions
        of Law.
•       Empowering the consumers to demand
        implementation of the existing laws.

•       Strengthening the existing regulatory authorities.

•       Proper coordination between the various
        concerned Central Government Ministries.

•       Mandatory declaration by all importers on
        implementation of the existing laws:.
       CONCLUSION
1. Empowering Common consumers with the
   knowledge and effective mechanisms to protect
   their rights and perform their duties as
   responsible consumers.

2. Safety and health concerns of our citizens
   should be the prime objective of every
   government. Public health issues should always
   prevail over trade and commerce.

3. The study should be used as a campaign tool to
   sensitize retailers, importers and consumers.
                                               Contd..


       CONCLUSION
4. The market should always provide an unbiased
   platform for all stakeholders and the regulatory
   mechanisms       should encourage the best
   practices


5. Such studies should be commissioned in a
   regular manner to evaluate the performance of
   the regulators and the industry towards their
   consumers.
THANKYOU

								
To top