| FSS ACT CAN FOIST ADULTERATION - By: Ramesh Kumar Sharma |
|---|
| Posted on Wed 09 Apr 2008 by admin (537 reads) |
|
The Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 enacted in August 2006 and expected to come into force and replace the existing Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act 1954 in a short time from now, provides limited provisions for adulteration checks and opens a wide range of provisions for any kind of wonder or fun food preparations like “cholesterol free butterfat” in the name of food safety. In the exiting PFA Act “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for the purpose of adulteration (section 2 (i)). It provides provisions for adulteration checks in thirteen ways (section 2 (i)(a) to (l)). For example, it states that an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated if any constituent of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted so as to affect injuriously the nature, substance or quality thereof (section 2 (i)(d)). This section of PFA doesn’t permit any company to abstract the natural constituent (like cholesterol) from a food product (like butterfat) which is worthy of formation of biological function regulators (like vitamins and hormones). The new FSS Act emphasizes more “food safety” and less “food adulteration”. Further there is no mention of how to adopt any particular set of food safety measures. For example, milk and milk products, on account of presence of cholesterol, are targeted as culprits for creating heart troubles and hypertension by vegetable oil and oilseed business groups on the basis of a part of scientific findings. But it is not at all confirmed till to date. A number of hypertension patients with normal cholesterol level present a reverse scenario. Therefore this is difficult to decide whether food articles containing cholesterol are safe or unsafe on the basis of commercial advertisements. Further no food article can be claimed safe in all respects. When the adulteration aspects of a food article like butterfat are considered, it seems absurd to abstract an identity constituent playing a role in conducting purity tests, like cholesterol. The presence of cholesterol in adequate amount in a fat sample confirms it to be of animal origin. But in the absence of provision of section 2 (i)(d) of PFA, a food article like “cholesterol free butterfat” can’t be deemed to be adulterated by the authorities. In the FSS Act “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard, misbranded or containing extraneous matter (section 3 (i)(a)) That’s all. Therefore FSS Act can’t prevent the wonder or fun food preparations like “cholesterol free butterfat” on the grounds of adulteration. In this way FSS Act can foist adulteration to any extent. It is really enjoyable by brainy adulterants (adulteration doers). On the other hand FSS Act makes provisions of heavy penalties for ordinary human mistakes – 3 lakh rupees for misbranding i.e. mistake in printing date of manufacture, MRP, Lot No. etc. on the label (section 52) and 10 lakh rupees for misleading advertisement (section 53). Expecting safety and standards from such provisions is like gathering thistles and expecting pickles. By: Ramesh Kumar Sharma (Former Quality Control Chemist) Tilam Sangh Rajasthan, Bikaner, INDIA |
| Index :: Print :: E-mail |
