Top questions on Food Safety & Licensing; Answered by FoodSafetyHelpline

Question: Could you please clarify the latest on customs duty applicable on Vitamins & Minerals – are the all coming under the broader title of Supplements?? Also, are new product approval registrations required with FSSAI for standard vitamins and minerals ‘products? Do Standard Vitamins and Minerals sold as dietary supplements will NOT require product approval registration with FSSAI if there are similar products in the market?? Nor will they require DCGI approval – correct? For instance, products we plan to import and market under our own brand name are very similar to other imported products such as Nature’s Bounty – also being imported from USA.
Answer: Vitamins & Minerals have been defined under Section 22 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, which requires product approval. Section 22 of the FSS Act covers Vitamins & Minerals as; minerals or vitamins or proteins or metals or their compounds or amino acids (in amounts not exceeding the Recommended Daily Allowance for Indians) or enzymes (within permissible limits). Vitamins & Minerals have been allowed to be used in foods such as health supplements, dietary supplements etc. under the Food Safety & Standards Regulations but the prior approval of the authority is required to be taken before the manufacture, import, sale/distribution of such food products.
Food products like Dietary Supplements, Health Supplements, Nutraceuticals etc are regulated under Section 22 of FSS Act and the prior approval of the food authority is required to be taken before these are made available for sale in India. One has to take consent byapplying through the product approval process but relatively it would be easier to take approval if the safety assessment data of the food product along with the reference from global recognized organizations is being submitted with the application.
Question: We have a Cold Store at Kundli in Haryana. We have a License under FSSAI Act 2006. My quarry is do we have to submit Annual Return in Form D-1..We don’t manufacture any thing just store fresh fruit.
Answer: Last Year, The Food Safety & Standards Act, Rules & Regulations specified that only the food manufacturers, labellers, packers, re-labellers and re-packers and importers will be required to file their annual return. Rest all food businesses have been exempted from this.
Question: What is normal time line application for food product registration.
Answer: No time lines defined by FSSAI.
Question: Sugar, milk solids are plant and animal origin, so will these be covered under Form 1 (b) of Product Approval?
Answer: These are not considered as plant & animal origin, so, not covered under Food product approval system.
Question: For product approval what are the important parameters mandatory for the label and product approval.
Answer: The label should should be according to the packaging & labelling regulations.
Question: If my company is doing marketing only and product is manufactured by some other company in India, what approval should I have?
Answer: You also have to obtain a license/registration under Food Safety & Standards Act, Rules & Regulations for the marketing of the food product. If the product falls under the category defined Section 22 of the Food Safety & Standards Act, then the brand owner of the food product has to apply for the product approval.

Don’t take action for three months: Bombay High Court

Maharashtra govt. told not to take any coercive action against citizens for possession of beef for a period of three months or till the final hearing of the petitions.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the Maharashtra government not to take any coercive action against citizens for possession of beef for a period of three months or till the final hearing of the petitions.
“We direct the State government that it shall not take any coercive steps or initiate prosecution for three months or till the pendency of this petition.
“Though an FIR can be registered (for possession of beef) no other steps shall be taken. The State shall not invade the privacy of citizens to find out if they are in possession of beef or other forms of beef,” the court ruled.
A division bench of Justices V M Kanade and A R Joshi passed the order on a bunch of petitions challenging clause 5 (d) of the controversial Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act.
Section 5 (d) of the recently amended Act bans possession and consumption of the meat of cow, bull or bullock slaughtered outside the State of Maharashtra.
The court noted that the State government had brought in a sudden ban on possession without giving any time frame for individuals to dispose off their beef products.
“There is no material before us to show if the State had any compelling reasons to impose a ban overnight…As a result of sudden imposition of ban on imports, goods lawfully in possession of individuals or lawfully imported have suddenly become illegal. Therefore, we are of the view that the State government has not granted a reasonable time to the citizens of Maharashtra for disclosing beef products. The State’s (imposition) is patently unwarranted,” the court observed.
Advocates for the petitoners had contended that section 5 (d) of the Act was arbitrary and invaded the rights of the citizens to choice and privacy. Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, representing one of the petitioners, said there was “no discernible public interest” behind section 5 (d) and it was in conflict with Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Livestock Importation (Amendment) Act, 2001.
The Maharashtra government justified the ban arguing that eating beef was not a fundamental right and the particular section was needed to successfully implement the amended Act. Advocate-General Sunil Manohar said since Maharashtra’s economy was predominantly agricultural there was a need to protect and preserve cow progeny which was the backbone of the State’s agricultural economy. The decision was not rooted in religion the government said.
The Act came into force after President Pranab Mukherjee, on March 2, 2015, gave his assent to the almost 20-year-old Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill 1995 that was pending for approval.

Are proteins required in fortified food? What does FSSAI Say?

Are proteins required in fortified food? What does FSSAI Say?

Are proteins required in fortified food? What does FSSAI say?

Proteins are essential nutrients for the human body, and are one of the building blocks of the body that can also serve as a fuel source. As a fuel, proteins contain 4 kcal per gram of energy, which is the same as carbohydrates, but unlike lipids, which contain 9 kcal per gram. Proteins are made up of amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins.

Proteins are made up of long polymer chains of amino acids linked together by peptide bonds. During human digestion, proteins are broken down in the stomach to smaller polypeptide chains by the stomach hydrochloric acid and protease enzymes. This is crucial for the breakdown of proteins supplied in the diet to generate the essential amino acids, which cannot be synthesized in the body. There are a total of 20 amino acids, of which 9 are essential and 11 are non-essential. The Essential and Non-essential amino acids are tabulated below.

Table 1: Amino acids – the building blocks of proteins

Cr.P.C. / FSS Act – Madras HC – Insects floating in beverage – Bakthavatchalam vs The Inspector Of Police on 23 April, 2015

DATED : 23.04.2015
Crl.OP No.10248 of 2015

BAKTHAVATCHALAM                         [ PETITIONER  ]

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE                     	  
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to grant directiondirecting the respondent to enquiry into matter and take appropriate action against    Imperial Agency at  Hotel Imperial Complex at No.14  Whannels Road  Egmore Chennai     Complaint dated 28/10/2014.

	For Petitioner 	         :Mr.A.K.M.Samsunihar
	For Respondent	         :Mr.C.Emalias,
			           Additional Public Prosecutor


This Criminal Original Petition is filed to direct the respondent to enquiry into matter and take appropriate action against imperial Agency at Hotel Imperial Complex at No.14 Whannels Road Egmore, Chennai on the complaint dated 28/10/2014.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. P.N.PRAKASH,J rg

3. It is alleged by the petitioner that in the beverages supplied by the opposite party, insects are floating. In this regard, a complaint has been lodged before the respondent police on 28.10.2014, who has given CSR No.45 of 2014.

4. The petitioner is directed to give a complaint in this regard to the Food Safety Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. On such a complaint being filed by the petitioner, the authorities are directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.

23.04.2015 rg To



FSS Act – Patna HC – Orders – Madhu Sudan Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2013

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5778 of 2013
Madhu Sudan Prasad, S/O Jhagaru Prasad, Resident Of Village- Paharpur,
P.S- Chandi, District- Nalanda.

                                                   .... ....Petitioner/s
The State Of Bihar

                                                   .... .... Opposite Party/s
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     : Mr. Umesh Kumar singh, Advocate.
                 For the Opposite Party/s   : Mr.Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.
                 ORAL ORDER

3 17-07-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.1.2013 passed in Special Case No.10A of 2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court under Food safety Act, Patna by which he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to release 25 tins of Ghee seized in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.275 of 2012 registered under Sections 272, 273 of the Indian Penal Code and 31 of the Food Safety and Standard Act.

An F.I.R. was instituted against the petitioner stating therein that on a Tempo bearing registration no. BR 1 PA- 1735 Ghee was carrying which was intercepted and it was found that the Ghee was below standard. The Sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. It has reported that Ghee is of sub-standard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such report that Ghee is not fit for human consumption. He has further submitted that he would like to file an appropriate application before the Additional Collector, Revenue who has been appointed as competent authority under the Food Safety and Standard Act.

This Court is not giving any opinion with regard to merit of the case and not interfering with the order of the court below. If any such application is filed the authority concerned will examine the matter and will pass the order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of.

                                              (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Tainted ice cream raises larger questions about food safety

Brad Nettles/Staff </p><br /><br />
<p>Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams, 501-A King St., closed abruptly last week after its parent company announced some of its products may be tainted with listeria.

Hours after Mary Beth Dewitt ate two scoops of brown butter brittle and goat cheese cherry ice cream on April 18, she felt terribly ill.

“I was so sick on Sunday (April 19) I could not even get to the emergency room,” said Dewitt, 68, who lives on Little Oak Island.

At first, she thought she’d contracted some severe stomach virus. Doctors at an urgent care center on Folly Road administered two bags of intravenous fluid on that Monday because Dewitt was so dehydrated.

“I had no idea,” she said. “The doctor even said, ‘Do you think it could have been something you ate?’”

That seemed unlikely, she said, until her daughter called her late last week with news that Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams on King Street had abruptly closed last Thursday because its products were potentially tainted with listeria. That’s where Dewitt had eaten the ice cream.

“That’s the only thing it could have been. Can I prove it? No. But I know it’s the ice cream,” she said. “It took me a full week to get over this. Actually, my appetite has not come back. I cannot eat what I could usually eat. I just don’t want any food.”

Dewitt didn’t get a lab test to confirm her suspicions and it’s too late now to definitely say what made her sick, but the case highlights how eating out — even eating manufactured food products at home — is inherently risky. The federal government and the state health department try to minimize the threat of foodborne illness outbreaks by setting safety standards and conducting random inspections, but food manufacturers are largely responsible for making sure the food they produce is safe and they don’t always do it well.

Only when the Nebraska Department of Agriculture recently discovered that some Jeni’s Splendid Ice Creams products were contaminated with listeria did the Ohio-based company take any action. It recalled all Jeni’s products and closed all its shops as a precaution.

A company spokesman said there is no apparent connection between the Jeni’s listeria scare and the Blue Bell Creameries recall. Blue Bell, based in Texas, eventually pulled all its products from grocery store freezers across the country after the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control discovered some Blue Bell desserts at a Lexington distribution center were tainted with listeria.

The bacteria may cause fever, headache, stiffness, nausea, stomach ache and diarrhea. It is particularly harmful for pregnant women, the elderly and for anyone with a compromised immune system.

Bill Marler, a Seattle attorney who litigates high-profile foodborne illness lawsuits, expects more ice cream will be recalled as state regulators ramp up testing in response to recent outbreaks.

“We, as consumers, rely on manufacturers of food to produce food that’s safe for our families to consume. They market that food as fresh and local and organic or non-GMO (genetically-modified organism) — all of that. They never talk about it from a safety perspective,” Marler said. “Consumers don’t feel that their food is at risk because they believe what’s being told to them in advertising.”

We need to “eat more defensively,” he said.

Marler said he steers clear of sprouts, undercooked meats and older cheeses. He won’t buy raw milk, raw juice or bagged greens. Instead, he opts for whole heads of lettuce that he washes himself at home.

“Mass production has great opportunities to prevent food-borne illness and get us food at cheaper rates, but if you make a mistake, it’s a disaster,” he said. “Blue Bell is a perfect example of that.”

Lauren Sausse in The Post ad Courier -280415

Listeria is a bacteria “found in soil and water and some animals, including poultry and cattle,” according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources.

In humans, it may cause symptoms commonly associated with a stomach bug, including diarrhea and vomiting, but it is particularly harmful for patients with weak immune systems, the elderly and pregnant women, as it can lead to miscarriage and stillbirth.

Antibiotics are effective against the bacteria.

Listeria may be found in deli meats, soft cheeses, smoked fish, among other sources. It thrives in refrigerated environments.

For more information, visit

Intertek receives NABL & BIS accreditation for food testing lab in Hyd

Wednesday, April 29, 2015 08:00 IST
Our Bureau, New Delhi

Intertek, a leading quality solutions provider to industries worldwide, has announced that it has received accreditation from the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) for its food testing laboratory in Hyderabad. The laboratory has also received accreditation from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

Speaking about the accreditation, Rajesh Saigal, regional managing director, Intertek South Asia, states, “We are excited to announce the accreditation from NABL and BIS for our food testing laboratory in Hyderabad. The two accreditations are the ultimate benchmark which will provide our customers the much-needed assurance for our reliable testing and calibration services conducted at the laboratory. Intertek has already marked its presence in the northern region and with this new development, Intertek will now be able to serve its clients in the southern belt as well.”

NABL is an autonomous body under the department of science & technology, Government of India, which accredits the labs for testing of the food.

With Government of India strengthening its food safety regulations, the FBOs now need to comply with norms set for safer foods. With this new certification, Intertek will now offer its Food Testing Services to the southern part of the country.

Intertek tests food safety parameters like trace levels of pesticide residues, antibiotics, veterinary drugs and growth promoter residues, heavy metal contaminants, and other environmental contaminants which enter the food chain such as aflatoxins, plus various adulterants like Sudan dyes and microbiological parameters.

Siya Ram Tiwari, head-food services, Intertek South Asia, comments, “Our broad food testing capabilities enable our clients to effectively evaluate their spices and seafood at all stages of growth and production. We also have plans to get further approvals and recognitions for Hyderabad lab like EIC approval for serving seafood testing, NRC Approval for fruits & vegetable testing for grape sector, peanut and okra sectors, in coming days.”

Intertek’s food laboratory in Gurgaon is capable of testing various food and beverage products, including water, raw materials, ingredients and packaging materials for food safety and nutritional requirements. With the expansion of services in Hyderabad, Intertek will be able to reach out to more customers from various food sectors seeking quality testing and certification assistance in the south.