The legal regime regulating food safety and consumer protection in India has undergone a sea change in the recent past, shaped as it has been by landmark litigation and ongoing legislative reform. Yet, ensuring the safety of food, truthful labelling, and consumer rights is still a long way off. A comparative analysis with existing food safety frameworks in the US and the EU would help us recognize major areas where India scores well and where it lags. It also provides an insight into how India might refine its regulatory mechanism to better align itself with international norms.
Food Safety and Liability: Comparative Analysis of Different Regulatory Approaches
The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, commonly known as FSSAI, is the chief regulator on issues concerning food safety, legally formulated under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Nestle India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. Is a landmark case regarding FSSAI in the instance of Maggi noodles over the issue of detection of high levels of lead and MSG. Though Nestle eventually went back to sales, the incident revealed lapses in India’s food safety mechanisms, especially in terms of proactive action. Triggering tighter regulations, the country’s system remains largely reactive while incidents happen. In contrast, FSMA shifts the primary focus of the U.S. food safety system to prevention rather than response. Under FSMA, prevention controls become the obligation of manufacturers, and accountability is moved forward to guarantee the food is safe before a problem happens. This view is shared in the EU under General Food Law Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, where regulators can act even in the absence of full scientific certainty regarding the so-called precautionary principle. Prevention Grey Area: The Indian regulatory framework, to date, is non-preventive in scope, essentially as it is crisis-oriented rather than one that enforces preventive measures for food safety. Recommendation: In this regard, India may develop its system to incorporate risk-based inspections like FSMA and base decisions on the precautionary principle taken by the EU. Thus, making the approach change from a reactive one towards a proactive one, ensuring checks for safety take place regularly before any merchandise reaches the market.
Food Labelling: Misrepresentation and Consumer Protection:
While India has effected considerable reforms in the area of labelling laws, enforcement is yet to be consistently effective. In Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (2009), the misleading labels employed by Amul on its ice cream products spurred the government to issue clarifying regulations concerning the description of contents on products through the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labeling) Regulations, 2011. Weak enforcement of these regulations, especially in rural areas, makes consumers very prone to misleading information.
There are more rigid labelling laws in the United States and the EU. In the United States, for example, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act has imposed strict rules for correcting health claims. One can refer here to POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., where health-related label contents were misleading and thus punished. Similar legislation concerning food labelling exists in the European Union; for example, EU Food Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 guarantees full disclosure, especially of allergens. Grey Area: Undifferentiated labelling of domestic and imported products is again a single system that the country lacks, and potential allergens are generally not declared. Recommendations: A uniform system of labelling should be framed for India, representing all relevant information on nutritional content and potential allergens, as followed by the U.S. and EU. Besides, increasing enforcement, especially in rural areas, with consumer awareness programs would carry more comprehensiveness and protection for the consumers.
Addressing Food Allergies: A Gap in Consumer Protection:
Food allergies are a big issue in India, yet so far, the law has lagged behind this developing requirement of allergen declaration. While Food Safety and Standards-mandatory Food Products Standards and Food Additives Amendment Regulations, 2016-enacted lacklustre implementation of this regulation is very slack. Most small manufacturers do not adhere to such regulations, thus putting consumers at risk. In that respect, the US has strict allergen labelling through FALCPA, which demands crystal-clear labelling of the eight major allergens. However, the EU went even further with its FIC Regulation, taking added measures to protect consumers through the declaration of allergens and emphasizing their risks due to cross-contamination.
Gray Area: India’s system does not completely handle the issue of cross-contamination and, similarly, does not have strong mechanisms to enforce the law.
Suggestion:Stringent laws are needed relating to the labelling of allergens in India, where chances of cross-contamination also need to be indicated. FSSAI shall stress more on creating awareness amongst both the manufacturers and consumers about the basics of labelling allergens to avoid health risks. Food Advertisement: Marketing vs. Consumer Interest Food advertising in India has been under fire for making spurious health claims. In Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. v GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. 2016, courts addressed false advertising in food items, following which the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2018, on Advertisement and Claims, came into force. The new regulations put health claims under a compulsory requirement to be evidenced by scientific data. Yet, implementation remains a big challenge, especially in rural markets and digital platforms. The Federal Trade Commission monitors the standards of advertising in the United States. FTC v Kraft Foods Group, 1991, had laid down rather clearly the penalties regarding misleading claims and helped create a certain precedent in this regard for ensuring strict monitoring. Similarly, EU Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006 sets very high standards for health-related advertising, ensuring companies cannot exaggerate their claims.
Grey Area: The lack of stringent punitive actions in India permits companies to play with loopholes in ad monitoring at will, more so via digital platforms. There is a need to create pressure for more collaborative efforts by India and the Advertising Standards Council of India in enforcing more punitive actions against deceptively misleading ads. Focus on digital and rural advertisement mechanisms may help generate awareness among consumers and prevent any potential spread of fake health messages.
- Comparative Analysis: Position of India in Global Perspective : Although India has undoubtedly made improvements in the regulation of food safety, especially through high-profile court cases, its standards remain far below those of global leaders such as the United States and the EU. Inconsistent enforcement, however, which allows the majority of instances where safety standards are breached to go unnoticed, is India’s biggest Achilles heel until public health crises arise. Parallel U.S. and EU systems position the country towards prevention with rigid inspections and heavy penalties against violations that compromise the safety of food.
- Grey Area: India’s regulatory enforcement remains spotty, especially in rural areas, where the absence of a vigorous inspection regime contributes to gaping holes in food safety.
- Suggestion: This may be furthered by the adoption of a risk-based inspection regime in India emulating the FSMA, with strategic investments in the FSSAI to develop an improved real-time monitoring ability. This would bring India closer to international best practices and better assure the country of a safer food supply chain.
Conclusion:
A Much Better, More Openly Safe Indian Food Market The broad contours of evolving the law on food safety in India mark progress, but this for the most part remains a reactive system responding to problems rather than preventing them. Drawing from the experiences of other countries, such as the United States and the European Union, there is a great deal that India can learn in terms of proactive policies and measures that secure better prevention and transparency. This would further empower consumers to make their choices by strengthening the enforcement of labelling and advertising regulations. Greater awareness on the part of consumers about food safety standards could ensure more civic engagement by citizens in general and greater activism on behalf of their rights. With better infrastructure and human resources, the FSSAI will be in a better position to monitor the adherence to regulations and their enforcement. More stringent penalties for non-compliance will ensure deterrents and greater accountability amongst manufacturers. This transformation towards proactive measures, strong enforcement, and consumer education will create a transparent and safe food market in India. In perspective, the alignment of food safety standards to global best practices will help India prioritize public health and safer food choices for its citizens.
Author(s) Name: R.Sivagayathri (Government Law College Madurai Affiliated to Tamilnadu Dr Ambedkar Law University)
