ִ ֵָ (֟) : ֛ ׮ָ ߕ 껛 ؛ , ִ , , և ־ ׮ֵ , particularly , ֮ ߠ - ִ ֯ - ֓ ׮ ֋ ֌ ׮ ֋߅ ֟ , ֮֟ , ָ ֺ

ӡ , ֋ , ֮ ָ ל ֮ ֣ ל ָ ֮ß ֮߅ ֯ ײֻ ל ֋ , ״ִ֮ ֋, ל ߕ ֤ ִֵ - ߕ , ֟ ֯ ֟ ׌ ߕ ֟և, ִ ֵ ֻ ߕ ָ ֵ ײֻ þ֟ ֯ : ֮ ֟ , ָ ׾ֿ ֮ פ ֋ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

SHRI R. SHUNMUGASUNDARAM (TAMIL NADU): Sir, my congratulations and compliments to the Minister for bringing in a new comprehensive legislation for food safety, and to maintain food standards by preventing adulteration. This legislation will repeal, at least, one Act, and nearly about 6 or 7 Control Orders, which were issued under the Essential Commodities Act and which are listed under the second Schedule. The old and archaic provision of the Food Adulteration Act is being repealed. Sir, this Bill will set at rest the debate whether water is a food article or not. Under section 3(f), there is an inclusive definition given, and some amount of elasticity is also given to the Government to issue a notification to include any food articles, which the Government may declare from time to time. Sir, packaged drinking water is brought under section 3(f) as a food. It is reported that food sector constitutes nearly 26 per cent of GDP. We should not forget the rapid growth in population. The rapid growth in population gives rise to food requirement. The Government is duty bound to ensure the supply of safe, unadulterated, hygienic and wholesome food to the citizens. The Government has to provide facilities for increase in production. In Tamil Nadu, 60 per cent of the people are dependant on agriculture and related activities. The new Government in Tamil Nadu has waived farm loans to the tune of Rs. 6,866 crores. Another thousand crores of rupees is being provided by the Tamil Nadu Government for payment to cooperatives to enable them to extend new crop loans to farmers at 7 per cent rate of interest. These loan waivers and farm loans will help increase the agricultural production. Whatever is the quantity of production which is going to be achieved, there will be large scale wastages if there is no wastage prevention, and proper processing facilities. I happened to see a news on Doordarshan in the Tamil Nadu Channel yesterday that about 1500 acres of sugarcane plantation was destroyed by rodents. Of course, I expect that both the Central Government and the State Government will give adequate compensation. But, they should also take appropriate measures to prevent such occurrences.

(contd. by 2y)



SHRI R. SHUNMUGASUNDARAM (CONTD.): Sir, what will be the action for preserving the produced foodgrains and articles? Preservation is done only through food processing. The lack of processing facilities forces a large-scale wastage of food articles. Food processing or other processing aid requires the use of additives. There is an increase in the usage of additives because of the increase in the quantity of processing the food articles. Use of additives in processing food articles may result in the presence of residues or derivatives in the final product. Regulations are necessary to oversee the usage of additives or the processing aid. Clause 19 of the Bill mandates that the use of additives is prohibited unless it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act and regulations. The presence of residues, including pesticide residues, is attempted to be eradicated totally.

Restriction of advertisement and prohibition as to unfair trade practice has been included through clause 24 of the Bill. Misleading or deceptive statements regarding the quality, standard or quantity or grade composition is prohibited. Sir, this Bill dispenses with the Licence Raj as far as petty manufactures, hawkers, vendors etc. are concerned. They are required to take only registration as per clause 31(2). This will give a great relief to the petty traders. I extend my special compliments to the UPA Government in this regard.

Limitation of one year to launch prosecution is fixed under clause 77. That, I feel, is a little longer period. This requires to be reduced to six months. The Commissioner of Food Safety can extend time in appropriate cases taking into consideration the individual merits. Sir, this will prevent laxity.

Appeal time is also reduced considerably, and now, the present appeal time is only 45 days as per clause 76, and that too, after depositing fees or compensation, the appellant is allowed to prefer an appeal.

Sir, the quantum of penalty, namely, fine amounts are increased. In most of the cases, the present sentence has been dispensed with, and this is a unique and significant change. There is one welcome change in clause 64(2) regarding the punishment of a person previously convicted if he repeats. The court may also cause the offender's name and place of residence, the offence and the penalty imposed on him to be published at the offender's expense, and it can be recoverable from the offender himself.

Sir, compounding is permitted under clause 69. For compounding of the offence, there is one provision. Whichever offence is punishable with imprisonment, no compounding is permitted. This, Sir, is also welcome. Sir, under clause 74, special courts are allowed to be constituted and that, according to me, will complicate the situation. ...(Time Bell) Sir, I will take one minute more because it is a very crucial point regarding special courts. Under clause 74, the Bill prescribes special courts for offences punishable with three years or above. I could lay my hands only on two provisions, namely, clauses 53(3) and 53(4) which prescribe a punishment of three years or more. All other offences are not punishable with this amount of sentence. Therefore, there is going to be a dichotomy. Some offences will go to the special courts and some offences will go to the magistrate courts and regular courts. Sir, then there would not be any uniformity and the sentencing policy will be at stake.

(Contd. by TMV/2Z)


SHRI R. SHUNMUGASUNDARAM (CONTD.): The hon. Minister should take care of this also. It would be better, if all the offences go to the Special Court.


SHRI R. SHUNMUGASUNDARAM: Sir, I will take only one more minute. I would like to request the hon. Minister to concentrate on increasing the facilities for conducting appropriate food technology courses. Adequate number of study courses in food technology be introduced and the students must be properly counselled to take up such courses of study. I also request the hon. Minister to step up the campaign on the necessity for consuming nutritious, safe and quality food.

With these words, I congratulate the hon. Minister and compliment him for bringing forward this Bill. Thank you. (Ends)

0 ֵָ֠ ֮־ (ִ ׮֤׿֟) : ֳ֯ן , ײֻ ָ ָ֟ ֓ Ծ֌ֆ ָ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ֌ ֪ Ùԇ ׻֋ ׸ ֮և և , ָ ֮֮ ֪ ֮־ ߾֮ ֯ ־ֿ , ו ֲֻ֟, ־ֿ ֪ ֲ ֟ ֻ֟ ә - ֪ ֲֻ֟ ׾ָ֟, ו ׾ָ֟ ־ã ָ ״ֻ , ֪ ֪ ָ ֪ , ֮ ݵ , ִ ״ֻ־֙ ֲִ , ָ ׾ָ֓ ֺ ִ ֵ ײֻ ӟ־ ֪ ߕ , ״ֻ־֙, ֲָֻ֕ י ׮ִ ״ֻ־֙ Ͽ , ߴ֮, ֪ ߕ ״ֻ־֙ ֪ ״ֻ֟ , ִ ״ֻ־֙ ׻֋ ֪ ֤֣ ״ֻ־֙ ֟ ִ ֟ ֣ ׻֋ ײֻ ֵ ֲֻ֕׸ ׻֋ ײֻ , סִ ־ סִ ־ ֤ ִ ָ֜ ֲֻ֟ ״֟ ֪ ß י ׮ִ ֮־ þã ָ ׾ָ֯ߟ ָ ֛ ֲ ֟ ™֟ ֟ ӡ ײֻ ָ ִ֮ ӡ ӟ־ ֵ֟, ִ ï™ ӡֵֻ ӟԟ, ӡֵֻ , ו ֮ ֵ , ָ ָ , Û ™ߵ ָ֯ ݻֻև֮ Ծ֌ ֕ ֮ ֕ - ֕ , , ײֵ ߕ , Û ָ ֮ ֤ ֳ , Û ִ ײֻ ָ օ ײֻ ӡ ӟ־ ïꌙ ֕ ִ֯ ֋, ָ ײֻ ֮ ֜ ָ ֟ ֻ֟ ïꌙ 5, 10 15 ֋ ָ֤֮ פ , ֤ ֋ ֲ ֋ Ԯ ־ã ֮ ֜ ֋օ ('3A/SCH' ָ ָ)


. ֵָ ֮־ (֟): ו֮ ֣ ִ פ ֵ , ֕ ן ׸ ו ָ ־ָ , ֟ ֟ ï ֕ ֟ օ ָ ֟ ï ָ֮ ֕ ִ ֤ ӕև ߅ ״ֻ־֙ ָ׸ כ ׻֋ ִ ־֮֬ ֵ ִ ָ 25 (1), (2) (3) ӟԟ ֵ֟ ָ ߵ ָָ ׾֤ ָ֯ ׾ ׾׮ִֵ ׬׮ִֵ, 1992 ߮ ֵן֟ ֪ ֤֣ ן׮ֵ״֟ ׬ָ ָ ׮־ ֲ ָָ þֵ ֵ֟ , ֵ֟ , ־֢ ӓ֮ ׻֋ ־ã ֲ ָָ ֮ , ֻ ָָ ֮ , ָ ֮ ֻ ָ י ߕ , ֲ օ ׻֋

ָ 45, 46 47 Ӥ ֟ ָ׸ ׮ֿ֮ ֵ֮ ֋, ֛-֛ ָ֬ ֻ ֓ , ֵԯ ־ã ߆ָ ָ ־ã֋ ֻ ָ

ָ 19 Ùև ֟ և ׾ִ֮ ׮־ ߕ , ו֮ ָ ֕߆ ִ Ùև ߕ ֻֻ֮߮ , ײ֛ ֕ ߕ ֛ ײ ߕ ֮ ֟ ß , Ùև ־ ߕ , ֮ ֟ և , ׾ָ֓ ݵ ׾ֵ ׮ן ߅

׾ßָ ָ օ ִ י ִ ֟ , ָ ֣ ֣ ִ ׌֮ ֿ߻ ߕ ֋ ״ֻև ֟ , ו Ùָ ׾ֿ ָ ֵ օ ϵ ִ þ֤ ״ֻ, ָ ״ֻօ þ֤ ָ ״ֻ, ׻֋ ִ ߕ ״ֻև ֟ , ߕ ֮ ֟ , ֮ ־ֿ

ߴ֮, ײֻ , ִ ֵ -

"The Bill has dealt with many provisions relating to food safety enforcement as mentioned in clauses 41 and 42. The Food Safety Officer has been given wide ranging power for inspecting food business, drawing of samples as also power for search, seizure, investigation and persecution. All these are welcome provisions. But the overwhelming power in the hands of Enforcement Officers, without giving any opportunity to the representatives from the food trade and industry to be heard before prosecution, might lead to exploitation and devastation of the trade."

ߴ֮, ֤ ׸ ֮ , ߇Ԇ , ևԋ ױָ ߕ ֻ ߮ ֻ ׻֋ ֋օ ָ ָ ׸ߕ ֮ , ֲִ ևԋ ױ , ן ״֙ ױ ן ֋? י , ֋, ֟ ָ ֮ ֺ

ߴ֮ և̸ ֮և և , ߇Ԇ , ߇Ԇ, ָ ӛ ִ , և օ ׻֋ և̸ ָ Ù , ׸ ָ ߕ ֟ ߅ ֲ ֮և ã , ׻֋ և ãן ߅ ָ ϵ ֵ , ײֻ ӟ־ , פև , ׻֋ ָ ָ ִ ֮ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

3B/MCM ָ


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (GOA): Sir, the Food Safety and Standards Bill, 2005, I would like to say, is a historic Bill. I recollect the Consumer Protection Act passed by Parliament in 1986 at the instance of Shri Rajivji. I consider this historic Bill is an extension of that concept. And, therefore, this is a historical Bill. Sir, in this country, because of food adulteration and other aspects of marketing, people die either instantaneously or by slow poisoning. Instances come from several parts of the country, and, therefore, this legislation is a safeguard towards that.

Sir, there are 101 Clauses in the Bill. It is a very, very exhaustive Bill and each Clause, I must say, -- there may be flaws -- has been drafted with all seriousness. The only problem is, there must be sincere implementation process and implementation mechanism for the purpose of implementing this Bill.

Sir, Clause 18 of the Bill narrates certain objects which are quite laudable. But, Clause 18(1)(d) is one of the vital Clauses which can negate the objectives. Sir, it says, 'the measures adopted on the basis of clause (c) shall be proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required to achieve appropriate level of health...' It means, if any part of or any action under this Act is considered to be restrictive of trade, then, it can be interpreted otherwise. For instance, if a drug is substandard, if there is a misrepresentation, if there are harmful effects of a drug, and somebody interprets these as restricting the trade, then the entire Act can be negated. Therefore, much lies in the interpretation of the fact as to what is 'restrictive of trade.' It is because, if these substandard things are brought to the notice or misrepresentations are brought to the notice, obviously, there must be some restrictiveness in the trade. How can you achieve the objective without bringing in some restriction on the trade? Therefore, it lies in the mechanism to see that it is not interpreted in the wrong manner. The objective should be considered with priority, rather than any restriction on the trade. In other words, supposing, these aspects are not informed to the public, in the name of having restrictive of trade, it is interpreted otherwise and it will be harmful.

Secondly, Sir, there is a very important Clause 5 which gives one-third representation for women. This is a welcome thing. I am sure, the hon. women Members would welcome it. Sir, one-third representation has been given in the authority.

Sir, Clause 6(e) provides for selection of Members of the Food Authority and the Chairman. There is a Committee. Why that Committee should have restriction to choose ex-officio members? All members can be chosen by that Committee, except ex-officio members. Ex-officio members represent various departments and the department concerned itself can give a panel of names and ex-officio members can be selected from this panel by the Selection Committee. Therefore, bureaucracy cannot keep itself away from the selection process. They can be selected by the Selection Committee. It is not fair. Therefore, even ex-officio members are to be covered in this.

Then, I come to the aspect of insecticides and pesticides under Clause 21(1). The tolerance limit is a very, very sensitive aspect as far as insecticides and pesticides are concerned. (CONTD. BY "3C")


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): There was a big war between Coca Cola and Pepsi. And, when these provisions will be sought to be implemented these two companies will be fighting like cats and dogs and we will be watching the entire scenario. The entire T.V. will bring no other fact, whole T.V. news will be covered by Coca Cola and Pepsi war, which is imminent after the law comes into force. We don't know what are the contents, what are the tolerance limits. Sometimes I wonder foreigners also drink Pepsi and Coca Cola like anything. Is their product different from what is sold in this country because they are very conscious of their health? Therefore, these things must be covered in the implementation part of this.

Then, as far as tolerance limit is concerned, it has to be fixed by a regulation. Now, regulations come on one date. The Act is here; there are the rules. Whenever Government publications are made available to the members of public, Act, rules and regulations must also be simultaneously made available because unless you have got a copy of regulation this Act will not make any sense because we are legislating hardly 25 per cent. Most of the things will be contained in the regulation. Therefore, Government publications, as far as this Bill is concerned, when it becomes Act, must incorporate rules and regulations. This is a very important aspect because the whole scenario, today, of food products and other consumer items goes on advertisements. Amitabh Bachchanji tells us to eat particular type of Chawanprash, or, a particular company's Hazmola, or, Cadbury. Then, Hemaji, our own colleague, is canvassing for a particular type of water purifier. Then, somebody says, " ֲֻ֟ ". Now, are you going to tolerate this misrepresentation because thanda does not mean Coca Cola? That is a known fact. Are you going to consider this as a misrepresentation or not because thanda is not Coca Cola, thanda means thanda -- cold. Then, one actor jumps in an advertisement from a very high altitude to pick up a bottle of Thumbs Up. Are we going to tolerate this because there may be accidents, children may imitate that, though there is a warning that this should not be attempted to? Therefore, these aspects, in an advertisement, should be taken under 'misrepresentation' or whatever it is.

Then, there is another very serious aspect. What is the efficacy? I would just go to clause 24, "No advertisement shall be made of any food which is misleading or contravenes the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made hereunder." Then, 2(c) says, "Gives to the public any guarantee of the efficacy that is not based on an adequate or scientific justification thereof:" Gives to the public any guaranty of efficacy! This efficacy will not cover all these aspects of misrepresentation, etc. Then, what is efficacy? We are not referring to efficacy elsewhere in the Act, which should have been. I would just like to word it for the hon. Minister. It should have been, "Gives to the public any guaranty as regards standard, quality or grade composition that is not based on adequate or scientific justification thereof". The clarity should have been in this manner. This efficacy will make no sense. Therefore, there will be escapism involved in this clause.

Then, Sir, I come to samples. Who can take samples? I have not gone into that aspect because I may have missed. But I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether any citizen is free to take samples; if yes, what is the procedure? In fact, I would appreciate the efforts of hon. Member, Shrimati Brinda Karat, who went to Ram Dev's camp and got a sample of medicine. Madam, I draw your attention. I appreciate your daring. You went there and got a sample of medicine and brought that before the Ministry. (Contd. by 3d -- VP)


SHRI SHANTARAM LAXMAN NAIK (CONTD.): Now I want to ask you whether the staff of his Ministry will dare to go there and take samples, if it is reported that there is something wrong. The popularity of the man, whether we like it or not, is so much today that nobody will dare to enter the camp. Who will take the samples? Therefore, you should be bold enough and, whether it is big companies, this Maharaj or that Maharaj, or multinationals, daring enough to take the samples.

Then comes the clause of penalty. This discretion of levying a fine up to Rs. 5 lakhs or up to Rs. 2 lakhs is very bad in the sense that it gives a lot of scope for corruption. If a person can be fined for a fault from Re. 1 to Rs. 5 lakh, you can imagine the discretion the Authority will enjoy. If he can levy a fine of Rs. 2 or Rs. 5 lakhs, you can imagine the wide scope, if I may say, for corruption and other things. Therefore, this clause of penalty has to be amended to provide for minimum things.

Lastly, as far as this issue of scare is concerned, I want to say that supposing, somebody says that some item is poisonous and creates a bomb like scare, then, is there any provision to punish such rumourmongers? This aspect has also to be seen. Thank you. (Ends)

SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR (MAHARASHTRA): Mr. Vice-Chairman, Sir, thank you for this opportunity. Sir, the integration of food laws was a much-awaited legislation. The intention and the thought behind the Bill is to be commended on all counts. It is necessary to assure food safety and food standards to all the people of India, to all the consumers and buyers of the food within the country and abroad. It is also necessary to introduce good manufacturing practices of food products, and also good hygienic practices of food manufacture, storage, despatch, and delivery to the final consumers. But this has become purely a law, intended to impose penal action on the offenders. I for one believe that the Food Processing Ministry has missed a very important opportunity to pay its attention to the development of food processing industry through the medium of this Bill. In India about two per cent of all food products are processed as compared to about 50 to 80 per cent in certain other countries. We are at that point of time of history where our food processing industry has become a very important industry for creating of employment, generation of wealth, income generation and income supplementation for our farmers and food processors, and, thereby, enriching the people in the rural sector. The Ministry should have taken this opportunity to introduce provisions which would encourage the food industry to function in a better manner. This Bill is a spectre of final guillotine for being in the food industry. Sir, I happen to be the President of the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture. (Continued by PK/3E)


SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR (CONTD.): And I have attended more than 50 seminars on this Bill. I have talked to a wide section of people in small seminars, and I believe that all those who are going to work around the entire food chain are totally confused with regard to the intent of the Bill. Sir, such a comprehensive food law is now prevalent in certain developed countries. But even those countries have taken a period of 15-20 years for progression to a modern and a comprehensive law. I wish the hon. Minister very well in his desire to change the food scenario in India overnight. Even today, 25 per cent of our populace do not have two meals a day everyday. There are those who are going hungry, there are those who are starving, there are those who are dying, and there are those who are committing suicide. He has taken time to think of those who are getting some food. Of course, they should get good food; it is a good intention, but as they say in English, sometimes, the road to hell is also paved with good intentions. Good intentions are not enough. I personally believe that this law will result in contrary consequences for the people in the food industry and even for the consumers. Today, the consumers are getting something to eat, sometimes, at five rupees, ten rupees, fifteen rupees. Once this food law is enacted, expenses will go up heavily. And, if it is going to cost fifteen, twenty rupees, then, at least, they will go to Mc Donald or some other retailer rather than going to a pao bhajiwallah, or, bhajiwalah, or some small man. Sir, 40 per cent of the people who are in this industry are unlicensed today. They are mentioned in section 31. Certain recommendations were made by the E.S. Venkataramaiah Committee and also by the Standing Committee, but those recommendations are not being taken into account. The Standing Committee had made a recommendation that the total sector should be categorised in three categories, and all those who are mentioned in section 31 should be excluded. But this has not been accepted, because we want a change overnight. These overnight changes deny the reality of a rural India, deny the reality of a poorer India. Sir, in this, there is one more trend which is coming with this UPA Government, and, that is, the UPA Government wants increasing bureaucratisation. For example, the authorities which are being created are the Food Authority and the Central Advisory Authority. In the Food Authority, there will be, including the Chairman, 23 members, and a vast majority of those members will be the Government officials. In the Advisory Committee, there will be about 51 members. Out of 51, 41 will be nominees of the Centre and the State Governments. So, what is sought is increasing bureaucratisation of the entire sector. This Bill as well could have been named as The Enrichment of the Bureaucrats and Food Inspectors Bill. That should have been the proper name of this Bill because after this Bill becomes an Act, the Food Inspector will be so empowered that he will become the Almighty. He will ride roughshod over every small producer while the big bureaucrats will bring benefits for big manufacturers directly. (Contd. by 3F/PB)


SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR (CONTD.): This Bill will create a cleavage into small manufacturers, small sellers, small retailers and big manufacturers. The big manufacturers will look after the Food Authority and the Central Advisory Authority, and the small manufacturers will be exploited by the food inspectors. This will be the immediate consequence of this Bill.

Sir, the earlier Government, the NDA Government, had suggested in the 2003 Bill that one-third of the members should come from the food industry, one-third should come from the State Government and one-third should come from consumers, farmers and R&D. That formula could have been adopted. But for food industry, there are two representatives there, and that has been grossly, inadequately represented in the Central Advisory Board.

Sir, India is a sub-continental country, and it is a divergent country, having different castes, colours, creeds, costumes, and even consuming habits. And, therefore, I do not understand the purpose behind locating a Central Authority -- which is created in Delhi -- in Delhi. I don't know for what matter every authority is being created in Delhi. This authority's headquarters could be in Tamil Nadu or Kerala or Karnataka or Maharashtra. We could see where maximum food processing is done, and the capital of this Authority, the Food Authority as the Central Authority, should be in a State where maximum food processing is done. But, we want every authority to be located in Delhi. I do not understand that purpose. But, Sir, this Authority ... ...(Interruptions)...

MISS MABEL REBELLO: Do you want it in Mumbai?

SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR: I am not saying, 'you locate it in Mumbai'. I had talked of Tamil Nadu, I had talked of Kerala, I talked of Karnataka. ...(Interruptions)...

ֳ֬ ( ָ֕ ״) : ֵ ֯ ִ֯

SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR: It should go to a State which does maximum food processing. Why should every Authority be located in Delhi? You can find. You can set it up in South of India, or, anywhere; I have no objection. I am not saying, 'you locate it in Mumbai.' ...(Interruptions)... Sir, this Food Authority again will be completely selected by the bureaucrats, and there is a tremendous grip of bureaucracy over the entire thing. So, the first and foremost, I oppose the increasing bureaucratisation of this, and I really feel sorry that the recommendations of E.S. Venkataramaiah Committee and also of the Standing Committee have been totally neglected in this regard. I want to understand from the hon. Minister the reasons to go beyond the recommendations of Venkataramaiah Committee and Standing Committee in this regard. Sir, certain provisions which are here ...

ֳ֬ ( ָ֕ ״) : ֯ ִ֯ ׸

SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR: Sir, I have spoken only for four minutes.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Four minutes! You have already taken three-four minutes more.

SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR: Sir, there are certain provisions which are penal provisions. Of course, those who indulge in misdeeds and misconducts must be penalised. There is no objection to that. There can be no objection to that. But, Sir, in other countries where there is a food law, there are provisions -- in Malaysian Act, in European Act -- for guidance of the food producers. The inspectors are trained to guide the food producers, the small producers in particular. Today, in our country, eighty-five per cent of the producers are small producers. They require guidance. There are no such provisions. Sir, there is no hearing before a punishment is imposed. Sir, there are two types of laboratories, the accredited laboratory and the referral laboratory. And, if the referral laboratory agrees to that, then the accredited laboratory's report will not be accepted. Now, this has to be done away with. If you have accredited a laboratory, accept the report of that laboratory. That has to be done. (Contd. by 3g/SKC)


SHRI EKANATH K. THAKUR (CONTD.): Sir, there are certain carry-overs from agriculture. There are certain carry-overs from the water that is received from the Municipalities -- this point has been raised by others -- and therefore, penalties that are consequent upon the use of such carry-overs will have to be reconsidered.

Sir, in this Act -- I am concluding, Sir -- there are many good provisions which I must commend, but this Act is also saddled with many disappointing provisions. This is a law, which is coming after many, many years, rather, a few decades. This law could do a lot of good to India, provided, it is considered further, for some more time, by the Ministry with further debate on this and then brought in a new and amended form.

Therefore, through you, Sir, I would request the hon. Minister to withdraw this Act, amend this Act, taking into account the various suggestions and concerns which have been voiced by the hon. Members of this House, and then bring it before us, so that we can welcome it with both hands. Thank you, Sir. (Ends)

SHRIMATI PREMA CARIAPPA (KARNATAKA): Sir, I rise to express my views on this important Bill, The Food Safety and Standards Bill.

Sir, when we talk about food and food safety, we are definitely concerned about the health and safety of human beings. Good food means good health. Healthy citizens mean, definitely, a lead to a healthy and wealthy country.

Sir, the main objectives of the Bill are to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption.

Sir, Clause 4(1) of Chapter II of the Bill says, "The Central Government shall, by notification, establish a body to be known as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to it, under this Act".

Sir, as the Bill is the outcome of the discussions on various meetings of Parliamentary and Ministerial Committees, the Food Safety and Standards Authority should be made an autonomous body. Also, it should be headed by a scientist or an expert in the field of agriculture.

Sir, you are aware of food adulteration; we don't get pure drinking water in rural as well as urban areas. Even when we pay and purchase water, we are not sure whether the water is pure or of good quality.

In view of the fast-growing food processing industry and liberalised trade, we have to ensure that the consumers are not cheated by the sale of sub-standard goods, and also, that the country is not made a dumping ground for sub-standard imported goods. There is mushrooming of foreign companies, multi nationals, Chinese and fast food restaurants in India. They use various food additives or processing ingredients, which are very much harmful, particularly to children.

Today, the developed world has got strict food safety and standard laws. We too should have such laws so that the developed world does not take advantage of our weak laws in this field. There should be sample-testing units, which can give immediate reports after the verification of the sample food to be used by the consumer. I would suggest addition of clauses in the Bill to ban such type of fast food, MNC restaurants found guilty of using harmful additives and preservatives. Their licences and registrations should be cancelled for their misdeeds.

Sir, the Bill makes provision for graded penalties where offences like manufacturing, storage and setting misbranded or sub-standard food are punished with fine and more serious offences with imprisonment.

Sir, the functions of the proposed Food Safety and Standards Authority are to be lauded. These are prescribing standards and guidelines for articles of food, to regulate and monitor manufacturing, processing, distribution and sale of food, so as to ensure safe and wholesome food for the people. (Contd. by 3h/hk)


SHRIMATI PREMA CARIAPPA (CONTD.): Sir, referring to clause 43(2) of Chapter VIII, the Food Authority shall, establish or recognise by notification, one or more referral food laboratory to carry out the functions entrusted to the referral food laboratory by this Act or any rules and regulations made thereunder. Sir, as far as the sample testing is concerned, there should be strictly a time-frame of getting the verification report within the shortest period of time. The Food Analyst should be of an expertise, which shall cause to be analysed such samples of articles of food sent by the Food Safety Officer. The analysis of food items definitely gives the standard of food which is very much essential for the consumer. Sir, the period mentioned for sample analysis is too much.

Today the food sector in the country is governed by a multiplicity of laws under different Ministries. As such, it was felt that we should have a single regulatory body and an integrated food law.

Sir, I strongly feel that every stage in the food chain needs to be standardised and also there should be strict ban on advertisements on print as well as electronic media which lead to unfair trade practices. Persons or agencies engaged in any unfair trade practices for purpose of promoting the sale, supply, use and consumption of articles of food, should be heavily punished. This type of trade leads to consumption of poor standard food, which leads to consumption of poor quality food and harm to the consumer.

Sir, as per the packaging and labelling of foods, no person should manufacture, distribute, sell or deliver for the purpose of sale without a specified label. There should be a specific standardised agency for different food items. This is to avoid any false or misleading factors on the quality and quantity of food. This should be added in the clause of the bill.

Sir, the domestic market for processed food is growing at a healthy 15 per cent a year. However, it is very unfortunate that there is a complete lack of quality control in India's food sector. There is an urgent need to check food adulteration, food poisoning and contamination of food.

There is no denying the fact that available food should be safe, hygienically produced and wholesome with right nutritional configuration, free from infection causing bacterial contaminants and other adulterants.

Sir, the implementation of the Act is going to be a big challenge as there are not enough laboratories that can do sensitive and detailed testing.

Sir, on the whole, the Bill is very timely and strengthens the law which is badly needed today. I whole-heartedly support this Bill. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this Bill. (Ends)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): Shri Nandi Yellaiah. Not present. Shrimati S.G. Indira.

SHRIMATI S.G. INDIRA (TAMIL NADU): Sir, I want to stress upon only two points here because all the Members have put forth all the valid points. Here, we are talking about the food in urban areas, rural areas and everywhere. If we take a sample of food given in the flight of Indian Airlines or any Government flight and send it to the laboratory, we will find all the bacteria and virus inside the food. This is the real thing happening. So, I want to put forth and stress the point that the Minister may inform this to the concerned Minister. The hon. Minister should not say that this is not under his Ministry; please go to the Aviation Ministry. The hon. Minister may take care of it and inform the Aviation Ministry regarding this. It may be a very simple food and it should be good food for the health. In addition to that, the hon. Member, Shri Shunmugasundaram, in his speech mentioned a point -- however, it is in no way connected to this Bill -- that the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has waived Rs.6866 crores to the farmers. ..(Interruptions)..

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): Listen ..(Interruptions)..

(Followed by 3j/GSP)


SHRIMATI S.G. INDIRA: Sir, I don't want to have any debate. He has mentioned it. (Interruptions) Sir, he has mentioned it.

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN: Please speak. (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI S.G. INDIRA: Only one minute, Sir. (Interruptions) Sir, he has mentioned that the present Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has waived Rs. 6,866 crores in favour of the farmers and that he has given them the concession not to repay the dues. I do agree with that, Sir.

In addition to that, I want to put forth a point that the amount that our former Chief Minister has given in her period, that is, last year, which is Rs. 1,435 crores, is included in the amount that he has mentioned, Sir. So, I want to put forth that point. That is the point that I want to make.

SHRI N. JOTHI: Sir, we want to bring it on record. (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI S.G. INDIRA: He brought it on record and that is why I also want to bring it on record that the amount of Rs. 1,435 crores is...(Interruptions)

THE VICE-CHAIRMAN (SHRI KALRAJ MISHRA): You have made your point. (Interruptions)

SHRIMATI S.G. INDIRA: That is all, Sir. Thank you very much.

ֳ֬: ִ֤ Ͼֻ ߅ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ã֟օ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ߅

֪ ӡֵֻ ֕ ӡ ( ӟ ֵ) : ֮־ָ, ֳ ֤ߵ ֤õ - ֮־֤ ֲ ֟ , ֱ ֻ ־ פ ֕ ߲ 17 ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ֮ ֟ ָ ֋ ֮ , ֻܵ ָ ײֻ ָ ָ֮ ׻֋ , ִ֟ - ֟ ׮־ָ ֟օ ־֕ ߠ ֻ ״ֻ ,

( ֳ֯ן ߚ߮ )

ֻ ״ֻ , ו֮ ײֻ , ֵ֯ ֱ ִ ֮־ָ, ֲ ײֻ ә , ָ֤֟ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ ꅠ ׻֋ ײֻ ֮ ߔ ָ ӡֵֻ , ֳ ָ , ָ֮ ֵ֤ ״ֻ և ߅

כ ָ ָ, ָ ֻ ؾ֛ , ו ֕ ϣ , ֻ ؾ֛ ֮֮ ֮֮ߵ ֤õ 16 ֮ ֚ ׾׳֮ ӡֵֻ ֣ ֚ , ָ 16 ֮ 16 ïꌙ ïꌙ , ïꌙ ֕ ïꌙ ֕ ׌ , ֟

֮־ָ, ֮ ݵ ׸ ߅ ֮ ָ ݵ ׸ ֮֮ , כ, ݵ ׸ ֮֮ ָ ӡֵֻ օ ׸ , ֮ ִ ֟ ֤õ ׾׳֮ -ָָ ֚ , ߮ ևיÙ ꅠ ֋ ָ ֤׬ָ , ִ ѓ-֟ ӡֵֻ ֟ , ִ ֮ ѓ ӡֵֻ 12 ֤׬ָ 10 -ָָ ֤õ ָ ݵ ׸ כ ֯ ֟։Ѡ ִ ָ ïꌙ ֻ ־֮֬ ֵ ָ 같 ױָ harass ֻ֟ ִ , ו ֻ֟ ӛÙ׻Ù harassed , ֋ Ԯ ֛օ (3/000 ָ ֿ:)