3. FEATURES PFA, 1954 FSSA, 2006
1. ACT/YEAR PREVENTION OF FOOD
ADULTERATION ACT (37
OF 1954)
FOOD SAFETY AND
STANDARD ACT (34 OF
2006)
2. GOAL TO PREVENT
ADULTERATION
TO MAINTAIN FOOD
SAFETY
3. FOCUS
INSPECTION/CONTROL
MONITORING,
SURVEILLANCE/
OBSERVATION
4. AUTHORITY MULTIPLE AUTHORITIES SINGLE
AUTHORITY/SINGLE
REFERENCE POINT FOR
ALL FOOD MATTERS
5. WORKFORCE INSUFFICIENT /SUFFICIENT(FULL-TIME
APPOINTMENT)
6. IMPROVEMENT NOTICE NO PROVISION PROVISION, SEC 32
4. 7. PENALTY
PROVISION
DIRECT PROVISION ADJUDICATION PROCESS
(ADJUDICATING OFFICER)
8. COURT APPEAL NO APPEAL TRIBUNAL
9. GMP/GHP
(GOOD MANUFG
PRACTICE/HYGIENIC
PROCESS)
NON-MANDATORY COMPULSORY
10. IMPORT IMPROPER CONTROL PROPER CONTROL
11. SAMPLING SEC 11, 3 SAMPLES, FI SEC 38, 4 SAMPLES, FSO
12. PERSONNEL FOR
SAMPLING
FOOD INSPECTOR- SENT
TO PUBLIC ANALYST
FOOD SECURITY OFFICER,
FOOD ANALYST
13. FOOD RECALL
PROCEDURE
NO PROVISIONS SPECIAL/SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS
14. ADMINISTRATIVE MANY GOVT MINISTRIES - MOH&FW, SINGLE
5. 15. CURRENT STATUS
● The Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954
● The Fruit Products Order, 1955
● The Milk and Milk Products
Order, 1992
● The Meat Food Products
Order, 1973
● The Vegetable Oil Products
(Control) Order, 1947
● The Edible Oils Packaging
(Regulation) Order, 1998
● The Solvent Extracted Oil, De
oiled Meal, and Edible Flour
(Control) Order, 1967
● Essential Commodities Act,
1955 (in relation to food)
INEFFECTIVE ACTIVE (8)
1. PFA, 1954
2. FPO, 1955
3. MMPO, 1992
4. MFPO, 1973
5. VPO, 1947
6. EPO, 1998
7. SOLVENT, 1967
8. ECA, 1955
16. RESPONSIBILITY FOOD INSPECTOR FBO (FOOD BUSINESS
OPERATOR)
6. M. Mohammed vs Union Of India, 2014
FACTS
Petitioner imported ungarbled Areca Nut/Betel Nut/Supari from Sri Lanka on 19th June 2014 (Above 50kgs). He
submitted a Bill of entry in Chennai Airport. Subsequently, customs commissioner issued an examination order asked
him to carry out tests and get clearance/NOC from second authorized officer (FSO).
Petitioner challenged the order and filed a writ before the Madras High Court. He objected and claimed that areca nut
does not come under the category of “Food”. So does not require any clearance. Single bench rejected the writ petition.
And backed authorities who argued that as per FSSA, it comes under the ambit of food.
He then filed an appeal in the division bench(Intra appeal). MM was entitled to any benefits and ungarbled areca nuts
comes under the definition of primary food as per Section 3(1)j of the FSsSA.
So the question is whether ungarbled areca nut is “food” or not. SC dismissed the appeal.
Al Marwa Traders vs Asst. Commissioner Of Imports on 4 January, 2007
7. Section 3(1)(j) in The Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006
According to Section 3(j) "food" means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or
unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food, to the extent
defined in clause (ZK) genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients,
infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including
water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any
animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human
consumption, plants prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or
psychotropic substances: Provided that the Central Government may declare, by notification in the
Official Gazette, any other article as food for the purposes of this Act having regards to its use,
nature, substance or quality;
Ex: Paddy(unprocessed), Rice(partially processed), Cooked Rice(processed)
