The government’s decision to enforce the compulsory disclosure of nutritional details on packets of processed foods, with effect from March 19, comes after nearly three years of dilly-dallying. All the more reason therefore to welcome it, though it may create some problems for small-scale food processors. The notification for such a measure was first issued in July 2006, and then put on hold to give time to the food processing industry to prepare itself for the new regime. Over the last 30 months, the proposed norms for food labelling have been progressively simplified and even relaxed, in order to address the objections raised by companies. Nevertheless, the information now sought to be carried on labels seems good enough to allow consumers to know what they are buying/eating. The disclosures include an elaborate nutritional profile of the product, indicating its energy value, content of protein, carbohydrates and sugar, fats, vitamins and minerals. Further, if any claims are made regarding the amount and types of fatty acids and cholesterol in the package, the label will have to mention the detailed break-up of these fats, giving specific amounts of saturated fatty acids, mono-unsaturated fatty acids, poly-unsaturated fatty acids and cholesterol. In particular, trans-fatty acids, which are known to be harmful for the heart as they push down good cholesterol and raise bad cholesterol in the human body, are required to be mentioned.
The need for such labelling (which is standard practice in all developed countries) has been felt ever since the consumption of processed and ready-to-serve foods began rising. Since such foods need additives and preservatives, which may not be natural constituents of the basic food product, consumers need to know what they are and how their health could be affected. Such information becomes critical when the producers of soft drinks, snacks, vegetable oils and other foods describe their products as low-fat, fat-free, low-calorie, light, cholesterol-free or low-cholesterol. These terms are often used quite loosely and even interchangeably, leaving the consumer confused about what is real and what a bogus claim. The new disclosure norms should put an end to this and thereby permit the consumer to make an informed choice, especially since consumers themselves have become more conscious and knowledgeable about the impact of food additives on health.
The trouble is that while the government’s intentions are eminently endorsable, its enforcement is likely to pose some problems. For starters, there is the old problem of a multiplicity of authorities and laws, so that the legal and regulatory regime concerning food quality is still a grey area. While the law on food adulteration, under which the new labelling norms have been notified, is administered by the health ministry, the Fruit Products Order (PFO) that regulates processed fruits and vegetable products comes under the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. The Packaged Commodities Rules and the Weights and Measures Act also regulate this sector. And, a Food Safety and Standards Authority has been set up recently under the new integrated food law, and this may evolve its own regulatory procedures for the entire food sector.
Adherence to the new labelling norms is unlikely to be easy for some sections, even though the notification leaves out non-nutritive products like packaged drinking water, single-ingredient products and the food served for immediate consumption by hotels, vendors and halwais. Small-scale enterprises producing biscuits, confectionery, namkeens and a host of other popular snacks (often for purely local distribution) may be in difficulty as the contents may vary from batch to batch, and periodic testing may test a small unit’s financial, managerial, technical and other resources. If the law is properly implemented (as it should be), it could well mean the decline of the cottage-level food processing units that have mushroomed in recent years.
