According to a report in Economic Times the FSSAI rejected the applications on account of assessment of risk or safety, according to a statement on the regulator's website. Applications by Tata Starbucks that were disallowed include over 30 variants of puddings, sauces, mixes, syrups, tea and coffee. For Tata Starbucks, the local joint venture of the world's largest coffee chain, this was possibly the single biggest set of product approval requests that was rejected by the regulator in one go, says the news report.
Other products that were rejected include McCain's battered pepper and cheese bites, Venky's chicken Arabic-style kofta and crispy chicken burger patty, Kellogg's Special K-red berries, Del Monte's egg mayonnaise/salad dressing variants, natural vinegar and a proprietary hot sauce, and Ferrero Rocher's proprietary milky and cocoa spreads with cereals and milk chocolate.
The CEO of FSSAI, Mr. YS Malik has reportedly said that the system of product approval has been projected as a highly contentious issue. "There are a number of reasons for the industry's anguish...I do not wish to be drawn into the debate about the merits of product approval, especially proprietary food, at this stage," he said in an open letter to the industry. He could not be reached for comment, according to ET.
The notice lists applications received by the food regulatory body. ‘The approval requests have been pending for a while now. We had factored in that the approval could take even more time so we moved on with our other products," said the CEO of one of the companies whose product approval request was rejected, asking not to be identified. Another company official said that although the decision can be challenged in court, it is a long-drawn process. "We would not want to get into those issues. Product approval, as it is, is so slow that we end up losing,” adds the ET Report.
Wine and Spirits sector suffers too
There is a similar situation for the imported wine and spirits industry as well. The delays have been inordinate for a number of reasons and the importers are suffering due to ambiguity. Most people are too small and financially unable to challenge the decisions in the court. The loss of imports due to the arbitrariness and ambiguity has caused the wine and spirits importers to lose an average of 15-20% of the sales on the average for 2014-15, based on our discussions with the top importers. At least one import company belonging to a big industrialist has decided to shut its doors rather than face the ambiguities and has cited FSSAI as the main reason to quit.
Interestingly, in the case of wine and spirits industry, no samples have been reported to be rejected so far due to the liquid inside the bottle, according to all the importers contacted by delWine. An RTI filed by a member drew a vague reply that did not confirm any such rejection. Till date, there are no draft standards that can define how a label should look like, according to importers. The earlier issues like English language, date of manufacture, lot number, name and address of the producer tallying with the invoice, size of fonts and colour of letters describing the alcohol level and the quantity to be in ML (750 mL and not 75 cL) have all been incorporated after a year of tussle and confusion that resulted in many shipments being sent back or withheld at the exporters’ end.
The issue of ingredients has been the most contentious –a confounding and confusing one. The regulatory body has not come up with a standard format, according to the importers, none of whom likes to be identified due to fear of reprisals. This is an unpleasant and unhealthy state of business in a country that has been inviting foreign investments, the importers rue. Although the leading importer Pernod Ricard refuses to confirm or deny, the grapevine has it that they have not been able to clear any wine shipments for the last 3-4 months and have lost the sale of around 10,000 cases. Being a responsible corporate citizen, they try to follow the law to the letter and do not approve of confrontation with the authorities.
Every importer that delWine interacted with, is totally supportive of the law regarding the food safety. In principle, they want to import only the products that are fit for human consumption. They are willing to follow the procedures-provided they are guided and advised on what the specific requirements are.
Interestingly, most overseas producers with a few exceptions are used to working in different country climates and are supportive of the importers and the lawmakers. They have generally gone out of the way to support them even though it has cost them extra. But they are stumped when the same label is asked to be changed in every shipment or a shipment is sent back because of the same label rejected in the following shipment or the next one, causing loss to them and the importer. Used to dealing with strict and complex procedures in several countries like the US and Russia, they like to have the specific requirement which the importers are unable to provide. The complex situation is compounded as each time the label is changed, it has to be sent to the excise department for fresh approval.
Baby Steps
Teething troubles are bound to take place when stringent laws are suddenly put in place and the procedures are not clearly defined. The importers are hopeful that the draft standards which are under preparation, will be ready in a few weeks and the working might ease and the current impasse, with many having no stocks of many labels and thus losing sales, will be broken.
In the meantime, a nationwide survey on milk adulteration by FSSAI has indicated that 68.4 per cent of the samples lifted from 33 states did not conform to the prescribed standards for milk. In the survey that was conducted through five regional offices of FSSAI in 2011, a total of 1,791 samples were drawn and tested in the government laboratories, Minister for Health and Family Welfare, J P Nadda has said in Rajya Sabha, according to another report in ET. This is the current environment in which the wines are being rejected for mere labelling requirements.
The food, wine and spirits importers would do well to continuously engage the regulatory body in discussions to get clear and specific instructions on what is required to be done to meet the applicable legal standards. It would of course help if the regulator tries to address and understand the genuine problems of the aggrieved importers too.
Read more at:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com |