Maintaining India's progress in food safety standards

The Hindu

a day ago

This year, the theme of World Food Safety Day, which is observed on June 7, is 'Food Safety: Science in Action'. It is an opportune moment to reflect on India's journey, evolving from a narrow focus on preventing food adulteration to embracing a more comprehensive, science-based approach to food safety. But despite the progress, there are gaps and challenges.
India's journey on food safety began with the Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act of 1954, which viewed food safety as a simple, binary issue — food being adulterated or not. This approach treated all contaminants alike, whether they were intentionally added adulterants, food additives, pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues, or even naturally occurring toxins. The quantity consumed was not considered.
The turning point was the enactment of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which established the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). Drawing on international best practices, particularly those of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the FSSAI adopted a risk-based approach to food safety. This included setting maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides, defining safe levels for food additives, and adopting standards for contaminants and veterinary drug residues.
By 2020, the FSSAI managed to develop and align India's food safety standards so that they were almost on a par with those in advanced countries. However, this rapid progress also exposed certain weaknesses.
The gaps and challenges in risk assessment
A fundamental issue is the lack of India-specific toxicological studies. Most safety standards, including MRLs for pesticides and acceptable daily intake (ADI) values for food additives, are based on international data, which may not accurately reflect Indian dietary habits, agricultural practices or environmental conditions. The absence of total diet study (TDS) further complicates risk assessment. Such studies are essential to assess the cumulative exposure of consumers to various contaminants through their entire diet. Without TDS, India relies on fragmented data, which weaken the scientific basis of its safety standards.
Another challenge is effective risk communication. Technical terms such as MRLs and ADIs are expressed in minute quantities (parts per million, or ppm, or parts per billion, or ppb) – that are difficult for consumers to understand. These can lead to confusion, especially when safety limits are revised. For instance, the decision to revise the MRL for pesticides from a highly restrictive 0.01 mg/kg to a more practical 0.1 mg/kg led to public concern, with many interpreting it as a reduction in safety.
An example of legacy issues
A persistent legacy issue is the regulation of monosodium glutamate (MSG), a flavour enhancer that has been extensively studied and consistently found to be safe. Since 1971, the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has declared MSG safe for consumption. In 1987, the JECFA allocated an 'ADI not specified' status to MSG. All countries follow this global consensus now.
In India, MSG regulations have evolved significantly. Initially, MSG was only allowed in meat products, but its use has gradually been permitted in all foods, but with a mandatory warning label that it is unsafe for infants. This is in sharp contrast to other countries, where MSG is recognised as a safe food additive, and outdated warning labels have been removed.
The warning label in India is misleading because glutamates (naturally occurring compounds chemically identical to MSG) are abundant in everyday foods such as tomato, mushroom and garlic, as well as breast milk. As a result, consumers are often left with the mistaken belief that MSG is inherently harmful, leading to unnecessary fear and confusion. As a result, consumers are often left with the mistaken belief that MSG is inherently harmful, leading to unnecessary fear and confusion.
Such a legacy approach contradicts global scientific consensus and exposes the challenge of balancing consumer concerns with scientific evidence. It also reflects a broader problem, which is India's tendency to allow some outdated regulations to persist, even when they conflict with current scientific understanding.
A path to greater scientific rigor
India has made significant strides in food safety, but sustaining this progress requires targeted efforts. Investing in India-specific research, including localised toxicological studies and a comprehensive TDS, is vital to understand cumulative exposure to contaminants. Risk communication should be improved by simplifying scientific messages and replacing confusing labels, such as those for MSG, with clear, evidence-based information. Strengthening the capacity of risk assessors through continuous training ensures that they stay updated with the latest science for sound decision-making. Regular reviews and updating standards in line with new research, while maintaining transparency, are essential. Finally, building public trust through open and consistent engagement with stakeholders including industry, consumers, and the public is key. These steps will help India uphold and advance its commitment to safe, science-based food systems that protect public health and promote informed choices.
The FSSAI has laid a strong foundation for food safety in India, but sustaining this progress requires a commitment to science, transparency, and public education. Regulatory decisions must be driven by evidence rather than public fears or out-dated perceptions. As we look ahead, India must continue to balance scientific rigour with effective risk communication, ensuring that consumers are informed, confident, and protected without harbouring unnecessary fear.
Pawan Agarwal is the former CEO of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. He is currently the CEO of the Food Future Foundation (India), a non-profit organisation, and a Senior Adviser to the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), a global organisation