|
Licensing and registration off the target pan-India, as FBOs uncertain
|
|
Thursday, 14 December, 2017, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
Ashwani Maindola, New Delhi
|
While about 30,413 Central licenses and 8,02,794 state licenses have been issued to food business operators (FBOs) so far, approximately 30,43,603 registrations have been done. But it is way off the target, and Pawan Kumar Agarwal, chief executive officer, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), rued the uncertainty of the FBOs regarding the importance of obtaining a license from or registering with the country’s apex food regulator (as the case may be), to sell food products. It is mandatory to ensure the consumers’ health and safety.
FSSAI is continuously requesting the states and Union Territories (UTs) to undertake surveillance for the FBOs operating without a valid licenses or registrations.
The apex regulator has stated that such FBOs are liable to be penalised under the following Sections of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006:
Section 58: Penalty for contravention for which no specific penalty is provided, wherein FBOs operating without a registration certificate are liable to pay a penalty upto Rs 2 lakh.
Section 63: Punishment for carrying out a business without a license. Such FBOs shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term upto six months and with a fine upto Rs 5 lakh.
Agarwal stated that obtaining a license was not an end itself. “The FBOs are expected to follow certain practices to maintain hygiene and good manufacturing practices (GMP). Those expectations should be known to them as the pre-requisites of the licensing and registration regulations,” he added.
FSSAI has, therefore, started this training programme for the food businesses.
Agarwal said, “It is important whether the process was followed or whether they are taking food safety consideration into notice. We are planning a licensing and registration drive, which will begin with big food businesses. If there are weaknesses in their system, we will encourage them to fill the gaps.”
To know if the FBOs are following the norms, it is integral to inspect the food premises. The FSSAI chief stated that it was an integral and important part of the food safety ecosystem, adding that was not being done regularly in the Indian scenario.
That might be the reason for the slow compliance with the regulations. And, therefore, the apex regulator wants to establish a system of regular inspection.
Agarwal said, “Moving forward we want to establish that system of regular inspection of premises. And continuously tackle such issues based on risks. Risk-based surveillance is a part of the food safety officers’ manual using information technology (IT) platforms like Food Safety Compliance Through Regular Inspection and Sampling (FoSCoRIS).”
“Madhya Pradesh, Goa and Delhi (partly) have implemented it, and we are planning to roll it out in other states as well. This would bring transparency to the whole operation of the food safety enforcement and compliance. We expect most of the state to come on board a few months from now. We would review the progress made in this regard a few months from now,” he added.
|
Serial
number
|
Regional
office
|
Number
of Central
licenses
issued
(As
on March
20,
2017)
|
-
1
|
Delhi
Regional Office-I
|
3,199
|
-
2
|
Chennai
|
7,237
|
-
3
|
Delhi
|
6,647
|
-
4
|
Guwahati
|
1,100
|
-
5
|
Kolkata
|
2,856
|
-
6
|
Mumbai
|
9,374
|
|
|
Total
|
30,413
|
|
Report
on licensing/registration in States/UTs
(till December
6,
2017)
|
|
Serial
Number
|
State/UT
|
Number
of
licenses
issued
|
Number
of registrations
issued
|
|
1
|
Andaman
and Nicobar
Islands
|
1,006
|
10,963
|
|
2
|
Andhra
Pradesh
|
31,384
|
43,204
|
|
3
|
Arunachal
Pradesh
|
1,966
|
6,245
|
|
4
|
Assam
|
9,061
|
5,498
|
|
5
|
Bihar
|
10,474
|
25,522
|
|
6
|
Chandigarh
|
3,402
|
1,344
|
|
7
|
Chhattisgarh
|
11,772
|
11,332
|
|
8
|
Dadra
and
Nagar
Haveli
|
1,128
|
2,911
|
|
9
|
Daman
and
Diu
|
585
|
3,902
|
|
10
|
Delhi
|
17,050
|
57,817
|
|
11
|
Goa
|
3,216
|
24,696
|
|
12
|
Gujarat
|
49,384
|
1,12,223
|
|
13
|
Haryana
|
8,712
|
18,185
|
|
14
|
Himachal
Pradesh
|
10,248
|
1,03,011
|
|
15
|
Jammu
and
Kashmir
|
9,459
|
82,912
|
|
16
|
Jharkhand
|
5,765
|
13,881
|
|
17
|
Karnataka
|
1,01,687
|
2,37,134
|
|
18
|
Kerala
|
55,488
|
1,64,603
|
|
19
|
Lakshadweep
|
19
|
1,752
|
|
20
|
Madhya
Pradesh
|
38,549
|
3,89,885
|
|
21
|
Maharashtra
|
2,05,688
|
6,91,285
|
|
22
|
Manipur
|
1,151
|
5,619
|
|
23
|
Meghalaya
|
1,900
|
3,546
|
|
24
|
Mizoram
|
584
|
3,926
|
|
25
|
Nagaland
|
611
|
5,383
|
|
26
|
Odisha
|
9,179
|
13,299
|
|
27
|
Puducherry
|
1,833
|
3,320
|
|
28
|
Punjab
|
18,295
|
1,05,290
|
|
29
|
Rajasthan
|
46,369
|
1,83,606
|
|
30
|
Sikkim
|
1,343
|
4,510
|
|
31
|
Tamil
Nadu
|
42,964
|
1,59,327
|
|
32
|
Telangana
|
15,347
|
12,694
|
|
33
|
Tripura
|
1,161
|
3,848
|
|
34
|
Uttarakhand
|
9,162
|
67,430
|
|
35
|
Uttar
Pradesh
|
51,722
|
4,02,072
|
|
36
|
West
Bengal
|
25,130
|
61,428
|
|
Total
|
8,02,794
|
30,43,603
|
|
Grand
Total
|
38,46,397
|
|
|