|
|
|
You can get e-magazine links on WhatsApp. Click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
HC grills PepsiCo for using expired ingredients
|
|
Thursday, 02 September, 2010, 08 : 00 AM [IST]
|
|
|
“Would PepsiCo apply the same yardstick in the US, when it comes to complying with legal norms,” questioned the Bombay High Court on Tuesday. A division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice Dhananjay Chandrachud is currently hearing a petition filed by PepsiCo India against a temporary suspension of its manufacturing licence last year.
Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Pune, had suspended the licence for its plants at Ranjangaon and Taregaon after an inspection in May 2009 found that the company was using some ingredients which had passed their expiry dates. Potato chips and and some other packed foods are made at these plants. After the appellate officer at the FDA rejected its appeal, the company challenged this action before the High Court.
PepsiCo lawyer Janak Dwarkadas argued that even under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, a food item does not become ‘adulterated’ merely because it is past ‘best before’ date. “Ours is a giant multinational, it is not some fly-by-night operator,” he pleaded. To this, the division bench asked, “Would you do this in the US? This (using stale ingredients) was a risk not worth taking,” the judges added.
Dwarkadas argued that there were differences between selling a finished food product that was past its ‘best before date’ and using a raw material which was past its ‘best before date.’ Further the Act says that a food item or an ingredient which is past ‘best before date’ may not be unfit for human consumption,’ he said.
However, the bench said that it would not like to apply the standards of criminal trial in this case to give the company the benefit of strict interpretation of the law. The court said when the company used old ingredients to make the final products (chips, etc.), which themselves had an expiry date, “you were extending the (expiry) date.”
When advocate Dwarakdas asked if that meant the company was giving a “false warranty” to its consumers, the judges said it was so. The hearing would continue on Wednesday.
-- Agencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|