Food safety regulation under FSSAI and the FSS Act, 2006

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. Under the FSSA, 2006, state-level food authorities — such as the FSDA in Uttar Pradesh — are empowered to enforce food safety standards and take action against violations, including penalties and action against licences of food business operators. This is consistent with the Act's enforcement architecture, which devolves day-to-day regulatory action to designated state authorities. Statement 2 is incorrect. Section 18(1)(a) of the FSSA, 2006, is a general consumer-protection provision that calls for 'an appropriate level of protection of human life and health' and fair practices in food trade — it does not mandate prescription of a uniform shelf life. The determination of shelf life under the FSSA framework is left to individual food business operators, who assess it based on ingredients, manufacturing processes, and storage conditions. No uniform shelf life is centrally prescribed by the Act or its authorities. Statement 3 is incorrect. The FSSA framework makes clear that the food business operator bears continuing responsibility for ensuring the product meets applicable food safety and quality standards throughout the period declared by the operator. Declaring a use-by date does not transfer regulatory or quality responsibility to the food authority; it is the operator's own commitment, and the operator is held accountable for maintaining safety standards during that window. The regulatory authority's role is oversight and enforcement, not substitution for the operator's duty of care.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. FSSAI, constituted under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, has the statutory mandate to set standards for all food products, including infant foods, and to issue draft regulations — as it has done with its proposal to eliminate added sucrose and fructose from infant food formulations. Statement 2 is incorrect. The IMS Act, 1992 primarily restricts the aggressive marketing and promotion of infant milk substitutes, feeding bottles, and infant foods for children up to two years of age; it is not the primary instrument governing nutritional composition standards (that role belongs to FSSAI's regulations under the 2006 Act). Confusing these two roles — marketing restriction vs. composition standard-setting — is a common misconception. Statement 3 is correct. The Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally recognised food standards, guidelines, and codes of practice developed jointly by WHO and FAO. Manufacturers sometimes invoke Codex standards to defend formulations that national regulators or WHO itself consider insufficiently stringent, which is precisely the dynamic described in the infant-food sugar debate.

Explanation

Under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the Commissioner of Food Safety is a state government appointee responsible for overseeing food safety administration across the entire state. The Designated Officer — typically at the district level — is appointed by this Commissioner and handles food safety administration for a specified geographic area. Food Safety Officers (FSOs) are also appointed by the Commissioner of Food Safety and are assigned to specific local jurisdictions, where they conduct inspections and seizures in response to complaints or contraventions; they report upward to the Designated Officer. All three pairs accurately describe this three-tier state-level enforcement hierarchy under the FSS Act, 2006. A key constitutional implication of this architecture is that the FSSAI CEO, being a Central authority, is not a 'Commissioner of Food Safety' under the Act and therefore cannot lawfully appoint FSOs — a point central to Maharashtra's writ petition challenging the creation of 'Central Food Safety Officers'.

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct: FSSAI, exercising powers under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), 2006, has prescribed a maximum Total Polar Compounds (TPC) limit for cooking oil (25% TPC). Oil exceeding this threshold is unfit for human consumption and must be removed from the food chain — this is the scientific and regulatory basis of the RUCO initiative. Statement 2 is correct: The RUCO framework mandates that FBOs registered with FSSAI participate in used cooking oil collection programmes, and that authorised collectors direct UCO exclusively to legitimate industrial uses (such as biodiesel, soap manufacture, or aviation fuel), expressly prohibiting its diversion back into the food supply. Statement 3 is false: FSSAI is a statutory body — created by an Act of Parliament (the FSS Act, 2006) — not a constitutional body. Constitutional bodies are those established directly by provisions of the Constitution of India (such as the Election Commission under Article 324, or the CAG under Article 148). Part XIV of the Constitution deals with services under the Union and States, not food safety regulators. FSSAI derives its existence and powers entirely from the FSS Act, 2006, making it a statutory body whose standards and directions are legally binding by virtue of that statute, not the Constitution.

Explanation

Statement 1 is false. FSSAI is a statutory body, not a constitutional body. It was established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — an ordinary Act of Parliament. Article 47 of the Constitution is a Directive Principle of State Policy that directs the State to improve nutrition and public health, but it does not itself create FSSAI or any regulatory authority. Because FSSAI is a creature of statute, it can be abolished or restructured by parliamentary legislation alone, without any constitutional amendment — which is the hallmark distinction between statutory and constitutional bodies. Statement 2 is correct. The FSS Act, 2006 empowers FSSAI to prescribe regulatory standards and inspection protocols for food businesses. Legal action for violations can be initiated under both the parent Act and the subordinate Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 — a standard two-tier enforcement architecture where the Rules operationalise the parent Act's mandate. Statement 3 is correct. The FSS Act, 2006 provides a quasi-judicial adjudication mechanism: penalties for violations are assessed by a designated Adjudicating Officer, not by FSSAI's inspection teams themselves. This separation between the inspecting authority and the adjudicating authority is a structural feature of the Act's enforcement design, ensuring procedural fairness.