RSS

Welcome to PesPro

  07 July  2015

Tuesday

Have A Happy Day

This blog attempts to enrich the knowledge of various stake holders in Food chain with  emphasis on world class technologies

Food for thought

Thirukkural – திருக்குறள்

அதிகாரம்/Chapter/Adhigaram: பேதைமை/Folly/Pedhaimai 84
இயல்/ChapterGroup/Iyal: நட்பியல்/Friendship/Natpiyal 10
பால்/Section/Paal: பொருட்பால்/Wealth/Porutpaal 2
குறள் 832
பேதைமையுள் எல்லாம் பேதைமை காதன்மை
கையல்ல தன்கண் செயல்
மு.வ உரை:
ஒருவனுக்கு பேதைமை எல்லாவற்றிலும் மிக்க பேதைமை, தன் ஒழுக்கத்திற்குப் பொருந்தாததில் தன் விருப்பத்தை செலுத்துதல் ஆகும்.
Couplet 832
‘Mid follies chiefest folly is to fix your love
On deeds which to your station unbefitting prove
Explanation
The greatest folly is that which leads one to take delight in doing what is forbidden
Transliteration
Pedhaimaiyul Ellaam Pedhaimai Kaadhanmai
Kaiyalla Thankat Seyal
 
 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 19, 2013 in Pest Management Training

 

FSS Act – Uttaranchal HC – cross examining FSO -M/s Cargill India Private Limited vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 31 August, 2012

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                   Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1817 of 2012

M/s Cargill India Private Limited.

                                                    ... Petitioner.
                                        Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

                                                    ... Respondents.

Mr. Rajesh Batra, Advocate, with Mr. H.M.Bhatia and Ms. Sonia Kakerja, Advocates,   learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Vijay Lakshmi, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent nos. 1&2.

Date August 31, 2012.

Hon'ble B.S.Verma, J.

(Stay Application No. 9086 of 2012) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-

(a) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16-8-2012 (Annexure-2) and give appropriate opportunity to the petitioner company to cross-examine the witness as per its application filed in the adjudication proceedings bearing no. 14/2012 initiated by the Food Safety Officer, Roorkee for the alleged violation of Section 3(1)(zf)(i)(a) and (b), 31(1)(zf)(B)(ii), Section 3(1)(zx), Section 24, Section 26(2)(ii) & (v), Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.2(3)(i), 2.3(5), 2.4.2(1) & 2.4.6(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling )Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sections 51, 52, 53 and 66 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar.

(b) any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the time period 90 days will start as prescribed under Proviso to sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (for short the Rules) from the date fixed for hearing and that the case is at the stage of sub-clause (8) of the said Rule.

It appears from a reading of the Proviso appended to sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Rules that the Adjudicating Officer shall pass the final order within 90 days from the date of first hearing mentioned in rule 3.1.1 (8) above. Sub-clause (8) of the said Rule provides that on the date fixed for hearing, the Adjudicating Officer shall explain to the person or persons proceeded against or to his authorized representative, the offence alleged to have been committed by such person, indicating the provision of the Act, rules or regulations in respect of which the contravention is alleged to have taken place and the opportunity has to be given in view of sub-clause (9) of Rule 3.1.1, which provides that the Adjudicating Officer shall then given an opportunity to such person or persons to produce such documents or evidence as he may consider relevant to the inquiry and if necessary the hearing may be adjourned to a future date.

An application, which has been moved by the petitioner before the Adjudicating Officer, in Case No. 14/2012, Food Safety Officer Roorkee Vs. M/s Bharati Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others, to cross-examine the witnesses, namely, the Officers who gave reports against the petitioner. The application of the petitioner contains names of four such witnesses. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been allowed to cross-examine Food Safety Officer, while according to the petitioner, cross-examine is also necessary of the Food Analysts, who gave report in favour of the petitioner and another gave report against the petitioner and Mr. R.S.Rawat, the Designated Officer.

According to the petitioner, the learned Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate has not applied his mind and stage of sub-clause (8) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Rules has not come and no such notice has been issued against the petitioner and that the Adjudicating Officer explained the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner.

Learned Brief Holder appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. and 2, Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, is directed to seek instruction in the matter and to inform the Court whether the learned Adjudicating Officer has framed charges against the petitioner, as indicated in sub-clause (8) of Rule 3.1.1 of the Act.

List the petition on 10-9-2012.

Till the next date of listing, the Adjudicating Officer shall not proceed further in the case No. 14/2012, Food Safety Officer Roorkee Vs. M/s Bharati Retail Pvt. Ltd. and others.

(B.S.Verma, J.)

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2015 in Court cases

 

Labelling and claims – 3 – Nutrition information

Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-014Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-015Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-016Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-017Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-018Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-019Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-020Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-021Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-022Labelling & Claims_Dr. Savitri-page-023

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2015 in Food Labelling

 

How to avoid Food Poisoning – 2. Store Food Correctly

Storing Food Correctly

  1. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 10.jpg
    1
    Store foods according to their needs. The type of storage is dependent on the type of food.

    • Dry foods such as pasta, rice, lentils, beans, canned foods and cereals can all be kept in a cool, dry place such as a pantry or cupboards.
    • Other foods can be trickier and care should be taken to store them in the appropriate manner:
     
  2. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 11 Version 2.jpg
    2
    Freeze or refrigerate as necessary. Place frozen items in the freezer within 2 hours of removing them from the freezer (though ideally this should be done sooner—put them away as soon as you get home).

    • Meat, poultry, eggs, fish, pre-prepared meals, dairy products and leftovers should always be refrigerated.
    • Many foods should be kept refrigerated or in a cool, dark place, such as a cellar or pantry, once opened. Read labels for storage details and instructions. If in any doubt, always err on the side of providing a cooler environment.
  3. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 12 Version 2.jpg
    3
    Never store food in an open container. Food — particularly raw meats and leftovers should never be stored in open container.

    • Tightly cover all foods with cling wrap or tin foil, place in a container with an airtight lid, or store in a sealable plastic bag.
    • Never store food in opened tin cans, as this forms a breeding ground for bacteria. Transfer things like tomato paste and sweetcorn to a plastic container instead.[3]
     
  4. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 13.jpg
    4
    Pay attention to use-by dates. All foods, regardless of their storage status, should be eaten quickly and within their use-by dates.

    • Even spices and dried herbs lose their beneficial properties and flavors if kept too long and many items can become harmful if stored beyond their use-by date.
    • Never eat foods from dented or bulging tins or from packaging with a broken seal, even if the food is within its use-by date.[4]
  5. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 14 Version 2.jpg
    5
    Keep foods separated. At all times, keep raw meat, raw eggs and poultry away from cooked food, fresh fruits, and vegetables.

    • Store raw meat covered, on the bottom shelf of your refrigerator. This will prevent it from touching or dripping onto other foods.[5]
  6. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 15 Version 2.jpg
    6
    Protect your food from insects and animals. Food can easily become contaminated if it easily accessible to pets and pests.

    • Proper food storage — keeping food in sealed containers in a closed fridge, freezer or cupboard — will help to keep insects and animals away.
    • However, food is more susceptible to contamination by four-legged beasts during preparation and serving. Don’t leave food unattended during the preparation process and keep completed dishes covered with lids or cling wrap until they are ready to be served.
     
  7. Avoid Food Poisoning Step 16.jpg
    7
    Be extra careful during warmer weather. Food contamination from bacteria occurs much faster in warmer weather.

    • If you are eating outdoors, ensure that everyone eats the food quickly and that leftovers are brought back inside within an hour to be stored in the cool again.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2015 in Food poisoning

 

FSSAI to review caffeine standards in beverages

Food safety regulator FSSAI has decided to review caffeine standards in caffeinated and energy drinks and is looking for an agency to study the consumption pattern in the country.

Caffeinated and energy drinks are non-alcoholic beverages containing caffeine, guarana, glucuronolactone, taurine, ginseng, inositol, carnitinea, B-vitamins among others as main ingredients that act as stimulants.

“Consumption of caffeinated and energy drinks in India has shown an upward trend during the past decade. The FSSAI intends to review the caffeine standards after a detailed study on the consumption pattern of these drinks among the young people in the country,” a senior FSSAI official told PTI.

The Food and Safety Standards Association of India (FSSAI) will review the intake of caffeine and other ingredients in these drinks after conducting a detailed study, the official said.

The FSSAI has invited expressions of interest (EoI) for appointment of a suitable agency to conduct the study on the consumption pattern of caffeinated and energy drinks in India, he said.

The EoIs need to be submitted along with technical and financial bids by July 30. The bids will be valid for three months from the date of submission.

The successful bidder, to be selected by August 25, is required to complete the proposed study and submit the report by November 30, this year, the official added.

As per the draft standards notified by FSSAI, caffeinated beverages are classified as water-based non-alcoholic flavoured drinks and should contain not less than 145 mg per litre and not more than 320 mg per litre total caffeine from whatever sources it may be derived in the formulation of the product.

The FSSAI lays down science-based standards for food items and regulates their manufacturing, storage, distribution, sale and import to ensure the availability of safe food for human consumption. 

dna-060715

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2015 in Enforcement

 

FSS Act – Uttaranchal HC-Appeal against Adjudicatiing Officer – Sudhir Kapoor vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 1 November, 2012

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


            Criminal Writ Petition No.1046 of 2012

  1.     Sudhir Kapoor
  2.     Rajiv Kumar
                                                ...........Petitioners
                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another
                                               .........Respondents

Mr. J.C. Belwal and Mr. S.C. Mishra, Advocates, for the petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Rautela, AGA, for the State.


Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and taking note of the endorsement made by the Registry, it is pertinent to mention that Section 76 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is meant for preferring appeal before the High Court against the decision or order of a Special Court. Those Special Courts are constituted u/s 74 of the Act for the purposes of trial of offences relating to grievous injury or death of the consumer for which punishment of imprisonment for more than three years has been prescribed under the Act. The said Section further provides that these special courts shall be constituted by the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Learned counsel has argued that the present petition has been filed assailing the adjudication done by the Additional District Magistrate of District U.S. Nagar u/s 68 of the Act and against such adjudication, the appeal shall be preferred before the Food Safety Appellate Tribunal established u/s 70 of the Act. A further enactment has been made that against the judgment of Tribunal, an appeal can be preferred before the High Court, as envisaged u/s 71(6) of the Act.

Learned counsel has argued that since no such Tribunal has been established in the State of Uttarakhand within the meaning of Section 70 of the Act, thus, the petitioners have no option but to approach this Court by way of instant petition u/s 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the order of Adjudicating Officer, who is of the rank of Additional District Magistrate.

The Court is quite convinced with this argument and thus, admits the petition for hearing.

Registry is directed to summon the record of case no.51/5 of 2012, titled as ‘State of Uttarakhand Vs. Chand Kishore and others’, from the court of Additional District Magistrate/Adjudicating Officer, U.S. Nagar.

List after six weeks.

Meanwhile, the fine, so imposed against the petitioners, by way of impugned judgment, shall remain stayed provided the petitioners deposit half of the fine as per rules before the Adjudicating Officer, U.S. Nagar, within two weeks from today.

Stay application no.11839 of 2012 is disposed of accordingly.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 01.11.2012

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2015 in Court cases

 

Now, cooked food under varsity lens

Cocktail effect of pesticide residues in ingredient vegetables

In a move aimed at enhancing food safety standards, Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) is planning to carry out regular laboratory analysis of cooked food to assess the chemical cocktail effect of pesticide residues in the vegetables.

The Pesticide Residue Research and Analytical Laboratory under the KAU will be equipped to analyse samples of staple vegetarian dishes such as sambar, aviyal and thoran, Vice Chancellor P.Rajendran said.

“To assess the toxic impact of chemicals on health, it is important to assess how much of pesticide residues are left after cooking. Though most pesticides are known to break down on exposure to heat, some may become more toxic in combination with others. The cocktail effect could be more in dishes which are a combination of several vegetables.”

The pesticide residue lab carries out periodic analysis of vegetable samples by testing them in isolation but scientists feel that it is more important to address the manner in which chemicals mix and react with each other.

Analysis of cooked food samples presents a different kind of challenge for scientists. Unlike testing vegetables in isolation which follows validated methods, cooked food samples will have to analysed individually and in combination.

It is a highly complex process, admits Thomas Biju Mathew, Professor and principal investigator of the project. Changing dietary habits can also pose a challenge in analysing cooked food for pesticide residue.

“Initial investigations revealed that 85 to 90 per cent of pesticide residue in amaranthus decomposes on cooking while in the case of chilli, there is no significant reduction on exposure to heat. Depending on the chemistry, the cocktail effect can intensify or diminish in some preparations,” Prof. Mathew said.

Periodic tests carried out at the KAU laboratory have revealed heavy pesticide contamination of vegetables imported from neighbouring States, in contrast to those grown domestically.

Curry leaf, coriander leaf, mint leaf, and green chilly regularly supplied from big farms across the border showed heavy load of profenofos and chlorpyrifos, organophosphorous fertilizers not recommended for vegetables. High levels of pesticide residue were also detected in samples of okra, cabbage, and cauliflower.

Set up under the All India Network Project on Pesticide Residues, the KAU laboratory is equipped with sophisticated instruments such as gas chromatograph, liquid chromatograph, and mass spectrometer to detect even minute traces of pesticide.


 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2015 in Enforcement

 

Dead mouse found in palm oil sachet

SIRSI (KARNATAKA)

Maruti Seetaram Acharya of Hanumanti village in Sirsi taluk got a dead mouse free in the palm oil sachet he bought. Seetaram Acharya bought four kg of Annabhagya rice free and a palm oil sachet at a rebate rate for Rs. 25 a week ago from a fair price shop at Heepanalli near Sirsi town. When his wife opened the palm oil sachet for cooking on Saturday, they found a dead mouse that scared the members of the whole family.

“We got scared by seeing the dead mouse in the palm oil sachet and we don’t bring palm oil anymore,” they said.

TH-060715

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 6, 2015 in Pest News

 
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 625 other followers

%d bloggers like this: