In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that every person has a right to be informed about what he is consuming. The division bench, comprising Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, was hearing a plea moved by a trust comprising members following a strict vegetarian lifestyle. They were aggrieved by the fact that manufacturers of a plethora of products, including eatables, were keeping consumers in the dark by not disclosing the real source of the ingredients.
Now-a-days, consumers are mindful of the quality, potency, purity and standard of goods or services. However, owing to the absence of proper labelling as well as advertising gimmicks, consumers are more often than not, unable to make a rational choice. In order to lay down standards and guidelines for consumer safety, protection of their health and regulation of the food sector, the government enacted the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and framed the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011. This was meant to ensure safe, wholesome and nutritious food for consumers, disclosing all essential information pertaining to its manufacturing, processing and storing.
The Act mandates that food business operators shall ensure that there is disclosure of all the ingredients used in manufacturing or processing of the product, and that the labelling and presentation of the food, the packaging materials used and the information displayed about the product does not mislead consumers. They are also required to declare on the packaging whether the food is vegetarian or non-vegetarian with green or brown-coloured dots, respectively.
The petition was filed by Ram Gaua Raksha Dal, an association following the Namdhari sect, which profess vegetarianism. The main contention raised by the association was that many products, including eatables that are available in the market, are unfit for consumption and use by those who profess strict vegetarianism. This was because they either had non-vegetarian ingredients or were processed in such a way that they cannot be described as “strictly vegetarian”. To substantiate its claim, the petitioner cited the manufacturing of white sugar, where bone char/natural carbon is used for whitening or refining the sugar. Other examples cited by the association include sugar, cheese, oil and juices.
Also Read: Haridwar dharam sansad: Allahabad HC issues notice to Waseem Rizvi, UP govt
The petitioner sought formulation of guidelines and policies to strictly implement the existing rules for mandating manufacturers to label their products according to the nature of the ingredients used. Furthermore, the petitioner sought marking or labelling of all consumable items not only on the basis of their ingredients, but also on the basis of the items used during the manufacturing processes. In addition, the petitioner sought the setting up of an expert committee to examine the feasibility of labelling the products as vegetarian or non-vegetarian, as is already mandatory for eatables, toiletries and cosmetic items.
The association drew the attention of the bench to the fact that when animal fat is used, be it pork fat/lard, beef fat or extracts, regulations require specific declaration. However, when it comes to the disclosure of the source of other ingredients, such as cheese and gum base, there is no such obligation.
It was alleged that the lack of insistence under Clause 2(d) of Regulation 2.2.2 of 2011 Regulations about the disclosure of compound ingredients which constitute less than 5% of the food infringes on the rights of consumers as they are kept in the dark about the real source of such compound ingredients. It was contended that the said relaxation violates Articles 21, 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution and impinges on their freedom of informed choice.
The bench noted that the Food Safety and Standards Act casts an obligation on food business operators to make a declaration on all food items. At the same time, some operators were taking advantage of the fact that the Act does not specifically oblige them to disclose the source from which the ingredients are obtained.
Also Read: Aadhaar-Voter ID linking: Data at risk, at State’s mercy and privacy worries dog plan, say experts
The bench referred to an ingredient coded as E631 denoting disodium inosinate which is often sourced from pig fat and used as a food additive in noodles, potato chips and a variety of other snacks. There is often no disclosure on the packaging that the food article where this ingredient is used is a non-vegetarian product.
Even though their usage may constitute a miniscule percentage, the use of non-vegetarian ingredients would render such food articles non-vegetarian, and would offend the religious and cultural sensibilities/sentiments of strict vegetarians and interfere in their right to freely profess, practice and propagate their religion and belief, the bench said. “Every person has a right to know as to what he/she is consuming, and nothing can be offered to the person on a platter by resort to deceit, or camouflage,” held the bench. On account of the failure of authorities to check lapses in compliance of the Act and Regulations, many food articles which have ingredients sourced from animals, are passed off as vegetarian by affixing the green dot, thereby, deceiving the public at large, particularly those who wish to profess strict vegetarianism.
The bench consequently directed that the operators make a “full and complete” disclosure of all the ingredients that go into the manufacturing of food articles, irrespective of their percentage, indicating clearly their source, in whatever measure they are used. In addition, the bench made it clear that there should be full and strict compliance of the Regulations by the operators, and any failure on their part would expose them to class action for violation of the fundamental rights of public and invite punitive damages apart from prosecution.
Also Read: Police recover kidnapped 15-year-old girl, produce her in Allahabad High Court
For raising awareness among the people of their legal and constitutional obligations and rights, the bench declared that the order should be given adequate publicity.
Earlier, the bench had called for a status report from the ministries of health and family welfare, consumer affairs, food and public distribution and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India on the issue. It observed that “there can be no denying the fact that every person has a right to know—which springs from the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), and the right to practice and profess his/her beliefs—which springs from Article 25 of the Constitution of India. The issues raised by the petitioner also have a bearing on the persons’ right to life, recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch, as, a person is entitled to make informed choices—which is also protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
—By Banshika Garg and India Legal Bureau