At the 90-year-old Poona Guest House, known for its authentic Maharashtrian cuisine, food safety is not left to chance. Third-generation owner Kishore Sarpotdar ensures pest control is carried out twice a month. He checks refrigerator temperatures, cooking oil registers and staff training, and makes sure hand-wash stations have soap and water. Exhaust systems, insect-proof doors and windows are also part of his checklist.
That perhaps captures the larger problem with India’s food safety regime. The country does not lack rules, it lacks the ability to ensure that rules consistently translate into everyday practice. Between May 25 and July 31, FDA records show that more than 3,000 inspections were conducted across the state, resulting in 165 licence suspensions and 750 improvement notices. Pune recorded the highest number of complaints. Between May 25 and August 19, the Pune division alone saw 691 inspections, with 53 licences suspended and 408 improvement notices issued.
The fundamental question is why should food-safety compliance improve sharply when inspections intensify, instead of being embedded in the way food businesses operate every day?
Enforcement can change behaviour
Mundhe, who has been transferred 25 times over 21 years of service, told The Indian Express that preventive health must be linked to food safety. “Our health is paramount. A significant portion of disease burden comes from non-communicable diseases, and the food we consume plays an important role in our overall well-being. Our goal is to ensure safe, standardized food for a healthier future,” he explains. But enforcement cannot remain permanently dependent on the intensity of a particular inspection drive. A functioning food-safety system must make compliance routine, not reactive.
Rules are changing but awareness is still catching up
Effective April 1 this year, FSSAI revised its turnover-based licensing categories. Food businesses with annual turnover of up to Rs 1.5 crore must obtain FSSAI registration; those with turnover between Rs 1.5 crore and Rs 50 crore require a State FSSAI licence; and businesses with turnover above Rs 50 crore require a Central FSSAI licence. The distinction is important because India’s food sector ranges from small local vendors and retailers to large restaurants, manufacturers, importers and exporters.
FSSAI has issued around 26,000 licences across Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa and Madhya Pradesh, covering five-star restaurants as well as importers and exporters dealing with essential commodities entering through various ports. Yet, even among larger licensed businesses, inspections in the western region identified around 2,300 improvement notices last year. A licence establishes that a business is within the regulatory system. It does not necessarily establish that safe practices are consistently followed.
For Pritee Chaudhary, regional director at FSSAI (Western Region), the major cause of non-compliance is lack of awareness and education. Over the past three to four years, FSSAI has trained street vendors, students and other groups to detect adulteration and promote food-safety practices. Farmer-connect programmes have also been launched to connect food businesses and farmers. “In Mumbai, for instance, we have trained around 10,000 street food vendors and held over 60 officer-led training programs focused on street hygiene. Personal hygiene is vital for food safety. We are witnessing improved food preparation and serving practices, with vendors more often using headgear, proper steel chopping boards, and better waste disposal,” she says.
Training cannot become another box to tick
That is why Akash Chakor, founder of Foodkida, a food auditing and consultancy firm, argues that food safety training and certification, or FoSTac, should be mandatory before a food licence is issued. “Many food operators lack awareness of food safety laws and do not even know about FoSTac. Completing basic food safety training before starting operations helps them understand their responsibilities and maintain safe, hygienic practices,” Chakor said. His larger point is that training cannot end with certification. “Businesses must actually understand and implement what they have been taught. Otherwise, training risks becoming another compliance document rather than a mechanism for changing behaviour.”
A refrigerator may have to be maintained at a prescribed temperature to ensure food does not go bad; an employee may have to follow a particular hygiene protocol; a food outlet may have to maintain a register. The existence of a checklist does not guarantee that any of these things are happening consistently when an inspector is not present.
Enforcement should not be a numbers game
India’s regulatory framework is extensive. The more difficult question is how enforcement resources are deployed. Pawan Agarwal, former CEO of FSSAI, believes the system needs to move beyond intensive inspection. “Visible and credible action, as seen in Maharashtra recently, can change behaviour. However, long delays between violation detection and final accountability weaken deterrence. Not all violations pose the same health risk, so regulatory efforts should prioritize foods, establishments, and supply chains with the highest risk, including microbial and chemical hazards that are not always visible during inspections,” he explains.
He calls for faster case adjudication, credible lab evidence, proportionate penalties and transparency about enforcement outcomes, including when allegations do not hold.
Sarpotdar, in discussions with FDA officials, has urged a “rational” approach to enforcement. If minor compliance issues persist, businesses should be given time to correct them without public shaming, especially iconic brands whose reputation could be harmed unnecessarily. A food-safety regulator has to distinguish between a minor deficiency that can be corrected quickly and a serious violation that poses a genuine public-health risk. “The real challenge is sustained compliance without making the system dependent on periodic crackdowns,” says Sarpotdar.
The gaps go beyond kitchens and restaurants
The implementation problem is larger than restaurant hygiene. Dr Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), believes immediate action is needed to assess risks and generate data about consumption of ultra-processed foods.
“Food safety means protection from deceptive practices by food manufacturers. Much remains to be done. Pending consumer protections like Front-of-Pack Labeling (FOPL) and restrictions on marketing ultra-processed and high-fat/sugar/salt (HFSS) foods expose major regulatory gaps,” he says.
His argument expands the definition of what food regulation has to accomplish. Food safety is not merely about clean kitchens, pest control or properly stored ingredients. It also concerns what consumers are told about food, how products are marketed and whether the regulatory system keeps pace with changes in what Indians eat. The complexity is only increasing as the food industry expands into nutraceuticals and functional foods, among other categories.
The laboratory matters too
Dr Minal Jain, director of Adhrysa Lifescience Pvt Ltd, an NABL-accredited food testing lab, points to another weak link between regulation and implementation: the capacity to detect and establish violations. India’s food-safety regulations, she says, are elaborate. “But implementation is often weakened by poor enforcement, manpower shortages, inspection-capacity limits, delayed test results and lack of coordination among agencies. We need to shift from a reactive, routine approach toward a risk-based system focused on high-risk foods, supply chains, and repeat violators,” she says.
She also calls for robust laboratory infrastructure, advanced analytical capacity, and speedy access to test results — especially important given the growing complexity of the food industry with nutraceuticals and functional foods.
A regulator can inspect a food business, but if laboratory results are delayed or enforcement action takes too long, the deterrent effect is weakened. Equally, if inspection teams do not have the manpower to identify the highest-risk businesses and supply chains, the existence of detailed rules matters little.
Fourteen days before the festival, the officers will inspect manufacturing units, mills, markets, cold stores, godowns and wholesale markets. (Source: Express Archives) 
Share
