This year, the theme of World Food Safety Day, which has been observed on 7 June, is “Food Security: Science in Science”. This is a suitable moment to reflect the trip to India, to develop food adulteration with a narrow care to embrace a more comprehensive, science-based approach to food security. But despite the progress, there are gaps and challenges.
Started with prevention of travel to India on food security Adulteration of food (PFA) Act of 1954, which saw food security as a simple, binary issue – is being mixed with food. This approach treated all the contributors equally, whether they deliberately added adulteration, food additives, pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues, or even naturally occurring toxins. The quantity consumed was not considered.
The Turning Point Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was enacted, which established India’s Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSAI). Drawing on international best practices, especially those of the Codex Elementary Commission, FSSAI adopted a risk-based approach to food security. This included maximum residual limits (MRL) for pesticides, defines safe levels for food adders and adopting standards for contaminated materials and veterinary drug residues.
By 2020, FSSAI managed to develop and align India’s food security standards, so that they were almost at a parity with those in advanced countries. However, this rapid progress also highlighted some weaknesses.
Gaps and challenges in risk evaluation
A fundamental issue is the lack of India-specific toxic study. Most safety standards, including MRL for pesticides and acceptable daily intake (ADI) values for food additives, are based on international data, which cannot accurately reflect Indian dietary habits, agricultural practices, or environmental conditions accurately. The absence of total diet studies (TDS) further complicates risk evaluation. Such studies are required to assess the cumulative risk of consumers for various contributors through their entire diet. Without TDS, India depends on fragmented data, which weakens the scientific base of its safety standards.
Another challenge is effective risk communication. Technical words like MRLS and ADI are expressed in the amount of minute (per million part, or PPM, or per billion, or PPB, or PPB) – which is difficult for consumers to understand. These can cause confusion, especially when security boundaries are modified. For example, the decision to modify MRL for pesticides more restrictive 0.01 mg/kg to practical 0.1 mg/kg caused public concern, many interpreted it as a decrease in safety.
An example of heritage issues
The issue of a frequent inheritance is the regulation of monosodium glutamate (MSG), a taste enhancer that has been studied largely and found to be consistently safe. Since 1971, the Joint Specialist Committee on Food Adventies (JECFA) has declared MSG safe for consumption. In 1987, Jecfa allocated the “Adi not specified” status to MSG. All countries now follow this global consent.
In India, MSG rules have developed considerably. Initially, MSG was allowed only in meat products, but its use is gradually allowed in all foods, but with a compulsory warning label that it is unsafe for infants. This is contrary to other countries, where MSG is recognized as a safe food addict, and the old warning labels have been removed.
The warning label in India is misleading because glutamates (naturally occurring compounds are chemically similar to MSG) are abundant in everyday foods such as tomatoes, mushrooms, and garlic, as well as breast milk. As a result, consumers are often left with wrong confidence that MSG is naturally harmful, causing unnecessary fear and confusion. As a result, consumers are often left with wrong confidence that MSG is naturally harmful, causing unnecessary fear and confusion.
Such a legacy approach opposes global scientific consent and highlights the challenge of balanced consumer concerns with scientific evidence. It also refers to a comprehensive problem, which is India’s trend to allow some old rules to remain, even when they struggle with current scientific understanding.
A passage for more and more scientific hardness
India has made significant progress in food security, but requires target efforts to maintain this progress. Investing in India-specific research, including local toxic studies and a comprehensive TDS, is important to understand the cumulative risk for contaminants. Risk communication should be improved by simplifying scientific messages and changing misleading labels, such as for MSG, with clear, evidence-based information. Strengthening the capacity of risk evaluators through continuous training ensures that they remain updated with the latest science to make sound decisions. Keeping transparency, it is necessary to update regular reviews and updated standards to suit new research. Finally, it is important to build a public trust through open and coherent connections with stakeholders including industry, consumers and public. These steps will help India to pursue and pursue their commitment to safe, science-based food systems that protect public health and promote informed options.
FSSAI has prepared a strong base for food security in India, but needs to maintain this progress for science, transparency and public education. Regulatory decisions should be driven by evidence rather than public fear or out-dated assumptions. As we look forward, India should continue to balance scientific hardness with effective risk communication, ensuring that consumers are informed, confident and preserved without reducing unnecessary fear.
Pawan Aggarwal is the former CEO of India’s Food Safety and Standards Authority. He is currently the CEO of the Food Future Foundation (India), a non-profit organization, and a global organization, a senior advisor to the International Fund for a Global Organization (IFAD).
Published – June 07, 2025 12:08 am IST