Food Science & Technology · Packaging, Safety, Quality & Regulation · also Food Laws and Regulations, Food Standards, Regulatory Affairs, Food Legislation
How food is governed around the world: Codex Alimentarius and the WTO SPS and TBT agreements, and the food laws of the major jurisdictions — India's Food Safety and Standards Act and regulations, the US FD&C Act and FSMA, the EU General Food Law, and others — covering standards, additives, labelling, claims, novel foods, imports and exports.
In the exams: GATE XE-G Section 3 (FPO, PFA, AGMARK, ISI); ICAR AIEEA-PG Code 18 Unit I (national and international food standards); ICAR AICE 35.a Unit 4 and 35.b Unit 3; core of FSSAI and state Food Safety Officer syllabi
Food law is the body of legislation, regulation and standards by which governments decide what food may be produced, imported and sold, how it must be described, and who is responsible when it is unsafe. It turns the science of food safety, nutrition and quality into enforceable rules, and it shapes nearly every decision a food technologist makes: which additives a formulation may contain, what the label must say, whether a new ingredient needs approval, which certificate an export consignment needs, and what happens when a product fails a test.
Food law is national, but trade is global, so national systems are tied together by international agreements and standards. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, run jointly by FAO and WHO, writes international food standards, and the World Trade Organization's agreements on sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) and technical barriers to trade (TBT) make those standards the reference against which national rules are judged. Within that frame, India regulates food under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the United States under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Food Safety Modernization Act, and the European Union under the General Food Law, with many other systems built on similar principles.
The subject is examined in GATE XE-G Section 3, which names the older Indian instruments (FPO, PFA, AGMARK, ISI), in ICAR AIEEA-PG Code 18 Unit I (national and international food standards), in the ICAR AICE-JRF/SRF 35.a and 35.b syllabi, and above all in FSSAI and state Food Safety Officer recruitment, where the FSS Act and its regulations are the core. Laws and limits change often. This manual therefore describes the structure of each system and names its instruments, and the student must read the current text of a regulation before relying on any limit. HACCP and management systems are taught in food-safety-management-systems, the science behind limits in food-toxicology-contaminants-allergens and food-risk-analysis.
Modern food law pursues three aims: protecting human health, ensuring fair practices in the food trade, and giving consumers the information they need to choose. Most systems express these through a small number of concepts. Food is defined broadly, usually as any substance intended to be eaten or drunk by humans, including water used in food, but excluding medicines, tobacco and cosmetics, whose boundaries with food (for example for supplements) are a constant source of legal argument. Unsafe food is food injurious to health or unfit for human consumption. Adulteration covers the addition or substitution of substances, removal of valuable constituents, and production under insanitary conditions; misbranding covers false or misleading labelling and presentation. Sub-standard food fails a quality standard without necessarily being unsafe.
Responsibility is allocated deliberately. The food business operator, the person or company that runs the business, carries primary legal responsibility for the safety and compliance of its food at every stage it controls. The state sets the rules, monitors and enforces them through inspection, sampling and analysis, and sanctions breaches. Consumers are responsible for following storage and preparation instructions. This farm-to-fork approach, covering primary production, processing, distribution, retail and catering, replaced older laws that focused mainly on testing products on sale.
Food law claims legitimacy from science. The modern standard is that measures to protect health should rest on risk analysis: a risk assessment by independent scientists, risk management decisions by the regulator that take account of the assessment and other legitimate factors such as feasibility and consumer protection, and risk communication with all interested parties, as described in food-risk-analysis. The European Union separates these functions institutionally, with the European Food Safety Authority assessing and the Commission and member states managing; Codex and many national systems apply the same functional separation.
Where scientific information is insufficient and there is a reasonable concern about serious harm, the precautionary principle allows provisional measures while more evidence is obtained. Article 7 of the EU General Food Law states it explicitly, and Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement allows provisional measures on similar conditions. Precaution is meant to be temporary, proportionate and reviewed, not a permanent substitute for assessment. Other principles appear in most systems: proportionality, so that measures are no more restrictive than needed; transparency and public consultation in rule-making; non-discrimination between domestic and imported products; and legal certainty, so that businesses know the rules in advance. A food technologist who understands these principles can predict how a regulator will reason about a new ingredient or process even where the specific rules are not yet written.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization to implement the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. Its purposes are to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade, and to coordinate food standards work by international bodies. Membership is open to member states of FAO and WHO; it has over 180 member countries plus the European Union as a member organisation, and many observer organisations from industry, consumer groups and science.
The Commission meets in plenary session, normally once a year, alternately in Rome and Geneva. An Executive Committee manages work between sessions, and a Secretariat in Rome supports it. Most technical work is done in subsidiary bodies. General subject committees work horizontally across all foods: for example the committees on food labelling, food additives, contaminants in foods, pesticide residues, residues of veterinary drugs in foods, food hygiene, methods of analysis and sampling, food import and export inspection and certification systems, nutrition and foods for special dietary uses, and general principles. Commodity committees work on particular foods such as fats and oils, fish and fishery products, fresh fruits and vegetables, spices and culinary herbs, and milk and milk products; some are adjourned once their work is done. Each committee is hosted by a member country. Regional coordinating committees for Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Near East, and North America and the South-West Pacific bring regional concerns forward. Scientific advice comes from independent FAO/WHO expert bodies (JECFA, JMPR and JEMRA), not from the committees themselves.
Codex adopts three kinds of text. Standards set requirements for a food or for a horizontal topic, such as the General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, the General Standard for Food Additives and the General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed. Guidelines give principles for policy or practice, such as the guidelines on nutrition labelling or on nutrition and health claims. Codes of practice describe good practice, such as the General Principles of Food Hygiene. Maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs are also Codex texts. Each is identified by a reference: CXS for standards, CXG for guidelines and CXC for codes, followed by a number and the year of first adoption.
Standards are developed through a step procedure. In the normal eight-step procedure, the Commission or Executive Committee approves new work, a committee prepares a draft, governments and observers comment twice, the committee revises, and the Commission adopts at step 5 (as a draft) and step 8 (as a final text). An accelerated procedure omits steps when there is consensus and urgency. Decisions are by consensus wherever possible. Codex texts are voluntary: they are not binding on members unless a country adopts them into national law. Their force comes from the WTO SPS and TBT agreements, which name Codex as the reference body for food safety, so a national measure that follows a Codex standard is presumed to be consistent with the SPS Agreement. Many developing countries adopt Codex standards directly into their national law, and the Codex texts are freely available online.
The World Trade Organization was established on 1 January 1995, and its Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures entered into force with it. An SPS measure is one applied to protect human, animal or plant life or health from risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, beverages or feed, from pests and diseases carried by animals and plants, or from the entry and spread of pests. Food safety standards, MRLs, inspection and certification requirements and import bans for safety reasons are SPS measures.
The Agreement accepts that each member sets its own appropriate level of protection, but requires that measures be based on scientific principles and a risk assessment, not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, applied only to the extent necessary, and not used as disguised restrictions on trade. Members are encouraged to harmonise on international standards: for food safety the reference is Codex; for animal health, the World Organisation for Animal Health; for plant health, the International Plant Protection Convention. A measure that conforms to the international standard is presumed consistent with the Agreement; a stricter measure must be justified scientifically. Other key provisions cover equivalence (accepting different measures that achieve the same protection), regionalisation, transparency through notification of new measures and national enquiry points, and provisional measures under Article 5.7. Disputes such as EC — Hormones, in which the EU's ban on beef from hormone-treated cattle was found not to rest on an adequate risk assessment, and India — Agricultural Products, concerning avian influenza import bans, show how these rules are applied.
The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade covers technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures that are not SPS measures. In food, these include most labelling requirements about composition, quality, nutrition, origin and method of production, packaging and size requirements, and quality grades. Its principles are similar but not identical to those of the SPS Agreement: measures must pursue a legitimate objective, such as consumer information, prevention of deceptive practices or protection of health, must not be more trade-restrictive than necessary, must not discriminate between like products, and should be based on international standards where these exist and are effective. TBT disputes on food include United States — COOL, on country-of-origin labelling of meat, and United States — Tuna II, on dolphin-safe labelling.
The distinction matters in practice. A limit on aflatoxin is an SPS measure and must rest on risk assessment; a requirement that a product called 'chocolate' contain a minimum cocoa content is a TBT measure judged by its legitimate objective and its effect on trade. Both agreements push towards harmonisation, mutual recognition and equivalence agreements, which reduce the cost of trade while preserving each country's chosen protection. Countries also harmonise regionally, as within the European Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, ASEAN and African regional economic communities, and through bilateral agreements on certification.
The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 consolidated India's food laws into one statute. It repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and a series of orders made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, including the Fruit Products Order, the Meat Food Products Order, the Milk and Milk Products Order, the Vegetable Oil Products (Control) Order, the Edible Oils Packaging (Regulation) Order and the Solvent Extracted Oil, De-oiled Meal and Edible Flour (Control) Order. It established the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and the main regulations made under it came into force on 5 August 2011.
The Act sets out general principles of food safety, including risk analysis and precaution, and places responsibility on food business operators. The Food Authority is advised by a Central Advisory Committee and by a Scientific Committee and scientific panels on subjects such as additives, contaminants, labelling and claims, and GM foods. Enforcement is largely by the states: each has a Commissioner of Food Safety, Designated Officers at district level, and Food Safety Officers who inspect premises and take samples. Samples are analysed by Food Analysts in notified laboratories, with referral laboratories for appeals. The Act distinguishes offences such as sub-standard food, misbranded food, misleading advertisement, food containing extraneous matter, failure to comply with improvement notices, and unsafe food, with graded penalties ranging from fines decided by an Adjudicating Officer to imprisonment for unsafe food, most severe where it causes death; appeals go to a Food Safety Appellate Tribunal. Penalty amounts are fixed in the Act and its amendments and should be read there.
Regulations made under the Act include those on licensing and registration, food product standards and food additives, contaminants, toxins and residues, packaging, labelling and display, advertising and claims, food recall, import, organic food, health supplements and nutraceuticals, and laboratory and sampling analysis. FSSAI also runs training of food safety supervisors, hygiene rating of food service establishments and fortification standards with a logo for fortified foods.
The other countries of the region have followed the same path from adulteration statutes towards integrated food-safety laws, with power divided differently. In Pakistan, food regulation was largely devolved to the provinces by the 18th constitutional amendment of 2010; provincial food authorities, beginning with the Punjab Food Authority under a 2011 Act, now register and license food businesses, set provincial standards and inspect premises, while the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority publishes national standards. Bangladesh's Food Safety Act 2013 created the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority to coordinate the many agencies involved, while the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution sets and certifies product standards. Sri Lanka's Food Act of 1980, administered by the health ministry and advised by a food advisory committee, remains its principal food law. Common challenges across the region are a large informal food sector, adulteration of staples, limited laboratory capacity and overlapping mandates between health, agriculture and standards agencies.
Almost every food law requires the regulator to know who is producing and selling food, but systems differ in how much they ask of each business. The common principle is risk-based: all food businesses are registered so that they can be inspected, while those whose products or processes carry higher risk, or whose scale is large, must obtain prior approval or a licence after their premises and controls are checked.
In the European Union, every food business operator must register its establishments with the competent authority under the food hygiene regulation (EC) No 852/2004, and establishments handling products of animal origin, such as dairies, meat plants and fish processors, must in addition be approved under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 and apply an identification mark bearing their approval number. In the United States, facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for consumption in the country must register with the FDA and renew the registration every two years, while restaurants and retail food shops are licensed by state and local health authorities. India's regulations of 2011 set three tiers: a simple registration for petty food businesses below a turnover threshold, a state licence for medium businesses, and a central licence from FSSAI for large manufacturers, importers and businesses operating in several states, with applications made online and thresholds revised from time to time.
Whatever the system, a licence or approval is conditional on meeting hygiene requirements in the regulations, which follow the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene: in the EU these are in the annexes to Regulation 852/2004, in India in Schedule 4 of the licensing regulations. Businesses keep records, train supervisors and show their registration, licence or approval number on labels or health marks so that the responsible operator can be traced. Inspectors who find failings can serve an improvement notice, a tool used in the United Kingdom and India among others, and failure to comply can lead to suspension or cancellation. For a technologist launching a product, the first legal questions are which registration or licence category applies and whether the product fits an existing standard or needs approval as a novel food.
Modern food law grew out of laws against adulteration. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as cities grew and food passed through more hands, governments passed statutes that made it an offence to sell adulterated or falsely described food and created public analysts and inspectors to sample food on sale: the United Kingdom's Sale of Food and Drugs Act of 1875 and the United States Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 are classic examples. Over the following decades many countries added separate orders or acts for particular commodities, such as meat, milk, fruit products and edible oils, each with its own licensing and standards.
The result was often a patchwork of overlapping laws administered by different ministries. From the late twentieth century, food crises and trade pushed countries to consolidate these into a single act based on risk analysis, with one lead authority and responsibility placed on the food business operator. The United States replaced its 1906 Act with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, later strengthened by the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011. Japan's Food Sanitation Act of 1947 was supplemented by a Food Safety Basic Act in 2003. The European Union adopted the General Food Law, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, after the BSE crisis, creating the European Food Safety Authority. China replaced its food hygiene law with a Food Safety Law in 2009, after the melamine milk scandal, and revised it in 2015. India's Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954 and commodity orders, such as the Fruit Products Order of 1955, the Meat Food Products Order of 1973 and the Milk and Milk Products Order of 1992, were repealed and absorbed into the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006. Internationally, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, founded by FAO and WHO in 1963, provided the reference standards these national laws increasingly follow.
Older laws are still studied because their standards were often carried into the new regulations and because older texts and some marks refer to them.
Alongside mandatory food-safety law sit voluntary systems that certify quality rather than safety. Grade marks for farm produce certify that a lot meets a published grade standard: examples are the USDA grade shields in the United States, administered by its agricultural marketing service, and AGMARK in India, issued under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 by the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection for commodities such as pulses, spices, ghee, honey and vegetable oils. Some regions make such standards compulsory for certain products; the European Union, for instance, applies marketing standards to several fresh fruits and vegetables.
National standards bodies, such as BSI in the United Kingdom, DIN in Germany, ABNT in Brazil and the Bureau of Indian Standards (governed by the BIS Act, 2016), publish consensus standards for products, test methods and packaging and operate product certification marks. Their standards are voluntary unless a regulation makes them mandatory; India's food regulations, for example, require BIS certification for packaged drinking water and natural mineral water.
Other allied laws affect every food business. Weights and measures (legal metrology) laws govern declarations of net quantity and, in some countries, price on packaged goods, and usually remain separate from the food act. Consumer protection laws provide remedies against misleading claims. Geographical indication laws protect names such as Champagne, Parmigiano Reggiano or Darjeeling tea, the first product registered under India's GI Act of 1999. Export inspection laws create bodies that certify exports, discussed in chapter 12, and environmental and labour laws apply to food factories as to any industry.
Federal food law in the United States began with the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act, both of 1906, passed after public outrage over adulteration and conditions in meat packing described in Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FD&C Act), passed after a toxic drug elixir killed more than a hundred people, remains the basic statute. Major amendments include the Food Additives Amendment of 1958, which required pre-market approval of food additives and created the category of substances generally recognised as safe (GRAS), and contained the Delaney Clause prohibiting approval of additives found to cause cancer in humans or animals; the Color Additive Amendments of 1960; the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which made nutrition labelling mandatory and regulated claims; the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994; the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004; and the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011.
Responsibility is divided among agencies. The Food and Drug Administration, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, regulates most foods, including seafood, dairy, produce, packaged foods, food additives, infant formula and dietary supplements, and enforces the FD&C Act. The Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates meat, poultry and processed egg products under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Egg Products Inspection Act, with continuous inspection in slaughter plants. The Environmental Protection Agency sets tolerances for pesticide residues, which FDA and FSIS enforce. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lead surveillance of food-borne disease. States regulate retail and food service, largely by adopting the FDA Food Code. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 for FDA and Title 9 for FSIS, holds the detailed rules.
The Food Safety Modernization Act, signed in January 2011, was the largest reform of FDA food law since 1938. It shifted the emphasis from responding to contamination to preventing it and gave FDA new powers, including mandatory recall authority and suspension of facility registration. Its main rules include the preventive controls rules for human food and for animal food, requiring hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls, which food-safety-management-systems describes; the Produce Safety Rule, setting standards for growing, harvesting, packing and holding fresh produce, covering agricultural water, soil amendments, worker hygiene and animals; the Sanitary Transportation Rule; the Intentional Adulteration Rule on food defence; and the Food Traceability Rule.
FSMA also changed import controls. Importers must operate Foreign Supplier Verification Programs, verifying that their foreign suppliers produce food with the same level of protection required of US producers. Foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food for US consumption must register with FDA, and prior notice of each food shipment must be given before arrival, a requirement introduced by the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. FDA may refuse admission of products that appear adulterated or misbranded and uses import alerts to detain products from firms with a history of violations without physical examination. Accredited third-party certification and a Voluntary Qualified Importer Program offer faster entry for importers with strong controls. Juice and seafood are subject to their own HACCP regulations, and meat and poultry imports must come from countries whose inspection systems FSIS has found equivalent.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the General Food Law, was adopted after the BSE crisis and a series of food scares had damaged trust in European food regulation. It lays down general principles, establishes the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and sets procedures for food safety. Its key principles are: a high level of protection of human health and consumers' interests; measures based on risk analysis (Article 6); the precautionary principle (Article 7); protection of consumers' interests, including prevention of fraudulent or deceptive practices and adulteration (Article 8); transparency, public consultation and information (Articles 9 and 10); and the requirements that unsafe food must not be placed on the market (Article 14) and that unsafe feed must not be used.
The Regulation places primary responsibility on food and feed business operators to ensure that food satisfies legal requirements at all stages under their control (Article 17), requires traceability one step back and one step forward (Article 18), and obliges operators to withdraw and, where necessary, recall unsafe food and inform the authorities (Article 19). It established the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) (Article 50), through which member states, the Commission, EFSA and some other countries notify one another of risks found in food and feed, including border rejections. Detailed rules sit in other regulations: the hygiene package (Regulations 852/2004 and 853/2004), official controls (Regulation (EU) 2017/625), food information to consumers (Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011), additives (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008), contaminants (Regulation (EU) 2023/915, which replaced Regulation 1881/2006), microbiological criteria (Regulation 2073/2005), and others. Because they are regulations rather than directives, most apply directly in every member state without national transposition.
EFSA, based in Parma, Italy, is the EU's risk assessor. Its scientific panels and committee provide opinions on food and feed safety, nutrition, animal health and welfare, and plant health, on request from the Commission, the European Parliament or member states, or on their own initiative. It evaluates regulated products before authorisation, such as additives, flavourings, enzymes, novel foods, GM foods, pesticides and health claims, and collects data on consumption, contaminants and zoonoses. Its opinions are published, and since the Transparency Regulation of 2019 the studies supporting applications are also made public.
EFSA does not make law. Risk management belongs to the European Commission, which proposes measures, and to member states, which vote on them in a standing committee, and in some cases to the European Parliament and Council. This separation is intended to protect scientific independence while keeping political accountability for decisions that also weigh economic, social, ethical and environmental factors. Member states enforce the law through their own competent authorities, and the Commission's audit services check national control systems and those of exporting countries. Third countries exporting to the EU must meet EU requirements or equivalent ones, a theme of chapter 12.
China's Food Safety Law was adopted in 2009, after the melamine contamination of infant formula in 2008, and substantially revised in 2015 with stricter liability and penalties; it has been amended since. Responsibility is divided: the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) supervises production and distribution and enforces the law; the National Health Commission, with the China National Center for Food Safety Risk Assessment, conducts risk assessment and publishes national food safety standards, known as GB standards, which are mandatory; and the General Administration of Customs controls imports and exports, including registration of overseas food manufacturers. Product standards, limits for contaminants, additives, pesticide residues and labelling are all set as GB standards.
Japan's Food Sanitation Act of 1947 regulates food hygiene, additives, standards and inspection, administered now through the Consumer Affairs Agency for standards and labelling and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare and local governments for hygiene and imports. After a domestic BSE case in 2001, the Food Safety Basic Act of 2003 established the Food Safety Commission as an independent risk assessor. In 2006 Japan introduced a positive list system for agricultural chemical residues, with a uniform limit of 0.01 ppm for substances without a specific limit. The Food Labeling Act of 2013 unified labelling rules. Japan pioneered regulated functional foods: Foods for Specified Health Uses (FOSHU), approved product by product since 1991, and, since 2015, Foods with Function Claims notified by businesses on their own evidence.
Australia and New Zealand share a joint food standards system. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), established under an Act of 1991, develops the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, which covers composition, additives, contaminants, labelling, novel foods and GM foods; the standards are adopted into the law of each Australian state and territory and of New Zealand, while enforcement belongs to state, territory and New Zealand agencies. Food safety standards for primary production and food handling apply in Australia; New Zealand has its own Food Act 2014. The voluntary Health Star Rating front-of-pack scheme, launched in 2014, is a well-known product of this system.
Brazil regulates most foods through the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), created in 1999 under the Ministry of Health, while the Ministry of Agriculture (MAPA) regulates products of animal origin, beverages and plant products, with federal inspection of meat and dairy plants. ANVISA adopted front-of-pack nutrition labelling with a magnifying-glass symbol for products high in added sugars, saturated fat or sodium, in force from 2022. Latin America more broadly has been a leader in warning labels: Chile's law of 2016 introduced black octagonal 'high in' warnings and restrictions on marketing to children, followed by Mexico and others.
In Africa, food safety systems vary widely in capacity. Regional economic communities such as the East African Community, ECOWAS and SADC harmonise standards to support trade, and the African Union has adopted a continental food safety strategy and is working towards a continental food safety agency alongside the African Continental Free Trade Area. Many African countries adopt Codex standards directly, and national standards bodies often combine standard-setting with product certification. The diversity of systems is the main lesson for an exporter: requirements must be checked for each destination, not assumed from one.
Food standards are of two kinds. Vertical or commodity standards define a particular food: its name, essential composition, quality factors, permitted additives, contaminants, hygiene, labelling, and methods of analysis and sampling. Examples are Codex standards for milk products, honey, fish and fruit juices, and FSSAI's product standards for dairy products, fats and oils, fruit and vegetable products, cereals, sweets and confectionery, and many others. A product that carries a standardised name must meet that standard; a product that does not fit any standard is regulated in India as a non-specified food or proprietary food, which must use only permitted ingredients and additives and may need prior approval. Horizontal standards apply across all foods: general standards for additives, contaminants, labelling and hygiene.
Compositional standards protect consumers from cheaper substitutes being sold under a familiar name, which is why standards for ghee, honey, milk fat, spices and edible oils include purity criteria and analytical constants that detect common adulterants. They can also slow innovation, which is why standards are periodically revised and why many systems moved from detailed recipe standards towards horizontal rules and labelling. An analyst testing a sample against a standard needs the standard's definitions, limits and prescribed methods; FSSAI publishes manuals of methods of analysis for this purpose.
Food additives are regulated by positive lists: only additives listed for a food category may be used, at or below a maximum level or at the level needed under good manufacturing practice. The Codex General Standard for Food Additives (CXS 192-1995) lists permitted additives by food category on the basis of JECFA safety evaluations, and national lists, such as FSSAI's food additive regulations, the EU Union list under Regulation 1333/2008 and US food additive and GRAS rules, differ in detail. Additive specifications for identity and purity are also set, and carry-over of an additive from an ingredient into the final food is addressed. Flavourings, enzymes and processing aids have their own rules in many systems. The toxicological basis of additive approval is explained in food-toxicology-contaminants-allergens.
Contaminants, toxins and residues are controlled by maximum levels and maximum residue limits set for specific food and substance combinations. The Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995) covers mycotoxins, metals and other contaminants; pesticide and veterinary drug MRLs are adopted separately. In India these are set in the Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011; in the EU in Regulation (EU) 2023/915 and the MRL regulations. Limits are set as low as reasonably achievable where hazards have no threshold, and must be both protective and achievable by producers who follow good practice. They change often and differ between markets, so a technologist must always consult the current text for the market concerned rather than rely on a remembered number.
The Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods (CXS 1-1985) is the international model. Its mandatory particulars are the name of the food, which must indicate its true nature; the list of ingredients in descending order of weight at the time of manufacture, with ingredients known to cause hypersensitivity always declared; net contents; the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, distributor or importer; country of origin where its omission could mislead; lot identification; date marking and storage instructions; and instructions for use where needed. The 2018 revision clarified date marking: a 'use-by' or expiry date marks the end of the period after which the food should not be sold or eaten for safety reasons, while a 'best before' date marks the end of the period during which the food retains its expected quality and may remain safe to eat after it.
National rules add to the Codex model. In India, the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 require, among other things, the FSSAI logo and licence number, the vegetarian (green) or non-vegetarian (brown) symbol, nutritional information, allergen declarations and declarations for specific additives, and display requirements for food service; the Legal Metrology rules add net quantity and retail price declarations. In the EU, Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 requires allergen emphasis in the ingredient list, a minimum font size, quantitative ingredient declaration for characterising ingredients and a mandatory nutrition declaration. In the US, the Nutrition Facts panel, revised in 2016 to include added sugars and updated serving sizes, is mandatory under the NLEA. Codex guidelines on nutrition labelling (CXG 2-1985) list the core nutrients to declare, and most systems require energy, protein, carbohydrate, sugars, fat, saturated fat and sodium or salt, per 100 g or per serving.
Front-of-pack schemes summarise nutrition on the front of the pack. They range from interpretive summary scores such as the Nutri-Score, introduced in France in 2017, and the Health Star Rating, to traffic-light colour coding in the United Kingdom, endorsement logos such as the Nordic Keyhole, and mandatory warning labels for products high in sugar, saturated fat or sodium in Chile, Mexico and elsewhere. Codex adopted guidelines on front-of-pack nutrition labelling in 2021; India has consulted on a front-of-pack scheme, and its status should be checked.
A claim is any representation that a food has particular characteristics relating to its origin, nutritional properties, nature, production, processing or composition. The Codex guidelines for use of nutrition and health claims (CXG 23-1997) distinguish nutrient content claims (for example 'high in fibre' or 'low fat'), comparative claims ('reduced salt' compared with a reference food), and health claims, which are nutrient function claims (the role of a nutrient in growth or normal functions), other function claims (beneficial effects of a food or constituent), and reduction of disease risk claims. Claims that a food can prevent, treat or cure a disease are generally prohibited for foods. Claims must be scientifically substantiated, must not mislead, and nutrient content claims must meet defined conditions, such as a minimum or maximum amount per 100 g.
Systems differ in how claims are authorised. The EU Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 permits only claims on an EU register: nutrition claims with their conditions in an annex, general function health claims authorised after EFSA assessment (the Article 13 list), and reduction of disease risk and children's health claims authorised individually (Article 14); many proposed claims, including most probiotic claims, have been rejected for lack of evidence. The United States distinguishes nutrient content claims, health claims authorised by FDA on significant scientific agreement, qualified health claims with disclaimers, and structure/function claims, which do not require pre-approval but, for dietary supplements, need a disclaimer. In India, the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 set conditions for nutrition, health and other claims, restrict words such as 'natural', 'fresh', 'original' and 'traditional', and prohibit claims that undermine good dietary practice. Japan's FOSHU and function-claim systems were described in chapter 8.
A novel food is one without a history of safe consumption in a jurisdiction, or produced by a new process that changes its composition. The definition matters because it triggers pre-market authorisation. In the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 defines novel food as food not used for human consumption to a significant degree in the Union before 15 May 1997, falling into categories such as foods from new sources, foods from cell or tissue culture, foods consisting of insects, and foods produced by new processes such as certain nanomaterials; authorisation follows an EFSA safety assessment and results in a Union list entry with conditions of use. A simplified notification exists for traditional foods from third countries with a history of safe use. In India, the Food Safety and Standards (Approval for Non-Specified Food and Food Ingredients) Regulations, 2017 cover novel foods, novel ingredients and foods produced by new technologies, requiring FSSAI approval before sale. In the United States, many new ingredients enter the market through the GRAS route, either by notification to FDA or by self-affirmation, a practice criticised for lack of transparency, while true food additives need a petition.
Emerging categories test these systems. Cell-cultivated meat was first approved for sale in Singapore in 2020 and later in the United States, where FDA and USDA share oversight, while some jurisdictions have proposed or enacted bans. Insect proteins, precision-fermentation proteins, algae and new plant-based ingredients are all being assessed. The questions are the same: composition and nutritional value compared with the food it replaces, toxicity and allergenicity, microbiological safety, production process controls and labelling.
Foods derived from genetically modified organisms are assessed internationally under the Codex Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (CAC/GL 44-2003) and its guidelines for food safety assessment of foods from recombinant-DNA plants, microorganisms and animals. The assessment compares the GM food with a conventional counterpart with a history of safe use, an approach often called substantial equivalence, which the OECD described in 1993; it examines intended and unintended changes in composition, the toxicity and allergenicity of new proteins, nutritional effects, and the possibility of gene transfer. The transboundary movement of living modified organisms is governed by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
National approaches range from permissive to restrictive. The United States regulates GM foods under existing food law through the Coordinated Framework, with voluntary FDA consultations, and requires disclosure of bioengineered foods under the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, mandatory since 2022. The European Union requires pre-market authorisation after EFSA assessment under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and labelling and traceability under Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003, with labelling required where GM content exceeds 0.9 per cent of an ingredient and is adventitious or technically unavoidable below that level. In India, GM food requires FSSAI approval under section 22 of the FSS Act, while environmental release of GM crops is approved by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee under the Environment (Protection) Act rules; Bt cotton, approved for cultivation in 2002, has been the only GM crop grown commercially, and decisions on others have been contested. Regulation of genome-edited organisms without foreign DNA is evolving, with some countries treating them like conventional breeding products and others like GMOs, so the current national position must be checked.
Imports are controlled by risk-based systems that combine documentary checks, identity checks, physical inspection and laboratory testing, with the intensity set by the risk of the product and the record of the exporter. In India, the Food Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations, 2017 require importers to hold a central licence and an import code, and FSSAI's Food Import Clearance System processes clearance at designated ports, with sampling by authorised officers and a risk-based approach that allows lower inspection for compliant importers. In the European Union, products of animal origin and certain high-risk foods of non-animal origin enter only through designated border control posts with official certificates, under the Official Controls Regulation, and rejections are notified through RASFF. In the United States, FDA uses prior notice, risk screening, import alerts and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program, as described in chapter 6.
Export certification provides assurance from the exporting country's authority that products meet the importer's requirements. Codex guidelines on food import and export inspection and certification systems set out principles of equivalence, transparency and the design and use of official certificates. In India, the Export Inspection Council, established under the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963, is the official export certification body, operating through Export Inspection Agencies; it certifies products such as fish and fishery products, milk products, honey, egg products and meat for markets such as the European Union, where it acts as the competent authority. The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), established in 1986, promotes exports of scheduled products, registers exporters and administers schemes including residue monitoring plans and the organic programme. The Marine Products Export Development Authority covers seafood. An exporter must know the destination's requirements, which often differ from Indian ones, and border rejections for residues, contaminants, microbiological failures or labelling defects are a recurring cost.
Organic, religious and origin certifications are claims about how food is produced, not primarily about safety, but they are regulated because consumers pay for them. Organic production is defined internationally by the Codex guidelines for organically produced foods (CXG 32-1999): it excludes synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, genetically modified organisms and most synthetic additives, and requires conversion periods, inspection and certification. India's National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP), launched in 2001 and administered by APEDA, accredits certification bodies for exports and domestic markets; the Participatory Guarantee System for India (PGS-India) offers group certification for small farmers in the domestic market; and FSSAI's organic food regulations require organic products sold in India to be certified under one of these systems and to carry the Jaivik Bharat logo. The US National Organic Program and the EU organic Regulation (EU) 2018/848 set their own rules, and trade between systems depends on equivalence arrangements.
Halal certification confirms that food is permissible under Islamic law: no pork or its derivatives, no alcohol as an ingredient, meat from animals slaughtered according to Islamic rites, and no contamination with non-halal materials during processing. Codex has general guidelines for the use of the term halal (CAC/GL 24-1997), but detailed standards and recognition of certifiers differ between importing countries, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and the Gulf states, so exporters must use certifiers recognised by the destination. Kosher certification confirms compliance with Jewish dietary laws, kashrut: only permitted animals, ritual slaughter, separation of meat and dairy, and supervision of production, with products classed as meat, dairy or pareve (neutral). Both are run by religious and private bodies rather than governments in most countries. Other certifications include geographical indications, such as protected designations of origin in the EU and GIs in India, fair trade, and sustainability standards; they protect names and production methods and must be truthful under labelling and consumer law.
A student uses this subject to build a map: which body writes international standards (Codex), which agreements give them force (SPS and TBT), which statute governs food in India (FSS Act 2006) and which older laws it replaced, and which agency regulates what in the US and EU. With that map, questions on marks, regulations and agencies become straightforward. The habit worth forming early is to cite the instrument and then read its current text, because limits and thresholds change.
Five years into a regulatory or quality role, a technologist checks every new formulation against the product standard and additive lists for each market, writes and approves labels and claims, applies for licences and product approvals, handles import clearance or export certification, responds to inspections and improvement notices, and monitors regulatory changes in the markets the company sells to. Most of the work is reading regulations carefully and documenting compliance.
A head of regulatory affairs or a senior official with twenty-five years' experience shapes regulation: comments on draft regulations, represents industry or government in Codex committees and national scientific panels, negotiates equivalence for exports, decides company strategy when rules diverge between markets, and manages enforcement cases and crises. Such a person needs to understand how regulators reason, from risk assessment to trade law, as much as the text of the rules.
A researcher at this level studies food law and policy: how risk assessment is translated into standards, the effects of front-of-pack labelling and claims rules on diets, the regulation of novel foods and genome editing, trade disputes under SPS and TBT, enforcement effectiveness in low- and middle-income countries, and the design of regulatory systems that are both protective and workable. Such work combines law, economics, public health and food science.
This manual describes structures and names instruments but deliberately does not quote penalty amounts, licence turnover thresholds, maximum levels or other numerical limits that change through amendment; these must be read in the current text. It does not cover every national system, the full list of FSSAI product standards, the detailed procedure of WTO dispute settlement, or food law relating to weights and measures, environment and labour beyond brief mention. Front-of-pack labelling in India and the regulation of genome-edited foods were changing when this manual was written. Management systems are in food-safety-management-systems, the science of limits in food-toxicology-contaminants-allergens and food-risk-analysis, and inspection practice in food-safety-inspection-enforcement.
Original practice questions written to the syllabus and pattern of the exams named in each question's examTags. They are not past papers and do not reproduce any board's questions. Laws change: check the current text of any instrument named.
These notes are free to read here, with no account.
What the Laisha app adds:
Free for ten days, then a subscription. We would rather write that here than have you find it later.