Context

• On June 7, the world observes World Food Safety Day, and the 2025 theme, ‘Food Safety: Science in Action’ offers a timely opportunity to reflect on India’s evolving food safety landscape.
• From a rudimentary focus on preventing food adulteration to adopting modern, science-based standards, India’s food safety regime has seen transformational change.
• However, beneath the surface of regulatory progress lie critical gaps in scientific infrastructure, communication, and legacy regulations that need urgent attention.

India’s Food Safety Journey: From Adulteration Control to Risk-Based Regulation

• Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act of 1954
  • India’s food safety journey began with the PFA Act of 1954, which treated food safety as a binary issue, a product was either adulterated or it wasn’t.
  • The law made no distinction between the nature of the contaminant, whether it was a harmful additive, pesticide residue, or a naturally occurring toxin, nor did it consider the quantity consumed, which is central to modern toxicology.
• Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006
  • A major turning point came with the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006, which established the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
  • Inspired by global benchmarks such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the FSSAI moved India towards a risk-based approach.
  • This included defining maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides, safe thresholds for food additives, and acceptable levels of contaminants and veterinary drugs.
  • By 2020, India’s food safety standards had progressed significantly, closely aligning with those of advanced economies.
  • However, this rapid modernization also brought underlying challenges into sharper focus.

Scientific Gaps in Risk Assessment

• Reliance on International Toxicological Data
  • Despite advances, India’s risk assessment framework continues to depend heavily on international toxicological data, which may not adequately reflect Indian dietary habits, climatic conditions, or agricultural practices.
  • The absence of India-specific Total Diet Studies (TDS) is a serious shortcoming.
  • TDS are essential to assess cumulative dietary exposure to contaminants, but India still relies on fragmented datasets, which weaken the scientific credibility of its standards.
• Risk Communication
  • Moreover, risk communication remains a critical barrier. Technical metrics like MRLs and acceptable daily intake (ADI) values are expressed in units such as parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb), scales that are often incomprehensible to the general public.
  • When such standards are revised, even based on sound scientific reasoning, they frequently spark misunderstanding or panic.
  • For instance, the upward revision of pesticide MRLs from 0.01 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg, though scientifically justified, was perceived by many as a reduction in safety, highlighting the communication gap between regulators and consumers.

MSG Regulation: A Legacy Problem

• One of the clearest examples of the tension between science and perception is India’s regulation of monosodium glutamate (MSG).
• Despite decades of global research confirming MSG’s safety, including its ADI not specified status by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), India continues to mandate a misleading warning label.
• This is especially problematic because naturally occurring glutamates, chemically identical to MSG, are found in common foods like tomatoes, mushrooms, and even breast milk.
• This outdated approach persists even as countries around the world have removed MSG warning labels in line with current science.
• In India, however, the outdated perception of MSG as harmful persists among consumers, driven more by fear than evidence.
• This case illustrates the broader challenge of regulatory inertia, where scientific updates are not translated into regulatory or public communication reforms.

The Road Ahead: Strengthening Scientific Foundations

• To sustain and build on recent progress, India must invest strategically in its food safety science.
• Conducting India-specific toxicological studies and implementing a comprehensive Total Diet Study are imperative.
• These measures would ensure that risk assessments are based on real-world dietary patterns and environmental contexts.
• Equally important is risk communication. Scientific messages should be simplified and contextualised for public understanding, replacing technical jargon and misleading labels with clear, evidence-based communication.
• Regulatory frameworks must also be reviewed periodically, eliminating outdated norms and aligning policies with current scientific understanding.
• Capacity building is another key pillar. Regulators, assessors, and inspectors must undergo continuous training to stay updated with evolving global standards and risk assessment tools.
• Regular stakeholder engagement, including food businesses, scientists, and consumers, will foster transparency and trust in the food safety ecosystem.

Conclusion

• India’s food safety journey has been marked by significant strides, thanks largely to the leadership of the FSSAI and the shift towards a science-based regulatory approach.
• Yet, real progress lies not just in adopting international benchmarks but in developing context-specific scientific knowledge, improving public communication, and shedding outdated regulatory baggage.
• As India looks ahead, it must continue to balance scientific rigour with effective public engagement, ensuring that its citizens are not just protected, but also empowered, by the food safety system.