What is the story about?
Who is responsible for ensuring food safety in India? The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months, with growing concerns on social media and among consumers about food quality and regulatory oversight.
Responding to the criticism, sources within the regulator point to the structural framework laid out under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
“Nearly 98% of Food Business Operators (FBOs) fall under the purview of state authorities,” sources said, emphasising that licensing, inspections, and enforcement are largely handled by state governments.
A dual system: FSSAI sets standards, states enforce
India’s food safety architecture operates on a dual model. FSSAI, as the apex regulator, is responsible for setting standards, framing regulations, and overseeing policy at the national level. However, the actual implementation—licensing of food businesses, inspections, and enforcement actions—is primarily carried out by state food safety authorities.
While this division of responsibilities is clearly defined, it has also triggered a broader debate on accountability. Experts argue that as the umbrella body, FSSAI cannot distance itself from on-ground outcomes, particularly when lapses or controversies arise.
Past controversies keep focus on the regulator
This debate has been reinforced by a series of high-profile incidents over the years. From the ban and subsequent relaunch of Maggi noodles to concerns around baby food quality and recurring scrutiny of spices and masala products, regulatory oversight has repeatedly come under question.
Such episodes have highlighted gaps not only in enforcement at the state level but also in standards, surveillance, and response mechanisms at the central level. Government sources note that in several instances, the Centre has stepped in to tighten norms, underlining that FSSAI remains accountable as the nodal authority.
Enforcement activity picks up pace in FY26
Despite the ongoing debate, enforcement activity has seen a significant increase in FY 2025–26, driven largely by state authorities.
“Authorities conducted 3,97,009 inspections across food establishments,” sources said. In addition, “1,65,747 food samples were analysed up to the third quarter, of which 17.16% were found non-compliant, triggering regulatory action.”
Legal enforcement has also strengthened. “23,580 adjudication cases were decided, 1,756 criminal convictions were secured, and penalties amounting to ₹154.87 crore were imposed,” sources added. “945 food recalls were initiated during the year to prevent unsafe products from reaching consumers.”
States remain at the frontline
The data underscores the central role of states in enforcing food safety laws. Commissioners of Food Safety have led enforcement efforts at the state level, while Designated Officers at the district level have managed licensing and adjudication.
Food Safety Officers continue to serve as the frontline workforce, conducting inspections, collecting samples, and investigating complaints. For civil violations, Additional District Magistrates act as Adjudicating Officers, empowered to impose penalties and direct corrective action.
Expanding coverage and strengthening systems
A major focus area during the year has been the formalisation of the informal sector. “Over 10 lakh street food vendors have been brought under the regulatory framework,” sources said, improving hygiene standards at the grassroots level.
Licensing norms have also been rationalised based on turnover thresholds to simplify compliance. Meanwhile, FSSAI has expanded testing infrastructure by notifying 18 laboratories, including advanced facilities in Singtam and Tirumala, enhancing the system’s ability to detect contamination.
Shared responsibility, growing expectations
The developments highlight a maturing regulatory ecosystem, where responsibilities are shared between the Centre and the states. However, experts caution that accountability cannot be fragmented.
“The framework is collaborative, but responsibility is collective,” a source said, adding that FSSAI “cannot step away from its role as the national regulator.”
As enforcement intensifies and consumer awareness rises, scrutiny of both state authorities and the central regulator is likely to grow. Ultimately, for consumers, the issue is not about jurisdiction—it is about trust in the system that ensures the safety of the food they consume.
Responding to the criticism, sources within the regulator point to the structural framework laid out under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
“Nearly 98% of Food Business Operators (FBOs) fall under the purview of state authorities,” sources said, emphasising that licensing, inspections, and enforcement are largely handled by state governments.
A dual system: FSSAI sets standards, states enforce
India’s food safety architecture operates on a dual model. FSSAI, as the apex regulator, is responsible for setting standards, framing regulations, and overseeing policy at the national level. However, the actual implementation—licensing of food businesses, inspections, and enforcement actions—is primarily carried out by state food safety authorities.
While this division of responsibilities is clearly defined, it has also triggered a broader debate on accountability. Experts argue that as the umbrella body, FSSAI cannot distance itself from on-ground outcomes, particularly when lapses or controversies arise.
Past controversies keep focus on the regulator
This debate has been reinforced by a series of high-profile incidents over the years. From the ban and subsequent relaunch of Maggi noodles to concerns around baby food quality and recurring scrutiny of spices and masala products, regulatory oversight has repeatedly come under question.
Such episodes have highlighted gaps not only in enforcement at the state level but also in standards, surveillance, and response mechanisms at the central level. Government sources note that in several instances, the Centre has stepped in to tighten norms, underlining that FSSAI remains accountable as the nodal authority.
Enforcement activity picks up pace in FY26
Despite the ongoing debate, enforcement activity has seen a significant increase in FY 2025–26, driven largely by state authorities.
“Authorities conducted 3,97,009 inspections across food establishments,” sources said. In addition, “1,65,747 food samples were analysed up to the third quarter, of which 17.16% were found non-compliant, triggering regulatory action.”
Legal enforcement has also strengthened. “23,580 adjudication cases were decided, 1,756 criminal convictions were secured, and penalties amounting to ₹154.87 crore were imposed,” sources added. “945 food recalls were initiated during the year to prevent unsafe products from reaching consumers.”
States remain at the frontline
The data underscores the central role of states in enforcing food safety laws. Commissioners of Food Safety have led enforcement efforts at the state level, while Designated Officers at the district level have managed licensing and adjudication.
Food Safety Officers continue to serve as the frontline workforce, conducting inspections, collecting samples, and investigating complaints. For civil violations, Additional District Magistrates act as Adjudicating Officers, empowered to impose penalties and direct corrective action.
Expanding coverage and strengthening systems
A major focus area during the year has been the formalisation of the informal sector. “Over 10 lakh street food vendors have been brought under the regulatory framework,” sources said, improving hygiene standards at the grassroots level.
Licensing norms have also been rationalised based on turnover thresholds to simplify compliance. Meanwhile, FSSAI has expanded testing infrastructure by notifying 18 laboratories, including advanced facilities in Singtam and Tirumala, enhancing the system’s ability to detect contamination.
Shared responsibility, growing expectations
The developments highlight a maturing regulatory ecosystem, where responsibilities are shared between the Centre and the states. However, experts caution that accountability cannot be fragmented.
“The framework is collaborative, but responsibility is collective,” a source said, adding that FSSAI “cannot step away from its role as the national regulator.”
As enforcement intensifies and consumer awareness rises, scrutiny of both state authorities and the central regulator is likely to grow. Ultimately, for consumers, the issue is not about jurisdiction—it is about trust in the system that ensures the safety of the food they consume.
