Who Watches the Watchdogs?
In India's complex food supply chain, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) can't be everywhere at once. That's why it relies on a system of third-party auditing. FSSAI recognises independent agencies and their auditors to inspect food businesses
— from large factories to commercial kitchens. These auditors check for compliance with the Food Safety and Standards Act, ensuring that businesses follow hygiene, manufacturing, and safety protocols. For many businesses, a satisfactory audit can mean fewer government inspections, while for consumers, it's a layer of assurance that what they're eating is safe. This system of private auditing under regulatory oversight is central to how food safety is managed at scale.
What is FSSAI Proposing to Change?
In May 2026, FSSAI released the draft Food Safety and Standards (Food Safety Auditing) Amendment Regulations, 2026. The proposal significantly overhauls the eligibility criteria for becoming a food safety auditor. The two biggest changes involve widening the educational background and standardising professional certification. The draft expands the list of accepted academic degrees to 39 disciplines, including not just Food Technology but also fields like Agriculture, Life Science, Medicine, and Public Health. At the same time, it mandates that all auditors must successfully complete an accredited Lead Auditor course in Food Safety Management Systems based on the global ISO 22000 standard.
A Stricter Standard or a Wider Gate?
The core of the public debate lies in the interpretation of these changes. On one hand, FSSAI's move is seen as an attempt to professionalise the field and align it with international best practices. Mandating the ISO 22000 certification ensures a uniform, globally recognised baseline of knowledge in hazard analysis and food safety management. The proposal also requires a minimum of two years' work experience in the food sector and proof of having completed at least ten audits, adding a practical experience component that wasn't as strictly defined before. However, the headline-grabbing part of the proposal is the massive expansion of eligible educational backgrounds. This has sparked concern among some food safety professionals. They argue that by allowing graduates from a very wide range of disciplines, FSSAI might be diluting the specialised expertise required for food safety audits. The fear is that a wider gate could let in individuals who have the certification but lack the deep, food-specific technical knowledge needed to conduct a truly rigorous inspection, potentially compromising the quality and integrity of audits.
FSSAI's Rationale: More Auditors, Better Oversight
From the regulator's perspective, the changes are about addressing a shortage of qualified auditors and expanding the pool of available talent to ensure the entire food sector can be adequately monitored. By widening the educational criteria while simultaneously standardising the required professional certification and experience, FSSAI aims to increase the number of auditors without sacrificing a core standard of competence. The logic is that a person with a background in, for example, public health or microbiology, can become an excellent food safety auditor provided they have the mandatory ISO 22000 training and relevant field experience. This approach is part of a broader push by FSSAI to make doing business easier for compliant entities while strengthening the overall food safety ecosystem through risk-based inspections and audits.
What Does This Mean for Your Food?
Ultimately, the effectiveness of these new rules will determine the safety of food on shelves and plates across the country. If FSSAI's strategy works, India will have a larger, well-trained, and globally benchmarked force of auditors capable of providing more frequent and effective oversight of the burgeoning food industry. This could lead to higher compliance and safer food products for everyone. However, if critics are right, the dilution of core educational requirements could lead to less rigorous audits, where auditors may check boxes but miss critical, nuanced safety issues. This could create a false sense of security, where a business passes an audit on paper, but unsafe practices continue. The sixty-day public consultation period, which began in late May 2026, allows stakeholders—from industry bodies to consumer rights groups—to voice these exact concerns.
