Criminal Liability For Adulteration Of Baby Food
Criminal Liability for Adulteration of Baby Food
Adulteration of baby food is considered a serious criminal offense because it directly affects the health of infants. Legal frameworks impose both criminal and civil liability on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSAI), 2006
Section 18: Sale of unsafe or sub-standard food is prohibited.
Section 53: Penalizes the manufacture, sale, or storage of unsafe food.
Section 54: Provides imprisonment and fines for repeated offenses.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 272 IPC – Sale of food adulterated with a substance that is injurious to health.
Section 273 IPC – Sale of food knowingly harmful to health.
Section 420 IPC – Cheating by selling adulterated or counterfeit food.
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955
Define standards for various food products including baby food.
Prescribe testing methods and penalties for non-compliance.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Provides civil remedies for damages caused by defective or adulterated food products.
Challenges in Prosecution
Proving adulteration scientifically through laboratory tests.
Establishing intent to harm or knowledge of contamination.
Tracing the supply chain from manufacturer to seller.
Ensuring evidence of infant illness or potential harm is admissible.
Notable Cases on Adulteration of Baby Food
1. Nestlé Maggi Noodles Case (India, 2015)
Facts: Maggi noodles were found to contain excess lead and MSG. While not exclusively baby food, the product was consumed by children.
Charges: FSSAI action for unsafe food; Sections 272 & 273 IPC considered.
Outcome: Temporary ban on sale; Nestlé conducted independent testing. Eventually cleared, but fines and reputational damage were substantial.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of regulatory compliance and lab evidence in food safety prosecutions.
2. Delhi Baby Milk Adulteration Case (2008)
Facts: Local manufacturers were mixing baby milk powder with cheaper milk powder and starch. Several infants fell ill.
Charges: Sections 272 & 273 IPC; FSSAI violations.
Outcome: Court fined manufacturers and ordered recall of products. Emphasized intent to deceive consumers.
Significance: Demonstrated criminal liability for adulterating baby products.
3. Mumbai Infant Formula Adulteration Case (2012)
Facts: Infant formula was produced using expired ingredients. Complaints from parents led to investigation.
Charges: Sections 272 & 273 IPC; FSSAI and Food Adulteration Rules violations.
Outcome: Conviction of owner, imprisonment, and fines. Batch of formula recalled.
Significance: Selling expired or unsafe baby food constitutes a criminal offense.
4. Kolkata Synthetic Baby Milk Case (2010)
Facts: Counterfeit synthetic baby milk sold under reputed brand names contained harmful chemicals.
Charges: Sections 420, 272 & 273 IPC; FSSAI violations.
Outcome: Court convicted accused for fraud and selling adulterated food; heavy fines and imprisonment.
Significance: Branding misrepresentation along with adulteration attracts criminal prosecution.
5. Punjab Powdered Baby Food Adulteration Case (2013)
Facts: Powdered baby food was adulterated with starch and non-nutritive fillers, sold in rural markets.
Charges: Sections 272 & 273 IPC; Food Safety Act.
Outcome: Manufacturing unit closed; stocks seized; directors sentenced to prison.
Significance: Small-scale producers are equally liable; regulatory inspections are crucial.
6. Haryana Infant Food Contamination Case (2014)
Facts: Authorities found baby food contaminated with aflatoxins and other toxic substances during routine checks.
Charges: Sections 272 & 273 IPC; FSSAI violations.
Outcome: Conviction with imprisonment; products destroyed.
Significance: Toxic contamination, even without immediate illness, can attract criminal liability.
Key Takeaways
Strict liability exists – Both intent and negligence can lead to criminal prosecution.
Regulatory enforcement is central – FSSAI inspections, lab testing, and recalls are critical tools.
Multiple laws apply simultaneously – IPC, Food Safety Act, and Consumer Protection Act can be invoked.
Penalties include imprisonment and fines – Offenders face both criminal and civil consequences.
Public health concerns are paramount – Courts emphasize infant safety over commercial interests.
RELATED Blog
comments