FSSAI moves SC over Maggi test remarks

Nestle's Maggi noodles will continue to be sold freely in the market even though the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) yesterday moved the apex court and sought certain adverse observations made by the Bombay High Court on its ability to test quality and standards of food products to be exppunged.

The lifting of the ban on the sale of Maggi, however, was not challenged by the regulator.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told The Times of India, "The food regulator is not so much concerned about the Bombay HC order lifting the ban on sale of Maggi noodles in the market.

"The FSSAI is aggrieved by certain observations made by the HC concerning the accreditation of its laboratories and their ability to test food products to find out whether they comply with the laid down standards.

"The FSSAI is not immediately concerned with the sale of Maggi noodles but the manner in which the HC faulted their testing process."

On 13 August, the HC had observed that the "principles of natural justice" and procedures were not followed before imposing the ban. It went on to question the food regulator as to why even a show cause notice was not issued to Nestle before banning the food product.

Though the High Court had held that the FSSAI orders were ''arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14,'' in view of the public interest and health, the HC had ordered re-testing of Maggi samples within six weeks in three accredited labs.

Earlier this month, Nestle said that in tests conducted on fresh Maggi samples provided to government-approved labs, the product was found to be safe and retail sales would start shortly.

However, FSSAI challenged the High Court order as erroneous and questioned in the Supreme Court the ''sanctity'' of the samples provided to the government-approved labs for the re-test, The Hindu reported.

The FSSAI petition had contended that the High Court erred by asking the company itself to provide the fresh samples rather than asking a neutral authority to do so, which was like asking a person under suspicion to give evidence against himself.

The element of surprise was also lost in the process, they added.