A CRITICAL STUDY : THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006.

I. IntroductionFood and water are not only the elixir of life, but they are worshipped as gods. In spite of this fact, the evil of food adulteration is not only present in the societyto a great extent, but its history can be traced back to the times of Kautilya. During the parliamentary debates in the Lok Sabha, one of the Members of Parliament, Mr. Shailendra Kumar ( In Parliamentary Debates, Lok Sabha 390 (Jul. 26, 2006) shared his view on the seriousness of the problem, as follows …there is adulteration in milk. Urea and Oxitocin are mixed in milk which causes a great risk of abortion and impotency. I was just going through the report that adulterated biscuits in the name of glucose and other brands worth 25 crore were seized in Punjab. Likewise, I would like to remind the honourable minister that the adulteration in mustard oil in the year 1988 had resulted in spread of the disease cancer named „dropsy‟….mixing of coal-tar dye in pulses, tea, and coffee lead to cancer.Injectioins are being used in vegetables for their early growth…injections to the cows and buffaloes to get more milk and profit. As „food adulteration‟ is done in so many ways, one must precisely know what the exact definition of the term is. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 defines the terms “adulterant” and“adulterated” in so many words. In layman‟s language it means debasing of food article with an inferior or deleterious substance. It is a kind of slow poisoning. It is destruction of human life. It is the gravest of socio-economic crime. We call it socio-economic crime because it is done with the purpose of attaining profit. It has the tendency to erode national health, character and economy, in equal measure. This may be the reason why Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 defines the term “unsafe food” instead of adulterated food. Presently, the central government has enacted the FSSA, 2006, which is the consolidation of all the existing laws on food in general, and food adulteration in particular. As FSSA, 2006 is more or less framed on the basis of international model the direct question of feasibility of such a law in the Indian context comes in. Does India have the required machinery to implement the law? In other words, do we have the required quantity and quality of laboratories which are of foremost importance to assure the implementation of the Act? According to V.S. Deshpande J.,( Former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court), from many other reasons, lack of concerted (coordinated) and organized opposition by the society is the contributing factor. The battle against the socioeconomic crime in general has to be fought on legal as well as extralegal planes. As we critically analyze the FSSA, 2006, we see that there are advantages as well as certain loopholes that are yet to be filled and some questions that have remained unanswered. The quest for pure food is still on…

II. Food Adulteration: As Part of Different Laws

Before analyzing the FSSA, 2006 one needs to find out the remedies, if any, provided under the other existing legislations. Starting from the Constitution of India, right to pure food is not directly protected under the Constitution but it can be covered under certain provisions such as part of fundamental freedoms, the Constitution guarantees under Article 19(1) (g) freedom of profession, trade, or business, thereby ensuring that state cannot prevent a citizen from carrying on abusiness, except by a law imposing a reasonable restriction in interest of general public. Under Article 19(6), no such right can be enforced where the business is dangerous or immoral. There can be restriction on harmful trade. Right to food is a fundamental right under article 21 and similarly, right to health is also a part of right to life. It has been held in number of cases that life is more than mere animal existence. For example, in Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295,1312. it was observed, “Article 21 mean not merely the continuance of a person‟s animal existence, but right to the possession of his organs, his arms and legs etc.” It cannot be argued that health is not a part of life when possession of all organs of the body is protected by the fundamental right to life. On one hand there are rights then on the other hand are the duties of the state under article 39 (e) and (f) and article 47 of the Constitution to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and toimprove public health. The Supreme Court in Vinscent v. Union of India, (A.I.R. 1987 SC 990 at 99) held, “Maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank high as this is indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends the building up the society which the constitution maker envisaged, attending to public health, in our opinion, therefore is of high priority, perhaps the one at the top.” Finally, according to Schedule VII, adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods is given under entry 18 of the Concurrent List. The adulteration of food with an intention to sell is an offenceunder sections 272 and 273 of the IPC which is punishable with the imprisonment of six months and fine. States like U.P., West Bengal and Orissa have enhanced the maximum punishment to life imprisonment. The act is punishable when adulteration makes the food article noxious. According to Oxford English dictionary, “noxious” means injurious, hurtful and unwholesome. In Ram Dayal v.King Emperor, As cited in S.K. Sarvaria‟s (ed.), 2 Ra Nelson’s Indian Penal Code 2338 (Lexisnexis-Butterworth and Wadhwa. Nagpur, 10th edn., 2008); A.I.R. 1925 Al l214(1). ( Privy Council held that the mixture of pig fat with ghee would be noxious to the religion and social feeling of both Hindus and Muslims, still it does not come under the section (as it is not noxious to the health). Under the Code of Criminal Procedure

the offence is non cognizable and bailable and not compoundable. The trial can be conducted by any magistrate. According to section 455(2) of the CrPC, the court may, in the like manner, on conviction under sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, order the food, drink etc. in respect of which conviction was made, to be destroyed. In Emperor v. Barumal Jawarnal,( Id. at 2345; (1904) 1 CrLJ 618.) it was held that selling wheat containing a large admixture of extraneous matters, as foreign matter is separable and wheat is not consumed in its existing condition. There the offence was not committed. Similarly, according to Dhawa v. Emperor,( As cited in K.D. Gaur, A Textbook on the Indian Penal Code 350 (Universal Law Publishing Co., New Delhi, 3rd edn., 2004); A.I.R. 1926 Lah 49) the mixture of water with milk is no offence, as the mixture is not noxious. By going through the provisions and moreover the cases under the sections, we can easily conclude that there are loopholes that allows the easy acquittal of the accused. Firstly, the case will not be covered if the article of food is not noxious and secondly, it has been difficult to prove the intention or the knowledge to sell. Any person committing the offence is prosecuted by the state but the consumer who was the victim of adulteration hardly gets any relief under the IPC. In 1986, the Consumer Protection Act came into force which provided for compensation to the consumers. While the PFA and the FSSA, 2006, which will be dsicussed shortly, are piece of consumer legislations that specially deal with malpractice of traders with regard to food, the CPA is an umbrella legislation, which covers each and every good and service that a consumer buys or hires on giving consideration. The remedy available to the consumer is compensation under CPA. The PFA provides for punishment and fine.( s. 16) The procedure followed here is criminal procedure. In the FSSA, 2006 there is a unique blend of penalty in way of compensation (ss. 50-58) and fine and punishment ( s. 59).

III. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006The Food Safety and Standards Act has been enacted to consolidate the laws related to food. The Act also aims to establish a single reference point for all matters relating to food safety and standards, by moving from multi- level, multi- departmental control to a single line of command. To this effect, the Act establishes an independent statutory Authority – the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India with head office at Delhi. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the State Food Safety Authorities shall enforce various provisions of the Act. The important thing to note is that it does not deal with the food adulteration alone. It can be easily inferred from the broad definition of the term “unsafe food “under section 3(zz) along with many other expressions important for laying down the standards. Again, the Act gives a vast definition of “adulterant”.(S.3(a)). And at the same time few more definitions give us a broad picture such as “contaminant”, “extraneous matter” and “food

additive”. The short title also leads us to the same conclusion. The interpretation clause defines “food safety” as “assurance that the food is acceptable for human consumption.”,(S. 3(q)) and “standard” {under section 3(zv)} as “in relation to any articles of food means standards notified by the food authority”. For removing any doubt the term “sub-standard” is also defined {under section 3(zx)}.

The Codex defines certain terms related to the processing of food. The Codex Alimentarius is a Latin term that means „Food Law or Code‟. It is a collection of international food standards adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which is an international body under the WHO. The definitions in FSSA, 2006 are taken from the Codex. For example, the definition of „food‟, „food additive‟, „contaminant‟, „hazard‟, „risk‟, „risk analysis‟, „risk assessment‟, „hazard identification‟, „hazard characterization‟, „claim‟, „consumer‟, etc. In the Preamble to the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food ( 1A Codex Alimentarius 17 (1999), the right to standard of living adequate for the health and well being of the individual and his family is proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. Therefore, the major objective of the work of Commission is to protect the health of consumer and ensure fair practices in the trade in food.

Benefits of FSSAIt will be the special responsibility of the food business operator to ensure that thearticles of food satisfy the requirements of the Act at all stages of production, etc.(S.26) As the Act has taken inspiration from the Codex, its standard will match the world level quality. For the first time there is a provision for compensating the consumer who gets any injury or incur any health hazard, along with the penalty or punishment given to the perpetrator. The Act imposes responsibility on the operator of business to recall the articles of food, if he finds that they don‟t satisfy the standards of the Act.(S.21). If the inspector or the food officer is found misusing his power, there is provision to impose fine on him on the proof of his being guilty (S.39). The amount of fine is One Lakh ( this amount was nominal in PFA). The graded system of penalties will remove confusion and inequality that existed before as there was same minimum punishment for all forms of adulteration.(S. 48-67). In the adjudication system, there are two types of treatment: the matters that are hazardous to the health and those that are not. Latter will be referred to the Special Court and later to the High Court. Farmers and the fisherman are excluded from the purview of the Act. There is wide network of checks and balances that have been provided in this Act. Every business operator is required to have license or registration. Every distributor is required to be able to identify food articles to the manufacturers and every seller to the distributor. Standards based on science are required to be in place that will support the scientific development of the food processing industry. There is provision for the

establishment of the scientific panel and committees. There is a provision for improvement notice.(S.32) to be given to the one not complying with the standards, after non compliance of which the food safety officer can take the action. There are so many checks to make sure that a wrong case is not made against any manufacturer. Starting from Food Safety Officer, the Adjudicating Officer, Food Safety Appellate Tribunal, State Commissioner of Food Safety, Special Courts (in case of imprisonment), and finally the High Court will provide correction if required. The Act will include the Food distributed in the Public Distribution System i.e. it will cover the Food Security Act, 2009. This is possible by virtue of section 3(n), which defines „food business‟; it means “any undertaking, whether for profit or not and whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to catering services, sale of food or food ingredients.”

IV. Loopholes in FSSA, 2006Above mentioned benefits give a very bloomy picture but if we look deeper the legislators seem to be overzealous in incorporating the international standards. The main focus of the Act is on the processing industry and the unorganized sector is completely neglected. Almost every report says for a Central authority but doesn‟t mention how the establishment of central authority has proved to be effective in other countries. Some of the drawbacks are given below.1. As the Act provides for compulsory process of registration, this may create problem for small businessmen like hawkers and venders.2. The Food Safety Officer has defined no jurisdiction for the sake of inspection and seizer of sample. (S.41(1))3. The provisions that give power to the officers to grant license, or impose huge penalty give way to possibility of corruption. (69(1)).4. As the Act provides for both the criminal as well as civil procedure, there is possibility of confusion as to what procedure to be followed. 5. One year limitation period has been provided for the bringing the case in the notice of an authority under the Act.6. Except from the packaged drinking water, the potable water used in the manufacture of most of the articles of food, is excluded from the purview of the Act. (S. 3(j)).7. There are certain expressions that are not defined and that might add to the number of litigations due to their ambiguous meaning. For example, „safe and wholesome food for human consumption‟, „good manufacturing practices‟, and „good hygienic practices‟(S. 3(s)). 8. The unorganized sector in India cannot be supposed to adhere to the norms of the Act as mentioning ingredients and their specification, etc.

9. There is no estimation of the cost to be borne by the State Governments, which are the nodal agencies.10. There is no technical qualification attached to the ranks of the officers who are assigned the task of issuing of license and fixing of liability.

V. SuggestionsAfter thoroughly going through the provisions, I have following suggestions to submit:1. As the number of hawkers cannot be denied in India, there should be representation from their association as well, in the Food Authority.2. The definition of „food‟ expressly excludes the animal feed from its purview. The fact is that whatever pesticides, insecticide etc. gets into the animal feed and consumed by the animal (cow, goat, etc.) becomes a part of food chain. For example, it is present in the milk. Therefore, this should be made part of the definition.3. Food chain from farm to the products needs to be traced. But as the farmers are excluded from the purview of the Act, the tracing is possible to the mandi only.4. As the there is lack of proper training of procedure, both legal and scientific or technical, there has usually been problem taking the sample in the adequate manner and quality required for testing. For this purpose, the Ministry of HRD can think over role of universities, which can, after looking at the seriousness of the affair, provide for the courses on food testing.5. Food adulteration is a very serious offence. Therefore, it should make the CEOs of the company liable.6. There should be laboratory in each district.7. Hawkers should be brought under the ambit of the Act, as they do the major part of the commerce. The method of testing in their case should be made simple and non technical (not involving so many formalities)8. Food recall should be issued in the media to inform the citizens and make them aware about the unsafe food.9. The Act should have a compulsory provision for black-listing of the companies or even publication when held guilty of the offence. It should be made part of the punishment. Provisions for publishing the name of the culprit is there but not in every case. So, it should be done in every case,11. The Codex and the Committees have suggested Confidence Building Measures among the consumers. This can be done by attaching the logo displaying that products are safe. This logo that can be understood by literate or illiterate person should be made mandatory.

Relation of Science and Law:

The main problem with the FSSA, 2006 is the implementation. The laboratories are important elements towards implementation. They are the links between the science and law, not only because they are meant to detect the adulterant in the food but also because there should be correct detection of the disease caused by the bad food. The problem is that the Act does not give provision for such facility in the laboratories i.e. detection of the disease caused. Actually this should be one of the factors in deciding the graded punishment. The preamble of the FSSA, 2006 goes “An Act to…establish the Food Safety and standards Authority of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food.” The question that arises is, such emphasis on science not being part of the PFA, does the new Act that provides for the establishment of state-of-art laboratories which are much more prompt and fast in giving reports? Will the interaction of law with the science contribute towards the accurate reports? The fact is that certain fields of science- epidemiology, toxicology, and clinical medicine, among others- are centrally needed to informcourts of whether and to what extent exposure to a product might have contributed to someone‟s injury.( Carl F. Cranor, Toxic Torts, Science, Law and the Possibility of Justice 1(Cambridge University Press, NY, 2006).

Legal action

In 1998, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Department booked one trader for adulteration of mustard oil. After a prolonged legal battle, the trader was found guilty and A sessions court has sentenced a Delhi-based trader to two years' rigorous imprisonment for selling mustard oil adulterated with poisonous argemone oil which causes the deadly disease dropsy. "The perusal of report of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta, indicates that the sample was found adulterated with `Argemone oil' which is injurious to health,'' additional sessions judge Brijesh Kumar Garg said, while convicting Rakesh KumarArora. The court also slapped a fine of Rs 5,000 on convict Arora, proprietor of a retail shop in Karol Bagh area, for selling adulterated mustard oil. The court turned down the convict's plea that he cannot be held liable for the alleged adulteration as he was just a retailer and not the producer of the product. 

"The offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act are exception to the rule and ignorance of the accused about the nature, substances or quality of the food is no defence,'' the court said. It relied on the testimonies of local health authority, food inspector and on the report of the CFL, indicating presence of toxic argemone oil which causes dropsy. The court held that the prosecution has "successfully proved'' the case, lodged under sections 7 and 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

UDAY FOUNDATION FOR CONGENITAL DEFECTS AND RARE BLOOD GROUPS …Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS (W.P.(C) No.8568/2010)

The Delhi High Court order has come in a public interest litigation of 2010 on the availability of junk foods to school children. In its order, the Court has directed the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to implement the ‘Guidelines for making available wholesome, nutritious, safe and hygienic food to school children in India’. These guidelines were developed by a committee constituted by the FSSAI as directed by the Court.

The Court has directed that the guidelines be given a form of regulations or directions as per the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 within a period of three months to enforce their implementation across the country.

CSE (centre for science & environmrnt) says the judgement is significant, as it recognises the fact that this kind of food is bad for children. Could prove to be a milestone in combating diseases like obesity and diabetes among children in India 

Centre For Public Interest ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 October, 2013 , WP(C) NO. 681 OF 2004

In this case Supreme Court held that:

 Enjoyment of life and its attainment, including right to life and human dignity

encompasses, within its ambit availability of articles of food, without

insecticides or pesticides residues, veterinary drugs residues, antibiotic

residues, solvent residues, etc. We notice, fruit based soft drinks available in

various fruit stalls, contain such pesticides residues in alarming proportion, but

no attention is made to examine its contents. Children and infants are uniquely

susceptible to the effects of pesticides because of their physiological

immaturity and greater exposure to soft drinks, fruit based or otherwise.

Penal provisions are also provided in the Act. It is, therefore, of utmost

importance that the provisions of the FSS Acts are properly and effectively

implemented so that the State can achieve an appropriate level of human life

and health, safeguarding the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

VI. ConclusionThe adage goes that it is easy to find fault than to appreciate the thing. I don‟t completely disagree with it. The Act is answer to many problems that previously existed but the implementation part raises many speculations. Among the prominent features is the sanction part which provides for fine as well as imprisonment. First of all, the evil of food adulteration being a socio-economic crime generates a lot of

wealth and therefore the perpetrator would easily be able to pay the fine for which he becomes liable, be it 10 lakh rupees which is the highest. Secondly, as the socioeconomic crimes on one hand are considered to be harming the public to maximum extent and on the other hand they hardly carry the social stigma that is usually a feature in other forms of offence. The penalties will hardly solve the purpose. Therefore, along with this there should be provision for publication of the conviction so that people come to know about the perpetrator and at the same time they are also excluded from the syndicate that was working together with him. The extreme step could be blacklisting the manufacturer or seller, so that he cannot carry the business anymore. Power given to the consumer to take the sample is not a new feature. There are already a set of problems that he faces and that is the reason why we hardly find such steps being taken. The bigger problem is to detect or find the difference between a pure and adulterated food. General public finds it difficult to distinguish between the two.Therefore, this provision had been of rather no use in the past and there was no point in its retention. Instead, there should be special branch of police and inspectorate with wide power of search and seizure, which should be at strict vigil all the time. Again there is an appreciable feature of setting the tribunal at appellate level. Such tribunals are much required for the expeditious remedy. It would have been better if the same procedure was given for the court of first instance. There is also need to reconsider the number of times the person is given the chance of appeal. There is also provision for the special courts, where the burden of proof should be shifted from the prosecution. There should be a good coordination between the investigation team and prosecution because most of the escapes in past were because of the poor link between the two. Likewise, there are speculations regarding other features too, such as the number of inspectors or their qualification and training, etc. The biggest doubt that arises is the adaptability of the Act that has been framed by taking features from other countries and especially the Codex. Are the provisions suited for the Indian conditions especially with regard to the unorganized sector? For example, section 3(s) says about „Food Safety Management System‟ which means “adoption of Good Manufacturing Practices, Good Hygienic Practices, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point” for the food business. These terms are not explained in the definition clause though they are extensively dealt with in the Codex Alimentarius on Food hygiene Basic Text. There are high standards laid in the Text while defining the terms as “food hygiene”, “Hazard analysis and critical control point”. The Codex says about the „environmental hygiene‟ where the food production should not be carried in areas where there is presence of potentially harmful substances. The equipments used should be disinfected; there should not be contamination from the soil and air; the persons working in the establishment should not be infected with any disease, personal

hygiene, air ventilation, lighting, temperature control etc. With this background we can find very few establishments that fulfill the requirements if we don‟t consider the multinational setups. These guidelines work in the western countries because they have a strong enforcement mechanism. There the businessmen have the means to maintain such guidelines as they are rich. In India the position of traders is not so good. Moreover they don‟t have the sense of hygiene. Therefore, in spite of the best of the legislation, the result seems to be with no big change in the practice. It is because one cannot change the mind setup of the people who are illiterate and have little to think of others. This cannot be done all of a sudden but strict enforcement machinery is feasible. The need is not of a new legislation but to see whatever the provisions are, they should be strictly adhered to. At the same time the need of the hour is not an integrated law (that the Act actually is) but the integrated approach that includes the contribution from the public and NGOs(Bejon Mishra, CEO of an NGO named „Consumer Voice‟ is doing a commendable work in the concerned area)as well. At the same time taking note of the spate of the crime, a separate Ministry should be assigned the enforcement and control. True that the utopia of a society totally free from socio-economic crime as food adulteration is mere wishful thinking and impossible to achieve, but every step forward can be made by multiplying the efforts both in the legal, extra-legal planes and at the governmental level. „Honest Implementation‟ is the key word.

_____________________________________________________________________

3. Definitions. (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, – 2 (a) “adulterant” means any material which is or could be employed for making the food unsafe or sub-standard or mis-branded or containing extraneous matter; (f) “consumer” means persons and families purchasing and receiving food in order to meet their personal needs; (g) “contaminant” means any substance, whether or not added to food, but which is present in such food as a result of the production (including operations carried out in crop husbandry, animal husbandry or veterinary medicine), manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food or as a result of environmental contamination and does not include insect fragments, rodent hairs and other extraneous matter; (i) “extraneous matter” means any matter contained in an article of food which may be carried from the raw materials, packaging materials or process systems used for its manufacture or which is added to it, but such matter does not render such article of food unsafe;

(j) “Food” means any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, which is intended for human consumption and includes primary food to the extent defined in clause (zk), genetically modified or engineered food or food containing such ingredients, infant food, packaged drinking water, alcoholic drink, chewing gum, and any substance, including water used into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment but does not include any animal feed, live animals unless they are prepared or processed for placing on the market for human consumption, plants, prior to harvesting, drugs and medicinal products, cosmetics, narcotic or psychotropic substances : (k) “food additive” means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself or used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result (directly or indirectly), in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such food but does not include “contaminants” or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities; (n) “Food business” means any undertaking, whether for profit or not and whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of manufacture, processing, packaging, storage, transportation, distribution of food, import and includes food services, catering services, sale of food or food ingredients; (o) “food business operator” in relation to food business means a person by whom the business is carried on or owned and is responsible for ensuring the compliance of this Act, rules and regulations made thereunder; (q) “food safety” means assurance that food is acceptable for human consumption according to its intended use; (r) “food safety audit” means a systematic and functionally independent examination of food safety measures adopted by manufacturing units to determine whether such measures and related results meet with objectives of food safety and the claims made in that behalf; (s) “Food Safety Management System” means the adoption Good Manufacturing Practices, Good Hygienic Practices, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point and such other practices as may be specified by regulation, for the food business; u) “hazard” means a biological, chemical or physical agent in, or condition of, food with the potential to cause an adverse health effect; ((w) “improvement notice” means a notice issued under section 32 of this Act; (zn) “risk analysis”, in relation to any article of food, means a process consisting of three components, i.e. risk assessment, risk management and risk communication;

(zo) “risk assessment” means a scientifically based process consisting of the following steps : (i) hazard identification,(ii) hazard characterisation; (iii) exposure assessment, and (iv) risk characterisation;

(zp) “risk communication” means the interactive exchange of information and opinions throughout the risk analysis process concerning risks, risk-related factors and risk perceptions, among risk assessors, risk managers, consumers, industry, the academic community and other interested parties, including the explanation of risk assessment findings and the basis of risk management decisions; (zq) “risk management” means the process, distinct from risk assessment, of evaluating policy alternatives, in consultation with all interested parties considering risk assessment and other factors relevant for the protection of health of consumers and for the promotion of fair trade practices, and, if needed, selecting appropriate prevention and control options; (zu) “standard”, in relation to any article of food, means the standards notified by the Food Authority; (zz) “unsafe food” means an article of food whose nature, substance or quality is so affected as to render it injurious to health :— (i) by the article itself, or its package thereof, which is composed, whether wholly or in part, of poisonous or deleterious substance; or (ii) by the article consisting, wholly or in part, of any filthy, putrid, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal substance or vegetable substance; or (iii) by virtue of its unhygienic processing or the presence in that article of any harmful substance; or (iv) by the substitution of any inferior or cheaper substance whether wholly or in part; or (v) by addition of a substance directly or as an ingredient which is not permitted; or (vi) by the abstraction, wholly or in part, of any of its constituents; or (vii) by the article being so coloured, flavoured or coated, powdered or polished, as to damage or conceal the article or to make it appear better or of greater value than it really is; or 8 (viii) by the presence of any colouring matter or preservatives other than that specified in respect thereof; or (ix) by the article having been infected or infested with worms, weevils, or insects; or (x) by virtue of its being prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions; or (xi) by virtue of its being mis-branded or sub-standard or food containing extraneous matter; or (xii) by virtue of containing pesticides and other contaminants in excess of quantities specified by regulations.