PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA

COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS

HUNDRED FIFTY FIRST REPORT

Policy Petition Praying for Review of Meat Export Policy

(Presented on 13th February, 2014)

Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiFebruary, 2014/Magha, 1935 (Saka)

REPORT NO.

151

Website : http//rajysabha.nic.inE-Mail:rsc2pet@sansad.nic.in

Hindi Vessin of this publicetion is also auailable

PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA

COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS

HUNDRED FIFTY FIRST REPORT

Policy Petition Praying for Review of Meat Export Policy

(Presented on 13th February, 2014)

Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiFebruary, 2014/Magha, 1935 (Saka)

C O N T E N T S

PAGES

1 COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ......................................... (i)

2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................(iii-iv )

3 ACRONYMS .......................................................................(v)

4 REPORT

5 APPENDICES ......................................................................1-24

I Petition praying for review of Meat Export Policy........ 25-34

II Comments on the petition received from Ministry of

Commerce ................................................................35-42

6 Annexure

List of organisations/individuals, who appeared 43

before the Committee

Minutes of meetings of Committee 44-59

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

(Re-constituted w.e.f. 8th May, 2013)

1. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari - Chairman

2. Shri V.P. Singh Badnore

3. Shri Husain Dalwai

4. Dr. Akhilesh Das Gupta

5. Shri Paul Manoj Pandian

6. Shri P. Rajeeve

7. Shri Palvai Govardhan Reddy

*8. Shri Avinash Pande

9. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh

10. Shri A.V. Swamy

SECRETARIAT

1. Shri Alok Chatterjee, Joint Secretary

2. Shri Rakesh Naithani, Joint Director

3. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Deputy Director

4. Shri Goutam Kumar, Assistant Director

5. Shri Ranajit Chakraborty, Committee Officer

* Nominated w.e.f. 22nd July, 2013.

(i)

INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, having been autho-

rized by the Committee to submit the Report on its behalf, do hereby present

this Hundred Fifty-first Report of the Committee on the petition signed by

Jainacharya Shri Vijay Ratnasundarsuri, a resident of Mumbai and two

others and countersigned by Shri S.S. Ahluwalia, ex-MP, Rajya Sabha,

praying for review of Meat Export Policy (Appendix-I).

2. The petition was admitted by Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha on 7th

January, 2013 under the provisions of Chapter X of the Rules of Procedure

and Conduct of Business in Council of States (Rajya Sabha). In accor-

dance with Rule 145 ibid, the petition was reported to the Council on 26

February, 2013 by Secretary-General after which it stood referred to the

Committee on Petitions for examination and report in terms of Rule 150

ibid.

3. The Committee issued a Press Communique inviting suggestions from

individuals/organisations on the subject matter of the petition. In response

thereto, the Committee got overwhelming response and more than ten lakhs

memoranda were received by the Secretariat. The Secretariat scrutinized

those memoranda and a gist of the same has been suitably incorporated in

the Report.

4. The Committee heard the petitioner on his petition during its study

visit to Raipur on 4th June, 2013. The Committee also heard the represen-

tatives of selected NGOs/individuals, who had submitted their memoranda

against the issues raised in the petition in its sitting held on 17th Septem-

ber, 2013. The Committee heard the Secretaries, Department of Commerce

(Ministry of Commerce & Industry) on 30th October, 2013 and Depart-

(iii)

(iv)

ment of Animal Husbandry (Ministry of Agriculture) and Ministry of Health

& Family Welfare on 17 January, 2014. It considered the draft Report in its

sitting held on 12th February, 2014 and adopted the same.

5. The Committee while formulating its observations/ recommenda-

tions, has relied on the written comments of the concerned Ministries,

oral evidence of witnesses, observations of the Members of the Commit-

tee and interaction with other stakeholders and concerned citizens.

6. For facility of reference and convenience, the observations and

recommendations of the Committee have been printed in bold letters in

the Report in separate paragraphs.

New Delhi;February 12, 2014 BHAGAT SINGH KOSHYARI

Chairman,Committee on Petitions

Rajya sbha

ACRONYMS

DGFT : Director-General of Foreign Trade

APEDA : Agricultural and Processed Food Products

Export Development Authority

FSSAI : Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

TSEs : Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies

(v)

1

REPORT

Shri S.S.Ahluwalia, former M.P. (Rajya Sabha) forwarded a petition

signed by Jainacharya Vijay Ratnasundarsuri, a resident of Mumbai and

two others to the Council of States (Rajya Sabha), praying for the review

of Meat Export Policy. In their petition, the petitioners contended that the

Meat Export Policy was introduced by the Central Government in the year

1991-1992 to tide over the acute foreign exchange shortage in the country.

Several private sector export-oriented slaughter houses have since been

set up in the country pursuant to this policy. The petitioner has further

stated that the setting up of one such unit was challenged before the High

Court and later in appeal before the Supreme Court, which in its decision

dated 29th March, 2006 directed the Government to review the said meat

export policy in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy under

the Constitution of India and also in light of the policy’s potentially harmful

effects on the livestock population and the economy of the country.

2. The petition further states that the Ministry of Commerce and Industry

(D/o Commerce) have not complied with the above directions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court and have instead decided on 3 May, 2007 to continue with

the existing policy in view of unemployment, loss of foreign exchange,

adverse effect on the income of the farmers, increase in the number of

unproductive animals etc. The petitioners further contended that the Meat

Export Policy is violative of the various Constitutional provisions such as

19(1) (g), 21, 39(b) & (c), 47, 48, 48A and 51A which in general provides

for ‘compassion for living creatures’ as one of the fundamental duties and

places an obligation on the State for preserving/prohibiting the slaughter

of cows and for protection of environment and to safeguard forest and

wildlife. The Meat Export Policy is also violative of the various State Animal

Preservation Laws viz. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Besides

1

2

this, the Law Commission of India in its 159th Report, the National

Commission on Cattle in its Report submitted on 31.07.2002 and the Animal

Welfare Board of India in its 67th Executive Committee meeting have

recommended ban on meat export.

Meat Export Policy: Background

3. The existing Meat Export Policy stipulates that, the export of beef

(meat of cow, oxen and calf) is prohibited and is not permitted to be exported.

The export of chilled and frozen buffalo meat (male or female) is allowed

subject to the provisions specified in the Gazette Notifications on raw meat

(Chilled and Frozen) issued from time to time under the Export (Quality

Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. The Meat Export Policy was

strengthened in the year 2004 when it was notified (Vide DGFT Notification

No. 12/ (2004-2009 dated 21st December, 2004) that export of meat and

meat products will be allowed subject to the exporter furnishing a certificate

to the customs at the time of export that these items have been obtained/

sourced from an abattoir/meat processing plant registered with APEDA.

The Policy was further strengthened in 2011, by issuing a more

comprehensive notification (DGFT Notification No.82 (RE-2010)/2009-

2014 dated 31st October, 2011) that:

(i) Exporters would be required to certify both:

(a) that the items have been obtained/sourced from an APEDA

registered integrated abattoir or from APEDA registered meat

processing plant; and

(b) that the raw material have been sourced exclusively from

APEDA registered integrated abattoir.

3

(ii) the designated Veterinary Authority of the State have been authorized

to issue the Health Certificate on the basis of the inspections carriedout by Veterinarians duly registered under the Indian VeterinaryCouncil Act, 1984 employed by the exporting unit in relevantlaboratories.

3.1 The Foreign Trade Policy of Government of India provides that eachconsignment is compulsorily required to be accompanied by a certificatefrom the competent authority certifying that meat has been derived fromBuffaloes unfit for mulching and breeding. It is also mandatory for theIndian exporters to subject meat and meat products to ante-mortem andpost-mortem examination.

Petitioner’s oral submission (4th June, 2013)

4. The Committee on Petitions heard the petitioner and others on thepetition at Raipur on the 4th June, 2013 during its study visit to Nagpurand Raipur. The petitioner emphasized that catering to the economicambitions of a few in the trade or earning a small amount of foreign exchangefor a certain period is no compensation to the irreversible situation that thecountry might face in terms of national animal wealth and the attack on theecological and cultural system, which at no cost can be retrieved.

4.1. The petitioner further opined that the State is liable to imposereasonable restrictions on the occupation/trade carried out by a person inthe interest of general public, despite the Constitutional provisions containedin clause (6) of Article 19 pertaining to the freedom of occupation, trade orbusiness. Hence the need for the state to patronize the meat industry doesnot arise, which violates the citizen’s Fundamental duty to have compassionfor the living creatures. Further, the freedom of occupation does not givethe right to kill any animal, especially if the freedom of slaughtering business

is destructive of environment.

4

Deposition of Secretary, Department of Commerce (30th October, 2013)

5. The Commerce Secretary submitted that the Government permits

the export of buffalo meat only and regulates the same through its various

control orders, notifications to ensure that the meat is sourced only from

recognised abattoirs. He also submitted that the Central Government has

framed the Meat Export Policy but its implementation is being done by the

respective State Governments, which have the responsibility to ensure that

only the unproductive buffalo and not cow or calves are slaughtered in the

recognised abattoirs. The State Governments, under the Constitution of

India, have the responsibility to frame the animal preservation laws and to

issue health certificates to the unproductive buffalo for the purposes of

slaughtering.

5.1 The Secretary also explained that any ban on the meat export would

lead to unemployment, loss of foreign exchange, increase in number of

unproductive animals, crisis in the ancillary industries such as leather

industry etc. He also stated that for maintenance of eco-balance of the

livestock and improved milk production, slaughtering of unproductive

animals is required. He submitted to the Committee that Government of

India through various Quality Control Orders regulates the export of buffalo

meat. A series of notifications of Quality Control Orders was under the

Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 strengthen the various

aspects of quality, the DGFT has come out with some notifications - one in

2004 and another one on 31st October, 2011. Basically the purpose of these

two notifications was to ensure that the material is sourced from recognized

abattoirs and from processing plants that have linkage with registered

abattoirs or integrated processing plants that have abattoirs. The registration

process of abattoirs is done by the APEDA and it has recognized abattoirs

and processing plants.

5

5.2 He also submitted that the entire emphasis of the Government of

India is to frame the Export Policy and the implementation of the policy is

left to the State Governments. The veterinary doctors of the State issue the

health certificates. The purpose with which the health certificate is issued

is to ensure that the animals are not milching or not breeding. The State

Governments, under the Constitution, have the responsibility to frame the

animal preservation laws and the health certificate ensures that only

unproductive buffalo is slaughtered for export purposes. The buffalo meat

export earns valuable foreign exchange for the country which was almost

3.2 billion dollars in the year 2012-13 and is growing over time.

5.3 The Secretary further informed the Committee that as directed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter was reviewed in the Department of

Commerce in consultation with the Departments of Legal Affairs, Animal

Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Environment & Forests, Industrial Policy

& Promotion, Agricultural Processed Food Development Authority

(APEDA) in the light of the Directive Principles of State Policy, existing

Foreign Trade Policy for meat exports, livestock wealth of India, meat

production vs. export of meat and milk production in India. The Secretary

apprised that APEDA has examined the current meat export policy in light

of Article-47, 48 and 48-A of our Constitution and opined that the meat

export policy is not violative of the provisions contained therein. Pointing

out the observations of the various agencies, the Secretary stated that the

Ministry of Environment & Forests have stated that decision on permitting

or banning of export of meat should be based on careful consideration of

the local requirements and accurate data inputs on the animal population,

growth rate and the domestic need of the animals for various uses so as to

maintain ecological balance.

6

5.4 The Ministry further contended that in view of the country’s limited

fodder resources, rapid urbanization, the fodder for the healthy and

productive cattle cannot be frittered away on unproductive cattle just for

their dung yielding capacity. Scientific and sound animal husbandry

practices require that humane slaughtering is done to remove the poor

performing animals. Besides, a ban on meat exports would only give rise

to unauthorized slaughter while no doubt there is a necessity to increase

quality consciousness in slaughter-houses and improve hygiene.

Deposition of representatives of Department of Animal Husbandry,

Dairying & Fisheries (17th January, 2014)

6. The representatives of Department of Animal Husbandry apprised

the Committee that their role is limited to development of cattle industry.

The Department is also conducting Livestock Census since 1919-20. It

collects information on livestock every five years and does the animal

Census like the Census of human population. The Department’s

representatives go door to door and collect information and give the figures

and at present the 19th Livestock Census is in progress. The results are

likely to come in a month or so. Figures of the 17th Livestock Census and

18th Livestock Census are available with the Department. As per the 18th

Livestock Census, this figure is 529 million, however, as per the 17th

Livestock Census, the figure was 485 million. Thus, there is an increase of

livestock population by 44 million in the country. The growth of livestock

population among cattle, both exotic and crossbred, is around 33.9 per

cent. It is showing improvement in the breed of livestock. They further

submitted that as far as growth among indigenous cattle is concerned, it is

3.4 per cent. The growth among buffalo population is 7.5 per cent. However,

the population of dry animals for the last four censuses is on decline. In

1992, dry animals were 26.2 million, whereas in 1997 it was 24.9 million,

7

in 2003, it was 22.3 million and in 2007, it was only 21.0 million. Same is the

case with the dry buffaloes. In 1992, it was 14.4 million, in 1997 it was 14.3

million and in 2003, it went down to 13.9 million and in 2007, it was 12.99

million. So, dry cattle population is drastically going down.

6.1 The Department further informed the Committee that according to

the estimates, in successive years, right from 2000-01 to 2012-13, the

production of milk has been going up; it is hovering around 5 per cent plus

every year. The availability of per capita consumption across human

population is also going up. The Department assured the Committee that

the production aspect for improvement of the Animal Husbandry Sector is

being taken care of by them in an efficient good manner.

Deposition of Health Secretary (17th January, 2014)

7. Health Secretary submitted before the Committee that they are

responsible for anything which is related to manufacturing of food items

whether it could be meat or meat products. He emphasised that the important

point is the manner in which the animals are raised for slaughter. At the

policy level, it is the responsibility of the Department of Animal Husbandry.

But the FSSAI, certainly, has the right to determine what percentage of

additive substances or hormones should be in the food to make it of a

quality that is fit for human consumption. He assured the Committee that

the Union Health Department would advice the State Governments,

specifically in the case of meat export and slaughter houses in the country

where public health problem is arising out of very poor conditions, to ensure

better standards in the maintenance of slaughter houses and related facilities.

He also promised the Committee that a team consisting of representatives

of the FSSAI and of the Department of Health and Family Welfare would

visit Aligarh and other places for inspection of slaughter houses and suggests

8

measures to keep them clean if they are polluting the ambiance from

environmental point of view.

7.1 Chairman, FSSAI apprised the Committee that the Authority, have

been given the responsibility of ensuring safe food and also evolving

standards. The Authority is yet to evolve standards for products like animals,

etc. However, he informed the Committee that the Authority have scientific

panels, who have been given the responsibility of evolving standards for

all food items including quantity of steroids and antibiotics, which is

acceptable.

Suggestions/viewpoints of Stakeholders (17th September, 2013)

8. The Committee has received more than ten lakhs memoranda from

various organizations/individuals expressing views on the subject matter

of the petition. The petition was supported by most of the organizations/

individuals, however there are 700 memoranda received by the Committee

Secretariat which advocated continuance of the existing Meat Export Policy.

The Committee gave opportunity to some of the prominent organizations/

individuals who are against the issues raised in the petition, to appear before

the Committee (Annexure-I). The views expressed in the memoranda as

well as during the oral evidence by witnesses have been summarized and

given below:

(i) Roughly 25 per cent of the total meat products in the country

are exported and around two crore people are involved in the

trade of meat and meat products.

(ii) Only female buffaloes are used for producing milk whereas

the males are slaughtered for meat purposes.

9

(iii) As on date the country has 32 state-of-the art integrated

processing plants which are registered with APEDA for meat

export and there has been 44 per cent increase in meat export

in the last 4 years.

(iv) The meat export Industry, contrary to popular belief, is in fact

an increasing Green operation, because of the continuing

efforts for full utilizations off the livestock, to the extent that

the ingesta and dung is also processed and utilized for use as

fuel and thus there is very little solid waste, requiring disposal.

Newer water treatment methodologies adopted to enable reuse

of water in an increasing manner.

(v) A number of useful byproducts result from meat processing.

The most prominent are hides for leather manufacture and

rendered products used as ingredients in poultry feed

preparation.

(vi) A majority of farmers all over India supplement their meager

agricultural income by livestock products, including dairy

products. There are also the poor, marginal, landless farmers

whose primary source of livelihood and existence comes from

small livestock holdings. The meat export industry is known

to support small livestock farmer on various fronts and offer

remunerative prices for spent livestock, used in export

production.

(vii) The link between the farmers and meat export industry has

attained stability and maturity over a period of time. Respecting

this symbiotic relationship with farmers, the meat export

industry has been playing a significant role with respect to

10

enhancing the value of their livestock throughout its existence

and assistance for veterinary services, fostering adoption of

better animal rearing practices, etc.

(viii) There is no violation of Article 48 or any other Articles as

stated by the petitioners in continuing with Meat Export Policy.

The import of fertilizers in such large quantities as mentioned

are for meeting the food grain production for the increasing

human population. Meat export cannot be implicated, in fact

it provides much needed foreign exchange for such essential

imports.

(ix) Meat export Policy is not against Animal Preservation act as

the policy is for the entire country while preservation acts are

State specific and only approved animals are slaughtered for

export. There are enough provisions in the Prevention of

cruelty to Animals Act and Meat Export Policy is not against

these provisions. The Meat export units have the desired

facilities for proper handling and resting of the animals,

without any cruelty.

(x) The undesirable effects of retaining unproductive animals has

been well debated and concluded that it is not desirable to

retain large numbers of unproductive animals in the interest

of society at large. There is no depletion of cattle and the census

data indicate that, slaughter policy or meat export policy has

not affected buffalo population over the past decades.

(xi) Meat export needs to be viewed with a pragmatic approach,

as they immensely contribute for sustaining buffalo production

11

economy in the large interest of the society. Any undue curbs/

curtailment of meat export would have disastrous

consequences on milk production, farmers’ income and

country’s economy. Buffalo meat exports contribute for the

realization of full production potential of the species to the

benefit of farmers primarily and hence meat export policy must

be continued with revisions as per the inputs available from

different stakeholders.

Findings of the Committee:

9. Indian economy is based on agriculture and as per the 2011 census

72.2% of the population still lives in villages and survives for livelihood

on agriculture, animal husbandry and related occupations. They depend on

cattle for various purposes, including milk, fertilizer, etc. Catties are still

the backbone of Indian agriculture. They are part of social rural life and

serve the society in numerous ways. Further, the Committee is of the view

that Article 51(A) of the Constitution provides for ‘compassion for living

creatures’ as one of the Fundamental duties. Article 48 and 48(A) places an

obligation on the State for preserving/prohibiting the slaughter of cows

and for protection of environment and to safeguard forest and wildlife.

The Committee observes that in India, since centuries, for animals,society is having compassion all throughout and not only that, someanimals are worshiped. Compassion is to such an extent that withoutfeeding the animal may be dog, goat, cow or milch animals, personwould not take his meals. The dichotomy in the approach towardspreserving our animal wealth becomes apparent from the fact thatone hand we have The Wild Life (Pr otection) Act, 1972 which hasstringent provisions to provide protection to wild life wherein there isno cogent, coherent policy to preserve our domestic cattle wealth.

12

Animal slaughter goes against the basic principles of Indian culture

and philosophy, which teaches compassion for animals and is against

the teachings of ‘Ahimsa’ taught by Mahatma Gandhi, Father of the

nation. The Committee recommends for a more humane and

compassionate approach towards preventing the slaughter of animals.

9.1 The Committee takes a serious view towards the unhygienic

conditions prevailing in and around the abattoirs in the country and the

pollution caused due to the dumping of wastes in the open. The Committee

finds that there are around 45 integrated APEDA approved registered

abattoirs-cum-meat processing plants which export meat and these are

regularly monitored and quality controlled by the various Government

agencies. Besides, there are about 3,500 registered slaughter houses run by

the Municipal Corporations and about 12,000 unregistered slaughter houses

which cater to the domestic market in far flung remote villages. TheCommittee raised its concern over administration of abattoirs and theirmaintenance. The Committee recommends that the Ministry of Healthand Family Welfare should send a team comprising of specialists toplaces like Aligar h and provide a status note on the sanitary conditionsin areas in and around abattoirs and slaughter houses.

9.2 The Committee was apprised that administration of abattoirs is a

State subject and the State Governments have failed to put the system in

place for supervision of abattoirs. There is a scheme for modernization of

abattoirs by the Ministry of Food Processing Industries wherein local bodies

are given funds for upgradation of these abattoirs. The issue of extremely

bad conditions of slaughter houses in Aligarh was placed before the

Committee. The Committee has noted that as per the Supreme Court

Direction, the review of the meat export policy was not done properly. The

Committee also notes the dichotomy in the statement that the only old and

13

unproductive animals are slaughtered whereas the real fact is that young

and healthy animals are also being slaughtered. The Committee is also

distressed to note that the meat export policy is being looked from foreign

exchange point of view only and the Ministry has not conducted any study

on eco balancing and the damage that is being done to the country and

environment. As on date, the country has a foreign exchange reserve of

300 Billion Dollars. Meat export provides for merely only 1% of the total

foreign exchange reserve.

9.3 The Committee was apprised that no process including rendering

has been proven to be 100% effective in controlling Transmissible Spongiform

Encephalopathies (TSEs) and very little exposure even to the extent of

0.01% grams can induce infection. The Committee was also apprised that

even in case of rendering plants where slaughtered animals are processed

daily to manufacture tallow, bone meal, poultry feed etc. there is major

environmental degradation. After removals of the skin whole carcasses are

boiled, tallow is skimmed off and effluents generated are allowed to stagnate

on to surrounding land without any treatment. While the bones are sent to

the bone meal plant, cooked meat is crushed and used as meat meal

ingredient. The Committee was apprised that as per the present Foreign

Trade Policy in context of meat export policy S.No.19 (a) export of carcasses

of buffalo is prohibited along with other cuts with bone in despite the fact

that certain countries are ready to import these, mainly Pakistan which

permits import of these items through land route from Wagah border. The

Committee recommends for reducing the carcass overload within the country

by making requisite changes in the trade policy.

9.4 The Committee is distressed to note that monetary greed is causing

people to sell even young animals for slaughter and even buffaloes as young

as two or three years are being slaughtered as their meat is tender. The

14

Committee is also distressed to note that pursuant to the Supreme Court

orders, the Department of Commerce sought comments from the Ministry

of Food Processing Industries, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying

and Fisheries, Department of Environment and Forests, Department of

Industrial Policy and Promotion but no public opinion was invited or

considered. The Committee is also distressed to note that contrary to what

it is being claimed; roughly few thousand people are being given direct

employment by abattoirs recognized by APEDA for export. Even if people

involved in packaging and other ancillary activities are taken into account

the number is not very significant. The majority of people are involved in

the domestic sector and export sector hardly provide for much employment.

Hence the contention that ban on export of meat would lead to massive

unemployment is neither sustainable nor tenable.

Observation and recommendations of the Committee:

10. The Committee was apprised by the Department of Animal Husbandry

that as per the 18th Livestock Census, there has been increase of 7.6% in

the buffalo population. Whereas the availability of dry animals was 26.2

million in 1992, in 1997 it was 24.9 million, in 2003 it was 22.3 million and in

2007 it was 21 million. Regarding dry buffaloes in 1992, it was 14.4 million

and in 2007 it was 12.99 million. The Committee is given to understand that

there has been further reduction in the buffalo population mainly due to

slaughtering. During the course of examination the Committee was painted

to note that there is no synchronization between the various Departments

leading to a severe policy paralysis, on the issues of cattle wealth of the

Nation. The Committee is distressed to note that there are several

Departments dealing with the issue of animal health i.e. the

Department of Animal Husbandry, Animal Welfare Board, Ministry

15

of Food Processing Industries, Ministry of Health and FamilyWelfare, Diarying & Fisheries, Department of Environment &Forests and Ministry of Commerce resulting in total chaos. TheCommittee, while highlighting the fact that the Internationalstandards of meat necessitate slaughter of young and healthy animalsrather than old and unproductive animals as stated by the Ministry,recommends that critical analysis of meat export policy may be doneby a Commission comprising of farmers, cattle owners, expertsworking in this field and its recommendations should beimplemented by the Government. The Committee also recommendsthat the Government should not grant permission for functioning ofany new slaughter house until the critical analysis by the dedicatedCommission is complete. The Committee also advocates review ofpolicy of giving subsidies to the meat exporters and recommends atotal ban on the subsidies and tax benefits. The Committee furtherrecommends strict implementation of the rules and orders pertainingto the meat export policy.

10.1 The Committee finds that there are 45 integrated world class APEDAapproved registered abattoirs cum meat processing plants which exportmeat and these are regularly monitored and quality controlled by the variousgovernment agencies. Besides, there are about 3,500 registered slaughterhouses run by the Municipal Corporations and about 12,000 unregisteredslaughter houses which cater to the domestic market in far flung remotevillages. The Committee was distressed to know the pathetic, unhygieniccondition of slaughter-houses specially in places like Aligarh. The Committeeraised its concern over administration of abattoirs and their maintenance.The Committee strongly recommends that no permission should be givenunder any circumstances for opening up of new abattoirs unless the old

ones are administered and maintained properly as per the APEDA’s

guidelines.

16

10.2 The Committee observed that presently, there is no organised and

scientific system of disposal of dead animals. Although, land is earmarked

for this purpose but in absence of scientific inputs and technical support,

the disposal has become a major environmental hazard. The Committee is

distressed to note that absence of a proper mechanism for disposal of

carcasses in a large number of slaughter houses leading to the possibility

of major animal disease outbreak. The Committee is of the opinion that

proper method of animal carcass disposal for slaughtered animals must

also be designed. The Committee feels that the very best method of

dealing with disposal of animal carcasses is to avoid the need to

slaughter the animals. The Committee strongly recommends that the

local Veterinary Administration must assume the responsibility for

proper disposal of carcasses. The Committee also recommends that a

list of pathogens, method of transmission, zoonotic potential,

environmental resistance and susceptibility to disinfectants as well as

disinfectant availability may be made by the Ministry of Health and

Family Welfare and issued to APEDA and State Governments so

that slaughtering of animals does not become a health hazard as

prevalent in areas like Aligar h. The Committee recommends for a

complete ban on pyre burning, composting, mass burial or open

farm burial, commercial landfilling and fermentation of carcasses to

prevent air, water and soil contamination.

10.3 The Committee has been given to understand that no process including

rendering has been proven to be completely effective in controlling

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) and very little exposure

even to the extent of 0.01% grams can induce infection. The Committee

has noted that even in case of rendering plants where slaughtered animals

are processed daily to manufacture tallow, bone meal, poultry feed etc.

17

there is major environmental deterioration in the adjoining areas. The area

around these plants is highly polluted and putrid odour permeates for

kilometres around. After de-skinning whole carcasses are boiled, tallow is

skimmed off and effluents generated are allowed to remain on to surrounding

land without any treatment. The Committee has also noted that as per the

present export policy, export of carcasses of buffalo is not permitted along

with other cuts with bone in despite the fact that certain countries are ready

to import these, like Pakistan which permits import of these items through

land route. The Committee recommends that all kinds of carcasses

should not be allowed to create an unhygienic dumping ground and

should be appropriately utilized or disposed of hygienically and

scientifically by making necessary changes in the trade policy to reduce

carcass overload within the country. The Committee feels that the very

best method of dealing with disposal of animal carcasses is to avoid

the need to slaughter the animals.

10.4 The Committee is concerned to note that milk inflation is an area of

great concern. There has been an increase of around 20% in milk prices on

yearly basis due to increasing mismatch between demand and supply. The

Committee is concerned to note that despite all checks, young female

buffaloes are being slaughtered with impunity in connivance with the local

state government officials. The Committee is of the opinion that ulterior

consideration would always leave ample scope for malpractices like

slaughter of young buffaloes. The fact also remains that importing countries

prefer meat from young and healthy animals. The present meat export policy

S.No.19 (b) states that export would be allowed on production of a certificate

from the designated veterinary authority of the state, from which the meat

or offals emanate to the effect that they are from buffaloes not used for

breeding and milch purposes. The Committee is strained to note that in

18

case of export houses it is not humanly possible to check each and every

animal and hence there is rampant violation in actual practice of these

provisions wherein young milch buffaloes are regularly slaughtered for

export. This fact can be corroborated by the fact that the recent animal

census reflects a declining trend in buffalo population in the country. The

Committee is shocked at the contradictory figures being provided by the

Department of Animal Husbandry leading to an extremely opaque picture

with regard to actual trends in buffalo population. The Committee strongly

recommends that the Department of Animal Husbandry may

undertake a National Survey by taking atleast five districts in each

state on a random basis to study the reasons for declining female buffalo

population with each progressive year. The Committee also strongly

recommends that the Department of Animal Husbandry should play a

more proactive role in preserving the cattle wealth of the country

instead of being a mute spectator.

10.5 The Committee is distressed to note that the day is not far when

India would be a milk importing country if the slaughter of young and

healthy female buffaloes is not arrested. The Committee is concerned to

note that the problem of milk adulteration and repeated increase in milk

prices have their genesis in declining female buffalo population in

percentage terms in comparison to human population. India is way behind

global standards in ensuring global per capita consumption of milk. As per

rough estimate, a steep rise of 29% in the demand for milk in our country is

anticipated in the next five years. Total requirement for milk would be

around 150 million tonnes by the end of 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17). At

present, 116 million tonnes of milk is estimated to be produced in our

country. Out of this stock produced in the country, the percentage of

adulteration is very high. It can be understood by the fact that recently,

19

70% milk samples collected across the country by Food Safety Authority

did not conform to standards. The Committee is constrained to mote

that the Department of Animal Husbandry has not taken this problem

seriously and has not paid adequate stress to enhancement of buffalo

population. The Committee feels that incessant increase of milk prices

to the range of 20% year to year basis is an indication of a deeper

malaise having created a mismatch between demand and supply of

milk and r ecommends that Department of Animal Husbandry should

initiate a pan India programme to organise Animal Husbandry on

modern and scientific lines and also take steps for preserving and

impr oving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter of healthy and

milch animals.

10.6 The Committee is constrained to note that on the pattern of pulses,

oil seeds, India is likely to become a net importer of milk in case indiscriminate

slaughtering of female buffaloes is not contained. Despite having adequate

provisions in the export policy it is not humanly possible to check each and

every consignment at abattoirs. The Committee is pained to know that

time and again during the course of examination the Department of

Commerce and other Government agencies which appeared before

it, have generally given the impression that only male buffaloes are

slaughtered for export and females are kept for milk. The Committee

strongly condemns slaughtering of female milch buffaloes and

recommends that the Government should immediately stop export

of meat of female buffaloes. The Committee notes that despite

regulation the procedure followed to certify each and every animal

by the veterinary professionals is a mere formality and eyewash.

The Committee understands that veterinary inspectors succumb to

inducements and pass animals not really unproductive as useless

20

and fit for slaughter. The Committee in this background stronglyrecommends for amendment in the current Foreign Trade Policywith r eference to meat export policy Sl.No. l9 (a) Tarif f item HSCode 0201 which reads as ‘Meat of buffalo (both male and female)fresh and chilled as permissible items for export’ to read as ‘Meatof buffalo (strictly male only)’. The Committee further recommendsthat all APEDA recognised export houses for meat export shouldnot be allowed to export until they involve themselves in actualrearing of buffaloes.

10.7 The Committee is pained to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Courtwas coerced to urge the State Governments to make necessary amendmentsin their laws to make production and marketing of adulterated milk an offencepunishable with life imprisonment. Adulteration of milk is a dir ectsymptom of inadequate supply of pure milk and increasing priceswhich have their origin in the reducing buffalo population. Adequatesupply of pure milk at reasonable prices would make adulteratedmilk as commercially unviable. The Committee has been apprisedthat amendment to the Foreign Trade Policy is done on a five yearlybasis, however keeping in view the distressing picture andindications on a ground level. The Committee strongly recommendsfor complete ban on slaughter of female buffaloes for exportpurposes.

10.8 The Committee observes that the FSSAI have been given theresponsibility of ensuring safe food and also evolving standards for animalproducts but it is yet to evolve any protocol /standards for raising of animals,usage of hormones/steroids, usage of any other harmful substance etc. TheCommittee therefore recommends that the Authority should havescientific panels, which may be given the responsibility of evolvingstandards for all animal products including quantity of steroids andantibiotics, which is acceptable, to be used for animals. It has also

21

been reported that diseased buffaloes are being blatantly slaughtered

and their meat is entering the food chain creating possibilities of drug

resistant zoonotic diseases. FSSAI may regularly monitor the

conditions of abattoirs/slaughter houses to prevent such practices.

10.9 The Committee was apprised of the method of painful slaughtering

that is being conventionally adopted throughout the country even in abattoirs

recognized by municipal corporations. The Committee recommends that

stunning or any other globally accepted practice which makes the

process of slaughtering pain free may be made mandatory for all

abattoirs. Chemical stunning being painless may be adopted for smaller

animals like goat and sheep. The Committee therefore strongly

recommends that all APEDA recognized export houses should adopt

the best humane form of slaughtering in sync with the best international

practices.

10.10 The Committee is concerned to note the pathetic sanitary conditions

prevalent in abattoirs throughout the country. The atmosphere is full of

toxic pathogens thus polluting the entire environment in the vicinity. The

Committee recommends that food grade surface disinfectants should

be made mandatory for sanitizing all contact surfaces of abattoirs.

As of now the sanitization process is being done through non-food

grade disinfectants or chlorine. The Committee notes that most of

the pathogens exist in the form of free floating bacteria and a vast

number of pathogens get grouped into biofilms. These bacterial

colonies are protected by a self produced polymer matrix which

these bacteria build to cover and protect the entire colony. These

bacteria in the form of biofilms adhere to aqueous environments

and anchor themselves to human and animal tissue. The Committee

22

therefore strongly recommends that surface based disinfectants

which are harmless to human beings and adjoining atmosphere like

stabilized chlorine dioxide with long term residual antimicrobial

sanitization benefits and which produce no harmful by-products for

the environment should be made mandatory by APEDA for sanitationpurposes by export houses.

10.11 The Committee is concerned with the air, water and soil contaminationprevalent in areas adjoining slaughter houses. The committee is apprised ofthe fact that certain old abattoirs don’t have adequate spaces for effluenttreatment and waste is released in the open. The Committee recommendsthat all abattoirs specifically the ones recognized by APEDA shouldhave zero effluent release beyond the abattoir premises. In casethere are abattoirs located in the vicinity of residential areas everyeffort should be made to shift these abattoirs to areas on the outskirtsof towns so that there is no health hazard.

10.12 The Committee has noted that several small slaughter houses areslaughtering buffaloes in unhygienic conditions and are selling their produceto APEDA recognised meat export houses which in turn export these meatproducts. Despite the guidelines of APEDA monitoring the outsourcedslaughter houses is humanly not possible and the situation on the actualground is dismal. The Committee is also aware of the buffalo theft menacein rural India where stolen buffaloes are illegally slaughtered on a largescale. The Committee strongly recommends that sourcing of allAPEDA recognised abattoirs be monitored on a regular basis tocheck such malpractices to avoid sourcing of products from dubioussources. The Committee has noted that the meat export industryhas very less payback time and is one of the most lucrative industriesin the country yet tax holiday benefits under section 80-IB (11-A)have been extended to this industry. Besides the total direct and

23

indir ect employment actually generated by all the APEDA recognised

meat export houses is extremely less. The Committee also feels

that there is no need to provide any sort of incentive to the industry

keeping in view its monopolistic character and profitability .

10.13 The Committee is distressed to note the manner in which large scale

‘smuggling on hoof of live animals takes place through India’s porous

borders mainly on borders adjoining Bangladesh and Pakistan. It has been

regularly reported that live animals mainly cows are smuggled across the

borders in connivance with the some paramilitary forces which are supposed

to guard our borders. The Committee strongly recommends that Ministry

of Home Af fairs should set in a clear mechanism and issue necessary

dir ections to our paramilitar y forces that such activity shall be taken

as a violation and shall be punishable. The Committee recommends

for suitable deterrent action to prevent smuggling of live animals mainly

cows through our borders.

10.14The Committee was informed by members of public that some

APEDA approved slaughter houses in the country are mixing cow meat

also in their export consignments despite clear cut ban on cow slaughter.

The Committee recommends for random supervision by APEDA and

laboratory testing of the products being exported so as to prevent any

such violation. In case of detection of cow meat in export consignments

the Committee recommends for strict and time bound action including

cancellation of APEDA registration.

10.15The Committee notes that Article 51(A) of the Constitution provides

for ‘compassion for living creatures’ as one of the Fundamental Duties.

Article 48 and 48(A) places an obligation on the State for preserving/

prohibiting the slaughter of cows and for protection of environment and to

24

safeguard forest and wildlife. The Committee observes that in India, since

centuries, for animals, society is having compassion all throughout and not

only that, some animals are worshiped. Compassion is to such an extent

that without feeding the animal may be dog, goat, cow or milch animals,

person would not take his meals. Animal slaughter goes against the basic

principles of Indian culture and philosophy, which teaches compassion for

animals and is against the teachings of ‘Ahimsa’ taught by Mahatma Gandhi.

The Committee has also noted that the review of Meat Export Policy

pursuant to the directions of Supreme Court has not been done in a

comprehensive manner by the Ministry of Commerce. The Committee

strongly recommends that the entire Meat Export Policy be again

reviewed by the Department of Commerce in a time bound manner

within thr ee months by involving all stake holders including members

of the public. The Ministr y of Commerce may take into consideration

the findings/observations/recommendations of this Committee

including long term implications of the meat export policy before

finalising the review. The Committee recommends that pending this

review no new abattoirs should be registered by APEDA.

25

APPENDIX-I

Petition praying for review of meat Export Policy

To,

The Council of States (Rajya Sabha)

The Main Petition of Jain Acharya Vijay Ratnasundarsuri (Acharya of JainTapagachha Comunity)having its correspondence Address at RatnatryayeeTrust, 258, Gandhi Gali, Swadeshi Market, Kaibadevi Road, Mumbai400 002

AND Co-Petitioner

1) Pravin B. Jain, Trusti, Shri Bhuvan Bhanu Suriswarji Jivdaya Trust,Villholi, Nashik, having its correspondence Address at -2 Revti Apt.Opp. Sambhaji Stadium, Cidco, Nashik 422 009

2) Hitesh L. Shah, Share Stock Broker, having its correspondenceAddress at -75, Perin, Nariman Street, 2nd floor, Fort, Mumbai-400001.

1) In the backdrop of acute Foreign Exchange shortage, meat exportwas considered as one of the thrust area to boost Foreign Exchangeearnings and hence meat export policy was introduced by the CentralGovernment in the year 1991-92. Several Private Sector export-oriented slaughter houses have since been set up pursuant to thisPolicy.

2) Setting up of one of such initial units i.e. M/s. Al-Kabeer Exports

Ltd. in Andhara Pradesh was challenged before the High Court and

later in Appeal before the Supreme Court, which directed the Central

Government to review the meat export policy vide its judgment dated

29-03-2006 in Akhil Bharat Krushi Goseva Sangh V/s. A.P. Pollution

25

26

Control Board and Ors. [2006(4)SSC 162]. The Supreme Court

direction was “to review the meat export policy in the light of

the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution

of India, and also in the light of the policy’s potentially harmful

effects on livestock population, and therefore on the economy

of the country.”

3) The Commerce Ministry has since issued an Office Memorandum

dated 3-5-2007 recording its decision to continue with the existing

Policy.

4) The Petitioners submit that the Commerce Ministry has failed to

conduct the review exercise taking into consideration the concern of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, both in respect of the Directive Principles

of State Policy and the potentially harmful effects of this Policy. Hence

this Petition before the Rajya Sabha on grounds stated hereunder.

5) The Commerce Ministry has stated in its Office Memorandum that

view of Ministry of Law & Justice, Deptt. of LegalAffairs,

Departgment of Animal Husbandry, Dairing & Fisheries, Ministry of

Food Processing Industries, Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Department of Industrial Policy of Promotion, O/o Directorate General

of Foreign Trade, Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export

Development Authority (APEDA) and Export Inspection Council

were sought.

6) The Petiitoners, in the name of one of its functionaries at Delhi, had

sought copies of communications from all the above Departments/

Ministries obtained by the Commerce Ministry, under the Right to

27

Information Act. On perusal of the replies it appears that some have

replied that they have no information to submit, some have replied

that they are not concerned with the subject, some have submitted

statistics which have no relevance to the specific subject, some have

described the procedure and the relevant orders applicable in respect

of meat export. However, none of the Department has evaluated the

issues in the context of very specific and pointed directions of the

Supreme Court. In short, the opinions of various Ministries/

Departments are absolutely without application of mind.

7) The Commerce Ministry in their Office Memorandum has contended

that at the hearing held on 14th March, 2007 of the Representatives

of organizations which had asked for review of Meat Export Policy

the contentions raised were regarding environment, hygiene,

economic loss to the nation, cruelty to animals and social effects. It

is contended that no specific argument for revising meat export policy

was given except that the Policy is used for export of meat of cows

and meat of young animals. However, this is not true. The present

Petitioners had submitted a very detailed representation in writing

divided in 13 Chapters covering all vital aspects.

8) The Ministry has contended that the ban on export of meat will lead

to unemployment, loss of foreign exchange and will also affect the

income of farmers. The Ministry is taking into account only the

employment generated for people connected with meat export trade.

However, there is a manifold larger population which is deprived of

their employment connected with animals or which are handicapped

for want of adequate animals in the system. The question is to

compare the employment of a tiny segment of population vis-a-vis

employment of a vast segment of population.

28

9) The Ministry has contended that ban will lead to rise in number of

unproductive animals which would be environmentally degrading.

However, absolute numbers alone do not give the correct picture.

Even if there is growth in absolute numbers, as a ratio to human

population the population is decreasing. Further, increase in milk

production in absolute terms is also misleading as it has to be seen

in relation to population growth.

Even per capita availability figures of milk are also misleading due to

the inherent shortcomings of the principle of averages.

10) The Ministry’s contention that ban on meat exports will give rise to

unauthorised slaughter is unacceptable. If one merits the ban is

justified it is the duty of the State to ensure that the ban is enforced.

Inability to enforce a ban cannot to taken as a justification for not

imposing a ban. Further, the Ministry has contended that only about

7.62% of meat production in the country is exported. If the meat

export is so small, it is all the more easier to decide in favour of a

ban. It is contented that exports increase quality consciousness in

slaughter houses. However, it is to be noted that bulk of the meat

consumed all over the country (leaving aside only large cities) is in

any case produced in unhygienic conditions. Even in respect of the

authorized slaughter houses all over the country the report of the

population control departments of the States will be an eye opener as

to the conditions prevailing in most of the slaughter houses.

11) It is contended that the Supreme Court has not chosen to strike down

the current policy. This being a policy matter, is the precise reason

why the Supreme Court has not chosen to order a ban by its own

29

direction, but has directed the Central Government to review the

meat export policy in the light of Directive Principles as well as the

Policy’s potentially harmful effects on livestock population and

therefore on the economy of the country. The direction is implicit in

appreciating that the Directive Principles are violated and the Policy

is potentially harmful. No heed is paid to these concerns of the

Supreme Court.

12) Meat Export is rising at enormous speed and the export of buffalo

meat in 2005-06 was 4,59,938 MT which means slaughter of

approximately 50 lakh young and healthy buffaloes.

13) International standards for meat necessitate slaughter of young and

healthy animals and local State laws prohibit slaughter of young and

healthy animals. This is an unresolvable inherent contradiction as

noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also way back in 1997 in one

of the interim orders in the same case. At the same time, there is no

Central Law to protect useful animals which are important for

agriculture.

14) Slaughter of animals in such large numbers deprives the Nation of

their dung availability which affects agriculture and the use of

chemical fertilizers damages the fertility of the soil, pollutes

agricultural farms, water, air and food grains and increases cost in

agricultural sector. This violates the provisions of Article 48 in the

Constitution which the Supreme Court had in mind when it spoke of

Directive Principles of State Policy in its direction.

15) Due to rising input costs of chemical fertilizers and chemical

presticides, there is enormous burden of subsidy on the Central

30

Government. Lakhs of crores of rupees of taxpayers money has

been wasted on food and fertilizer subsidies in the last 5 decades. It

would be interesting to study the figures of food and fertilizer subsidy

in the last three decades. As per the Fertiliser Statistics published by

the Fertiliser Association of India, New Delhi, from a total subsidy of

Rs.537 crore on Food and Fertiliser during the year 1976-77, the

same has increased to a staggering amount of Rs.22,451 crores

(Fertiliser subsidy alone, as figures for Food subsidy are not available)

for 2007-2008 and the cumulative burden is Rs.4,00,933 crore upto

2007-08.

16) The Ministry of chemicals and Fertilisers has demanded an allocation

of Rupees One lakh crores for the next Financial Year by way of

subsidy on chemical fertilizers alone and if we continue to slaughter

animals at the present rate, the subsidy requirement will continue to

rise at fast rate.

17) The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in State of Gujrat V/s

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat [2005(8)SSC 534] that animals

do not become useless at any point of time due to their utility of

yielding dung and urine which are the sources of organic manure

and organic pesticide.

18) There has been severe cattle depletion as a result of meat export

policy. The cattle to human ratio is constantly failing and India ranks

very poor in this ratio compared to other agricultural economies.

19) The Standing Committee on Agriculture in the 14th Lok Sabha

recommended (Recommendation No.11) taking steps to increase

animal population, in its report published in August, 2004.

31

20) There are following five basic issues involved which have to be

examined for meaningful review of this Policy:

a) Meat Export involves catering to the economic ambitions of afew and in the process creates an irreversible situation ofdepletion of national animal wealth. Meat export caters to theneed of other countries at the cost of our young and healthyanimals.

b) Claim of Fundamental Right by the butchers negates theFundamental Right of a much larger section of the Societywhich depends on cattle for their livelihood. The acute shortageof useful animals has by and large affected the availability andprices of essential commodities such as foodgrains, miik ghee

etc.

c) The protection of Fundamental Right of meat sector by the

Government runs contrary to the Fundamental Duty (Article

51A) in the Constitution to have compassion for all living

creatures. Can the Government, which has to be a role model

for observing fundamental duties, be seen as the violator of

fundamental duties?

d) The freedom of occupation cannot give freedom of killing

any animal of any number of animals. If earning a few crumbs

of foreign exchange is the only criteria, then anything and

everything which yields profits is liable to be slaughtered and

exported.

e) The freedom of trade, business and occupation of the meat

industry is destructive of environment and of animal kingdom.

32

21) The meat export policy is violative of various Constitutional provisions

such as Article 19(1 )(g), Article 39(b) and (c), Article 47, Article 48, Article

48A and Article 51 A. The Policy of the Government permitting killing of

animals has no legal or Constitutional sanction. On the contrary, it violates

Article 48 which gives positive commands to preserve and protect animals.

It also violates Article 21.

22) Meat export Policy is violative of various State Animal Preservation

Laws. These laws impose restriction based on age and utility of animals

and also prohibit interstate transport of animals for slaughter. There is cruelty

involved in transportation and thus the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Act, 1960 is violated.

23) Though there is ban on slaughter of cow progeny animals for export,

there is large scale clandestine slaughter of cattle under the garb of slaughter

of buffaloes for export of meat. The dwindling population of cattle in the

country bears testimony to this fact. There have been many incidences of

intercepting large consignment of beef being transported from slaughter

houses and godowns for export.

24) The Law Commission of India in its 159th Report, The National

Commission on Cattle in its report submitted on 31st July, 2002 and the

Animal Welfare Board of India in its 67th Executive Committee Meeting

have recommended ban on meat export.

25) Animals are National wealth and common property of the Society

and this wealth cannot be frittered away by indiscriminate slaughter for

economic benefit of a few individuals and corporates.

33

26) Meat export was started to meet the Foreign Exchange shortage in

1991-92. However, now the country has Foreign Exchange Reserve of more

than US $ 300 billion (Rs.12/- lakh crores). In addition, several other sectors

have since developed which earn more than Rs.2,50,000/- crores per year

in Foreign Exchange compared to the mere Rs.3,000/- crores earned by the

meat sector.

27) In fact, the most important data necessary for review of this Policy

and the co-ordinated approach of various Ministries to this issue are totally

absent. There is no monitoring mechanism in place to examine availability

of slaughterable animals vis-a-vis slaughter capacity created in the country

as a whole, both for local consumption and for export. The State Laws are

not uniform regarding criteria to determine slaughterable animals and tran

snational movement of animals for slaughter negates the provisions of State

laws. The animal census exrercise has no provision to collect data regarding

slaughterable animals. The procurement of animals for slaughter is not

localized and has not control of local authorities. Each exporter considers

entire country as his hinterland for procuring animals and after exhausting

local availability the exporter can procure animals from any area of the

country.

28) The grounds for banning meat export are very briefly given herein

above and may be elaborated in detail if an opportunity for hearing is given.

And accordingly, your Petitioner prays that the Committee on Petitions may

critically examine the Meat Export Policy of the Government of India and

make suitable recommendations to the Government so as to address the

contentions raised in the petition.

34

Name of Petitioners Address Signature or thumbImpression

Jain Acharya Vijay Ratnatryayee Trust,Ratnasundarsudri 258, Gandhi Gali,(Acharya of Jain Swadeshi Market,Tapagachha Comunity) Kalbadevi Road,

Mumbai 400 002

Name of Co-Petitioners Address Signature or thumbImpression

Pravin B. Jain 2 Revti Apt.Trusti Shri Bhuvan Bhanu Opp. SambhajiSuriswarji Jivdaya Trust Stadium Cidco,Villaholi, Nashik Nashik 422 009

Hitesh L. Shah 75, Perin NarimanShare Stock Broker Street, 2nd floor,

Fort, Mumbai-400001

Counter Signature of Member Presenting

35

APPENDIX-II

Comments on the petition received from Ministry of Commerce

{Vide Communication No. 18/4/2012 - EP (Agri. II),dated 4th April, 2012}

The replies to the points raised by the Petitioners are given as below:

1. The Central Government had recognised meat export as one of thethrust area. It was not only to earn Foreign Exchange, but, foremployment generation, increasing income for the farmers, maintainingproper balance of productive live stocks in the system are amongstthe other reasons.

2. Initially, M/s Al Kabeer had established a modern abattoir for exportwhich was challenged before the High Court, and later in appealbefore the Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased todismiss the petition with a direction to review the Meat Export Policy.It, however, did not choose to strike down the current meat exportpolicy. The Government after taking into account all aspects of theissue was of the opinion that the current Meat Export Policy needsno change.

3. No Comments.

4. The Ministry of Commerce had taken a considered view to continuewith the current Meat Export Policy.

5. Based on the views received from various stakeholders, the Ministryof Commerce & Industry is of the view that the existing policy of

export of meat should be continued as it provides employment to the

poorest section of the society and improves the economic condition

of the farmers. It also maintains the equilibrium of the livestock

35

36

population with the feed resources available for feeding the animals.

The country is already short of fodder. Therefore, if the required

animal extraction rate is not maintained, number of unproductive

animals will increase and feeding of the large number of animals will

create more pressure on feed resources, which are already in short

supply and would affect the dairy industry also.

6. This Ministry has no knowledge about the replies which have been

received by the Petitioners from the different Ministries. However,

this Ministry is of the opinion that the current meat policy should be

continued.

7. The export of meat of cow is banned from India. The meat industry

(the export of meat) is’based on slaughtering of the unproductive

and retired animals from dairy and draught animals. Therefore, this

does not affect the productive animal population.

8. The large number of people are involved in the meat trade. Only

un-productive and retired animals are used for meat purposes, which

are not part of the Production system.

9. It is true that the ban will lead to the rise in the number of unproductive

animals which will be a further constraint on feeding animals and

thereby on the milk production. Selection and culling of animals is a

scientific method to increase the milk production. Dairy animals are

selected for breeding to produce more milk whereas unproductive

animals are culled to remove from the population.

10. Humane slaughtering is the scientific method of culling prevalent

throughout the world. So, in order to maintain the eco-balance of the

livestock and improve milk production, slaughtering of unproductive

37

animals is required. The Government has registered only 34 integrated

modern slaughter houses for the purpose of exports with proper

hygienic conditions.

It is true that only small percentage of meat is exported out of the

total produce in the country. There are many people who are involved

in this trade, therefore, if the ban on export is enforced, there might

be unauthorized slaughtering of the animals which might lead to

unhygienic environment in the country.

11. The Supreme Court was seized with this problem and has not directed

the Central Government to put a ban on the export of meat from the

country. The export of meat has not affected the livestock population

in the country as has been mentioned in the previous paragraphs.

12. Meat industry is slaughtering only the unproductive animals and not

productive animals. The milk production has already increased.

During last year, production was 117 million tonnes. India became

the largest milk producer in the world. As reported earlier, milk

production is closely linked with meat industry. Milk can be produced

from dairy animals after calving. Each calving has in general 50%

males and 50% females. The females are used as replacement of

dairy animals, whereas males are used for meat production. Similarly,

the animals that have retired from the work or dairy, are also

slaughtered because it becomes uneconomical for farmers to keep

them with the rising feed prices.

13. As per the Foreign Trade Policy of Government of India each

consignment is compulsorily required to be accompanied by a

certificate from the competent authority certifying that meat has been

38

derived from Buffaloes unfit for milching, breeding and drought. It isalso mandatory for the Indian exporters to subject meat and meat

products to anti mortem and post mortem examination. Therefore,meat for export is obtained from the un-productive animals.

14. Only a partial amount of dung is used as fertilizer. Therefore,

slaughtering of small population does not affect the crop productionin the country. Otherwise also maintaining the animal only for dung

purposes is not economical for the farmers and is not in consonancewith the good animal husbandry practices.

15. No Comments.

16. No Comments.

17. No Comments.

18. There has been no depletion in the cattle population in the country

as a result of the meat export policy as has already been clarifiedearlier.

19. As mentioned above the export of meat has not affected the productive

animal population. Infact, livestock economy in India is plagued bypoor livestock management policy. Basic reason is continued

maintenance of large inventories of poor yielding animals.

20. The policy of export of meat be continued as mentioned above forvarious reasons in the interest of the country, economy, farmers and

as a matter of good animal husbandry practices.

(a) Impact of Meat Export: There is no decline in animalpopulation; on the contrary, the population of large animals

has increased.

39

(b) Butchers Fundamental Rights vis a vis Majority. Everyindividual has got Fundamental Right irrespective of whetherhe belongs to a small ethnic group or profession or belongs tolarger / majority section of the society; and the majority cannotenforce their choice on the small minority which will benegation of equal rights in a secular democratic society ofIndia.

(c) Fundamental Right vis a vis Fundamental Duty (Article 51-A):

Export of meat does not run counter to the fundamental duty(Article 51-A) of the Constitution of India. Instead of allowingthe animals to die from hunger, culling the unproductive animalsby humane slaughtering is a much better and compassionateform followed throughout the world.

(d) Freedom of Occupation: Animals are transported as perguidelines and norms laid down in the Prevention of Crueltyto Animals Act 1960 and the rules framed under it from timeto time, for example, transportation of animals in trucks,railways etc.

(e) The export of buffalo, sheep and goat meat is allowed as perthe policy of the Government of India. There is, however, atotal ban on the export of cow / bullock meat (beef).

21. The meat export policy is not in-violation of any constitutionalprovisions.

22. The various State Animal Preservation Laws are protected since onlyhumane method of slaughtering is adopted and only unproductive

animals are slaughtered.

40

23. As per the Foreign Trade Policy of Government of India each

consignment is compulsorily required to be accompanied by a

certificate from the competent authority certifying that meat has been

derived from Buffaloes unfit for milching, breeding and drought. It

is also mandatory for the Indian exporters to subject meat and meat

products to anti mortem and post mortem examination. Therefore ,

meat for export is obtained from the un-productive animals.

24. The Animal Welfare Board has suggested that there should be no

cruelty towards the animals. There is no mention to place ban on

slaughter of the animals.

25. It is true that animals are national wealth; but they cannot be allowed

to overgrow to disturb the ecological balance, and if not fed properly

would die with hunger and diseases.

26. Meat export was started not only for reasons of foreign exchange

earning but eco-balancing also for raising standard of living of

marginal farmers, landless labourers etc., whose well being is directly

linked with the growth of livestock and human population.

27. As per statistics of Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying,

Government of India, the livestock population is increasing, so is

the milk production and meat production in the country, but it has to

be kept in a manageable situation so that we maintain the availability

of food and fodder and do not keep the animals in a very poor

condition.

28. Finally, if may be stated that only small portion of the large animals

are slaughtered annually. There is a steady growth in the population

of cattle. Of the total production of 6.3 million tonnes of meat, only

41

0.7 million tonnes is exported amounting to about 9% of total

production. The rest of the meat is consumed locally. Scientific

culling of animals is humane slaughter which will maintain ecological

balance of the animals with the feed resources available. Therefore,

ban on export of meat is not suggested as it will affect not only the

foreign exchange earnings, but will also lead to large scale

unemployment amongst the economically vulnerable society. It will

also affect the leather and other ancilliary industry which is directly

linked with the meat industry.

In fact, livestock economy in India is plagued by poor livestock

management policy. Basic reason is continued maintenance of large

inventories of poor yielding animals in particular cattle. Export of

buffalo meat is important not only for earning valuable foreign

exchange, but maintaining proper balance of productive livestock in

the system. Any ban of meat export will lead to a rise in number of

unproductive animals which would be environmentally degrading.

Further the scarce resources of fodder etc. would be unnecessarily

shared between productive and unproductive animals, thereby

pushing the productive animals towards non-productivity.

Primarily buffalo in India is meant to produce milk and secondarily

the animals which have retired and cannot be used for milk, work or

breeding proposes, are used for production of meat. Similarly

unproductive and surplus meals are used for meat production.

Culling of poor productive animals is an established practice in

livestock production. Sound animal husbandry practices require that

poor performing animals are not retained in the production system

and are removed. Utilization of these animals for meat production is

an obvious choice.

42

Meat exports also help in raising the standard of living of small and

marginal farmers who rear buffaloes in their small backyards, and

are also able to sell their uneconomical buffaloes.

According to data available with the Department of Animal

Husbandry & Dairying, the estimated milk production in the country

in 2007 - 08 was 559 lac tons, up from 543 lac tons a year ago. Also

relevant is the fact that according to the 17th quinquennial Livestock

Census 2003, the buffalo population in India was 96.6 million. This

was 7.45% growth over the previous Live Stock Census i.e. 16th

quinquennial of 1997, at which time the country’s buffalo population

stood at 89.9 million. And as per the 18th Quinquennial Livestock

Census 2007. the buffalo population was 105.34 million (+9.04%)

The country’s limited fodder resources, fast depleting due to rapid

urbanization, needs to be preserved for healthy and productive cattle.

43

ANNERURE

List of organischions/india duals appeared before the Committce

List of non-official witnesses of the associations and individuals in connectionwith Meeting of the Committee on Petitions at 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday, the17 September, 2013 in Room No. 63, First Floor, Parliament House, NewDelhi on the petition praying for review against the Meat Export Policy:

I. HMA AGRO Industries Ltd, Agra, U.P.

1. Shri Gulzar Ahmed

II. Bhartiya Muslim Welfare Society (Regd.), Agra, UP

1. Shri Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutto

III. All India Jamiatul Quresh (Regd.) & Hind Agro Industries Ltd.,New Delhi

1. Shri Sirajuddin Qureshi

2. Shri Samar Qureshi

3. Dr. S.K. Ranjhan

IV. All India Meat & Livestock Exporters Association (AIMLEA),New Delhi

1. Shri Rashid Kadimi

2. Dr. Kondaiah

V. Federation of Indian Export Organisations, New Delhi

1. Shri Ajay Sahai

2. Shri H.C. Pant

3. Shri Abhishek Tayal

VI. Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations (CIFA), New Delhi.

1. Shri P. Chengal Reddy

44

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

COMMITTEE

VIII

EIGHTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.30 A.M. on Tuesday, 17th September, 2013

in Room No. 63, First Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

PRESENT

1. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari - Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri V.P. Singh Badnore

3. Shri Paul Manoj Pandian

4. Shri P. Rajeeve

5. Shri Palvai Govardhan Reddy

6. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh

7. Shri A.V. Swamy

8. Shri Avinash Pande

SECRETARIAT

Shri Alok Chatterjee, Joint Secretary

Shri Rakesh Naithani, Joint Director

Shri Rajendra. Tiwari, Deputy Director

Shri Goutam Kumar, Assistant Director

45

List of representatives of associations and individuals against the issues

raised in the petition praying for review of the Meat Export Policy:

I. HMA AGRO Industries Ltd, Agra, U.P.

Shri Gulzar Ahmed

II. Bhartiya Mulsim Welfare Society (Regd.), Agra, U.P.

Shri Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutto

III. All India Jamiatul Quresh (Regd.) & Hind Agro Industries Ltd., New

Delhi

1. Shri Sirajuddin Qureshi

2. Shri Samar Qureshi

3. Dr. S.K. Ranjhan

4. Shri Tariq Anwar

IV. All India Meat & Livestock Exporters Association (AIMLEA), New

Delhi

1. Shri Rashid Kadimi

2. Dr. Kondaiah

V. Federation of Indian Export Organisations, New Delhi

1. Shri Ajay Sahai

2. Shri H.C. Pant

3. Shri Abhishek Tayal

46

VI. Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations (CIFA), New Delhi.

Shri P. Chengal Reddy

2. * * *

3. Taking up the agenda for the day, the Chairman apprised the

Committee that more than ten lakhs memoranda had been received both in

favour and against the issues raised in the petition. The Committee invited

representatives of the organisations/individuals who have submitted their

memoranda against the issues raised in the petition. The views expressed

during the oral evidence of witnesses have been summarized and given

below:-

(i) Roughly 25 per cent of the total meat products in the country

are exported and around two crore people are involved in the

trade of meat and meat products.

(ii) Female buffaloes are used for producing milk whereas only

males buffaloes are slaughtered for meat purposes.

(iii) As on date the country has 32 state-of-the art integrated

processing plants which are registered with APEDA for meat

export and there has been 44 per cent increase in meat export

in the last 4 years.

(iv) A number of useful byproducts result from meat processing.

The most prominent are hides for leather manufacture and

rendered products used as ingredients in poultry feed

preparation.

*** Relate to other matter.

47

(v) A majority of farmers all over India supplement their meager

agricultural income by livestock products, including dairy

products. There are also the poor, marginal, landless farmers

whose primary source of livelihood and existence comes from

small livestock holdings. The meat export industry is known

to support small livestock farmer on various fronts and offer

remunerative prices for spent livestock, used in export

production.

(vi) The link between the farmers and meat export industry has

attained stability and maturity over a period of time. Respecting

this symbiotic relationship with farmers, the meat export

industry has been playing a significant role with respect to

enhancing the value of their livestock throughout its existence

and assistance for veterinary services, fostering adoption of

better animal rearing practices, etc.

(vii) There is no violation of Article 48 or any other Articles as

stated by the petitioners in continuing with Meat Export Policy.

The import of fertilizers in such large quantities as mentioned

are for meeting the food grain production for the increasing

human population. Meat export cannot be implicated, in fact

it provides much needed foreign exchange for such essential

imports.

(viii) Meat export Policy is not against Animal Preservation act as

the policy is for the entire country while preservation acts are

State specific and only approved animals are slaughtered for

export. There are enough provisions in the Prevention of cruelty

48

to Animals Act and Meat Export Policy is not against these

provisions. The Meat export units have the desired facilities

for proper handling and resting of the animals, without any

cruelty.

(ix) The undesirable effects of retaining unproductive animals has

been well debated and concluded that it is not desirable to

retain large numbers of unproductive animals in the interest

of society at large. There is no depletion of cattle and the census

data indicate that, slaughter policy or meat export policy has

not affected buffalo population over the past decades.

(x) Meat export needs to be viewed with a pragmatic approach,

as they immensely contribute for sustaining buffalo production

economy in the large interest of the society. Any undue curbs/

curtailment of meat export would have disastrous

consequences on milk production, farmers’ income and

country’s economy. Buffalo meat exports contribute for the

realization of full production potential of the species to the

benefit of farmers primarily and hence meat export policy must

be continued with revisions as per the inputs available from

different stake holders.

4. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.

5. The meeting, thereafter, adjourned at 12.55 P.M.

49

XI

ELEVENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday, the 30th October,

2013 in Committee Room ‘A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe,

New Delhi.

PRESENT

1. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari - Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri Husain Dalwai

3. Shri Paul Manoj Pandian

4. Shri P. Rajeeve

5. Shri Palvai Govardhan Reddy

6. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh

7. Shri A.V. Swamy

SECRETARIAT

Shri Alok Chatterjee, Joint Secretary

Shri Rakesh Naithani, Joint Director

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Deputy Director

Shri Goutam Kumar, Assistant Director

Shri Ranajit Chakraborty, Committee Officer

50

Witnesses on the petition praying for review of meat export policy:

(i) Representatives of Department of Commerce (Ministry of

Commerce & Industry) and other organisations

1. Shri S.R. Rao, Secretary

2. Shri A.K. Tripathy, Joint Secretary

3. Shri V.K. Srivastava, Additional Director General of Foreign

Trade

4. Shri Hardeep Singh, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade

5. Shri Tarun’Bajaj, General Manager, Agricultural &

Processed Food Products Export Development Authority

(APEDA)

(ii) Representative of Department of Food Processing Industries

Ms. Anuradha Prasad, Joint Secretary

(iii) Representative of Department of Animal Husbandry

1. Dr. V.K. Arora, Joint Commissioner

2. The Chairman, at the outset, informed the Members about the

agenda for the day i.e.. recording of oral evidence of the Secretary,

Department of Commerce (Ministry of Commerce & Industry) on the

petition praying for review of meat export policy. He also apprised the

Members that the Committee had already heard the petitioner and certain

organisations/individuals, who have submitted their Memorandum against

the issue raised in the petition in response to the Press Release issued by

51

the Committee. The Chairman then requested the witnesses to submit their

views before the Committee.

3. The Secretary apprised the Committee that the Government permits

the export of buffalo meat only and regulates the same through its various

control orders, notifications to ensure that the meat is sourced only from

recognised abattoirs. He also submitted that the Central Government has

framed the Meat Export Policy but its implementation is being done by the

respective State Governments, which has the responsibility to ensure that

only the unproductive buffalo and not cow or calves are slaughtered in the

recognised abattoirs. The State Governments, under the Constitution of

India, have the responsibility to frame the animal preservation laws and to

issue health certificates to the unproductive buffalo for the purposes of

slaughtering. He further mentioned that the buffalo meat industry earned a

very substantial amount of foreign exchange of almost 3.2 billion dollars

in the year 2012-13.

3.1 The Secretary slso informed the Committee that as per the direction

of the Supreme Court to review the meat export policy, consultations were

held and written inputs were obtained from various stakeholders and

Departments viz. Department/s of Animal Husbandry, Dairy & Fisheries,

Environment & Forests and Industrial Policy & Promotion. After the

consultations it emerged that the present Meat Export Policy needed no

change as it was not violating’ any of the constitutional provisions and an

order was passed to that effect.

4. The Secretary also explained that any ban on the meat export would

lead to unemployment, loss of foreign exchange, increase in number of

unproductive animals, crisis in the ancillary industries such as leather

industry etc. He also stated that for maintenance of eco-balance of the

52

livestock and improved milk production, slaughtering of unproductive animals

is required. He also apprised the Committee that the Animal Welfare Board

has not placed any ban on slaughter of animals in their list of cruelties

towards animals.

5. The Members of the Committee drew the attention of the Ministry

towards the unhygienic conditions prevailing in and around the abattoirs

in the country and the pollution caused due to the dumping of wastes in the

open. The Ministry stated that the administration of abattoirs is a State

subject and mechanisms have been devised through their Animal Husbandry

Department for supervising abattoirs. The Ministry also informed that the

Ministry of Food Processing Industries had brought about a scheme for

‘Modernisation of Abattoirs’ in the 11th Five Year Plan and the same had

been upscaled in the 12th Five Year Plan and 50 such projects of

modernisation of abattoirs are being taken up by the Ministry. The Chairman

then advised the Department of Commerce to invite public opinion on the

review of Meat Export Policy and requested the Secretary to submit the

written response to all the queries posed by the Members.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

6. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.

7. The meeting, thereafter, adjourned at 12:41 P.M.

53

XV

FIFTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 03:00 P.M. on Friday, the 17th January, 2014 in

Committee Room ‘A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

PRESENT

1. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari - Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri Husain Dalwai

3. Shri P. Rajeeve

4. Shri Palvai Govardhan Reddy

5. Shri Avinash Pande

SECRETARIAT

Shri Alok Chatterjee, Joint Secretary

Shri Rakesh Naithani, Joint Director

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Deputy Director

Shri Goutam Kumar, Assistant Director

Shri Ranajit Chakraborty, Committee Officer

Witnesses on the petition praying for review of Meat Export Policy:

54

(i) Representatives of Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying

& Fisheries (Ministry of Agriculture)

1. Shri Rajbir Singh Rana, Joint Secretary

2. Shri S.K. Das, Advisor (Statistics)

(ii) Representatives of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

1. Shri Keshav Desiraju, Secretary

2. Shri R.K. Jain, Additional Secretary &

Director-General

(CGHS)

3. Shri A.K. Panda, Joint Secretary

4. Shri K. Chandramouli, Chairman, FSSAI

2. The Chairman, at the outset, informed the Members about the agenda

for the day i.e. recording of the oral evidences of the representatives of the

Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries (Ministry of

Agriculture) and the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare on

the petition praying for the review of Meat Export Policy.

The Chairman stated the salient points raised by the petitioner and then

requested the representatives of the Department of Animal Husbandry,

Dairying & Fisheries to share their views on the petition.

3. The representative of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying

& Fisheries apprised the Committee that the role of the Department is limited

to the development of the cattle industry, which included prevention of

diseases, export/import of products, activities relating to fisheries,

55

conducting livestock census etc. Since Animal Husbandry is a state subject.,

the State Government looks after the various programmes associated with

it and the Department only supports these programmes. He further explained

that the main responsibility of the Meat Export policy lies with the Department

of Commerce and the Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export

Development Authority (APEDA), which accredits them for export

purposes. Besides, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries is

implementing a scheme with an outlay of Rs. 1500 crores for modernization

of slaughter houses, for providing good quality meat for domestic purpose

and the scheme is being continued for the 12th Plan as well.

3.1 The Chairman pointed out that that though Meat Export Policy may

not be the responsibility of the Department Animal Husbandry, Dairying

& Fisheries, the protection of animal-wealth as enshrined in the Articles

48, 48(A) and 51 of the Constitution is the duty of the Department. The

Department clarified that the protection of animal wealth is the responsibility

of the Animal Welfare Board, which comes under the Ministry of

Environment & Forests. The Chairman expressed his concern on the

anomaly that a Department related to animal husbandry does not have any

thing to do with the protection of animals.

3.2. In reply to a query ol a Member, the Department stated that it has

been conducting livestock census since 1919-20 and the census is conducted

after every five years. Presently, the 19th livestock census is in progress

and the results are likely to come within a month. As per the 18th Livestock

Census, this figure is 529 million, as compared to the 17th Census, when

the figure was 485 million, thus indicating an increase of livestock

population in the country. The growth of livestock population among cattle,

both exotic and crossbred, is around 33.9 per cent. The Department also

stated that during this period, while growth among indigenous cattle was

56

3.4 per cent, the buffalo population grew by 7.6 per cent. The overall growth

in bovine population has gone up by 7.5 per cent. As regards, the population

of dry animals, the Department stated that for the last four census it is on

decline. In 1992, dry animals were 26.2 million, whereas in 1997 it was 24.9

million, in 2003, it was 22.3 million and in 2007, it was only 21.0 million.

Similar is the case with the dry buffaloes. In 1992, it was 14.4 million, in

1997 it was 14.3 million and in 2003, it went down to 13.9 million and in

2007, it was 12.99 million.

3.3. In reply to another query, the Department stated that there is a need

to strengthen the monitoring mechanism on the part of the Government and

on the other hand there must be self-regulation on the part of the meat

industry as well, as regards animal purchasing, transport of cattle and

slaughtering. As regards the production of milk the Department stated that

it has gone up by over 5 per cent, over successive years, right from 2000-01

to 2012-13 and per capita consumption of milk has also increased.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

4. The Committee then heard the Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family

Welfare alongwith the Chairman, Food Safety and Standards Authority of

India (FSSAI), on the petition praying for the review of Meat Export Policy.

4.1. The Health Secretary and the Chairman, FSSAI submitted that the

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, under which the Food Safety and

Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), was created mainly relates to food

safety manufacturing, processing, distribution. etc. Though the Act is

applicable for the meat processing industry for domestic consumption is not

applicable for the exported food products.

57

4.2. The Chairman of the Committee raised the issue of unhygienic

conditions near the slaughter houses, most of which are illegal and the health

concerns arising out of it. The Chairman, FSSAI clarified that the task of

maintaining sanitation and cleanliness near the slaughter houses, for internal

meat processing and consumption is the responsibility of the Health Ministry

and it is mandatory for the big slaughter houses to obtain license from the

FSSAI before beginning its operations. As regards the small slaughter houses,

the State Government issues licenses and also ensures implementation of

the FSS Act. The Food Safety Commissioners of the concerned State

Governments and the FSSAI, are jointly responsible for the ensuring proper

construction, and cleanliness of the slaughter houses. The Chairman, FSSAI

also stated that scientific panels in the Authority decide upon the development

of standards for all food items including meat products.

4.3. The Chairman of the Committee desired that the representatives of

the Ministry and FSSAI should physically visit the sites and check the

implementation of norms by the slaughter houses, specially at Aligarh.

The Chairman, FSSAI assured the Committee that the representatives of

the Ministry and the Authority would visit the places of slaughter houses

and take up the issue of health concerns due to its unhygienic conditions

with the concerned state governments.

5. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.

6. The meeting, thereafter, adjourned at 3:59 P.M.

58

XIV

SIXTEENTH MEETING

The Committee met at 10:30 A.M. on Wednesday, the 12th February,

2014 in Room No. 126 ‘A’, Third Floor, Parliament House, New Delhi.

PRESENT

1. Shri Bhagat Singh Koshyari - Chairman

MEMBERS

2. Shri V.P. Singh Badnore

3. Shri Husain Dalwai

4. Shri Palvai Govardhan Reddy

5. Shri Arvind Kumar Singh

6. Shri A.V. Swamy

SECRETARY

Shri Alok Chatterjee, Joint Secretary

Shri Rakesh Naithani, Joint Director

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Deputy Director

Shri Goutam Kumar, Assistant Director

Shri Ranajit Chakraborty. Committee Officer

59

2. The Committee took up for consideration its **** draft Hundred and

Fifty-first Report on the petition praying for review of Meaf Export Policy

and adopted both the reports with minor modifications.

3. The Committee authorized its Chairman and in his absence Shri Husain

Dalwai to present the Reports to the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, the 13th

February, 2014.

4. The meeting, thereafter, adjourned at 10:55 A.M.

****Relate to other matter