A Reputed food product company based in India developed a food product for international market and started exporting the same after getting necessary approvals. The company announced this achievement and also indicated that soon the product will be made available for the domestic consumers with almost same quality and health benefits. Accordingly, the company got its product approved by the domestic competent authority and launched the product in Indian market. The company could increase its market share over a period of time and earned substantial profit both domestically and internationally. However, the random sample test conducted by inspecting team found the product being sold domestically in variance with the approval obtained from the competent authority. On further investigation, it was also discovered that the food company was not only selling products which were not meeting the health standard of the country but also selling the rejected export products in the domestic market. This episode adversely affected the reputation and profitability of the food company.1) What action do you visualize should be taken by the competent authority against the food company for violating the laid down domestic food standard and selling rejected export products in domestic market?2) What course of action is available with the food company to resolve the crisis and bring back its lost reputation?3) Examine the ethical dilemma involved in the case.
What the examiner wants
A reputed food company sells products below domestic standards, including rejected export batches, at home. Decide the regulator's action, the company's response, and the dilemma.
Demand-wise check
- 1(a) Regulator: recall, suspend licence, penalties under FSS Act, lab tests, public notice, check other batches≈65 words
- 2(b) Company: admit, recall, compensate, independent audit, fix supply chain, one standard for export and domestic≈65 words
- 3(c) Dilemma: profit and brand vs consumer safety; double standards for Indian consumers; jobs vs closure≈65 words
Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.
Answer plan
Where marks usually go
- Only blaming the company without regulator steps
- Missing the double-standard issue
Draw this
- Three boxes: regulator, company, consumer
Value addition
- ExampleFSSAI's 2015 action on Maggi noodles (lead and MSG labelling) led to a nationwide recall and the brand's later relaunch.FSSAI / Bombay High Court
- LawFood Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides for recall, licence suspension and penalties for unsafe food.FSS Act 2006
Mapped topper copies
Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.
- Shakti Dubey · AIR 1 · Page 37 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Aditya Pathak · Page 39 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Bhoomika Jain · Page 39 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
- Deepali Mahto · Page 9 ↗Reviewed PYQ reference
Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.
Next: plan for one minute, write it in 14 minutes, then get it checked.