Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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:[email protected]
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