Introduction

Geographical Indications (GIs) represent a vital intellectual property mechanism for protecting traditional food products that derive unique qualities, characteristics, or reputation from their geographical origin. In India, which boasts a rich and diverse culinary heritage spanning centuries, GI protection has gained increasing importance for traditional food products ranging from Darjeeling Tea to Basmati Rice, Tirupati Laddu to Hyderabad Haleem. However, the interface between GI protection and food standardization presents complex legal challenges, as these two regulatory frameworks pursue related but sometimes conflicting objectives. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), as the apex food regulatory body, establishes mandatory standards for food products, while GI protection under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, aims to preserve traditional production methods and regional distinctiveness.

This intersection creates a regulatory tension: FSSAI’s standardization process seeks consistency, safety, and quality across product categories, potentially limiting regional variations, while GI protection aims to preserve precisely those distinctive regional characteristics that may deviate from generic standards. This article examines the legal considerations arising at this regulatory intersection, analyzing the framework for incorporating GI protection in FSSAI food standards, integration mechanisms, enforcement challenges, conflict resolution approaches, and international harmonization issues. Understanding these legal dimensions is essential for policymakers, food producers, and legal practitioners navigating the complex interplay between these regulatory systems.

Legal Framework for GI Protection in FSSAI Food Standards

The legal framework governing the intersection of GI protection in FSSAI food standards in India emerges from two distinct legislative regimes that only partially address their interaction. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 establishes the primary system for registering and protecting GIs in India. Section 2(1)(e) of this Act defines a geographical indication as “an indication which identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”

This definition encompasses many traditional food products with distinctive regional characteristics. The Act creates a registration system administered by the Geographical Indications Registry, requiring applicants to file a detailed specification of the product, including its unique characteristics, production methods, and geographical linkage. Once registered, Section 22 of the Act prohibits unauthorized use of registered GIs, providing legal protection against misappropriation. However, the Act does not explicitly address how GI specifications interact with food standards established under separate regulatory frameworks.

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 creates the complementary legal framework for food standards. Section 16 of this Act empowers FSSAI to specify food standards, while Section 22 prohibits the manufacture, storage, sale, or distribution of any article of food that does not conform to established standards. These standards typically specify compositional criteria, quality parameters, additives, contaminant limits, and labeling requirements. Traditional GI products must navigate this standardization framework, which may not always accommodate their distinctive characteristics.

The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, contain the detailed standards for various food categories. While these regulations have been amended multiple times, they have only inconsistently addressed GI products. Some product categories contain specific provisions recognizing traditional variations, while others establish uniform national standards without accommodating regional distinctiveness. This inconsistent approach creates legal uncertainty for GI food products that may comply with their registered specifications but deviate from generic standards.

The Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, provide additional protection for GI products at India’s borders, prohibiting the import of goods that infringe registered GIs. However, these rules focus on preventing counterfeit imports rather than addressing the intersection of GI specifications with food standards. This creates another layer of complexity, as imported foods must satisfy both customs enforcement of GI protection and FSSAI’s product standards during import clearance.

A review of this legal framework reveals several gaps in addressing the GIf-standards interface. First, neither regulatory system explicitly references the other, creating uncertainty about which requirements prevail when conflicts arise. Second, the standardization process lacks formal mechanisms for considering GI specifications when developing generic product standards. Third, enforcement responsibilities remain fragmented between the GI Registry, FSSAI, and customs authorities, potentially creating inconsistent approaches.

Integration of GI Protection in FSSAI Food Standards

Despite the gaps in the formal legal framework, several integration mechanisms have emerged to accommodate GI protection within food standardization processes. The most direct approach involves recognition of GI specifications within product category standards. In select cases, FSSAI has incorporated specific provisions recognizing the unique characteristics of GI products within broader product standards.

A notable example is the standards for Basmati Rice, one of India’s most valuable agricultural GIs. The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Amendment Regulations, 2023, specifically recognized Basmati as a special category, incorporating key elements from its GI specification into the rice standards. This amendment acknowledged Basmati’s distinctive characteristics, including its specific varieties, geographical cultivation regions, elongation ratio, and aroma. This direct incorporation provides legal clarity for producers and enforcement authorities by explicitly recognizing that Basmati rice conforming to its GI specification satisfies FSSAI standards despite differences from generic rice parameters.

Similarly, the standards for Darjeeling Tea acknowledge its protected status and distinctive characteristics. The relevant regulations reference the GI specification regarding cultivation altitude, processing methods, and characteristic aroma, creating a harmonized approach between GI protection and food standards. This integration model represents the most comprehensive approach to resolving potential conflicts between the two regulatory frameworks.

However, such explicit integration remains the exception rather than the rule. Most food standards either do not address GI products or provide only limited derogations for traditional methods. This inconsistent approach creates legal uncertainty for many GI holders, who must navigate potentially conflicting requirements between their registered specifications and generic standards.

Legal precedents regarding standards for GI products have begun to emerge from disputes involving standard specifications that impact GI products. A significant case involved standards for Tirupati Laddu, a traditional sweetmeat with GI protection. When FSSAI’s generic standards for sweetmeats potentially conflicted with traditional preparation methods, the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (the GI rights holder) sought clarification regarding which requirements prevailed. FSSAI ultimately issued a clarification acknowledging that traditional production methods specified in the GI could continue despite minor deviations from generic standards, establishing an important precedent for accommodating GI specifications.

Another important precedent emerged from a case involving standards for Bikaneri Bhujia, a traditional snack food with GI protection. Manufacturers following the traditional recipe specified in the GI registration faced challenges complying with FSSAI’s general standards for namkeen snacks, particularly regarding fat content and specific ingredient requirements. Following representations from the GI holder association, FSSAI issued a clarification allowing traditional production methods to continue with appropriate labeling, demonstrating a pragmatic approach to resolving such conflicts.

These emerging precedents suggest a growing recognition of the need to accommodate GI specifications within the standardization framework, even when formal integration is lacking. However, this case-by-case approach creates ongoing legal uncertainty for GI holders, who cannot predict in advance how potential conflicts will be resolved.

Enforcement Challenges in GI Protection under FSSAI Food Standards

The practical enforcement of standards for GI food products presents significant challenges stemming from the dual regulatory systems and complex verification requirements. Testing and verification protocols represent a primary challenge, as traditional GI products often possess characteristics difficult to verify through conventional food testing methods. While standard food products are typically assessed through compositional analysis, many GI products derive their distinctiveness from factors like traditional production methods, specific microclimates, or artisanal techniques that cannot be verified through routine laboratory testing.

This verification challenge was highlighted in a 2021 case involving Naga King Chili (Bhut Jolokia), which has GI protection based on its distinctive cultivation in specific districts of Nagaland and its exceptionally high capsaicin content. Enforcement authorities struggled to differentiate authentic GI products from similar chilies grown elsewhere, as conventional testing could verify capsaicin levels but not geographical origin. This case highlighted the need for specialized verification protocols that combine analytical testing with traceability documentation to effectively enforce both GI protection and food standards.

Cross-border protection issues create additional enforcement complications, particularly for imported GI products or exports of Indian GIs. When imported foods claim GI status, FSSAI and customs authorities must coordinate to verify both compliance with Indian food standards and authentic origin from the registered geographical area. This verification process becomes particularly complex when the GI specification includes production methods not recognized in Indian standards, creating potential barriers to market access despite international protection.

A revealing case study involved the import controls for European cheeses with protected designations of origin. Several traditional European cheeses with protected status, including Parmigiano Reggiano and Roquefort, faced import challenges due to differences between their traditional production specifications and Indian cheese standards. FSSAI ultimately developed a specialized verification protocol for protected foreign cheeses, requiring documentation of origin certification from the source country alongside basic safety parameters. This pragmatic approach accommodated traditional production methods while maintaining essential safety requirements, establishing an important precedent for cross-border GI protection.

Enforcement actions against GI violations in domestic markets illustrate additional challenges in coordinating between multiple regulatory authorities. A significant case arose in 2022 involving counterfeit Alphonso mangoes, which have GI protection based on their cultivation in specific districts of Maharashtra. When FSSAI food safety officers discovered mangoes falsely labeled as Alphonso in markets outside the GI region, they faced jurisdictional questions about whether enforcement fell under food standards violation (FSSAI’s jurisdiction) or GI infringement (requiring coordination with the GI Registry). This case highlighted the need for improved coordination protocols between regulatory bodies to effectively address dual violations.

These enforcement challenges underscore the need for specialized approaches to GI food products that accommodate their unique characteristics while ensuring basic safety and quality. The current enforcement system, designed primarily for conventional standardized products, requires adaptation to effectively protect the dual interests of preserving traditional GI characteristics while ensuring food safety and quality.

Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

When conflicts arise between GI specifications and food standards, various resolution mechanisms have emerged, though they remain inconsistently applied. Jurisdictional issues between the GI Registry and FSSAI create fundamental challenges in resolving such conflicts. The GI Registry, operating under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, has primary authority over GI registration and enforcement, while FSSAI, under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has jurisdiction over food standards. This divided jurisdiction creates questions about which authority’s determinations prevail when conflicts arise.

The legal framework provides limited guidance on resolving such jurisdictional overlaps. While Section 26 of the GI Act empowers civil courts to determine GI infringement, and Section 96 of the FSS Act establishes Food Safety Appellate Tribunals for standards-related disputes, neither system explicitly addresses conflicts between the two regulatory frameworks. This jurisdictional ambiguity creates uncertainty for stakeholders seeking resolution when GI specifications conflict with food standards.

Despite this formal ambiguity, administrative and judicial remedies have emerged through practical experience. At the administrative level, FSSAI has occasionally issued clarifications or amendments to accommodate traditional GI products. For instance, after representations from the Kashmir Saffron GI holder association regarding difficulties complying with generic spice standards, FSSAI issued a clarification acknowledging that traditional production methods specified in the GI could continue despite minor variations from generic standards. This administrative approach, while pragmatic, remains discretionary and unpredictable.

Landmark cases involving conflicts between GI specifications and food standards have begun establishing important precedents. A significant case arose in 2020 when manufacturers of Hyderabad Haleem, a traditional meat preparation with GI protection, challenged FSSAI’s application of generic meat product standards that conflicted with traditional preparation methods specified in the GI. The Telangana High Court issued an interim order directing FSSAI to consider the GI specifications when applying standards to this product, establishing an important precedent regarding the need to harmonize these regulatory frameworks.

The resolution of this case ultimately led to broader policy development. Following consultations with stakeholders, FSSAI established a working group to develop guidelines for addressing traditional and regional foods, including those with GI protection. The working group’s recommendations, published in 2022, acknowledged the need for a more systematic approach to accommodating traditional production methods within the standardization framework, representing an important step toward addressing these conflicts more consistently.

The evolution of conflict resolution approaches reflects growing recognition of the need for harmonization between these regulatory systems. However, the absence of explicit statutory provisions addressing such conflicts means that resolution remains largely dependent on administrative discretion and case-by-case judicial determinations, creating ongoing legal uncertainty for GI holders navigating the standards landscape.

International Harmonization

The intersection of GI protection and food standards must be understood within the broader context of international obligations and global trade considerations. India’s approach to this regulatory interface has significant implications for both protection of Indian GIs internationally and recognition of foreign GIs in the Indian market. Trade Agreement Implications, particularly regarding the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), establish important international obligations regarding GI protection. Article 22 of TRIPS requires members to provide legal means to prevent the use of designations that mislead consumers about the geographical origin of goods or constitute unfair competition.

While TRIPS provides flexibility in implementation approaches, it establishes minimum protection requirements that influence both GI registration and food standardization. The compatibility of India’s approach with these international obligations becomes particularly important in bilateral and regional trade negotiations, where trading partners increasingly seek enhanced GI protection as a key component of agreements.

Recognition of foreign GIs presents specific challenges within India’s food regulatory system. FSSAI has developed inconsistent approaches to accommodating foreign GI products within Indian standards. Some product categories, such as alcoholic beverages, contain specific provisions recognizing foreign geographical indications like Scotch Whisky or Cognac. However, many other product categories lack such specific recognition, creating potential barriers for foreign GI products seeking Indian market access.

A case study illustrating these challenges involved standards for Italian GI products entering the Indian market. When importers of traditional Italian ham with protected designation of origin status faced difficulties meeting Indian processed meat standards, FSSAI initially applied generic standards without considering the products’ protected status. Following diplomatic representations, FSSAI developed a specialized protocol acknowledging the traditional production methods while maintaining basic safety requirements. This case highlighted the need for more systematic approaches to recognizing foreign GIs within the standards framework.

International dispute resolution involving Indian GI foods has further shaped the regulatory landscape. A significant case involved standards for Basmati rice exports, where foreign standards in importing countries created challenges for Indian exporters following traditional production methods specified in the GI. When certain Gulf countries established rice standards inconsistent with traditional Basmati characteristics, India engaged in bilateral negotiations to seek recognition of Basmati’s distinctive properties, ultimately securing modifications that accommodated its traditional characteristics while maintaining basic quality parameters.

This international dimension underscores the importance of developing a harmonized approach to GI protection within food standards that maintains consistency with global obligations while protecting India’s traditional food heritage. The current inconsistent approach creates potential vulnerabilities in international negotiations and dispute resolution, where India seeks both to protect its GIs abroad and to maintain appropriate domestic regulatory autonomy.

Key Insights and Solutions for GI Protection in FSSAI

The legal interface between GI Protection and FSSAI Food Standards presents complex challenges, requiring thoughtful regulatory evolution. The current system, characterized by separate regulatory frameworks with limited integration, creates legal uncertainty for traditional food producers and inconsistent protection for valuable cultural and economic assets. While pragmatic solutions have emerged in specific cases, a more systematic approach is needed to effectively balance the preservation of traditional food heritage with the enforcement of food safety and quality standards.

Several recommendations emerge from this analysis. First, formal recognition of GI specifications within the standardization process should be institutionalized through amendments to the Food Safety and Standards Act and related regulations. These amendments should explicitly acknowledge registered GI specifications as valid variations from generic standards, creating legal certainty for GI holders while maintaining essential safety requirements. Such recognition should apply to domestic and foreign GIs alike, facilitating international harmonization.

Second, establishing a specialized protocol for standards applicable to GI products would provide a consistent approach to this unique product category. This protocol should outline specific considerations for developing standards that accommodate traditional production methods, establish appropriate verification mechanisms, and create simplified compliance pathways for registered GI holders. Such a protocol would improve regulatory predictability while reducing unnecessary burdens on traditional producers.

Third, creating a formal consultation mechanism between FSSAI and the GI Registry would facilitate regulatory coordination when developing or amending standards affecting GI products. This institutional linkage would ensure that GI considerations are systematically incorporated into the standardization process rather than addressed reactively when conflicts arise. Such coordination would benefit both regulatory systems by preventing inadvertent conflicts and strengthening enforcement effectiveness.

Fourth, developing specialized enforcement guidelines for GI food products would address the unique verification challenges these products present. These guidelines should combine analytical testing with traceability documentation requirements, coordinate enforcement responsibilities between food safety authorities and GI protection mechanisms, and establish clear protocols for addressing potential violations.

Finally, enhancing international regulatory cooperation regarding GI food standards would strengthen both the protection of Indian GIs abroad and appropriate recognition of foreign GIs in the Indian market. This cooperation should include information exchange about traditional production methods, mutual recognition of verification systems, and collaborative approaches to standards development for internationally traded GI products.

By implementing these recommendations, India could develop a more coherent legal framework that effectively protects its rich food heritage through GI mechanisms while ensuring appropriate safety and quality standards. Such an integrated approach would benefit consumers, traditional producers, and the broader goals of both regulatory systems, creating a model for balancing tradition and standardization in food regulation.

References

1. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India). 
2. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 2006 (India). 
3. Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, Gazette of India, Part III, Sec. 4 (India). 
4. Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Amendment Regulations, 2023, Gazette of India, Part III, Sec. 4 (India). 
5. Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, Gazette of India, Part II, Sec. 3(i) (India). 
6. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994). 
7. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. FSSAI, W.P. No. 14587/2019, Andhra Pradesh High Court. 
8. Bikaner Bhujia Manufacturers Association v. FSSAI, File No. STD/SP/BikaneriBhujia/FSSAI/2021. 
9. FSSAI. (2022). Report of Working Group on Traditional and Regional Foods. New Delhi: FSSAI. 
10. Hyderabad Haleem Makers Association v. FSSAI, W.P. No. 8654/2020, Telangana High Court. 
11. Nishith Desai Associates. (2023). Regulatory Update 2023: Food Industry in India.  
12. FSSAI. (2021). Clarification regarding standards for geographical indication products. F. No. STD/GI/Clarification/FSSAI/2021. 
13. FSSAI v. Alphonso Mango Sellers, Enforcement Case No. ENF/MH/22/2022/FSSAI. 
14. Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. (2023). Annual Report on Geographical Indications. New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
    
15. Kashmiri Saffron GI Holders Association correspondence with FSSAI, Reference No. GI/Saffron/2021/04, dated April 20, 2021.