The Ram Temple in Ayodhya is set to receive the “Eat Right Place” recognition from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), according to a News18 report.
This comes on the heels of an evaluation of the food safety, hygiene and quality standards maintained for prasad distributed and sold within the temple premises.
The Eat Right Places of Worship (PoW) initiative by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) seeks to improve food safety and hygiene standards at religious institutions. Under the programme, temples, gurdwaras, mosques and other places of worship are encouraged to adopt safe practices while preparing and serving prasad, langar and other food.
A place of worship seeking Eat Right Place of Worship/BHOG recognition must first have a valid registration or licence under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The premises or relevant food handlers must meet the applicable regulatory requirements.
The institution then undergoes a pre-audit, which involves checking its food safety practices against the hygiene requirements prescribed by FSSAI.
Food handlers and cooks are also required to undergo training through FSSAI-empanelled partners under the Food Safety Training and Certification (FoSTaC) programme. The training covers the Basic Catering Course and focuses on safe food handling practices.
After this, an FSSAI-recognised auditing agency conducts a third-party inspection of areas such as kitchens, storage facilities and food-serving spaces. Any shortcomings identified during the audit must be addressed through corrective measures.
Once the required food safety and hygiene standards are fulfilled, the place of worship receives the BHOG certification under the Eat Right Place of Worship initiative.
The Eat Right Place of Worship certificate is valid for two years from the date of issue.
Meanwhile, the Central Consumer Protection Authority () in August levied a ₹1 lakh fine on Amazon Seller Services, the marketplace arm of e-commerce major Amazon, for allegedly permitting the sale of sweets carrying the misleading description “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad”.
“The CCPA hereby imposes a penalty of ₹1,00,000/- on the opposite party (Amazon Seller) for publication of misleading advertisements on its platform,” in violation of the E-Commerce Rules, 2020, the CCPA said in an order passed on August 4 this year, according to PTI.
The authority also directed Seller Services to ensure that “no product falsely claiming to be ‘prasad’, ‘prasadam’, ‘mahaprasad’, ‘bhog’ or any similarreligious offering” linked to the religious institutions and shrines named in the order “is listed, hosted, advertised, exhibited, or offered for sale on its platform without verifiable documentary proof of authorization from the concerned institution”.
Amazon submitted a framework covering 10 major religious institutions and shrines, including Ram Janmabhoomi Mandir, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine, Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Shri Jagannath Temple, Shri Kedarnath Temple, Shri Badrinath Temple, Shri Somnath Temple, Shri Dwarkadhish Temple and Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple.
In its 19-page order, the CCPA said the phrase “Shri Ram Mandir Ayodhya Prasad” has a specific and widely understood meaning among Hindu devotees, referring to sacred food offered to and blessed by the deity at the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
“The commercial appropriation of this phrase for ordinary confectionery products, without any authorisation from the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, constitutes not just a misleading trade practice under the CP Act but an affront to the religious sentiments of crores of consumers,” the CCPA said.
The CCPA issued a Show Cause Notice to Amazon on the same day, three days before the Ram Mandir’s Pran Pratishtha ceremony on January 22, 2024. The notice cited alleged violations of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Amazon removed the listings after receiving the notice. The company stated that it was only an intermediary and was therefore entitled to safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India.
