A reputed food product company based in India developed a food product for the international market and started exporting the same after getting necessary approvals. The company announced this achievement and also indicated that soon the product will be made available for the domestic consumers with almost same quality and health benefits. Accordingly, the company got its product approved by the domestic competent authority and launched the product in Indian market. The company could increase its market share over a period of time and earned substantial profit both domestically and internationally. However, the random sample test conducted by inspecting team found the product being sold domestically in variance with the approval obtained from the competent authority. On further investigation, it was also discovered that the food company was not only selling products which were not meeting the health standard of the country but also selling the rejected export products in the domestic market. This episode adversely affected the reputation and profitability of the food company.
(a) What action do you visualize should be taken by the competent authority against the food company for violating the laid down domestic food standard and selling rejected export products in domestic market? (b) What course of action is available with the food company to resolve the crisis and bring back its lost reputation? (c) Examine the ethical dilemma involved in the case.
Approach · directive: “what action / what course / examine”
What it asks · (a) State the action the competent authority should take; (b) state the company's course of action to resolve the crisis and regain its reputation; (c) examine the ethical dilemma.
It asks 3 things — answer each
- (a) State the action the competent authority should take against the company for violating domestic food standards and selling rejected export products
- (b) State the course of action open to the company to resolve the crisis and regain its reputation
- (c) Examine the ethical dilemma involved in the case
Open with · Profit versus public health, and one standard for foreign buyers versus a lower one for Indians: the company broke the law and its own promise.
Cover
- Opening: profit versus public health, and one standard for foreign buyers versus a lower one for Indians.
- (a) Authority: suspend sale, recall, seize and test (licence suspension under section 32); trace the diversion; penalise after a hearing (section 59; CCPA recall powers).
- (b) Company: admit and recall, as section 28 requires; an independent inquiry; one standard for all; published independent tests, shown as a flowchart.
- (c) Dilemmas: profit versus health (Gandhi's commerce without morality), two standards, honesty versus concealment, and the regulator's deterrence versus jobs.
- Long-term: batch-to-shelf traceability, more random sampling, a third-party audit before relaunch, a board safety committee, whistle-blowing, action against lax officials.
Close with · One standard for every consumer, enforced firmly and fairly, lets the company regain its name and the regulator its credibility.
Add value (verified)
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in force from 20 July 2020) created the Central Consumer Protection Authority, which can investigate violations of consumer rights, order recall of unsafe goods and prosecute.Consumer Protection Act, 2019 comes into force from today, PIB, 20 July 2020 ↗“The CCPA will be empowered to conduct investigations into violations of consumer rights and institute complaints / prosecution, order recall of unsafe goods and services”
- Food Safety and Standards Act, section 28: a food business operator who believes its food is not compliant must immediately initiate procedures to withdraw it.Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ↗“28. Food recall procedures. (1) If a food business operator considers or has reasons to believe that a food which he has processed, manufactured or distributed is not in compliance with this Act, or the rules or regulations, made thereunder, he shall immediately initiate procedures to withdraw the food in question”
- Food Safety and Standards Act, section 32: a licence may be suspended, then cancelled, for non-compliance with an improvement notice, and suspended forthwith in the interest of public health.Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ↗“(2) If the food business operator fails to comply with an improvement notice, his licence may be suspended. (3) If the food business operator still fails to comply with the improvement notice, the Designated Officer may, after giving the licensee an opportunity to show cause, cancel the licence granted to him: Provided that the Designated Officer may suspend any licence forthwith in the interest of public health”
- Food Safety and Standards Act, section 59: selling unsafe food is punishable; where no injury results, with imprisonment of up to six months (and fine).Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) ↗“59. Punishment for unsafe food. Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is unsafe, shall be punishable,– (i) where such failure or contravention does not result in injury, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months”
- Gandhi published the seven social sins, including commerce without morality, in Young India (22 October 1925).Seven Social Sins — mkgandhi.org (Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal & Gandhi Research Foundation) ↗“Seven Social Sins Politics without Principle Wealth Without Work Pleasure Without Conscience Knowledge without Character Commerce without Morality Science without Humanity Worship without Sacrifice - Young India, 22-10-1925”
- Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative: act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.Kant's Moral Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗“Kant’s first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (G 4:421).”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2021, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 358words · Minimalist IAS
Profit versus public health, and one standard for foreign buyers versus a lower one for Indians: the company broke both the law and the trust its own promise of equal quality created.
Stakeholders
- Consumers, especially children and the sick; the food authority; the company's board and shareholders; retailers; honest competitors.
(a) Action by the competent authority
- Stop the harm: suspend sale, recall every batch, seize and test stock, and warn the public; the designated officer may suspend a licence "forthwith in the interest of public health".
- Investigate: trace how rejected export lots re-entered the market, seize internal test reports, and fix individual responsibility.
- Penalise after a fair hearing: selling unsafe food is punishable with imprisonment and fine under section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act; the Central Consumer Protection Authority can also order recall.
(b) Course of action for the company
- Admit and recall
- Independent inquiry
- One standard for all
- Third-party audit
- Open relaunch
- Own it: section 28 requires an operator who suspects non-compliance to "immediately" initiate withdrawal; recall, refund and cooperate fully, since denial prolongs the crisis.
- Find the cause: an independent inquiry into who ordered the diversion; remove those responsible.
- Rebuild trust: published independent test results, not advertising, restore a name.
(c) The ethical dilemma
- Profit versus public health: diverting rejected lots turned a loss into revenue at consumers' risk; Gandhi's Young India (1925) listed "Commerce without Morality" among seven social sins.
- Two standards for two consumers: what an importer refused was deemed fit for Indians, a standard no owner would accept for his own family.
- Honesty versus concealment: the firm promised equal quality and hid the gap; employees put loyalty to the firm above duty to consumers.
- The regulator's dilemma: deterrence versus jobs, exports and a reputed brand; leniency invites every firm to gamble.
Long-term safeguards
- Batch-to-shelf traceability, more random sampling, a third-party audit before any relaunch, a board-level safety committee and a whistle-blower channel; action against officials who ignored lapses.
One standard for every consumer, enforced firmly and fairly, lets the company regain its name and the regulator its credibility: safety and honesty are not the price of profit but its condition.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
