Survey - State Food Authorities The purpose of this project is to assess FSSAI as a regulatory body, working for India’s food environment, in terms of food regulation, safe and wholesome food, etc. The assessment is being conducted by World Bank, wherein the Institute for Competitiveness acts as a consultant for the same. Step 1 of 7 14% General InformationObjective of conducting this survey is to - assess FSSAI’s role, performance and capacity in fulfilling its mandate of providing safe and nutritious food to India’s citizens and assess FSSAI as an organization and a regulator, basis Porter’s Value Chain framework (Regulatory Assessment) The survey will take about 30 mins. The questions would either cover aspects of FSSAI as an organization or would be specific to each division’s functions. The reference scale for scoring the survey questions is a 1-5 Likert scale as follows: Very Poor - 1 Below Average - 2 Average - 3 Above Average - 4 Excellent - 5 All the information will be kept confidential. The results of the study will be utilized by the conducting parties to assess FSSAI. Your participation in this research is voluntary. You can choose to decline to answer at any point of time. Consent provided for the survey will have no benefits or damages attached to it. Similarly, withdrawal from participation will have no consequences on you or your organization. Name* First Last Organization Name*Designation*Email* State / Union Territory* Theme 1: Overall Communication & Public Perception1. How would you evaluate the current state of communication with the central authority?*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2. How would you assess the external communication of State Authority?2.1 With the consumers?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.2 With the consumer organizations?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.3 With the FBO's?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.4 With the laboratories?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.5 With the research institutions / academic institutions?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.6 With the media?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.7 With the industry associations?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.8 With the related ministries?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.9 With the regional offices?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.10 With the training partners?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.11 With the audit agencies?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.12 With the custom authorities?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.13 With the technical / scientific experts?Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3. How would you rate the performance of your state with respect to disbursement of enforcement activities?*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 2: Testing and Surveillance4. How would you evaluate the laboratory testing ecosystem against following aspects?4.1 Part A: State Labs4.1.1 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct basic tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.1.2 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct advanced tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.1.3 Adequacy of food analysts*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.1.4 Knowledge/Acumen of Food Analysts hired by state labs (specific to commodity appropriate sample handling, preparation and analysis)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.1.5 Efficiency of state laboratories with respect to turnaround time and reliability of results*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.1.6 Compliance with laboratory quality assurance protocols in case of state labs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.2 Part B: Referral Labs4.2.1 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct basic tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.2.2 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct advanced tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.2.3 Adequacy of technical manpower*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.2.4 Knowledge/Acumen of technical manpower hired by referral labs (specific to commodity appropriate sample handling, preparation and analysis)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.2.5 Efficiency of referral laboratories with respect to turnaround time and reliability of results*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.2.6 Compliance with laboratory quality assurance protocols in case of referral labs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.3 Part C: Overall4.3.1 Uniformity of analysis results across different types of laboratories*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.3.2 Access to commodity specific manuals*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.3.3 Effectiveness of Mobile Food Testing Laboratories (Food Safety on Wheels) in conducting testing, training and awareness*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4.3.4 Effectiveness of Laboratory Ecosystem to support compliance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5. How would you evaluate the existing market surveillance mechanisms against following aspects?5.1 Knowledge/Acumen of Food Safety Officers specific to commodity appropriate sampling, sample preservation and transportation*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.2 Periodicity of sample collection for surveillance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.3 Coordination between DO and FSO regarding sample dispatch*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.4 Credibility of the surveillance mechanism*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 3: Compliance and Enforcement 6. How would you evaluate the existing registration and licensing mechanism against following aspects?6.1 Access (of small FBOs) to common service centres for registration*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2 Access to FLRS*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.3 Quality of information and knowledge disseminated by FSSAI officials (technical)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.4 Time taken for provision of license/registration by state authorities*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.5 Effectiveness of documentation for licensing and registration*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.6 Ability of licensing and registration to support ease of doing business*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.7 Efficiency of mechanism for organized database of licensed and registered FBOs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.8 Strength of state level staff for enforcement (Food Safety Commissioners, Designated Officers, Food Safety Officers)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.9 Effectiveness of adjudication mechanism in fulfilling its mandate*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7. How would you evaluate the current inspection processes in place against following aspects?7.1.1 Periodicity of inspection (Regulations suggest once a year) for licensed and registered FBOs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.1.2 Risk-based Approach for inspection (dissemination to states)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.1.3 Coherence of inspection frequency with the risk profiling of the FBO*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.1.4 Knowledge/Acumen of FSOs/DOs to implement risk-based inspection plans*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.1.5 Knowledge/Acumen of FBOs to manage risks identified during inspection*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.1.6 Utility of outcomes of inspections*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.1.7 Effectiveness of implementation of schedule IV requirements*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of integrating Food Safety Management System (FSMS) requirements in the inspection process?8.1 Simplicity of sector-specific FSMS guidance documents*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.2 Practicality of sector-specific Food Safety Management Systems*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.3 Access (of FBOs) to sector-specific FSMS guidance documents*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 4: Capacity Building9. How would you evaluate the current capacity building/training activities against following aspects?9.1 1. Access to training/capacity building programs to regulatory staff (e.g. FSOs, DOs, Adjudicating officers)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.2 Access to appropriate training manuals for regulatory staff*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.3 Quality of information and knowledge disseminated by FSSAI officials (technical, simplification, language)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.4 Ability to accommodate new skills and emerging public health concerns in the training curriculum*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.5 Adequacy of training frequency*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.6 Mechanism of periodic refresher trainings (to enhance message recall)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.7 Adequacy of mechanism to evaluate knowledge to behavior transition after the training*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 5: Consumer Environment10. How would you evaluate the grievance redressal mechanism,(consumers, FBOs, Laboratories) against following aspects?10.1 Access to grievance redressal (for consumers) via different platforms (e.g. social media, online platforms)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.2 Responsiveness of FSSAI (with reference to time, quality and follow-up)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.3 Transparency in responseVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.4 Effectiveness of mediums for grievance redressal – offline (letters, faxes, toll-free helpline, in-person meetings, SMS)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.5 Effectiveness of mediums for grievance redressal – online (Web portal/ Food Safety Connect App, social media – Facebook, Twitter, Email)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11. With regard to information, education and communication, policy, strategy, content formulation, how would you evaluate the following?11.1 Overall IEC policy and strategiesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.2 Access (of consumers, FBOs, other stakeholders) to relevant IEC material & online portalsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.3 Quality of information disseminated by FSSAI (Technical knowledge, simplification, language)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.4 Percolation of information to the bottom of pyramid (socio-economic & across regions)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.5 Relevance with reference to contemporary food safety and public health issuesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.6 Mechanism to evaluate knowledge to behavior transition (amongst consumers)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.7 Mechanism of periodic updates in IEC material (in response to the changing requirements as well as stakeholder feedback)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.8 Effectiveness of channels of information dissemination – online (social media, online portals)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.9 Effectiveness of channels of information dissemination – Traditional (print material posters, TV, Radio, events, exhibitions)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 6: E-Governance and Administration12. How would you evaluate the following online platforms in terms of their overall performance (inclusive of efficiency, ease of navigation, accessibility and Utility)?12.1 FSSAI main websiteVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.2 FSSAI main – Hindi versionVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.3 Food Licensing and Registration System (FLRS)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.4 Food Import Clearance System (FICS)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.5 Indian Food Laboratories Network (inFolNet)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.6 Food Safety Training and Certification (FoSTaC)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent