Survey for FSSAI Officials 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 8 12% 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 Division*Designation*Email* Tenure at FSSAI: (years) (months)* Theme 1: Overall Communication & Public perception1. How would assess the internal communication of FSSAI?1.1 Interpersonal Communication (within the same division)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent1.2 Interdivisional Communication*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2. How would assess the external communication of FSSAI with the following.2.1 ConsumersVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.2 Consumer OrganizationsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.3 Related MinistriesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.4 Regional Offices (FSSAI)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.5 State Food AuthoritiesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.6 Other regulatory bodies (India) within the food safety ecosystemVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.7 Customs AuthoritiesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.8 LaboratoriesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.9 Industry AssociationsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.10 FBOs (including Importers)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.11 Training partnersVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.12 Audit AgenciesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.13 Original Equipment Manufacturers/ Chemical suppliersVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.14 International Organizations (including multilateral agencies, embassies)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.15 International regulatory agenciesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.16 Research institutions/Academic InstitutionsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.17 Technical/Scientific ExpertsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent2.18 MediaVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3. How would you evaluate the partnerships and convergence efforts of FSSAI to coordinate with related ministries, departments, multi-lateral organizations and other stakeholders to prioritize food safety in the national agenda and fulfil its mandate?3.1 Related MinistriesVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3.2 Development partners (e.g. Tata Trusts, GAIN, WFP, PATH, Nutritional Intl etc)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3.3 Industry AssociationsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3.4 Global regulatory authorities (e.g. RIKILT, ANSES, MPI. USFDA, CFIA)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3.5 Other professional associations (e.g. AFSTI, IDA, NSI, AIIMS)Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent3.6 International organizationsVery PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent4. How would you rate consumer or public trust in the food regulator?*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 2: Standards and Regulations5. How would you evaluate the standards and regulations against following aspects?5.1 Efficiency of regulation approval process*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.2 Efficiency of standard-setting process*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.3 Periodicity of need-based amendments to existing regulations/standards*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.4 Effectiveness of process to prioritize framing of standards/regulations*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.5 Adoption of science & risk-based approach*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.6 Adoption of comprehensive & inclusive (complete, exhaustive, covering entire food value chain) measures, as per the mandate*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.7 Harmonization and Compatibility with international best practices (inclusive of CODEX, SPS, TBT measures)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.8 Ability to respond to dynamic food safety environment (e.g. emerging food safety hazards*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.9 Participation/representation of multiple stakeholders (consumers, FBOs, different ministries, WTO member countries) in standard setting process*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.10 Effectiveness of Standard Review Groups in the process of standard setting*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent5.11 Ability to support ease of doing business*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 3: Testing and Surveillance6. How would you evaluate the laboratory testing ecosystem against following aspects?6.1 Part A: State Labs6.1.1 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct basic tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.1.2 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct advanced tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.1.3 Adequacy of food analysts*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.1.4 Knowledge/Acumen of technical manpower hired by state labs (specific to commodity appropriate sample handling, preparation and analysis)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.1.5 Efficiency of state laboratories with respect to turnaround time and reliability of results*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.1.6 Compliance with laboratory quality assurance protocols in case of state labs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2 Part B: Referral Labs6.2.1 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct basic tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2.2 Adequacy of infrastructure to conduct advanced tests*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2.3 Adequacy of technical manpower*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2.4 Knowledge/Acumen of technical manpower hired by referral labs (specific to commodity appropriate sample handling, preparation and analysis)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2.5 Efficiency of referral laboratories with respect to turnaround time and reliability of results*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.2.6 Compliance with laboratory quality assurance protocols in case of referral labs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.3 Part D: Laboratory Protocols and Standards6.3.1 Access to commodity specific manuals on methods of analysis*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.4 Part E: Overall6.4.1 Uniformity of analysis results across different types of laboratories*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.4.2 Effectiveness of Mobile Food Testing Laboratories (Food Safety on Wheels) in conducting testing, training and awareness*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.4.3 Effectiveness of Laboratory Ecosystem to support compliance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent6.4.4 Coordination with scientific panels & Method Review Groups (MRGs) on methods of sampling and analysis*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7. How would you evaluate the existing market surveillance mechanisms against following aspects?7.1 Knowledge/Acumen of Food Safety Officers specific to commodity appropriate sampling, sample preservation and transportation*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.2 Periodicity of sample collection for surveillance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.3 Coordination between DO and FSO regarding sample dispatch*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent7.4 Credibility of the surveillance mechanism*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 4: Compliance and Enforcement8. How would you evaluate the existing registration and licensing mechanism against following aspects?8.1 Access (of small FBOs) to common service centres for registration*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.2 Access to FLRS*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.3 Quality of information and knowledge disseminated by FSSAI officials (technical knowledge, simplification, language)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.4 Time taken for provision of license/registration by central authorities*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.5 Time taken for provision of license/registration by state authorities*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.6 Effectiveness of documentation for licensing and registration*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.7 Ability of licensing and registration to support ease of doing business*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.8 Efficiency of mechanism for organized database of licensed and registered FBOs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.9 Strength of state level staff for enforcement (Food Safety Commissioners, Designated Officers, Food Safety Officers)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent8.10 Effectiveness of adjudication mechanism in fulfilling its mandate*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9. How would you evaluate the current inspection processes in place against following aspects?9.1 Periodicity of inspection (Regulations suggest once a year) for licensed and registered FBOs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.2 Risk-based Approach for inspection (dissemination to states)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.3 Coherence of inspection frequency with the risk profiling of the FBO*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.4 Knowledge/Acumen of FSOs/DOs to implement risk-based inspection plans*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.5 Knowledge/Acumen of FBOs to manage risks identified during inspection*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.6 Utility of outcomes of inspection*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent9.7 Effectiveness of implementation of schedule IV requirements*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of integrating Food Safety Management System (FSMS) requirements in the inspection process?10.1 Simplicity of sector-specific FSMS guidance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.2 Practicality of sector-specific Food Safety Management Systems*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.3 Effectiveness in amendments/additions to Schedule IV requirements*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.4 Efficiency in the process of creating FSMS guidance documents*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.5 Access (of FBOs) to sector-specific FSMS guidance documents*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent10.6 Effectiveness wrt Schedule IV requirements for FBOs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11. How would you evaluate the existing compliance mechanism for imported products?11.1 Quality of information and knowledge disseminated by FSSAI officials (technical, simplification, language)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.2 Efficiency of interface between ICEGATE and FICS*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.3 Strength of Authorized officers/inspecting officers across points of entry*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.4 Knowledge/Acumen of inspecting officers (with respect to import requirements)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.5 Overall ability to support ease of doing trade (imports)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.6 Efficiency of visual inspection and sample testing for timely clearance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.7 Efficiency of rectification process for labeling issues for timely clearance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.8 Adequacy of basic (common) parameters mandated for the purpose of import clearance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.9 Adequacy of advanced (non-negotiable food safety) parameters mandated for the purpose of import clearance*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent11.10 Adequacy of risk-based sampling criteria based on compliance history of importer*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 5: Capacity Building12. How would you evaluate the current capacity building / training activities against following aspects?12.1 Access to training/capacity building programs to regulatory staff (e.g. FSOs, DOs, Adjudicating officers)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.2 Access to appropriate training manuals for regulatory staff*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.3 Access to training/capacity building programs to FBO*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.4 Access to appropriate training manuals for FBOs*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.5 Access to training/capacity building programs for laboratory personnel*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.6 Access to appropriate training manuals for laboratory personnel*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.7 Quality of information and knowledge disseminated by FSSAI officials (technical, simplification, language)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.8 Ability to accommodate new skills and emerging public health concerns in the training curriculum*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.9 Adequacy of training frequency*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.10 Mechanism of periodic refresher trainings (to enhance message recall)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent12.11 Adequacy of mechanism to evaluate knowledge to behavior transition after the training*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 6: IEC and Grievances13. How would you evaluate the grievance redressal mechanism,(consumers, FBOs, Laboratories) against following aspects?13.1 Access to grievance redressal (for consumers) via different platforms (e.g. social media, online platforms)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent13.2 Responsiveness of FSSAI (with reference to time, quality and follow-up)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent13.3 Transparency in response*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent13.4 Effectiveness of mediums for grievance redressal – offline (letters, faxes, toll-free helpline, in-person meetings, SMS)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent13.5 Effectiveness of mediums for grievance redressal – online (Web portal/ Food Safety Connect App, social media – Facebook, Twitter, Email)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14. With regard to Information, Education and Communication, policy, strategy, content formulation, how would you evaluate the following on a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being highest)?14.1 Overall IEC policy and strategies*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.2 Efficiency of process of documentation/cataloguing*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.3 Access (of consumers, FBOs, other stakeholders) to relevant IEC material & online portals*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.4 Quality of information disseminated by FSSAI (Technical knowledge, simplification, language)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.5 Percolation of information to the bottom of pyramid (socio-economic & across regions)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.6 Relevance with reference to contemporary food safety and public health issues*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.7 Mechanism to evaluate knowledge to behavior transition (amongst consumers)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.8 Mechanism of periodic updates in IEC material (in response to the changing requirements as well as stakeholder feedback)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.9 Effectiveness of channels of information dissemination – online (social media, online portals)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent14.10 Effectiveness of channels of information dissemination – Traditional (print material posters, TV, Radio, events, exhibitions)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent Theme 7 : E-Governance and Administration15. How would you evaluate the following online platforms in terms of their overall performance (inclusive of efficiency, ease of navigation, accessibility and utility)?15.1 FSSAI main website*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent15.2 FSSAI main – Hindi version*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent15.3 Food Licensing and Registration System (FLRS)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent15.4 Food Import Clearance System (FICS)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent15.5 Indian Food Laboratories Network (inFolNet)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent15.6 Food Safety Training and Certification (FoSTaC)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16. How would you evaluate the overall resources at FSSAI?16.1 Access to adequate/ basic physical infrastructure*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.2 Quality of physical infrastructure*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.3 Quality of IT infrastructure*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.4 Ease of access to financial resources for daily operations*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.5 Efficiency in dissemination/allocation of financial resources within FSSAI*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.6 Competency of staff/personnel at all levels*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.7 Efficiency of recruitment process for hiring of key personnel (Time taken to recruit key personnel)*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.8 Efficient division of labor across individuals*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.9 Efficiency of cross-functionality of work tasks*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.10 Efficiency of processing legal guidelines for FBOs and consumer organizations*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.11 Effectiveness of defending FSSAI in legal cases*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent16.12 Legal Advisory for National and International Cooperation*Very PoorBelow AverageAverageAbove AverageExcellent