12 July,2026 11:53 AM IST | Mumbai | Nasrin Modak Siddiqi
Representation pic
Last month, the Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) temporarily shut six well-known Mumbai restaurants after surprise inspections allegedly uncovered food safety and hygiene violations, including improperly stored ingredients, expired products, and lapses in labelling and kitchen practices. While few in the industry dispute the need for strict food safety enforcement, the crackdown has triggered a wider conversation about how regulations are implemented.
Several restaurateurs, speaking anonymously for fear of retaliation, argue that the current system focuses on catching violations rather than preventing them. They say restaurants are willing to comply but need clearer communication, consistent regulations, and greater accountability across the entire food supply chain. Here's what they had to say.
Restaurant owners say compliance shouldn't begin with surprise raids. "While there may be defaulters, most restaurant owners aren't intentionally violating rules. They don't know what's changed. For example, restaurants are now being told that vegetables must be stored separately. Many owners found out through Instagram instead of an official circular. We pay for licences, renewals and inspections every year.
Operators insist that restaurants are only one link in a much larger supply chain. "We understand where the FSSAI and FDA are coming from. Food safety is essential. But restaurants don't manufacture most of what they use. We're dependent on suppliers, and often we don't even know exactly where a product originates." They cite analogue paneer as the latest example. "If analogue paneer is unsafe, ban it. Why wait until restaurants to buy it and then raid them? Regulation has to begin at production, not only at the point of sale," adds Sharma.
Overlapping regulators create confusion. "An example of this is that the FDA approves certain food colouring brands which are different from the FSSAI's list. Why this discrepancy," questions restaurateur Govind Rai, name changed.
Rai shares that it starts with the dirty politics of having to get separate licenses from the state and central authorities just to operate. He shares, "You know how much of it happens under the table. Even though there is a legal framework, there are still unofficial taxes and payments involved. We pay for garbage collection, and then we also end up paying other people under the table for the same services."
"The rat infestation never gets properly resolved because the BMC is not effectively managing the issue. If they started encouraging cleaner, better-maintained streets and focused on hygiene at a larger level, it would create a much better system," suggests Sharma.
Many believe inspection reports often fail to distinguish between stored produce and food being served. "In storing 200 kilograms of tomatoes, a few would be rotten. That's natural. It doesn't mean we're cooking with them," says restaurateur Ayushi Pandey, name changed.
Operators say decades-old businesses have too much at stake to compromise food quality knowingly. "No restaurant survives for long by serving unhygienic food. Just because inspectors find expired ingredients in a storeroom doesn't mean customers are served that," says Pandey.
Many argue that enforcement disproportionately targets licensed restaurants. "Restaurants pay taxes, maintain licences and undergo inspections. Street vendors should also meet basic hygiene standards. We're not asking for street food to be banned. We're asking for consistent rules," says Pandey. They also point to fish markets and roadside food stalls where uncovered food is routinely exposed to flies.
Restaurant owners also highlight conflicting regulations. "We're told food must be covered to prevent cross-contamination, but cling wrap is discouraged because of plastic regulations. If that's the case, first make biodegradable alternatives affordable and easily available. You can't ask restaurants to follow contradictory things," says Sharma.
There are too many different departments and authorities involved in the process. "There are different people handling various parts of the protocol. Why can't we simply have one dedicated person who takes care of everything through a single-window system? There should also be a separate approach for smaller, homegrown businesses because we are not large corporations. We are just ordinary people trying to run a business. Nobody has the intention of putting people's health at risk," adds Pandey.
Some question whether paperwork has become more important than practice. "Labels can be changed. A sticker doesn't make food safe. Proper sourcing, storage and handling do." Others point out that water quality and supplier practices are often beyond a restaurant's control. "It's easy to blame restaurants because they're visible, but food safety involves the entire supply chain," says Rai.
The industry also questions whether all food businesses face the same scrutiny. "Today, someone can apply online for an FSSAI licence for a home kitchen in minutes. But who actually visits to check hygiene? Many of these are run from regular homes and there is never a check on the ingredients or procedures. Restaurants on the other hand are inspected constantly and by various departments including state, health officers, etc; while many food businesses operate without the same level of scrutiny," says Pandey.
Perhaps the strongest sentiment right now is the fear of speaking out. "If you own five or six restaurants employing hundreds of people, you can't risk becoming a target. Everyone wants to share their concerns, but they're afraid," admits Sharma.
Owners also question the practice of inspection photographs circulating publicly before investigations are complete. "If authorities find violations, action should absolutely be taken. But leaking photographs destroys a restaurant's reputation overnight, even before due process is complete," asks Rai.
Pandey feels that in some ways, it is good that everyone is being brought into compliance. "But I think some places are being unfairly targeted or vandalised instead of simply being corrected, because authorities want to make an example out of them.
Restaurateurs maintain that food adulteration and unsafe practices deserve zero tolerance. Their argument isn't against regulation, but against inconsistent enforcement. Their wish list is straightforward: clearer communication, practical guidebooks, collaboration with restaurant associations, reasonable compliance timelines, consistent standards across restaurants, street vendors and home kitchens, and stronger action at the manufacturing and supplier level.
As one restaurateur summed it up: "Food safety isn't only the responsibility of restaurants. It's everyone's responsibility and it's time we start taking collective onus to make the city a true food capital of India."
