Pure Food Ordinance

In view of widespread adulteration in different categories of food namely cereals, starchy tubers, vegetables, meat and fish, fruits, eggs, milk and milk products, fats and oils, and flavourings and stimulants in the recent years, there has been persistent demand from the civil society members, the media and the consumers association of Bangladesh (CAB) for enacting a tough law to prevent adulteration of all varieties of food. The government has, however, gone for the amendments of certain sections and sub-sections of the half-century old pure food ordinance (PFO), 1959. In the statement regarding objects and reasons of the bill it has been said that the provisions in the PFO, 1959 have not provided for adequate punishment to the adulterators of food. Meanwhile, the development of new technologies has contributed to the production and marketing of quality food on the one hand, and their misapplication increased the adulteration of food on the other hand. In order to help combat the rising problem of food adulteration effectively, amendments to certain provisions of the ordinance and addition of some new provisions to it have become necessary.

The amendments and additions that have been made in the PFO, 1959 mainly relate to the following areas.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Definition of food: The definition of food in the PFO, 1959 was a generalised description. The amended definition has specified in detail the names of different food items that would come within the purview of the Act.

Specifying local authorities to conduct drive to combat food adulteration: Local authorities empowered to conduct drives to combat food adulteration have been specified in the amendments. These include six city corporations, paurashavas (municipalities) and such authority or person in any other local area as notified by the government.

Constitution of a National Food Safety Advisory Council (NFSAC): Provision has been made for the constitution of the NFSAC headed by the local government, rural development and co-operatives minister and consisting of the representatives of the ministries and departments concerned and the representative of FBCCI. The functions of the NFSAC have been delineated.

Prohibition of sale or use of poisonous or dangerous chemicals, intoxicated food colour: The use of any poisonous or dangerous chemicals or ingredients or additives or substances in any food has been prohibited. Their sale for use in food has also been prohibited.

Establishment of pure food court and its power and jurisdiction: Provision has been made for the establishment of one or more pure food court (s) in each district and each metropolitan area. Each court will consist of an officer vested with the powers of a first class magistrate, and he will award punishment as provided in the bill passed by parliament. An appeal against the judgement of a pure food court shall lie to sessions judge or the metropolitan judge.

Penalties: The act has revised (a) minimum and maximum fine or imprisonment or both for a first offence, (b) minimum fine or imprisonment or both for a second or subsequent offence and (c) maximum fine and imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence.

For instance, for the first time offence for manufacturing or selling of adulterated or stale food which is not of proper nature, substance or quality the minimum and maximum fine or imprisonment has been raised to Tk five thousand and Tk fifty thousand or a period of maximum six months and three years respectively from earlier Tk two hundred and Tk two thousand or three months and six months respectively. For the second or subsequent offences relating to above, the minimum fine or rigorous imprisonment has been raised to Tk fifty thousand or a period of maximum three years from earlier Tk two thousand and six months. The maximum fine and imprisonment has been raised to Tk two lacs and three years from the previous Tk four thousand and rigorous imprisonment for one year, respectively. The maximum punishment in the bill is Tk three lacs and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the second or subsequent offences like resisting or obstructing entry into any premises of authorised person or inspector, resisting or obstructing inspection, examination or seizure by authorised person or inspector.

The PFO, 1959 contained 49 sections. Bangladesh Pure Food (Amendment) Act, 2005 amends some sections of the PFO, 1959 and creates a few new sections. Elaboration of definition of food, constitution of the NFSAC, specifying the names of poisonous or dangerous chemicals, ingredients, additives or substances the use or sale of which has been prohibited and establishment of pure food court deserve appreciation. But it is not enough. The process followed for the passage of the bill has created mixed reactions in some quarters. Questions have been raised whether the revised provision for punishing adulterators of food is enough or not? Many have expressed doubt that unless improvements are made in other areas concerned, the amendments /additions in the PFO, 1959, will not bring the desired results.

As stated above, the bill was introduced in the house on September 13. The parliamentary standing committee on local government, rural development and co-operatives ministry was given only three days to scrutinise the bill. It is learnt that amendments suggested even by the treasury bench members in the committee were not accepted. Further, adulteration of food affects people at all strata of the society. Enactment of law on the purity of food is thus a matter of general public interest. But the bill was not circulated for eliciting public opinion. Furthermore, some people think that through the hurried passage of the bill the ruling alliance wants to make some political gain. The government has already started trumpeting the passage of the bill.

Many have expressed opinion that the provision of three years' jail and a fine of Tk three lacs as maximum punishment is not enough to check the menace of food adulteration. They argue that when a person(s) convicted of murder is awarded death sentence, then why the food adulterators, who slowly poison hundreds of people to death, should not be awarded life term sentence. After the introduction of the bill in the house, organisations like Save the Environment and the Positive Bangladesh came with the demand for life term imprisonment and a fine of Tk three crore as maximum punishment for the adulterators of food (D/S September 18). The daily Prothom Alo in its editorial of September 21 writes that Bangladesh Pure Food (Amendment) bill, 2005 passed in the parliament prescribes a fine of Tk three lacs and three years' imprisonment as maximum punishment for adulterers of food. For offences like adulteration of food or manufacture or sale of food which is not of proper standard or quality, this punishment is not harsh enough… We think, provision for harsh punishment will help combat effectively the adulteration of food. The survey conducted by the Prothom Alo favours enactment of harsh law. Most of the voters are of opinion that three years' imprisonment is not enough for the offence of food adulteration.

Incorporating provisions in the law such as involvement of local bodies in the anti-adulteration drive through having their representatives as public analysts of food, constitution of NFSAC and establishment of pure food court will not help solve the problem of manufacture and sale of adulterated food unless improvements are made in other areas concerned. Our laboratories are ill-equipped both in terms of equipment and skilled manpower to deal with this gigantic problem of food adulteration. The daily Prothom Alo (September 22) has reported that its field-level survey of Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institute, Bangladesh Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Institute of Public Health and DCC's laboratory has revealed that they do not have necessary equipment and trained manpower to detect adulteration.

Mention may be made that the most important area of concern is the use of colours in food. Natural or vegetable colours are generally considered safe. In the absence of necessary equipment and skilled manpower, these laboratories cannot test and distinguish between vegetable colours and hazardous artificial and synthetic colours. The Daily Star in its editorial of September 24 writes: "So, it is necessary to strike at the roots of the problem. The government has to think in terms of developing a reliable system detecting adulteration and unhygienic practices at different levels of food production. The magnitude of the problem calls for a round-the-year vigil, instead of seasonal campaigns."

To conclude, although the amendments / additions in the PFO, 1959 have not fully met people's expectations, yet the implementation of the amendments and other provisions of the law can help reduce food adulteration to a considerable extent. Further, it has to be examined whether the Bangladesh Pure Food Rules, 1967 made to carry out the purposes of the PFO, 1959 need any amendment(s) in line with the aforesaid amendments in the PFO, 1959.

M Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary, Ministry of Food.