What we eat is eating us away

So what does it mean? Millions of people will eat contaminated food and fall sick, some of them developing early symptoms of what can turn into deadly disease. What happens to the schmuck out there who does it? He gets off with a fine and, may be, do small time in prison. That would have been okay for someone who takes bribe or steals from my house. But not for someone who hurts my health and kills me slowly.

One might want to argue this. The new legislation is tougher than the previous one, which was passed in 1959 when there was fear of God in people's heart and the adulteration of food was mostly confined to mixing cheaper quality food with higher quality ones, so that the unscrupulous trader could increase his cut. It was dishonest business practice, which was frowned upon by society, with the exception of the milkman. We learned to accept that the milkman would put water in the milk, so long as it was clean.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The definition of adulteration can vary from time to time. In the USA, a chemical study of grape juice for winemaking dealt with, among other topics, the question whether adding sugar to increase the alcohol content would constitute "adulteration." It was concluded that the practice was legitimate, only to be reversed 46 years later, when a court ruling announced that cider made harder by adding sugar was adulteration.

But we are dealing with killers now, people who play with ingredients, which seriously undermine hygiene, and turn our food into poison. This is where I find the paradox. Let me tell you a joke from my student days: If you steal from one source it's plagiarism but if you steal from many it's called research. You see the point? If you poison one person, you might get death or life sentence. But if you poison millions, it is a walk in the park.

I say it again. I don't like that our lawmakers couldn't see the difference. I mean we need stronger antibiotics now than we needed in 1959, don't we? Then why do we want to handle dangerous criminals with kid gloves? What is so tough about the new regulation? If someone makes millions by producing and selling adulterated food, not paying taxes on his real income, what is 75,000 taka to him? And consider the actuarial science of crime. What is the chance of his getting caught and going to jail? It took almost 35 years to have the political will for the first drive against adulteration of food. Who knows when we are going to see the next one?

I don't know about you, but I am not satisfied with the new legislation. It's not simply tough enough. Okay, I could accept that kind of legislation to punish people, who violate health regulations, using dirty kitchens, unwashed pots and the same cooking oil for days on. That is part of misguided economics. Lower cost means higher profit, and the quickest way is to cut cost by undercutting ethics.

What about people who use harmful things, toxic colours in sweetmeats, or banned chemicals in juices and drinks? What about them? Are they adulterating or are they poisoning. I mean, think it like this. If I put cyanide in the coffee of our honourable lawmakers, would they call it adulteration or poisoning? I know the answer, you know the answer. How come they don't know it?

Perhaps they do but don't want to admit it. Forgive my cynical mind, but the composition of the parliament might allow business interests to take the front seat. Our parliament is dominated by businessmen who have taken politics as a second hobby. So, they know where it hurts the business first, that ethical standards are injurious to greed. They know it's not easy to make money if you worry too much about right and wrong when making it.

May be, there are other reasons as well. May be, we are a soft-hearted nation, treating offenders with leniency because we believe they will finally get their comeuppance on the Day of Judgment. But still we must judge every situation every day to keep this world safe for us in what we eat and where we live. We don't tolerate if someone comes to threaten us in our homes. Why should we tolerate those who threaten us in the food we put on our plates?

There are countries where stern measures have been either taken or are being considered. In 2003, Pakistani senate tabled a bill to sentence anyone guilty of food adulteration to 25 years in prison if it led to deaths. In April 2005 India introduced new food adulteration laws. ÊIt starts from a year's imprisonment and 100,000 rupee fine in the cases in which unsafe food does not result in illness and a life imprisonment and 1,000,000 rupee fine when it leads to death.

In some countries, possession of drugs is punishable by death. Although food and drugs are different ballgames, the underlying concern is the same. Both are injurious to health and both are slow killers, one borne out of addiction and another borne out of deception. But in the end both cause harm to human bodies, both are life-threatening, both corrosive of vitality beyond normal wears and tears. No matter how one looks at it, it's a deadly crime and must be punished commensurate with the harm it brings.

The old saying goes that a man is what he eats. Another saying is that the quickest way to a man's heart is going through his stomach. Food is important in life, and adulteration brings chaos to order through contamination of body and soul. Healthy body keeps healthy mind and healthy mind makes healthy people. This is where the crux of the matter lies. You can eat a lot of adulterated food, yet draw more harm than good. The same thing is true in other walks of life, our society, politics and economics. People are growing rich, but the country is going down the tube. People are becoming educated, but ignorance is becoming more pervasive than before. In our adulterated everything, we have lost sight of the pure.

Charity begins at home, and likewise, sanity begins in food. What we digest is what we ingest, the ingredients absorbed in our blood stream like fumes mixing in the wind. We have become what we eat, our minds aggravated, souls contaminated and bodies wasted. There is a definite connection between stomach and brain which is processed in the mind. What we eat interferes with what we think which affects the way we feel.

The new legislation against adulteration of food has proven that perpetrators are also victims. Those who are adulterating food also grew up eating adulterated food. It's a vicious cycle that perpetuates in the bizarre ritual of dog-eat-dog delusion. That we don't care if people might die eating adulterated food comes as its natural conclusion. What we eat is eating us away. Aw, that is so silly!

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.