Whither implementation of the amended food law?

The salient points of the amendments include: (i) elaborating definition of food; (ii) specifying local authorities empowered to conduct drives to combat food adulteration and appoint one or more qualified persons to be public analyst of food within its area; (iii) constituting a National Food Safety Advisory Council (NFSAC) headed by the local government, rural development and co-operatives minister and consisting of representatives of the ministries, departments concerned; (iv) prohibiting the use and sale of any poisonous or dangerous chemicals or ingredients or additives or substances that may cause injury to human body; (v) establishing one or more pure food court in each district and metropolitan area; and (vi) enhancing the minimum and maximum fine or rigorous imprisonment for the offence for manufacturing or selling of adulterated or staled food.

Now, let us see whether these amendments have been implemented, and if not, what are the problems that stand in the way of their implementation?

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The Pure Food Rules (PFR), 1967 made to carry out the purposes of the PFO, 1959 contains a schedule which is a description of prescribed standards (nature, quality and substance) of the articles of food. Drinking water, livestock and livestock product which were not specifically mentioned in the definition of food in PFO, 1959 have now been included in the amended definition of food.

But the PFR, 1967 have not yet been amended to include them in the schedule prescribing the standards of the articles of food. Unless the standards of these articles of food are prescribed and included in the schedule to the PFR, it may not be possible for the public analyst of food to determine their normal constituents as well as deficiencies or additions rendering them adulterated.

Some countries have unified food laws. Available information suggests that the Ministry of Health and the departments under it in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia are entrusted with the responsibility of enforcement of food safety and quality standards. The unified legislations of these countries are: Malaysia Food Act, 1983 and Food Regulations, 1985; Thailand Food Act 1979; and Food Regulations of Indonesia. In Britain, the Food and Drugs Act of 1955 incorporated all the previous legislation and together with the Public Health Act of 1961 gave a new foundation to the subject. It is known that food laws in the USA basically follow the British pattern.

In Bangladesh, we have a number of food laws namely, the PFO, 1959 (as amended up to 2005), the PFR, 1967, the Cantonments Pure Food Act, 1966, the Cantonments Pure Food Rules, 1967, Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institute (BSTI) Ordinance, 1985 and rules made thereunder, which are responsible for enforcement of food safety and quality standards. Besides, we have the Penal Code, 1860, the Special Powers Act, 1974, and six City Corporation Ordinances that deal partially with food safety and prescribe punishments. Different ministries and agencies are responsible for the enforcement of these laws.

The amended PFO has provided for the constitution of the NFSAC to work as the apex body to coordinate and advise the government on matters relating to safety of food, standard and quality control for food, development of manpower services and facilities required for ensuring safety, quality and pure food for human consumption, etcetera. But the NFSAC has reportedly not been functional till date. Further, in the absence of any coordinating body at the field level, particularly at the district level, to help the NFSAC, it may not be possible for the apex body to discharge its responsibilities properly.

The amended PFO has provided that the government may, by notification in the official gazette, establish one or more Pure Food Court (PFC) in each district and metropolitan area. The court shall consist of an officer who is vested with the power of a magistrate of the first class and who shall have power to impose any punishment specified in the amendment. As far as it is known, the PFC is yet to be established. There is the least possibility that PFCs will start functioning in all the districts and metropolitan areas during the remaining days of the BNP-led alliance rule.

The laboratories are ill-equipped both in terms of equipment and trained manpower to deal with the gigantic problem of food adulteration. After the passage of the Pure Food (Amendment) Act, 2005, the daily Prothom Alo reported on September 22, 2005 that its field-level survey of the laboratories of the BSTI, BCSIR, IPH and the DCC revealed that they did not have necessary equipment and trained personnel 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 natural/vegetable colours and hazardous artificial and synthetic colours.

There are public analysts of food, inspectors, health officers, etc to ensure safety of food in the interest of public health. But they have so far hardly played any role in the prevention of food adulteration. Rather, there are allegations that many of them are in the pay roll of the food adulterators. Unless their activities are carefully monitored and the corrupt ones punished, noticeable improvement in the prevention of food adulteration may not be possible.

Campaigns against food adulteration by the mobile courts in the capital city and in other cities and towns are welcome. But mobile court approach is not enough, especially when the adulterators resort to newer techniques to avoid detection and accountability and the mobile courts suffer from shortage of necessary specialists and equipment to deal with such situation.

In its editorial of March 22, The Daily Star wrote: "All agencies involved with food safety matters and the protection of consumer rights in general, like the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI), Dhaka City Corporation (DCC) and food directorate must be adequately equipped and empowered to be able to do their job effectively enough. Let's invest resources in them, so we don't need to have ad-hoc campaigns with short-lived effects."

The bill amending the PFO, 1959 was passed in haste. The bill was introduced in the House on September 13, 2005.The parliamentary standing committee on local government, rural development and cooperatives ministry was given only three days to scrutinise the bill. It is learnt that the even the amendments suggested by the treasury bench members of the committee were not accepted.

Many observers feel that the government wanted to achieve some political gains by hurriedly passing the bill. This became evident when the government started trumpeting the passage of the bill. But the government has now adopted the policy of procrastination in implementing the amendments in the PFO. Some knowledgeable people are of opinion that the implementation of the amendments will go against the interest of many food manufacturers and traders who belong to the ruling camp. The government, therefore, does not want to incur their displeasure before the forthcoming general election.

To conclude, considering the importance of food on public health in general and in the building up healthy workforce for the country, all necessary steps, including implementation of the amendments in the PFO,1959 must be taken to ensure availability of safe food to all sections of the society.

M. Abdul Latif Mondal is a former Secretary to the Government.