Food for thought on food safety
View(s):In recent weeks, Sri Lankan consumers have been bombarded with mixed and confusing messages about the safety of the food they consume.
While this in particular refers to the raging milk powder debate, efforts are now underway to also test a range of food items include imported fruits and other products.
One may ask why such a frenzy over food and possible contamination now when the media has repeatedly reported over many, many years about the pesticides used in local food production, chemicals used to puff up the ubiquitous hopper, chemicals used to ripen or increase the shelf life of imported oranges, apples or grapes. The list is endless.
The media has constantly raised issues about the safety of chemicals used, the genetically modified food debate some years ago (which died down), the accuracy of dates of manufacture and expiry on the labels of food products. Who monitors these dates? Is there an authority that can endorse these dates of manufacture or expiry? Is there a single authority? Is it the Consumer Affairs Authority or another state unit?
A Business Times (BT)-Research Consultancy Bureau (RCB) poll this week on the milk powder fiasco reveals the extent of mixed messages and confusion that consumers have been fed with.
A media briefing last week by a group of eminent doctors including the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) has further complicated the issue with some doctors saying milk is not essential to the daily food intake. Many of those polled this week said they drank milk based on the traditional wisdom of their parents, and not doctors’ advice, and would continue to do so.
While Fonterra suspended operations in Sri Lanka, stopped production and advised its staff to stay at home, fearing possible attacks by anti-multinational groups, the milk issue has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Absolute confusion is the order of the day. While the focus is on milk powder of the imported variety, what about milk products and its safety – butter, cheese, etc? Mothers with little infants have been struggling to get their quota of infant formulae milk which is in short supply. Will the government step in to fill this gap? The Health Ministry ordered what was supposed to be a ban on all advertising of milk products but this was merrily flouted with local companies saying their products are safe and sure. Later the Minister said they have no authority to enforce a ban other than making a request to the media to stop such ads.
This week, the cabinet sub-committee probing the milk issue is learnt to have ordered another ban on advertising of any products.
While the Health Ministry got into the debate rather late in the day (some months back), the ministries of agriculture and technology and research have joined the fray with its own responses and theories to the raging food debate.
The trigger in the latest controversy over milk foods was tests done by the Industrial Technology Institute (ITI) which found that imported milk powder sold by Fonterra, Maliban and Diamond (brands) contained traces of Dicyandiamide (DCD). Earlier tests carried out in foreign labs showed negative results.
Technology, Research and Atomic Energy Champaka Ranawaka has stoutly defended claims that the ITI tests were not up to the mark. The testing process was disputed by Fonterra. While the ITI’s lab has global accreditation the testing process for DCD is not accredited.
The wider question however in the food debate is the lack of proper consumer protection societies or associations to serve the community and look after their interests.
There are dozens of small cooperatives in villages and towns called consumer societies but these have been hijacked by politicians, filled with their cronies and used to boost their ego.
It’s still not too late for the formation of a properly constituted consumer protection body run by civil society that would work closely with the Consumer Affairs Authority (CAA) to regularly bring issues that confront consumers to the table and find solutions.
Strong consumer protection bodies have been responsible for the governance structures adopted by many companies in the west in the sale of their products. Fair trade, fair wage, decent pay, looking after the community, safe food are buzz words in international trade pushed by consumer groups demanding more accountability in products.
Consumer groups in Sri Lanka should be guiding consumers on how to read the small print on labels of food products particularly perishables. Today consumers depend on the companies themselves to guide them on how to assess a good product. Often companies issue statements (in the name of good governance) saying there are fake products in the market and not to be fooled by the adverts, and to buy their own products!
With so many confusing messages from different sections of the government and the private sector, what would be useful is a series of public interest announcements in the media – just like the regular Central Bank adverts warning against investments in dubious finance companies – advising the public on food safety and what to look for when purchasing a product.
The current debate has got embroiled in politics, local business mafias, ultra nationalistic fervour, foreign exchange concerns, etc. The challenge of the authorities is also not to allow the debate to be controlled by business interests.
Furthermore before everything foreign is pulled off the shelf and replaced with local products, make sure there is sufficient local production or the country would be looking at the 1970-77 era of shortage and queues.
The challenge for the nation is to ensure a transparent production plan in key essentials including milk and sugar and reciprocally phase out imports — not completely halt them – as and when local production rises.
comments powered by Disqus