Government should take immediate action to set up an independent food authority

Tuesday, 25 March 2014 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) has put out a comprehensive Position Paper on National Food Security after lengthy dialogues with medical officers, nutritionists, government officials and experts in environment and food safety. Here is the full text of the Position Paper. The controversy on imported milk powder that erupted in August 2013 resulted in the Cabinet of Ministers appointing a cabinet subcommittee to resolve the issues surrounding the importation of milk powder. The torrent of allegations and counter claims overwhelmed the citizenry. The sequence of events unfolded roughly in the following order.

A New Zealand company admits that minute traces of DCD were detected in some of their milk powder stocks released to the market. However they strongly rejected any possibility of a food safety risk. The Director General of the Ministry of Health orders Customs to return a stock of substandard food items which included 25,000 tons of substandard dhal, 18,600 kg of substandard mango pulp, 16 MT of milk powder, and four containers of tomato paste. The Minister of Agriculture advised the public to refrain from using imported milk powder. The Ministry of Health announced that it was ready to ban any milk powder found to be contaminated. A New Zealand based milk powder producer admits to the presence of minute amounts of DCD in their products but also insists that the regulators have agreed that New Zealand dairy products are 100% safe. The Industrial Technology Institute announces the presence of traces of DCD in four brands of imported milk powder from New Zealand. It also announces that two local brands tested, were free of DCD. The Ministry of Health orders the suspension of advertisements of imported milk powder in the electronic media asserting that it may hinder investigations carried out to determine the safety of the products. Three importers of milk powder were requested to remove their products from the market pending tests conducted by the Industrial Technology Institute (ITI) for the presence of DCD in some milk powder samples. The Ministry of Health calls for the full recall of milk powder stocks of specific brands and the halt in sale until further notice. The Ministry of Health announces that tests carried out in Thailand had found no traces of DCD in imported milk powder distributed in Sri Lanka. It had sent 128 samples of milk powder to be tested in laboratories in Thailand. The milk powder narrative with its own babble of voices of dissent and discord exposed the unembellished truth that Sri Lanka had no any regulatory agency to respond effectively and authoritatively to public concerns on the safety of food products. The sequence of events as shown here indicates that there is no clear protocol that could determine the safety of food products. The diffused authority of the state is reflected in the conflicting signals from different arms of the state. When several state agencies claim and exercise discretionary authority it becomes a clear recipe for confusion and corruption. The ordinary citizens is willing to sacrifice immediate advantages if convinced that long term good would accrue to all fellow citizens. That requires the Government to be transparent and disciplined in its commitment to the public good by providing a clear strategy to respond to a given situation – in this instance that of food safety. When confronted with a crisis the public expects a capable government to lay out a clear procedure that implies no ambiguity. A transparent government has to have the capacity to enforce the law and mediate disputes. Clearly it is necessary to put in place an institutional structure that governs the Interactions among players in the food industry. Position statement The profusion of food products and the rapid movement of food products across borders compel all countries to adopt a coherent national policy on food safety. Today most countries have setup a single statutory authority to enforce a national food regulatory system. Sri Lanka is yet to conform to this international practice. These single accountable, authoritative national regulatory bodies are equipped to deal with food safety issues at national level and also though close international cooperation. They exchange information on food safety by sharing experiences and expertise. This international cooperation is facilitated by the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). This is a joint endeavour of the WHO and the FAO - the two key UN agencies whose mandates cover global health and global food supply. The global network INFOSAN includes 181 member states including Sri Lanka. Each member state has a designated INFOSAN contact point that enables member states to link up with the INFOSAN secretariat in emergency situations. All member states of INFOSAN recognise that food safety is a shared international responsibility and hence the single national contact point enables the member states to keep other institutions within their territories well informed of all INFOSAN activities and communications. The INFOSAN network has the following four specific objectives: nPromote the rapid exchange of information during food safety related events; nShare information on important food safety related issues of global interest; nPromote partnership and collaboration between countries; and nHelp countries strengthen their capacity to manage food safety risks. The WHO claims that “Sri Lanka is working on extending its partnership with WHO in the sphere of INFOSAN activities. The country’s progress in the sphere of food safety became evident recently when it demonstrated its ability to face challenges arising from local disasters, emergency situations and external issues, such as the radionuclide contamination resulting from the nuclear crisis in Japan. Limited funds and lack of technical capacity are two constraints faced by those involved in the INFOSAN activities in Sri Lanka.” The Department of Environment and Occupational Health of the Ministry of Health is the designated Sri Lanka focal point of INFOSAN.

Response from regional countries Here it is pertinent to take note of how other Asian countries in the region have responded to the international demands for country specific food safety agencies. Bangladesh - The Institute of Public Health Nutrition (IPHN) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is the national INFOSAN emergency contact point.

Bhutan - The Department of Public Health of the Ministry of Health is the national emergency contact point in INFOSAN.
India - The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India is the INFOSAN focal point.
Indonesia - The Director for Food Safety Surveillance and Extension, the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (NADFC), acts as the INFOSAN emergency point of contact.
Maldives - The Food and Drugs Authority (MFDA), Ministry of Health and Family, is the INFOSAN focal point.
Myanmar - The Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Health, is designated as the INFOSAN contact point.

What is food regulation? The term “food” identifies any substance, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended for human consumption. In today’s context, food distribution chains span the world and the global food and beverage industry is larger than all other industries combined. The size of the industry and the fierce competition within it calls for strict supervision. Everybody involved strives for greater market share and increased profits and the shortest route to both is by compromise in quality and safety. Therefore it cries out for constant supervision through; “….a mandatory regulatory activity of enforcement by national or local authorities to provide consumer protection and ensure that all foods during production, handling, storage, processing, and distribution are safe, wholesome and fit for human consumption; conform to safety and quality requirements; and are honestly and accurately labelled as prescribed by law.” (Assuring Food Safety and Quality Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems Joint FAO/WHO Publication) The fundamental responsibility of food control is to enforce the compliance with food laws that protect the consumer against unsafe, impure and fraudulently presented food. Consumers should be assured that agriculture produce is safe from the point of the producers up to the shop shelf, fish is safe from catch to the point of sale and poultry and livestock are free from pathogens. Processed foods must be pasteurised or sterilised, and canned or otherwise packaged in aseptically sealed containers. Fresh food should be subject to inspections. Why a national food safety standards agency The principal tasks of a National Authority or agency would be to;

Protect public health by reducing the risk of food borne illness;
Protecting consumers from unsanitary, unwholesome, mislabelled or adulterated food;
Help maintain consumer confidence in the food system;
Ensuring a strict regulatory mechanism for both for domestic and imported food products fresh, preserved and processed;

The absence of a single accountable and authoritative agency on food safety will result in fragmented legislation, multiple jurisdictions, and weaknesses in surveillance, monitoring and enforcement. This was clearly visible during the milk foods controversy. Such a single regulatory body should have the power to enforce guidelines to protect public health, prevent fraud and deception, avoid food adulteration and facilitate trade. The regulatory body should advise the Government to select the most suitable options for its food control systems in terms of legislation, infrastructure and enforcement mechanisms. The present legislative framework The present legislation on food safety is confined to the Food Act No 26 of 1980 and the Food (Amendment) Act No. 20 of 1991. The Act controls the manufacture, importation, transport, sale, distribution, advertisement, and labelling of food. Regulations under this act also envisages a ‘Chief Food Authority’ who in concurrence with a “Food Advisory Committee “will regulate and enforce food safety measures. The members of the Food Advisory Committee are the Director General of Health Services as Chairman Director (E&OH) as Secretary, DDG (PHS), Assistant Director – FCAU, City Analyst, Director General Customs, a representative of the Ministry of Trade and Commerce, two members representing the consumer, two members representing commercial interests, a nutritionist, a food technologist, an expert on food science, the Government Analyst and the Director General of the Sri Lanka Standards Institute. The regulations that stipulates this esoteric composition of the Food Advisory Committee announces grandly that ‘It shall be the duty of the committee to advise the Minister on matters arising out of the administration of this act’. Rightly so, because the Administrative Structure of Food Act No 26 of 1980 is headed by the Minister of Health with the Director General of Health Services assuming total administrative and executive responsibilities of this vital subject in addition to his other responsibilities. While the regulations seem to recognise the need for a Chief Food Authority it is eloquently silent on the powers, functions, and the qualifications of such an authority that is already in place in most countries with statutory authority. The assertion that Sri Lanka is far behind in global trends that govern food safety is no exaggeration. However what it implies is the vast space that is available for corruption, malpractices and the threat to the health of the people who must necessarily rely on the state to ensure the quality and safety of food they consume. The main defect in the food control and food safety system in place is its absolute inability of enforcement. The Food Act itself recognises the imperatives of food safety as identified by the FAO and the WHO. While it claims that its provisions are mandatory it makes no attempt to enforce the mandatory provisions. Food Control Administration is a specialized field that has to be constantly engaged with food manufactures, producers, administrators and most importantly the consumers. This is the principal reason why many developed and developing countries have entrusted Food Control and Safety to a separate institution outside the Ministry of Health whose primary task is ‘health care delivery’. An efficient food safety/control system requires policy and operational coordination at the highest national level. The enabling legislation should clearly define the accountability for a national food safety and control strategy. The core responsibilities of a National Food Authority should include the imposition of regulatory measures, monitoring system performance and ensuring continuous improvements in keeping with global dynamics. The administration and implementation of food laws call for qualified, trained, officers with integrity. Modern laboratories are an essential component of a food control system. The establishment of laboratories calls for substantial investment. This is an area where qualified personnel with peer recognition can promote regional cooperation. It should also be possible to higher expertise and falsities from outside where the food authority can lay down the norms of laboratory examination. The dissemination of information is a vital area of activity in any food control system. This involves delivery of factual information to consumers. It is also necessary to keep officials and others engaged in the food control system updated with balanced and accurate information. Recommendations

The Government should take immediate action to set up an independent Food Authority with qualified personnel dedicated entirely to Food Control Administration.
Such an authority should work in close liaison with The Ministries of Health and Trade but should be accountable to the Cabinet of Ministers or the head of state.
The broad mandate and the structure of the proposed food authority should cover the following.
Framing of regulations to lay down the standards and guidelines in relation to articles of food and specifying appropriate system of enforcing various standards thus notified.
Laying down mechanisms and guidelines for accreditation of certification bodies engaged in certification of food safety management system for food businesses.
Laying down procedures and guidelines for accreditation of laboratories and notification of the accredited laboratories.
To provide scientific advice and technical support to the Central Government and State Governments in matters of framing the policy and rules in areas which have a direct or indirect bearing of food safety and nutrition .
Collect and collate data regarding food consumption, incidence and prevalence of biological risk, contaminants in food, residues of various, and contaminants in foods products, identification of emerging risks and introduction of rapid alert system.
Creating an information network across the country so that the public, consumers, Panchayats etc receive rapid, reliable and objective information about food safety and issues of concern.
Provide training programs for persons who are involved or intend to get involved in food businesses.
Contribute to the development of international technical standards for food, sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards.
Promote general awareness about food safety and food standards.
We should heed the advice of bodies such as the WHO and the FAO and take into account the experiences of other countries in fashioning our regulatory framework that will meet the national needs and international benchmarks.