Are existing consumer protection penalties serving their purpose?

Thursday, 18 June 2026 00:00 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

Recent media reports regarding the prosecution of a food importer and distributor for offences involving expired food products raise an important public policy question.

According to the reports, the company pleaded guilty to charges relating to the storage of expired food items together with unexpired goods, the offering of goods for sale without details of the importer or distributor, and conduct alleged to have been intended to mislead consumers. The court is reported to have imposed a fine of Rs. 75,000 and ordered the destruction of the food stocks concerned.

The destruction of the goods is undoubtedly a significant consequence. However, the case raises a broader question as to whether financial penalties of this magnitude provide a sufficient deterrent to prevent similar violations in the future.

Businesses engaged in the importation and distribution of food products often handle goods worth millions of rupees. Where offences involve matters such as expired food items, inadequate labelling, or conduct that may mislead consumers, the potential consequences extend beyond commercial considerations to public health and consumer confidence.

Particularly concerning is the report that food items supplied through these stores were distributed in bulk to leading hotels and markets across the country. Whether or not any expired products ultimately reached consumers, the mere possibility highlights the wider implications of such lapses. Sri Lanka's tourism industry depends heavily on maintaining confidence in food safety standards. Any perception that hotels or food establishments may unknowingly receive improperly labelled or expired products has the potential to damage the country's reputation among both local consumers and foreign visitors.

The purpose of penalties is not merely to punish past conduct but also to discourage future violations. If the economic benefit derived from non-compliance exceeds the financial consequences of being caught, there is a risk that some operators may regard such penalties as simply another cost of doing business.

There is also an important issue of fairness. Businesses that comply with food safety regulations incur substantial costs in maintaining proper storage facilities, stock controls, quality assurance procedures, traceability systems, and labelling requirements. Weak penalties may place such law-abiding businesses at a competitive disadvantage against those who choose to disregard regulatory requirements.

This case therefore provides an opportunity for policymakers to review whether the penalties currently available under consumer protection legislation remain adequate in today's commercial environment. Monetary fines that may have been meaningful many years ago may no longer serve as an effective deterrent given inflation and the scale of modern business operations.

Consumers are entitled to expect that food products offered for sale meet the required standards and that those standards are enforced through penalties that are both fair and effective. Equally, honest businesses are entitled to compete on a level playing field where compliance with the law is not placed at a commercial disadvantage.

A Concerned Consumer