Bangladesh has been suffering from a rampant food adulteration problem for the last couple of decades.
Unsafe food poses a major threat to public health in Bangladesh. Each year millions of citizens suffer from countless diseases following the consumption of unsafe food. Several attempts have been made to change the food safety regulatory regime (FSRR) of Bangladesh to combat this alarming issue. Unfortunately, the situation has hardly changed, rather it is getting worse day by day.
Legal and regulatory framework
The existing food safety legal and regulatory regime of Bangladesh is governed by copious enactments and governmental bodies. More than a dozen of laws deal with the food safety affairs excluding the common law provisions:
Penal Code, 1860 Control of Essential Commodities Act, 1956 Food (Special Courts) Acts, 1956 Pure Food Act, 2013 (PFA, 2013 Cantonments Pure Food Act, 1966 Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 Special Powers Act, 1974 Fish and Fish Products (Inspection and Control) Ordinance, 1983 The Breast-Milk Substitutes (Regulation of Marketing) Ordinance, 1984) Bangladesh Standards and testing Institution, Ordinance, 1985 Iodine Deficiency Disorders Prevention Act, 1989 Consumers Rights Protection Act, 2009 Local Government (City Corporation) Act, 2009 Local Government (Paurashava) Act, 2009 Mobile Court Act, 2009Multiplicity of Laws
Presently, at least 15 laws (excluding the common law provisions) govern the current legal framework of food safety in Bangladesh. Use of such a large number of laws for a single purpose, ie food safety, is quite unusual. This multiplicity of laws is a great obstacle in this regard. Section 272 and 273 of the Penal Code, 1860 endorses food adulteration as an offence. The Pure Food Act, 2013 also tries the same offence. Previously, section 16 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1959 proscribed keeping of adulterants in places where food is manufactured. Later in 1974, the government repeatedly comprised food adulteration under Special Powers Act, 1974 by inserting section 25C, which simply altered the language, punishments (in this instance, death penalty) of the parallel provisions of Penal Code, 1860. While food adulteration had been criminalised under three aforementioned enactments simultaneously, in 2009 the government enacted the Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009, where section 41 included the same offence over again.
Non-coordination and overlapping regulatory bodies
Despite the existence of the several bodies, there is no effective coordination among these regulatory authorities dealing with the food safety. In Bangladesh, ministry is the coordinating authority for any given issue. However, practically the concerned ministry is extremely overburdened with numerous state activities to proficiently coordinate the food safety issues.
Transparency, autonomy and bureaucracy issues
It is commonly accepted that a proper and effective regulatory framework should be based on transparency and accountability. A regulatory body should be transparent both externally and internally. Further, regulatory autonomy is undeniable for good governance. Moreover, regulatory bodies under the food safety regulatory regime in Bangladesh are terribly bureaucratic. For instance, section 18 of the Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009 has established the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection (DNCRP) to administer the functions of this statute. But section 71 of the CRPA 2009 stipulates that an aggrieved person needs to obtain permission from the DNCRP to sue against any perpetrator. This unnecessary bureaucracy has ultimately made such an important consumer protection law ineffective.
Inadequacy of penalties
One important factor in the food safety regulatory regime in Bangladesh is the insufficiency of penalties. In fact, given the perspective of the ongoing food adulteration scenario, question arises as to whether the sanctions provided in statutes are adequate or not. Few examples are given below.
The penalty as set in section 272 of the Penal Code, 1860 for adulteration of food or drink is imprisonment for a maximum term of six months or a maximum fine of Tk1000. Considering and comparing the gravity of the offence and the duration of imprisonment together with the amount of the potential fines, it can be said that this punishment is truly absurd and scarcely a deterrent in situations where the potential profit of a food manufacturer may far exceed any possible fine payable.
The penalty for the breaches of the Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009 is comparatively higher but not still adequate. Section 37 of the law states that a person will be subject to a term of imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of Tk50,000 if he fails to cover products. Under this law, a person will face a term of three years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to Tk200,000 for “mixing any prohibited chemical” (such as formalin) in food products. The penalties for these offences will be doubled if the convicted person repeats the same offence.
Unlike the above mentioned negligible penalties, the Special Powers Act, 1974 provides severe sanctions, such as life imprisonment and the death penalty for food adulteration. Admittedly, the imposition of this kind of punishment is also not desirable; the death penalty is a brutal punishment for any offence. Use of death penalty should be considered from the human rights perspective as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, suggested that the death penalty should be abolished from the civilised world.
Problems with enforcement
In Bangladesh, penalties are seen as the only way of the enforcement of statutes. However, no persuasive measures, eg training, caution notice, improvement notice are involved in the enforcement mechanism. Moreover, the administrative enforcement mechanism of Bangladesh is not organised.
An effective food safety regulatory framework is imperative to ensure safe foods for consumers in any given country which is missing in Bangladesh. However, considering the current situations, it can be recommended that we need a single, well-drafted and pragmatic legislation that will provide for an autonomous and apex food safety regulatory body to perform all kinds of coordination. Such apex body should function on the principles of accountability and transparency and should be made free from any kind of bureaucratic complexities. Laws should be amended providing harsher penalties for the wrongdoers as well as an efficient administrative enforcement regime needs to be structured based on persuasive tools.
