The approval of the 'Pure (Safe) Food Bill 2013' by the cabinet by all intents and purposes demonstrates the government's desire to bring about a change in the country's messy and unhygienic food business. Indeed, preparation, packaging and distribution of most of the foods here leave much to be desired. On top of this, deliberate adulteration of food by mixing inferior quality of the same with standard ones or ripening of fruits prematurely and ensuring their longer shelf lives by treating them with toxins or toxic chemicals, has spread like a plague on the country's food front. Abuse of food at its worst has seriously compromised people's food intake leading to health risks of grave proportion. Today people are more prone to suffer from a number of fatal diseases like respiratory problems, kidney failures and cancers of various organs on account of eating poisonous food than ever before. The nation desperately needs to come out of this awfully risky food condition.
The hope is that the draft bill will soon be placed in parliament for its early passage so that the nation can, through its proper implementation, get rid of a man-made curse for which a section of businessmen and traders is responsible. One of the stated objectives of this proposed piece of legislation is to constitute a 'safe food authority' with adequate administrative and technical capability. It will be responsible for implementation of the proposed law. The law seeks to impose harsher punishment like awarding seven years' imprisonment or imposition of a fine of Tk 10,00,000 or both for the first time offence. For the second time offence, both the jail sentence and the fine will simply be double that is 14 years' imprisonment or a fine of Tk 20,00,000 or both. Evidently, the implementation of a punishment of this order will be critically important. But this country is not particularly known for implementation of laws. Here, definition of adulteration of food must also include chemical treatment or application of other poisonous substance for ripening or preserving fruits and vegetables. Unless clearly defined, adulterators will use the loopholes to get away with their crimes or there will be risk of improper application of the law to indict innocent traders. So it is vitally important that the details of the law are clearly formulated.
The fact that seven or 14 years' imprisonment should act as a deterrent to food adulteration at the source that is at the factory- or industry-level can more or less be ensured provided that the proposed authority remains alive to its responsibilities. But how the manipulation at the mid- or consumer-level will be arrested may still remain a concern. On that count, the packaging can be a safeguard but it may not guarantee against abuse. Therefore, monitoring at these two levels will prove decisive. However, the enforcement of the law will dissuade an intending violator of the law from going about food adulteration. If the source can be plugged, drives by mobile courts will definitely have their bearing on the small traders who would stay away from malpractice for the fear of the harsher punishment.
