Following its enactment, Safe Food Act-2013 is in place from February 1, 2015. It will take a few months to be put into operation as the rules under the Act will have to be prepared. In the Preamble of the Act it has been stated that its purpose is to ensure safe food for the people which will be produced, procured, stored, distributed or imported by observing proper procedures.
Roles of various players have been defined in the Act, and their responsibilities also fixed. All probable offences relating to the sale and distribution of the adulterated, impure and stale food stuff have been adequately defined with the provision of imposing penalty and punishment, in case of noncompliance.
The country does not lag behind in the enactment of laws and legislations, but the question is: to what extent are these laws followed and implemented? Smoking is prohibited in public place. But this law is 'honoured' more in breach than observance. Prevention of Cruelty Towards Animals Act was introduced in the early part of the last century. We know to what extent its provisions are being followed. Protection of Consumer Rights Act was passed in 2009. We know very well if we have gained any strength in asserting our rights as consumers because of the law. The basic requirement that the law states is that while purchasing a commodity the consumer should be in a position to know the price displayed either on the packet of the product or in a display board for items like fish, meat, vegetables etc. But this has not been complied with, particularly in the kitchen markets. So, the consumers are subjected to the whims and caprice of the sellers. The law enforcing agencies hardly pay attention to this.
Importance of the Safe Food Act can hardly be overemphasised. However, there appears to be some inadequacies which can potentially thwart the very objective for which it has been enacted. Certain issues of the Act need discussion and further consideration. For example, under the Act, after receiving a complaint for any violation as regards food safety, the enquiry officer will get 90 days for doing his job with the provision of further extension of 30 days. Isn't this too lax and time-consuming? Since the matter is about food item, and violation can readily be detected by means of mechanical devises, the time allowed for determining the offence is inordinately long. The period of enquiry should be reduced to 45 days with the further scope of extension for 15 days. The proposed food court should be exclusively meant for trial of cases under this Act.
Under the Act, there will be a national safe food management advisory council. Constitution of this council has not been a departure from the tradition of heavy bureaucratic domination. The council is likely to consist of 30 members out of which only 3 persons are to be selected from the private sectors. President of FBCC, a representative from the city corporation and another from the municipality will constitute the council. But again, the latter two members will be nominated by the government.
It can be strongly argued that success of this Act rests with public awareness and cooperation from the business community. Bangladesh boasts of the improvement of certain social index, which were achieved not because of the government's role alone but largely because of public awareness backed by the NGOs.
In the national council, there should be members from the trade bodies as well. In the Act, there is the provision for constituting another committee dubbed safe food management-cooperation committee. In this committee, the number of private sector representatives is a bit high but all are supposed to be nominated by the government. This very nomination syndrome affects the efficiency and independence of a person.
The Safe Food Act 2013 does not speak enough about inculcating public awareness. It is needless to say that in achieving success under this Act, public cooperation is a must. Local government organisations are better suited for creating public awareness. But in Bangladesh this sector could not attain maturity because of the unwillingness and negligence of all successive governments.
We have reasons to apprehend that unless adequate steps are taken for public awareness and also for full cooperation from the business community, very little will be achieved from this Act. Rather a corrupt section of the people in collusion with the people of similar psyche from the government agencies will create another den of corrupt activities and the whole purpose of the Act will be frustrated.
