The announcement by the Government Analyst Food & Drugs Department earlier this week about a particular brand of milk that the information on the label does not accurately communicate to the consumer the contents of the product and some possible health issues may well have passed unnoticed amongst a sizeable section of the consuming public. Much of the reason has to do with the fact that the price range for canned milk can vary fairly significantly and that, in an economy where salaries are modest and the cost of living high, is not an issue that consumers will overlook.
These days there are numerous brands of evaporated milk imported into Guyana and the experts have advised us that the quality of the milk can vary from one product to the next. The average consumer, for example, is probably unlikely to know that there are cases in which the natural fat in milk is extracted and sold on a lucrative market that then re-sells to the industries that manufacture commodities like chocolate and butter whilst less nutritionally worthwhile vegetable fat is added to the milk. Setting aside the fact that the value of the milk is now significantly reduced the vegetable fat contained therein can harm the health of young children.
Such adjustments as are made to the constitution of the product ought to be reflected on the label of the packaging, the can in this instance, so that, for example, not only should the vegetable content in the milk now be announced to the consumer on the label but the fact that the vast majority of the original fat has been removed from the product now means that it is misleading for the image of a cow to be placed on the label.
We are told that the manipulation of the production process in the milk industry is all a matter of maximizing profits so that the deception in the labelling is deliberate and the manufacturers worry little if at all about the ill effects on people’s health. It has been suggested too that it may not be by accident that commodities like the recently outlawed milk product actually reached Guyana. Invariably, it seems, such products unerringly find their way to countries with porous borders, weak and ‘distracted’ Customs regimes and indifferent and undereducated consumers.
There are trading spaces here in Guyana and elsewhere where a bewildering array of questionable food items – including several brands of milk – are sold. A great many consumers have no brand loyalty whatsoever. Their circumstances do not allow for such ‘luxuries.’ Their choices are based on price. More than that with the Customs system not substantively charged with looking into things like mislabelling and with the Food and Drugs Department lacking both the clout and the manpower to perform its policing work efficiently, it certainly appears that some distributors are having a field day with items that would not otherwise be allowed to enter the country.
Strange as it may seem anomalies in the country’s importation regime that have to do with issues like labelling instructions and fake goods are invariably acted upon by the Food and Drugs Department only after they would have been brought to the Department’s attention by a consumer or a disadvantaged businessman. Where that does not happen the product simply finds its way into the system.
There is therefore something to be said for strengthening the local consumer protection regime by boosting those institutions that are concerned with overseeing food safety and that begins with the Customs Administration but must of necessity extend to further empowering the Food and Drugs Department by significantly enhancing its capacity to do its work efficiently. It really makes no sense in erecting health protection measures that are underpinned by improved health facilities if resources will then be spent curing altogether preventable maladies.
