It matters not one iota how many media releases laced with warnings of dire consequences for transgressions are issued by the Government Analyst Food and Drugs Department (GA/FDD) regarding the unlawful packaging and repackaging of items of food for sale, for as long as we continue to not get the little things right, we will be compelled to deal with the consequences of our indifference.
Last week the Food and Drugs Department issued its umpteenth such admonition and the release itemized close to a dozen reasons why indiscriminate packaging and repackaging should end. The simple truth is that much of it constitutes a health hazard.
Of course there are health risks associated with offering for sale to the public items of food that might have been packaged under unhygienic conditions and which, in their unlabelled state leaves consumers none the wiser as to what they are consuming.
Packaging food under questionable unhygienic conditions has been commonplace in the micro enterprise sector from time immemorial. We have grown accustomed to turning a blind eye to schoolyard and vendors offering dollops of gooseberry syrup or mango jam served up in pieces of ‘shop paper,’ or, these days, in somewhat more convenient plastic bags. There is also the long-standing practice of roadside food vending, a practice which, by and large, we have survived, hopefully, without terminal damage.
Some of these practices have been dismissed as ‘part of our culture,’ so that there has never really been any concerted attempt raise standards. This has meant that attitudes to proper packaging and presentation and to Food Handlers Certificates has often been one of indifference.
Even in the contemporary era when training in disciplines like packaging and labelling are far more accessible, adherence to the lesser standards persist.
Then there is the second tier of the offence to which Foods and Drugs referred recently, the wholescale importation into the country of consignments of milk and flour, mostly, and their subsequent re-packaging – quite possibly under questionable sanitary conditions – into smaller lots for sale to retail consumers. Several questions arise here. How on earth do these consignments of questionable food items get into the country? Some of it, it seems, secures the green light for importation under circumstances which, the Director of Food and Drugs says, leaves him unhappy, to say the least. In recent months, there have been quite a few cases of items of imported food items, the bona fides of which, apparently, only came up for questioning after they had cleared Customs. There is really very little doubt that some of these imports are landed here and released onto the market under circumstances that are questionable.
There are categories of food imports – powdered milk we are told is one of these – imported into Guyana for what is euphemistically referred to as ‘industrial use’ and are not intended to be distributed at the retail level. It would appear that the embargo on retail sales is not always paid attention to so that smaller operators are able to get their hands on parts of these consignments which they then break down into smaller lots, again, under physical conditions that may very well leave consumers vulnerable. Since these commodities serve as cheap substitutes, there is no guessing as to which dinner tables they eventually reach.
We are told that in the case of a particular commodity, the external producers have now been warned about how its importation affects the behaviour of some traders in Guyana and that the authorities in one particular country have been told to prohibit would-be importers from Guyana from doing business with them unless they can produce documents from Food and Drugs authorizing them to import the particular product.
Setting aside the fact that there has never really been any sustained official clamour for raising standards in this area save and except the occasional repetitive public statement issued by Food and Drugs, the chronic neglect of the agency as reflected in deficiencies in both staffing and equipment is, arguably, a reflection of the extent to which its work is a priority. Setting aside its enforcement responsibilities, the agency has responsibilities that have to do with training and sensitizing its own staff, which, in its present circumstances, it finds it difficult to execute effectively.
The GA/FDD faces another dilemma. One certainly does not get the impression that it enjoys the autonomy that it should. There are times when it has appeared, worryingly, to be under the thumb of the bureaucrats inside the Ministry of Public Health and that it is fighting desperately for wiggle room to execute its mandate.
The relationship between the GA/FDD and the Customs Administration is an interesting one. Customs has the jurisdiction as far imports entering the country through our ports is concerned. The GA/FDD has a permit-related prerogative. It had long seemed as though the Customs Administration was more or less unmindful of the prerogatives of the GA/FDD. Recently, the two agencies met for a half-day discourse on the general issue of working together and the least that can be said is that they each made some encouraging commitments as far as collaboration is concerned.
The constraints to at least getting to a better place as far as improving the existing regime for safe food products are by no means insurmountable. What is in evidence at this time is a long-standing dichotomy between policy as enunciated by the executing agencies and the posture of the authorities as far as putting the requisite mechanisms in place are concerned. That has to change or we may as well set the rhetoric aside.
