Rubbish pork and rotten enforcement

Are our watchdog agencies efficient enough to make us feel safe when we eat?

The recent revelation about “rubbish pork” being sold on the market was a grim reminder of how often unscrupulous business practices go unnoticed by Malaysian authorities.

Through the years, there have been several shocking disclosures raising concern about the efficiency and effectiveness of enforcement agencies as protectors of food safety and public health.

Apparently, the practice of using low quality pork – or even pig carrion – in sausages, dim sum and other pork-based foods has been going on for 10 years. Why did it go undetected for so long by any of the various levels of the authority responsible for food safety? Is the government adequately taking care of public health?

Food safety in the country is administered by a network of federal, state, district and municipal authorities. The top authority is the Food Quality Control Unit of the Health Ministry. It was established in 1974 and is responsible for overall technical supervision. It determines food safety policies, formulates legislation, guidelines and codes of practice and coordinates activities at state and district levels.

One wonders whether the unit, as well as the state, district and local authorities, have adequate financial and manpower resources to function effectively, considering that food production has grown rapidly over the years.

Is there anything besides rubbish pork that we should be worried about? Are there other dark secrets yet to be exposed?

Perhaps we should review the Malaysian track record.

Quite some time ago, Chinese guilds and associations raised concerns about the unscrupulous use of prohibited drugs and hazardous chemicals in animal feeds, vegetables and fruits.

Big profits

More recently, we heard complaints that some animal feed suppliers and livestock farmers had resorted to using various types of stimulants to accelerate the growth of livestock or plants so that they could reap in big profits, never mind the risk to public health.

In 1996, the public was shocked by reports that some poultry farmers were administering the cancer-causing antibiotic Nitrofuran to their chickens. According to one of these reports, a government laboratory tested 142 chickens and found that more than half showed contamination of up to 4,000%.

In August 1996, poultry farmers nationwide pledged not to administer Nitrofuran to chickens younger than 28 days. But a few days later, the government decided to ban the antibiotic altogether.

Before much time had passed, there came another shocker – the use of Formaldehyde to preserve the freshness of fish. This is the same chemical used in the treatment of wood, plastic and resin. If eaten, it could cause cancer, leukaemia, eye irritation and breathing difficulties.

In 1999, the Agriculture Ministry disclosed that 10% of the 200 samples of vegetables tested monthly had pesticide residues exceeding the maximum limit.

If you have a good library of daily newspapers, you will find reports of many more shockers through the years. This naturally leads to the question of how much more out there that we do not know about.

Another question that crops up is whether our enforcement authorities are efficient enough to make us feel safe when we eat.

Personal responsibility

There are more than 200 active pesticides ingredients on the market, but we do not know if they are all monitored. We have in past years heard complaints that enforcement was difficult for lack of financial, technical and physical resources, including manpower.

The consensus view in a 1999 conference on Managing Risks in the Use of Chemicals for Agriculture and Public Health was that enforcement was indeed weak and inefficient.

Is this problem still prevailing?

While we ponder upon these questions and hope that government agencies improve their performance or that voters are smart enough to choose a more responsible and responsive government, we have no choice but to take personal responsibility for our health and safety.

We must be an active public giving feedback to the authorities about unethical food suppliers as well unethical enforcers who accept bribes.

In the final analysis, though, we must watch what we eat. It would be foolhardy to leave our fate solely in the hands of enforcement agencies. Be your own watchdog when you eat in restaurants and food stalls and when you buy food to cook at home.