Adulteration in fish market, its causes and possible solutions

Prepared For Barrister Istiaque Ahmed (ITA)

Prepared ByTasnif Mahmud 1030882530 Md. Aminul Islam 1210228030 Razanul Haque 1020873030Syeda Farhana Jamal 1210694030Shoumik Islam 1130409030

AcknowledgementTo begin with I am thankful to the almighty Allah for giving me the strength to do my very first research titled Adulteration in fish market, its causes and possible solutions. At the beginning of the course research seemed to us like a walk in the park but doing the research has been quite a tough stride. We had to do plenty of tasks to which we was quite oblivious. Despite all those apprehensions and qualms we managed to get hold of the whole concept of the research, and the person to thank for it is my very own faculty member, Barrister Istiaque Ahmed. He has been very helpful throughout research paper, allowing us to consult him whenever we got stuck with any area of this study. He encouraged us to do our research on our preferred subject, as opposed to finding any flaws in my choice of topic. His foreknowledge and intellect has been very crucial to our research as he gave us information which is difficult to hoard nowadays. We are thankful to the respondents who took the liberty to fill out our questionnaires without hesitation. We thanks also go to friends and family for caring and respecting my purpose of a research and encouraging us all the way.

Abstract

Food adulteration has now become a major threat to public health and because of adulterated food people are suffering various types of health problems. Our research hypothesizes that the most important reason for these occurrences of fish adulteration is a lack of strong application of law, lack of consumer awareness, and a lack of compliance of legal obligations of the producers, wholesalers, or retailers in this industry. Through our primary research we have successfully proved our hypothesis that these are the major causes for this modern epidemic in our country. Most of the consumers were very disappointed with the lack of effort from our law enforcing agencies. Absence of law is actually helping these sorts of crimes to grow. For our secondary research we have used newspaper, articles, seminar proceedings, websites etc.

TABLE OF CONTENT

DetailsPage No.

Introduction4

Background of Research 5

Hypothesis 6

Research Methodology 6

Primary Research 7

Secondary Research 13

List of Food Laws in Bangladesh21

Flaws in Food Safety Laws in Bangladesh22

Recommendation 27

Conclusion 27

Referencing 28

Introduction

Food is the most important element for our survival. The Meaning of Foodis an exploration of culture through food. According to George Barnard Shaw (n.d), There is no love sincerer than the love of food. According to Mahatma Gandhi, There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread. It is the key to survival and our habit of food shapes our life in a significant way.What we consume, how we acquire it, who prepares it, whos at the table, and who eats first is a form of communication that is rich with meaning. Food plays very vital role in maintaining proper health and also helps in prevention and cure of diseases. Good nutritive food makes health, but at the same time bad or unhealthy food give rise to several diseases. Our cells, tissues and all organs works properly only with nutritious foodwhich we eat. Food and culture actually goes hand in hand. For the people of Bangladesh fish is almost an inseparable element of life. Fish is a must in Bangladeshi culture. Without fish it seems that meal is not complete. Hence comes the saying, Mache vate Bangali. Bangladesh is a riverine country. So, there are plenty of fishes can be found easily. But the people of our country have to change the change their food habits in a large margin. The change have actually began in the past decade.it is due the increase of food adulteration in as epidemic scale.Food adulteration meansact of intentionally debasing the quality of food offered for sale either by the admixture or substitution of inferior substances or by the removal of some valuable ingredient. In Bangladesh this practice has been going on for a awful long time. The fish market is heavily suffered because of it. Retailers and wholesalers mix various sort of chemicals most commonly formalin (H-CHO) in order to preserve the food which can cause potential damage to the human body.Food adulteration is a crime within the law of our country. But due to the lack of response of our law enforcing agency and the lack of monitoring power of our government, finding a remedy seems to be an impossible job.

BackgroundFish is a favorite diet of the Bengalis and a good source of protein, but not cheap any longer. And even those with meager means would like to have fish on his or her plate as often as possible. To poison an easily accessible source of protein is a criminal act of the most unpardonable nature.What we are not able to rationalize, however, is that it is not that treating fish with formalin is a new phenomenon among the immoral fish traders. The unscrupulous fish merchants have been resorting to this practice for a long time. Many reports on the matter have appeared in the media in the past. One wonders what took the authorities so long to act decisively. We cannot accept the argument that requisite instruments to test the fish were not available so long. When people are going to the moon it seems that lack of chemical testing equipment seems rather a trite argument to offer. It is a legitimate question to ask as to who will pay for the damages done to the people who have been ingesting the very harmful chemical over the years.We would hope that this would not be a one-off action, that it would be a continuous drive to ensure that those that indulge in such harmful practices are put behind bars. There is no doubt that a strong syndicate is involved in this business. We know too that most of the formalin-treated fish come from a particular country and a particular region of Bangladesh. Thus a constant vigil is the need of the time if the country is to be saved from being slowly poisoned by some of our own people. Action should be taken not only to make people aware of the dangers but also to ensure that all the fish that enter the market all-over the country are free of the chemical.

HypothesisThe businesses supporting the production and supply of fishes to consumers all over Bangladesh is a prime example of a set of business related to the production of food where food adulteration is a common occurrence. Our research hypothesizes that the most important reason for these occurrences of fish adulteration is a lack of strong application of law, lack of consumer awareness, and a lack of compliance of legal obligations of the producers, wholesalers, or retailers in this industry. It is also thought that the people in the supply chain until the consumer are already aware of the law, so lack of knowledge is not an issue, but rather lack of compliance at one specific level of the supply chain is the main problem.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Our research methodology has been divided into two parts- Primary research & Secondary research and we have tried to implement the most effective and comparatively easy process to achieve the ultimate success.For our primary research, we have conducted a survey of a representative sampling of the from different genders, different ages of people from different part of Dhaka city and decided to ask those questions about the problems of adulteration in fish market and the possible solutions. To conduct the survey we have designed 4 sets of questionnaire containing 13 different types of questions so that we can get a range of useful data which will help me to answer our research questions. The questions were in a pattern that the respondents were flexible to answer and the answers met the criteria of our hypothesis. We randomly picked up 25 respondents from the in total. 15 of them were consumers, 5 of them were retailers, 3 of them were wholesalers and 2 of them were producers (fisherman). All of them are in between the age group of 19-45 years.For our secondary research, we have used the resources of the library and the web books and articles, newspapers, journals, standard references sources and databases, academic web-sites, etc. We browsed over the internet and looked for relevant information like online books and journals etc. that could match our research area using standard search engines like Google, Bing etc. We also went through the library resources of NSU for printed books to clear our concept for working on our research paper spontaneously.For our primary research we have developed four sets of questions. This questions are directed towards consumers, retailers, wholesalers and producers. Among the questions we have some general questions for all the people of different groups. They are explained below with analysis-

Primary Research: Do you know what food adulteration is and that it has bad effects on human health?This question was asked to the respondents to out determine whether the consumers have knowledge about adulteration and its bad effect on human body. 14 of the 15 respondents have answered yes which is 93.3% of the survey respondents. This means that the most of the consumers are well aware of this problem. 93.33% of the retailers replied that they are aware of food adulteration and its bad effects on human health.An overwhelming 100% of the wholesalers replied that they are aware of food adulteration and its bad effects on human health.66.67% of the producers replied that they are aware of food adulteration and its bad effects on human health, while 33.33% replied that they dont know, or they are not sure.

What do you think about the overall consequence that adulteration of fishes will have on the sale and consumption of fishes?We asked the consumers what do they think about the sale and the consumption of the fish market will be if the adulteration goes on. 13 of the 15 respondents said that the sale and consumption of fishes will fall both in the short and long term which is 87% of the total respondents. 66.67% of the retailers believed that adulteration will cause the sale and consumption of fishes to fall both in the long term and in the short term, with a lasting effect. 33.33% of the retailers surveyed however believed that the sale and consumption of fishes will remain the same without having any significant reduction.33.33% of the wholesalers believed that adulteration will cause the sale and consumption of fishes to fall both in the long term and in the short term, with a lasting effect. Another 33.33% believed that the reduction would be only for the short term. The last 33.33% of the wholesalers surveyed however believed that the sale and consumption of fishes will remain the same without having any significant reduction.100% of the producers believed that adulteration will cause the sale and consumption of fishes to fall both in the long term and in the short term, with a lasting effect.

Are you aware of the laws relating to the production and selling of fishes to consumers, such as the Formalin Control Act, 2014?We asked the consumer whether they had any knowledge about the Formalin control Act, 2014. 13 of the 15 respondents said they have little or no idea at all about the formalin control act 2014. This only means that general people do not have enough knowledge about the laws regarding this serious matter.33.33% of the retailers surveyed answered that they aware of such laws to a great or good extent. 50% of the retailers answered that they are aware of such laws, but only of the basics of such laws, and only to a small extent. 16.67% of the retailers said that they had no awareness of such laws regulating the production and sale of fishes.66.67% of the wholesalers surveyed answered that they aware of such laws to a great or good extent, while 33.33% answered that they are aware of such laws, but only of the basics of such laws, and only to a small extent.66.67% of the producers surveyed answered that they aware of such laws, but only of the basics of such laws, and only to a small extent, whereas 33.33% replied that they are not aware of any such laws at all.

To what level do you think the producers (fishermen) and sellers (wholesalers and retailers) comply with these related laws? For this question, respondents were allowed to choose more than one option. 3 of the 15 respondents said that producers (fishermen) and 4 of the 15 respondents said that sellers comply with the laws obligatory for them completely, or to a great extent. However, 6 of the 15 consumers said that producers comply very little with the laws obligatory for them, and 9 of the 15 consumers think that thought that sellers comply with the laws obligatory for them very little as well. 83.33% of the retailers said that wholesalers comply very little with the laws obligatory for them, and only 16.67% thought that wholesalers comply with the laws completely too. 66.67% of the respondents said that producers (fishermen) comply very little with the laws obligatory for them, while 33.33% said that the producers comply with the laws completely. Also, 66.67% of the wholesalers said that retailers comply very little with the laws obligatory for them, and 33.33% thought that retailers comply with the laws completely too.For this question, respondents were allowed to choose more than one option. 100% of the respondents said that producers (fishermen) comply with the laws completely. Also, 66.67% of the producers said that wholesalers comply very little with the laws obligatory for them, and 33.33% thought that retailers comply with the laws completely.

Do you think that producers (fishermen) and sellers (wholesalers and retailers) are not aware enough of the laws that they are supposed to follow for producing or selling fishes?This question was asked to find out what consumers think about the level of awareness of others in the supply chain. 93.33% of the consumers said that producers and sellers are partially or not aware at all of the related laws, and only 6.67% said that producers and sellers are only fully aware of the laws.83.33% of the retailers said that producers and sellers are fully aware of the related laws, and 16.67% said that producers and sellers are only partially aware of the laws. This question was asked to find out what wholesalers think about the level of awareness of others in the supply chain. 66.67% said that producers and sellers are only partially aware of the laws, and 33.33% said that producers and sellers are fully aware of the related laws.This question was asked to find out what producers think about the level of awareness of others in the supply chain. 33.33% said that producers and sellers are only partially aware of the laws, and 66.67% said that producers and sellers are fully aware of the related laws.Which of the steps (below) do you think need to be taken?In this question, we asked what consumers think about which important steps should be taken to improve the condition of the businesses regarding the sale of fishes or awareness of consumers and producers. They were allowed to choose more than one answer. 53.33% answered that producers and sellers should be made even more aware of the laws that are obligatory for them. 66.67% answered that consumers should be made even more aware of their rights regarding the consumption of fishes and the protection available to them through law. 66.67% answered that the law needs to be made stricter and/or needs to be exercised more strictly. Nobody answered that the law needs to be relaxed.66.67% of retailers answered that producers and sellers should be made even more aware of the laws that are obligatory for them. 50% answered that consumers should be made even more aware of their rights regarding the consumption of fishes and the protection available to them through law. 16.67% answered that the law needs to be made stricter and/or needs to be exercised more strictly. Nobody answered that the law needs to be relaxed.66.67% of wholesalers answered that producers and sellers should be made even more aware of the laws that are obligatory for them. 33.33% answered that the law needs to be made stricter and/or needs to be exercised more strictly. Nobody answered that the law needs to be relaxed, and nobody answered that the consumers should be made even more aware of their rights.66.67% of producers answered that producers and sellers should be made even more aware of the laws that are obligatory for them. 100% answered that the law needs to be made stricter and/or needs to be exercised more strictly. Nobody answered that the law needs to be relaxed, or that consumer awareness needs to be raised.

What should be the punishment for people involved with adulterating food?For this question, consumers were allowed to choose more than one answer. 6.67% of the respondents thought the punishment should be a low amount of fine or penalty lower than 5 lakh taka, whereas 53.33% thought high amount of fine or penalty exceeding 5 lakh taka is the right punishment. 33.33% of the respondents also thought that more than 2 years of imprisonment should also be the punishment.83.33% of the retailers thought the punishment should be a low amount of fine or penalty lower than 5 lakh taka, whereas 16.67% thought high amount of fine or penalty exceeding 5 lakh taka is the right punishment. 50% of the respondents also thought that less than or equal to 6 months of imprisonment should also be an additional punishment.100% of the wholesalers thought the punishment should be a low amount of fine or penalty lower than 5 lakh taka. 33.33% of the respondents also thought that less than or equal to 6 months of imprisonment should also be an additional punishment.100% of the producers thought the punishment should be a high amount of fine or penalty exceeding 5 lakh taka. 33.33% of the respondents also thought that less than or equal to 6 months of imprisonment should also be an additional punishment, whereas 66.67% also thought that more than 6 months but less than 2 years of imprisonment should be an additional punishment.In your opinion, what would be the most effective way to reduce or eliminate adulteration of fishes in the markets in this country?Through this question, we wanted to find what suggestions the consumers have to handle the problem of fish adulteration. Respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer. 60% of the respondents said that an effective way would be to ensure that law authorities strictly monitor and strictly apply the laws. 26.67% thought reducing the supply of such harmful chemicals, or requiring license from anyone to buy such chemicals is a great solution. 33.33% of the respondents thought another solution is to raise consumers awareness about laws regarding such matters.100% of the retailers said that an effective way would be to ensure that law authorities strictly monitor and strictly apply the laws. 66.67% thought reducing the supply of such harmful chemicals, or requiring license from anyone to buy such chemicals is a great solution. 33.33% of the respondents thought another solution is to raise producers and sellers awareness about laws regarding such matters.33.33% of the wholesalers said that an effective way would be to ensure that law authorities strictly monitor and strictly apply the laws. 66.67% thought reducing the supply of such harmful chemicals, or requiring license from anyone to buy such chemicals is a great solution. 100% of the respondents thought another solution is to raise producers and sellers awareness about laws regarding such matters.

Questions towards the consumersWhat condition do you require retailers to store fishes in for you to be willing to buy them?Through this question we wanted to figure out the storage processes that consumers prefer when they wanted to buy fish. Consumers were allowed to choose more than one option. We have conducted the survey among 15 respondents and the highest number of respondents (7) demanded that the fish that they are willing to buy must not be contaminated.Did you come across any form of adulteration, or were you aware of any form of adulteration when purchasing fishes, such as formalin?We asked as the consumers whether they have come across any sort of adulteration of fish during buying those. The result have been can be described as consumers response is mixed in this situation as 8 of the 15 respondents have said that they have come across food adulteration. The rest of the respondents said that they have not come across such occasions. Some of them actually are not involved in the buying process and some of them are convinced that the source that they collect their fish from are not contaminated with any sort of chemicals.In continuation to that question we asked the consumers what were their course of action in that situation. Some of them complained to the retailers about the situation (5) and some of them have complained to the authority. But 10 of them said that in these situations they chose not to buy the fish from there anymore.

Consumers general opinionWe wanted to know the consumers general opinion about what should be the priorities to prevent these incidents of fish contamination even more. Some of them have said that strict laws should be the first priority. Others have said that overall raise of awareness among the consumers, sellers and producers should alleviate the problem. Some consumers are interested about the proper use of mobile courts. Some consumers think that government and other law agencies should step up their game in to another level to find a proper solution for this problem. People think that media also can play a vital role by raising awareness among the overall population of the country.

Questions towards the RetailersWhen you buy fishes from wholesalers, what condition do you usually receive them in?Through this question, we wanted to find out if proper preservation is used while transferring the fishes from the wholesalers to the retailers, and at what stage is the addition of formalin most prevalent. 83.33% of the respondents replied that when they receive the fishes from the wholesalers, they are usually preserved with chemicals such as formalin and ice. The other 16.67% of the respondents replied that they receive the fishes preserved with ice alone, though there is a chance that they are simply unaware. This shows that the addition of adulterants such as formalin is most prevalent in the wholesale part of the supply chain.

How do you preserve fishes for storage purposes until you sell them to the customers?The purpose of this question was to find out the usual storage method that the retailers use to keep fishes fresh until sale, and if they are willing to admit that they add chemicals to the fishes themselves. 50% of the respondents answered that they use proper refrigeration and freezing to store the fishes, and another 50% of the respondents answered that they use ice to store the fishes until sale. None of the respondents admitted to using chemicals to preserve the fishes.

What is your opinion about the necessity to use chemicals to operate a fish retail business? 83.33% of the retailers surveyed said that the chemicals are not needed at all, and that it would be easy to run such businesses without them. 16.67% of the retailers said that they are useful to an extent and help increase profits, but they are not a necessity. Some retailers from the first group even believe that the addition of chemicals is harming their businesses.

Questions towards the wholesalersWhen you buy fishes from fishermen, what condition do you usually receive them in?Through this question, we wanted to find out if proper preservation is used while transferring the fishes from the producers to the wholesalers, and at what stage is the addition of formalin most prevalent. 66.67% of the wholesalers responded that they receive the fishes preserved with ice alone, while 33.33% of them suspect that both chemicals and ice are used before they receive it.Do you add any preservative chemicals such as formalin to fishes to keep them fresh for a long time?We knew that even though we promised anonymity, the respondents are still not likely to tell the truth, so the purpose of this question was simply to gauge the level of honesty of the wholesalers. 100% of the respondents answered that they do not add any such chemicals.What is your opinion about the necessity to use such chemicals to operate a fish wholesale business?Through this question, we wanted to find out if the wholesales feel that the usage of formalin is a necessity to run the businesses and if they are dependent on it, or if they think that it is not needed to run the businesses. 33.33% of the wholesalers surveyed said that the chemicals are useful to an extent and help increase profits, but they are not a necessity. 66.67% said that the chemicals are not needed at all, and that it would be easy to run such businesses without them.

Questions towards the producersWhat is your general opinion about the price at which you get to sell the fishes you catch to wholesalers nowadays?The purpose of this question was simply to serve as a general question and for simply understanding the expectations of the producers (fishermen). 100% of the respondents answered that they sell for a price lower than what is expected.

When you sell fishes to wholesalers, how do you preserve the fishes to keep them fresh?Through this question, we wanted to find out if proper preservation is used while transferring the fishes from the producers to the wholesalers, and at what stage is the addition of formalin most prevalent. 100% of the respondents replied that they use only ice for preservation.

What is your opinion about the fact that most wholesalers or retailers use chemicals such as formalin to keep fishes fresh for a long time?For this question, respondents were allowed to choose more than one answer. 100% answered that they should not do it, because they are causing customers to avoid buying fishes, and an additional 33.33% also replied that they should not do it, because it is forbidden by law.

Summary of Research Findings:

Analyzing and interpreting the survey results in a correct way is very important. By asking the specific questions we wanted to figure out the problem of adulteration in fish market in Bangladesh and what could be the possible solutions for it.Here we can see that all of the 93.33% of the consumers, 93.33% of the retailers, 100% of the wholesalers and 66.67% of the producers are of bad effects on human health. This means that producers knowledge about food adulteration is low in this situation.Respondent from all section thinks that sale and consumption of fish will fall both is short and long term. Through surveys we can say that action in order to prevent these situations are not enough. Wholesalers, retailers and producers tend to blame each other in this regard. The knowledge about law is also very limited among wholesalers, retailers and producers whereas the consumers have at least knowledge about these laws.Consumers and producer have asked for harder punishment for the culprits whereas wholesalers and retailers asked for softer action.But all of them has asked for strict monitoring in order to reduce this problem.The consumers are disappointed about inefficiency of the law enforcing agency to reduce the problem. Many consumers have come across this sort of contaminated fishes. But they did not get any remedy for it. The producers mainly preserve the fish with ice so the main source of formalin in fish seems to be wholesalers and retailers. Most of the producers have said that they do not get enough money as they should for the fish they sell. They think it because of the negative impact on the market after the drop of sales.

Secondary Research: Government Document: B.D. Ministry of Law. (1959). Pure food ordinance 1959. Dhaka: Government Printing PressPure Food Ordinance, 1959 was promulgated to ensure food safety throughout Bangladesh. It is the main food law of the country. The purpose and objectives of Pure Food Ordinance 1959 is to control the manufacture and sale of food which are for human consumption. The Ordinance prohibits the sale of food not of proper nature, substance or quality.Section-6 (1)provides, no person shall directly or indirectly and whether by himself or by any other person acting on his behalf (a) Manufacture or sell any food which is adulterated, or(b) Sell to the prejudice of the purchaser any article of food, which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded, by the purchaser.Section-6Aprohibits the sale or use of poisonous or dangerous chemicals and intoxicated food color. No person shall directly or indirectly and whether by himself or by any otherPerson acting on his behalf-(a) Use any poisonous or dangerous chemicals or ingredients or additives or substances like calcium carbide, formalin, pesticides (DDT), PCBS oil etc., or intoxicated food color or flavoring matter in any food which may cause injury to human body.Section-7Prohibits the manufacture or sale of food not of proper standard or purity.Section-18Prohibits the use of false labels.Section-41 allows government to establish as many food courts, as it deemed necessary in each district and metropolitan areas. The National Food Safety Advisory Council is an executive and advisory body. It advice the government and administer food laws throughout the country. Section-4Aprovides for the establishment of National Food Safety Advisory Council. Government Document: B.D. Ministry of Commerce. (2009).The Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009, Dhaka: Government Printing OfficeAccording to section 41,(consumer right protection act, 2009) punishment for selling adulterated goods or medicine, whoever knowingly sells or offers to sell any adulterated goods or medicine, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding Tk. two lacs or to both. On the other hand section 42, sates punishment for mixing prohibited materials in foodstuff. Any ingredient which is injurious to human life or health and the mixing of which with any food item is prohibited by any law for the time being in force. Whoever mixes any such ingredient with food item shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding Tk. two lacs or to both. Both sections (41 &42) clearly states, adulterating anything which is injurious to health of buyer is crime and for which offended may be imprisoned for three years. According to section 52, whoever violates of any prohibition under any law for the time being in force, does any act which is detrimental to service receivers life or security, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding Tk. two lacs or to both. Section 53, also states punishment for damaging service receivers money, health or life by negligence. If it happens for service provider negligence, irresponsibility or carelessness damages service receivers money, health or causes death, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding Tk. Two lacs or to both. Section 55, cover punishment for reoccurring offence. If any person convicted of any offence mentioned in this Act does the same offence again, shall be sentenced to twice the maximum punishment provided for that offence. Online Newspaper: Anti-formalin draft law Okayed. (1st July, 2014), bdnews.com Retrieved from: http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2014/06/30/anti-formalin-draft-law-okayed According to the article, cabinet has approved the draft of anti-formalin law with the provision to provide life sentence as maximum penalty to offenders. The cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina gave nod to the draft Formalin Control Act 2014 submitted to it by the Ministry of Commerce. From now traders will require licenses to sell, carry and store the preservative. According to the Formalin Control Act 2014, will not allow import, production, transport, storage and selling of formalin without a license. The approved law has provisions for various terms of punishment for misuse of formalin. Involvement in use of formalin without a license may lead to life imprisonment and fine worth 20 lacs TK. The draft law has 6 articles and 37 sections. Its enforcement through warrant, raids and arrest will be in accordance with the criminal procedure. The law will lead to formation of Formalin Control Committees in each district and Upazila.Online Article:U, Riaz. , W, Moin. , J, Tasbeera. & H, Naz. , (2011) Detection of Formalin in Fish Samples Collected from Dhaka City, S. J. Pharm. Sci. 4(1): 49-52

The role of fisheries and livestock sectors in the development of agro-based economy of Bangladesh is very important and promising. They contribute around 8% to national income, which also is 32% of the total agricultural income. It is claimed that the total fish production has increased significantly over the last few decades (DoF, 2009) but it is not sufficient to meet up the growing demand of the country (Yeasmin et al., 2010a). As a result imported fishes from neighboring countries enter in the domestic market and it was reported that more than 80 metric ton of fish and fishery products enter into Bangladesh every day through the Teknaf border from Myanmar. Available reports suggest that formalin is sometimes added or sprayed to the fishes by the fish traders while transporting to domestic marketing chain to prevent spoilage and increase shelf life (Yeasmin et al., 2010a). Studies conducted at different markets in Dhaka city and Mymensingh Sadar, rationalizes the incidence of adding formaldehyde/formalin to fishes especially imported from neighboring countries. It was observed in a study conducted in Dhaka (Haque and Mohsin, 2009) that almost 5% shops of total consumable fishes contain formalin treated fishes those are sold in fish markets. They found this intensity to vary market to market and species to species. They found that Rui fish was highly affected by formalin whereas Karwan Bazar represented highest number of formalin treated fish. In this current study mainly big fish species were investigated which indicated a high percentage of presence of formalin in fish. It is assumed that formalin is added to the fish, especially those come from bordering countries by the local fish traders to keep the fish fresh for a long time. But as it is a carcinogenic chemical and has got the ability to produce serious health hazards like cancers of the lung, nasopharynx, oropharynx and nasal passage to the population regulatory bodies should take necessary steps to minimize and stop formalin treatment of the fish. Online Article: T. Yeasmin, M.S. Reza, F.H. Shikha, M.N.A. Khan & M. Kamal (2013, June). Effect of washing and chilled storage on the retention of formalin and quality of rohu fish (Labeo rohita, Hamilton). Discourse Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. Retrieved from : www.resjournal.org/jafs

People are also becoming more and more health conscious and emphasize that food should not only be balanced nutritionally, but also safe for human consumption. Many national and international agencies are working in collaboration to ensure food safety. However, the situation is far different in the developing countries like Bangladesh, where food and food ingredients gain access in the marketing channel which are possibly contaminated with different types of hazardous chemicals including formalin, dyes, insecticides, banned antibiotics etc (Khan et al., 2009; Yeasmins et al., 2010). Based on study on the detection of formalin in fishes available in the domestic market and the study conducted by the Fish Inspection and Quality Control (FIQC) office of the Department of Fisheries (DoF), the fish available in the domestic market were contaminated with formalin ranging from 0.5 1% (Yeasmins et al., 2010a). According to the investigation, the effect of formalin on the quality of rohu fish (Yeasmin et al., 2010b) where formalin treatment was observed significantly increased the shelf life of fish, but reduced protein solubility and eating quality of the fish itself. Since the availability of formalin treated fish is not decreasing despite stringent inspection by the competent authorities like BSTI (Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution) and DoF, the public need to be aware about such type of contaminated fish available in the fish market. Fish in Bangladesh is principally consumed fresh while a small portion undergoes some processing including drying, salting, smoking and fermentation. For transportation of fresh fish, crushed ice is mostly used for chill preservation, and there involves washing and sprinkling of freshwater on fish in the retail market (Reza et al., 2009). Washing fish before and/or processing or during chilled storage has positive effect on shelf life because washing takes away a proportion of the microorganisms on the outer surface of the fish, thus reducing the number of bacteria capable of penetrating the muscle by diffusion (Lpez-Caballero et al., 2002). It is assumed that washing may reduce the amount of formalin and some other harmful contaminants from the fish body, thereby reducing the health risk to some extent. Online Article: G, Shatabdi., B, Munmun., & S, Islam. (June, 2014) Fish Marketing Status with Formalin Treatment in Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS), Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 95-110A number of studies done by the Bangladesh government showed that a significant percentage ofFish which is imported from neighboring countries are contaminated with formalin. Large species, eminently imported rohu (Labeo rohita) are more susceptible to formalin poisoning from 42% to 70% encompassing 3.4 folds higher compared to small, locally produced one. In Bangladesh for the first time formalin treated fishes were identified in 2006 during an operation against impure food by a mobile court led by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The extent of formalin contamination is not entirely clear. Research undertaken and published in 2009 based on a study of four fish markets in Dhaka City found for malin contamination in only 50 of 800 fish sampled, or 6.25%. The highest percentage was found in the Karwan Bazaar market. Large Rui and Katla, were the most commonly contaminated, although formalin use was also found in a number of other fish varieties including shrimp, Mrigal, and Kachki (Emdadul Haque 2009). A somewhat later 2010 study of two markets and three grocery stores in Dhaka found that an alarming 42% of 100 fish sampled had been treated with formalin. These included 70% of sampled Rui, 50% of Katla, 40% of Mrigal, 50% of Hilsa, and 0% of Sharputi. Contamination across the five sites ranged from 20-60% (Riaz Uddin 2010). A 2012 study of five markets in Sylhet found formalin in 26 of 150 sampled fish, or 17.3%. Again contamination occurred across the five markets, although it ranged from 6% to 26% of fish tested. Evidence of formalin was found in Rui, shrimp, and Katla, but not Mrigal or Hilsa (M.M. Rahman, 2012). These findings make clear that formalin is a common and even growing problem.

Laws of India on Food Adulteration:

Government Document: India. Ministry of Law and Justices. (2006). FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006. New Delhi: Government Printing Press. According to Section 50 Penalty for selling food not of the nature or substance or quality demanded any person who sells to the purchasers prejudice any food, which is not in compliance with the provisions of this Act or of the nature or substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five lakh rupees.On other hand, according to Section 52. Penalty for misbranded food, any person who by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption which is misbranded, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to three lakh rupees. The Adjudicating Officer may issue a direction to the person found guilty of an offence under this section, for taking corrective action to rectify the mistake or such article of food shall be destroyed.

Section 54, refers penalty for food containing extraneous matter. Any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf manufactures for sale or stores or sells or distributes or imports any article of food for human consumption containing extraneous matter, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees.Section 56, refers penalty for unhygienic or unsanitary processing or manufacturing of food. Any person who, whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or processes any article of food for human consumption under unhygienic or unsanitary conditions, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Section 65 refers compensation in case injury of death of consumer(l) if any person whether by himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures or distributes or sells or imports any article of food causing injury to the consumer or his death, it shall be lawful for the Adjudicating Officer or as the case may be, the court to direct him to pay compensation to the victim or the legal representative of the victim, a sum- (a) not less than five lakh rupees in case of death; (b) not exceeding three lakh rupees in case of grievous injury and (c) not exceeding one lakh rupees, in all other cases of injury:

(2) Where any person is held guilty of an offence leading to grievous injury or death, the Adjudicating Officer or the court may cause the name and place of residence of the person held guilty, the offence and the penalty imposed to be published at the offenders expense in such newspapers or in such other manner as the Adjudicating Officer or the court may direct and the expenses of such publication shall be deemed to be part of the cost attending the conviction and shall be recoverable in the same manner as a fine. The Adjudicating Officer or the court may also - (a) order for cancellation of license, re-call of food from market, forfeiture of establishment and property in case of grievous injury or death of consumer and (b) issue prohibition orders in other cases.

Laws of Pakistan on Food Adulteration: Online Article: Siraj, Mazhar (2004)."Food Safety Legislation in Pakistan"(DOC). Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan.

Pakistan does not have an integrated legal framework but has a set of laws, which deals with various aspects of food safety. These laws, despite the fact that they were enacted long time ago, have tremendous capacity to achieve at least minimum level of food safety. However, like many other laws, these laws remain very poorly enforced. There are four laws that specifically deal with food safety. Three of these laws directly focus issues related to food safety, while the fourth, the Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act 1996, is indirectly relevant to food safety.The Pure Food Ordinance 1960 consolidates and amends the law in relation to the preparation and the sale of foods. All provinces and some northern areas have adopted this law with certain amendments. Its aim is to ensure purity of food being supplied to people in the market and, therefore, provides for preventing adulteration. The Pure Food Ordinance 1960 does not apply to cantonment areas. There is a separate law for cantonments called The Cantonment Pure Food Act, 1966. There is no substantial difference between the Pure Food Ordinance 1960 and The Cantonment Pure Food Act. Even the rules of operation are very much similar.Pakistan Hotels and Restaurant Act, 1976 applies to all hotels and restaurants in Pakistan and seeks to control and regulate the rates and standard of services by hotels and restaurants. In addition to other provisions, under section 22(2), the sale of food or beverages that are contaminated, not prepared hygienically or served in a way that are not hygienic or clean is an offense. There are no express provisions for consumer complaints in the Pakistan Restaurants Act, 1976, Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996. The laws do not prevent citizens from lodging complaints with the concerned government officials; however, the consideration and handling of complaints is a matter of discretion of the officials.

List of food laws in Bangladesh Food safety threats in Bangladesh are arsenic in food, formaldehyde in fish, genetically modified food, environment pollutants in food, human-induced food adulteration during farm production, industrial production, marketing, and street food vending. Fruits, fishes and many other things sold in markets are preserved with formalin, a dangerous chemical liable for various types of cancer. Poisonous Dichloro Diphenyl Trichloroethane (DDT) powder is unrestrainedly used in dry fish, which can cause cancer along with various other reproductive problems. Consumption of these toxic textile dyes can cause indigestions, allergies, asthma, and cancer and so on. There are at present 15 laws to regulate safe food delivery to the consumers. These laws are: 1. Penal Code, 1860 (PC 1860), 2. Control of Essential Commodities Act, 1956 (CECA 1956), 3. Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956 (FA 1956), 4. Pure Food Ordinance, 1959 (PFO 1959), 5. Cantonments Pure Food Act, 1966 (CPFA 1966), 6. Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 (PO 1971), 7. Special Powers Act, 1974 (SPA 1974), 8. Fish and Fish Products (Inspection and Control), Ordinance, 1983 (FFPO 1983), 9. The Breast-Milk Substitutes (Regulation of Marketing) Ordinance, 1984 (BMSO 1984), 10. Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution Ordinance 1985 (BSTIO 1985), 11. Iodine Deficiency Disorders Prevention Act 1989 (IDDPA 1989), 12. Vokta Odhikar Songrokkhon Ain, 2009 [Consumers Rights Protection Act 2009], 13. Stanio Sarkar (City Corporation) Ain, 2009 [Local Government (City Corporation) Act 2009] 14. Stanio Sarkar (Paurashava) Ain, 2009 [Local Government (Paurashava) Act, 2009] 15. Mobile Court Ain, 2009 [Mobile Court Act, 2009]. Flaws in Food Safety Laws It is important to note that, use of such a large number of laws for a single purpose like food safety is quite unusual and unprecedented in the world. The flaws in legal and regulatory framework is stated belowMultiplicity of Laws: There is overlapping of laws for criminalizing some particular offences. Sections 272 and 273 of the Penal Court 1860 make food adulteration an offence. The Pure Food Ordinance 1959 also tries the same offence in section 6(1) (a) and prohibits food adulteration in the process of manufacturing. Section 16 of the Pure Food Ordinance 1959 proscribes keeping of adulterants in places where food is manufactured. Later in 1974, food adulteration became punishable under Section 25C of the Special Power Act, which is simply considered as the alteration of the language, punishment (in this instance, death penalty) of the parallel provisions of Penal Court 1860. While food adulteration has been criminalized under the aforementioned three laws simultaneously, in 2009, the government enacted the Consumer Right Protection Act 2009, where section 41 includes the same offence over again. This multiplicity of laws creates confusion in the mind of manufacturers, processors, retailers or even to the enforcement authorities to realize which law deals with particular food safety issue. Moreover, there is no effective coordination among these regulatory authorities dealing with food safety. Several authorities carry out anti-adulteration drives in Bangladesh. Some drives are conducted by the ministry of commerce (MoC), some are done by the ministry of industry (MoI), and a few are operated by the city corporations (under the ministry of local government). Therefore, food control in Bangladesh is a multi-sectorial responsibility. In Bangladesh, penalties are practiced as the way of the execution of the statutes. But no persuasive measures like training, caution notice, improvement notice are involved in the enforcement mechanism. Moreover, the administrative enforcement mechanism of Bangladesh is not organized. It has not designed inspection strategies and there is no clear method of detecting non-compliance with the regulations. There are a few food laboratories under various government, autonomous and international organizations in Bangladesh. However, very few of those are operating down to the regional and district level. It was observed that only a few of the laboratories are well equipped and well maintained. They have shortages of maintenance budget, inadequate technological resources, manpower and, above all, lack of coordination in procedures/methods of testing. Above all another law The Food safety 2013 with a provision of Food safety court in each Upazila has been enacted. Bangladesh is over burdened with laws for safety of food but food is most unsafe in Bangladesh. Non-coordination among Agencies: The roles and responsibilities of the concerned ministries and agencies are unclear and do not cover the whole food chain from farm-to-table. The overall coordination body for food safety and food control at the national level is the National Food Safety Advisory Council (NFSAC). Over the past few years, misinformation was being spread about the presence of formalin in fish. Many people have stopped buying fish in fear, resulting in huge losses to traders. Recently Dhaka Metropolitan Police (DMP) has started drives against use of formalin in food products. A huge public outcry over formalin-mixed fruits prompted the unprecedented police move, as repeated tests by laboratories and food inspectors have found fruits sold in Bangladesh contain an alarming level of formalin in an effort to extend their shelf life. They started arrest of business persons and destruction of food products. This destruction of fruits without any laboratory test is hitting farmers, fruit traders and importers hard and created panic among the consumers. Interestingly, is has been reported in media in a very insignificant manner that seven government organizations namely (1) Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, (2) Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, (3) Bangladesh Fish Research Institute, (4) Bangladesh Animal resources Research Institute and (5) Bangladesh Agriculture University tested fish and fruit items obtained from market and find that the level of formalin is not over the standard limits and not risky for human being! Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institution (BSTI) and Criminal investigation department of Police separately tested some random samples from market. Bangladesh Agricultural Council (BARC) has coordinated the test program. They also questioned the acceptability of the Z-300 machine use by mobile court. The Food and nutrition Institution of Dhaka University has doubt about the machine. Food products have some natural formaldehyde content as part of it. The machine cannot differentiate percentage of natural formaldehyde and extra applied formalin. The authority has no standard content of formalin both natural and applied for preservation of any food item in their policy. Some experts said the blood sugar of human body cannot be detected by using a machine externally. In the same way, it cant be determined what element a particular fruit contains inside it by using machine externally. It can only be known once the fruit or its segment is tested in laboratory by slicing it.Transparency, Autonomy and Bureaucracy Issues: It is commonly accepted that a proper and effective regulatory framework should be based on transparency and accountability. This is because regulatory transparency engages the whole a countrys governance infrastructure. A regulatory body should be transparent both externally and internally. Regrettably, regulatory authorities engaged in the Food Safety Regulatory Regime of Bangladesh are burdened with numerous members, especially the government officials. For example, the National Food Safety Advisory Council is made under the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives. As per section 4A (1) of the Pure Food Ordinance 1959, the National Food Safety Advisory Council is comprised of 15 members; and 12 of them are government representatives including the ministers, secretaries of various ministries. In addition to this, consumers opinions are seriously overlooked there. Food safety is a sensitive issue and citizens (consumers) have the desire to participate in decision making. But the participation of citizens (consumers) are neglect able. Inadequacy of Penalties: One important factor in the Food Safety Regulatory Regime of Bangladesh is the insufficiency of penalties. In fact, given the perspective of the ongoing food adulteration scenario, today question arises as to whether the sanctions provided in the statutes are adequate or not. Few examples are given below. 1. The penalty as set in section 272 of the Penal Court 1860 for adulteration of food or drink is a maximum term of six months of imprisonment or up to a maximum fine of BDT (Bangladesh Taka) 1000 (equivalent to EUR 10).Considering and comparing the gravity of the offences and the duration of imprisonment together with the amount of the potential fines, it can be said that this punishment is truly absurd in the 21st century and scarcely.2. The Pure Food Ordinance 1959 is one of the most important laws to combat the manufacture of unsafe food in Bangladesh; but regrettably this law also does not provide adequate sanctions. The Pure Food Ordinance 1959 was amended in 2005 and the penalties applying increased substantially but are still inadequate. The maximum penalty for a first offence in regard to the manufacture ofadulterated food which is not of a fit nature, substance or quality has been raised to BDT 50,000 (equivalent to EUR 476) or imprisonment for a term of one year. The maximum penalties for the subsequent offences of the same nature are a fine of BDT 200,000(equivalent to EUR 1904) or three years imprisonment with forfeiture of manufacturing stuffs or shop. 3. For the use of formalin, toxic food color in food manufacturing or processing the penalty awarded is a maximum BDT 50,000 or one years imprisonment (for first offence); for the subsequent offence of the same nature there will be maximum fine of BDT 200,000 or three years of imprisonment as well as forfeiture of shop or factory and so on. It is argued that from the perspective of Bangladesh, the BDT 200,000 fine or three years of imprisonment is not sufficient for an offence such as food adulteration or mixing formalin in foods which adulteration is slowly murdering millions of people every year. 4. The penalty for the breaches of the Consumer Right Protection Act 2009 is comparatively higher but not still adequate. Section 37 states that a person will be subject to a term of imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of BDT 50,000 if he fails to cover products. Under this law, a person will face a term of three years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to BDT 200,000 for mixing any prohibited chemical (such as formalin) in food products. The penalties for these offences will be doubled if the convicted person repeats the same offence. Enforcement Problems: In Bangladesh, penalties are practiced as the way of the execution of the statutes. But no persuasive measures like the training, caution notice, improvement notice are involved in the enforcement mechanism. Moreover, the administrative enforcement mechanism of Bangladesh is not organized. It has not designed inspection strategies and there is no clear method of detecting non-compliance with the regulations. It is important for a better enforcement regime to have outlined clear implementation strategies so that all instances of non-compliance can be easily identified and action taken promptly by the proper authority. There is no particular enforcement authority or any authorized officer who is exclusively responsible to enforce the food safety regulations in Bangladesh. In general, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is liable for the food safety throughout Bangladesh and laws are enforced by Sanitary Inspectors .But Sanitary Inspectors have countless works to do and food safety is a minor part of their duties. Further Sanitary Inspectors or any other inspectors under any regulatory body used for food safety cannot penalize the culprits except with the help of executive magistrates, who work under the Ministry of Establishment. Executive magistrates, however, are seldom interested in doing this due to their busy work schedule, which is filled with lots of administrative duties. Thus not only are the inspection activities to ensure food safety are consistently hampered but so are enforcement actions.

Ensuring Food Safety: The current food control system in Bangladesh involves multiple ministries and agencies. Fifteen ministries are involved in food safety and quality control and ten ministries are directly involved in food inspection and enforcement services. The food inspection and enforcement system in Bangladesh needs to be strengthened to better address the significant food safety issues that exist in the country and better protect the health of consumers. An appropriate inspection manuals, protocols, guidelines and checklists for inspectors to use in the field must be developed. There must be a system for record keeping and documentation of food inspection and enforcement activities. The inspectors should be educated on food safety and food security and they should be provided with appropriate equipments, tools and test-kits for inspection and sample collection. Only punishment and destruction of food will increase corruption and national loss and businesspersons and farmers will feel discourage in their production and economic activities. In some countries there are two laws for safety of food. One is Food Safety Modernization Law. This law provides for the making of regulations respecting quality management programs, quality control programs, safety programs and preventive control plans to be implemented by regulating authority. The other law is Safe Food Law for regulation. The law requires food production facilities to re-register with the regulating authority. Both laws acknowledge that food safety issues will arise and provide for improved capacity to properly respond and to establish pilot projects in coordination with the food industry to explore ways to quickly and effectively identify people who may have received tainted food in order to mitigate outbreak of food-borne illness.

RecommendationsIn order to prevent adulteration in fish market it is important for the food safety authority to succeed in its role as the watchdog for food standards. It is also imperative to equip it with requisite manpower and financial resources so that it may truly uphold the cause of public health.A law itself cannot guarantee that everything will change overnight in the marketplace and the dishonest traders would become honest immediately. The law's strict implementation and intensive monitoring of the marketplaces and the sources from where the food items come would gradually act as a deterrent against them.Food adulteration in our country has reached such a stage that it is impossible to control it by a single department. Various ministries need to come forward and work together.As most fish items are adulterated by the middlemen, constant monitoring of the markets and the points from where these intermediaries transport and market the items can significantly reduce this public health menace. On the other hand, it is important to appoint a food inspector in each district as it is important to conduct mobile courts on a regular basis. Law enforcement agencies must do their duties properly as well. Only the implementation of the law can bring this calamity to an end.

Conclusion All of our laws put emphasis on punishment of wrong-doers only. Citizens may be well served by prevention of offence rather than punishment of offenders only. Government should improve their service of prevention of adulteration instead of punishment of businesspersons and destruction of foods.

Referencing1. B.D. Ministry of Law. (1959). Pure food ordinance 1959. Dhaka: Government Printing Press2. B.D. Ministry of Commerce. (2009).The Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009, Dhaka: Government Printing Office3. Anti-formalin draft law Okayed. (1st July, 2014), bdnews.com. Retrieved from: http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2014/06/30/anti-formalin-draft-law-okayed 4. U, Riaz. , W, Moin. , J, Tasbeera. & H, Naz. , (2011) Detection of Formalin in Fish Samples Collected from Dhaka City, S. J. Pharm. Sci. 4(1): 49-52 5. T. Yeasmin, M.S. Reza, F.H. Shikha, M.N.A. Khan & M. Kamal (2013, June). Effect of washing and chilled storage on the retention of formalin and quality of rohu fish (Labeo rohita, Hamilton). Discourse Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences. Retrieved from: www.resjournal.org/jafs6. G, Shatabdi., B, Munmun., & S, Islam. (June, 2014) Fish Marketing Status with Formalin Treatment in Bangladesh. International Journal of Public Health Science (IJPHS), Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 95-1107. Siddiqui, M. S. (2014, June 30). Bangladesh has highest number of food safety laws in world. The Daily Ittefaq. Retrieved from: http://www.clickittefaq.com/in-the-news/bangladesh-highest-number-food-safety-laws-world/

8. India. Ministry of Law and Justices. (2006). FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT, 2006. New Delhi: Government Printing Press. 9. Siraj, Mazhar (2004)."Food Safety Legislation in Pakistan"(DOC). Consumer Rights Commission of Pakistan.10. http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/11. www.google.com12. www.wikipidea.com

Page | 27