Jobs at risk: Food inspectors unsure about their future

Ordinance says Food Safety Officers with bachelors degrees will be appointed.


Shahram Haq June 02, 2011

LAHORE:


While the Punjab Food Safety and Standards Ordinance 2011 has been approved by the standing committee on Health, the fate of the current staff of the Food Department hangs in the balance. This sense of uncertainty seems to be affecting performance.


The Food Department currently has nine food inspectors, one chief food inspector and one district food officer. The ordinance states the food inspectors are to be replaced with food safety officers (FSOs). These FSOs would have at least a BSc in chemistry or veterinary sciences. Under the ordinance, a Food Authority would be formed that would keep a check on food adulteration. The authority would have three MPAs, appointed by the government, and a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry as their members amongst others.

The new regulations call for one FSO per 0.5 million citizens. This would mean that 180 FSOs would be recruited.

A Food Department official who would be affected by the ordinance, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told The Express Tribune that while making any new ordinance the legislators usually consider the existing employees. This time around the current employees were ignored.

He said the FSOs would not be able to handle the burden and pressure from either food vendors or the MPAs and other officers of different departments in the Food Authority. He wondered aloud how an official would go against the community he represented. He said that the changes brought about by the ordinance did not guarantee that the situation in terms of checks on food adulteration would improve.

He praised the Pure Food Rule 2007 which is currently in effect and said it not being properly enforced due to lack of manpower and resources. He asked how the government could run such a huge authority without any funds and with an inexperienced staff. He said there was no need for the ordinance.

The ordinance might only be implemented in five out of the 37 districts of Punjab, including Lahore. These 5 districts already have food departments while the other 32 lack them.

Provincial Food Minister Chaudhry Abdul Ghafoor told The Tribune the food authority would take decisions according to its constitution. He said the fate of current employees would be decided after a review of their performance. He says those who felt insecure were probably not performing their duties properly.

He said after the review, if the authority recommends them then they would continue otherwise they might be sent to other departments. The minister said the authority would not compromise on performance and would not bear corrupt officials.

Ghafoor agreed that the FSOs would be inexperienced but added that they would have proper degrees and would have full authority to act promptly against unhygienic food. He said if any MPA or official acted against the authority to shield someone then it would not bode well for both the authority and that official. The minister added that checks would be kept on the authority and an inquiry would be held if complaints of influence being exerted by any of its members are brought in. He said stern action would be taken if the inquiry showed that any member had exerted pressure to shield others.

The minister said he was not sure if the authority would start functioning in five districts or only in Lahore in its first phase.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 3rd, 2011.

COMMENTS (2)

Syed Ahmed hassan | 12 years ago | Reply @Jim Schmidt: Well, there are many other degrees which are important and need to be add such that food sciences, environmental sciences, occupational safety, and food safety management system.
Jim Schmidt | 12 years ago | Reply Chemistry or Veterinary Science? Well, I hope they round it out a little bit and require some additional core courses besides just a degree.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ