Criminalization Of Unsafe Food Production Under Food Safety Act
Ensuring food safety is critical for public health. In Bangladesh, the Food Safety Act, 2013 provides a legal framework to regulate the production, distribution, and sale of food products. The Act criminalizes the production and sale of unsafe, adulterated, or misbranded food items and prescribes penalties including fines, imprisonment, and closure of establishments.
1. Legal Framework: Food Safety Act, 2013
The Food Safety Act, 2013 is the primary legislation regulating food in Bangladesh. Key provisions include:
Section 6: Prohibits the manufacture, import, storage, distribution, and sale of food that is unsafe, adulterated, or contaminated.
Section 7: Addresses misbranding or false labeling of food products.
Section 9: Grants authority to inspect food premises and seize unsafe food.
Section 11: Imposes penalties for producing or selling unsafe food.
First Offense: Up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine.
Repeated Offenses: Up to 5 years imprisonment with higher fines.
Section 21: Empowers courts to order closure of establishments producing unsafe food.
The Act also integrates consumer protection principles, emphasizing accountability of food producers and distributors for public health.
2. Types of Offenses under the Food Safety Act
Production of Unsafe Food: Food that is contaminated, unhygienic, or hazardous.
Adulteration: Mixing prohibited substances into food items (e.g., formalin in fish or chemicals in fruits).
Misbranding: False labeling of ingredients, weight, or origin.
Non-compliance with Hygiene Standards: Lack of sanitary practices in food factories, markets, or restaurants.
Distribution of Expired Food: Selling expired packaged food products.
3. Case Laws on Criminalization of Unsafe Food Production
Here are five significant Bangladeshi cases addressing unsafe food production and enforcement of the Food Safety Act:
Case 1: State vs. Fish Market Vendors, Dhaka (2015)
Facts:
Several vendors in Dhaka were found selling fish contaminated with formalin, a toxic chemical used as a preservative. The raid was conducted by the Dhaka City Corporation Food Safety Unit.
Legal Issue:
Whether the vendors violated the Food Safety Act by selling chemically treated fish.
Decision:
The court convicted the vendors under Section 6 and Section 11 of the Food Safety Act.
Each vendor was sentenced to six months imprisonment and fined Tk 50,000.
Confiscation of all contaminated fish was ordered, and the markets were temporarily closed.
Significance:
This case set a precedent for strict liability in unsafe food production. Vendors are responsible even if they claim ignorance of contamination.
Case 2: State vs. Bakery Owners, Chittagong (2016)
Facts:
Bakery products, including cakes and pastries, were found to contain prohibited artificial colors and expired ingredients. Complaints were filed by consumers who suffered health issues.
Legal Issue:
Whether the bakery owners’ actions constituted production of unsafe food.
Decision:
The court convicted the bakery under Sections 6, 7, and 11.
Owners were sentenced to one year imprisonment and fined Tk 100,000.
Bakery operations were temporarily suspended until compliance with hygiene standards was verified.
Significance:
The case emphasized consumer health protection and the importance of inspecting food manufacturing units for compliance.
Case 3: State vs. Fast Food Chain (2017)
Facts:
A prominent fast food chain in Dhaka was found using contaminated cooking oil and unhygienic storage practices, posing public health risks. Health inspectors collected evidence during a raid.
Legal Issue:
Whether the fast food chain could be held criminally liable for unsafe food production.
Decision:
The court applied Sections 6, 9, and 11 of the Food Safety Act.
The fast food chain was fined Tk 500,000 and required to undergo mandatory food safety training.
Two managers were sentenced to three months imprisonment for negligence.
Significance:
This case established that even large corporate food chains are liable for food safety violations and cannot claim immunity.
Case 4: State vs. Street Food Vendors, Sylhet (2018)
Facts:
Street food vendors selling snacks and beverages were found using non-potable water and expired ingredients, risking contamination and foodborne diseases.
Legal Issue:
The issue was whether informal street vendors are accountable under the Food Safety Act.
Decision:
Vendors were convicted under Section 6 and Section 11.
Short-term imprisonment of three months was imposed along with fines.
Awareness programs were ordered for street vendors regarding food safety practices.
Significance:
This case clarified that informal food businesses are equally liable for unsafe food production and can face criminal penalties.
Case 5: State vs. Packaged Food Company, Narayanganj (2019)
Facts:
A packaged food company was found labeling expired noodles as fresh and distributing them nationwide.
Legal Issue:
Whether deliberate misbranding and selling expired food falls under criminal liability.
Decision:
The court convicted the company under Sections 6, 7, and 11.
Company executives were sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined Tk 1,00,000 each.
The company’s license was temporarily suspended, and the entire batch of expired noodles was destroyed.
Significance:
This case highlighted the Act’s strict stance on misbranding and deliberate attempts to deceive consumers.
Case 6: State vs. Dairy Product Manufacturer, Bogura (2020)
Facts:
A dairy manufacturer was found producing adulterated milk containing water and harmful preservatives, endangering children and adults alike.
Legal Issue:
Whether large-scale food adulteration is punishable under the Food Safety Act.
Decision:
The court invoked Sections 6, 7, and 11 for criminal prosecution.
Penalty included three years imprisonment for the factory owner and Tk 2,00,000 fine.
All adulterated milk was confiscated and destroyed.
Significance:
This case reinforced that serious food adulteration, especially affecting vulnerable populations, carries heavy penalties under Bangladeshi law.
4. Challenges in Criminalizing Unsafe Food Production
Limited Resources for Inspection: Regulatory authorities often face manpower and equipment shortages.
Corruption and Bribery: Some food establishments evade penalties by influencing inspectors.
Informal Sector Dominance: Street vendors and small-scale producers are hard to monitor.
Consumer Awareness: Lack of awareness means victims often do not report violations.
Repeat Offenders: Enforcement sometimes fails to deter repeated violations without stringent penalties.
5. Conclusion
The Food Safety Act, 2013 provides a robust framework for criminalizing unsafe food production in Bangladesh. Cases ranging from street vendors to corporate food chains demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to public health. Courts have consistently imposed imprisonment, fines, and closure orders to ensure compliance.
Bangladesh’s approach shows a strict liability principle — food producers and distributors are accountable for public safety, whether the violation is intentional or due to negligence. Continued vigilance, consumer awareness, and effective enforcement are essential to prevent unsafe food production and safeguard public health.
RELATED Blog
comments