Advertisement

Food Law in Ghana needs enforcement

There are as many opinions as there are people. It will, therefore, seem unnecessary to respond to an opinion, since it represents the author’s view on a fact. But although it appeared in the opinion column (page 10) of the Wednesday, July 17, 2013 issue of the Daily Graphic, the above article by Gloria Mintah contained factual errors that need to be corrected for the sake of the general public.

The author might have held a different opinion about the current status of food law in the country if she had not sought to rely on repealed laws. I wish to draw her attention to the Public Health Act 2012 (Act 851), which is the current law regulating food in the country. Her opinion reveals that she is not conversant with this law.

I am not too sure whether the assertion that ‘in Ghana, there are many pieces of legislation governing food’ is correct in the light of the new law. The memorandum to Act 851 recognised that ‘legislation on public health is scattered in several enactments’ and thus sought to ‘bring together’ and ‘provide a comprehensive legislation on public health’ including food and drugs law. Part Seven of the law, which tends to be the longest part (sections 80 – 166), deals exclusively with food and drugs.

As mentioned earlier, the author’s misconception is basically due to her reliance on repealed law. She, for example, makes reference to a section of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) which deals with the sale of unwholesome food. This was actually the case before the coming into force of the Public Health Act. But with the passage of the Act, the said section (section 286) has been repealed by section 175(2) of Act 851. Although the same offence is repeated in section 51 of Act 851, it solves the problem the author sought to address that food law in Ghana is scattered in different laws.

Again, the author makes reference to the Food and Drugs Authority as the body with the responsibility of prohibiting the sale of unwholesome, poisonous and adulterated food and the sale of food unfit for human consumption under the Food and Drugs Act. While this still remains part of the functions of the authority, the Food and Drugs Act, 1992 (PNDCL 305B) has been repealed by section 175(1) (d) of Act 851.

Although the authority has been re-established under Part Seven Act 851, the composition and functions of the authority are different from that of the repealed Act. The new Act specifically mandates the authority to ensure adequate and effective standards for food (section 82(a)), register persons for the importation and exportation of food (section 99) and to ensure that food imported into the country are fortified in accordance with regulations prescribed by the authority (section 107).

The assertion by the author that it is the Standard Authority and not the Food and Drugs Authority which regulates the importation of food not meeting the standard is thus incorrect. The Ghana Standards Authority is now limited to ensuring the standards of goods and not food.

Only one of the pieces of legislation mentioned by the author seems to have been left untouched by the Public Health Act, namely the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1968 (NLCD 245). The function of the Tourist Board in respect of registration of catering services is also still applicable. Nevertheless, the Food and Drugs Authority has the supervening power of registering premises for the sale of food (section 130 of Act 851). In respect of prevention of damage by pests, Part Four of Act 851 deals generally with vector control and section 132 empowers the Food and Drugs Authority to order the closure of any premises exposed to the risk of contamination.

Admittedly, there is a duplication of functions in these two categories.  These duplications may not necessarily create confusion and inefficiency; on the contrary, it strengthens the regulatory regime. A catering service, for example, will need authorisation from both the Food and Drugs Authority and the Tourist Board.  This ensures better regulations and standardisation.

I do not wish to argue whether the law relating to food in the country is way behind the curves since the author had not averted her mind to the new law before making her assertion.

The major problem with food law perhaps is about enforcement. Although the Food and Drugs Authority has power to enforce the law, including the power to prosecute (section 140), very little is being done to enforce it. The authority has on countless occasions destroyed food purported to be unwholesome.

Nonetheless, nothing is done beyond the destruction of the food although the manufacture, sale or offer for sale of unwholesome food is an offence under the Act.

It is also evident that many premises are being used for the sale of food for consumption without the said premises being registered by the authority.

Apart from the part dealing with food and drugs, the act covers other aspects of public health like tobacco control, environmental sanitation and communicable diseases. Indeed, a walk through the streets and some pubs leaves one wondering whether there is any restriction on the smoking of tobacco in the country.

No matter the position of our law in the international world, we will remain where we are if the bodies entrusted with the enforcement of these measures fail to live up to expectation. The real issue, in my opinion, is the enforcement of the law and not its enactment.   

By Cletus Alengah/Ghana

[email protected]
The writer just completed his LL.B degree at the University of Ghana.


Connect With Us : 0242202447 | 0551484843 | 0266361755 | 059 199 7513 |