Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 31

Adulteration in fish market, its

causes and possible solutions


Prepared For
Barrister Istiaque Ahmed (ITA)

Prepared By
Tasnif Mahmud

1030882530

Md. Aminul Islam

1210228030

Razanul Haque
1020873030
Syeda Farhana Jamal
1210694030
Shoumik Islam
1130409030

Page | 1

Acknowledgement
To 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.

Page | 2

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.

Page | 3

TABLE OF CONTENT

Details

Page No.

Introduction

Background of Research

Hypothesis

Research Methodology

Primary Research

Secondary Research

13

List of Food Laws in Bangladesh

21

Flaws in Food Safety Laws in Bangladesh

22

Recommendation

27

Conclusion

27

Referencing

28

Page | 4

Introduction
Food is the most important element for our survival. The Meaning of Food is 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 food which 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 means act 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.

Page | 5

Background
Fish 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 formalintreated 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.

Page | 6

Hypothesis
The 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-

Page | 7

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.

Page | 8

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.
Page | 9

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
Page | 10

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 consumers
What 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.
Page | 11

Consumers general opinion


We 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 Retailers
When 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 wholesalers
When 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.
Page | 12

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 producers
What 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:

Page | 13

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 Press
Pure 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.

Page | 14

Section-6A prohibits 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 other
Person 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-7 Prohibits the manufacture or sale of food not of proper standard or purity.
Section-18 Prohibits 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-4A provides 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 Office

According 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
Page | 15

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
Page | 16

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

Page | 17

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. 95-110
A number of studies done by the Bangladesh government showed that a significant percentage of
Fish 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
Page | 18

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.

Page | 19

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:


Page | 20

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.

Page | 21

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],

Page | 22

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 below
Multiplicity 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
Page | 23

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,
Page | 24

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 Cooperatives. 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 of

Page | 25

adulterated 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
Page | 26

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.

Page | 27

Recommendations
In 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.

Page | 28

Referencing
1. B.D. Ministry of Law. (1959). Pure food ordinance 1959. Dhaka: Government Printing
Press
2. B.D. Ministry of Commerce. (2009).The Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009, Dhaka:
Government Printing Office

3. 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/jafs

6. 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. 95-110
7. 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-numberfood-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.com
Page | 29

12.

Page | 30

www.wikipidea.com