By Erica James-King, Senior Staff ReporterWESTERN BUREAU:
THE BUREAU of Standards says the problem of extraneous matter in sugar is as much a socio-economic perplexity for bakers and consumers, as it is a legislative dilemma for consumer monitoring agencies.
The agency notes that its hands are tied, when it comes to penalising sugar producers and distributors of bulk sugar, for failure to put measures in place to ensure the traceability of any defective batch of bulk sugar. This, it says, means that while other foods produced locally or overseas must toe the line with regards to batch and expiry date codings, this is not the case with bulk sugar.
"If the sugar is in bulk, not much can be done. The Bureau cannot impose labelling standards on bulk sugar," said Dr. Omer Thomas, Executive of the Bureau of Standards.
He explained that since sugar was 'King' in Jamaica, it has been free of labelling regulations and other sanctions under the laws of the land.
Even today when breaches in physical quality and labelling rules can attract penalties and/or fines for foods under the Processed Food Act, the labelling regulations of the Standards Act and the Standards Compliance Programme, bulk sugar is exempt from these regulations and legislations, Dr. Thomas said.
Addressing the quandary which consumers and manufacturers, like bakers face, when it comes to foreign matter in sugar and lack of power to regulate the breaches, Dr. Thomas noted, "We can talk and talk and talk, but if we don't have the authority to enforce, its only a matter of talking. It's up to the sugar industry."
However, a different rule applies for retail sugar. The Bureau of Standards boss insists that "if the sugar is going to be packaged and given a brand name, then the package must carry a weight, a batch code. It must carry a best-before-date (expiry date). In this regard, the Bureau can take action when
breaches occur."
Persons who flout these regulations can be fined $500,000 for each breach of the Labelling Regulations of the Standards Act. There is a fine of $100,000 per day for each day that the delinquent company continues to ignore the regulations. Failure to comply can cause the bureau to close down the offending establishment.
In the meantime, the watchdog group for consumers, the National Consumers League, is calling for a review of legislation, which limits the Bureau in dealing with problems surrounding the physical quality of sugar.
President of the league Joyce Campbell is also advocating for members of the food industry to use their power of choice, in sending a strong signal to sugar producers that they will no longer tolerate "dirty sugar."
Ms. Campbell said she is issuing a wake-up call to producers and consumers: "If the legislation is limiting to the interest of consumers, then it needs to be reviewed with a view to putting amendments in place.
On the other hand, if bakers and other consumers are having a problem with the product, why can't they boycott that product? This would send a strong signal to the producers and distributors, to clean up their act."
As for the monitoring agency, the Consumer Affairs Commission, its records speak to the ongoing problems on the issue of extraneous matter in sugar and baked products that contain sugar (including bread, bun, and biscuits). The following are among 15 complaints about sugar and or baked products received by the CAC over the last three years:
May 3, 2002 Bun: "Consumer noticed some metal objects while consuming the product."
May 16, 2002 Sugar: "Consumer complained that product smell like cockroaches."
April 19, 2001 Bun: "Consumer claimed product had a foreign object in it; appeared to be a lizard."
July 21,2000 Bun: "Consumer swallowed a metal product while consuming product. X-ray verify presence of metal in consumers body."
December 6, 2000 Bun: "Piece of steel found in product while being consumed."
October 10, 2000 Bread: "Consumer found a piece of splinter in product."
March 27, 2000 Bun: "Consumer found a piece of gloves in product."
July 21, 2000 Bread: "Consumer found a screw washer baked in bread"
August 15, 1999 Bread: "Consumer found particles resembling that of rubber in product."
December 21, 1999 wedding cake: "Consumer ...found gravel in the cake. Complainant had paid $14,000.00 (for the cake)."
But, like the Bureau of Standards, the CAC is also faced with limitations in terms of dealing with complaints about sugar.
The CAC currently has a mediatory role and cannot penalise offenders or take offenders before the courts when complaints concerning sugar or any other food are traced to the offenders.
Explaining the legal straits in which it finds itself in dealing with offenders, Pedro Hodges, Director of Information and Communication reiterated, "We can advise the consumer and insist that the vendor makes redress, but don't have the right to take them before the courts, if they fail to pay the redress or improve conditions.
We can only advise the complainant to seek legal action; we cannot initiate legal action. All that could change in the near future."
The change is coming in the form of legislation. When the Consumer Protection Bill becomes law, the CAC will be empowered to take offenders before the courts.
