Melamine Contamination Problem - Beyond Milk
From: Law Sin Ling
22 September 2008
Melamine Contamination Problem - Beyond Milk
Sg_Review
There are signs to
suggest, following the actions taken by the Agri-Food and
Veterinary Authority (AVA) of Singapore in the face of the melamine
scandal, that the agency has much to do towards gaining a higher
degree of faith from the public.
The first concrete sniff of the recent scandal broke clean when
the Centre For Food Safety of Hong Kong detected and released
results of their tests between the 15 and 16 September.
AVA announced on the 17 September the recall of Yili products
pending tests by AVA. AVA also stated that it was conducting tests
on "other imported milk and dairy products from China".
2 days later, AVA confirmed the contamination of Yili yogurt and
Dutch Lady milk, and declared a cessation of import and sale of all
milk and milk products from China.
On the same day, AVA issued a letter in the TODAY newspaper
titled "Milk, dairy products safe: AVA" which bewilderingly stated
that "milk and dairy products sold in Singapore are safe for
consumption" even as AVA was conducting more tests for particular
products from China.
This is a major gaffe as the AVA created confusion over whether
products unsafe for sale are safe for consumption, no thanks to
their inability to communicate their point unambiguously.
On the 21 September, AVA then announced that following the
confirmed contamination of a third product (the popular White
Rabbit Creamy Candy), a suspension was imposed on the import and
sale of all milk and milk products from China including "milk,
ice-cream, yoghurt, confectionery such as chocolates, biscuits and
sweets".
AVA has failed to appreciate that most consumers would not
automatically draw a relation between tainted milk from China, and
sweets and biscuits (collectively called confectionery). This is
especially since confectionery is not typically classified under
dairy products.
Hence, the late explicit inclusion of confectionery 4 days after
the first notice demonstrated the detrimental tunnel vision of AVA.
So is the public to be told of potential problems with other
products containing milk from China such as cakes, dougnuts,
beverage powder (Milo, Ovaltine, etc), salad dressings, certain
soups, and even certain food emulsifier and natural flavouring,
only after AVA has completed their findings?
If AVA had reasons to suspect since the onset that all products
using dairy ingredients from China may be implicated, a
comprehensive statement with a broad coverage of suspected products
should have been made public without waiting for the results of
their tests.
There is no harm in transparently alerting the public to real
and possible dangers while the AVA cautiously conducts
investigations. On the other hand, failure to do so would make the
actions of the AVA look reactionary and knee-jerk in nature.
Poor communication inevitably leads to suspicion of excessive
introversion and incompetence. Poor planning though has no excuse
at that level.
(Mr) Law Sin Ling
