When it detected a toxic substance in a children’s medicine, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not hesitate to publish the name of the company responsible for manufacturing and marketing the drug. The FDA also warned the public against using the medicine and the company withdrew it from sale for fear of legal action.
The FDA takes these steps because it knows that public health is more important than a company’s profits and good name and more important than whatever extenuating circumstances may have led to the hazardous substance being sold.
Unlike the FDA, our Ministry of Commerce’s action when chickens marketed by a local company were found to be carrying a dangerous disease was extremely disturbing.
Though large quantities of the company’s stock were confiscated, the ministry did not publish the name of the company which had produced and marketed the salmonella-infected chickens.
It is even more puzzling why the ministry wanted to protect the company. Though it failed to reveal the company’s name, all the details of contamination as well as the quantity of confiscated stock, the degree of danger and the type of bacteria were published.
Does it mean that people being exposed to food poisoning as well as physical, psychological and financial loss — including possible loss of life — are less important to the ministry than a black mark against the name of a company caused by that company’s own negligence?
I don’t believe it is in the best interest of the public or the country.
The officials in the ministry have behaved very strangely indeed. Evidently the ministry is more willing to protect businessmen’s interests than it is to safeguard public safety and people’s rights.
Does the word “commerce” in the name of the ministry suggest that the ministry is concerned only with the interests of businessmen? Is there no regard for the dangers to health that profit-seeking businessmen may cause? Don’t consumers have the right to know what they are eating and drinking?
On the other hand, how can anyone argue that the ministry is protecting businessmen’s interests by refusing to publish the name of the guilty company?
The ministry’s policy in fact injures the interests of all poultry manufacturers instead of only the guilty one. As consumers are left to rumors and gossip, they are likely to shun all locally manufactured chicken, as they do not know which local company is to blame for the salmonella.
Is concealing the names of guilty persons and companies our recognized policy? In the past there were instances of warnings being issued against a company for marketing contaminated water; the company of course was not named. Such ambiguous practices merely make people confused and skeptical.
In such circumstances, they will probably keep away from all locally manufactured items. Why are the names of guilty companies not published if the ministry knows who they are? Why is the ministry not transparent at least in issues involving public health?
Our transparency is like a shaded car window. In the daytime, you cannot see in and at night, you can only see in if the interior light is on.
