Adulteration, weak governance and the fight for safe food

Food is universally recognised as the most essential human need and is secured both in the Constitution of Bangladesh and in international human rights documents. Article 15(a) of the Constitution obliges the state to guarantee the basic requirements of life, such as food. 

Similarly, Article 18(1) refers to the enhancement of public health and nutrition. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) also restates the right of every human being to adequate food. 

Yet, despite these commitments, the reality on the ground presents a stark paradox. 

Bangladesh has gradually moved from food deficits to food surpluses — rice production alone exceeded 40 million tonnes in FY24, according to the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU). 

Today, however, the issues dominating the discussion are food security and food safety. The challenge is no longer whether food is available, but whether it is safe, healthy, and free from hazardous components — an issue that has become one of the most pressing in the country.

The problem begins at the very source of food production. 

Farmers, under pressure to maximise output, are often tempted to use fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics, and growth hormones indiscriminately. While such practices may temporarily boost productivity, they contaminate crops, livestock, and fish with toxic residues that ultimately end up in the human body. 

At the next stage of the supply chain, middlemen, traders, and unscrupulous profiteers exacerbate the situation by adding chemical agents such as calcium carbide to ripen fruit, formalin to preserve perishables, sodium cyclamate to sweeten food, and even engine oil mixed with edible oils. This malpractice turns what should be a source of life into a carrier of disease. 

Increasingly, food adulteration is linked to gastric disorders, liver cirrhosis, kidney failure, cancer, and heart disease. In effect, unsafe food has created a vicious cycle of malnutrition and illness across all population groups, from infants to the elderly.

The state has not remained entirely passive in the face of this crisis. 

Recognising the need for legal intervention, the government enacted the Food Safety Act, 2013, which established the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority (BFSA) in 2015 as the focal agency for ensuring food safety. The agency was designed to unify scattered functions previously carried out by other government bodies such as the Bangladesh Standards and Testing Institution (BSTI), the Directorate of Consumer Rights Protection, and the Ministry of Food. 

This was a milestone, creating a single institutional framework dedicated to food safety. Yet, as is often the case with regulatory bodies in developing contexts, the challenge lies less in the laws themselves than in their implementation.

In recent years, the regulatory environment has seen notable progress. In 2024 and 2025, the BFSA updated its legal instruments in line with international standards. Draft regulations on food additives, chemical contaminants, and toxins were introduced to close loopholes in the use of harmful substances and to strengthen safety levels. 

More significantly, in February 2025 the government gazetted the Safe Food (Health Supplements, Dietary Supplements, Foods for Special Dietary/Medical Uses, Prebiotic and Probiotic Foods) Regulations, 2025.

This was a landmark measure, recognising the rising popularity of dietary supplements and functional foods in the Bangladeshi market. The regulation expanded consumer protection by creating categories such as health supplements and probiotic foods, requiring BFSA approval for novel ingredients, and mandating labelling of nutritional content, manufacturing and expiry dates, and possible side effects, among other safeguards.

At the same time, Bangladesh has also reformed its food packaging and storage policies through the Food Contact Materials (FCM) Regulations, 2024. Reported to the World Trade Organization and entering into force in August 2025, these rules aim to regulate plastics, glass, metals, and other materials that come into contact with food. 

They prohibit wrapping food in newspapers, establish specific migration limits (SMLs) and overall migration limits (OMLs) to reduce chemical leaching, and require registration of businesses involved in wrapping and packaging. 

If adopted as planned in November 2025 and implemented by June 2026, these measures would bring Bangladesh closer to international best practices. Collectively, they demonstrate that the government is not blind to the risks and is gradually working to strengthen consumer protection.

Nevertheless, legislation alone will not ensure food safety. Bangladesh's food governance system is hampered by weaknesses in capacity and enforcement. The BFSA faces a shortage of staff, insufficient laboratory facilities, and overlapping jurisdictions with other regulators. Raids on food markets frequently uncover adulterated goods, yet penalties remain too weak to deter powerful syndicates. Farmers in rural areas often lack access to safer alternatives such as bio-fertilisers, pheromone traps, or biopesticides. 

Meanwhile, many urban consumers are unaware of their rights and the risks they face. Without grassroots awareness campaigns and local capacity-building, even the best laws will struggle to achieve meaningful results.

Ensuring food safety in Bangladesh, therefore requires more than regulations; it demands cultural and structural transformation. Unlike in developed countries, where consumer activism drives transparency, economic pressures in Bangladesh often compel consumers to compromise on quality. 

Empowering people to resist adulteration will require awareness campaigns through schools, mosques, media, and community groups, alongside investments in cold storage, hygienic transport, food laboratories, and training for small vendors. Compliance costs could be reduced through measures such as subsidised bio-fertilisers and low-interest loans. 

The consequences of unsafe food are not only domestic but also global — Bangladesh's export reputation has already been damaged. Alignment with Codex Alimentarius standards and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures is therefore vital if the country hopes to diversify exports beyond garments.

Research highlights the urgency of the issue: nearly 43% of Bangladeshi children under six are anaemic, and around 28% are underweight. These figures are not just health indicators but also economic warning signs. 

A nation plagued by ill health cannot achieve sustainable development. As Bangladesh strives to meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 — particularly Goal 2 (Zero Hunger) and Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being) — food safety must be placed at the centre of its development agenda.

Apurba Mogumder is a legal researcher specialising in food law and safety in Bangladesh.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.