| Abstract: |
The BSTI had told the court that it would only look into ‘only 18 companies which were given license for producing and supplying pasteurised milk and curd'.This was because it claimed that all other unlicensed companies should fall under the responsibility of the Directorate of Agriculture Extension and the Ministry of Livestocks and Fisheries instead, according to The Daily Star,In response, the High Court’s Justices Md Nazrul Islam and KM Hafizul Alam said: “We are astonished at your statement. Who has given you the right to play ducks and drakes with the people’s health? They have no license, but they are producing and supplying milk! Who is responsible for looking into it?”Legal advocate for the Anti-Corruption Commission Syed Mamun Mahbub and Deputy Attorney General AKM Amin Uddin Manik also protested the BSTI’s claim, saying that it had already been given legal authority to act, and was ‘diverting the responsibility to others’.Further to this, the High Court ordered all government organisations with connection to this issue ‘not to disturb’ Professor Shahnila Ferdousi of the National Food Safety Laboratory (NFSL) who first brought the issue of serious dairy adulteration in the country to attention, after her lawyer revealed that she had been ‘disturbed and pressed’ with regard to her research. The Bangladesh Food Safety Authority was also in hot water when, along with BSTI it failed to submit the dairy adulteration report by the due deadline of June 23, and requested more time for this. |
