by sfoodfee

The recent issue on the level of preservative in a soft drink regarding NAFDAC , the exporter and the EU is interesting . One thing is clear==NAFDAC is right and the EU is also right. The acceptable daily intake (ADI)for a preservative is different from one country or regional body to the other. The ADI is always arrived at based on available toxicological data of such additive on native rats or human models. Being workable and enforceable will depend on the capacity/willingness of other stakeholders , like farmers exporters , solution providers to accept and operate . The Codex standards are the global standards.

Standards observed in a country do not have to be copied by another. For example the US sets a ‘weaker’ standard on aflatoxin than the EU. The implication is that a particular product from US may be rejected by the EU. It should be noted most EU legislations on food are very stringent. It is the duty of the importer to EU to be abreast of requirement regarding the product in question, not the regulatory agency. Equally, every country has a role to play in safeguarding the health of her citizens at all times and are not directly answerable to an importer, when approved legislations are already confirmed to be in the public space

The subsisting ban on beans export to EU from Nigeria on account of unacceptable dichlorvos level is also a proof of the limits of the regulatory agencies and importing nations, although in this particular case, the contaminant cannot be described as an additive.


Popular posts from this blog

Tomato disease outbreak: Institute appeals for research funding

Emir of Gwandu calls for sustained investment in agriculture to diversify economy

Plateau farmers to produce 5,975 metric tonnes of tomatoes - Fadama III