Indecent haste

This is still about that Turkish flour — and the indecent haste with which the product appears to have been cleared by the Food and Drug Authority (FDA).

There are two aspects in this controversy over large amounts of Turkish flour coming into our market. The first aspect involves findings by scientific agencies elsewhere that the flour contains cancer-inducing mycotoxins. The second aspect involves the serious undervaluation (for purposes of paying customs duties) of the imported commodity.

The FDA seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate some influential players in this case. While the preliminary test results on the flour was released April 6, it was obvious the Turkish embassy was informed of these results way ahead of our consumers. On March 30, the Turkish embassy issued a statement announcing the results of the preliminary tests.

While the FDA has said more rigorous tests still had to be done on the questioned product, FDA Acting Director Nazarita Tacandong seemed in a rush to declare the flour “fit and safe for human consumption.” She went ahead and issued a public advisory on the matter containing that statement on April 15.

On April 16, the DOH and the FDA announced the results of the initial tests. These tests used what is called the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). The test results announcement appears to be couched with deliberate vagueness. It was said, simply, that the amount of mycotoxins found on the questioned flour was within the “allowable limits.”

This is the small print that was not included in the announcement. The maximum allowable limit for aflatoxins in food is 15 parts per billion (ppb). The Poodle brand of Turkish flour imported by Malabon Long Life, the biggest importer of the product, was found to have aflatoxin levels of 3.46 ppb. The Kale UN brand of Turkish flour brought in by F2 Import-Export was found to have 3.85 ppb of aflatoxins.

The announcement, if it tried to be precise, should have said that the product was not aflatoxin-free but contained levels of the toxins that were well within allowable levels. They should advise our consumers, who are after all their principal clients, what implications such levels might have on public health.

The announcement conveniently also fails to say that the tests were preliminary and that more rigorous testing still had to be done. The findings are not yet final. They should have advised our consumers that a more reliable scientific test still needs to be done.

The more reliable test for mycotoxin content, I am told, is what is called the High Pressure Liquid Chromatography Method (HLPC). There are many instances, I am told as well, where significant variance in test results between the ELISA and HLPC methods were registered.

Our consumers deserve to be assured of product safety using the most reliable testing methods in each category. The tests performed on Turkish flour so far do not yet include the most reliable methods known.

I find it odd that the FDA appears to be more anxious about helping domestic importers of Turkish flour market their product than ensuring that public health is best protected using the most reliable methods known to science. That is not how the agency’s mandate is written.

The second aspect of the Turkish flour controversy involves its pricing. It is either the flour is being dumped by the exporting country because of quality concerns or the real cost of the product is being artificially depressed to evade payment of duties.

Last checked, Turkish wheat sells for $220 per metric ton. The Turkish flour (under the brand Mountain Glory) imported into our market last February had a declared value of only $186 per metric ton.

It takes 1.3 metric tons of wheat to produce 1 metric ton of flour. Even if we discount the cost of processing wheat into flour and packaging the more perishable end product, flour should logically cost at least 30% more than wheat.

How could it be that the finished product costs much less than the raw material from which it is derived? Is the product being subsidized by Turkey as a kind gesture to our consumers?

Or, as is more likely the case, is some creative accounting being practiced here to reduce payments of duties?

 The Bureau of Customs, the agency tasked with properly evaluating the declared price of imports to collect the correct duties from them, should have an answer to this riddle. How could they have so easily agreed that the finished product costs less than the raw material?

There is a mystery here that must be unraveled.

On either end — on the part of the FDA and on the part of the BOC — there are nagging questions and too many loose ends. It could not be that they simply happen with such happy coincidence they seem to benefit only one interested party.

That one interested party, in this case, is a small group of importers who have hit a gold mine: cheap Turkish flour in quantities that enable them to flood the domestic market. They should now be celebrating the benign neglect that enables them to exploit this opportunity for great profit.

If the product is indeed safe for our consumers and if, indeed, the proper duties were paid our cash strapped government, then this is all very well. We get cheaper bread and government a reliable source of revenue.

But the disturbing questions ought to be satisfactorily answered first.