A careful reading of the 28-07 Act of food safety shows the purpose of the legislation is to entrust stakeholders in the nation’s food chain by requiring them to control their own products before releasing them into the circuits of trade in order to better protect the Moroccan consumers. At the same time, food quality control must be based on “HACCP” (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) approach, the Codex Alimentarius recognized to be relevant for food trade on international level. Therefore, the application of the 28-07 Act conform the requirements for access of Moroccan products to the markets of our trading partners around the world. This also applies to the US market, considered one of the most restrictive relating to health standards. This work upgrade is new to us. Thus, before promulgation of 28-07 Act in 2011, the previous law 13-83 (now repealed) was similar to that which was in force in the United States in the early twentieth century. It follows that the first draft of the American regulations on food products and the one currently in force in the USA (to which our 28-07 Act can be approximated) are separated by a period of one century. In order to make a comparison, we would say it’s the grandchildren, or great grandchildren, of FDA (United States Agency for food and drug controls that emerged in 1906) first inspectors that are in charge today to audit American agribusiness. Returning to the case of Morocco, many officials, if not most agents of the National Office for Sanitary Safety of Food (ONSSA), are those very people who were in charge before 2012 for the monitoring operations in the national food chain according to the law 13-83. In colorful language, we would say that the day before officials wore gray coats of the 13-83 law they swapped the next day to white ones for 28-07 Act. Then in 2014, two years after the effective repeal of the old law, who can tell if there is any improvement with the implementation of the 28-07 Act. But to better appreciate the change in work circumstances to which officials of ONSSA have been submitted, let us have a look on how these people operate under Law 13-83 and how mission of ONSSA has been redefined under 28-07 Act.
Work under the law 13-83
Much of the text of the 13-83 law dates back to the period of protectorate or, for some of them, transcripts of the French rules on the hygiene of the nineteenth century. If you look closer, it is a hard law under the authority of fighting against fraud. In practice also, the staff of these services had broad authority on the owner of the company subject to its inspection. The official was only accountable to superiors. Appropriate or not, his judgment was little or not at all hindered by the old law and he was free to make the decision that suited him about the company he had to inspect. The 13-83 repealed Act, administered by the department of fighting against fraud, actually gave the officer any power, through the “game of expertise and second assessment”, two functions performed at the same time by the same body. In incriminating a business, the officer sends the company, hands and feet tied, to justice whose role was simply to formalize indictment of the entity.So, regardless of any other consideration, it must be admitted that this is a power capable of releasing an official of his condition and propel a small agent to a very high stage of nirvana. For the agent, the owner was willing to do anything that satisfies including on the bribery issue and we know how power can be corrupting. That said, there is no doubt that the employees, of the authority of fighting against fraud under the repealed law, were more feared than respected. Most often, they were despised even.
The 28-07 Act
Compared to the law 13-83 repealed, whose texts remained in force for nearly a century, the new regulation has just begun and it lacks the necessary perspective to appreciate how “new employees of ONSSA” interact with operators of the food chain for its implementation. Without sufficient field observations, it may be indicated to engage in common sense reasoning. Indeed, the 28-07 law, namely the control of products by enterprise itself according to HACCP standard, is similar to many laws in other countries in the northern hemisphere of the planet. The law assumes, as is the case with our partners, that people who oversee its implementation do kind of job because they chose to do so and are willing to get it done as best as they can. These Inspectors / Auditors are supposed to be instructed in their duties and obligations inherent to their burden. Consequently, they are humble, but firm on the implementation of the law, as they realize the weight of the burden on their shoulders. They also realize that the quality of their work determines the position of their country among the nations in the agribusiness field. They know that their behavior when carrying out their missions must be exemplary because the subsequent work of the entire profession, who observes, depends on it. So the agents prepare carefully audits to be carried out, give notice of their visit and know the rules by heart to respond to all the concerns of companies audited. They also know they have to work within the framework that is drawn by the Act and do their comments in writing, making sure to sign and date. They are polite and identify themselves upon arrival at the company. Bosses are no longer afraid of them and, instead of contempt; they will get respect that is beyond any price.
Comment and Conclusion
Unless you are excessively optimistic, it is difficult to believe in the immediate conversion (magic) of agents (gray coats) operating under the repealed law 13-83 in advised auditors (white coats) to be efficient in the recent 28-07 Act. We believe if it were for a private company, it would have indemnified much of the “gray coats” , sending them home to rest, and recruiting new ones, with no memory of law 13 -83, for the role of “white coats”. But the state is sovereign and must have his reasons for not proceeding in this manner. Nevertheless, many of the “gray coats” must have exceeded fifteen or twenty years of practice under the repressive law 13-83 and, according to this reasoning, would be retired beyond the next fifteen years. The chances of a correct implementation of the 28-07 Act of food safety would undoubtedly be higher beyond this period. But African countries are already seeing in the Kingdom a leader able to exonerate them from an expensive addiction they do not see the end vis-à-vis the colonial powers of the past, particularly in the area of food security. So, it is likely that our African friends would rather see Morocco fulfill this role as soon as possible for the sake of his international stature and the interest of Africa.
