There are formulas that transcend time and become consensual rules applied by the majority of people who may be concerned. A section called “GRAS” (Generally Recognized as Safe) of American regulation of food and cosmetics is one of those examples. So, products such as henna showed, on an observation period of thousands years, beneficial effects of their use. This “evidence” is considered to be sufficient in the eyes of the law for consecration of their use. On another level, the Latin proverb “Verba volant, scripta manent” (words fly away, writings remain) has stood the test of time and its application can be considered very wise. But then, why some responsible, ONSSA (National Agency for Sanitary Safety of Food) in particular, have preferences to phone callings and reluctant to resort to writing. That is what this article aims to discuss.
Recall of work approach before 2010
In the early days of the Protectorate, the agro-industrial activity in Morocco fell to an office in the Ministry of Agriculture. Officials of the service moved to agro units for inspection and, if necessary, took samples of finished products ready for sale for control. The company had to wait on the ‘OK’ of officials before putting products on the market. These operations of audit and control were performed on a quite informal approach. There was a semblance of change thereafter, in the sense that the anti-fraud services began using pre-printed materials. These documents, however, were designed not to disturb the civil servants. In addition, that is the sum of the documents used by the Authority against fraud that were compiled after to determine the backbone of the previous law 13-83, now repealed.
Overall, this repressive law had subdued the national food industry exclusively to the sole Authority against fraud. While the work of examination and testing samples of food products; starting with the sampling, through laboratory tests and ending by issuing analysis reports; are codified by scientific and technical rules perfectly established, texts of law 13-83 were often vague leaving free hands of civil servants to act only in response with superiors. Consequently, the results of their work were just as poor as the approximate texts of their procedures. This conception of doing the work has unfortunately been maintained until achievement of the 28-07 Act.
Adoption of Bill 28-07
The achievement of the Act “28-07” of safety of the food products, inspired by Anglo-Saxon law, came in order to end the anarchic work according to “law 13-83”. Also for a new era where officials of ONSSA are compelled under the law to affirm their statements by writing so to allow, among other things, to judge how they conduct auditing of companies. The 28-07 Act became effective in 2012 and the question is whether, after all those efforts, the bureaucracy of ONSSA follows the law as it should be?
Reluctance to enforcement of the law 28-07
The 28-07 Act, with its implementing decree, have defined, as happens in many of our trading partners, both the work of the auditors (officials ONSSA) and operations of companies. The first ones come to check if work of the second ones is made in accordance with the new regulations. In this context, the questioning of officials and responses of operators, in one form or another, need to be confirmed in writing. However, the information available to this blog shows that things are not happening that way. It appears that so far, only operators are asked (orally) to justify in writing the compliance of their operations to the regulations.
Comment
It is as if those responsible for ONSSA wish to continue in the footsteps of their colleagues of “Authority against fraud”, in accordance with the adage: “Do as I say, not as I do.” Now if the adage was in harmony with mediocrity of the precedent law, at present null and void, from now on, it is antithetical to the guidelines for the work according to law 28-07. The principles of the law 28-07 clearly ask to ONSSA’s officials to stand by the recommendations of the law. But this is not the case. Operators, apparently, seem to be based to say, “if those officials do not want to apply what the law provides for them, we do not do anything more”. Here’s how reluctance of ONSSA’s officials themselves to obey the law that they have to promote, creates afterwards a resistance on the part of operators to apply it. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the inappropriate behavior of officials ONSSA on the field has not been reported, in one way or another, to their superiors at the headquarters of the organization. We can therefore consider that officials and executives ONSSA themselves still have a ways to go to conform to expectations of the 28-07 Act.
How to get out of this rut
If the officials are reluctant to enforce the law themselves to set an example that is probably not what they are deaf to hear the message conveyed by the new regulation message, or unable to read and understand texts of the law. It is likely that these people are motivated by an interest (to find) they perceive the ‘message’ more strongly than any other information that comes to them from elsewhere. Higher authorities have an obligation to try and find the origin, nature and the degree of influence that the “message” in question has on these officials and so have it destroyed by the best means as soon as possible. If this is not the case, Morocco has again passed a good law, but efforts would have been invested for nothing. Credibility vis-à-vis its trading partners will drop even further as if to say to African nations that have postponed their hopes on us as a model to follow: look elsewhere, we are not ready yet.
