|
When
Bureau of Food and Drug (BFAD) deputy chief Joshua Ramos
said that the recall by Wyeth of its milk products—after
a lot of noise over the rust and molds that were
reported and verified by the government agency—came as
“an afterthought,” is a damning indictment of the way
the US-based nutritional giant tried to cover up its
contaminated milk products.
The
contamination, it would seem, was the subject of an
internal memo that an executive of Wyeth issued,
concerning the effects of damp pallets in its warehouse
on the milk products after a typhoon.
The memo
was reported to have been made a year ago, but what is
unforgivable was the fact that it noted only a need for
visual inspection of the package of the milk product
unit, either can or carton, before these are prohibited
from being shipped out.
There
were no microbiological tests carried out, which the
milk giant should have made, and which is now being
asked by worried consumer groups.
Wyeth
did not come out clean on the issue and, in fact, even
violated the recall rules of the BFAD—which says that
the government agency should have been informed. As it
happened, BFAD learned about the contamination only from
consumers, which it was able to verify later.
Wyeth
should be made accountable for this serious infraction.
The
blatant disregard for the BFAD recall rules brings to
mind the way Wyeth behaved when it recalled its milk
products in China in November 2002.
According to reports, Wyeth said that there were certain
lots of milk products manufactured between July 12 and
September 2002 that were Enterobacter sakazakii-affected.
The findings could have only come about with
microbiological tests, something that was not done with
the lots that were found contaminated and ordered
recalled by the Philippine government.
E.
sakazakii results in sepsis (bacteria in the blood),
meningitis (inflammation of the lining of the brain) and
necrotizing enterocolitis (severe intestinal infection).
This
microbe was found in the Wyeth milk product lots and was
validated only through microbiological tests. It is but
proper for BFAD to conduct microbiological tests of the
milk lots to determine the extent of the contamination,
given the insistence of the company’s officials that
they found nothing wrong with the milk lots.
The
microbiological testing is made more necessary by the
big variance between what the BFAD said is the number of
affected units (4.3 million) and what Wyeth is claiming
(2.5 million). That is a very big difference—a yawning
chasm, much like the difference between the conflicting
claims on the issue of breastfeeding and the improvement
of the survival rates of infants, and the claim by milk
companies of improved brain functions with infant milk
formula—and for that reason alone, BFAD should put
through microbiological tests the products that Wyeth
manufactured. This will assure the consumers on the
integrity of the milk products that were earlier
recalled.
After
all, the integrity of the assertions of Wyeth on the
batch of contaminated milk products that BFAD recalled
is deemed suspect, especially with the year-ago memo
that only came to light when the issue of rust and molds
came about.
BFAD
should go beyond the recall, and task Wyeth to come out
clean on the matter. While Wyeth can invoke secrecy
privilege, the fact that there was a memo citing the
possible contamination could allow Congress to invoke a
greater concern—the health of the nation.
The
government should serve notice to Wyeth that it should
not consider this health issue as “an afterthought.” The
millions of infants that could be exposed to
microbiological risks should not be considered as “an
afterthought.” The foreknowledge on the contamination as
cited in the memo, is not, after all, “an afterthought.”
First-termer’s
plea
First-termer
Rep. Egay San Luis, in an e-mail, talked of the need to
unite 120 newly minted congressmen on the matter of
electing the next Speaker of the House.
For him,
the first-termers should make their voice heard and
communicate their desire to have their own role in the
selection of the Speaker.
Mr. San
Luis did not mince words on the object of his
disaffection, and this is Speaker Jose de Venecia, whom
he tagged for the divisiveness that arose from the
failed Charter change (Cha-cha) that the Speaker
championed.
Said Mr.
San Luis: “Do we want a person who caused deeper and
wider divisiveness among Filipinos, and almost led the
nation to a constitutional crisis by his obsessive
ambition to do away with the Senate, and get a shot at
being Prime Minister in the Cha-cha express?
“The
Filipinos deserve change. The results of the national
elections are there for all to see—there is a rejection
of traditional politics. The former House minority
leader almost landed at the top, while the congressmen
who became the alter ego of the President or defended
the House leadership were left by the wayside, or as we
say in Laguna, pinulot sa kangkungan.
“Had the
speakership of the House been subjected to a national
vote like that of the senators, de Venecia will not have
a chance. It is only by technical luck that the rules of
the House prescribe voting by representatives, and all
he perhaps needs is 150 votes.
“I now
call on the first-termers to write, call, e-mail or text
your elected congressmen or congresswomen. Make your
voice heard in the selection of the Speaker. Makialam
kayo. Walang mababago kung walang kikilos. We need
leaders, not dealers! We want change, not chains! We
call for CHAMBER CHANGE!”
E-mail: hugagni@yahoo.com |
