Belgium is convulsed by a scandal over food suspected of having been contaminated with the cancer-causing chemical, dioxin, after it was added to animal feedstuffs earlier in the year. The scare has spread rapidly within the European Union and to other trading partners since it was publicised over the last fortnight. Much of the attention has focussed on the long delays in investigating and releasing information. It is seen as another egregious example of Belgian maladministration after the Dutroux paedophile scandal undermined the credibility of its police and justice systems. It now looks as if the ruling coalition of Christian Social and Socialist parties could lose power as a result in general elections this weekend, following the resignation of two responsible ministers.
Two aspects of contemporary life are highlighted by these events: the importance of food safety controls in an era of mass consumption and the relentless pressure to bring costs down in order to remain competitive in this market. They are closely interlinked, as is shown by the huge publicity, public outrage and international attention that has attended the scandal. It has been made worse by the Belgian government's reluctance to accept criticisms and regulations imposed by the European Union on the sale of foods not expressly certified as non-toxic. There has also been a lamentable delay in providing accurate lists of suppliers and abattoirs to facilitate tracing back the source of the poisoning.
It is suspected that one batch of animal feed was contaminated last January - accidentally or deliberately - possibly with motor oil containing dioxin, although not identified as a problem until March, when one farmer's chickens were affected. It was not until last week that the extent of the damage was publicly admitted and realised. Food affected includes chickens, beef and pork and their derivatives, including milk, eggs, mayonnaise and chocolates. The affair has been a disaster for the producers and manufacturers in these long chains of the food industry, as much has been destroyed and demand has collapsed. Other producers have been quick to fill the vacuum and Belgian consumers have switched to other food products.
The country's partners in the European Union have been scathing in their criticisms of the Belgian government's handling of the crisis, brushing aside their allegations that standards of public hygiene and administration are just as lax elsewhere. The European Commission, with its headquarters in the Belgian capital, Brussels, has demanded that all dairy products, which cannot be certified as safe, should be banned. But the government seems to be willing to risk a court case it knows will take years to hear, by failing to implement the Commission demand. The Commission is empowered to act under single market regulations which rule out unilateral sanctions by EU member-States. The potential for international disruption is brought home by the decision of the United States to ban imports of a wide range of foods from the EU as a result of the Belgian scandal - an over-reaction clearly linked to wider trade disputes. The scandal should reinforce the case for stronger EU regulation, given the extent to which international trade in foodstuffs has increased in recent years and the high public sensitivity to food safety standards.