HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 11952,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/11952/?format=api",
"text_counter": 258,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mrs. Mugo",
"speaker_title": "The Minister for Public Health and Sanitation",
"speaker": {
"id": 85,
"legal_name": "Beth Wambui Mugo",
"slug": "beth-mugo"
},
"content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, as far as the current debate on the Unifi products by Proctor & Allan is concerned, our investigations revealed that the maize for Unifi production at M/s Proctor & Allan had been tested by M/s SGS and M/s Pillion Services Laboratories and found to have acceptable levels of aflatoxin of 1.0 and 5.0, respectively, out of the maximum 10 ppt. We table Annexes 2(1) and 2(2). These annexes show the form from the testing agents, M/s SGS, showing 1.0 aflatoxin level; and M/s Pollucon Services Laboratories, showing 5.0 aflatoxin level, both of which are far below 10. Routine sampling by the Kenya Red Cross was carried out during distribution to the targeted regions and the samples were analysed by KeBS and SGS laboratories. The KeBS sampled the products on 25th August, 2011 and submitted the results to the Kenya Red Cross on 23rd September, 2011. This is shown in Annexes 4(1) and 4(2). However, Kenya Red Cross (KRC) did not share the results with Proctor and Allan or my Ministry. It is Proctor and Allan who notified my Ministry of the existence of the contaminated batches when they got their results on 12th October, 2011. That means there was a lapse of three weeks or almost a whole month when this contaminated maize would have been withdrawn had the KRC informed us or the supplier immediately. Mr. Speaker, Sir, we moved very fast after we were informed by the company, but not the KRC, which was a bit surprising. The Ministry wrote to the KRC requesting for information on the Unimix they were distributing. Documents availed, therefore, proved that Unimix from which samples were taken had aflatoxin contamination above the acceptable levels of 10pb. The KRC distributed the unimix to the schools at the Coast, lower Eastern, upper Eastern, North Eastern and North Rift regions. A total of 726 schools with a population of 274,375 pupils had received the Unimix. Annexe 6 shows each school where the unimix was distributed. My Ministry has visited those schools. Mr. Speaker, Sir, the quantities procured and distributed by KRC and consumed by school children is shown in Annexe 6. My Ministry, in collaboration with the KRC society and manufacturers, is still recalling the consignment which was distributed irrespective of whether it was suspected to be contaminated or not. The quantities of Unimix which have so far been recalled and stored at KRC warehouses as at 6.00 p.m., on 31st October, 2011, is shown in Annexe 7(i). My Ministry has sampled the recalled Unimix for further laboratory analysis. Mr. Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is addressing this issue with the seriousness it deserves and has been actively involved in aflatoxin surveillance since 2004. We have continuously briefed the general public accordingly and have taken fundamental decisions in the effort to ensure no contaminated food finds its way into the food chain. In our efforts we have seized suspected food items and subjected their samples to laboratory analysis. We have obtained court orders for condemnation and destruction. We have also taken legal redress in Kenyan courts. This includes condemned maize in Machakos, Mbeere, Mandera, Eldoret and Tana River. Kenyans will remember the contaminated consignment of maize at the Port of Mombasa. My Ministry stood ground and prevented its entry to the country. Personally, I witnessed the shipping out of that maize from the Port of Mombasa. The Ministry will continue being vigilant and committed to ensuring food safety to all Kenyans. We are also reviewing guidelines to see whether to direct millers to give samples of grain to the Chief Government Chemist’s office before milling. I would like to add here that the companies mentioned to have tested have different certificates to that of Proctor and Allan. Therefore, for them, it was clear that the maize was clean. They did not keep it after milling. It was distributed immediately because it was needed. When it was given out, that is when further tests were done. The KRC gave samples to test. It was at that point that it should maybe not have been distributed until that test came out. However, maybe because of the shortage and need and the hunger, they distributed it. This maize was purchased from Bomet and Narok districts. It did not come from outside. It is maize that was in the country. We have been trying to have this contaminated maize destroyed for the last three years, but it has not been destroyed. We, in fact, obtained court directives for this maize to be destroyed, but we have not succeeded. I am worried maybe some of this maize can find its way into the food chain because the levels which have been detected are over 100 pb to 300 pb. That is very high. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rest my case."
}