Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

October 22, 2001 Monday Shaba'an 4, 1422


KARACHI: SHC moved to ban substandard banaspati



By Our Reporter


KARACHI, Oct 21: A public interest petition has been filed in the Sindh High Court claiming that, according to lab tests, many brands of banaspati ghee being sold in the market are unfit for human consumption.

Petitioner Shamsuzzaman of the Consumer Protection Council, represented by Barrister Qamar Abbas, have made the district executive officer and the food inspector of the city government the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that due to negligence by the respondents life of the people is threatened.

The petitioner bought some cans of ghee from the market, manufactured and sold under different brand names. They included Al-Meezan, Dalda, Shahbaz, Khajoor, Supreme, Season, Urooj, Sachal, Danedar, Bano and Mall.

The petitioner had the ghee analyzed and, according to reports of the laboratories, it was found that excepting Dalda and Al-Meezan all other brands were unfit for human consumption.

The samples which were found to be unfit for human consumption included Shahbaz, Mall, Bano (tin), Khajoor, Supreme, Season, Urooj, Sachal, Danedar, Bano (pouch) and Khajoor (pouch). The petitioner has attached copies of lab reports in support of his contention.

The petitioner has maintained that not only samples of these brand products do not meet the requirements of standard specifications, some of them use the symbol “PSI” of the Pakistan Standard Institute unauthorizedly to mislead consumers.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are charged with the duty, under the law, to ensure that no food items unfit for human consumption are marketed.

The matter was brought to the notice of the respondents, but they did not take any action. The petitioner, therefore, demanded appropriate action against them.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005