The latest report about the use of tilapia meat to replace mackerel in canned fish products is unacceptable. State agencies must ensure that similar food fraud does not happen again.
The species substitution in canned fish production became the talk of the town last week after a viral clip posted by a consumer questioned whether the canned fish he bought, labelled as mackerel, was actually tilapia.
This glaring case of substandard food production seemed to fade from the media radar and public attention soon after the factory in Samut Sakhon admitted it had used the wrong fish and compensated the consumer.
Yet the case has sparked wider debate about standards, food security and consumer trust in the country.
The broader question is whether this is an isolated incident. Are there similar deceptive trade practices involving other food products? It must be said that this food fraud would likely have continued unnoticed had it not been for a consumer whistleblower.
The second question concerns the role of state agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Ministry of Public Health and the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) in enforcing laws to ensure food safety and consumer protection.
Right after the issue went viral, Supamas Isarabhakdi, minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office who oversees the OCPB, reacted quickly. Ms Supamas, together with FDA secretary-general Supattra Boonserm, provincial health officials, the OCPB and the Fisheries Department, inspected the factory in Samut Sakhon.
She emphasised that protecting consumer rights is a government priority, noting that the company's attempt to compensate individuals and request the deletion of online videos was insufficient. She ordered the OCPB to investigate the factory and enforce the law.
These agencies worked swiftly and in coordination. The Fisheries Department confirmed that canned fish products labelled as mackerel in Samut Sakhon contained pla nil (tilapia), not mackerel as stated on the packaging.
The FDA subsequently suspended production at the factory and collected samples for verification. Inspections revealed that the factory failed to meet GMP standards and had used unauthorised fish species. Authorities seized 12,760 cans at the factory and another 250 cans at retail outlets.
Following the incident, the FDA warned that substituting fish species without disclosure constitutes "fake food" under the Food Act BE 2522 (1979), punishable by six months to 10 years in prison and fines ranging from 5,000 to 100,000 baht. Mislabeling carries fines of up to 30,000 baht, while failure to meet production standards can result in fines of up to 10,000 baht.
Consumers who encounter suspicious products can report them to the FDA hotline 1556 or file complaints with the OCPB hotline 1166 for legal action and compensation.
A full investigation is now underway to punish those responsible.
From my point of view, the swift action taken to respond to public concerns deserves commendation. Strong enforcement is necessary to set a precedent and deter other producers from similar misconduct.
But is this reactive enforcement approach enough to detect violations of food labelling laws? Do responsible agencies provide sufficient consumer education campaigns? Perhaps we should also ask ourselves whether we are informed consumers who carefully read labels and file complaints with state agencies when we encounter substandard practices. Do we know enough about consumer protection laws?
Indeed, I believe consumer protection education must begin at an early age. Knowledge about consumer rights and product safety should not be limited to adults. As a parent, I believe schools and families must educate children about healthy and responsible consumption. Students should be taught to pay attention to what they eat and to read product labels carefully.
Why? Because children who grow up learning how to make wise purchasing and consumption choices are more likely to become informed consumers who know how to protect themselves and choose safe and healthy products.
Hopefully, this food fraud case will be the last of its kind. The government should use it as a turning point to strengthen inspection standards, improve communication with the public and promote stronger consumer rights protection.
