I applaud the drive to identify fruits tainted with harmful substances, but one may question the 'methodology' being used to carry it out. Lots of fruits, loads of hard work by the growers and most importantly an important sector of agriculture which many depend on fortheir livelihood are gone in a matter of hours. I am not advocating growing, supplying and eating fruits or anything with harmful substances, but what I feel is that there seems to be a fundamental flaw in the approach. This is reactive behaviour, which generates losers and winners, instigates blame and finger-pointing and only 'attempts' to address the symptoms on the surface and not the underlying issue.

Testing something is a good thing, but it is sometimes done in the wrong way, especially if one does not start with asking the right questions, which are "what to measure" and "how to measure." The "how" is critical. Reactive approach to testing mangoes when they are bound for their destination will show the 'blind' spot of the instrument as most instruments have a blind spot depending on "how" they perform and "what" they measure. Organic chemistry is an interesting subject. Instrumentation is another interesting area. Before long someone will figure out what more (chemicals) to mix to avoid detection. If we make this a chemical problem, a potential chemical solution will not do any good to anyone. The current drive is a solution indeed, but one may argue that it is a "half-baked" one which only scratches the surface a bit

A proactive approach to move away from fruits with harmful substance starts with engaging the people involved with growing, supplying and distributing fruits at the field level and not when they are bound for their destination. The agricultural authority at the field level should engage the growers before the fruits are even seen on the trees, let alone taken down for selling, by showing how fruits grown and sold without harmful substances can benefit the growers significantly. We should also work with the suppliers/distributors towards this same end in a proactive way. They should be asked what benefit they get by using formalin/other substances. If it is possible to demonstrate at the field level that similar or more benefit can be obtained without mixing the chemicals, most would choose that option. This would be a 'win-win' method as it would allow the growers to reap the benefit of their hard labour and consumers to get untainted fruits.

I am curious to know and understand more about the scientific methodology being used, the basis; toxicity level in the samples tested; toxicity levels in the fruits grown in a controlled environment; the difference ("delta”) between the two, and how this compares with statistical average. Transparency would build public confidence and support the growers as they would themselves take on the responsibility to ensure that their product is acceptable before they sell it.

Who calibrated the instruments that are used for testing? Are the tests repeatable? What is the resolution and tolerance of the measuring instruments? What is the confidence level for the results obtained? Is there any reliable reference, did anyone use them for the same purpose in the past and for how many years? If we are the first users, for how long was the trial run conducted to prove correctness, effectiveness, repeatability and confidence level? What was their feedback? What is the level of harmful substances in fish, raw vegetables and other agricultural products? When will the drive to test and destroy contaminated vegetables start? Please publish the data in a national paper or put it up on a publicly accessible web-site so that general population can appreciate the current drive even more.

The other day I was reviewing the "Environmental Performance Index” ranking of 178 countries. Bangladesh stands out with air quality score of 13.83 - the lowest among 178 countries. Does that mean we should all stop breathing now? This does not also mean we should accept fruits, vegetables and other agricultural products with toxic, harmful substances. What it means is that we have specific and critical challenges that require more involvement by the right people. More work is needed to understand the "what" and "how" of the methodology to drive a proactive campaign to influence the right behaviour.

These are great challenges and we need people with scientific background to work on them. We need to take a holistic view of the pollution and poisonous agricultural products in Bangladesh in general. This means engagement of critical stakeholders, e.g. environmentalists, agriculturists, chemists, toxicologists, economists to critically analyse the current situation and long term trends. The goal would be to lay out a sustainable plan to proactively tackle such issues. Let us shift the paradigm from blame and destruction to help farmers with what they do best - growth and production - the right way.

The writer is Professional Engineer, Project Management Professional, Canada.