The recent report of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) pointing to regulatory overlaps in the Philippines as trade barriers should give our policymakers and stakeholders serious pause. The confusion arising from the dual regulatory mandates of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Health’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) not only hampers trade but also undermines public trust in the country’s food safety regime.
At the core of the issue is Republic Act No. 10611, or the Food Safety Act of 2013. Designed to modernize the country’s food safety standards, the law rightly placed a premium on consumer protection, risk-based inspections, and science-based regulation. However, its implementation has surfaced institutional overlaps that have, ironically, led to inefficiencies and regulatory bottlenecks—particularly in the inspection, testing, and certification of food products.
The DA and the FDA are mandated to inspect food—DA primarily for fresh and raw agricultural commodities, and FDA for processed food and those intended for sale in retail markets. But as global supply chains evolve and food products increasingly straddle both raw and processed categories, these distinctions blur. In practice, importers, exporters, and even local producers are often left navigating a maze of inter-agency clearances, which delay product movement and inflate compliance costs.
The USDA’s identification of this as a non-tariff barrier underscores the urgent need to streamline our food regulatory system—not only to ensure public health but also to enhance our credibility as a trading partner. The Philippines cannot afford to be seen as a market with inconsistent or unpredictable regulatory practices.
The DA has long contended that it should take the lead in food inspection, given its expertise in agricultural production and veterinary services. Meanwhile, the FDA, as the country’s national regulatory authority for food, drugs, and cosmetics, has a well-established mandate to ensure the safety of products that reach consumers. Both institutions serve vital roles, but a clearer delineation of functions—and, where necessary, integration—is essential.
Does this warrant a review or amendment of RA 10611? The answer may well be yes. A decade after its passage, the law must be reassessed in light of its implementation gaps. Amendments that introduce a single-agency authority or, at the very least, a lead coordinating body with binding dispute-resolution power between the DA and FDA may offer a viable path forward.
Alternatively, the establishment of a centralized Food Safety Authority—independent of either the DA or DOH—could be explored. Such a body could consolidate inspection protocols, unify laboratory testing standards, and provide a one-stop regulatory window for food businesses and trading partners alike. Several countries, including Australia and Canada, have adopted this model to good effect.
Ultimately, our food safety system must be responsive not only to domestic public health concerns but also to global trade expectations. Clarity, coordination, and consistency are the hallmarks of an effective regulatory regime. By addressing the current overlaps, the Philippines can ensure safer food for its citizens and a more open and trusted trade environment for its partners.
