Malaysia is making changes to the Food Act 1983, and I think this is something we should welcome.
After more than 40 years, our food safety laws certainly need to keep up with current challenges. The Food (Amendment) Bill 2026, which passed the Dewan Rakyat on October 8, introduces several changes involving food-contact materials, investigations, enforcement powers and penalties.
But there is something I hope the Ministry of Health will also look into. While we are busy strengthening the law, are we also strengthening the workforce responsible for enforcing it?
Many Malaysians may not be familiar with environmental health officers (EHO) and assistant environmental health officers (AEHO).
These are the officers involved in inspecting food premises, investigating food poisoning cases, taking food samples, checking hygiene conditions and enforcing public health laws.
They are also involved in enforcing the Control of Smoking Products for Public Health Act 2024 (Act 852). For example, authorized officers may issue compound notices to people caught smoking in prohibited places.
These are some of the duties the public may have seen but may not realise are carried out by environmental health professionals.
Now, with the proposed amendments to the Food Act, the scope of enforcement may become even wider. For example, the Bill introduces stronger controls over materials that come into contact with food and provisions allowing authorised officers to access relevant digital records.
All this will require proper knowledge, training, equipment and manpower.
I believe our EHO and AEHO workforce is ready to take on new challenges. But being ready to do the work does not mean we should ignore whether there are enough officers to do it properly.
The issue is not about refusing additional responsibilities. It is about making sure the people doing the work are also being given enough support.
What About The Existing EHO And AEHO Workforce?
One of the changes in the Bill is the inclusion of Food Technologists (PTM) in the definition of authorised officers.
I understand why Food Technologists are important. They have knowledge in food science, analysis and food quality. Their expertise is useful, and nobody should deny that.
But what about the existing EHO and AEHO workforce?
For many years, environmental health professionals have been involved in food safety enforcement under the Food Act 1983 and its regulations. Even the Ministry of Health’s official job descriptions recognise responsibilities involving food premises inspections, sampling, investigations, risk assessments, enforcement, and related activities.
So I think it is reasonable to ask why the proposed changes are not being discussed more openly together with the future staffing needs of EHOs and AEHOs.
Will there be more positions for them? Will additional training be provided for the new enforcement responsibilities? If additional PTM positions are being considered, will there also be a proper assessment of how many EHO and AEHO positions are required?
I am not saying that one profession should have more opportunities than another.
But when we introduce new enforcement powers, we should also explain how the responsibilities and manpower will be shared among the professions involved. Otherwise, how do we know whether the existing workforce will be able to manage the additional work?
AEHOs Are Also The Future EHOs
Another thing I hope the public understands is that EHOs and AEHOs are not two separate professions competing with each other. They are part of the same integrated service scheme.
An AEHO who starts with a diploma can continue studying and obtain a recognised degree. With the required qualifications, performance and other conditions, that officer may be considered for promotion to an EHO position.
But there is one important condition: there must be a vacant EHO position.
This means even if an AEHO has obtained a degree and has years of working experience, promotion is not guaranteed if there are not enough available positions.
This is why EHO staffing should not be discussed separately from AEHO staffing.
If the government decides that more AEHOs are needed to carry out enforcement activities under the amended Food Act, that may be necessary. But at the same time, we must also look at the need for EHO positions, especially for higher-level technical work, supervision, risk assessment and programme management.
Otherwise, we may end up with more officers at the lower grades but limited opportunities for them to progress.
Imagine spending years working in food safety enforcement, continuing your education and gaining experience, but still having limited career opportunities because the positions are not available.
Is that the kind of career pathway we want for our public health workforce?
We cannot keep encouraging AEHOs to improve their qualifications if we are not also planning enough opportunities for them to become EHOs.
This is not only about promotion. It is also about developing experienced officers who can take on greater responsibilities in the future. And with the proposed Food Act amendments, this should be part of the discussion.
We Need More Than Just Stronger Laws
I believe the intention behind the Food (Amendment) Bill 2026 is good. We want safer food, better enforcement and stronger protection for consumers. But a law is only effective when there are enough trained officers to enforce it.
A new enforcement power does not automatically mean there will be enough staff, equipment or training to carry it out. It also does not mean the existing officers can simply continue taking on more duties without proper workforce planning.
This is why I hope the relevant authorities will explain how the amendments will affect the existing EHO and AEHO workforce.
We need to know whether additional positions are being considered, how responsibilities will be divided and whether there is a long-term plan to support the officers involved.
The discussion should not become a fight between EHOs/ AEHOs and Food Technologists. We all have our own responsibilities and should be working together.
But working together should also mean recognising the roles and needs of each profession.
November 28: A Chance For EHOs And AEHOs To Speak Together
On November 28, 2026, the National EHO/AEHO Convention will take place at Institut Latihan FAMA, Port Dickson.
The convention focuses on the Food (Amendment) Bill 2026, and the public announcement encourages EHOs and AEHOs nationwide to come together, wearing black as a sign of solidarity.
I hope this convention will be more than just speeches and group photographs. I hope it will provide an opportunity to discuss what the amendments really mean for the environmental health profession.
Malaysia has seen how Hartal Doktor Kontrak brought attention to the career concerns of contract doctors.
Our situation is different, but environmental health professionals should also have a proper platform to raise concerns about policies and workforce planning that affect their work.
There is no need to fight with other healthcare professions or abandon our responsibilities. We just need to make sure our concerns are heard and properly considered.
Most importantly, I hope both EHOs and AEHOs will see this as a shared issue. Because today’s AEHOs may become tomorrow’s EHOs, provided they meet the requirements and there are opportunities available.
And both groups will continue to play a role in enforcing the Food Act, including whatever new responsibilities may come with the amendments.
The public should also understand that this is not just about officers wanting promotions or more positions. This is about whether Malaysia has enough qualified and experienced people to enforce the very laws we are trying to strengthen.
I encourage EHOs and AEHOs to participate in the convention and contribute to a proper discussion about the Food (Amendment) Bill 2026.
We support stronger food safety laws. We are prepared to carry out our responsibilities. But I hope those making decisions will also consider the future of the officers who must implement them.
Because there is no point making our food safety laws stronger if we do not make sure the people enforcing them are strong enough to carry the responsibility.
CodeBlue is providing the author anonymity because civil servants are prohibited from writing to the press.
- This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of CodeBlue.
