[Kim Taemin's Food and Drug Story] Issues in Managing Retired Officials at the MFDS

The Only Enforcement Agency in the Food Sector... Repeated Criticism Over Favoritism
Legally No Issues... Must Enhance Expertise to Eliminate Distrust

The sector most severely criticized for preferential treatment of former officials is the legal profession. High-ranking officials who are former Supreme Court justices or prosecutors receive tens of millions of won annually from major law firms after retirement, often referred to as "seal fees" or simply for a few phone calls. If they were receiving fair compensation for their expertise and skills accumulated over many years, no one could criticize them. However, the nature of their work and the resulting income are difficult to justify by common sense, which leads to criticism.

The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), the sole regulatory agency in the food sector responsible for enforcement and licensing, has also been repeatedly criticized for preferential treatment of retired officials. According to Article 3 of the Public Officials Ethics Act, MFDS officials must undergo a review by the Public Officials Ethics Committee before joining companies they previously supervised after retirement. For officials below grade 3, the review determines whether their duties in the last five years before retirement were closely related to the prospective employer’s business. However, if they join related companies or work in a subcontracted capacity, they can circumvent these regulations.

Currently, courts and prosecutors’ offices at all levels record and monitor all communications with outsiders, and the Fair Trade Commission introduced "External Visitor Access and Contact Management Measures and Ethical Guidelines" in 2018 to address preferential treatment of retired officials, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. However, the MFDS lacks even such efforts.

Amid growing distrust of the MFDS following a series of recent food safety incidents, retired officials working for many food companies are often misunderstood as serving only companies illegally manufacturing food rather than ensuring food safety. Whenever the issue of retired MFDS officials has surfaced during national audits, the MFDS has emphasized only the legality of the matter. However, the issue of preferential treatment in the food sector should not be viewed solely from a legal perspective but should focus on the "ethics" embedded in the Public Officials Ethics Act. If a retired official who worked for a long time in the Central Investigation Unit for Food Safety Violations joins a major law firm, anyone can see that they will use relationships with former investigators. Even if legally they spent a certain period working elsewhere before retirement to avoid issues, it is ultimately like covering the sky with one’s palm. For this reason, all communications between retired officials and current officials must be reported and monitored, and severe penalties should be imposed on current officials who violate this.

If the MFDS, the only administrative and investigative agency responsible for the safety of food, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices, fails to properly manage retired officials with exclusive and unparalleled experience, it would be like entrusting the cat with the mouse, making them the greatest threat to safety.

Some retired officials may join affiliated companies of food firms to evade the Public Officials Ethics Committee’s review but actually assist those companies behind the scenes, necessitating stricter management. Especially when working for trade associations closely related to the MFDS, they openly work for relationships rather than expertise, requiring even more careful supervision and management.

It is highly welcome when companies or trade associations hire retired officials for their expertise related to their duties. However, hiring retired officials who clearly lack expertise solely because they have good relationships with current officials, were friendly with certain investigative or licensing department staff, or worked in those departments must be regarded as an illicit solicitation and strictly managed by the MFDS. Only then can the administrative agency be empowered and public trust solidified.

If the MFDS genuinely wants to prevent preferential treatment and enhance the expertise of retired officials, it must establish internal guidelines beyond legal requirements and implement definite disadvantages and disciplinary measures for current officials who closely interact with retired officials. If such a culture is established, distrust of the MFDS by the industry will disappear, and consumers will feel reassured.

/Attorney at the Food Hygiene Law Research Institute

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.