Poisoned Ukrainian feed case raises questions over ANSA
The change of leadership at Moldova’s Ministry of Agriculture has become entangled in a corruption investigation involving imported poultry feed. A couple of weeks ago, officers from the National Anticorruption Center detained Agriculture Ministry State Secretary Tatiana Nistorică on suspicion of attempting to trade influence over senior officials at the National Agency for Food Safety (ANSA).
The case concerned a ban on poultry feed imports from Ukraine, imposed after the carcinogenic substance metronidazole was detected in chicken meat in January. The investigation reportedly traced the contamination to feed of Ukrainian origin.
According to the account, around 110,000 chickens had to be slaughtered, leaving farmers with further losses. An unknown number of Moldovan consumers may also have purchased contaminated meat and eggs before the problem was identified.
Questions over senior officials and the import ban
Six months later, the Ukrainian traders who had supplied the poisoned Ukrainian feed allegedly sought to resume their business. They are said to have paid a substantial sum to Tatiana Nistorică, who was expected to share the money with an influential figure at ANSA in return for lifting the restriction.
The alleged arrangement was interrupted when Nistorică was detained alongside a Ukrainian national. Agriculture Minister Ludmila Catlabuga immediately distanced herself from her subordinate, dismissed her and issued a statement saying that corruption would not be tolerated within the ministry.
However, the subsequent removal of Ludmila Catlabuga has fuelled speculation that the investigation may have reached further into the ministry. The account suggests that President Maia Sandu, already facing several corruption controversies, decided to remove the minister either because her response was considered unconvincing or because Nistorică had begun providing investigators with potentially damaging testimony.
Further questions concern ANSA Director-General Radu Musteață, who is alleged to have been the intended final recipient of most of the money. He is expected to deny any involvement, but the account argues that it would have made little sense to hand money to an intermediary without first securing the agreement of the official expected to receive it and act in return.
The investigation has yet to establish whether Radu Musteață knew about the alleged deal involving poisoned Ukrainian feed. Further developments may become clearer if imports from the same Ukrainian suppliers are allowed to resume.
