The gathering clouds of suspicion over the mysterious yi di xiang, an additive used by numerous restaurants in the soups they serve, reveals a weakness and ineffectiveness in taking care of our vulnerable food chain.

As more behind-the-scenes truths emerge, we cannot but be alarmed. There is little doubt about the potency of the popular additive - a couple drops can immediately turn a pot of plain water into a taste bud cheating "soup." It can even produce different flavors: chicken, pork, beef you name it. It is easy to see why so many restaurants are reportedly using it.

Given their proven disregard for our concerns, we do not often discuss ethics with profit-minded business people. After all, some will not hesitate to break a law if the authorities look aside.

In the case of this suspect and increasingly feared ingredient, it is not surprising it is so commonly used, as no "competent authorities" have taken a real interest in investigating what it actually is.

On top of that, it is so unbelievably cost-effective. A serving of tasty soup, for instance, may take hours to prepare in the traditional way. The magic ingredient, on the other hand, takes no time in delivering equally, if not more, satisfying flavors. More miraculously, no chicken is needed to make "chicken soup."

The most worrisome part of the story, is not that a certain kind of unknown chemical - which it surely is, judging from what has been uncovered so far - has been added to our soups. It is that we might all be ingesting a harmful substance, or unwitting victims of a fraud in the catering industry.

What really amazes us is the manner such a serious public concern, which may involve an acute and prevailing threat to public health, is being kicked around among the 'competent authorities." The public is not asking for anything unreasonable. They are just wondering what yi di xiang really is, and if it is harmful to health.

An official probe and clarification should be in order when some medical scientists warn of long-term harmful consequences. It is reasonable to assume that this is not beyond the duties of the many quality watchdogs paid to protect our safety. But, it seems that none of them is willing to do it. Or, to put it more precisely and fairly, each of them has found an excuse not to take responsibility for looking into the matter and presenting us with an answer.

Besides the regular reply that this falls into some other institution's jurisdiction, there is the pretext that it is too difficult to conduct a content analysis. And that is a flawless answer, as it can't be refuted. No agency in our government is charged to do that, so nobody is to blame.