ANNEX 9 (Continue)

INFORMAL FOOD DISTRIBUTION SECTOR IN AFRICA
(Street foods): Importance and challenges
(Paper prepared by Zimbabwe)

1. Introduction

Street-vended foods are defined as those foods prepared on the street and ready to eat, or prepared at home and consumed on the street without further preparation¹. Due to faltering economic development as a result of various factors, street food vending has become increasingly important in the economies of many African countries. The street food vending business is thought to contribute significant income inflows for households involved in selling these foods. Furthermore, street foods are a source of inexpensive, nutritious meals².

The types of street foods sold vary greatly between countries (Table 1). However, most meals consist of the staple food served in various forms and in combination with side dishes such as stews, gravies and spices³. In addition, snacks such as dried meat, fish and cereal based ready to eat foods are also prepared and served. Street food vending is therefore a source of a wide range of foods that may be nutritionally important for various groups of the population.

There is a general perception that street-vended foods are unsafe, mainly because of the environment under which they are prepared and consumed, which exposes the food to numerous potential contaminants. Street food vendors usually take their products to their customers and therefore operate from such places as bus terminals, industrial sites, market places and other street corners where there are ready and numerous clienteles. Unfortunately, these locations usually do not meet all food safety requirements. For example, large amounts of garbage accumulate and provide harbourage for insects and animal pests⁴. The utensils used are also of a nature that may lead to contamination, especially through leaching of toxic heavy metals or simply due to unsanitary exposure to the environment. Some studies, however, have shown that food prepared on the street can also be safe, thereby providing alternative outlets for consumers⁵. The business of street food vending, therefore, needs to be addressed carefully and in an innovative way in order to derive maximum benefits from it.

Table 1: Examples of street-vended foods in some African countries

This paper highlights the current status of the issue of street food vending in Africa, including the socio-economic impact, the safety concerns and the strategies that are needed in order to address this growing phenomenon.

2. Socio-economic status of street food vendors

Street foods play an important socio-economic role in African economies in terms of employment potential. Although street food vendors come from diverse backgrounds, the majority are female heads of households. For example, a 2003 census of street vendors in Harare, Zimbabwe showed that about 8 631 people were involved in the business of street food vending¹⁵, of which 81% were women. Most of these vendors employ other people to assist with the business and thus consider themselves as employers. A similar census conducted in Lusaka, Zambia in 2003 recorded 5 355 food vendors with a further 16 000 people employed by the business owners. It is estimated that the Lusaka food vendors sell about 81 million meals per annum¹⁶, and make profits ranging from US$ 0.20 to US$31 per day. Such income is significant considering that a large proportion of the African population survives on less than US$1 per day. A separate study in Ghana¹⁷ also revealed similar trends in terms of the participation of the different groups of people, with women constituting the majority of vendors. However, men are now playing an increasingly prominent role in this lucrative business.

Street food vendors operate from various places including municipal markets, cooperative markets, industrial sites, vacant bus shelters and other undesignated sites. Food vending takes place alongside other activities such as the sale of haberdashery and clothes, commuter omnibus ranking, push cart operations, cleaning of commuter omnibuses and the hawking of other items including sweets, tobacco and cigarettes, thereby exposing the food to multiple sources of contamination. In addition, uncontrolled street food vending could result in serious environmental hygiene problems and possible deterioration in law and order in the event of unscrupulous practices by the vendors.

3. Consumers of street food

All age groups consume street foods in Africa. However, there may be differences in the type of clientele depending on locality. While it is often thought that children under 5 are fed from home, Mensah et al., (2002) observed that many mothers working at the markets in Accra also bought some food items from vendors to feed their babies. This has serious implications on the health of the children.

The majority of consumers of street foods in West Africa were found to be male¹⁸ (more than 65% of the consumers in Benin, Senegal, Togo and Côte d’Ivoire). While most of the consumers are from the low or middle income group, a significant number are professionals and represent the diverse ethnic groups in the countries concerned. The consumers also include the illiterate and people who have achieved a variety of educational levels.

4. Safety of street foods

The hygienic aspects of street food vending are a major concern for food control officers¹⁹. Vending stands are often crude structures, and running water, washing facilities and toilettes may not be available. Improved safety of street foods can be achieved through awareness raising programmes involving several partners such as local authorities, the food vendors, government departments, consumer organizations, standard setting bodies and some non-governmental organizations. In some instances, the vendors are keen to participate in programmes that provide basic facilities that make it possible for them to work in clean environments. For example, in a survey of street food vendors in Lusaka and Harare, the vendors indicated that they would be willing to pay for basic facilities such as running water and electricity, but would want the local authorities to provide the water points, refuse receptacles and washing facilities²⁰. A viable partnership involving local authorities, vendors and policy makers is therefore encouraged as this should lead to the improvement of business conditions and allow for the improvement of the livelihoods of vendors and their families.

4.1 Microbiological safety

The major concern with street foods is their microbiological safety, mainly because vending is done in places that may have poor sanitation. Street foods in some African countries have been tested for various microorganisms of public health concern, including feacal coliforms, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp and Bacillus cereus. E. coli and S. aureus were recovered in a significant proportion of the food, water, hand and surface swabs tested in Harare. Samples of fufu, kenkey and waakye tested in Accra, Ghana also had positive counts for E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus²¹. Mensah et al. (2002) reported that of 511 street food items examined in Accra, 69.7% contained mesophilic bacteria, 5.5% contained Bacillus cereus, 31.9% contained S. aureus and 33.7% contained Enterobacteriaceae. Shigella sonnei was isolated from macaroni, Salmonella arizonae from meat-based soup and enteroaggregative E. coli from macaroni, tomato stew and rice²². Although the microbiological quality of most of the foods tested in Accra was within the acceptable limits, samples of salads, macaroni, fufu, omo tuo and red pepper had unacceptable levels of contamination²³. However, kenkey had low microbial counts and is considered a low risk food because of the low pH, which protects against pathogenic organisms. In a separate study, it was observed that over 26% of street food samples analyzed in Nigeria contained B. cereus, while 16% contained S. aureus²⁴. These observations indicate that although street foods are a major source of nutritious food, they are also a possible source of food poisoning microorganisms.

4.2 Heavy metals and pesticide residues

Due to the conditions under which street foods are sold, there is concern that food may be contaminated by heavy metals and pesticide residues. These contaminants may come from the utensils, raw materials, or transport methods used and may also occur due to the lack of appropriate storage facilities.

A study carried out in Accra revealed that street food vendors source their pots and other utensils from both formal and informal manufacturers/retailers. Some of the street food samples had higher levels of lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and copper than average food samples²⁵, suggesting possible leaching from the utensils. Further tests showed that lead from the pots obtained from informal manufacturers could leach into the food. These pots are manufactured using scrap metal that could come from diverse sources such as derelict cars, car batteries and industrial machinery, which are obviously not suitable for use with foods. Their continued use must be discouraged.

Interviews with vendors in Harare also showed that some of their utensils come from informal sources. This was attributed to the fact that when police raid these vendors, they usually confiscate their wares, including the pots and utensils. For fear of losing their more expensive pots, the vendors resort to using informally fabricated pots, thereby exposing consumers to the possibility of food contamination by heavy metals. Further work must be done in order to reduce the exposure of consumers to heavy metals and pesticide residues through street-vended food.

4.3 Personal hygiene

Purchasing ready-to-eat foods and ingredients from street/market vendors poses a considerable risk to public health, especially due to the observed poor hygienic practices²⁶. In most cases where studies of street food vending have been done, the vendors do not have adequate washing facilities, and some vendors started their duties without taking a proper bath. Some of the vendors sleep at the vending sites in order to protect their wares. Foods and ingredients are also subjected to repeated contamination from unwashed hands and the materials used for wrapping, such as leaves, old newspapers and reusable polyethylene bags.

However, many vendors are aware of the need to wear clean and appropriate clothes. Some of the female vendors wear headgear and aprons. After a few awareness-raising meetings for vendors at the Soweto market in Lusaka, most of them heeded the need to have clean clothes and utensils. However, the vendors felt let down by the poor drainage facilities and the absence of water points near their work places. Some food handlers at markets in Accra, Harare, Lilongwe and Lusaka washed their hands in the same bucket used for cleaning utensils, which may lead to the contamination of food with faecal matter. An additional concern is that most food vendors operate without health certificates or licenses that indicate that the vendors have gone through a training programme on food handling techniques.

Street food vendors find it cheaper to use bar soap than liquid soap, which may be more effective, to clean their utensils. They also use cold water, resulting in inefficient cleaning. Washed plates are often stored in an unclean corner, plastic bowl or cardboard box, leading to re-contamination of the plates.

4.4 Environmental hygiene

Inadequate refuse disposal facilities lead to the accumulation of refuse at food vending sites. This leads to an increased pest population and will result in an increased risk of food contamination. In many instances, the vending sites are not included within the city or town plans, and therefore amenities such as refuse collection are not available. City authorities are often faced with the dilemma that if they provide services to illegal operations, this will imply recognition of these operations. At the same time, because the vending operations are illegal, vendors do not contribute anything towards the maintenance of infrastructure or provision of public services. This contributes to further deterioration of the hygienic condition of the area where the foods are vended.

Poor sanitary conditions in the area where foods are vended also contribute to poor food storage and transport conditions. Street food vendors in Lusaka, Harare and Johannesburg (Gauteng), obtain their vegetables, maize meal and other condiments from licensed shops, and therefore there is less concern regarding the safety of these raw materials. However, most of the vendors have no fixed stalls where they can store their raw materials on site. They usually store their goods at home overnight and transport them the following day, often improperly covered, to their operating sites. Thus, the food becomes prone to contamination during transportation.

5. Food control systems

Food control refers to the systematic set of activities carried out by food producers, processors, retailers and national or local authorities in an effort to provide consumers protection against food poisoning and unscrupulous food traders. Food control ensures that all foods produced in or imported into the country conform to national food safety requirements. The food control system therefore consists of food legislation, a food inspection department, food analysis facilities (laboratories), and information dissemination and management²⁷.

In many African countries, the informal food distribution sector often escapes formal inspection by regulatory authorities, mainly because most vendors operate without licenses and from un-designated places. Many of the vendors are itinerant, moving from one site to another. In some countries, such as Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe, vendors operating from undesignated places are forcefully removed from the vending sites, mainly because their activities violate existing laws governing the sale of food. However, in many African countries, food control programmes still need to be strengthened.

5.1 Challenges to food control activities in Africa

A number of studies have revealed that food control activities, including control of street-vended foods, in African countries have been hampered by a number of factors, including:

• Inadequate or out of date food legislation,
• Ill-equipped food inspectorates,
• Inadequate laboratory facilities,
• Poor management, and
• Lack of coordination and cooperation among government food control agencies.

Recently, the food control authorities in Zimbabwe noted that their duties were being hampered by fragmentation of food laws and lack of coordination between food control departments. In addition, some of the laws and regulations are outdated and do not effectively address new trends, especially street food vending. Therefore, efforts to create a Food Control Authority that would administer the Zimbabwe Food Control Act are at an advanced stage. Similar fragmentation was observed in South Africa and the creation of a food control agency has been investigated as a way of addressing such fragmentation.

Although the street food vendors in Uganda are recognized as an important part of the food supply system, there is no comprehensive law governing street food vending. A comprehensive Food Safety Bill is currently being considered by parliament. A number of pieces of legislation, however, are available to ensure safety of the consumers, including;

• Public Health Act, CAP 269, Sec 109 - Laws of Uganda, 2000
• Food & Drugs Act, CAP 271 - Laws of Uganda, 2000, and
• By-laws made by local authorities

The Uganda Public Health Act, Section 109, (The Eating Houses Rules) establishes the minimum requirements for and practices in public eating places. It also empowers authorized officer(s) to license eating places and to revoke the license where a violation has taken place. On the other hand, the Food & Drug Act requires that every food vendor be registered and that food sold to the public is fit for human consumption. It also empowers the authorized officer to inspect premises and sample foods for analysis.

In West Africa, the situation regarding regulation and control of street foods is not satisfactory²⁸. In countries such as Benin and Senegal, legislation and various regulations have been adopted to regulate the production and sale of street foods. These regulations establish official requirements for an operator to be licensed, conditions and practices required for the production and sale of street foods, penalties for fraud and other infractions, and institutions and staff in charge of food control. However, quality and safety standards required for street foods have not been specifically defined in these regulations. In Togo, the food regulations and by-laws/ordinances do not include any specific provisions on street foods.

In many African countries, the lack of resources does not allow some institutions to carry out their control, education and enforcement tasks efficiently²⁹. This constraint has been cited in Benin, Burkina Faso and Togo. A similar situation has been reported in Malawi and Mozambique³⁰ In some countries such as Senegal and South Africa (Ethekwini Municipality), achievements in food control activities in the street food sector have been significant. These achievements have been attributed to good organization, availability of well trained staff and consumer awareness.

5.2 Codex Guidelines on Street Food Vending

The Standards Association of Zimbabwe has formulated guidelines for the design of control measures for street-vended foods. The guidelines are based on the Codex Guidelines for the Design of Control Measures for Street-Vended Foods in Africa (CAC/GL-22-Rev.1 (1999)). These guidelines emphasize the need for local authorities to provide structures and hygienic facilities, as well as training for vendors. The Codex guidelines also outline general requirements for legislation, vendor health status, and food preparation, including cooking, handling, serving, transportation and storage. African countries were consulted in the development of the Codex guidelines; however, there are two main problems in implementing them. First, African countries do not have adequate resources to provide a suitable infrastructure for the vendors. Second, where facilities are provided, vendors shun the premises, either because they are far away from their clientele or are conceived to be unaffordable.

5.3 Initiatives to improve the safety of street foods in Africa

Because street food vending is a relatively recent phenomenon, many African countries have realized that their existing food legislation does not adequately address the new challenges brought about by street food vending. Some food control authorities have tried to deal with this issue by forcefully removing vendors from the streets, which has been met with a lot of resistance. As many African economies falter against the background of a growing population and an increasing HIV/AIDS pandemic, more and more people find their way into street food vending. A number of initiatives aimed at developing innovative ways of improving the safety of street foods and improving the livelihood of vendors in African countries have been commissioned, including the following:

• FAO’s Food and Nutrition Division and the WHO Regional Office for Africa support numerous activities to improve the safety and quality of street food, including:

  -   Development of information materials and training of public health and food safety officials.

  -   Training to help street food vendors comply with regulations and implement safer food handling practices.

  -   Improvements to equipment and materials used by vendors to prepare, store or serve street food.

  -   Education campaigns to increase consumer awareness about nutrition and safety of street foods.

  -   Updating codes of hygienic practice and other food safety recommendations.

  -   Supporting the development of street food vendors associations to: i) improve access to credit; and ii) enable vendors to influence decision-making processes that affect their work and take appropriate corrective measures.

• FAO, through its Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP), supports a number of initiatives to improve the safety of street foods in Africa, including;

  -   Workshops at national and regional level for exchanging information and experiences on street foods.

  -   Multidisciplinary studies and research activities in different countries in order to accomplish the following:

  • determine the characteristics and implications of the street food sector;
  • evaluate the problems in the sector;
  • identify practices, technologies and actions which could ensure food safety and quality and improve the situation of the sector; and
  • elaborate proper regulations.

  -   Multi-sectoral field projects in some countries, including:

  • diagnosis studies (socio-economic, judicial, institutional and technical aspects),

  • pilot interventions (training operators, educating consumers, improving food legislation and control systems, developing technologies, improving infrastructures).

• WHO/AFRO has also initiated a number of similar programmes to improve the safety of street-vended foods.

• The United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) funded Crop Post Harvest Programme (CPHP) implements projects in various countries to improve the safety of street- vended foods.

• Other bi-lateral projects.

• Consumers International (CI) conducted a preliminary survey of street food vendors in 14 African countries, namely: Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Seychelles, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe in order to:

  -   develop a database of legal provisions, government and NGO programmes for street foods and

  -   draft recommendations and guidelines to improve the sector.

Building on the on-going efforts to address the safety of street-vended foods, FAO and CI jointly organized a sub-regional workshop in Lilongwe, Malawi from 15 to 17 June 2005, with the theme of: ‘Street-vended Foods in Eastern and Southern Africa:Balancing Safety and Livelihood.’ Thirty-three participants from seven eastern and southern African countries, namely Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe attended the workshop, along with representatives of FAO and CI. This effort to ensure safe food while also improving the livelihoods of vendors brought together a variety of stakeholders to formulate a consensual plan of action to promote safer street foods and secure the livelihood of street food vendors in Eastern and Southern Africa. The presentations made at the workshop allowed the participants to exchange experiences from the region and also learn from experiences in West Africa and Asia. The workshop resulted in participants pledging to do the following activities as follow-up:

1. In countries that have not already done so, the participants will initiate surveys to determine the extent of street food vending with special emphasis on the impact of street food vending on the social, economic and health sectors of the country.

2. The participants will lead in convening stakeholders’ meetings to highlight the importance and contribution of street food vending to the economies of the different countries and to emphasize the need to balance food safety and livelihood as a poverty alleviation strategy.

3. The participants will help in creating a network of relevant stakeholders in each country, which will include the FAO and CI.

A great deal of work has been undertaken in the past decade to improve the situation of the street food vendor and those who consume their products. However, in a number of countries, the efforts have not been converted to tangible actions or improvements in street food safety. Therefore, it is logical that the vendors be empowered to spearhead these efforts to achieve sustainable improvement of the sector. It is with this in mind that the following recommendations are proposed, some of which have been cited in the various referenced initiatives, for a coordinated approach to improve the safety of street foods and improve the livelihoods of vendors.

6. Recommendations

1. The various stakeholders (national government, local government, industry, scientists, consumers and vendors) related to street food vending must work together in a coordinated manner to avoid developing conflicting legislation and regulations.

2. Local authorities should provide the informal vendors with appropriate facilities where they can carry out their activities, including well-designed shelters, ample supply of potable water and sanitary facilities (toilets, washing facilities). All this should be done in consultation with the vendors in order to develop user-friendly sites.

3. Food laws should be adapted to changing circumstances but should retain the ability to ensure the safety of the food. Member countries should adopt the Codex Guidelines for Street Food Vending into their food laws or national standards.

4. Food vendors and health inspectors should understand the provisions of the laws governing street foods, and these laws should be written in all national languages.

5. There should be minimum interference with the duties of health inspectors by other stakeholders at the vending sites who may have conflicting interests to that of the inspector.

6. Health inspectors must be continuously trained to ensure uniform application of legal procedures and more thorough assessment during inspections.

7. Health inspectors should be adequately equipped with the tools necessary for on site tests and measurements.

8. The street food vendors should be trained in all issues pertaining to their business such as hygiene, food laws and financial matters. Awareness campaigns should be carried out through the radio, television, posters and billboards.

9. The vendors should form associations that facilitate communication with other groups such as consumers and health authorities.

10. Consumers should be informed of the requirements for healthy and safe food, especially street-vended foods.

11. Local authorities should establish reasonable and affordable licensing fees so that vendors will be more likely to register.

12. The vendors should be assisted to grow their operation into viable businesses, which can employ a number of people and can generate real income.

Further work must be carried out in other African countries under a common action plan. This also should be backed by concrete policy plans at the national government level.

7. Conclusion

Street-vended foods have become increasingly important in most African countries. However, the vendors continue to operate in less than satisfactory environments. There is need for concerted efforts to improve the safety of street-vended foods and the livelihood of street food vendors in Africa. The food handlers need more information on food safety, which can be disseminated through various media outlets such radios, television, posters and billboards. The street food vendors themselves concede that there is need to re-emphasize the important points of the hygienic handling of food through on-site training and regular visits from the health inspectors. Food vendors should be encouraged to operate from designated places and local authorities should provide the necessary infrastructure in order to improve the safety of street-vended foods.

Bibliography

1. Bryan, F.L., Jermini, M., Schmitt, R., Chilufya, E.N., Mwanza, M., Matoba, A., Mfume, E. & Chibiya, H. 1997. Hazards associated with holding and reheating foods at vending sites in a small town in Zambia. Journal of Food Protection 60: p391–398.

2. Ehiri, J.E., Azubuike M.C., Ubbaonu, C.N., Anyanwu, E.C., Ibe, K.M. & Ogbonna, M.O. 2001. Critical control points of complementary food preparation and handling in Eastern Nigeria. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 79(5): p423–435.

3. FAO. 2001. To bring about proper coordination in the street food sector and consumer advocacy programmes: A strategy document. TCP/SAF/8924 (A)

4. FAO/WHO. 1999. Design of Control Measures for Street-Vended Foods in Africa. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC/GL-22-Rev.1)

5. FAO/WHO. 2003 Assuring Food Safety and Quality: Guidelines for Strengthening National Food Control Systems.Food and Nutrition Paper No. 76.

6. Franco, A. Street food situation in Mozambique. Paper presented at an FAO/Consumers International workshop on street-vended foods in Eastern and Southern Africa: Balancing safety and livelihood, 15 – 17 June 2005, Lilongwe, Malawi.

7. Graffham, A., Zulu, R., & Chibanda, D. 2005. Improving the safety of street vended foods in Southern Africa. Final Report, CPHP project R8272.

8. Kubheka, L.C., Mosupye, F.M. & von Holy, A. 2001. Microbiological survey of street-vended salad and gravy in Johannesburg city, South Africa. Food Control 12 (2): p127–131.

9. Martins, J.H. & Anelich, L.E. (2000). Improving street foods in South Africa. Funded by the FAO, Rome, TCP/SAF/8924(A)

10. Masuku, H. 2005. Situation of street foods in Malawi. Paper presented at an FAO/Consumers International workshop on street-vended foods in Eastern and Southern Africa: Balancing safety and livelihood, 15–17 June 2005, Lilongwe, Malawi.

11. Mensah, P. Armar-Klemesu, M. Hammond, A.S., Haruna, A. & Nyarko, R. 2001. Bacterial contaminants in lettuce, tomatoes, beef and goat meat from Accra Metropolis. Ghana Medical Journal 35(4): p162–167.

12. Mensah, P., Owusu-Darko, K., Yeboah-Manu, D., Ablordey, A., Nkrumah, F.K., & Kamiya, H. 1999. The role of street food vendors in the transmission of enteric pathogens in Accra. Ghana Medical Journal 33(1): p19–29.

13. Mensah, P., Yeboah-Manu, D., Owusu-Darko, K. & Ablordey, A. 2002. Street foods in Accra, Ghana: how safe are they? Bulletin of the World Health Organization 80(7): p546–554.

14. Mosupye, F.M. & von Holy, A. 1999. Microbiological quality and safety of ready-to-eat street- vended foods in Johannesburg, South Africa. Journal of Food Protection 62: 1278–1284.

15. Mwangi, D.W. 2005.Situation of street foods in Kenya. Paper presented at an FAO/Consumers International workshop on street-vended foods in Eastern and Southern Africa: Balancing safety and livelihood, 15–17 June 2005, Lilongwe, Malawi.

16. Nago, C. Experiences on street foods in West Africa. Paper presented at an FAO/Consumers International workshop on street-vended foods in Eastern and Southern Africa: Balancing safety and livelihood, 15–17 June 2005, Lilongwe, Malawi.

17. Tomlins, K. & Johnson, P.N. 2004. Developing food safety strategies and procedures through reduction of food hazards in street-vended foods to improve food security for consumers, street food vendors and input suppliers. Crop Post Harvest Programme (CPHP) Project R8270. Funded by the DFID.

18. Umoh, V.J. & Odoba, M.B. 1999. Safety and quality evaluation of street foods sold in Zaria, Nigeria. Food Control 10: p9–14.

Acknowledgements: The contributions of the following people are acknowledged in drafting this document: Dr T.H. Gadaga (University of Zimbabwe), Mrs J. Tagwirei (Food and Nutrition Council), Mrs P. Zindi (Government Analysts Laboratory), Mr F. Chinyavanhu (Government Analysts Laboratory), Mr D. Chibanda (City of Harare, City Health Department).

¹ Martins and Anelich, 2000.

² Mosupye and von Holy, 1999.

³ Tomlins et al., 2004.

⁴ Bryan et al., 1997.

⁵ Mosupye and von Holy, 1999.

⁶ Tomlins et al, 2004

⁷ Ehiri et al., 2001.

⁸ Mensah et al., 2002

⁹ Graffham et al., 2005

¹⁰ Graffham et al., 2005

¹¹ Kubheka et al., 2001

¹² Mwangi, 2005

¹³ Masuku, 2005

¹⁴ Nago, 2005

¹⁵ Graffham et al., 2005

¹⁶ Graffham et al., 2005

¹⁷ Tomlins et al., 2004.

¹⁸ Nago, 2005.

¹⁹ Mensah et al. 2002.

²⁰ Graffham et al., 2005.

²¹ Tomlins et al., 2004.

²² Mensah et al., 2001.

²³ Mensah et al., 2002.

²⁴ Umoh and Odoba, 1999.

²⁵ Tomlins et al., 2004.

²⁶ Ehiri et al., 2001.

²⁷ FAO/WHO, 2003.

²⁸ Nago, 2005.

²⁹ Nago, 2005.

³⁰ Franco, 2005.

Assuring food safety and quality in small and medium size food enterprises
(Paper prepared by Botswana)

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Small and Medium Size Enterprises

There is no single, clear and widely accepted definition of Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs); rather, definitions vary from country to country. These variations depend largely on the size of the economy, types and structure of businesses, and the levels of development. Indicators such as annual turnover (sales) and number of workers are generally used to categorize SMEs. The SMEs nomenclature is used to mean micro, small and medium enterprises and is sometimes referred to as Small and or Less Developed Businesses ( SLDBs)¹ (FAO/WHO, 2005).

Within the food business sector in most countries, SMEs account for the highest proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and are responsible for producing a large share of the food consumed in a country. SMEs provide a significant proportion of the total employment in the food sector and make a vital contribution to the economic well being of the community at the local level (FAO/WHO, 2005).

SMEs promote industrial and economic development through the utilization of local raw materials/resources and the production of intermediate goods, through appropriate technologies and traditional practices. SMEs contribute to the economies of many countries worldwide and provide opportunities for job creation and rural development. In countries with food insecure populations, SMEs can assist in maximizing the use of local produce and providing an important source of food.

The SME sector is extremely diversified. At one end of the spectrum is the micro-enterprise sector, often referred to as the informal sector, which is made up of entities employing one or two persons, including the owner (includes the street food sector). Small enterprises have a somewhat broader scope and many operate on a more structured basis. Some have established links with medium and large firms as their market for goods and services. Medium-size firms tend to have developed a more outward looking approach to market their products or services, often looking beyond their country’s borders to seek new markets. They also may establish linkages with larger firms to create opportunities. In general however, SMEs cater for the local markets and are normally not involved in international trade.

1.2 Food Safety Considerations

Food trade globalization, urbanization, lifestyle changes, international travel and advances in food technology have made the food production and distribution chain more complex, providing greater opportunities for food contamination from more diverse sources. Accordingly, food safety is an increasingly important public health issue with governments all over the world intensifying their efforts in this area. These efforts are in response to an increasing number of food safety problems and rising consumer concerns (WHO, 2001). Earlier approaches to ensuring food safety were based only on end product testing, which is no longer adequate to ensure food safety. This is now being replaced by a food safety management system approach that focuses on food hazard prevention throughout the food chain. This approach includes the application of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)², Good Hygienic Practices (GHP)³ and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)⁴ systems, food safety management systems and traceability/recall systems. GAPs, GHPs and GMPs are considered as prerequisite systems or programmes (PRPs) for implementation of HACCP systems.

In many countries, SMEs represent a large proportion of food enterprises and are responsible for a large share of the food consumed in a country. Accordingly, they are often an important source of food- borne illness transmission (Walker et al, 2003). Furthermore, the informal sector represents a large number of food businesses, but in many countries they operate in poor hygienic conditions and lack adequate resources and technical expertise on how to better their situation. In some cases, this has led to the creation of special government policies/programmes to provide support to improving the safety of foods produced by SMEs.

Recognizing the aforesaid importance of SMEs and the challenges in food hygiene faced by this sector, the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene deliberated on the improvement of food hygiene for SMEs in a number of sessions. The 35^th Session noted the positive experiences that had been acquired in some countries in implementing GHP and HACCP, based on industry developed sector-specific hygiene codes, the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene and Codex Guidelines for the Application of HACCP; and recommended similar approaches for SMEs (CCFH, 2003).

2. ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF SMALL AND MEDIUM FOOD ENTERPRISES

It is generally acknowledged that food SMEs have a vast array of important potential economic and social characteristics linked to them (Ntsika, 2000; SACOB, 1999; UN-ECE, 1994); these include:

• Generation of employment opportunities;
• Can act as a seed-bed for the development of entrepreneurial skills and innovation;
• Increase the competitiveness of the marketplace and curb the monopolistic positions of large enterprises;
• Contribution to national Gross Domestic Product (GDP);
• More equal economic opportunities in the economy;
• More flexible and adaptable to changing market demand and supply situations;
• Optimal utilization of local raw materials;
• Promotion of traditional food production;
• Supply of nutritious and inexpensive foods;
• Provides social support for the underprivileged (informal sector);
• Important role in sustainable food security;
• Promotion of economic development in rural centres, limiting rural/urban migration;
• Promotion of local agricultural food production, distribution and trade;
• Act as sub-contractors to larger corporations in the economy;
• Activities result in a multiplier effect in the socio-economic activities in the economy; and
• Can serve as the point of entry to big business in the economy: many multi-national organizations grew from SMEs.

Many countries have acknowledged that SMEs are crucial for industrial restructuring, social and economic development and have formulated national SME policies and programmes to stimulate their growth and competitiveness.

For example, the implementation of the Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) Policy (SMMEs, 1999) and legislation (Small Business Act, 2004) in Botswana has established and mandated a number of agencies to financially and technically assist SMEs. In South Africa, the implementation of the National Small Business Strategy (White Paper; 1995), the National Small Business Act (1996), and other policies have provided a favourable environment for the development and expansion of SMEs, particularly among disadvantaged groups. Similarly, the implementation of a SMEs policy in Tanzania (SME, 2002) provided for the establishment and strengthening of a number of institutions to assist SMEs, with special emphasis on businesses in the food sector operated by women. Zimbabwe has a Ministry of Small to Medium Enterprises that is specifically intended to promote and assist SMEs. Similar developments have taken place in many other countries in the region and elsewhere.

As previously discussed, the term “SMEs” is used to mean micro, small and medium enterprises. Different countries use various measures of size depending on their level of development. The commonly used indicators are total number of employees, total investment and sales turnover; for instance:

1. In Botswana SMEs are classified as (SMMEs, 1999):

   1. Micro-enterprises: Less than 6 workers including the owner;
   2. Small enterprises: Less than 25 employees and an annual turnover of between Pula 60 000 and 1.5 million (1US$= approximately 5 Pula);

   3. Medium enterprises: Less than 100 employees and an annual turnover of between 1.5 million and 5 million Pula.

2. Tanzania defines SMEs as follows (SME, 2002):

   1. Micro enterprise: 1–4 workers and capital investment of up to 5 million Tanzania shillings (Tshs.) (1US$= approximately 1 050 Tanzania shillings);
   2. Small enterprise: 5–49 workers and capital investment from 5 million to 200 million TShs;
   3. Medium enterprise: 50–99 workers and capital investment from 200 million to 800 million;

   4. In the event of an enterprise falling under more than one category, then the level of investment is the deciding factor.

3. The South African National Small Business Act defines five categories of SMEs (Table 1) i.e.:

   1. Survivalist enterprise: The income generated is less than the minimum income standard (below the poverty line). This category is considered pre-entrepreneurial, and includes hawkers, vendors and subsistence farmers. (In practice, survivalist enterprises are often categorized as part of the micro-enterprise sector.)
   2. Micro enterprise: The turnover is less than the VAT registration limit (that is, R150 000 per year). These enterprises usually lack formality in terms of registration. They include, for example, spaza shops, minibus taxis and household industries. They employ no more than five people.
   3. Very small enterprise: These are enterprises employing fewer than 10 paid employees, except mining, electricity, manufacturing and construction sectors, in which the figure is 20 employees. These enterprises operate in the formal market and have access to technology.
   4. Small enterprise: The upper limit is 50 employees. Small enterprises are generally more established than very small enterprises and exhibit more complex business practices.
   5. Medium enterprise: The maximum number of employees is 100, or 200 for the mining, electricity, manufacturing and construction sectors. These enterprises are often characterized by the decentralization of power to an additional management layer.

Table 1: Definition of SMEs in South Africa as given in the National Small Business Act.(IUS$ = 7 Rand)

The street food sector is very much a part of the informal sector of SMEs. It is growing rapidly all over the world, providing employment to millions. It can also provide fresh, low cost, nutritious and tasty foods. Street foods also provide a variety of traditional foods. Apart from providing a social support system for the under-privileged, street foods have a major impact on local agricultural food production, distribution and trade. The importance and challenges assuring food safety and quality in the street food sector are discussed in detail in CAF 05/4.

3. APPLICATION OF APPROPRIATE QUALITY ASSURANCE SCHEMES IN FOOD SMEs

There are two distinct but inter-related aspects of food quality assurance schemes that are of concern to the food producer/processor. The first approaches quality in terms of conformity to certain market requirements, such as perceptible superiority of desirable attributes or characteristics such as size, colour or organoleptic properties. The second approaches quality as a being synonymous to food safety, which requires that the food is free from unacceptable levels of physical, chemical and microbiological hazards. In many countries, the government focuses more of its resources on the safety aspects of food quality in the interests of consumer protection, trade facilitation and preservation of the national reputation as a supplier of safe foods. This assumes that the food producer ensures adequate controls for the quality attributes of the food.

In general, SMEs may lack adequate skilled personnel and knowledge of methods of improving food safety. Improper food handling and storage practices, poor hygiene, limited access to a safe potable water supply, poor quality of raw materials, unsuitable production environments and problems of garbage disposal and pests are some of the many public health concerns facing food producing SMEs.

3.1 Traditional quality control

The traditional quality control programmes in food were based on establishing effective hygiene controls. Confirmation of food safety and identification of potential problems were usually obtained by end-product testing. Very often this has been the only quality and safety assurance system applied. Problems related to this procedure include (Huss et al, 2004).:

• High cost implications of well equipped laboratories and well trained personnel. The running costs of such laboratories are also high, as well as the cost of products “lost” in destructive testing;
• Retrospective results (it may take several days before results from end-product testing are available); all production cost and expenses have already been incurred if any hazards are identified in the end-product testing.
• The chances of finding a hazard will be variable, but most often very low. Nevertheless, the hard work of sampling and testing will give a sensation of “being in control” and create a strong, but false sense of security.
• There is no test that will always give an absolutely accurate result with no false positives and no false negatives.

Food safety management systems have evolved from these traditional methods with a major shift towards preventive control systems where the main responsibility for food quality and safety lies with the food businesses. Apart from ensuring compliance with national food legislation, the role of governments should be to assist SMEs in implementing food safety management systems, particularly GHPs. Government should also provide a supporting role in terms of information dissemination and training so that the SMEs can take full responsibility in the safety of their food products. Accordingly, effective partnerships between government and food SMEs through trade and industry associations are especially important in this regard (FAO/WHO, 2005).

3.2 Modern approaches to food safety and quality systems

The best known systems for ensuring food safety are GAP/GHP/GMP and HACCP systems. The basic principles of these systems have also been adopted in other quality management systems addressing food safety.

3.2.1 GAP/GHP/GMP

GAP, GHP and GMP are measures that are required to produce safe food. These requirements are prerequisites to HACCP and are essential in all food businesses.

GAPs are basic food safety principles associated with minimizing biological, chemical and physical hazards at primary production stages. GHPs mandate that all persons working in direct contact with food, surfaces that food might contact and food packaging materials conform to sanitation and hygienic practices to the extent necessary to protect against contamination of food from direct or indirect sources.

Food legislation in many countries requires that a food business operator be responsible for the hygiene conditions in his food business. One of the key elements of GHPs is that food businesses assess their own standards and make decisions regarding the practices and procedures which ensure good food hygiene practices. Industry guides of good hygiene can be produced through the cooperation of the food industry and the Government, based on the Codex Recommended International Code of Practice for General Principles of Food Hygiene (CAC, 2003). Formulation of industry guides has the potential to incorporate the best of self and government regulation and should operate to the mutual benefit of both government and the industry.

For an industrial guide of good hygiene to be officially recognized, the industry may be expected to demonstrate that the guide (Holt and Benson, 2000):

• provides an appropriate definition of the sector to which it applies;
• provides guidance on compliance with all parts of the regulations relevant to the sector;
• has a justifiable technical basis;
• distinguishes clearly between guidance on compliance with legal food safety requirements and guidance related to good manufacturing practice or quality requirements;
• has been drawn up by a representative section of the industry sector affected, including SME representatives, in consultation with enforcement and consumer bodies; and
• has followed the format advised by the government.

3.2.2 HACCP

The Codex Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system is recognized worldwide as the foremost means of assuring food safety throughout the food chain, from primary production to final consumption, particularly when used in combination with the pre-requisite programmes (CAC, 2003).

HACCP is a systematic approach that identifies, evaluates, and controls hazards that are significant for food safety (CAC, 2003). HACCP ensures food safety through an approach that builds upon foundations provided by the pre-requisite programmes of GAP/GHP/GMP. It identifies the points in the food production process that require constant control and monitoring to make sure the process stays within identified limits. The approach set out by Codex is applicable throughout the food chain.

Codex-based HACCP has become a requirement for international food trade; however, it is not a panacea for all food safety problems. It must be integrated with effective pre-requisite programmes. The combination of GAP/GHP/GMP and HACCP is particularly beneficial in that the effective application of GAP/GHP/GMP allows the HACCP system to focus on the true critical determinants of food safety. Food business (including SMEs) can demonstrate a systems-based approach to assuring food safety and quality by implementing a HACCP based approach.

HACCP based systems: The Codex General Guidelines for HACCP allow flexibility in interpreting its methodology, provided they are underpinned by all the 7 HACCP principles. Alternative methods, often referred to as HACCP Based Approaches (OMAF, 2004) may be the most useful way to facilitate HACCP implementation in SMEs. If national governments decide to develop HACCP based approaches, it is important that they first pilot such programmes before full implementation.

Generic HACCP based plans: Generic HACCP based plans have been generated by some governments and other stakeholders as a means of helping SMEs to implement HACCP. This approach aims to produce a pre-developed general HACCP plan that will be further tailored and adapted by the individual food business (WHO, 1999). Because these HACCP-based systems do not look like traditionally developed HACCP systems, it is essential that governments are involved in the development of such programmes. This is particularly important where HACCP is mandatory because enforcement officers may not recognize the system as compliant with the legislation.

Due to the many barriers facing SMEs in fully implementing the Codex HACCP system (CCFH, 2003; FAO/WHO, 2005; Jirathana, 1998; Taylor, 2001; Taylor and Kane 2004), many other approaches have also been successfully implemented. In developing other approaches, it is important that public health is not compromised, that there is sufficient ownership and dialogue with stakeholders and that the approach is appropriate to the national food businesses that will be applying the approach.

3.2.3 ISO Quality Management Standards

The best known International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for quality assurance is ISO 9000. The ISO 9001:2000 is an ISO 9000 standard whose requirements can be certified by an external agency and replaces the old ISO 9001, 9002 and 9003 standards with one standard (Huss et al, 2004).

Compliance with ISO 9001:2000 provides assurance to a customer that the company has developed procedures (and adheres to them) for all aspects of the company's business. It can assure quality of products but does not necessarily provide for food safety, except when the system is combined with food safety management systems such as GHP and HACCP. To address this shortfall, ISO is now finalizing ISO standard 22000:2005-Food Safety management systems - Requirements throughout the food chain, which combines Codex HACCP principles with pre-requisite programmes.Another document, ISO 22004, is also under preparation to provide guidance on the application of ISO 22000, including guidance for SMEs and developing countries (ISO, 2005). These new ISO standards are intended to contribute to a better understanding of Codex HACCP and not to add to the list of barriers or confusion for SMEs on GHP/HACCP implementation.

4. CONTROLLING OF FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY IN SMEs

Food safety management systems based on the principles of GHP/HACCP have been recognized worldwide as essential management tools to enhance food safety and prevent cases of food-borne diseases. GHP/HACCP principles are now the requirements for major food export markets and trans-national supermarkets. However, many SMEs worldwide are faced with a low level of GHP/HACCP uptake due to a myriad of barriers. Promotion of food safety management systems in SMEs therefore requires a logical approach to address barriers and to explain to SMEs, the government and consumers the clear benefits of these systems. Such initiatives depend very much on cultural, economic, organizational and geographical factors, which vary for every country.

4.1 Benefits of GHP/HACCP

There are clear benefits of implementing GHP/HACCP for government, food enterprises and consumers alike. The following are some of the projected benefits that should encourage businesses and governments to implement GHP/HACCP (Jirathana, 1998; OMAF, 2004; Taylor 2000 & WHO, 1999).

Benefits to consumers:

• Reduced risk of food-borne diseases
• Increased food safety awareness
• Increased confidence in the food supply
• Improved quality of life (health and socio-economic)

Benefits to food enterprises

• Increased consumer and government confidence
• Higher assurance of safe food
• Reduced legal and insurance costs
• Increased market access
• Reduction in production costs (reduced recall and wastage of food)
• Improved product consistency
• Improved staff and management commitment to food safety
• Decreased business risk

Benefits to governments

• Improved public health
• Improved food security
• More efficient and targeted food control
• Reduced public health costs
• Trade facilitation
• Increased confidence of the community in the food supply

Changing to preventive, risk based systems based on GHP and HACCP, with a shift in responsibilities for food businesses and government agencies has not come without some difficulties. Anticipating and mitigating these difficulties will be critical in building a successful science based system. These difficulties range in chronology from prior to GHP/HACCP implementation, during the process of implementation and after the HACCP systems have been implemented. Barriers to HACCP implementation in SMEs are well documented (Jirathana, P, 1998; OMAF, 2004; Taylor E, 2000; WHO, 1999; CCFH, 2003) they include:

Internal obstacles within SMEs:

1. Inadequate basic food hygiene;
2. Lack of expertise and information;
3. Human resources constraints;
4. Inadequate infrastructure and facilities; and
5. Perceived and real financial constraints.

External obstacles

1. Insufficient government infrastructure and commitment;
2. Absence of legal requirement (for GHPs or HACCP);
3. Lack of business awareness and positive attitude of industry and trade associations;
4. Lack of customer awareness of or demand for GHPs/ HACCP;
5. Lack of effective education and training programmes;
6. No expertise, information and technical support made available to SMEs; and
7. Inadequate communications.

4.3 Implementation of food quality/safety management systems

Government commitment and support for and partnership with the industry and trade associations are probably the most important factors in food quality management systems development, as demonstrated by a number of countries that have successfully implemented GHP/HACCP (OMAF, 2004). The food industry has the responsibility to put in place systems to ensure the production of high quality, safe food. However once the systems are in place, the government task is to audit the systems for compliance (FAO/WHO, 2005).

The following elements are considered important for comprehensive implementation of food safety management systems:

1. National Food Safety Policy;
2. Food safety/quality management system strategy (GHP/HACCP);
3. Activities to facilitate implementation of food quality management system strategy in SMEs.

4.3.1 National Food Safety Policy

Governments are charged with the protection of public health and also with driving economic development. Improvements in food safety can have a positive effect on both of these issues. Implementation requires participation from several relevant government departments and other key stakeholders. Therefore, it is important that a government led national policy on food safety is adopted. It is necessary that any activity regarding food quality management systems is taken as part of this coherent inter-departmental and multi-disciplinary approach with full stakeholder involvement.

4.3.2 Strategies for implementation of food safety and quality management systems in SMEs

Given the obstacles facing the implementation of GHP/HACCP in SMEs, it is evident that many activities will need to be implemented on many different fronts. For these activities to deliver the desired goals of the food safety policy, it is necessary to organize them in the most efficient and effective manner, which is best achieved by developing a coordinated strategy. The key to facilitating GHP/HACCP implementation in SMEs is the development of a strategy which enables the national policy on food safety to be realized.

The following is a logical sequence of steps to be followed to successfully develop such a strategy (FAO/WHO, 2005):

1. Gather information;
2. Define the obstacles and identify their causes;
3. Develop and select possible solutions;
4. Draft strategy and consult widely;
5. Conduct an assessment of the potential impact of the strategy;
6. Modify and publish the strategy; and
7. Implement the strategy (including monitoring of results and feedback).

4.3.3 Activities to facilitate food safety and quality management system implementation in SMEs

Once the strategy is in place a number of support mechanisms will have to be developed in preparation for its implementation. They include, but are not limited to the following (FAO/WHO, 2005):

• Financial support (e.g. for training, development of plans etc);
• Guidance and explanatory information (e.g. manuals, booklets, leaflets and videos);
• Implementation training programmes and manuals;
• Generic food quality management system models;
• Pilot scale projects (for demonstration to SMEs);
• Sample Hazard Analyses;
• Recognition auditor training;
• Voluntary schemes;
• Mandatory provisions and enforcement (laws and regulations); and
• Provision for technical expertise (e.g. consultants).

The selection of the various elements of a national food safety management system to implement needs to be made at a national level to match national needs.

4.4 Case studies on approaches to food safety management systems

Globally, the approaches taken with respect to HACCP vary considerably. Some countries have integrated the requirement for HACCP or HACCP based systems into their food laws. Other countries have maintained the implementation of HACCP as voluntary, while still other countries have utilized a staged approach to HACCP, starting with voluntary GHP/HACCP and subsequently moving to mandatory HACCP (FAO/WHO,2005; OMAF, 2004).In all cases, the important role of GAPs, GHPs and GMPs is stressed.

The UK is an example of a country where a HACCP based system, at minimum, is required and exists as part of the country's food laws. The UK, along with other members of the EU, is now required to comply with regulation DIR 93/43/EEC (2003) throughout all aspects of the food continuum except primary production. This directive requires that food business operators ensure that adequate safety procedures are implemented, maintained and reviewed on the basis of HACCP.

Many member states in the EU used a staged approach to implementing HACCP which allowed considerable time for the transition from a prescriptive, inspection-based food safety system to an outcome-based HACCP system. During this transition phase, both systems were supported but the focus was on the transition to the newer system.

In the U.S., HACCP is now mandatory only in meat, poultry, and seafood plants. Countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand began with a system of voluntary HACCP and are moving to mandatory HACCP. The South African regulations relating to HACCP application in food enterprises (RSA/HACCP, 2003) provide an enabling framework for mandatory implementation of HACCP, including in street food vending.

SMEs in all these countries have not incorporated HACCP systems to the same degree as the larger facilities, due to the many obstacles faced. However, it is agreed that food safety and quality is important and that there is a need to improve levels of hygiene and a systems approach to food production - but that added support is required to do so.

The pressure from the food importing countries is a major factor for HACCP implementation in many other countries; otherwise for local markets, basic hygiene regulations are enforced to ensure food safety. Despite government support, there are many obstacles for SMEs to implement GAPs/GHPs/GMPs, which are the basic regulations that need to be implemented prior to a HACCP system.

Both approaches, mandatory and voluntary, present benefits and challenges. One of the benefits of mandatory food quality management systems is that it brings all food plants to an equivalent level with respect to food safety. One of the challenges with a mandatory system is encouraging industry ownership. As businesses tend to view the process as another government requirement, they may be more inclined to expect the regulatory authority to solve their problems when it comes to implementing and maintaining food quality management systems. One of the benefits of voluntary system is that enterprises are able to work through the development and implementation processes at their own pace. Because plants are choosing to implement the systems, they are more likely to want to do a good job of it. One of the disadvantages associated with voluntary food safety management systems is that the potential exists for high-risk facilities to operate without utilizing the best known systems for ensuring food safety.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions:

• Poor infrastructures and a lack of adequate facilities can seriously handicap food safety/quality management system application in SME. This is a critical area for government intervention.

• Consumer demand can be an important driving force for encouraging businesses to implement effective food quality management systems. Government and international organizations have an important role in educating consumers in this regard.

• SMEs often have inadequate manpower and expertise due to inadequate training of employees and a lack of management commitment and understanding of food safety and quality management systems. The lack of expertise is perpetuated by the absence of food safety in the curricula of professional schools.

• SMEs often lack the technical expertise required to implement food safety and quality management systems and therefore may need external support. The capacity of government and industry/trade associations to provide adequate technical support is a critical factor in the successful implementation of food quality management systems by SMEs.

• GHP and HACCP are considered as the benchmark systems to ensure food safety throughout the food chain. However there are many barriers facing SMEs in implementing HACCP; thus it may be premature for governments to enforce HACCP at this juncture. GHP application is a foundation for HACCP and for ensuring food safety and quality.

• As the full implementation of HACCP is quite detailed and requires various resources which are a challenge to SMEs worldwide, stakeholders in the African region should be promoting good hygiene practices as well as implementing other pre-requisite programmes. The primary aim should be to assist and sensitize SMEs in food hygiene matters to ensure safer food provisions, improved customer satisfaction and thus better business returns.

• Recognizing the difficulties facing SMEs, it is acknowledged that there is merit in applying HACCP based systems to improve food safety and quality where adequate support is available.

• Government commitment and raising the awareness of the food industry to the benefits of and the need for introducing GHP/HACCP are the most important factors in the development and implementation of a successful food quality management system initiative. The food industry and trade associations have an important role to play in promoting these initiatives in SMEs.

5.2 Recommendations

1. Governments should develop and implement national food safety policies and strategies, including provisions to initiate and accelerate implementation of GHP and eventually HACCP in SMEs.

2. Implementation of the Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene, applicable codes of practices and relevant national food hygiene legislation should be promoted in food SMEs by both the Government and trade/industry associations. Appropriate national legislation should be drafted if needed.

3. Governments should initiate mentoring schemes for those enterprises that have successfully implemented GHP/HACCP principles to assist other SMEs develop and implement their own plans.

4. FAO, WHO and other development partners should provide technical assistance to support governments, trade and industry associations and SMEs in the implementation of GHPs and HACCP.

5. Consumers groups should demand for improved food safety through the implementation of GHPs and/or HACCP.

6. Basic food hygiene, sanitation and GHP principles should be introduced and or strengthened in school curricula at all levels; the application of HACCP should be taught at professional schools for food sciences, catering and related disciplines.

References

CAC. 2003. Codex Alimentarius Commission - Recommended International Code of Practice: General Principles of Food Hygiene including Annex on Hazard Analysis Control Pont (HACCP) and Guidelines for its Application. CAC/RCP 1–1969 Rev 4.

CCFH. 2003. Codex Committee on Food Hygiene 35^th Session - CX/FH 03/4-Add.1 Consideration of obstacles to the application of HACCP, particularly in small and less developed businesses and approaches to overcome them.

Directive 93/43/EEC. 1993. Council Directive on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Community, No. L 175/1 Vol. 36.

FAO/WHO. 2005. Draft Guidance to Governments on the Application of HACCP, in small and/or less developed businesses (in preparation).

Holt, G and Henson, S. 2000. Information for good hygiene practices in small businesses, British Food Journal Vol.102, No.4 pp 320–337.

Huss, H.H., Ababouch, L & Gram.L. 2004. Assessment and management of seafood safety and quality, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 444.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2005. Communication from ISO-Report of activities relevant to Codex work, CAC 28/INF/2 May 2005.

Jirathana, P. 1998. Constraints experienced by developing countries in the development and application of HACCP. Food Control Vol 9 No 2–3 pp 97–100.

National Small Business Act. 1996. No 102, Pretoria: Government Printer. South Africa.

Ntsika. 2000. Annual Review: State of Small Business in South Africa. Pretoria: Ntsika Enterprise Promotion Agency and the Development of Trade and Industry. Pretoria, South Africa.

OMAF. 2004. Background information on HACCP. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Canada.

RSA/HACCP. 2003. - Regulations relating to the application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System (HACCP) No. R. 908, South Africa, Department of Health.

SACOB. 1999. South African Chamber of Business -Developing the Small Business Sector in South Africa: a Review of Regulatory and Other Obstacles by the South African Chamber of Business. RSA.

Small Business Act. 2003. Act No 7 of 2004 Government Printer Gaborone, Botswana.

SMMEs. 1999. Policy on Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises in Botswana, Government Paper No.1 of 1999.

SME. 2002. Small and Medium Enterprise Development Policy 2002, United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Industries.

Taylor, E and Kane, K. 2004. Reducing the burden of HACCP on SMEs. Food Control (2004).

Taylor, E. 2001. HACCP in small companies: benefit or burden. Food Control 12:217–222.

UN-ECE. 1994. UN-ECE Operational Activities, Small and medium-sized enterprises in countries in Transition in 1994.

Walker, E; Prichard, C., & Forsythe S.(2003) Hazard analysis critical control point and prerequisite programme implementation in small and medium size food businesses, Food Control 14. 2003. 169–174.

WHO. 2001. World Health Organization Food Safety and food-borne illness Fact Sheet No 237.

WHO. 1999. Report of a WHO Consultation. Strategies for Implementing HACCP in small and/or less developed businesses. Food Safety Programme. World Health Organization.

White Paper 1995 on National Strategy for the Development and Promotion of Small Business in South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printer. South Africa.

¹ The term SLDB used here refers to businesses that because of their size, lack of technical expertise, economic resources, or the nature of their work, encounter difficulties in implementing HACCP in their food business. The term ’less developed business’ refers to the status of the food safety management system and not to the number of staff or volume of production.

² More information on FAO’s concept of GAPs and FAO’s work in this area is available from http://www.fao.org/prods/GAP/gapindex_en.htm

³ More information on FAO’s work related to GHPs. GMPs and HACCP, as well as a published training manual on the subject, is available from: http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/quality_haccp_en.stm

⁴ HACCP is defined as “A system which identifies, evaluates, and controls hazards which are significant for food safety.” CAC, 2003.

INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL, SUBREGIONAL AND NATIONAL COOPERATION IN FOOD SAFETY IN AFRICA
(Prepared by the WHO Regional Office for Africa, BP 06, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo)

1. Introduction

Many African countries do not have adequate food security, resulting in a situation where as much as 60% of the food supply may be imported to supplement local production in some countries. Guaranteeing the safety of both imported and locally produced food begins on the farm and follows through the entire food chain until meals are on the table. This important task of assuring food safety requires a multidisciplinary approach in food science, toxicology, public health, microbiology, chemistry and food law, among others. The pressure of growing human populations has also resulted in globalization of food trade that is associated with substantial increase in food production and movement of food through international trade. This massive movement of food and the threat of its widespread contamination make individual interventions in food safety ineffective. It is therefore imperative that governments, the private/public sectors, consumers and other stakeholders work in a concerted manner in this shared responsibility of assuring food safety from farm-to-fork. Cooperation at the national, sub-regional, regional and international levels provides opportunities in synergy and maximized benefits for improved human health and economic development.

This paper discusses the modalities for bettering cooperation in food safety assurance by describing food control systems in selected countries. It further discusses good practices in cooperation and collaboration in food safety at national, regional and international levels and provides recommendations for consideration by member states.

2. Food control systems in Africa

In 2002, WHO conducted an assessment of the status of food safety programmes in the African Region and collected data on the availability of food safety acts and their coverage, food inspection systems, mechanisms for monitoring of food exports and imports, surveillance systems for food-borne diseases and microbiological monitoring, manpower development and public education. The findings from 28 responding countries in the WHO African Region showed significant gaps in national food laws and inadequate linkages between strategies to ensure food safety. The study further showed that a limited number of countries had legislation that adequately tackled current and emerging food safety problems in relation to pesticide residues, food additives, contaminants and biotoxins. Twenty-two of the responding countries had an Act or Ordinance governing food safety standards and regulations, however, only 12 countries found existing legislation satisfactory. Countries that had Food Acts and regulations often lacked complete and effective food control infrastructure, as well as institutional capacities to ensure compliance and to provide consumer protection. Existing laws were often outdated, traditionally prescriptive and fail to adequately address the whole range of food safety concerns. Studies by other international organizations identified similar problems associated with food legislation, regulations, laboratory, inspection and monitoring services, administration of food control, manpower development as well as funding of food safety programmes. The following examples describe food control systems in selected African countries, which have several institutions working towards achieving the common goal of protecting the health of the consumer. These systems are associated with duplication of functions due to absence of clear guidelines on responsibilities and mandates.

In Mozambique, the Food Safety Unit is under the Department of Environmental Health within the Ministry of Health and is responsible for regulation, standards etc. The main partners of the Ministry of Health in the area of food control are the Ministries of Agriculture, Commerce, Fisheries and the National Institute of Normalization and Quality. In Malawi, the Ministry of Health and Population, Ministry of Local Government, Malawi Bureau of Standards and Consumer Association of Malawi are responsible for the implementation of Food Laws. The Food Control Unit in Botswana is under the Community Health Services Division in the Ministry of Health while in the Comoros, the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture are responsible for the implementation of food policy. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, through several decrees, the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for animal health, the Ministry of Health for food safety and hygiene at the borders, the Ministry of External Trade for export and import inspection and the Ministry of Justice for food regulation.

The Ghana Food and Drugs Law (PNDC Law 305 B) and Amendment Act 523 seeks to ensure that only safe and wholesome food, drugs and other substances are made available for public consumption. The production and sale of food is governed by food standards established and promulgated by the Ghana Food and Drugs Board of the Ministry of Health. There are regulations and by-laws to control food hygiene and the Metropolitan Medical Officer has the vested authority for their enforcement. The Ghana Standards Board, the Ministries of Agriculture and Trade as well as Customs and Excise are all involved in food safety. Identical systems are in operation in Benin, Central African Republic, Liberia, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

Activities for food safety and control in Uganda, as in many other countries, are uncoordinated and scattered in Ministries and are implemented by different agencies and authorities whose mandates are provided for under different laws and regulations. The Ministry of Health is the custodian of food legislation and has two agencies with food safety functions. The Department of Environmental Health coordinates food safety matters and supervises the semiautonomous Local Government Units, which employ health and food inspectors. The National Drugs Board controls the use and sale of medical and veterinary drugs and importation of food supplements. Other agencies, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, handles control of seeds, phytosanitary issues, marketing of food products etc. Other agencies are responsible for WTO matters such as SPS and TBT Agreements as well as promotion of food exports and certification. Inspection of food premises and their licensing, as well as meat inspection in abattoirs, are under the jurisdiction of the local governments.

The Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture, and the South African Bureau of Standards, are the key stakeholders in food control in South Africa. For day-to-day implementation, the food control system operates at the national, provincial and local levels. An evaluation of the system in 1995 revealed that it was impossible to determine which department represented the country in food control policy. The evaluation recommended the creation of a new modern, effective and internationally recognized food control system. There is general consensus on the way forward but high level acceptance and approval for implementation is still awaited.

In order to overcome the problems associated with fragmentation of food control systems and the lack of collaboration between sectors some countries have established modern and effective single food control agencies that are internationally recognized or national food control authorities with inter-ministerial and interdepartmental representation. The Kingdom of Morocco has established and transferred all food control functions to a single government department called l’Agence du contrôle de la qualité de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments (ACQSA). The establishment of ACQSA yielded several benefits including the modernization of the food control system, improvements in the efficacy of risk analysis, efficient use of material and financial resources as well as increased visibility and credibility.

Certain countries, for example Ethiopia, Senegal and the Gambia are in the process of establishing national food control authorities. In Ethiopia, the lead government institutions responsible for food safety include the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Quality and Standards Authority of Ethiopia, Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ethiopian Manufacturing Industries Association. These institutions work together in organizing training workshops, standard setting and drafting regulations. Since 2002, these bodies have established a Technical Committee that implements food safety assurance systems in accordance with the international market requirements supported by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). However, coordination of activities at the lower level of the hierarchy remains to be established and strengthened. Responsibilities and mandates are not clearly defined demarcated and streamlined, resulting in insufficient coordination of activities, duplication of efforts, misuse of human resource and wastage of meagre resources allocated to the sectors. In order to overcome these problems, the existing Ethiopian Technical Committee has established the National Food Safety Council whose members are drawn from regulatory bodies, research institutes, industry, consumers and higher learning institutes involved in food safety. Similarly in the Gambia, a Council on Nutrition was formed which embraces all the agencies involved in food safety and is directly under the Office of the President. In Sierra Leone, the Bureau of Standards in the Ministry of Health is the National Codex Contact Point and works collaboratively with all food safety stakeholders through a number of technical committees, namely, Animal and Animal Products, Plant and Plant Products, General Purpose and Special Committees. All the agencies involved in food safety work collaboratively with the police on a nation-wide campaign on expired products.

3. Cooperation at local and national levels

3.1 Collaboration and coordination between food safety related laboratories

Laboratories are the backbone of all food control systems. In order to meet the requirements prescribed by international standards, laboratories should have state-of-the-art equipment as well as qualified and well trained manpower to operate such equipment. Laboratories used for food control, especially those for export inspection and certification services, require accreditation as per international standards. Sufficient numbers of qualified personnel in food science, technology, biochemistry microbiology, chemistry etc. are also required.

Upgrading functional laboratories and other systems also require high resource outlays, which many African economies cannot afford on their own. DFID evaluated the cost of surveillance and food monitoring activities for aflatoxins for one laboratory at 125,000 US$ per year. Cato (1998)¹ quantified the cost of compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary measures by developing countries and showed that upgrading sanitary conditions in Bangladesh required about US$ 17.6 million and US$2.2 million per annum to maintain the system. Such costs would have been contained if different specialized laboratories sought synergies through coordination and collaboration. Unfortunately, such collaboration and coordination hardly exist. To facilitate the sharing of facilities, existing facilities could be assessed in order to determine their capabilities. These may be further strengthened to allow sharing of facilities both at national and regional levels. For example, the Tobacco Research Board in Zimbabwe, which offers services in food and water analysis, has capacity to detect Genetically Modified foods. Member States of the region could share such a facility to ensure the identity of foods that are available to African consumers.

In Sierra Leone, as in many Member States, some private laboratories, such as the Chemistry and Biological Sciences Laboratories of the University of Sierra Leone carry out laboratory analyses for the Ministry of Health. These laboratories and their technical staff could be internationally accredited in order to enable them carry out this important function. In Zimbabwe, cooperation between the Veterinary, Home Affairs and Environmental Health Departments ensures that cattle movement is restricted when outbreaks of anthrax or other zoonotic diseases occur. Cholera alert messages are also quickly transmitted to other provinces during outbreaks.

3.2 Communication between food control laboratories, Government Ministries, industry, NGOs, consumers and consumer groups

Food control laboratories are required to communicate effectively with all stakeholders along the food chain, including government bodies, research and academic institutions, the food production and processing sector and consumers. An informed and active public and knowledgeable industry are cornerstones to effective risk management. Communication and knowledge are the only ways to deal effectively with consumer concerns and fears. Transparent systems and procedures are required to ensure that consumers and other stakeholders are properly informed on both sporadic cases of food-borne illness and food safety emergencies. The procedures for managing such risks should involve all stakeholders. This also applies to routine food safety matters which will require easy-to-understand summaries on current matters for public distribution.

An especially important role of the food industry is communication with consumers. The industry widely uses integrated communication including advertising, marketing and product promotion. Product labelling is another means of communication that allows the consumer to make informed decisions on products. Labels must therefore avoid making false and misleading health claims. Advertising and labelling must not only be used as one-way communication systems but must allow informed consumer feed-back to food producers and distributors.

4. Cooperation at regional and subregional levels

4.1 Collaboration and coordination between food control and public health laboratories

In addition to the importance of cooperation in food control laboratories at national and local levels, cooperation at regional and subregional levels could identify centers of excellence to encourage the sharing of facilities and expertise.

There is good cooperation in the area of food contamination emergencies between the members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). A case in point is the adulteration of food with the carcinogen Sudan Red where information came in from Botswana to request all the member countries to remove the affected food from the shelves. The SADC Consultative Forum on SPS/Food Safety Issues, Windhoek, November 2002, noting that laboratory capacity amongst member states was unevenly distributed, recommended the upgrading of existing facilities into regional centers of excellence. These facilities could be shared among several states as a more cost-effective and sustainable arrangement to deal with the problem of poor laboratory facilities in some countries.

A WHO Expert Group meeting in 2005 on aflatoxins and health recommended the strengthening of health sector laboratories to include aflatoxin detection capability for human and food samples through collaboration with agriculture and other sectors. Indeed, an assessment of laboratories involved in food safety work could be carried out in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing laboratories in the region. This information could be made available to member states indicating where to seek assistance for laboratory support. Additionally, such information could be used to prepare action plans for strengthening of laboratories in the region.

This could function effectively through the establishment of WHO Collaborating Centers for food safety in the region. These Centers have clearly defined functions, which severally and collectively include (i) collection, collation and dissemination of information (ii) training, including research training and (iii) the coordination of activities carried out by several institutions among others.

4.2 Collaboration in international standard setting

The aim of the Codex Alimentarius Commission is to protect the health of consumers and to ensure fair practices in the food trade. This is achieved through the standard-setting work of the Commission. The WTO SPS Agreement recognizes Codex standards as benchmarks for international trade and the TBT Agreement also refers to the use of international standards. Participation by individual countries in the work of Codex had proved difficult due to cost and capacity constraints. This greater acceptance of Codex standards, as well as the establishment of the FAO/WHO Codex Trust for Enhanced Participation in Codex, has increased the interest of countries in the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Preparation and presentation of country positions on issues often require a great deal of effort so WHO and FAO have developed a training package on the work and procedures of Codex to assist member states. Countries in the region do not only need to be physically present in Codex meetings, but they also need assistance to provide relevant data to the Codex system and to take an active part in the standard setting process. Strengthening of regional capacity building efforts in order to foster regional cohesiveness that will allow all countries of the region to have a common and more effective voice is paramount. In view of the fact that national standards are often dictated by trading partners whose standards may be too stringent, member states could consider the application of regional standards for levels of contaminants in foods.

4.3 Sharing experiences in food control

In the region there is no mechanism for the exchange of technical information on SPS and food safety issues on a regular basis. The situation is no better within countries where information available within one agency is often not shared with or accessed by others. It is more cost effective to have such information available at the regional level. Such a process could begin at the national and subregional level and feed into a system at the regional level. It is therefore important to develop a regional network which will include a website, regular publications and other existing modes of communication that will be available to member states.

4.4 Public/private partnerships for regional and sub-regional capacity building in food safety

Assuring food safety along the entire food chain requires partnerships and education at all levels especially consumer education. Training is an essential element of the implementation of HACCP and all other activities involved in producing safe food. In order to achieve this result, all those employed in food production must be thoroughly trained in their responsibilities. In particular, the management should be conscious of the risks associated with the food business and must take adequate steps to mitigate such risks. The application of Good Hygienic Practices using the Codex Code of Principles of Food Hygiene as well as other Codex specific guidelines for certain foods must be applied.

Supplier and distributor controls are essential to the production and marketing of safe foods. The large food companies achieve this by ascertaining that suppliers of ingredients comply with strict specifications. Contractual arrangements, which test and verify as well as conduct on-site inspections, are often employed. For the primary producer, training in the safe use of pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics etc. is paramount and the large companies in the private sector as well as extension staff of the Ministry of Agriculture could facilitate such activities.

Education is also essential for the informal sector of the food trade. The street food sector requires special attention as it provides employment for more than 20% of the population who would otherwise be unemployed. In a study in Accra, Ghana, the street food sector had 15,000 vendors and employed 60,000 people. This resulted in a sector turn over of US$114 million and a sector profit of US$24 million (Obeng-Asiedu 2000)². Educating street food vendors in safe food handling and personal hygiene can improve the safety of street foods, protect this important sector of the economies of poor countries and heighten consumer protection. Training these vendors through consumer outreach programs that are organized by the private sector and NGOs could facilitate this process.

Private companies in developing countries could implement outreach programmes as a valuable public service by providing effective messages to consumers, educators, health workers etc. Such support would complement efforts of Governments through dissemination of brochures and other promotional materials. Media campaigns and interaction with local government officials and schools could be used to educate the consumer about food safety. Such activities could be undertaken collaboratively with governments, professional groups and consumer organizations. Industry could also assist government to carry out training in proper food handling using the WHO Five Keys for Safer Foods and other tools from FAO, WHO and other agencies.

Non-governmental organizations, especially consumer protection NGOs should be interested in activities for food safety assurance as these ultimately seek to protect consumers from the adverse effects of contaminated food. They could therefore serve on national food safety committees to discuss emerging food safety issues, make inputs on setting research agendas and act as a source of independent advice to food safety authorities. They could also participate in consultations in order to direct the process based on consumer concerns. They would thus assure that data and information to consumers are available and in a transparent manner. The consumer would thus be educated on safe food handling and management of food-borne illness using simple and easy to understand messages.

5. Cooperation between FAO, WHO, other agencies and member states

5.1 Activities in capacity building

There are many international organizations involved in food safety activities at national level. Notable amongst these are FAO, WHO, UNEP, UNIDO, UNESCO and several Non-governmental organizations. The mandates of these organizations differ in most cases. Given the complexity of the food chain and the problems encountered at each level, working in isolation may provide piece-meal solutions. It is imperative therefore that close collaboration is most needed between all stakeholders at the national level in order to avoid the fragmentation of efforts. At the national level, FAO, WHO, UNIDO and UNEP have carried out some joint projects on food safety assurance, environmental monitoring and have organized joint seminars and training courses. Representatives of these international organizations could further strengthen their relationships through the signing of Joint Protocols to provide a platform for setting up of rapid and timely alert systems to approach the issues linked to food safety and in mobilizing funds from the donor countries and financial associations.

FAO and WHO have historically worked towards improving food safety along the entire food chain. A report on activities in capacity building and in the provision of scientific advice was presented as Agenda items 3 and 4 during the 16^th Session of the Codex Coordinating Committee for Africa in January 2005. Capacity building and the provision of technical assistance have been achieved through collaboration between international organizations, national governments, international and regional financial institutions and NGOs. Activities conducted include evaluation of institutional structures for food control, formulation of recommendations for improvement and training of food control officers, food control managers, food inspectors and food analysts in seminars, workshops and study tours. FAO and WHO also prepare joint training manuals and guidelines; provide support for the establishment and strengthening of National Codex Committees and; provide policy advice and assistance in the development of regulatory frameworks. FAO/WHO have also been working together to provide technical assistance to member states in the preparation of applications to the Codex Trust Fund.

FAO and WHO work to complement each other in order to ensure effective utilization of resources. They successfully organized the two Global Fora for Food Safety Regulators in Marrakesh, Morocco in 2002 and Bangkok, Thailand in 2004. In June 2005, FAO/WHO facilitated a meeting of consumer non-governmental organizations at which the Guidelines for Consumer Organizations to Promote National Food Safety Systems was developed. Many other joint activities have been implemented as described in CAC/28 INF.5. This Conference on Food Safety for Africa is another collaborative effort between the two sister organizations.

The two organizations are working towards improving their coordination and communication mechanisms, especially at headquarters, regional and national offices. This need has never been more urgent, particularly for the nomination of participants to attend meetings. Accurate information is not always communicated in a timely manner to interested parties, resulting in countries not being properly represented at FAO/WHO events. Experiences with countries applying for support from the Codex Trust Fund further underscore this need.

5.2 International food standards

FAO and WHO work together through the Codex Alimentarius Commission to establish international food standards and related texts; through expert bodies such as the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (JECFA), the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), the Joint Expert Meetings on Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) to provide scientific advice to Codex member countries. In order to facilitate effective participation of Member States in the international standard setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, FAO and WHO provide funding for participation and training from the Joint FAO/WHO Codex Trust Fund.

5.3 Food contamination monitoring

The WHO Global Environmental Monitoring System/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme (GEMS/Food) started in 1976. The programme collects and provides information on chemical contaminants in food and their intake via food with a view to evaluate their significance to public health and trade. The programme has been collecting data on the levels of some priority contaminants such as organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides, toxic metals and aflatoxins in selected foods and in total diets. These data can be used to estimate the dietary intake of contaminants that can be applied in risk assessment and in establishing limits for these contaminants in foods in the international and national standard setting processes. The programme maintains and utilizes a network of WHO Collaborating Centers, national focal points and participating institutions. In Africa, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Egypt, Kenya, Madagascar, Senegal, South Africa and Tunisia have planned total diet studies. GEMS/Food maintains links with a number of international organizations such as FAO, the International Atomic Agency (IAEA) the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and non-governmental organizations like the International Union of Food Technology (IUFoST) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemists. WHO is currently developing more representative and relevant diets for the programme. African countries are encouraged to cooperate in providing necessary data.

WHO Global Salm-Surv is a collaborative effort between WHO, the Danish Institute for Food and Veterinary Research, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Réseau international des Instituts Pasteur, Health Canada, The Animal Sciences Group, The Netherlands, the United States Food and Drugs Administration, Enter-net-human enteric pathogen surveillance network, Europe and OzFood Net - Enhanced Food-borne Disease Surveillance Network, Australia. The programme aims to reduce food-borne diseases worldwide through capacity building for enhanced laboratory-based surveillance and outbreak detection and response. The activities of the programme facilitate collaboration and communication between epidemiologists and microbiologists at national and international levels. In the African Region, courses have been conducted for ten Francophone countries. Regional and national projects are used to foster collaboration and to promote continued development and application of skills as well as concepts. In the African Region, the Salmonella hadar project currently being carried out by participating countries and the Institut Pasteur has detected multiple antibiotic resistant strains in isolates. For food-borne disease surveillance data to be effective, it must be integrated with food monitoring data along the entire food chain. This will improve the ability to link pathogens in food to etiological agents of disease in humans.

5.4 Cooperation in information sharing

The rapid globalization of food production and trade has increased the likelihood of spread of international incidences involving microbial and/or chemical contaminants in foods. What happens in one part of the world is likely to spread rapidly to other parts through air travel. Exchange of routine information on food safety and rapid access to information in case of emergencies is indicative. Establishment of mechanisms to promote the exchange of food safety information and improve collaboration among food safety authorities both at national and international levels will facilitate appropriate and timely management of food risks. Several rapid alert systems exist and systems that allow rapid exchange of information to member states have proved useful. One such system is the Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) through which information on Salmonella agona associated with infant formula, among others, was communicated to member states. There were some successes in tracking down the product in the African region. The network has INFOSAN and INFOSAN EMERGENCY Contact Points in member states who receive and disseminate information as appropriate. Further details on this project, funded by the governments of the Australia, Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom and United States of America, are available at the WHO website: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/infosan/en/. Such communication systems may not be effective as stand-alones without the strengthening of food-borne disease surveillance and food monitoring systems as well as systems that will rapidly trace and withdraw contaminated food.

The International Portal on Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health (www.ipfsaph.org) - a joint initiative with IPPC, OIE, Codex and WTO provides notifications on international standards and other official information from partner international agencies. The Portal also provides a view on national legislation and related texts from the EU, USA, and smaller data sets from a pilot group of developing countries (21,000 records in May 2005). The latest version includes up-to-date information on the Codex-established maximum residue limits (MRLs) for veterinary drugs and pesticides, as well as the JECFA and JMPR evaluations of these substances; navigation in English French and Spanish; and a “help desk” for questions users may have regarding the portal.With funding from the Standards and Trade Development Facility, work is proceeding with partners in developing countries to exploit the work undertaken on the Portal project so far.This includes activities with in-country data owners looking at information management and metadata standards, and with national users of portal information.The first regional demonstration workshops will be held in the near future.

6. Conclusions

Assuring food safety is a shared responsibility between all stakeholders, especially, civil society, consumers and industry that must have a common vision in order to succeed. In Africa, guaranteeing food safety involves activities conducted by several agencies and institutions whose mandates are often not clearly defined. This has resulted in fragmentation of the food control system and inefficient use of resources. Cooperation and coordination at national, subregional, regional and international levels is required to improve effectiveness and thus protection of the health of the consumer.

7. Recommendations

The following are for consideration by the conference when formulating recommendations for member governments and FAO/WHO on this important subject.

7.1 Member states are urged to:

1. Establish a permanent national, sub-regional and regional technical food safety framework and scientific committees to provide data for and perform relevant risk analysis.
2. Seek synergies between different specialized laboratories through coordination and collaboration.
3. Establish a network of accredited food safety laboratories and accreditation of inspection schemes.
4. Establish a frame work for cooperation and collaboration in control of informal food imports across porous borders of countries.
5. Consider the establishment of modern and effective single Food Control Agencies that are internationally recognized or national food control authorities with inter-ministerial and interdepartmental representation.
6. Develop transparent systems and procedures for sharing all types of information to ensure that consumers and other stakeholders are properly informed on both sporadic cases of food-borne illness and food safety emergencies.
7. Identify centers of excellence to encourage the sharing of facilities and expertise.
8. Work towards strengthening regional capacity building efforts in order to foster regional cohesiveness for all countries of the region to have a common view on international standard-setting processes.
9. Develop a regional information-sharing network which will include a website, regular publications and other existing modes of communication.
10. Engage all stakeholders involved in food safety assurance including the public sector and NGOs.

7.2 WHO/FAO should:

1. Continue to support member states in their efforts at improving food safety.
2. Strengthen their joint efforts in capacity building, international standard-setting, food contamination monitoring, information sharing etc.
3. Continue to engage international partners and NGOs involved in food safety work.

8. References

1. Canet, Colette. Importance of International Cooperation in Food Safety. Food Additives and Contaminants 1993, 10: 97–104.

2. Joint fao/who Codex Alimentarius Commission 28^th Session, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 4–9 July 2005. Capacity Building for Food Quality and Safety: Selected Activities of the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization CAC/28 INF 5.

3. Joint Press Release WHO-FAO. WHO and FAO express the wish to cooperate with Angola in food safety. Angola, 30 May 2005.

4. FAO/WHO Regional Meeting on Food Safety for Near East, Amman, Jordan, 5–6 March 2005. Regional, subregional and national cooperation in food safety for the near East.

5. FAO/WHO Global Forum of Food Safety Regulators, Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30 January 2002. Food-borne disease, Conference Room Document proposed by the World Health Organization, GF/CRD WHO-2.

6. Second FAO/WHO Global Forum of Food Safety Regulators. Bangkok, Thailand, 12–14 October 2004.

   1. Strengthening Official Food Safety Control Services. Paper prepared by the FAO/WHO Secretariat); GF 02/3.
   2. Building a Food Safety System in Uganda. (Prepared by Uganda); CRD 61.
   3. Food Safety Control Services in Liberia. (Prepared by Liberia); CRD 50.
   4. Epidemio-Surveillance of Food Borne Diseases and Food Safety Rapid Alert Systems. Paper prepared by the FAO/WHO Secretariat; GF 02/9.
   5. Developing and Maintaining Food Safety control Systems for Africa, Current Status and Prospects for Change. Prepared by WHO Regional Office for Africa); CRD 32.
   6. Renforcement du système national de contrôle de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments: Expérience du Maroc. Paper prepared by the Kingdom of Morocco.
   7. World Health Organization Global Salm-Surv: A worldwide capacity building programme for the surveillance of Salmonella and other food-borne diseases. Paper prepared by the World Health Organization.
   8. Inauguration of the International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN). Paper prepared by the World Health Organization.
   9. International Portal for Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health. Paper prepared by FAO.

   10. Legal basis for food safety official and non-official control: “Strengthening official food safety control services”. Paper prepared by South Africa.

7. Report of FAO/WHO Workshop -Effective Food Control Systems - Practical Approaches in the African Region, Rome, Italy, 24 January 2005.

8. FAO/WHO Regional Conference on Food Safety for Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, 3–6 October 2005. Conference Room Documents prepared by: Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Mauritius, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

¹ Cato J.C. Economic issues associated with seafood and implementation of seafood HACCP programmes. Rome FAO, 1998

² Obeng-Asiedu, Socioeconomic survey of street-vended foods in Accra, 2000