By Nancy Marangu, Kimwaga Mhando and Jacinta Mwau

Every now and then, food safety – or rather the dearth of it – rears its head and makes the front-page news. Back in 2004 and 2005, 167 deaths in parts of lower eastern Kenya were linked to aflatoxin poisoning. In 2016, 14 deaths in Manyara and Dodoma regions of Tanzania were linked to aflatoxin. More recently, the same aflatoxin caused a trade spat in 2021 between Kenya and its neighbors Tanzania and Uganda with the former citing high levels of aflatoxin in briefly banning maize imports from the latter.

For agri-food industry insiders, food safety challenges are well known and understood. In the grain sector, aflatoxin is the foremost food safety challenge. Aflatoxin is caused by the Aspergillus flavus fungi that exists in soil and most readily attacks maize, groundnuts, sorghum and tree nuts. Poor grain handling and storage practices after harvest further create – such as inadequate drying and/or storage of grain in damp conditions, causes the fungi to spread and produce its metabolite aflatoxin. The toxin is a well-known carcinogen and the East African Community’s assorted standards for cereals, pulses and their derivatives prescribe strict maximum limits of 10 parts per billion, above which the said food is unsafe for human consumption.

Unfortunately, compliance with these standards and associated food safety regulations remain pitifully low across the East African Community. In Kenya, 14.4% of maize flour samples in Kenya surpassing the allowable 10 ppb aflatoxin limit in 2021, according to a government survey, a situation that is likely to be replicated in neighbouring countries – after all, Kenya imports most of its maize from Tanzania and Uganda.

Not only does the aflatoxin problem present a health risk, it also poses an economic headache. Studies have shown that Tanzania and Uganda annually lose a staggering $5.3 million and $16 million, respectively, due to compromised agricultural exports stemming from aflatoxin contamination.

While aflatoxin looms as a central food safety discourse, other insidious risks, including pesticide residues and heavy metals, lurk within every facet of the value chain. The spectrum of food safety risks pervades all levels, from farm practices to post-harvest handling, trade, and processing. The roots of these challenges are multifaceted, from subpar agronomic practices on farms to low-quality-control processes during post-harvest stages. Regulatory shortcomings, marked by overlapping responsibilities and limited resources, exacerbate these issues. These weaknesses, coupled with policy disarray and fragmented value chains, handicap state regulators’ ability to provide effective oversight.

The private sector, despite its pivotal role, remains reticent in assuring food safety attributed to scant commercial or regulatory incentives. Yet ultimately, it is the private sector as producers, aggregators, traders and processors of food that carries the fiduciary duty of assuring food safety for the population, working closely with regulators. As such, it is high time that the private sector takes leadership in this matter through self-regulation.

So what is industry self-regulation? In simple terms, it is essentially the act of an industry, organized around its association(s), to regulate its own affairs and provide a first level of regulation before state-led regulation. The association, established for and by the industry stakeholders, acts as a referee of sorts to ensure a fair, ethical and level playing field. Industry self-regulation exists in many sectors: think of Doctors or Lawyers Societies – these are independent industry-led bodies that these respective professionals must be part of and comply with their respective rules and regulations. A violation of these rules leads to disciplinary action which can lead to complete removal from that profession.

In the agri-food space, an industry association would be responsible for establishing and enforcing rules and regulations – a code of practice – among its members. These rules would be aligned to existing state legislation and the association would be expected to collaborate closely with state regulators. The advantage with self-regulation is that it is more efficient and possibly more effective since industry players will be keeping each other in check. It further reduces the risk of ad-hoc enforcement action by regulators on individual companies and creates a more level playing field. This last point is particularly important since state regulation by nature tends to focus on the fewer, larger and thus more visible individual businesses with the thousands of smaller, less visible entities – which actually produce most of the food – escaping regulatory scrutiny.

What does it take for industry self-regulation to work? The Eastern Africa Grain Council (EAGC) partnered with Policy LINK to explore this subject starting with Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Their work showed that a successful industry self-regulation model first requires the industry to own up to their share of responsibility for a problem and agree to be part of the solution. It then requires appointment of an existing industry association to serve as the self-regulatory organization (SRO). The SRO will then be responsible for establishing the rules, monitoring compliance and being the first line of enforcement, all the while collaborating with state regulators. From there, industry players are then obliged to subscribe to the SRO; in some countries, state legislation is used to mandate individual companies to register with SROs.

The SRO would typically establish an audit scheme to check whether value chain players have instituted the required measures to become compliant with the rules. Putting in place an audit scheme will entail prescribing the processes and procedures that lead to compliance at each level of the value chain, and the facilities and equipment required for compliance certification. This would be complemented by a surveillance scheme, including field visits and inspections, that checks whether the systems established by the rules are working on a day-to-day basis, i.e., that they are ultimately assuring compliance with food safety requirements. Surveillance also includes putting in place a system for data capture and management not only for surveillance and enforcement but also for strategy, business decisions, and risk and emergency responses.

The SRO can also present a training and certification scheme for auditors and inspectors who are responsible for monitoring compliance and initiating enforcement actions. A separate training, continuous professional development, and certification scheme may also be developed for graders and laboratory analysts; a proficiency testing scheme for food testing laboratories might also be needed.

Compliant companies will need to differentiate themselves from non-compliant ones. The SRO can support these efforts by developing a well-controlled certification and/or branding (labeling) process that differentiates products in the market. This product differentiation helps to communicate their compliant status to consumers (thus helping consumers make better-informed decisions). Ideally, such marketing/labeling also enhances the company’s brand position.

In conclusion, embracing industry self-regulation offers a pathway toward efficient compliance in East Africa’s staple food value chains. It not only addresses food safety concerns but also holds potential economic benefits. As this transformative journey unfolds, refining self-regulation frameworks, assessing cost-benefit dynamics, ensuring financial sustainability, and implementing the framework are essential steps. Despite the challenges, the promise of enhanced food safety and more orderly grain markets beckons, resonating far beyond the realms of business, affecting consumer health, economic prosperity, and regional integration.