Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
GREEN BEAN SUPPLY CHAIN IN KENYA
HOT PEPPER SUPPLY CHAIN IN UGANDA
Food safety management systems in the East African Community: Empirical evidence from the fresh produce
sector in Kenya and Uganda
Promotors: Prof. dr. ir. Mieke Uyttendaele
Prof. dr. ir. Liesbeth Jacxsesns
Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation
Department of Food Safety and Food Quality
Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University,
Belgium
Assoc. Prof. Dr. ir. Pieternel A. Luning
Food Quality and Design
Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences
Wageningen University,
Netherlands
Assoc. Prof. Kaaya Archileo Natigo
Dept. of Food Technology & Nutrition
Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala,
Uganda
Dean: Prof. dr. ir .Guido Van Huylenbroeck
Rector: Prof. dr. Anne De Paepe
Examination Committee: Prof. dr .ir. Patrick Van Damme (UGent, Chairman)
Prof. dr. ir . Marijke D’Haese (UGent, Secretary)
Dr. Ana Allende (CEBAS-CSIC, Spain)
Dr. Sigrid Van Boxstael (FAVV, Belgium)
MSc. Jessica Nanyunja Sentongo
Food safety management systems in the East African Community: Empirical evidence from the fresh
produce sector in Kenya and Uganda
Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor (PhD) in Applied Biological Sciences
Dutch translation of the title:
Voedselveiligheidssystemen in de Oost-Afrikaanse Gemeenschap: Empirisch bewijs
van de verse groentesector in Kenia en Oeganda
To refer to this thesis:
Nanyunja, J. 2015. Food safety management systems in the East African Community: Empirical
evidence from the fresh produce sector in Kenya and Uganda. Thesis submitted in fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of doctor (PhD) in Applied Biological Sciences. Faculty of
Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University.
ISBN number: 978-90-5989-820-2
The author and the promoters give the authorization to consult and copy parts of this work for personal use only. Every other use is subject to copyright laws. Permission to reproduce any material contained in this work should be obtained from the author.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly, I would like to thank my promoter, Prof. dr. ir. Mieke Uyttendaele. I could not have imagined
starting a life changing journey of my PhD without such a profound leader and mentor with a rich
background of knowledge and experience in the academia world. Mieke, thanks for giving me the
opportunity to start this PhD challenge within the Veg-i-Trade project. I would also like to express my
gratitude to Prof. dr.ir. Liesbeth Jacxsens, my second promoter, for her valuable feedback on the overall
direction of this thesis. Liesbeth, I deeply acknowledge that without your tireless push, knowledge,
perceptiveness and encouragement I would never have finished this dissertation. Your hands on coaching
style and expertise as a researcher has been of great value to me and my work benefited tremendously from
your continuous critical suggestions and feedback. Liz, in times when I felt that I was giving up, you reached
out for my hand and assured me that I can make it! Furthermore, I would like to extend my warm gratitude
to Assoc. Prof. dr. Pieternel Luning, my third promoter, for her helpful comments and constructive
suggestions on the contents about the FSMS that are included in this thesis and your warm hospitality during
my various visits to Wageningen, Netherlands. Pieternel, thank you for introducing me to the complex but
yet an interesting world of FSMS. Thank you also for all your assistance and precious time you spent on
improving my writing skills with critical comments and helpful suggestions for improving the scientific
quality of my papers. Additionally, I would like to thank my local promoter in Uganda, Prof. dr. A.N. Kaaya
- Makerere University for accepting to act as my local promoter during the field surveys in both Kenya and
Uganda and also his very valuable comments and constructive suggestions on my earlier drafts papers,
included in this dissertation (and prompt responses).
I also would like to express my gratitude to Prof. dr .ir. Patrick Van Damme, Prof. dr. ir. Marijke D’Haese,
Dr. ir. Sigrid Van Boxstael, and Dr. Ana Allende for their willingness to participate in my examination
committee; and for their valuable comments on this PhD dissertation; and suggestions for future research.
Furthermore, I am indebted to the whole Veg-i-Trade project, for giving me the opportunity to attend
international conferences, workshops and training activity in Spain, Norway, Netherlands, and South
Africa. In addition to availing sufficient financial resources that were needed to conduct research resulting
in the accomplishment of this thesis. I also wish to acknowledge International Foundation for Science (IFS)
for funding my PhD field research carried out in Kenya and Uganda.
Additionally, thanks to all my colleagues of the Department of Food Quality and Food Safety for your
friendliness, helpfulness and creating a great working atmosphere! A special word of thanks to Steffi and
Ariane for their ever timely help with administrative issues especially about my travel trips during all my
PhD study time; Dr. Simba Ssemaputo for all practical tips with regard to final submission of this thesis;
Olivier Kamana for interesting discussions and all tips and encouragements we shared together as PhD
mates within the same period; and off course to my officemates (present and past); Andreja, Parco, Jeff,
Dieter, Sigrid, Stefanie, Simba, Melanie, and Ihab, it has been a pleasure working with you all! I have
highly appreciated not only your professional advice and “technical” support, but also your patience,
understanding and kindness, and the very stimulating working environment.
Further, I have to say 'thank-you' to all my friends, wherever they are, who encouraged me during this PhD
journey. Klementina, I will always keep a warm memory about our times together and our collaboration.
Thank you so much for giving me company during my lonely times in Wageningen! A very special thank
you to Mr. and Mrs. Samme-Nlar for being my great hosts while in Nairobi, Kenya. In particular I also
thank Mrs. Sawe. Chemutai, for her support and guidance during the field work trips to farms and
companies in Kenya which indeed made it easier for me to conduct my field work in a totally new country
environment. I also thank all the women and men that I collaborated with at different three levels (mico,
meso and macro) for their input in this research during the field work surveys in Kenya and Uganda, you
made this research a reality!
From the bottom of my heart, I thank Mrs. Harriet Gwokyalya Ssali, my sweetest mother for making my
life more exciting and joyful, for loving and constantly praying for me to finish my PhD study. Above all
mummy, thanks for believing and empowering me to go to the greatest heights of my academia from a very
tender age! Am very grateful for Allan and Ken, my two dear big brothers who have always supported and
encouraged me to be the best I can be. You guys have always been my biggest motivation to succeed in
life!! Thanks also for our weekly family prayer sessions, where this PhD has always been on the list of
“prayer requests”!
And last, but not least, I would like to express my warmest gratitude to Eddie, my dearest husband, my hero
and best friend, for his love, support, understanding and optimism that helped me to survive throughout my
PhD.
Eddie, you stood by my side and provided me with all the support and affection that I needed to bring this
dissertation to a good end. Without you I would never be able to finish this challenge. Thank you my Love,
I know we have a bright future ahead of us to reap the fruits of our persistence and hard work together!
--- “Indeed good things come to those who wait patiently ”---
Jessica Nanyunja Sentongo
24th, September 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................. i
List of abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... viii
Objectives and outline of the thesis ................................................................................................ xii
Summary ....................................................................................................................................... xx
Samenvatting ............................................................................................................................... xxii
Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Types of fresh produce ...................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Consumer preferences for fresh produce ............................................................................ 4
1.2 The global fresh produce sector ......................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Trends in global production of fresh vegetables ................................................................. 6
1.2.2 Trends in global trade of fresh vegetables .......................................................................... 7
1.2.3 The EU fresh produce market: an important export hub for developing countries ............... 8
1.2.4 Production and trade of fresh vegetables in EAC ............................................................... 9
1.2.5 Top export vegetables for EAC countries ........................................................................ 11
1.3 Organization of the fresh produce supply chain ............................................................... 11
1.3.1 Micro-level of the supply chain ....................................................................................... 13
1.3.2 Meso-level of the supply chain ........................................................................................ 13
1.3.3 Macro level of the supply chain ....................................................................................... 13
1.4 Food quality and safety in the fresh produce sector .......................................................... 14
1.4.1 Food safety hazards in fresh produce ............................................................................... 14
1.4.2 Food legislation and standards for fresh produce.............................................................. 15
1.4.2.1 Codex Alimentarius standards ......................................................................................... 15
1.4.2.2 EU legislative requirements for fresh produce ................................................................. 16
1.4.3 Private standards for the fresh produce supply chain ........................................................ 17
1.4.3.1 GLOBALGAP ................................................................................................................ 19
1.4.3.2 British Retail Consortium (BRC) and International Features Standards (IFS) Food .......... 19
1.4.4 Private labels for fresh produce ....................................................................................... 20
1.4.5. Brands............................................................................................................................. 21
1.4.5 Food safety management systems in the fresh produce sector .......................................... 23
1.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 26
Organization of the fresh produce supply chain to the adoption of FSMS: micro, meso, and macro levels in Uganda ............................................................................................. 26
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 28
2.2.1 Analytical framework ...................................................................................................... 30
2.2.2 Survey with farmers and exporters at the micro level ....................................................... 31
2.2.3 Interview with key informants at the meso and macro levels ............................................ 31
2.2.4 Data analysis ................................................................................................................... 32
2.3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 33
2.3.1 Organization of the Ugandan hot pepper supply chain ..................................................... 33
2.3.2 Micro-level ..................................................................................................................... 33
2.3.3 Meso level ...................................................................................................................... 37
2.2.4 Macro level ..................................................................................................................... 39
2.2.5 Rating of the constraints at the micro, meso and macro levels influencing Ugandan hot pepper exports to the EU ............................................................................. 39
2.3 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 41
2.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 46
Diagnostic tools on food safety management system performance from an European to the global perspective .................................................................................................. 46
3.1 Food safety management systems .................................................................................... 47
3.1.1 Key components of the FSMS ......................................................................................... 47
3.1.2 Differences between control and assurance activities in a FSMS ...................................... 48
3.2 Methods to measure performance of FSMS ..................................................................... 49
3.2.1 Principles behind FSMS diagnosing ................................................................................ 53
3.3 Adapting the FSMS diagnostic tool from meat and dairy sectors to the fresh produce sector ................................................................................................................. 55
3.4 Tailoring of the fresh produce European FSMS diagnostic tool to the Global context ....... 55
3.4.1 Demarcating the global context within the fresh produce supply chain ............................. 57
3.4.2 Types of changes or modifications made in the tailored FSMS-DI for the global context .................................................................................................................. 65
3.5 Results of the tailored FSMS diagnostic tool for the global context .................................. 65
3.5.1 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: context factors ..................................................... 65
3.5.2 Validation of the tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool .................................................... 68
3.5.3 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: control activities .................................................. 69
3.5.4 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: assurance activities .............................................. 69
3.5.5 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: system output ...................................................... 69
3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 70
Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 72
Assessing the Status of Food Safety Management Systems for Fresh Produce Production in East Africa: Evidence from Certified Green Bean Farms in Kenya and Non-certified Hot Pepper Farms in Uganda ..................................................................... 72
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 74
4.2 Materials and methods ..................................................................................................... 75
4.2.1 Selection of case studies and identification of farms ........................................................ 75
4.2.2 Selection of respondents .................................................................................................. 75
4.2.3 Study area ....................................................................................................................... 76
4.2.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 76
4.2.5 Food Safety Management System-Diagnostic Instrument ................................................ 76
4.2.6 Diagnosis of context level of risk..................................................................................... 77
4.2.7 Diagnosis of control and assurance activities (good agricultural practices and management system) ....................................................................................................... 77
4.2.8 Diagnosis of system output .............................................................................................. 77
4.2.9 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 78
4.3 Results and discussion ..................................................................................................... 78
4.3.1 Systems output to gain insight in performance of microbiological and chemical status of delivered crops .................................................................................................. 78
4.3.2 Core control activities ..................................................................................................... 81
4.3.3 Core assurance activities ................................................................................................. 84
4.3.4 Context risk characteristics for the certified farms in Kenya and non certified farms in Uganda .............................................................................................................. 85
4.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 89
Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 91
Shift in performance of food safety management systems in supply chains: case of green bean chain in Kenya versus hot pepper chain in Uganda .................................................. 91
5.2 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................... 96
5.2.1 Contacting and Characterization of participants ............................................................... 96
5.2.2 Diagnosis of food safety management system performance .............................................. 96
5.2.3 Data processing and analysis ........................................................................................... 98
5.3 Results ............................................................................................................................ 98
5.3.1 Context riskiness at farms and export trade companies in the supply chain in Kenya and Uganda ..................................................................................................................... 98
5.3.2 Control activities in FSMS along the supply chain in Kenya and Uganda ....................... 100
5.3.3 Assurance activities at farms and export trade companies along the supply chain in Kenya and Uganda .................................................................................................... 104
5.3.4 Systems output for farms and export trade companies along the supply chain in Kenya and Uganda ........................................................................................................ 104
5.4 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 106
5.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 111
Chapter 6 ..................................................................................................................................... 114
Opinions on fresh produce food safety and quality standards by fresh produce supply chain experts from Kenya and Uganda .......................................................................... 114
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 115
6.2.1 The survey questionnaire ............................................................................................... 116
6.2.2 Acquisition of respondents ............................................................................................ 117
6.3 Results and discussion ................................................................................................... 118
Chapter 7 ..................................................................................................................................... 129
General Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Perspectives ........................................................... 129
7.1 Rationale of fresh produce safety in the international trade and East African Community ................................................................................................................... 130
7.2 Major research findings ................................................................................................. 132
7.2.1 Economic relevancy of the fresh produce trade in Kenya and Uganda ............................ 132
7.2.2 Impact of the organization of the fresh produce supply chain on the adoption of FSMS in Kenya and Uganda ..................................................................................... 133
7.2.3 FSMS performance on certified farms in Kenya and non-certified farms in Uganda ....... 137
7.2.4 FSMS chain performance for producers and traders in Kenya and Uganda ..................... 138
7.2.5 Opinions on the fresh produce food safety and quality standards .................................... 139
7.3 Lessons learned and the way forward ............................................................................ 140
7.3.1 The situation in Kenya .................................................................................................. 140
7.3.2 The situation in Uganda ................................................................................................. 141
7.3.3 Limitations and future research...................................................................................... 144
References ................................................................................................................................... 145
Scientific curriculum vitae ........................................................................................................... 166
List of abbreviations
AAK Agrochemical Association of Kenya
ADC Agribusiness Development Center
BRC British Retail Consortium
CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission
CCPs Critical Control Points
COMTRADE United Nations Commodity Trade
DFID Department for International Development
DI Diagnostic Instruments
EAC East African Community
EC European Commission
ECDC European Center for Disease Control
EFSS European Food Safety Standards
EFSA European Food Safety Authority
EFTA European Free Trade Association
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics
FFV Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
FPEAK Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya
FS Food Safety
FSMS Food Safety Management System(s)
FSMS-DI Food Safety Management System-Diagnostic Instrument
FP Framework Program
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHP Good Hygiene Practices
Global GAP Global Good Agricultural Practices
GMP Good Manufacturing Practices
GTZ German Technical Cooperation Agency
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
HCDA Horticultural Crops Development Authority
IDEA Investment in Developing Export Agriculture project
IFS International Food Standard
IFS International Foundation for Science
ISO International Organization for Standardization
KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KEBS Kenya Bureau of Standards
KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services
KENFAP Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Products
LFMFP Laboratory of Food Microbiology and Food Preservation
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MOH Ministry of Health
MRLs Maximum Residual Levels
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NFSCC National Food Safety Coordinating Committee
NHTF National Horticultural Task Force
NoV Norovirus
NRI: National Research Institute
PIP Pest Integrated Program
PPPs Public-Private Partnerships
PCPB Pest Control Products Board
PRP Pre-requisite Programme
QA Quality Assurance
QMS Quality Management System
RASFF Rapid Alert System on Foods and Feed
RTE Ready-to-eat
STAK Seeds Traders Association
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SPSS Statistical package for social sciences
SQF Safe Quality Food
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UEPB Uganda Exports Promotion Board
UK United Kingdom
UNBS Uganda National Bureau of Standards
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade & Development
US United States
USA United States of America
USAID US Agency for International Development
VTEC Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli
WHO World Health Organisation
Objectives and outline of the thesis
Preface
This doctoral research has been performed within the framework of the European Integrated Project Veg-
i-Trade, which has been funded during 2010-2014 by the European Union as part of the Seventh Framework
Program (FP7) for Research and Technological Development (www.veg-i-trade.org, grant agreement no
244994). The overall strategic objective of Veg-i-Trade was to identify the impact of anticipated climate
change and globalization of trade on food safety of fresh produce and derived food products. The project
focuses on microbial safety (enteric bacteria, viruses and protozoa) and safety related to pesticide residues
and emerging mycotoxins. This doctoral research has been part of the research activities performed within
two of the main pillars of the Veg-i-Trade project namely: 1) mapping of the economic structure and
organization of the fresh produce supply chain at European and global levels and 2) development and
validation of diagnostic instruments as a tool for the systematic assessment of the performance of Food
Safety Management Systems (FSMS) in the fresh produce chain. The pillar for mapping of the economic
structure and organization of the fresh produce supply chain concentrated on identifying the production and
trade trends (import/export quantity/value) of important fresh produce products for selected countries at
both the EU and global levels. Various chain actors and their roles were identified particularly at the micro-
meso- and macro-levels in terms of organization structure of the fresh produce supply chain. Assessing
practices of current FSMS for fresh produce in relation to their actual chemical and microbiological food
safety performance from a broader non-European perspective has been covered specifically in the second
pillar under which this doctoral research resorts.
For the present doctoral research, data collection was performed in two East African countries namely
Kenya and Uganda and it was funded by IFS (International Foundation for Science). The East African
Community (EAC) is one of the leading regional economic organizations in the Sub-Saharan Africa, yet
except Kenya, the rest of its member states (Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi) are still among the
least developed countries in the world. The economies of the EAC member states depend on non-traditional
export agricultural products like fresh produce among others (World Bank., 2008). In particular, the EU
has always been EAC's major fresh produce export market but this status quo depends on whether the East
African Community member states can successfully meet the unprecedented requirements to guarantee that
food safety is uncompromised. However, the majority of the stakeholders in the EAC fresh produce sector
are still smallholders who commonly lack resources, facilities, technical and administrative capacities
needed for compliance (Okello and Swinton, 2007b; UNCTAD, 2008). Besides, they operate under
inadequate food safety regulatory frameworks that are too weak to empower stakeholders comply with food
safety and quality standards imposed by importing countries (Kussaga, 2014; Nguz, 2007). In the present
research the focus will be on these two East African countries with different export platforms for fresh
produce in the European Union: Kenya with green beans having a stronghold in the premium EU fresh
produce export market and Uganda with hot peppers having a stronghold in the wholesale EU fresh produce
market. Although quite similar in terms of geographical location, export destination and climatic conditions
(i.e. tropical climate with increased risk of crop pest and disease pressures), the question arises why these
two countries have contrasting features of food standards certification level, economical trade values and
adoption of good agricultural practices, thus rendering the comparison of the performance of their
respective FSMS in their fresh produce supply chains interesting (figure 0.1). The top vegetable export
supply chain of each of two countries is green beans in Kenya and hot peppers in Uganda.
EU FRESH PRODUCE MARKET
???
Figure 0.1: Research question scheme on green beans in Kenya and hot peppers in Uganda
• Kenya and Uganda were both colonized by the British • The two nations got the independence at almost the same time (Uganda 1962 and Kenya 1963). • Both are member states in the East African Community • Same geographical location in East African region and neighbor to each other • Have same climatic conditions and same crop pest and disease pressures in production • Both depend mainly on small holder farmers in production
US$ 55.8 million export value
US$ 0.5 million export value
US$ 55.8 million export value
US$ 0.5 million export value
US$ 55.8 million export value
The green bean subsector in Kenya and hot pepper subsector in Uganda
Many countries in Africa (and other developing areas) have begun producing more non-traditional
agriculture products (fruits and vegetables, flowers and other horticultural products) in an effort to diversify
their agricultural exports and increase foreign exchange earnings compared to traditional agriculture
products (coffee, tea, cotton and sugar). Kenya and Uganda are among the Sub-Saharan African countries
relevant in fresh fruits and vegetable production and exportation countries. However, Kenya has the longest
experience with exports in fresh fruits and vegetables compared to Uganda. In 2013, Uganda’s hot pepper
export value totaled about US$ 0.5 million (UEPB, 2013a) compared to Kenya’s green beans which had a
turnover of US$ 55.8 million in export value (FAOSTAT, 2013a). Since the 1990s, exports in both countries
have increased but with significant erratic trends for the hot pepper exports in Uganda which have been
fluctuating more than green bean exports in Kenya (Figure 0.2).
a) Kenya green bean exports b) Uganda hot pepper exports
Figure 0.2: Export value trends for Green beans in Kenya and Hot peppers in Uganda Source: FAOSTAT database by FAO 2014. Kenya
Kenya exports green beans almost exclusively throughout the year to the international markets especially
the EU market. Kenya’s green bean industry is one of the oldest in Africa. It started in the 1960s and
expanded rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s (Henson and Humphrey, 2010; McCulloh and Otta., 2002;
Okado, 2001). The expansion in trade slowed down in the 1990s as the industry adjusted to the imposition
of the international food safety standards but has since recovered and even increased its volume of exports.
The domestic market is supplied with non-export oriented seasonal production and the discards of the export
oriented early production. More than 90 percent of the green beans produced in Kenya are exported to
regional and international markets while 10 percent is for the domestic market consumption. Kenya
traditionally channels virtually all of its green bean exports to Western Europe, with very small quantities
going to Australia/New Zealand, South Africa, and Dubai. The bulk of the exports go to the UK, Holland,
France and Germany. The UK is still the biggest market for Kenyan vegetables absorbing more than 60%
of Kenya’s green beans per year. Within the UK, the leading retailers of Kenyan beans are Waitrose, Tesco,
Marks and Spencer, and Sainsbury’s. These major retailers control the major share of fresh export business
especially in the UK. Indeed, retailers/supermarkets control 70% of the Kenyan green bean trade and 100%
of the high-care pre-packed “ready to eat” fresh vegetable trade in general. The majority of the leading
European retailers have developed very stringent standards relating to fresh produce safety, among others.
They have subsequently passed on these standards to sourcing agents or suppliers in developing countries
(Okello et al., 2011; Okello and Roy, 2007; Singh, 2002).
Uganda
Hot pepper (Scotch Bonnet) is considered as Uganda’s top export vegetable product and is a high value
crop. The hot pepper subsector in Uganda involves various actors who participate in labor-intensive
activities associated with production, harvesting, grading, sorting, transportation and marketing of the
vegetable. The subsector is an important source of employment and is dominated by small holder farms all
over the country (Luz Diaz Rios et al., 2009; Ulrich et al., 2007). Most production for hot pepper in the
country is geared towards the export market. There is no minimal processing of hot pepper as a pre-cut
vegetable. RECO industries, is the only food company that makes sauce products out of it. The hot pepper
subsector uses three existing channels for marketing; local/domestic market (2%), regional market (8%),
and export market (90%). Fresh hot pepper exports from Uganda are targeted for ‘ethnic’/immigrant
wholesale markets in Europe especially in the UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and France which
practically have no official attention to pesticide residues, product traceability, or other parameters which
have become increasingly important in the more mainstream segments of the EU fresh produce market or,
more specifically, for sales channeled through the leading supermarket chains (Luz Diaz et al., 2009).
So, both countries have a high potential for exporting fresh produce but they reveal different export numbers
(Kenya’s green bean US$ 55.8 million verses Uganda’s hot pepper US$ 0.5 million in export value).
Moreover, they deal with different customer demands, (i.e. the very stringent retail requirements (Kenya)
versus the less demanding ethnic/immigrant wholesale market (Uganda)) on food safety management
systems and agricultural practices.
Research objectives
Thus far, few studies concerning production, trade, organization of the supply chain and Food Safety
Management Systems (FSMS) for fresh produce, have concentrated specifically on Sub-Saharan African
countries, which is exactly the gap in contemporary knowledge this study aims to bridge. The overall
objective is to study the modalities and incentives for implementation of Food Safety Management Systems
in two East African neighboring countries both at farm and trade level in the fresh produce supply chain.
The scope of the study is the East African Community with specific focus to the green bean and hot pepper
chains in Kenya and Uganda respectively in view of their export trends in the global fresh produce market.
The specific research objectives of the study were as follows;
To determine the economic relevancy of the East African Community in the global fresh produce
market; and the fresh produce export performance of Kenya and Uganda compared to other EAC
member states.
To examine the impact of the organization of the fresh produce supply chain on the adoption of
FSMS in the hot pepper chain in Uganda.
To analyze the influence of food safety standards certification on the level of performance of FSMS
in the green bean and hot pepper chains in Kenya and Uganda.
To compare the performance of FSMS along the green bean and hot pepper chains in Kenya and
Uganda.
To evaluate the relevancy of food safety standards in the fresh produce sector(s) in Kenya and
Uganda in view of food sovereignty.
Figure 0.3 presents the positioning of the different chapters relative to the present research framework.
Chapter 1 provides review of scientific literature on various exploratory insights about the fresh produce
sector and builds further into the organization of the fresh produce supply chain, and food safety in the fresh
produce sector. The aim of Chapter 2 was to assess the impact of the organization of the fresh produce
supply chain towards the adoption of FSMS in the hot pepper chain in Uganda respectively. Chapter 3
continues with Food Safety Management Systems in the fresh produce sector. It provides a descriptive
analysis of concepts on Food Safety Management systems, FSMS diagnostic tools, use of FSMS diagnostic
tools in the fresh produce sector. Validation of the constructs related to FSMS diagnostic tools in the EU
and global contexts is provided. Chapter 4 assesses the effect of food safety standards certification on the
level of performance of FSMS in the green bean and hot pepper chains in Kenya and Uganda respectively.
The aim of Chapter 5 was to study the performance of food safety management systems in fresh produce
supply chains in East Africa, including the shift in performance from cultivation towards trade activities.
As multiple stakeholders are involved in the fresh produce chain, all setting requirements to the organization
of the chain and product safety/hygiene, opinions on barriers and opportunities of standards are investigated
and discussed (Chapter 6). Finally, Chapter 7 provides the general discussion and conclusions. The most
important findings of this doctoral research are discussed; and conclusions, implications and
recommendations from the different research parts are tied together.
Introduction and objectives
Chapter 2 Chapter 3
Food Safety Management Sytems in the Fresh produce chain
Chapter 4 FSMS at primary production in Kenya and Uganda Chapter 5 FSMS across the chain in Kenya and Uganda (primary production to trade)
Chapter 6: Chapter 7:
Figure 0.3: Thesis structure
-Kenya green bean farms
• Organization of the fresh produce supply chain to the adoption of FSMS: micro, meso and macro levels in Uganda
• Diagnostic tools on food safety management system performance from an European to the global perspective
Chapter 1 Literature review
• Kenya green bean farms • Uganda hot pepper farms
• Kenya green bean farms and trade companies
• Uganda hot pepper farms and trade companies
• Opinions on food safety standards for fresh produce from Kenya and Uganda
General discussion, conclusions and future perspectives
• Rational of issues on fresh produce safety in the
international trade and EAC
Summary
Owing to its evident benefits on human health, fresh produce has become a major transformation in the
composition of agro-food exports from developing countries, with a rapid expansion in high value non-
traditional agro-food products. Food safety in the fresh produce trade (fresh fruits and vegetables) has
become a concern because of the degree of manipulation of the produce throughout the entire supply chain,
the high perishability, thus, susceptibility to damage and disease during the pre- and post-harvest; and the
stringency of standards and regulations in developed countries. This doctoral research has been performed
within the framework of the European Research Project Veg-i-Trade. The overall objective of the research
was to improve the understanding of the cross-country differences in the production and trade trends of the
fresh produce as well as a comparison of modalities and incentives for implementation of Food Safety
Management Systems (FSMS) in the supply chains at both farm and trade level(s) in the two East African
neighboring countries (Kenya and Uganda). This PhD thesis is structured using a conceptual framework
based on three levels of the organization of the fresh produce supply chain (micro, meso and macro) and
application of the FSMS diagnostic tools for primary production and trade. Both qualitative exploratory
(focus group discussions) and quantitative conclusive (FSMS assessment surveys) studies were conducted,
with secondary and primary data input.
Cross-country differences between Kenya and Uganda in production and trade trends of fresh produce,
organization of the fresh produce supply chain at micro, meso and macro levels, FSMS performance at farm
level, FSMS performance along the chain and opinions on fresh produce food safety and quality standards
are studied.
The three largest producers of fresh vegetables in the EAC are Tanzania (36%), Kenya (30%) and Uganda
(17%). Kenya has exceedingly performed better than the rest of the EAC member states in export value
with a share of 61% compared to Uganda with 9%. Green beans are the top export vegetable crop in Kenya
with US$ 55.8 million in export value in 2013. In Uganda, hot peppers are the top export vegetable crop
with US$ 0.5 million in export value in 2013. Export trends for green beans in Kenya have increased
steadily over the years compared to the more fluctuating export trends for hot peppers in Uganda.
The organization of the fresh produce supply chain at the micro, meso and macro levels in Kenya is more
established and developed compared to that of Uganda. At the micro level, the farmers and exporters in
Kenya have bigger and modern facilities, apply modern farming systems, consolidated into producer groups
and are more knowledgeable in good farming practices unlike the case of Uganda where farmers and
exporters are still at the small scale level with more subsistence farming practices and with limited modern
facilities and knowledge on good farming practices. At the meso level, Kenya has more established and
specialized supportive structures and agencies which empower farmers and exporters to comply with food
safety requirements and to be competitive in the export market than in Uganda. At the macro level, Kenya
has a more developed food safety legal framework to regulate the fresh produce sector on food safety issues
compared to the case of Uganda which is still at the draft stage of developing its legal food safety frame
work.
Certification of food safety standards has a positive role towards the maturity level in the performance of
FSMS at farms in developing countries. Results show that in Uganda, non-certified hot pepper farms
revealed only a ‘basic level of control and assurance’ activities in their FSMS which was not satisfactory
enough to obtain a good system output. On the other hand, the certified green bean farms in Kenya had ‘an
average-advanced level’ which resulted in a good system output.
Pressures and forces from the global markets transmitted through the broad food safety regulation and
enforcement networks have an important bearing on the performance of food safety management systems
along the fresh produce chains in developing countries. Results show that in Uganda, the performance of
FSMS at farm and trade levels along the hot pepper chain is the same with a basic systems output while in
Kenya, the green bean chain shows a shift in the FSMS performance from an average systems output at
farm level to an average-advanced systems output at trade level.
Overall, results on opinions about fresh produce food safety and quality standards reveal that stakeholders
in the fresh produce sector in Kenya had a ‘proactive’ perception towards food safety standards while those
in the fresh produce sector in Uganda had a ‘reactive’ perception. The demanding role of private standards
and EU legislation was highlighted and they were perceived as the most costly and difficult to implement
compared to the rest of the world by stakeholders in both Kenya and Uganda. However, there are stronger
opinions of Kenya concerning the cost and difficulty to implement private standards and EU legislation
than Uganda because Kenya’s exports are targeted to the premium markets in the EU.
Future research is recommended, particularly focusing on (i) other EAC member countries (not only Kenya
and Uganda); (ii) specific FSMS assessments for both fresh fruits and vegetables production with
destination in the EAC rather than top export vegetables in order to guarantee also food safety in the
domestic supply chain; (iii) a detailed assessment of the role of micro, meso and macro organization levels
of the supply chain towards the implementation of sustainable FSMS practices for fresh produce in the
EAC; (iv) the use of the obtained results from a broader FSMS sector assessment of the EAC fresh produce
so as to design detailed guidelines for possible enhanced improvements of the performance of the FSMS
in the fresh produce sector in the EAC.
Samenvatting
Verse groenten en fruit zijn gezonde levensmiddelen en zorgden voor een belangrijke transformatie in de
samenstelling van de agro-voeding export vanuit ontwikkelingslanden, met een snelle groei in
hoogwaardige, niet-traditionele verse groenten en fruit. Voedselveiligheid in de handel van verse groenten
en fruit is een belangrijk aandachtspunt door de verschillende manipulaties van de levensmiddelen doorheen
de ganse aanvoerketen, de snelle bederfbaarheid en dus de gevoeligheid voor schade en ontwikkeling van
micro-organismen gedurende voor- of naoogst periodes, dit alles resulterend in strenge standaarden en
wetgevingen in de importerende landen (vaak ontwikkelde landen). Dit doctoraatsonderzoek werd
uitgevoerd in het kader van een grootschalig Europees onderzoeksproject Veg-i-Trade. De algemene
doelstelling van het onderzoek is om de verschillen tussen landen te identificeren en begrijpen inzake de
productie en handel van verse groenten en fruit alsook de modaliteiten en initiatieven voor de implementatie
van Voedselveiligheidsborgingssystemen (VVBS) in de producerende (primaire productie) of
verhandelende bedrijven (export georiënteerde bedrijven) en dit in twee naburige landen, Kenia en
Oeganda, beiden behorende tot Oost Afrika. Dit doctoraatsonderzoek is gestructureerd volgens een
conceptueel onderzoeksmiddel gebaseerd op niveaus in de organisatie van de verse groenten en fruit
aanvoerketen (micro-, meso- en macroniveau) en heeft gebruik gemaakt van de VVBS diagnostische tools
voor de primaire sector en de handel in verse groenten en fruit. Zowel kwalitatieve explorerende (via focus
groepsdiscussies) als kwantitatieve studies (VVBS beoordelingsstudies in individuele bedrijven) werden
uitgevoerd voor de data verzameling, resulterend in primaire en secundaire data die verwerkt en onder
discussie gebracht werden. De verschillen tussen Kenia en Oeganda inzake trend van productie en handel
van verse groenten en fruit, de organisatie van de keten op micro-, meso- en macroniveau, het niveau van
VVBS op landbouwbedrijven, het niveau van VVBS doorheen de keten en opinies door stakeholders op de
gangbare voedselveiligheid- en kwaliteitsstandaarden werden onderzocht. De drie grootste producenten van
verse groenten binnen de Oost Afrikaanse Commissie (OAC) zijn Tanzania (36%), Kenia (30%) en
Oeganda (17%). Kenia heeft de beste exportwaarde binnen de OAC met 61% aandeel, terwijl Oeganda
slechts 9% aandeel heeft. Groene bonen zijn het top exportproduct voor Kenia met 55,8 miljoen US$ in
exportwaarde voor 2013. In Oeganda zijn groene pepers het top exportproduct met een exportwaarde van
0,5 miljoen US$. De exporttrend van de Keniaanse groene bonen zijn de laatste jaren systematisch gestegen
terwijl variabele exportgroei aanwezig is voor Oeganda inzake groene pepers. De organisatie van de verse
groenten aanvoerketen op micro-, meso- en macroniveau in Kenia is meer ontwikkeld en aanwezig in
vergelijking met Oeganda. Op microniveau, zijn er grote en moderne productiebedrijven en handelaars, met
moderne en up-to-date teelttechnieken, geconsolideerd in producentengroepen en samenwerkingen die
meer vertrouwd zijn met goede landbouwpraktijken in vergelijking met Oeganda, waar zowel
landbouwbedrijven als handelaars op kleine schaal opereren, met eerder traditionele landbouwtechnieken
en een beperkte aanwezigheid van moderne faciliteiten en kennis inzake goede landbouwpraktijken. Op het
mesoniveau heeft Kenia sterke en gespecialiseerde ondersteunende structuren en agentschappen die de
landbouwers en handelaars ondersteunen om met de strenge voorwaarden inzake voedselveiligheid te
kunnen voldoen en te kunnen exporteren naar een competitieve markt zoals in Europa. In Oeganda
daarentegen ontbreek de mesostructuur waardoor er geen ondersteuning is om te kunnen voldoen aan de
strenge normen. Ook op macroniveau heeft Kenia een goed uitgebouwd wettelijk kader en structuren om
bedrijfscontroles en productcontroles te kunnen uitvoeren, terwijl in Oeganda deze nog steeds aan het begin
van uitwerking en invoering staan. Het onderzoek toonde ook aan dat de certificatie voor (commerciële)
voedselveiligheidsstandaarden een positieve invloed had op het niveau van een
voedselveiligheidsborgingssysteem (VVBS) aanwezig in de landbouwbedrijven in ontwikkelingslanden.
De resultaten van de interviews met landbouwers tonen aan dat niet gecertificeerde bedrijven in Oeganda
hun controle- en borgingsactiviteiten in hun VVBS op een basisniveau uitvoeren of dat ze soms zelfs
helemaal niet aanwezig zijn. Deze situatie resulteert in een outputniveau dat onvoldoende en ongekend is.
De bedrijven weten dus niet ofdat ze goed of slecht bezig zijn inzake de bewaking van voedselveiligheid.
Terwijl de gecertificeerde landbouwbedrijven in Kenia een gemiddeld tot geadvanceerd niveau behalen
resulterend in een goede systeemoutput. De druk en kracht van de wereldmarkt vertaald in de bredere
wetgeving inzake voedselveiligheid en implementatie netwerken (vb. laboratoria, auditbureau’s, etc.)
hebben een belangrijk impact op de werking van de VVBS langsheen de verse groenten en fruitketen in
ontwikkelingslanden. De resultaten van het onderzoek gaven weer dat in Oeganda de performantie van de
geïmplementeerde VVBS op landbouwbedrijven en in de handelsbedrijven op eenzelfde (basis) niveau is.
In Kenia, waar de handelaars in nauw contact staan met de veeleisende afnemers van de Europese markt,
zien we het niveau van VVBS toenemend in de handelsbedrijven in vergelijking met de landbouwbedrijven,
die verder in die aanvoerketen zitten. De resultaten betreffende de opinies van de stakeholders, in contact
met landbouwers en handelsbedrijven, inzake de geldende wettelijke en commerciële standaarden
resulteerde in de conclusie dat in Kenia een pro-actieve houding wordt aangenomen terwijl in Oeganda een
eerder reactieve houding aanwezig is. De veeleisende rol van commerciële standaarden en de Europese
wetgeving werd belicht en deze werden gepercipieerd als de meest kostelijke en meest moeilijke
standaarden om te implementeren ten opzichte van nationale en andere internationale standaarden. En dit
zowel door de stakeholders in Kenia als in Oeganda.
Verder onderzoek wordt voorgesteld om (1) andere landen behorend tot OAC ook in dergelijk onderzoek
mee te nemen, (2) beoordeling van het VVBS uit te voeren in bedrijven actief in verse groenten- en
fruitproductie in de OAC met bestemming de lokale markt en niet de (top) exportproductie om zo ook de
voedselveiligheid te verbeteren voor producten op de lokale markt, (3) gedetailleerd onderzoek van de rol
van organisaties in het micro-, meso- en macroniveau in de keten in relatie met de uitbouw en implementatie
van een VVBS in OAC en tenslotte (4) de bekomen resultaten te verwerken in een breder plan van aanpak
om de performantie van VVBS in de verse groenten en fruitketen (primaire productie en verhandeling) in
OAC te verhogen om zo exportmogelijkheden te verbeteren alsook de veiligheid van de lokale markt meer
te kunnen garanderen.
Chapter 1
Literature Review
1.1 Introduction
Fresh produce are agricultural products and especially fresh fruits and vegetables as distinguished from
grain and other staple crops (NCECA, 2009). Fresh fruits and vegetables are likely to be sold to consumers
in an unprocessed (raw) form and in developed countries are becoming more popularly consumed in ready
to eat form (Ragaert et al., 2004). Currently, there is an increase in international trade with respect to fresh
fruits and vegetables (FAOSTAT, 2014). The following sections give a detailed description about types of
fresh produce products, consumer preferences and consumption information.
1.1.1 Types of fresh produce
There are two type of fresh produce namely; fresh fruits and fresh vegetables.
Fresh fruits are in broad terms defined as, “Edible reproductive bodies of seeds for plants that usually have
sweet pulp associated with the seeds” (Keller, 2002). Also, botanists have defined fruits as ripened ovaries
along with their contents and adhering accessory structures. Fruits are produced from flowers on the plants
and trees. According to the Food Agriculture Organization Statistics (FAOSTAT) database fresh fruits and
fresh vegetables can be clearly identified. In table 1.1, fresh fruit commodities derived from the FAOSTAT
data-base are shown.
Fresh vegetables (including fresh herbs) are broadly defined as, “Edible plants or part of plants other
than the sweet fruits or seeds” (Keller, 2002). Fresh vegetables usually mean the edible leaves, stems, or
roots of herbaceous plants. They can be eaten fresh or cooked as part of a meal. Similarly, in table 1.2, fresh
vegetable commodities derived from the FAOSTAT data-base are shown.
Table 1.1: Fresh fruits commodities in the FAOSTAT database
FAO Code Commodity FAO Code Commodity 486 Bananas 550 Currants 490 Oranges 552 Blueberries 495 Tangerines, mandarins, clem. 554 Cranberries 497 Lemons and limes 558 Berries Nes1 507 Grapefruit (inc. pomelos) 560 Grapes 512 Citrus fruit, nes1 567 Watermelons 515 Apples 568 Other melons (inc.cantaloupes) 521 Pears 569 Figs 523 Quinces 571 Mangoes, mangosteens, guavas 526 Apricots 572 Avocados 530 Sour cherries 574 Pineapples 531 Cherries 577 Dates 534 Peaches and nectarines 587 Persimmon 536 Plums and sloes 591 Cashewapple 541 Stone fruit, nes 592 Kiwi fruit 544 Strawberries 600 Papayas 547 Raspberries 603 Fruit, tropical fresh nes1 549 Gooseberries 619 Fruit Fresh Nes1 587 Persimmonn
1 Within the FAOSTAT database, some of the commodities are presented as groups of fruits. All the definitions can be consulted on http://faostat.fao.org/site/384/default.aspx. Source: FAOSTAT, 2014.
Table 1.2: Fresh vegetables commodities in the FAOSTAT database FAO Code Commodity FAO Code Commodity 358 Cabbages and other brassicas 402 Onions (inc. shallots), green1 366 Artichokes 403 Onions, dry 367 Asparagus 406 Garlic 372 Lettuce and chicory 407 Leeks 373 Spinach 414 Beans, green 388 Tomatoes 417 Peas, green 393 Cauliflowers and broccoli 423 String beans 394 Pumpkins, squash and gourds 426 Carrots and turnips 397 Cucumbers and gherkins 430 Okra 399 Eggplants (aubergines) 446 Maize, green 401 Chillies and peppers, green 449 Mushrooms and truffles 423 String beans 463 Vegetables fresh nes1 407 Leaks, allicious1
1 Within the FAOSTAT database, some of the commodities are presented as groups of vegetables. All the definitions can be consulted on http://faostat.fao.org/site/384/default.aspx Source: FAOSTAT, 2014.
1.1.2 Consumer preferences for fresh produce
Fresh produce is an important part of a healthy diet. Its consumption is known to have a protective health
effect against a range of diseases. Several epidemiological and human intervention studies have shown
positive correlations between the intake of fresh fruits and vegetables and the prevention of diseases, such
as cardiovascular disease and several forms of cancer (Blasa et al., 2010; Goldberg, 2003; Joseph et al.,
1999; Kaur and Kapoor, 2001; Keller, 2002; Ness and Powles, 1997; Prior and Cao, 2000; Southon, 2000;
Steinmetz and Potter, 1996; Wargovich, 2000).
In more than twenty countries (e.g. the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Belgium, the US and Brazil), fresh
produce consumption is encouraged by governmental health agency campaigns. They recommend
consuming at least five daily servings of fruit and vegetables (Abadias et al., 2008). Considering the rapid
changes in lifestyles associated with rising income, and growing middle class populations in both developed
and developing countries, people are spending less time preparing meals, thereby driving the upsurge in
demand for “convenient” foods, including fresh produce. Consumer demand for fresh fruits and vegetables
has continued to grow due to increasing rising consumer health consciousness and public interest in the role
of food in maintaining and improving overall human well-being (Jacxsens et al., 2015a). Moreover,
changing eating habits such as snacking, year-round product availability and a growing trend towards
vegetarianism and healthy eating have resulted in an increasing demand for convenient products that fit
into the modern consumer lifestyle, while offering healthy food. Fresh produce products have thus become
very popular to consumer shopping baskets.
In the EAC, consumption of fruits and vegetables is considerably low compared to other food groups like
eggs, meat, starch staples like maize, millet and wheat. Ugandans typically only spend about 8% of their
food budget on fruits and vegetables compared to Kenyans who spend 22% of their food budget on fruits
and vegetables. There are many reasons for inadequate quantities of FFV in East African diets. Although
food consumption patterns vary by country and income group, many of these traditional diets are based on
cereals or starches and FFV are not part of everyday consumption patterns and not featured as a priority
food item in household food budgets. Also, the high prices of FFV could preclude certain income groups
from including FFV in their diets (USAID, 2013).
1.1.3 Consumption of fresh produce
Accurate data on global intake of fruits and vegetables is scarce, mainly because researchers use different
assessment methods and also dietary intake assessment programs are scarce in many countries. As part of
a comparative risk assessment (CRA) to estimate the global health effect of low fruit and vegetable intake
conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) within its Global Burden of Disease 2000 Study,
Pomerleau et al. (2004) showed that intakes varied considerably by region, gender and age. Highest fruit
and vegetable mean intake was in Europe and the Western Pacific Region. However, the lowest intakes
were found in America, South East Asia, and Africa respectively. Similar analytical studies that support
the new collaborative WHO/FAO global strategies on diet, physical activity and health (Smith and
Eyzaguirre, 2007; WHO, 2003a, b, c) showed that despite the rise in fruit and vegetable intake during the past 25 years, global consumption is still well below the minimum recommended intake of 400 grams per
person per day. Also a recent study by Jacxsens et al., (2015a) on consumption of fresh produce in northern
and southern Europe showed that the consumption (frequency of consumption and portion size) of target
commodities by Spanish respondents was reported higher than for Belgian respondents.
1.2 The global fresh produce sector
The global fresh produce market is a complex multi-billion dollar business, involving a wide range of small-
to large-scale supply chains (Cook, 2003; Diop and Jaffee, 2005). The handling of fresh produce for long-
term preservation and maintenance of quality and safety has been propelled by advances in postharvest
science and technological innovations (Huang, 2004). Therefore, this has contributed to year-round supply
and availability of fresh produce products grown in diverse climates that are continents apart. For example,
oranges produced in South Africa, apples produced in China, pineapples grown in Ghana, or strawberries
grown in Belgium can be purchased in top quality condition elsewhere in supermarkets in parts of Europe,
North America, Asia and Africa.
With the rising influence of multinational firms in the globalization of fresh produce supply chains, and
increasing consumption of fruit and vegetables, the market for fresh produce has continued to expand
globally during the past decade (Ait Hou et al., 2015; Florkowski et al., 2014; Goetz and Grethe, 2009;
Harker et al., 2003; Murray, 1997; Wismer, 2014). In comparison to other items of international trade, the
fresh produce market has experienced significant change, driven in large part by increased consumer
demand and sophistication, and corresponding adaptations by streamlined complex global supply chains
(Busch and Bain, 2004; Reardon et al., 2009; World Bank, 2005). These changes are accompanied by
consolidation of retailers and distributors to reduce costs and streamline and improve supply-chain
management practices, expansion of product offerings and movement towards year-round supply, and
increases in imports (Phipps et al., 2013; Rischke et al., 2015; Yu and Nagurney, 2013).
Large supermarket chains have continued to adopt measures to lower labor and capital costs, promote
product differentiation and improve consumer services, in order to remain profitable in an increasingly
competitive environment (Diop and Jaffee, 2005). Innovations in procurement and distribution of produce,
such as inventory mechanization and automation, direct delivery by suppliers, use of specialty wholesalers
and fixed contracts with suppliers, help to improve cost efficiencies and streamline the highly globalized
fresh produce supply chain (Fletcher, 1993; McLaughlin, 2004; Michelson et al., 2012; Shewfelt and
Prussia, 2009).
Considering the significant rise in global fresh produce production and trade during the last quarter of a
century, the fruit and vegetable market has become one of the fastest growing components of all agricultural
markets (EC, 2007; FAOSTAT, 2014). In addition, developing countries have experienced increase in
exports of these non-traditional crop products (Dolan and Humphrey, 2000; Jaffee and Masakure, 2005b;
World Bank, 2005). The growth of fresh fruits and vegetables, in both production and trade, also reflect the
increases in per capita intake (Hodder, 2005; WHO/FAO, 2005). A recent analysis of the evolution of world
fruit and vegetable markets by Juan et al. (2014) based on statistics from the FAO showed that global
vegetable import and export increased between 1989 and 2008 with 170.5% and 185.5% respectively,
while fruit import and export increased with 121.0% and 136.6%, respectively.
Despite that the global fresh produce sector continues to grow, it is also increasingly becoming a complex
food supply chain. As many other agricultural sectors, the fresh produce sector frequently involves high
risks, with low potential for corresponding high returns. Postharvest innovation in handling and distribution
technology, retailer and wholesaler consolidation, changing legal environment, international standards and
agreements, food safety issues and health concerns create new challenges and new opportunities in a sector
where per hectare cost of production is already high, and traditional government safety nets for industry do
not normally exist (Cook, 2003; Diop and Jaffee, 2005; Dolan and Humphrey, 2000; Fulponi, 2006; Gorton
et al., 2011; Juan et al., 2014; Michelson et al., 2012; Parker et al., 2012b; Saitone and Sexton, 2010).
1.2.1 Trends in global production of fresh vegetables
In 2013, there was a production of 1.14 billion tons of vegetables on an agricultural production area of 195
million hectares. The production quantity and area of vegetables increased between 1993 and 2013 with
120% and 29.2%, respectively. The three largest producers of vegetables in the world are China (71.7%),
India (14.3%) and the US (6.97%). The main produced vegetables in the world are: tomatoes (16.5%),
onions (8.5%), cabbages and other brassicas (7.4%), cucumber and gherkins (6.8%) and egg-plants (4.6%).
A steady increase was observed for the production of fresh vegetables from 1993to 2013 (FAOSTAT,
2015a). Figure 1.1 presents the evolution between 1993 and 2013 of the production quantity of fresh
vegetables in the world.
Figure 1.1: Evolution of production quantity of fresh vegetables in the world between 1993 and 2013 Source: FAOSTAT, 2015
1.2.2 Trends in global trade of fresh vegetables
In 2012, there was a world trade export of 283 million tones fresh vegetables and a trade import of 235
million tones fresh vegetables. The export and import increased between 1992 and 2012 with 268% and
152.2%, respectively. The three largest importers of vegetables (quantity) in the world are Germany
(14.6%), the US (14%) and the UK (10.8%). The three main imported vegetables in the world are onions
(19.3%), tomatoes (19.1%) and chilies and peppers (7.4%). The three largest exporters of vegetables in the
world are the Netherlands (13%), Mexico (12.1%) and China (12.0%). Netherlands is one of the major
exporters of fresh vegetables because it’s a main re-exporter of fresh vegetables within the EU. The three
main exported vegetables in the world are tomatoes (19.8%), onions (19.8%) and chillies and peppers
(7.5%) (FAOSTAT, 2015b). Figure 1.2 present the evolution between 1992 and 2012 of the export volume
of fresh vegetables in the world. The world export volume of fresh vegetables increased between 1992 and
2012, with a sharp decline between 2009 and 2011, respectively. The reason for the decline is unkown but
could be due to the financial crisis in 2008 affecting global trade. New data from 2012 demonstrate the re-
establishment of trade.
Figure 1.2: Evolution of export value of fresh vegetables in the world between 1992 and 2012 Source: FAOSTAT, 2015
1.2.3 The EU fresh produce market: an important export hub for developing
countries
Fresh vegetables are one of the most important categories in European supermarkets. Over the last five
years, European (EU and EFTA) production and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables (FFV) have
been stable. Major future developments in total market volumes are not anticipated. Germany, UK, France
and the Netherlands are the biggest importers of FFV from developing countries. The Netherlands is a
major trade hub for fresh produce from developing countries destined for other European markets. European countries import a wide range of fresh products from developing countries besides, for example,
bananas, they also import out-of-season vegetables such as green beans and tropical fruits like mango and
avocado.
For vegetables, the main imported products are tomatoes (28%), potatoes (16%), onions/shallots (13%),
and sweet peppers (capsicum) (8%). Beans represent 10% of the imported volume from outside the EU and
EFTA in 2013. Notably for Kenya, in Table 1.3 the annual growth between 2009 and 2013 was -1% (status
quo). This is probably attributed to the excess pesticide issue they faced between 2012 and 2013; all green
beans from Kenya were subjected to 100% MRL checks. Also it is possible that Kenya is at its saturation
level for export. The Netherlands is the biggest importer from outside the EU, with 2.1 million tons of fruit
and 190 thousand tons of vegetables. Germany, the UK, France and Belgium are also major importers of
fresh fruit from developing countries (DC). The Netherlands re-exports a lot of fruit and vegetables to
Germany, France and other European countries (Eurostat, 2014). Table 1.3 below shows some of the
leading developing country suppliers of fresh fruit and vegetables to the EU fresh produce market. Table 1.3: Leading middle income country suppliers of vegetables to the EU in 2013 Country Export value (€ mln) Share of imports Annual growth ‘09-‘13
Morocco 803 30% 5%
Egypt 236 9% 4%
Peru 175 7% 10%
Kenya 163 6% -1%
Turkey 114 4% -9%
China 81 3% -2%
Mexico 52 2% 15%
Senegal 50 2% 20%
Guatemala 48 2% 24%
Argentina 39 1% -9%
Source: United Nations Comtrade, 2014.
1.2.4 Production and trade of fresh vegetables in EAC
Over the past 2-3 decades, the East African Community (EAC) has registered a drastic increase in the
volume of horticultural exports, particularly fresh vegetables to the European Union (EU). According to
UNCTAD (2008), this impressive trend has led to the involvement of many small-scale farmers in the
production of fresh vegetables in the region, hence, contributing towards poverty alleviation and rural
development. In this section, only data for fresh vegetables was used because the case study commodities
for this PhD study (green beans and hot peppers) are fresh vegetables. In 2012, there was a production of
6.5 million tons of fresh vegetables in the EAC. The three largest producers of fresh vegetables in the EAC
are Tanzania (36%), Kenya (30%) and Uganda (17%) as shown in Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.3: Production quantity (tones) of fresh vegetables in EAC member states in 2012 Source: FAOSTAT, 2014. Fresh vegetable exports within the East African Community (EAC) have experienced high growth rates
and better prices relative to the region's traditional agricultural exports, such as coffee and cotton, among
others (FAOSTAT, 2014). In 2013, there was an export value of USD 358.2 million of fresh vegetables in
the EAC. The three largest exporters of fresh vegetables in the EAC are Kenya with USD 216.7 million
(61%), Tanzania with USD 105.1 million (29%) and Uganda with USD 32.1 million (9%) as shown in
Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.4: Export value shares of fresh vegetables in EAC member states in 2013 Source: United Nations Comtrade, 2014.
1.2.5 Top export vegetables for EAC countries
The top three exported fresh vegetables on the EAC countries are shown in table 1.4. Green beans are the
most exported vegetables in the EAC countries with Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania having them in the first
position in export quantity in 2012. Green beans are also in second position for Burundi and Uganda in
export quantity. Onions and hot peppers are also important vegetables in export quantity in the EAC. For
this PhD study, the two case study commodities (green beans in Kenya and hot peppers in Uganda) were
selected basing on their first rank position for the top 3 export vegetables for EAC member states as shown
in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4: Top 3 export vegetables for EAC member states in 2012 Rank Burundi Kenya Rwanda Tanzania Uganda
1 Eggplants
(54)*
Green beans (132983)
Green beans
(1178)
Green beans
(2072)
Hot peppers (2737)
2 Green beans
(5)
Onions
(771)
Hot peppers
(64)
Onions
(267)
Green beans
(1057)
3 Onions
(1)
Carrots
(638)
Cabbages
(7)
Hot peppers
(132)
Green peas
(265)
Source: FAOSTAT, 2014. ()*- Quantities of commodities in tons
1.3 Organization of the fresh produce supply chain
The concept used to describe how the fresh produce supply chain is organized is as based on the
methodology of value chain promotion (Heinze, 2007). The organization of the fresh produce supply chain
follows a holistic approach including three levels namely; 1) micro, 2) meso, and 3) macro level.
Stakeholders in the fresh produce supply chain can be distinguished according to these three levels, namely
the chain operators (micro), chain supporters/support service providers (meso) and chain enablers (macro)
as shown in figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5: The three levels of organization of the fresh produce supply chain namely; mico, meso and macro level. Source: Author’s compilation
OPERATIONAL Service Providers
c MICRO LEVEL )
0~LEVE"L)
SUPPL Y CHAIN ENABLERS
SUPPORT
e.g. govei'JIJilents aJU! other regulamry btsötutions.
1.3.1 Micro-level of the supply chain
The micro level is where the value-added to a given product is generated and includes the chain operators.
The chain operators are the individuals and enterprises performing basic activities of the fresh produce
supply chain. Typical operators include agronomy suppliers, farmers/producers, small and medium
enterprises, industrial companies processing fresh produce, wholesalers, retailers and consumers. What they
all have in common is that they become owners of the (raw, semi processed or finished) product at one
stage in the supply chain. Moreover, at this level, the economic growth and its distribution occur across
enterprises along the chain. The three elements that are represented at the micro level of the basic chain
map for fresh produce include; the sequence of activities performed starting from specific inputs to
consumption, the value chain operators taking these activities and vertical business activity links between
the operators (figure 1.5).
1.3.2 Meso-level of the supply chain
The meso-level of the fresh produce supply chain includes the chain supporters (Figure 1.5). Supply chain
supporters provide support services and represent the common interests of the supply chain operators. They
are usually subcontracted by chain operators in the field and also provide support services off field (e.g.
financial support (Insurers and Creditors), trade and industry associations, capacity building organizations,
NGOs, trade promotion and advocacy agencies, Media, Research and development projects). These supply
chain supporters/ support service providers can be both private and public financed institutions. They
belong to the mes- level of the fresh produce supply chain.
1.3.3 Macro level of the supply chain
The macro level is the level of the supply chain, at which the chain enablers like governments, legislation
and regulatory institutions and other public organizations responsible for framework conditions to enable
the functioning of the chain are represented. In a wider sense, certain local, regional and national
governmental agencies together with international agencies at the macro level are considered to be supply
chain enablers. They perform crucial functions in the business environment of the fresh produce supply
chain. In particular, consumers’ health is protected in various geographical settings by an approach based
on the assessment and management of food safety risks. In order to carry out effective risk assessment and
risk management for food safety, all stakeholders involved in the fresh produce supply chain require a clear
understanding of the legal context, concepts, the process of assessing these food safety risks and the roles
to be played by the main actors involved in the process. It is therefore the responsibility of the chain enablers
to spearhead all tasks of risk management and risk assessment among other regulatory roles in a given
country or region where chain operators execute their activities within the fresh produce supply chain. For
example both the World Trade Organization and the European Commission act as chain enablers for risk
management at the international and EU levels respectively. On the other hand, the Codex Alimentarius
Commission and the European Food Safety Authority act as chain enablers for risk assessment at the
international and EU levels respectively.
1.4 Food quality and safety in the fresh produce sector
Agricultural practices and hygienic conditions for fresh produce greatly vary amongst growing regions
around the world, and increased global sourcing raises consumers’ exposure to diverse endemic micro-biota
carried on fresh produce (Barrena et al., 2013; Kirezieva et al., 2015). Moreover, global sourcing for fresh
produce also means longer transportation and handling times, giving pathogenic microorganisms more time
to proliferate and reach levels which can cause illnesses (Aung and Chang, 2014; Uyttendaele et al., 2014).
Food that travels long distances often passes through many handlers, trucks or storage spaces, and has an
increased risk of cross-contamination. Recently, various activities to improve the safety of fresh produce
take place throughout the chain of custody from grower to consumer, or from field to fork such. Validated
on-farm good practices, grower education programs, industry market orders and standards, government
regulations, and consumer campaigns are each designed to create a system that ensures prevention and
control of food safety hazards while simultaneously strengthening the fresh produce sector using scientific
knowledge (Codron et al., 2014b; Colen et al., 2012; Crerar, 2000). However, mounting evidence indicates
this is not always the case. Consumers are increasingly concerned about the freshness, safety and nutritional
attributes of the fruits and vegetables they purchase, as well as the environmental and social implications
of the production, packaging and distribution systems used in the fresh produce sector (Henson and Jaffee,
2008; Hjelmar, 2011; Melanie et al., 2012; Ragaert et al., 2004).
1.4.1 Food safety hazards in fresh produce
The increased globalization the fresh produce market has increased the supply of fresh fruits and vegetables
around the globe. However, there are rising concerns with regard to safety of fresh produce in response to
recent outbreaks and reported emerging hazards linked to fresh produce and derived food products. Issues
of concern for fresh produce having pesticides residues with exceeding maximum residue limits or non-
allowed substances seeking to enter the global fresh produce market are becoming common (Donald, 2001;
EFSA, 2011a; Katz and Winter, 2009). Outbreaks are also reported with different enteric bacteria such as
Escherichia coli O104:H4 in sprouted fenugreek seeds in Germany originating from Egypt (EFSA, 2011b;
Robert Koch Institute, 2011), for example L. monocytogenes linked to cantaloupe and Salmonella agona
due to imported raw whole fresh papayas in USA (CDC, 2011). Also enteric viruses such as Norovirus and
protozoa such as Cyclospora cayatanensis have been identified being of concern in fresh produce. Another
hazard type recently associated with fresh produce is mycotoxins, which are a group of chemical substances
that are produced by toxigenic moulds that commonly grow on a number of fruits. Alternaria spp. have
been reported to contaminate tomatoes and a concern arises on the presence of their mycotoxins, being
alternariol (AOH) and alternariol monomethylether (AME), in derived tomato products and these have
potential negative effect on human health (Van de Perre et al., 2015).
In Kenya, the green beans have been associated with a problem of excess pesticide residues namely;
Didecyldimethyl ammonium chloride, Benzalkonium chloride and Dimethoat while in Uganda, the hot
peppers have been associated with the presence of the pests mainly the False Coding Moth (phytosanitary
problem). lso other food safety issues such as antimicrobial resistance, wax coatings, nanomaterials and
genetically modified organisms are a concern nowadays for the fresh produce supply chain (Domingo and
Gine Bordonaba, 2011; Magnuson et al., 2011; Tait and Bruce, 2001). Hence, assuring the safety of fresh
produce and alertness to maintain consumer trust in fresh produce as a healthy food is of paramount
importance for stakeholders (VanBoxstael et al., 2013).
1.4.2 Food legislation and standards for fresh produce
Consumers in industrialized countries demand fresh produce products of high and consistent quality in
broad assortments throughout the year and for competitive prices. As a consequence, fresh produce retailers
are sourcing their products from all over the world. Ensuring the safety of fresh produce and alertness to
maintain consumer trust in fresh produce as a healthy food implies a shared responsibility of the
stakeholders within the farm-to-fork continuum (producers, processors, trading companies, retailers and
consumers) but also those closely involved in supporting food safety in the fresh produce supply chain
(competent national and international authorities, industry associations, and food scientists). The following
section briefly describes the framework of food legislation and standards in which regulation of fresh
produce quality operates.
1.4.2.1 Codex Alimentarius standards
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) was created in 1963 by the FAO, WHO and other bodies to
develop food standards, guidelines and codes of practice on an international level (Codex Alimentarius,
1969). The primary aim of CAC is to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair trade practices in the food
trade and promote coordination of work on food standards. Furthermore, the formulation of food standards
covering all the principal foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw in the form that they reach the
consumer is the main role and basis of all Codex Alimentarius Commission’s work. The World Trade
Organization (WTO) Agreement in 1995 on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)
recognizes the standards and guidelines established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission as reference
in international food trade. Many countries use the Codex documents as a starting point to set national
legislation. However, in countries where there are no national standards, Codex Alimentarius standards
become mandatory and fruit and vegetable exports may be rejected or banned for failing to meet these food
safety and/or quality standards (FAO corporate document repository) (Food Quality and Standards Service
Food and Nutrition Division FAO, 1999). Some of the international Codex standards applicable to fresh
fruits and vegetables are listed in table 1.5. Also on this international level, it is very important that African
countries get a voice and promote their capacity to contribute in setting standards.
Table 1.5: Some international Codex standards applicable to fruits and vegetables Codex standards No Year Name of the standard CAC/RCP 53 2003 Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables
CAC/MRL 1 2009 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for Pesticides
CODEX STAN 193 1995 General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed
CAC/GL 20 1995 Principles for Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection
CODEX STAN 307 2011 Standard for Chili Peppers
CODEX STAN 113 1981 Standard for green beans and wax beans
Source: FAO, 2007. http://www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/list-of-standards/
1.4.2.2 EU legislative requirements for fresh produce
Fresh fruits and vegetables exported to the EU are sourced from countries all over the world. Countries that
export fresh produce to EU face stringent European legislative requirements. The basis for the EU food
safety public standards is laid down in the General Food Law or Regulation (EC) 178/2002. The main
objective of this regulation is to secure a high level of protection for public health and consumer interests
with regard to food products (European Commission, 2002). The requirement of traceability is meant to
ensure that fresh produce products can be withdrawn from the market in the event of a problem.
Furthermore, the General Food Law or Regulation (EC) 178/2002 also stipulates that products
entering/leaving the EU market must comply with the EU food safety requirements such as maximum
residue limits on pesticide residues (European Commission, 2005b) and absence of microbial pathogens
(European Commission, 2005a). Moreover, companies have to comply with hygiene requirements which
have to be clearly documented and certificates of phytosanitary health are also required. The EU food
legislation applicable to fresh fruits and vegetables are shown in table 1.6.
Table 1.6: EU food legislation applicable to fruits and vegetables Year Content Legislation 2000 Phytosanitary certificate Directive (EC) 2000/29
2002 General food law Regulation (EC) 178/2002
2004 Hygiene requirements Regulation (EC) 852/2004
2005 Microbial hazards Regulation (EC) 2073/2005
2005 Pesticide residues Regulation (EC) 396/2005
2006 Contaminants Regulation (EC) 1881/2006
2008 Marketing standards Regulation (EC) 1221/2008
Source: (Van Boxstael et al., 2013)
1.4.3 Private standards for the fresh produce supply chain
The fresh produce sector has faced an important evolution leading to a thorough restructuring of the supply
chain in developing countries and the increasing use of private quality standards (e.g., Global GAP, BRC
and IFS) in developed countries (Goetz and Grethe, 2009; Phipps et al., 2013; Rischke et al., 2015). The
demand for safety and quality assurance as well as diverse process characteristics, has spurred the retail
sector to translate these consumer demands and expectations to back up the fresh produce supply chain
stakeholders.
Their response has been to apply quality and safety management standards to fresh produce production and
distribution processes. Many of the private standards extend beyond technical attributes for products
specifying process and production methods and reach into areas such as labor, environment and ethics, for
example Fair Trade and Social Accountability (SA) 8000 Standard. In the food safety area, many retailers
report standards much higher than those set by government, with those for other attributes going the same
route (Brenes et al., 2014; Grunert, 2005; McLaughlin, 2004; Saitone and Sexton, 2010). Furthermore,
private standards are among the food quality main measures in the fresh produce sector, which can be
implemented to differentiate production at the supply chain level; these standards involve all the
stakeholders operating throughout the stages of the chain.
In developing countries, private standards may also substitute for missing public institutions or ensure the
enforcement of otherwise not-enforced public standards. Many of the fresh fruit and vegetable quality
attributes are credence characteristics related to environmental (e.g. organic products, food miles), social
(e.g. labor conditions) or ethical (fair trade) production criteria (Henson. and Reardon, 2005; Reardon. and
Flores, 2006) that cannot be observed at the consumption point. With increasing rise of private standard
codes of practice, fresh produce markets that used to compete on volume and price have now resorted to
competing on consumer-valued quality attributes (Henson. and Reardon, 2005). As a result, new products
or product attributes are continuously entering the market. In the fresh produce sector, the healthy 'super
fruits' are expected to be the latest novelty. In addition to the credence quality attributes, other value-adding
tasks, such as washing, trimming, bar-coding and labeling are also increasingly being transferred to
producers (Dolan and Humphrey, 2000; Humphrey et al., 2004). Indeed this confirms that private standards
have enabled the fresh produce market to shift away from increasingly commodity wet markets for
unprocessed non-traditional fruits and vegetables to diversified high-value processed and semi-processed
products that are subject to strict food safety and quality control (Jaffee and Masakure, 2005b). Experts and
supermarket category managers expect that quality requirements for fresh fruits and vegetables will
continue to rise along with this diversification and specialization process.
The number of private voluntary standards developed by private operators has been estimated at 400 in
Europe alone and is still increasing. They range from those developed by individual firms to national
schemes to collective international schemes (Soon and Baines, 2013; Will and Guenther, 2007). Some of
these standards apply to the pre-farm gate stage of the supply chain, which are often called standards of
“Good Agricultural Practice” (GAP). Many governments have developed national GAP programs in order
to improve implementation of GAPs for example Kenya GAP, Ghana GAP, and India GAP, to promote
food safety standards and enable market access for small-scale farmers (Santacoloma and Casey, 2011).
Furthermore, standards are not only being demanded in industrialized country markets. Following the rapid
rise of supermarkets in developing countries (Reardon. and Flores, 2006), the situation in terms of quality
standards and players in the domestic high quality supply chains is converging towards the situation in the
retail export supply chain In fact, the effects of domestic standards are likely to become more important
than those of the export supply chain as the potential local market is much larger. In Latin America and
China, domestic supermarket sales of local products are already more than twice bigger than the exports of
those products to the rest of the world (Reardon. et al., 2005). Over the next 25 years, more than 50% of
the growth in global food retail markets is expected to come from emerging markets (Fontaine et al., 2008).
In addition a series of international quality standards has been established i.e. the International Standard
Organization (ISO) standards. The bases of the ISO standards are a quality management system that
integrate all activities and establish handling procedures to ensure product compliance. The best-known
ISO standard is the ISO 9000 series for quality. Recently an ISO 22000 has been launched as a new standard
for setting up a Food Safety Management System targeting the whole supply chain including GAP, pre
requisites and HACCP. Besides the above mentioned standards certain social and environmental standards
have evolved because the consumers go beyond basic quality and safety standards and retailers are
increasingly seeking to be differentiated in the market (Swami, 2013).
1.4.3.1 GLOBALGAP
GLOBALGAP (formerly named Eurep GAP) is a voluntary standard setting requirements for environment-
friendly, socially responsible, safe and high-quality products in primary agriculture based on Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) and HACCP principles. In September 2007, Eurep GAP changed its name to
GLOBALGAP, reflecting its expanding international role.
GLOBALGAP has over 140 certification bodies and around 112,600 producers under certification, which
is spread across 100 countries in five continents. GLOBALGAP auditors assess all certification bodies
(CBs) at head office and a sample of their producers directly, whether they operate in accordance with the
General Regulations and Control Points and Compliance Criteria. Since 2008 GLOBALGAP has conducted
more than 1,000 assessments (GLOBALG.A.P, 2013).
A grower or group of growers must apply to a recognized certifying body for a certification audit to acquire
GLOBALGAP certification. The certifying bodies carry out the initial certification and annual verification
audits of farms wishing to become producer members of GLOBALGAP For fresh produce, farmers need
to comply with several modules, namely the “All Farm base”, “Crops base” and the “Fruits and vegetables
base”. A total of 234 control points is divided into 95 “Major Musts”, 117 “Minor Musts” and 22
“Recommendations”. These controls points include specific requirements in relation to site management,
varieties and rootstocks, soil management, fertilizer usage, irrigation, crop protection as well as waste and
pollution management. Stipulations with regard to worker health and welfare as well as wildlife
conservation are also covered. The successful grower is issued with a certificate valid for one year. If a
grower cannot fulfill a “major must”, its certificate will be temporarily suspended. When less than 95% of
the “minor musts” is fulfilled, the certificate will also be temporary suspended. The suspension period has
a maximum of 6 months. After this period, and without fulfillment of the requirements, the certificate will
be terminated (Swami, 2013).
1.4.3.2 British Retail Consortium (BRC) and International Features Standards (IFS)
Food
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) is the lead trade association representing the whole range of retailers,
from the large multiples and department stores through to independents, selling a wide selection of products
through center of town, out of town, rural and virtual stores. In 1998 the British Retail Consortium
developed and introduced the BRC Technical Standard and Protocol for Companies Supplying Retailer
Branded Food Products (the BRC Food Technical Standard). Although originally developed primarily for
the supply of retailer branded products, in recent years the BRC Food Technical Standard has been widely
used across a number of other sectors of the food industry such as food service and ingredients manufacture.
There has also been substantive evidence of the use of the BRC Food Technical Standard outside the UK,
as it became the framework upon which many companies have based their supplier assessment programs.
BRC has developed four standards: the standard for food safety, standard for consumer products, standard
for packaging and packaging material and standard for storage and distribution (BRC, 2015; Swami, 2013).
The associated members of the German retail federation Handelsverband Deutschland (HDE) and of its
French counterpart Fédérationdes Entreprises du Commerce et de la Distribution (FCD) drew up a quality
and food safety standard for retailer branded food products named the IFS Food, which is intended to allow
the assessment of suppliers’ food safety and quality systems in accordance with a uniform approach. This
Standard is now managed by IFS Management GmbH, a company owned by FCD and HDE, and applies
to all the post-farm gate stages of food processing. IFS Food Standard has been benchmarked with GFSI
Guidance Document and is recognized by GFSI (Global Food Safety Initiative). Basic objectives of the
International Food Standard include: Establishing a common standard with a uniform evaluation system,
working with accredited certification bodies who manage a pool of well-qualified and approved auditors,
ensuring comparability and transparency throughout the entire supply chain, and reducing costs and time
for both suppliers and retailers.
1.4.4 Private labels for fresh produce
Private labels for fresh fruits and vegetables are steadily increasing in the EU to make a commercial
differentiation of produce on the market. These labels are product standards and no system standards as
GLOBALGAP, BRC or IFS. Labels are setting requirements e.g. on variety of commodity, on quality such
as color, shape, size or pesticide MLRs and are developed, branded and marketed by organizations (meso-
level) rather than by individual companies. These organizations develop and sell private labels for fresh
fruits and vegetables in order to make their farm gate role proposition more attractive to both retailers and
consumers by enhancing product choice and value for money (Deaton, 2004; Fulponi, 2006; Halaswamy
and Subhas, 2014; Hatanaka et al., 2005). Some of the core values for private labels for fresh fruits and
vegetables ensure that the products’ origin can be followed perfectly from the producer to the consumer
(traceability). In most cases, consumers commonly perceive labelled fresh produce differently from non-
labelled ones. Examples of popular private labels for fresh produce include Flandria in Belgium, and Fair
Trade or Organic production (EC-BIO-141).
1.4.5. Brands
Brands are private individual company standards under which various fruits and vegetables can be
certified. In most cases, big international companies or food retailers are setting these brand requirements.
Brands may contain product requirements but often also system requirements are set. Two examples of
brands for fresh produce are briefly discussed below:
Tesco’s Nature Choice
Tesco’s Nature’s Choice is a private individual company brand under which various fruits and vegetables
can be certified. According to Tesco’s website, this program has been designed especially for suppliers of
Tesco for fruit and vegetables. Control Union Certifications is authorized to carry out inspections for this
program. The standard is technically similar to the GLOBALGAP Fruits and Vegetables standard, but is
more stringent on several points (Tesco, 2013). The standard is a prerequisite for suppliers who want to
deliver to one of the Tesco retail stores globally (Tesco is the third largest retail based on revenue and has
stores in 14 countries of Asia, Europe and North-America) (Swami, 2013).
Filière Qualité Carrefour
This quality supply chain brand has been developed for cheese, meat, fruit and vegetables, and fish and
seafood. The five key principles behind the program are: taste and authenticity (traditional products typical
for the region); long-term sustainable partnership along the entire chain; fair price; constant product quality;
and environmental sustainability. After harvesting, no chemical treatments are applied for preservation. The
specific “norms” are different for every supply chain. There is no information available about the
verification system, costs and benefits.
Quality supply chains have been mainly developed in France, with 250 chains and more than 35,000
producers. However, there are also 350 quality supply chains with producers outside France and another
150 in development. Most of these are supplying local supermarkets owned by Carrefour. For example,
there are 37 quality supply chains in Brazil supplying Brazilian supermarkets. For the French market the
only quality supply chain relevant for fruit producers in developing countries is the one concerned with
pineapple from Côte d’Ivoire. Like Tesco Nature’s Choice, this program may be considered a business to
business product specification and not a standard (FAO, 2007). Figure 1.6 illustrates the various food safety
legislations and food safety and quality standards, labels and brands applicable along the fresh produce
supply chain.
Figu
re 1
.6: Q
ualit
y re
quire
men
ts a
long
the
fres
h pr
oduc
e va
lue
chai
n So
urce
: Aut
hor’s
com
pila
tion
FOO
D S
AFE
TY
AN
D Q
UA
LIT
Y R
EQU
IRE
ME
NT
S A
LO
NG
TH
E F
RE
SH P
RO
DU
CE
SU
PPL
Y C
HA
IN
1.4.5 Food safety management systems in the fresh produce sector
FSMS stands for Food Safety Management System and it basically consists of two aspects: food safety, and
management system. Food safety is a specific aspect of food quality (Luning et al., 2009b) and according
to (Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), 2003), it is defined as the assurance that food will not cause
harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/ or eaten according to its intended use. In a company, the
Quality Management System (QMS) includes the organizational structure, responsibilities, processes,
procedures and resources that facilitate the achievement of quality management (Luning et al., 2009b). For
a given a company, a Food Safety Management System (FSMS) involves that part of the Quality
Management System (QMS) which is specifically focusing on food safety. In other words, a FSMS of a
company focuses only on those activities, which particularly aim at controlling and assuring safety of food
from microbiological, chemical and physical hazards.
To reduce safety risks, food safety and quality management has therefore assumed great importance as a
key driver for organization and management of food production systems in the agribusiness and food
industry (Luning et al., 2009b). Substantial investments and efforts have been made in the development and
implementation of FSMS to prevent introduction of and control food safety hazards along the food supply
chain (Jacxsens. et al., 2009; Opiyo et al., 2013). A FSMS consists of inter-related elements applied to
control and ensure safety of food products, and commonly include Pre Requisite Programs (PRP) and
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plans, normative documents, procedures, guidelines,
regulations, policies and objectives and documentation. These FSMSs comprise various preventive and
performance-based measures (control and assurance systems) that allow flexibility in achievement of the
desired level of protection most efficiently. The FSMSs are nowadays frequently required for domestic
and/or international market access through third party certification to one or more standards (Kussaga. et
al., 2014; Kussaga. et al., 2013). However, the effectiveness of these FSMS vary widely due to differences
in interpretation (DeWaal and Robert, 2005), and there have been concerns in terms of both cost to industry
and public health benefit (Henson et al., 2011b; Kussaga. et al., 2014). Moreover, governments are
concerned about the fact that safety measures in place have been ineffective in reducing food-borne illnesses
(Donald, 2001; Kamana et al., 2014; Kussaga. et al., 2013). In addition, the widespread adoption of these
FSMS by the food retail and commercial sectors has led to a proliferation of such systems, each with its
own standards, accreditation, auditing and certification processes (Kirezieva et al., 2014b; Kirezieva. et al.,
2013c). Food producers may therefore be required to combine and implement different safety and quality
assurance standards and guidelines into their FSMS such as British Retail Consortium (BRC), Global
standard for food safety, ISO 22000, Tesco Nature Source (TNS) and Carrefour (Luning et al., 2011a;
Luning et al., 2009b) depending on customer requirements. This results in variable implementation and
safety output of the systems due to differences in access to information on standards, food safety legal
framework and resource constraints (Kirezieva et al., 2014a). This constant pressure is due to such factors
as established and emerging food-borne hazards, increased globalization of the fresh produce chain, bans
and rejections of food products in export markets due to safety concerns, technological changes in food
production, marketing and distribution, and increasing consumer awareness (Manning and Soon, 2013;
Muriithi et al., 2011). Consequently, questions have been raised on the effectiveness of currently applied
FSMSs in preventing and controlling food safety hazards (Luning et al., 2011a; Luning et al., 2013a).
Common methods for FSMS evaluation focus on verification of actual microbiological safety output and
audit of the system against specified requirements. Even though these FSMS evaluation techniques
presuppose safer food when control and assurance activities are properly executed, they do not assess actual
activities in the FSMS (Luning et al., 2011a). Need for tools to empower food producers in the analysis of
their FSMS to assess weaknesses and identify potential areas for improvement therefore arose (Luning et
al., 2008a).
1.5 Conclusions
This review of scientific literature and visits to the farms and trade companies of fresh vegetables in Kenya
and Uganda illustrate the complexity of food safety management systems in the global fresh produce sector.
Understanding the trends of production and trade at the global, regional and national levels in the fresh
produce sector helps to grasp how the industry is evolving and its economic impact on both industrialized
countries and developing countries. A well-elaborated organization of the fresh produce supply chain within
a nation is critical in achieving the production and delivery of safe food for the local or international market.
Highlighting the key chain actors and describing their roles at the micro, meso, and macro levels in view
of food safety assurances of the fresh produce is critical in identifying the constraints in implementing food
safety management systems. This is important when recommending the most important response strategies
to all fresh produce supply stakeholders. Compliance with private standards often requires considerable
financial, informational, and network resources. It tends to cost small farmers more than their larger peers
with economies of scale. Further, standards continue to move upward and their scope widens as competition
intensifies. Consequently, smallholders can be squeezed out or blocked from supply chains whenever
stringent private standards are in place. To take full advantage of this opportunity, these countries (e.g.
Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Cameroon) must meet the increasingly exacting food safety
and quality requirements of industrialized markets. Insight, in functioning of FSMS in fresh produce chains
in developing countries, is yet limited. In the present study the FSMS for the green bean subsector in Kenya
and hot pepper subsector in Uganda will be elaborated.
Chapter 2
Organization of the fresh produce supply chain to the
adoption of FSMS: micro, meso, and macro levels in
Uganda
Redrafted from: Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Van Boxstael, S., D’Haese, M., Lunning, P.A., Uyttendaele, M. Constraints at micro-, meso- and macro-level of the Ugandan hot pepper supply chain and their impact on assurance of food safety Submitted to Journal of World Development
ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken to assess whether the organization and constraints at micro, meso and macro
levels of the fresh produce supply chain have an effect on the export of hot peppers from Uganda. However,
the study was not done in Kenya because there was sufficient literature available for Kenya’s situation as
further elaborated in chapter 7 under section 7.2.2 and summarized in table 7.1. In Uganda this information
was not available and therefore, field studies and interviews to collect the necessary information were done.
Specific objectives were to describe the organization of the hot pepper supply chain and identify the food
safety constraints faced by various stakeholders in the Ugandan hot pepper export sub sector using firm-
level surveys and in-depth interviews with key informants. The results suggest that, most respondents
considered that the lack of awareness of food safety and hygiene requirements are acting as barriers to
exports in Uganda.
2.1 Introduction
The provision of safe food is an important objective of a nation for consumer health protection and is
expressed in a set of agreed upon food safety standards and norms to which the actors in the food supply
chain have to comply (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2007; European Union, 2002). A well elaborated
organization of the fresh produce supply chain within a nation is critical in achieving the production and
delivery of safe food for the local or international market (Henson et al., 2011a; Okello and Swinton, 2007b;
Ouma, 2010). As such, guarantees for safe foods have become increasingly a prerequisite for the wide range
of small- to large-scale fresh produce supply chains to gain access to international markets (World and
Bank, 2006). However, for small-scale fresh producers in Africa, guarantees of compliance to food safety
standards and norms have put extra barriers to trade (Henson and Humphrey, 2010; Martinez and Poole,
2004; Mithofer et al., 2008). The growth in fresh produce exports offers opportunities to those developing
countries that have a low processing capacity but have suitable agro-climatic endowments and readily
available labor. There exists differentiation across developing countries in their ability to benefit from this
market opportunity mainly because of the differences in capacity for meeting international food safety
standards (Neeliah and Goburdhun, 2010; Schillhorn van Veen, 2005). According to FAO data, with a
production of 11.1 million tons in 2011, Uganda is the second largest producer of fruit and vegetables in
Sub-Saharan Africa, after Nigeria (UNCTAD, 2008). Uganda, a landlocked country lying astride the
equator in East Africa (91,135 square miles) is a low-income country (World Bank, 2012b). Agriculture is
the major pillar of Uganda’s economy employing over 80% of the work force and accounting for 25.9
percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2012 (World Bank, 2012a). In estimation, more than 30,000
people are involved in horticultural crop production in the country specifically for export: 12,550 in the
fresh fruit and vegetable sector, 3300 in the flower sector and 6100 in the spice production sector
(UNCTAD, 2008). According to EU import statistics it is shown that the value of EU imports of FFV (Fresh
Fruits and Vegetables) from Uganda increased more than fivefold, from $1.5 million in 1996 to over $8
million in 2005-2006. However, Ugandan horticultural exports still consist of relatively low-value and low-
margin products sold through wholesale distribution channels. This makes Uganda a competitive producer
of horticultural products on farm but owing to off-farm disadvantages the country has several challenges to
become a more significant horticultural exporter. Currently agro-food exports between Uganda and the rest
of the world are insignificant and most of them are destined for the EU market. For example, Uganda’s fruit
and vegetable exports largely geared towards the EU totaled less than $5 million in 2007. Although some
studies have been conducted with regards to challenges and bottlenecks faced in meeting food safety
requirements for the fresh produce sector in Uganda and elsewhere (Jaffee, 2006; Jaffee and Masakure,
2005b; Luz Diaz Rios et al., 2009; Rae, 2004; Rudaheranwa et al., 2003; Sargeant, 2005), few have
highlighted constraints associated with the various stakeholders from the supply chain perspective. Food
safety issues of concern for fresh produce stakeholders and consumers, in particular in EU market, are
bacterial pathogens, viruses but also pesticide residues (VanBoxstael et al., 2013) .
Since Uganda aspires to become increasingly active in the global high value agro-food trade, it is opportune
to identify and assess the constraints at the three different levels of the supply chain, which have led to the
unfulfilled promise of Uganda having access to the premium fresh produce international markets. We
investigate the hot pepper export subsector which has recorded significant growth in export volumes/value
performance as a top vegetable for export (UEPB, 2011). The volume and value of exported hot peppers in
2011 from Uganda towards EU-28 was equal to 1640 tons and 3.1 million euro, respectively. Uganda with
its 1640 tons of exports to EU is at the fifth position among the largest exporters of hot peppers for
consumption to EU-28 and thus faces international competition from Morocco (10700 tons), Turkey (12200
tons) and Ghana (2060 tons) (Eurostat, 2011). Ugandan legislation covering fresh produce products is
different from that prevailing in the EU and therefore those exporting such products to the EU have to adapt
themselves. In the fresh produce sector, several areas are not covered by existing Ugandan legislation. The
EC Food and Feed Regulation (178/2002) is different from the Food and Drug Act in Uganda, for instance,
with respect to its scope and definition of ‘‘food’’. Regulations pertaining to food hygiene and infrastructure
under the Food and Drug Act are not as comprehensive as Regulation (EC) 852/2004. Moreover,
Regulations (EC), 1881/2006 (contaminants such as heavy metals) and 396/2005 (pesticide residues), are
not comprehensively covered by Ugandan legislation. For example, few MRLs are available for fruit and
vegetables and detailed requirements for a control infrastructure for food safety inspection are inexistent.
A local competent Authority dedicated to controlling food safety of fresh produce exports from the farm
prior to export has not yet been established. Considering the differences that exist between the Ugandan
and European fresh produce safety regulatory infrastructure, it can be hypothesized that chain actors may
experience difficulties in exporting fresh produce products to the premium fresh produce markets in the
EU. It is therefore interesting to further probe the importance of the organization of the fresh produce supply
chain as an export determinant for Ugandan fresh produce exports. The following research questions are of
interest: “How is the hot pepper export supply chain organized in Uganda?”, “Who are the key hot pepper
chain actors and what are their roles in view of assurance of food safety?”, “What are the main constraints
faced by Ugandan hot pepper chain actors when exporting to the EU?’’. This study will be useful to inform
the Uganda food policy process and other development agents about the potential to upgrade the Ugandan
export horticulture sector into product quality or quantity that is required to enter the dominant premium
export supply chains to in particular EU.
2.2 Methodology
The methodological approach comprises mixed methods to address the research questions: a survey in the
hot pepper export subsector at three levels of the supply chain complemented with in-depth qualitative
interviews with strategic key informants. The following sections provide additional grounding and
information on the different methods adopted.
2.2.1 Analytical framework
The approach used to identify the type of constraints to fresh produce safety in the Ugandan hot pepper
export subsector is based on the analysis of the organization of the supply chain adapted from a
conceptual framework as priory described by Heinze (2007). Heinze (2007) identified three levels of
organization in the supply chain i.e. the micro level, the meso level, and macro level.
• The micro level relates to the chain operators and the phase at which the added value to a given
product is generated, looking at the sequence of activities performed ranging from the use of
specific inputs (e.g. fertilizers, seeds, water for the case of fresh produce) to consumption of the
product.
• The meso level relates to the chain supporters which can be divided into two categories; operational
service providers and support service providers. Operational service providers render business-to-
business (B2B) services to chain operators. Examples include accounting agencies, certification
bodies, technology suppliers (e.g. water treatment technology suppliers), laboratories, etc. Support
service providers do not directly support (or perform) the basic functions in a supply chain. Instead,
they render services that involve general investments and preparatory activities benefiting all or at
least several supply chain operators simultaneously. Typical examples include provision of sector-
specific information, setting of professional standards, joint export marketing, development of
generally applicable technical solutions, or political lobbying. Support services are often provided
by business associations, chambers or specialized public institutes.
• The macro level relates to those stakeholders who look at the enabling environment of the supply
chain with a wide range of issues such as public policy and administrative governance, laws and
regulations, market regulations through grades and quality standards, the capacity and quality of
infrastructure and utilities, and the availability of public services.
2.2.2 Survey with farmers and exporters at the micro level
The current survey borrows, adapts and builds on Henson and Loader (1999) and Henson et al. (2000.) to
examine the constraints that hot pepper farmers and exporters face in exporting their products to the EU.
The survey at the micro level of the hot pepper supply chain hinged on a structured questionnaire (Q1)
which included both close- and open-ended questions. The questionnaire was designed bearing in mind the
salient research questions underpinning the study. The principal sections focused on the profile of the hot
pepper farmers, intermediaries and exporters, current trading partners, barriers to exports, constraints faced
in compliance with voluntary and private food safety standards in their operations. A seven- point ordinal
Likert scale was used for measurement purposes: ‘‘1–2: not important; 3–5: of medium importance; 6–7:
very important”. The questionnaire was pilot tested with key informants who were intentionally selected to
include fresh produce experts from industry (representatives of produce organisations), institutes/
laboratories and universities prior to enumeration. In Uganda the main production areas for hot peppers are
located within 100 kilometers of Kampala capital City, and farms and export companies visited included
those in the districts of Mpigi, Mbarara, Masaka, Mukono, Luweero, and Wakiso. An up-to-date list of hot
pepper farmers was obtained from various hot pepper export companies while the exporters list was
compiled using information obtained from the Uganda Export promotion Board.
2.2.3 Interview with key informants at the meso and macro levels
Additionally to the quantitative survey (Q1), face-to-face interviews were also carried out with key
informants at the meso and macro levels involved in the hot pepper export sub sector. We used an open-
ended questionnaire (Q2) organized around themes of interest which allowed us to deeply explore the
informants’ experiences and perspectives on official agro-food export control namely; pesticide dealers and
pesticide company sales representatives, government officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), the Uganda Export Promotion Board (UEPB), the National Agricultural
Research Organization (NARO), some non-governmental organizations involved in the provision of
technical support and services to hot pepper farmers and Exporters like the Horticultural Exporters
Association of Uganda (HORTEXA). Information from these interviews was supplemented with secondary
information from government and industry statistical reports, industry newsletters, and international and
local newspaper reports. Interviews with government agencies involved in the regulation of food safety and
quality were interviewed at the macro level.
In particular within a three months period (December 2013 to February 2014), respondents were selected
from key stakeholder groups involved in the fresh produce sector and the hot pepper supply chain. i.e. At
the micro-level: input suppliers (n=5), hot pepper farmers (n =18) and managers (n=9) of fresh produce
export companies, at the meso level: food safety service providers (consultants and experts (n=4), support
interest groups (n=5) (i.e. Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), managers of packaging companies
(n=2), sector organizations (n=3) and academicians (n=6), and at the macro-level: government officials in
government agencies with mandates on food safety and quality for fresh produce (n=12). This variety of
respondents helps to understand the different perspectives of constraints to fresh produce safety in Uganda
better and minimize bias from one particular stakeholder group. In addition, farm and trading company
visits (n = 27) were undertaken to examine in detail the current level of chain actor practices and operational
infrastructure available in hot pepper farms and exporting firms to meet increasing demands for food safety
and quality. For reasons of confidentiality, the identities of case respondents are withheld.
Table 2.1 details the rationale behind the selection of the different interviewees and respondent groups at
the three levels. It also presents the number of respondents approached and the actual response in each
respondent group at the three levels. The response rate was 67.3% in general.
2.2.4 Data analysis
A multi-case, multi-site approach was used to facilitate generalization and triangulation of responses (Dey,
1993; Miles, 1994; Yin, 1994). After each interview with key informants, raw data (from Q1 and Q2) was
transcribed into text using both the interviewer’s and the interviewee’s words, the latter being distinguished
by square brackets ([ ]) and the use of italics. Data was classified for each of the three chain levels under
scrutiny, according to a number of themes, usually based on the questionnaire constructs. Linkages and
associations in the data were explored by checking how the level of matching between the phenomena is
distributed across the whole data set by simple manual counting. Patterns of association were also
investigated based on the response provided by the respondents. Response to constraints pertaining to food
safety compliance (in Q1 and Q2) was also analyzed qualitatively. Quantitative analysis of the data
consisted of computing the frequency and median of responses collected at each of the three chain levels
with SPSS 16.0, as a robust alternative to the mean (Daszykowski, 2007). The median responses of all the
survey participants (that is, chain actors at the micro level, operational and support providers at the meso
level and government agencies at the macro level) were then computed together.
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Organization of the Ugandan hot pepper supply chain
The organization of the hot pepper supply chain at the micro, meso and macro levels involves production
activities and services, a range of supporting industries, as well as the chain enablers and regulators. Figure
2.1 summarizes the organization of the hot pepper supply in Uganda at the three levels. There are many
actors involved in Uganda’s hot pepper supply chain, with several interactions between them. At the micro
level are private sector actors involved directly with hot pepper production and marketing activities. This
includes inputs providers, hot pepper producers, assemblers, transporters, wholesalers, and exporters. This
group is generally entrepreneurial and is the one directly affected by factors of production and marketing
systems, and are more concerned with saving costs and maximizing profits.
At the meso level are actors who are either farmer associations or business member organizations, or
government institutions providing operational and support services directly to micro level actors. Actors
involved at the macro level are those concerned with sector policies, and include mainly the different
government Ministries, and development partners. Policies developed at the macro level provide the
framework conditions in which hot pepper chain actors operate.
2.3.2 Micro-level
Input supply by primary production. The main hot pepper variety grown in Uganda for the export
market is Scotch Bonnet. The seedlings of hot pepper are sourced from private nurseries owned either by
individuals or groups of farmers. However, during the field survey, it was revealed that most of the
producers get their seeds from export companies using the rejected hot peppers. Majority of the inputs
(i.e. fertilizers, seeds, and pesticides) for hot pepper cultivation are not locally manufactured in Uganda
but directly imported from
Figu
re 2
.1:
Key
act
iviti
es a
nd k
ey c
hain
ope
rato
rs a
t the
mic
ro, m
eso
and
mac
ro le
vels
of t
he h
ot p
eppe
r sup
ply
chai
n in
Uga
nda
Inpu
t Su
pply
by
prim
ary
prod
uctio
n
Farm
Pr
oduc
tion
Inte
rmed
iari
es
Proc
essin
g T
rade
C
onsu
mpt
ion
Seed
s/
Seed
lings
, fe
rtiliz
ers,
Pest
icid
es
Plan
ting,
H
arve
stin
g, R
ecor
d ke
epin
g
Ass
embl
y,
Tran
spor
t, qu
ality
co
ntro
l, m
arke
t se
arch
Arti
sana
l pr
oces
sors
, pa
ckin
g, st
orag
e,
dist
ribut
ion
Reta
iling
Who
lesa
ling
Expo
rting
Prep
arat
ion
Cons
umpt
ion
Inpu
t sup
plie
rs:
Agr
o-ve
ts
Smal
l-hol
ders
; big
fa
rms,
A
gent
s;
Tran
spor
ters
N
ot A
vaila
ble
Who
lesa
lers
, ex
porte
rs
Hou
seho
lds,
Hot
els,
Rest
aura
nts
Cons
umer
s
UN
AD
A,
NA
RI,
HO
RTEX
A,
UN
FFE
Not
Ava
ilabl
e N
ot A
vaila
ble
Not
Ava
ilabl
e N
ot A
vaila
ble
Min
istry
of A
gric
ultu
re, G
over
nmen
t of U
gand
a U
gand
a M
inis
try o
f Hea
lth, D
evel
opm
ent P
artn
ers
overseas and mostly imported from Nairobi, Kenya. These inputs are procured and imported into Uganda
and then distributed to large and medium agricultural wholesale shops, small retail shops who finally sell
them to large and small scale producers, farmer groups and/or associations. Inputs suppliers include large
and medium agricultural wholesalers like Victoria Seeds Ltd, Bukoola Chemicals Ltd, etc (Omamo, 2003).
Table 2.1: Characterization of actual number of respondents surveyed and number of respondents approached for in depth interviews at the three different levels of the hot pepper supply chain in Uganda.
Supply chain level Response rate (n = X , respondents Y/X) Description Micro level • Farmers (18 /25) They are the key growers of hot peppers and
are likely to know the constraints they face on farm.
• Exporters (9 /15) They are the primary buyers of hot peppers from farmers and have to comply with food safety requirements requested in the export markets
• Middlemen (5/8) They act as market and sourcing links between farmers and exporters. They therefore have a fundamental understanding of the complete supply chain and the constraints they encounter
Meso level Operational supporters • Input providers (2/5)
• Packaging companies (2/2) • Consultants (4/7)
They either directly perform supply chain functions on behalf of chain operators or are directly related to them. They are well familiar with the constraints they encounter as they render their services.
Support service providers • Interest groups (NGOs) (5/5) • Academicians (3/9) • Sector organizations (6/7)
They provide supply chain specific services and generic business services to all operators in the sector. They can therefore be helpful in identifying weaknesses and strength related to food safety issues in the fresh produce sector.
Macro level Government officers (12/15)
This group includes consultants and officers from government agencies that have food safety mandates. They cooperate with other stakeholders to regulate and generally advise on specific aspects of safety of fresh produce.
Total= (66/98)
Hot pepper production. Hot pepper is grown in several agro-ecological zones in Uganda, with the majority
being produced in central and western Uganda. Main hot pepper growing areas include districts of Mpigi,
Mbarara, Masaka, Mukono, Luweero, and Wakiso. Majority of hot pepper producers are independent
smallholders with acreage ranging between 0.5 to 5 acres. On the other hand, big scale producers of hot
peppers own farms with 5 acres and above but these are usually export company-owned farms. Some of the
farmers grow hot pepper as an intercrop in banana gardens while most of them grow it as a mono crop. Hot
pepper production is seasonal, when transplanted at the beginning of October, at the start of the rain, the
crop will start producing in December, the right moment economically because prices in Europe, the target
market for Ugandan hot peppers, are at their highest at the time. Production can continue at full strength
until the beginning of May when the long dry season starts in Uganda, and has to be phased out by the end
of May when prices in Europe start to decline. The production processes involve land preparation for crop
planting and making of wooden nursery beds to grow the seeds into seedlings which are then transplanted
to the main fields. The crops are not irrigated and depend mainly on natural rainfall for water. Spraying of
pesticides is frequently done to protect hot pepper yields from major pests like trips, aphids, mites, pod
borer and the major diseases like bacterial spot, root rot and gray leaf spots which affect the ripe fruits and
reduce their marketability (Buyinza, 2010). The harvesting (picking and packing) of the hot peppers is done
manually.
Processing of hot peppers in Uganda does not exist yet. There are only two local food companies in Uganda
which process and pack chilies into chili sauce but they do not use hot peppers.
Wholesale trade for export. The main wholesalers of hot pepper in Uganda are the smallholders who
directly sell their harvested hot peppers to export companies. There are also export agents and/or middlemen
who buy from village collection centers where the hot peppers are collected and assembled by individual
farmers. Transportation of the hot peppers is not done under cold conditions e.g. no use of cold storage
trucks, and the pack houses to which they are delivered have no cold storage facilities. While in the pack
houses, all the hot peppers are screened by eye observation on quality parameters such as color, size and
damage, screening for food safety parameters like testing for microbiological and pesticide contamination
is not performed. Primarily because farmers and middlemen are not aware on any food safety issue and
secondly as judging of microbial and pesticide contamination cannot be visually done, there is also a
restriction to perform this by lack of analytical capacity and accredited lab testing facilities. The rejected
hot peppers (that do not comply with the quality criteria) may be disposed of or retained by farmers to be
re-used as a source of seeds for the next planting seasons. The approved hot peppers are then packed in
carton boxes and transported to Entebbe airport which is 30 Kilo meters from Kampala (capital city of
Uganda), where they are airlifted to their final EU destinations e.g. the UK, Netherlands and Belgium. It is
mandatory for all exporters to have their hot peppers export batches accompanied with a phytosanitary
certificate, one of the international export market requirements. Much as 90% of Ugandan hot peppers
produced are exported, none of them are yet sold in the premium market like supermarkets where food
safety and quality standards are a pre-requisite for entry.
Wholesale and retail trade for domestic market. The volumes of hot pepper in the domestic chain are the
smallest (10%) and food safety requirements like legislative food safety standards, certifications and
hygiene guidelines for fresh produce do not exist in Uganda. The hot peppers in domestic supermarkets
tend to be the overflow from sales to exporters. They are sold to the urban food wholesale markets like
Owino, Nakasero, Nakawa and to open retailers especially by hawkers and grocery kiosks.
Consumption. In the domestic/local market, fresh hot peppers are not popular except for a few Asian
immigrants especially Indians who use them as a spice in their cooked meals. In the export market Ugandan
fresh hot peppers are consumed by various people especially in the ethnic and specialty shops especially
by West Africans and Asians who use them as a spice in their cooked meals. Ugandan hot pepper can only
be eaten when cooked.
2.3.3 Meso level
Similarly, in this section we focus on describing the support activities and the chain supporters for the hot
pepper supply chain in Uganda. We discuss the two support types at the meso level (Figure 2.2);
Operational services. Specific operational services for the hot pepper chain and the fresh produce sector at
large include market information on export prospects and business advice, input procurement, technical
services like engineering, maintenance, equipment lending especially for tractors on export farms,
packaging services (mainly carton boxes), lab testing of food safety parameters in particular for pesticide
residues and microbiological agents etc.
Generic business operational services that are available include road transportation, freight handling, IT
services (e.g. telecommunication, internet services), insurance, management consultancy (e.g. business
development, accounting and legal advice), advertising and marketing.
In Uganda most of the operational services for the fresh produce chain are provided by the private sector
as well as the public sector though, the latter at a minimal scale.
Support services. Important support service providers for the hot pepper supply chain and the fresh produce
sector in Uganda are shown in Figure 2.2. Here, NGOs can be identified supported by (inter)national
funding.
Figu
re 2
.2:
Cha
in su
ppor
ters
at t
he m
eso
leve
l of t
he h
ot p
eppe
r sup
ply
chai
n
Lab
orat
ory
serv
ices
: e.g
. UN
BS, S
GS,
and
Che
mip
har U
gand
a la
bora
torie
s; th
ey c
ondu
ct m
arke
t and
reta
il fo
od su
rvei
llanc
e an
d pe
rfor
m th
e re
quire
d te
sts a
nd d
ata
anal
ysis
abo
ut q
ualit
y.
Fi
nanc
ial i
nstit
utio
ns: b
anks
and
mic
ro fi
nanc
e in
stitu
tes.
e.g.
B
ank
of U
gand
a, c
omm
erci
al b
anks
like
Sta
nbic
, DFC
U, e
tc;
They
pro
vide
fina
ncia
l ser
vice
s to
run
busi
ness
in th
e ch
ain
e.g.
lo
ans
Cer
tific
atio
n ag
enci
es: e
.g. S
GS;
It p
rovi
des a
bro
ad ra
nge
of
test
ing
for a
gric
ultu
ral a
s wel
l as o
ther
pro
duct
s, is
an
ISO
re
gist
rar,
prov
ides
ISO
cer
tific
atio
n an
d qu
ality
trai
ning
to
com
pani
es in
Uga
nda
Pack
agin
g co
mpa
nies
: e.g
. Rile
y in
dust
ry a
nd M
akss
Indu
stry
; Th
ey m
anuf
actu
re c
arto
n bo
xes f
or p
acki
ng h
ot p
eppe
r and
oth
er
fres
h pr
oduc
e fo
r exp
orts
. A
gro-
inpu
t sup
plie
rs: e
.g. V
icto
ria se
eds L
td, B
ukoo
la
chem
ical
s ind
ustri
es L
td, N
AA
DS,
etc
: The
y im
port
and
dist
ribut
e ag
ro-in
puts
to p
rodu
cers
of h
ot p
eppe
r.
Uga
nda
Nat
iona
l Agr
o In
put D
eale
rs A
ssoc
iatio
n (U
NA
DA
):
Build
s net
wor
ks a
nd e
mpo
wer
s agr
o-de
aler
s to
oper
ate
sust
aina
ble
prof
itabl
e bu
sine
sses
that
pro
vide
qua
lity
agro
inpu
ts a
nd se
rvic
es to
fa
rmer
s. H
ortic
ultu
re E
xpor
ters
’ Ass
ocia
tion
(HO
RT
EXA
):
Prom
otes
hor
ticul
tura
l exp
orts
in U
gand
a, tr
ains
ass
ocia
tion
mem
bers
(exp
orte
rs a
nd fa
rmer
s) a
nd d
isse
min
ates
info
rmat
ion
abou
t the
pric
ing
and
mar
ket r
equi
rem
ents
for f
resh
pro
duce
to
expo
rters
and
farm
ers.
Uga
nda
Nat
iona
l Far
mer
s Fed
erat
ion
(UN
FFE)
: Pro
mot
es
favo
rabl
e po
licie
s for
farm
er e
mpo
wer
men
t and
stre
ngth
ens f
arm
er
orga
niza
tions
. N
GO
s and
inte
rnat
iona
l pro
ject
s: T
here
are
qui
te a
num
ber o
f N
GO
s for
the
horti
cultu
re se
ctor
, exa
mpl
es in
clud
e; S
NV
, PIP
(EU
) pr
ojec
t), A
NEP
P ( U
SAID
pro
ject
) etc
.; Pr
ovid
e a
rang
e of
bus
ines
s de
velo
pmen
t ser
vice
s in
the
horti
cultu
re se
ctor
. lin
king
pro
duce
rs to
m
arke
ts, t
rain
ing
in q
ualit
y st
anda
rds,
prod
uct d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
finan
cing
.
2.2.4 Macro level
Lastly, the government of Uganda is the main chain enabler for the fresh produce supply chain with
major roles in the provision of national infrastructure such as ensuring the quality of electricity supply
to the fresh produce pack houses, the construction and maintenance of roads, facilitating the efficiency
of Entebbe airport, and the quality of communication systems (telephone, broadband). Also, the
government has the regulatory role of prevention of unfair practices, establishment of quality standards
etc. (Bibangambah, 2001). Only the regulatory role with respect to food safety is described here.
Regulatory role. Government agencies (at central and local levels) are responsible for establishing
and managing an enabling institutional policy and regulatory framework for food safety in addition to
carrying out food control activities that protect consumers from risks arising from unsafe food and
fraudulent practices (Nguz, 2007). In Uganda, various public agencies and private organizations play
a major role concerning regulations, food safety controls, import and export certifications. These
include; Ministry of Health (MOH), Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF),
Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS - a statutory institution), Uganda Export Promotion
Board (UEPB), Commodity Development Boards and other Public Institutions.
2.2.5 Rating of the constraints at the micro, meso and macro levels influencing Ugandan hot pepper exports to the EU
Table 2.2 shows the results of the survey at micro, meso and macro level (Q1) indicating constraints
which are influencing export to the EU.
Constraints at the micro level: The most important problem that influenced hot pepper chain operators’
(farmers, intermediaries and exporters) ability to meet food safety requirements in exporting Ugandan
hot peppers to the EU is the awareness of food safety requirements within the fresh produce industry
(Median score = 3.00, Mean= 2.59). This lack of awareness makes it difficult for farmers and exporters
to comply with new food safety requirements in a proactive manner. One farmer stated that:
[there is no awareness platform for us to learn and know about food safety standards for our products. This is because we never get any information on food safety issues from the export companies where we sale our products and we have not received any awareness communication from the government about food safety for our products].
Table 2.2 Frequency of responses for constraints that might influence Ugandan hot pepper chain actors’ ability to meet food safety requirements in exporting to the EU export market.
Factor
Number of respondents Not Important
medium importance
Very important
Mean Median
MICRO LEVEL (n = 32) Quality of hot pepper seeds and planting material 7 9 16 2.5 2.28 Administrative arrangements for food safety requirements 6 10 16 2.5 2.31 Access to hot pepper nurseries with phytosanitary certification 14 8 10 2 1.87 Access to officially registered plant protection products 4 25 3 2 1.96 Awareness of food safety requirements within the hot pepper subsector 2 9 21 3 2.59 Prevalence of diseases and pests such as Phytophora Root Rot and aphids 3 11 18 3 2.46 Hygiene practices on farm and hygiene conditions at packaging facilities 4 20 8 2 1.96 Access to information on Good Agricultural Practices 9 13 10 2 2.03 Scarcity of skilled labor 3 8 21 3 2.56 Access to scientific/technical expertise 3 18 11 2 2.25 MESO LEVEL (n=22) Awareness of food safety requirements among support officials 11 4 7 1.81 1.5 Cost of operational and support services 1 6 15 2.63 3 Access to operational and support services in food safety issues 7 7 8 1.86 2 Availability of food safety expertise extension services for fresh produce 3 6 13 2.45 3 Access to quality audits and standards certification services 4 8 10 2.27 2 Institutions to coordinate key support services for the fresh produce sector 1 4 17 2.77 3 MACRO LEVEL (n=12) Awareness of food safety requirements among government officials 2 3 7 2.42 3 Availability of public regulatory and control services for the fresh produce 2 5 5 2.25 2 Enforcement of food safety and quality requirements in fresh produce sector 1 4 7 2.5 3 Political will by the government to invest in the fresh produce sector 6 4 2 1.67 1.5 Provision of infrastructure like good roads and cold logistic facilities 2 1 9 2.58 3
In addition, scarcity of skilled labor and high prevalence of diseases and pests such as Phytophora
Root Rot and aphids were also identified to be important constraints influencing their ability to meet
food safety requirements (median score = 3.00, Mean = 2.56 and median score =3.00, Mean = 2.46
respectively).
Constraints at the meso-level: According to respondents, the absence of institutions to coordinate key
support services for the fresh produce sector, operational and support services costs and availability of
food safety expertise extension services for fresh produce acted as the most important barriers
influencing the ability for hot pepper chain actors to export to the EU (Medians = 3.00; Means = 2.77,
2.63 and 2.45 respectively). Access to operational and support services in food safety issues and quality
audits and standards certification services were considered to be of medium importance (Medians =
2.00).
Constraints at the macro level: The Provision of infrastructure like good roads and cold logistic
facilities, enforcement of food safety and quality requirements in fresh produce sector and awareness
of food safety requirements among government officials were considered to be the most impeding
factors for export at the macro level (Medians = 3.00). Two government officers revealed that:
[presently, legal norms were not being strictly imposed in the horticultural export sector and
farmers and exporters have to find a way of complying with requirements set by the importers
on their own, especially with respect to aspects such as packing, presentation and proper
temperature control].
However, the two government officers were of the opinion that in the near future the government will
embark on facilitating and enforcing quality control within the fresh produce sector for both the
domestic and export markets. Political will by the government to invest in the fresh produce sector
was rated as being of not very important (median = 1.5).
2.3 Discussion
The European market is the most important destination for Uganda’s fresh produce exports. This
highlights the relevance of adhering to EU requirements so as to secure and maintain exports. Hot
pepper farmers and exporters have to adhere to plant health measures, marketing standards, traceability
requirements, limits for pesticide residues, GAP for primary production as well as general
implementation of procedures based on HACCP principles after primary production. The need for an
efficient food safety management system, a pack-house, and public inspection systems with
operational inspection services (COLEACP, 2008) were made mandatory since 2006 (EC Regulations
852/2004, 882/2004). In practice, these measures are not strictly enforced for Ugandan hot pepper
farmers and exporters.
The primary reason for this research was to create a starting point for discussing factors influencing
the constraints to fresh produce safety in Uganda in a manner that recognizes the holistic
interconnections among multiple stakeholders at the micro level, meso level and macro level of the
supply chain. By visualizing the influences and factors that affect stakeholders in the fresh produce
sector at multiple levels of the supply chain, we can inform the development of strategies to enhance
and promote food safety and food quality for fresh produce in Uganda.
Our findings reveal that the hot pepper supply chain of Uganda still has constraints impacting on food
safety and quality in order to access the premium export market in EU. This finding concurs with
previous studies conducted in other developing countries (De Battisti et al., 2009; Henson et al., 2011a;
Mithofer et al., 2008; Neeliah and Goburdhun, 2010; Ouma, 2010) which concluded that food safety
is usually a concern, especially in the fresh produce trade.
Ugandan hot pepper farmers and exporters revealed that lack of awareness of food safety requirements
for the fresh produce sector to be a major challenge at the micro level. Furthermore, the majorities of
Ugandan hot pepper exporters were small to medium companies with limited vertical integration, and
hence limited control over the chain. They sourced their products from small farmers whose quality
was not uniform, and consequently they can supply only low volumes mostly to export ethnic/niche
markets. The problem of limited access to quality inputs for hot pepper farmers and exporters could
be a result of weak public institution regulatory and control services for the agro-input sector.
Exporters also revealed that in order to export to the EU, they only required a phytosanitary certificate
delivered by the crop protection department office under the ministry of agriculture. They found the
enforcement of phytosanitary regulations in the EU to be more relaxed and did not require the hot
pepper exporters to be approved by a competent authority.
However, currently the EU Regulation 669/2009 imposes certain percentages of checks including the
analysis for produce from third countries considered to be a risk on Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)
for pesticides and microbiological hazards (Anonymous, 2011). The fact that there have been rapid
alert notifications on Ugandan fresh produce already indicates that hot pepper exporters need to
exercise caution when screening their products prior to export. Egg plants and aubergines originating
from Uganda were already subject of EU border rejections (RASFF, 2012).
The absence of stronger and more established producer organizations at meso level for the numerous
small-scale hot peppers farmers in Uganda hinders information dissemination with regard to export
standards required by commercial customers. This could explain why at the time of the survey,
Ugandan hot pepper farmers and exporters claimed they were not certified for the Global GAP
standard. This represents a major barrier to proper implementation of food safety measures and ability
to meet demands of importers in the premium fresh produce export markets.
Much as it is important for fresh produce farmers and exporters to keep abreast of the latest changes
in food safety measures in export markets and implement same within reasonable time, this has not
been the case in Ugandan hot pepper supply chain. This lack of awareness about GAP makes Ugandan
hot pepper farmers and exporters uncompetitive and often ineffective in complying with food safety
measures. Some studies have shown that small joint investments by members of farmer organizations
in areas of quality development, labeling and certification etc., all are quite important and even
necessary in meeting more stringent food quality and food safety requirements (Kersting and Wollni,
2012a; Narrod et al., 2009; Ouma, 2010).
At the meso level, there are also coordination failures between support service providers and operators
(farmers and exporters). During the interviews, hot pepper farmers and exporters expressed concern
that most of the support service providers are entrepreneurial and opportunistic and tend to be
generalists rather than specializing in food safety issues in fresh produce. And as such, this has left hot
pepper farmers and exporters inadequately informed by the support service providers about food safety
and quality demands of buyers. In addition, the range of contracted operational services on offer is
fairly narrow and hardly differentiated enough to support the hot pepper chain improvement especially
on food safety issues. For example, there are no local accreditation service companies and exporters
always have to depend on foreign expertise and private consultants who are very costly to access their
services. Technical operational services like laboratory tests for fresh produce especially for pesticide
residues are very few. The lead in this is taken by commercial service labs and is expensive for most
of the hot pepper producers and exporters.
Also, there are no companies offering cold storage solutions for the fresh produce sector, for example
like cold storage trucks or warehouses which could be used by the hot pepper supply chain operators
except the cold room facility at the airport which is available for temporally handling produce meant
for export.
As a country, optimum use of national expertise in support services is available though most are
implemented in a reactive manner, for example in response to a given need, such as a pest attack, crop
disease outbreak or low fertility, and not in a consistent and coordinated way. Also, they do not address
all Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) related issues. Besides, both the government and the private
sector lack sufficient capacity in some key areas of GAP, such as the elaboration of integrated pest
management program and appropriate irrigation methods or water management and water treatment,
to be able to respond to the needs of all hot pepper smallholders, especially those in remote areas
(UNCTAD, 2008).
Moreover, Uganda still lacks an established institution neither private nor public dedicated to
coordinating and spearheading the provision of the necessary and key support services related to food
safety for the horticultural sector like the one in Kenya called, Horticultural Crops Development
Authority (HCDA), which is vested with the responsibility to facilitate, develop, promote, coordinate,
and regulate the horticultural industry in Kenya.
Finally, the underlying constraint at the macro-level of the hot peppers supply chain is that Uganda’s
body of legislation which pertains to food safety, agriculture, public health, and compliance control
with international Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade matters is in
a state of transition, with many areas covered by obsolete legislation, other areas are still facing a legal
or regulatory vacuum, and a large queue of draft bills and policies positioned at various points in the
national legislative process (Jaffee, 2006) and this is still the case up to date.
Moreover, the current laws in Uganda make no provisions for risk assessment and management
concerning the fresh produce sector and there is weak coordination/ collaboration among institutions
involved in food safety and quality control (Nguz, 2007; UNCTAD, 2008).
At present, the inspection activities are only performed at the end of the production chain (at the airport
where a phytosanitary certificate is issued) by visual checks for plant diseases but not on pesticide
residues before the product is airlifted to its export destinations.
The fact that implementation of preventive measures for hot peppers at the farm and further along the
chain is lacking is mainly attributed to the limited capacities in staffing and resource facilities to enable
institutions perform on-farm inspections.
Despite all the challenges and bottlenecks faced by the conventional hot pepper supply chain and the
fresh produce sector at large, certified organic agriculture is a key niche export market opportunity for
Uganda (Preissel and Reckling, 2010). The well-organized organic agricultural sector in terms of its
professional institutional network, high growth rates, large area with 212,304 ha certified land, and
180,746 certified small-scale producers in 2008, has made it to be considered one of the most
developed in Africa (Willer and Kilcher, 2010).
The organic sub-sector in Uganda has streamlined all its efforts in complying with the required food
safety standards in order to penetrate international premium markets in the EU and US for both dry
and fresh fruits and vegetables. For example a lot of organic dried chillies, apple banana, spices, fresh
pineapples, bananas, passion fruits from Uganda are sold in supermarkets in the UK, Sweden and the
Netherlands. Therefore, important lessons on food safety standards compliance for the conventional
fresh fruit and vegetable sector can be learnt from the already successfull self-regulated and well
organized organic agricultural sub-sector. The latter has established its own contexual efforts e.g. the
setting of the Uganda Organic Standard (UOS) against which all operators in the organic supply chain
are certified and the establishment of the first local national certification agency in Uganda called
Uganda Organic Certification (Ugocert) to provide safe food for consumers in the domestic and export
markets.
2.4 Conclusion
This paper has brought to the fore that the Ugandan hot pepper supply chain is faced with three broad
categories of food safety related constraints in view of organization of the fresh produce supply chain.
Firstly, at the micro level the lack of awareness of food safety and hygiene requirements, limited supply
of clean planting material (hot pepper seeds and seedlings), high prevalence of diseases, and low levels
of knowledge in general good agricultural practices have affected productivity and competitiveness of
the hot pepper export subsector on the supply side. Secondly, at the meso-level the hot pepper
subsector faces constraints in the inadequate and mismatched operational and support services with
farmers and exporters’ needs to comply with market standards. Thirdly, the framework conditions for
food safety regulation of the fresh produce sector are still inadequate and ineffective. For Uganda to
achieve an international demand for its fresh produce products in the lucrative export market, it must
strive to establish and enhance standards of hygiene and food safety control more effectively.
However, this demands a proactive system geared by collaborative efforts from all stakeholders at the
three levels of the supply chain.
Chapter 3
Diagnostic tools on food safety management system performance from an European to the global
perspective
This chapter is compiled and adapted from: Kirezieva, K., J. Nanyunja, L. Jacxsens, J. G. A. J. van der Vorst, M. Uyttendaele, and P. A. Luning. 2013. Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 32:108-127
3.1 Food safety management systems
FSMS stands for Food Safety Management System and consists basically of two aspects: food safety,
and safety management system. Food safety is a specific aspect of food quality (Luning and Marcelis,
2009a) and according to Codex Alimentarius Commission (2003), it is defined as the assurance that
food will not cause harm to the consumer when it is prepared and/or eaten according to its intended
use. Broadly, Quality Management (QM) refers to all activities that organizations use to direct, control,
and co-ordinate quality, including formulating a quality policy, setting quality objectives, quality
planning, control, assurance, and improvement (Luning and Marcelis, 2007). In a company, the
Quality Management System (QMS) includes the organizational structure, responsibilities, processes,
procedures and resources that facilitate the achievement of quality management (Luning and Marcelis,
2009a). Therefore, for a given a company, a FSMS involves that part of the QMS which is specifically
focusing on food safety. In other words, a FSMS of a company focuses only on those activities which
particularly aim at controlling and assuring safety of food from microbiological, chemical and physical
hazards.
The underlying reason why food companies should have a FSMS as part of their food quality
management plan is because various stakeholders in the food supply chain (e.g. government, retailers,
consumers etc.) commonly require a specific set-up of the company’s quality management system to
guarantee that good quality and safe food is produced by companies. In most cases all these
stakeholders impose demands on the organization of the company’s system which are described in
legislations (e.g. EU Regulation 852/2004) and the well-established QA guidelines (e.g. GMP and
HACCP principles according to the Codex Alimentarius (Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC),
2003) and QA standards (e.g. ISO 9001:2008, ISO 22000:2005, BRC, etc.) (Escriche et al., 2006;
Jacxsens et al., 2009b; Luning et al., 2006). Therefore each food company (establishment) has its own
unique food safety management system (FSMS) based on the translation of quality assurance
guidelines and standards which have to be translated to its specific company circumstances and its
unique production conditions.
3.1.1 Key components of the FSMS
A FSMS consists of two major components namely; core control and core assurance activities. They
are the two quality management functions each with another objective, different activities, and
decisions. That is; core control activities contribute to Food Safety Control (FSC) while core assurance
activities contribute to Food Safety Assurance (Luning and Marcelis, 2007). These two sets of
activities contribute to the overall performance of the food safety management system.
In short, QA activities are the strategic activities while QC activities are the tactical activities (“Tactics
are the means by which a strategy is carried out”). Figure 3.1 presents the core activities in an FSMS
contributing to food safety control (FSC) and food safety assurance (FSA)
Figure 3.1: Core control and assurance activities in the FSMS Source: Luning & Marcelis, 2009
3.1.2 Differences between control and assurance activities in a FSMS
Control activities are aimed at keeping products, processes, and people processes between desired
tolerances (or below limits). Control activities concern the ongoing process of evaluating performance
of both technological and human processes and taking corrective actions when necessary. Four types
of control activities have been distinguished in the FSMS, namely; 1) Preventive measures are aimed
at preventing (cross) contamination and growth of micro-organisms and more specifically pathogens
(e.g. by cooling, cleaning, hygienic measures, etc.), 2) Intervention processes are aimed at inactivating
or reducing micro-organisms (more specifically pathogens) to acceptable levels, 3) Monitoring systems
are aimed at providing information about the actual status of product or process conditions, which
enables process corrections, removal of non-conforming products, and system improvements; and 4)
Operational strategies are aimed at ensuring the actual operation of major control activities which can
be directly checked, by analysis of actual performance of equipment, facilities and methods, and actual
availability of and compliance to procedures (including guidelines and instructions) (Luning et al.,
2008a).
Core Assurance activities
Setting system requirements ValidationVerification Documentation and record keeping
Core Control activities
Preventive measure design Intervention process design Monitoring design Operational Strategies
Assurance on product safety
Product safety
Stakeholders’ assurance requirements
Assurance activities are aimed at providing evidence and confidence to stakeholders that the FSMS is
properly designed (effective) and operates in daily practice as designed. Assurance activities deal with
setting requirements on the system, evaluating its performance and organizing necessary changes.
Important assurance activities addressed in a FSMS are;
1) Setting system requirements, which involves translating of external assurance requirements into
requirements on the company’s FSMS. Current control and assurance activities are compared to the
(new) stakeholder requirements and new specifications on the FSMS activities are then set, 2)
Validation activities aim at checking in advance the effectiveness of designed control measures or
combination of measures in controlling the hazard to a specific outcome, 3) Verification activities aim
at checking afterwards if control activities are operating in practice as designed, and 4) Documentation
& record- keeping. Documentation aims at keeping knowledge and information, whereas record
keeping aims at collecting data respectively (Luning et al., 2009a). Table 3.1 below shows the two
major differences between control activities and assurance activities in the food safety management
system.
Table 3.1: Key differences between control activities and assurance activities in FSMS Control activities Assurance activities
- Keep product properties, production processes
and human process between certain acceptable
tolerances.
- Focus on the on-going process of evaluating
performance of both technological and human
processes and taking corrective actions when
necessary.
- Provide evidence and confidence to stakeholders
that the FSMS is properly designed (effective) and
operates in daily practice as designed.
- Set requirements on the system, evaluating its
performance and organizing the necessary changes.
3.2 Methods to measure performance of FSMS
The ongoing evolution of public and private governance of agri-food chains has brought about a broad
range of overlapping and inter-related standards and associated systems of conformity assessment and
enforcement. They originated from individual private firms, business organizations and regional,
national and/or supranational government.
Next to the public requirements, many private standards emerged posing additional demands to food
companies (da Cruz et al., 2006). Performance of FSMS in food processing companies could be
measured by various methods including regulatory inspections, auditing, verification, products testing,
and surveillance. Inspection is the examination of food or systems for control of food, raw materials,
processing and distribution, including in-process and finished product testing, in order to verify that
they conform to requirements (Powell et al., 2013). The purpose of regulatory inspection is to evaluate
current conditions and whether they are in compliance with desired standard conditions, questions are
responded with ‘yes/no’ reply (Powell et al., 2013). An audit is a systematic and independent
examination to determine whether quality/safety activities and related results comply with planned
arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve
objectives; questions are responded with why/how’ reply (Luning and Marcelis, 2009b; Powell et al.,
2013). It provides feedback on the completeness and effectiveness of the FSMS, and indicates the
elements of the system that are inadequate or need improvement . Both audit and inspection are
conducted to demonstrate and provide evidence on the effectiveness of a system/quality assurance
program (Alli, 2003; Luning and Marcelis, 2009b). Audits are either self-audits (internal by food safety
team), or second-party (by downstream company or buyer or company’s paid consultants) or third-
party (by outside accredited company/organisation) for certification purposes (Luning and Marcelis,
2009b; Powell et al., 2013). A general procedure for auditing includes collection of information,
verification of information, establishing objective evidence, summarising audit findings and
preparation of a report (Luning and Marcelis, 2009b). Third-party audits examine compliance with
laws and codes of practice and provide insight into management controls and supervision (Powell et
al., 2013). Third-party audits are non-consultative; thus, the auditor is not permitted to instruct or
advise the facility on how to meet the requirements. A registration/certification audit is a third-party
audit carried out for the purpose of registering/certifying the company to a recognised standard, such
as the ISO 9001:2008 QMS standard (Alli, 2003). When satisfied that the FSMS/QMS has been
effectively implemented and is maintained, a certificate is issued (Tanner, 2000). A certificate
indicates that the company/organisation at the time of assessment had FSMS which complied with the
specified requirements (Jacxsens et al., 2009a; Kussaga, 2015).
FSMS are the result from the translation of all these various standards and guidelines into specific
company’s circumstances (Luning et al., 2009c). Furthermore, food safety management is exercised
in different contexts – countries, sectors, supply chains. This is relevant for all food sectors, but
especially challenging for fresh produce, which is increasingly produced, traded and distributed across
the world. Table 3.2 gives an account of studies that have been done on food safety management
systems performance for various food sectors.
Tab
le 3
.2: R
evie
w o
f stu
dies
on
mea
sure
men
ts o
f foo
d sa
fety
syst
ems p
erfo
rman
ce in
the
food
indu
stry
(pub
licat
ions
from
200
8 to
201
5)
Ref
eren
ce
Title
Ty
pe o
f sys
tem
pe
rfor
man
ce a
sses
smen
t C
ount
ry
Typ
e of
stud
y sc
ope
Lun
ing
et. a
l, 20
08
Com
preh
ensi
ve a
naly
sis a
nd d
iffer
entia
ted
asse
ssm
ent o
f foo
d sa
fety
con
trol
syst
ems:
a d
iagn
ostic
inst
rum
ent
Food
safe
ty c
ontro
l dia
gnos
tic
inst
rum
ent
Net
herla
nds
Met
hodo
logi
cal
pape
r Ja
cxse
ns e
t. al
, 20
09
A m
icro
biol
ogic
al a
sses
smen
t sch
eme
to m
easu
re m
icro
bial
per
form
ance
of f
ood
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s M
icro
biol
ogic
al a
sses
smen
t sc
hem
e (M
AS)
B
elgi
um &
Net
herla
nds
Mea
t bus
ines
s
Lun
ing
et. a
l, 20
09
Syst
emat
ic a
sses
smen
t of c
ore
assu
ranc
e ac
tiviti
es in
a c
ompa
ny sp
ecifi
c fo
od
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
Fo
od sa
fety
ass
uran
ce
diag
nost
ic in
stru
men
t Eu
rope
M
etho
dolo
gica
l pa
per
Jacx
sens
et.
al,
2010
Fo
od sa
fety
per
form
ance
indi
cato
rs to
ben
chm
ark
food
safe
ty o
utpu
t of f
ood
safe
ty
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
Mic
robi
al d
iagn
ostic
in
stru
men
t B
elgi
um, &
Net
herla
nds
Mea
t, D
airy
bu
sine
ss,
Sam
pers
et.
al,
2010
R
elat
ion
betw
een
Cam
pylo
bact
er c
onta
min
atio
n an
d pe
rform
ance
of F
ood
Safe
ty
Man
agem
ent S
yste
ms i
n po
ultry
mea
t ind
ustri
es
MA
S an
d co
mpl
ete
FSM
S di
agno
stic
inst
rum
ent (
FSM
S-D
I)
Bel
gium
Po
ultry
mea
t in
dust
ries
Jacx
sens
et.
al,
2011
To
ols f
or th
e pe
rform
ance
ass
essm
ent a
nd im
prov
emen
t of f
ood
safe
ty
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
Ove
rvie
w o
f dia
gnos
tic to
ols
for m
icro
bial
and
FSM
S as
sess
men
t
Euro
pe
Met
hodo
logi
cal
pape
r
Lun
ing
et. a
l, 20
11
A to
ol to
dia
gnos
e co
ntex
t ris
kine
ss in
vie
w o
f foo
d sa
fety
act
iviti
es a
nd
mic
robi
olog
ical
safe
ty o
utpu
t FS
MS
cont
ext d
iagn
ostic
in
stru
men
t N
ethe
rland
s M
etho
dolo
gica
l pa
per
Lun
ing
et. a
l, 20
11
A c
oncu
rren
t dia
gnos
is o
f mic
robi
olog
ical
food
safe
ty o
utpu
t and
food
safe
ty
man
agem
ent s
yste
m p
erfo
rman
ce: C
ases
from
mea
t pro
cess
ing
indu
strie
s M
AS
and
FSM
S-D
I Sp
ain,
Ital
y, B
elgi
um
Mea
t pro
cess
ing
indu
strie
s O
sés e
t. al
, 20
12a
Food
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
per
form
ance
in th
e la
mb
chai
n FS
MS-
DI
Spai
n La
mb
chai
n
Osé
s et.
al,
2012
b M
icro
bial
per
form
ance
of f
ood
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s im
plem
ente
d in
the
lam
b pr
oduc
tion
chai
n M
AS
Spai
n La
mb
chai
n
Sam
pers
et a
l.,
2012
Se
mi-q
uant
itativ
e st
udy
to e
valu
ate
the
perf
orm
ance
of a
HA
CC
P-ba
sed
food
sa
fety
man
agem
ent s
yste
m in
Japa
nese
milk
pro
cess
ing
plan
ts FS
MS-
DI
Japa
n D
airy
indu
strie
s
Kir
ezie
va e
t. al
, 20
13
Con
text
fact
ors a
ffec
ting
desi
gn a
nd o
pera
tion
of fo
od sa
fety
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
in th
e fre
sh p
rodu
ce c
hain
FS
MS
diag
nost
ic to
ol fo
r fre
sh
prod
uce
chai
ns (F
SMS-
DI
fresh
pro
duce
)
Euro
pe a
nd g
loba
l co
ntex
t M
etho
dolo
gica
l pa
per
Opi
yo e
t al.,
20
13
Mic
robi
olog
ical
per
form
ance
of d
airy
pro
cess
ing
plan
ts is
influ
ence
d by
scal
e of
pr
oduc
tion
and
the
impl
emen
ted
food
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
: a c
ase
stud
y FS
MS-
DI
Ken
ya
Dai
ry
Lun
ing
et. a
l, 20
13
Perfo
rman
ce o
f saf
ety
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms i
n Sp
anis
h fo
od se
rvic
e es
tabl
ishm
ents
in
vie
w o
f the
ir co
ntex
t cha
ract
eris
tics
FSM
S-D
I Sp
ain
food
serv
ice
esta
blis
hmen
ts
Kir
ezie
va e
t. al
, 20
13
Ass
essm
ent o
f Foo
d Sa
fety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
ms i
n th
e gl
obal
fres
h pr
oduc
e ch
ain
FSM
S-D
I fre
sh p
rodu
ce
Net
herla
nds
fres
h pr
oduc
e ch
ain
Kus
saga
et.
al,
2013
D
iagn
osis
of f
ood
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s per
form
ance
in fo
od p
roce
ssin
g se
ctor
s for
exp
ort a
nd d
omes
tic m
arke
ts
FSM
S-D
I Ta
nzan
ia
Dai
ry a
nd fi
sh
Kus
saga
et.
al,
2014
Fo
od sa
fety
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms p
erfo
rman
ce in
Afri
can
food
pro
cess
ing
com
pani
es: a
revi
ew o
f def
icie
ncie
s and
pos
sibl
e im
prov
emen
t stra
tegi
es
FSM
S-D
I Ta
nzan
ia
Dai
ry a
nd fi
sh
de Q
uadr
os
Rod
rigu
es e
t al.,
20
14
Mic
robi
olog
ical
con
tam
inat
ion
linke
d to
impl
emen
tatio
n of
goo
d ag
ricul
tura
l pr
actic
es in
the
prod
uctio
n of
org
anic
lettu
ce in
Sou
ther
n B
razi
l FS
MS-
DI f
resh
pro
duce
B
razi
l Fr
esh
prod
uce
Kus
saga
et.
al,
2014
C
halle
nges
in P
erfo
rman
ce o
f Foo
d Sa
fety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
ms:
A C
ase
of F
ish
Proc
essi
ng C
ompa
nies
in T
anza
nia
FSM
S-D
I Ta
nzan
ia
Fish
Pro
cess
ing
Com
pani
es
Saw
e et
. al,
2014
C
urre
nt fo
od sa
fety
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms i
n fre
sh p
rodu
ce e
xpor
ting
indu
stry
are
as
soci
ated
with
low
er p
erfo
rman
ce d
ue to
con
text
risk
ines
s: C
ase
stud
y FS
MS-
DI f
resh
pro
duce
K
enya
Fr
esh
prod
uce
Onj
ong
et a
l, 20
14
Cur
rent
Foo
d Sa
fety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
ms S
yste
ms i
n Fi
sh-E
xpor
ting
Com
pani
es
Req
uire
Fur
ther
Impr
ovem
ents
to A
dequ
atel
y C
ope
with
Con
text
ual P
ress
ure:
Cas
e St
udy
FSM
S-D
I K
enya
Fi
sh
Lun
ing
et. a
l, 20
15
Perfo
rman
ce a
sses
smen
t of f
ood
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s in
anim
al-b
ased
food
co
mpa
nies
in v
iew
of t
heir
cont
ext c
hara
cter
istic
s FS
MS-
DI
Net
herla
nds,
Bel
gium
, Sp
ain,
Gre
ece,
Ital
y A
nim
al-b
ased
fo
od c
ompa
nies
K
irez
ieva
et.
al,
2015
a Ex
plor
ing
the
influ
ence
of c
onte
xt o
n fo
od sa
fety
man
agem
ent:
Cas
e st
udie
s of
leaf
y gr
eens
pro
duct
ion
in E
urop
e FS
MS-
DI f
resh
pro
duce
N
orw
ay, B
elgi
um, S
pain
le
afy
gree
n ve
geta
bles
N
anyu
nja
et. a
l, 20
15
Ass
essi
ng th
e st
atus
of f
ood
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
s for
fre
sh p
rodu
ce
prod
uctio
n in
Eas
t Afri
ca: E
vide
nce
from
cer
tifie
d gr
een
bean
farm
s in
Ken
ya a
nd
non-
certi
fied
hot p
eppe
r far
ms i
n U
gand
a
FSM
S-D
I fre
sh p
rodu
ce
Ken
ya a
nd U
gand
a Fr
esh
prod
uce
Kir
ezie
va e
t. al
, 20
15b
Fact
ors a
ffect
ing
the
stat
us o
f foo
d sa
fety
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms i
n th
e gl
obal
fres
h pr
oduc
e ch
ain.
FS
MS-
DI f
resh
pro
duce
N
orw
ay, B
elgi
um,
Spai
n, N
ethe
rland
s, Se
rbia
, Sou
th A
frica
, B
razi
l, In
dia,
Egy
pt,
Chi
na
Fres
h pr
oduc
e
Onj
ong
et a
l, 20
14
Mic
robi
olog
ical
Per
form
ance
of F
ish
Proc
essi
ng S
ecto
r Im
plem
entin
g C
urre
nt
Food
Saf
ety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
ms:
A C
ase
Stud
y (O
njon
g et
al.,
201
4)
MA
S K
enya
Fi
sh
Jacx
sens
et.
al,
2015
M
easu
ring
mic
robi
al fo
od sa
fety
out
put a
nd c
ompa
ring
self-
chec
king
syst
ems o
f fo
od b
usin
ess o
pera
tors
in B
elgi
um
MA
S an
d FS
MS-
DI
Bel
gium
V
ario
us fo
od
busi
ness
ope
rato
rs
3.2.1 Principles behind FSMS diagnosing
To diagnose the status of FSMS, the relation between the context and the FSMS is described in terms
of riskiness to decision making within the FSMS. The riskiness has been represented by uncertainty
due to lack of information, ambiguity due to lack of understanding, and vulnerability due to inherent
risk in the product, process or organization (Luning. et al., 2011). The uncertainty is reduced by
adequate information and systematic methods, ambiguity – by scientific information, and vulnerability
– by systematic methods and independent positions (Luning. et al., 2011). Therefore, three levels have
been defined to assess the FSMS activities by using the differentiation criteria: use of scientific
knowledge, specific information, critical analysis, procedural methods, systematic activities, and
independent positions (Luning et al., 2008a; Luning et al., 2009a). Following the contingency theory,
the concept behind the diagnostic tool is: if there is high risk in the context situation then advanced
FSMS activities are required to result in a predictable and controllable output. The system output
represents the probability of failure in the FSMS, leading to adverse health effects. Structured
information about the FSMS output through its key food safety performance indicators, according to
very strict and specific criteria will provide better insight in the actual performance, because food
safety hazards will be more systematically detected. The assessment with the diagnostic tool, as
adapted for fresh produces chains, provides insight into the relations between the context, FSMS
activities and the system output (Kirezieva, 2015; Kirezieva et al., 2013d; Kirezieva. et al., 2013b).
Figure 3.2 shows the composition aspects of the food safety management system diagnostic tool.
Figu
re 3
.2: S
truct
ure
of th
e Fo
od S
afet
y M
anag
emen
t Sys
tem
Dia
gnos
tic to
ol fo
r ass
essm
ent o
f foo
d sa
fety
pra
ctic
es fr
esh
prod
uce
chai
ns (K
irezi
eva,
201
5).
Con
text
Fac
tors
Food
Saf
ety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
m
Sy
stem
out
put I
ndic
ator
s C
ore
cont
rol a
ctiv
ities
•
•
Cor
e as
sura
nce
activ
ities
3.3 Adapting the FSMS diagnostic tool from meat and dairy sectors to the fresh produce sector
In the highly globalized fresh produce sector, a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables are grown in farms
and distributed in supply chains that vary from very small to very large, and from domestic to
international export markets. However, legislation and quality assurance guidelines for the fresh
produce sector are not yet as well defined and organized as those for the meat and dairy industries
(Jacxsens et al., 2010c). Quality assurance requirements or guidelines for fresh produce e.g. (CAC,
2009; GLOBALG.A.P, 2013) are general in nature, lacking a scientific base, and difficult to translate
into a specific FSMS. Implemented FSMS along the fresh produce chain are not always performing
satisfactory, related to inadequate sanitation, improper practices, etc. (Ilic et al., 2008; Johnston et al.,
2006; Lehto et al., 2011; Little and Gillespie, 2008). Therefore, insight is needed on the factors
affecting the status of FSMS along fresh produce chains, to identify their weaknesses and opportunities
for improvement (Kirezieva, 2015). The original version of the FSMS diagnostic tool was aimed
primarily on microbial food safety performance of meat and dairy processing industries and catering
(Luning et al., 2013b; Luning et al., 2015) but was not covering the FSMS across the supply chain.
During the European Veg-i-Trade project, another version of the FSMS diagnostic instrument for the
fresh produce sector has been developed for assessment of food safety management practices along
the fresh produce chain (Kirezieva et al., 2013b; Kirezieva et al., 2013d). This FSMS diagnostic
instrument for the fresh produce sector has a wider scope of assessing the whole fresh produce supply
chain from primary production (farm) to processing and trade (both wholesale and retail). Apart from
assessing the microbiological safety output for companies, it is also suitable for the specifics of the
fresh produce industry and considers chemical hazards such as pesticides and mycotoxins. It composes
respectively indicators to assess context riskiness (n=21), performance levels of core safety
management activities (n=41), and chemical and microbiological food safety output (n=10). Specific
instruments consist in total 64, 69, and 66 indicators for primary production, processing, and trade
(Kirezieva. et al., 2013a).
3.4 Tailoring of the fresh produce European FSMS diagnostic tool to the Global context
The FSMS diagnostic tool for fresh produce was initially designed for the European context, however
fresh produce cultivation, processing and trade are operating in an international world, so further
tailoring towards the global perspective was necessary. The diagnostic tools for the global context are
illustrated in figure 3.3 and it follows the same principles and underlying mechanisms as those behind
the first FSMS diagnostic tool that was developed and validated for the European context (Kirezieva
et al., 2012).
FSMS
Microbiological Chemical
Figure 3.3: Conceptual research model to tailor the fresh produce EU FSMS diagnostic tool to the global context Source: Kirezieva et al., (2012).
For the global situation, additional context factors were included to reflect on issues typical for the
countries outside EU (related to e.g. the nature of food safety legal framework, external chain support,
etc.). Furthermore, alternative or modifications of statements in some of the original indicators and
corresponding grids were included, to allow better understanding and positioning of companies in the
different situations described in the grids. Lastly, specific examples to various indicators were added
that illustrate the realities and practices in the global context. The constructs of all these additional
aspects in the FSMS diagnostic tools for the global context enable to map and compare between FSMS
and fresh produce supply chains that cover actors within EU as well as outside the EU.
Additional context indicators
Additional/ alternative level Country specific activities in examples and grids
Additional/ alternative level Country specific activities in examples and grids
3.4.1 Demarcating the global context within the fresh produce supply chain
Based on a comprehensive literature review, the demarcation of the global context to enable
identification of possible differences in the key constructs of the FSMS diagnostic tools (i.e. context
factors, safety control activities, assurance activities and system output indicators) in the fresh produce
supply chain across EU and non-EU countries was done. Two theoretical concepts were concurrently
applied; “organization of the fresh produce supply chain at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels”
(Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) and “three typologies of food systems” as identified from the literature
review. This resulted into mapping and characterization of typical aspects associated with the fresh
produce supply chains for various countries in view of the three food system typologies as briefly
discussed below. Tables 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 show the interaction between food systems at the micro, meso,
macro–levels of the fresh produce supply chain, which defines the global context for tailoring the
FSMS diagnostic tool.
McCullough et al., (2008) described three different typologies for food systems that correspond
roughly with the development process; the traditional food system, the structured food system and the
industrialized food system.
A traditional food system is characterised by the dominance of unorganized supply chains with a
limited market infrastructure is typically characterising traditional food systems. In such systems,
farmers and traders supply traditional wholesalers to sell them to individual processors and retailers
who normally operate on a smaller scale. Traditional wholesalers are able to differentiate products by
attributes such as size, colour and other observable features, but product information is not readily
observable and not easily transmitted through the entire chain. In this food system, agriculture is
mainly oriented towards the production of non-marketed staples and cropping systems are often
diversified at the farm level with inputs generated on the farm. Some of the surplus production is
marketed, but production systems are mainly subsistence oriented. Examples of countries with a
traditional food system include; Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, Benin, Ghana and indeed all other
developing countries.
Traditional actors in the market but with more rules and regulations applied to market places and more
market infrastructure typically characterise the structured food system. In such systems, organized
chains begin to capture a growing share of the market, but traditional chains are still common.
Structured food systems in the emerging modern economies are neither traditional nor industrial but
somewhere in between. Examples of countries with a structured food system include; China, Brazil,
South Africa, Mexico, Kenya and all other countries considered being among the emerging modern
economies.
Strong perceptions of food safety, high degree of coordination, a large consolidated processing sector,
and well organized retailers typically characterises industrialised food systems, that dominate
throughout the developed countries. Such systems are highly mechanized and scale economies are
quite pronounced. Differentiated products flow through well-organized value chains and commodity
markets maintain basic safety standards through regulation (Kinsey and Senauer, 1996). By using these
two theoretical concepts, the global context for the fresh produce sector in relation to the FSMS
constructs was derived. Examples of countries with an industrialized food system include; all EU
member states, USA, Australia, Japan and all other developed countries. Figure 3.4 shows a visual
illustration of the global context by all the three food systems at the micro–level of the fresh produce
supply chain.
Demarcation of the global context led to the identification of missing content and the addition of
examples to some of the indicators that illustrate the realities and practices in the global context. This
was done in alignment with the concept of the FSMS diagnostic tool that includes the definition of
indicators for context factors (Luning et al., 2011c), control and assurance activities (Luning et al.,
2009a; Luning et al., 2008b) and system output (Jacxsens et al., 2010d). The selection and
identification of additional aspects to the already existing indicators and described grids in the FSMS
diagnostic tool for the European context was done based on literature study and expert discussions.
The assumption behind the tailored FSMS diagnostic tool for the global context is that it should be
able to reflect and assess the realities and practices associated with the performance of food safety
management systems for fresh produce supply chains across traditional food systems, structured food
systems and industrialized food systems, thus representing EU countries and non-EU countries.
Figu
re 3
.4: A
vis
ual i
llust
ratio
n of
the
glob
al c
onte
xt fo
r the
thre
e fo
od s
yste
ms a
t the
mic
ro–l
evel
of t
he fr
esh
prod
uce
supp
ly c
hain
Glo
bal-
cont
ext
T
radi
tiona
l foo
d sy
stem
(e
.g. U
gand
a, R
wan
da, G
hana
, Ind
ia,)
Stru
ctur
ed fo
od sy
stem
(e
.g.
Bra
zil,
Sout
h A
fric
a, E
gypt
) In
dust
rial
ized
food
syst
em
(EU
, USA
, Aus
tralia
, Jap
an)
-Sup
ply
chai
ns a
re c
hara
cter
ized
by
so m
any
inde
pend
ent a
nd sc
atte
red
farm
ers a
nd m
iddl
emen
who
link
farm
er’s
pro
duct
s to
the
urba
n m
arke
ts
(Len
ne a
nd W
ard,
201
0)
-Ver
y fe
w c
oope
rativ
es/p
rodu
cer o
rgan
izat
ions
for t
he d
omes
tic a
nd
expo
rt or
gani
zed
chai
ns.
- Tra
ditio
nal w
hole
sale
rs c
an d
iffer
entia
te p
rodu
cts o
n th
e ba
sis o
f bas
ic
func
tions
; lik
e si
ze, c
olou
r and
oth
er e
asily
obs
erva
ble
char
acte
ristic
s.
-Pro
duct
info
rmat
ion
that
is n
ot re
adily
ava
ilabl
e do
es n
ot tr
ansm
it w
ell
thro
ugh
the
tradi
tion
syst
em.
-Sup
ply
chai
ns a
re c
hara
cter
ized
by
man
y in
depe
nden
t and
sc
atte
red
farm
ers
-Em
ergi
ng im
porta
nce
of c
oope
rativ
es/p
rodu
cer g
roup
s to
acce
ss
inte
rnat
iona
l mar
kets
. -S
peci
aliz
ed w
hole
sale
rs a
re b
ette
r pos
ition
ed to
kee
p tra
ck o
f qu
ality
info
rmat
ion
and
mee
t mor
e ex
actin
g de
man
ds fr
om
reta
ilers
and
pro
cess
ors
-Sup
ply
chai
ns a
re c
hara
cter
ized
by
few
inde
pend
ent a
nd
orga
nize
d fa
rmer
s -S
igni
fican
t im
porta
nce
of c
oope
rativ
es/p
rodu
cer g
roup
s to
acce
ss b
oth
dom
estic
and
inte
rnat
iona
l mar
kets
. -S
peci
aliz
ed w
hole
sale
rs a
re b
ette
r pos
ition
ed to
kee
p tra
ck
of q
ualit
y in
form
atio
n an
d m
eet m
ore
exac
ting
dem
ands
from
re
taile
rs a
nd p
roce
ssor
s -S
peci
aliz
ed w
hole
sale
dis
tribu
tion
cent
res.
Tab
le 3
.3:
Cha
ract
eris
tics o
f the
glo
bal c
onte
xt a
t the
mic
ro–l
evel
of t
he fr
esh
prod
uce
supp
ly c
hain
Glo
bal-
cont
ext
MIC
RO
-LE
VE
L
chai
n fu
nctio
n st
ages
T
radi
tiona
l foo
d sy
stem
Is
ty
pica
lly
char
acte
rized
by
th
e do
min
ance
of
un
orga
nize
d su
pply
cha
ins
with
a l
imite
d m
arke
t in
frast
ruct
ure.
In
this
foo
d sy
stem
, ag
ricul
ture
is
mai
nly
orie
nted
tow
ards
the
pro
duct
ion
of n
on-
mar
kete
d st
aple
s (e
.g. U
gand
a, R
wan
da, G
hana
)
St
ruct
ured
food
syst
em
Is st
ill c
hara
cter
ized
by
tradi
tiona
l act
ors i
n th
e m
arke
t but
w
ith m
ore
rule
s and
regu
latio
ns a
pplie
d to
mar
ket p
lace
s an
d m
ore
mar
ket i
nfra
stru
ctur
e. In
stru
ctur
ed fo
od sy
stem
s, or
gani
zed
chai
ns b
egin
to c
aptu
re a
gro
win
g sh
are
of th
e m
arke
t, bu
t tra
ditio
nal c
hain
s are
still
com
mon
. Stru
ctur
ed
food
syst
ems i
n th
e em
ergi
ng m
oder
n ec
onom
ies a
re
neith
er tr
aditi
onal
nor
indu
stria
l but
som
ewhe
re in
bet
wee
n.
(e.g
. Ken
ya, B
razi
l, So
uth
Afri
ca, E
gypt
)
E
U- c
onte
xt
Indu
stri
aliz
ed fo
od sy
stem
D
omin
ates
thro
ugho
ut th
e de
velo
ped
coun
tries
with
stro
ng
perc
eptio
ns o
f foo
d sa
fety
, hig
h de
gree
of c
oord
inat
ion,
a la
rge
cons
olid
ated
pro
cess
ing
sect
or a
nd w
ell o
rgan
ized
reta
ilers
. Ty
pica
lly, i
ndus
trial
ized
syst
ems a
re h
ighl
y m
echa
nize
d an
d sc
ale
econ
omie
s are
qui
te p
rono
unce
d. D
iffer
entia
ted
prod
ucts
flow
th
roug
h w
ell-o
rgan
ized
val
ue c
hain
s and
com
mod
ity m
arke
ts
mai
ntai
n ba
sic
safe
ty st
anda
rds t
hrou
gh re
gula
tion
(e.g
. USA
, Aus
tralia
, Jap
an, C
anad
a)
Prod
uctio
n of
fres
h pr
oduc
e (e
.g. p
rodu
ctio
n sy
stem
s, ty
pes o
f pro
duce
rs, s
cope
of
pro
duct
ion)
-Far
ms u
sual
ly h
ave
mul
ti cr
oppi
ng sy
stem
s i.e
. m
ore
than
one
cro
p on
the
farm
& in
terc
ropp
ing
-Mai
nly
open
fiel
d cu
ltiva
tion
syst
ems
-Far
ms h
ave
both
mul
ti cr
oppi
ng a
nd m
ono
crop
ping
sy
stem
s -B
oth
open
fiel
d an
d cl
osed
cul
tivat
ion
syst
ems (
e.g.
gre
en
hous
es)
-Mos
t far
ms h
ave
mon
o cr
oppi
ng sy
stem
s e.g
. sin
gle
crop
fiel
ds)
-Ope
n fie
ld c
ultiv
atio
n bu
t maj
ority
are
clo
sed
culti
vatio
n sy
stem
s i.e
. gre
en h
ouse
pro
duct
ion.
-I
ncre
asin
g us
e of
bot
h gr
een
hous
e an
d so
illes
s (h
ydro
poni
c) c
ultiv
atio
n sy
stem
s e.
g. fo
r fre
sh le
afy
vege
tabl
es.
Proc
essi
ng o
f fre
sh
prod
uce
(e.g
. pro
cess
ing
syst
ems,
type
s of p
roce
sser
s, sc
ope
of p
roce
ssin
g)
-No
exis
ting
or li
mite
d pr
oces
sing
sect
or (F
AO
, 20
06; W
orld
Ban
k, 2
008)
for f
resh
pro
duce
-E
mer
ging
Sm
all s
cale
smoo
thie
shop
s -I
n m
ost c
ases
use
of p
ack
hous
es to
sort,
gra
de a
nd
pack
age
prod
uce
for b
oth
dom
estic
and
exp
ort
mar
kets
-Mod
erat
e pr
oces
sing
sect
or fo
r fre
sh-c
ut p
rodu
ce m
ost
case
s for
the
expo
rt m
arke
t -I
ncre
asin
g tre
nds f
or fr
esh
prod
uce
smoo
thie
shop
s
-Lar
ge p
roce
ssin
g se
ctor
for f
resh
-cut
veg
etab
les f
or b
oth
dom
estic
an
d ex
port
mar
kets
-C
omm
on fr
esh
prod
uce
smoo
thie
shop
s
Who
lesa
le tr
ade
of
fres
h pr
oduc
e -T
radi
tiona
l who
lesa
lers
, with
reta
iler b
ypas
sing
for
expo
rts
-Tra
ditio
nal a
nd sp
ecia
lized
who
lesa
lers
, som
e re
taile
r by
pass
ing
-Spe
cial
ized
who
lesa
lers
with
dis
tribu
tion
cent
res a
nd fo
rmal
ized
pr
ocur
emen
t sys
tem
s (G
olan
et a
l., 2
004;
Unn
eveh
r and
Rob
erts
, 20
02).
Ret
ail t
rade
of f
resh
pr
oduc
e -M
ajor
ity o
f who
le F
FV p
rodu
cts a
re so
ld to
co
nsum
ers v
ia sm
all s
cale
and
larg
e w
et m
arke
ts,
stre
et v
endo
rs e
tc.
- FFV
rare
ly so
ld i
n su
perm
arke
ts
-Val
ue a
dded
FFV
pro
duct
s (fre
sh-c
ut, r
eady
to e
at)
are
alm
ost n
on e
xist
ing
in th
e do
mes
tic fr
esh
prod
uce
mar
kets
-Inc
reas
ing
spre
ad o
f sup
erm
arke
ts b
ut w
ith le
ss
pene
tratio
n of
FFV
-M
ore
cons
umer
s buy
ing
fresh
pro
duce
from
sup
erm
arke
ts
-Wet
mar
kets
for F
FV w
hole
pro
duct
s stil
l com
mon
-V
alue
add
ed F
FV p
rodu
cts (
fresh
-cut
, rea
dy to
eat
) are
al
mos
t non
exi
stin
g in
the
dom
estic
fres
h pr
oduc
e m
arke
ts
-Wid
e sp
read
supe
rmar
kets
(foo
d &
non
-food
) -W
ide
spre
ad su
pers
tore
s (fo
od a
nd n
on-fo
od)
-Alm
ost a
ll co
nsum
ers b
uy F
FV fr
om su
perm
arke
ts, a
nd g
roce
ry
shop
s. -A
few
con
sum
ers b
uy F
FV fr
om p
ublic
ope
n m
arke
ts
- Val
ue a
dded
FFV
pro
duct
s (fre
sh-c
ut, r
eady
to e
at) a
re v
ery
com
mon
ly so
ld in
supe
rmar
kets
.
Tab
le 3
.4: T
he g
loba
l con
text
at t
he m
eso–
leve
l of t
he fr
esh
prod
uce
supp
ly c
hain
Glo
bal-c
onte
xt
ME
SO-L
EV
EL
C
hain
supp
ort
T
radi
tiona
l foo
d sy
stem
Is
typi
cally
cha
ract
eriz
ed b
y th
e do
min
ance
of
unor
gani
zed
supp
ly c
hain
s with
a li
mite
d m
arke
t in
frast
ruct
ure.
In th
is fo
od sy
stem
, agr
icul
ture
is
mai
nly
orie
nted
tow
ards
the
prod
uctio
n of
non
-m
arke
ted
stap
les
(e.g
. Uga
nda,
Rw
anda
, Gha
na)
St
ruct
ured
food
syst
em
Is st
ill c
hara
cter
ized
by
tradi
tiona
l act
ors i
n th
e m
arke
t but
w
ith m
ore
rule
s and
regu
latio
ns a
pplie
d to
mar
ket p
lace
s an
d m
ore
mar
ket i
nfra
stru
ctur
e. In
stru
ctur
ed fo
od sy
stem
s, or
gani
zed
chai
ns b
egin
to c
aptu
re a
gro
win
g sh
are
of th
e m
arke
t, bu
t tra
ditio
nal c
hain
s are
still
com
mon
. Stru
ctur
ed
food
syst
ems i
n th
e em
ergi
ng m
oder
n ec
onom
ies a
re
neith
er tr
aditi
onal
nor
indu
stria
l but
som
ewhe
re in
bet
wee
n.
(e.g
. Ken
ya, B
razi
l, So
uth
Afri
ca, E
gypt
)
E
U- c
onte
xt
Indu
stri
aliz
ed fo
od sy
stem
D
omin
ates
thro
ugho
ut th
e de
velo
ped
coun
tries
with
stro
ng
perc
eptio
ns o
f foo
d sa
fety
, hig
h de
gree
of c
oord
inat
ion,
a la
rge
cons
olid
ated
pro
cess
ing
sect
or a
nd w
ell o
rgan
ized
reta
ilers
. Ty
pica
lly, i
ndus
trial
ized
syst
ems a
re h
ighl
y m
echa
nize
d an
d sc
ale
econ
omie
s are
qui
te p
rono
unce
d. D
iffer
entia
ted
prod
ucts
flo
w th
roug
h w
ell-o
rgan
ized
val
ue c
hain
s and
com
mod
ity
mar
kets
mai
ntai
n ba
sic
safe
ty st
anda
rds t
hrou
gh re
gula
tion
(e.g
. USA
, Aus
tralia
, Jap
an, C
anad
a)
Ope
ratio
nal s
ervi
ces
for
fres
h pr
oduc
e ac
tors
(e
.g. p
rodu
ce h
andl
ing,
tra
nspo
rt an
d st
orag
e,
pack
agin
g, la
bora
tory
se
rvic
es, e
tc.)
-Lim
ited
rang
e of
food
safe
ty o
pera
tiona
l ser
vice
s av
aila
ble
to su
ppor
t com
pani
es. e
.g. f
ew c
onsu
ltanc
y ag
enci
es p
rovi
ding
tec
hnic
al fo
od sa
fety
supp
ort
serv
ices
like
wat
er tr
eatm
ent,
atm
osph
ere
cont
rolle
d pa
ckag
ing,
equ
ipm
ent c
alib
ratio
n &
mai
nten
ance
, few
co
ld c
hain
faci
litie
s, fe
w a
ccre
dite
d la
bora
torie
s, et
c.
-For
exa
mpl
e ty
pica
l cha
lleng
es o
f ope
ratio
nal
serv
ices
in tr
aditi
onal
food
syst
ems i
nclu
de; l
ack
of
spec
ialis
ed ir
rigat
ion
exte
nsio
n te
chni
cian
s, w
ho c
an
advi
se th
em in
rega
rd to
safe
wat
er u
se in
cro
ppin
g as
pect
s, la
ck o
f te
chni
cal a
dvic
e on
eng
inee
ring
aspe
cts f
or e
quip
men
t, in
mos
t cas
es m
aint
enan
ce su
ppor
t ser
vice
s are
ofte
n
poor
or n
on-e
xist
ent a
nd sp
are
parts
are
seld
om lo
cally
av
aila
ble.
-Ade
quat
e ra
nge
of fo
od sa
fety
ope
ratio
nal s
ervi
ces
avai
labl
e to
supp
ort c
ompa
nies
, e.g
. A
vaila
bilit
y of
col
d ch
ain
faci
litie
s, pr
esen
ce o
f loc
al a
nd in
tern
atio
nal
accr
edite
d la
bora
torie
s, et
c.
-Wid
e ra
nge
of re
adily
food
safe
ty o
pera
tiona
l ser
vice
s av
aila
ble
to su
ppor
t com
pany
’s e
.g.
Suffi
cien
t sup
ply
of c
old
chai
n fa
cilit
ies,
read
ily a
vaila
ble
loca
l and
inte
rnat
iona
l ac
cred
ited
labo
rato
ries,
com
pani
es p
rovi
ding
tech
nica
l foo
d sa
fety
supp
ort s
ervi
ces l
ike
wat
er tr
eatm
ent,
atm
osph
ere
cont
rolle
d pa
ckag
ing,
equ
ipm
ent c
alib
ratio
n &
mai
nten
ance
et
c.
-Ava
ilabl
e ch
ain
supp
ort c
an e
asily
be
acce
ssed
by
com
pani
es
e.g.
free
ly o
nlin
e ac
cess
, sea
sona
l dis
sem
inat
ion
activ
ities
like
w
eekl
y or
mon
thly
pub
lishe
d m
agaz
ines
, boo
ks, a
rticl
es e
tc)
Supp
ort s
ervi
ces f
or
fres
h pr
oduc
e se
ctor
( a
re p
ublic
ly o
r co
llect
ivel
y fin
ance
d in
stitu
tions
incl
udin
g br
anch
ass
ocia
tions
e.g
. R
&D
, edu
catio
n,
train
ing,
trad
e pr
omot
ion,
adv
ocac
y,
cons
umer
ass
ocia
tions
&
envi
ronm
enta
l or
gani
zatio
ns)
Inad
equa
te f
ood
safe
ty su
ppor
t ser
vice
s for
the
sect
or
e.g.
Few
R &
D in
itiat
ives
to a
ddre
ss fo
od sa
fety
is
sues
, ve
ry fe
w e
duca
tion
and
train
ing
prog
ram
s for
ad
dres
sing
food
safe
ty in
hor
ticul
tura
l sec
tor
- Ava
ilabl
e ch
ain
supp
ort i
s mor
e di
fficu
lt to
acc
ess b
y co
mpa
nies
Incr
easi
ng f
ood
safe
ty su
ppor
t ser
vice
s for
the
sect
or e
.g.
mor
e in
vest
men
ts in
sect
or R
& D
initi
ativ
es to
add
ress
FF
V fo
od sa
fety
issu
es,
risin
g e
duca
tion
and
train
ing
prog
ram
s for
add
ress
ing
food
safe
ty in
hor
ticul
tura
l sec
tor
-Ava
ilabl
e ch
ain
supp
ort c
an m
oder
atel
y be
acc
esse
d by
co
mpa
nies
Suffi
cien
t fo
od sa
fety
supp
ort s
ervi
ces f
or th
e se
ctor
e.g
. A
wid
e ra
nge
of R
& D
initi
ativ
es a
re a
vaila
ble
to a
ddre
ss fo
od
safe
ty is
sues
, ad
equa
te a
vaila
bilit
y of
spec
ializ
ed e
duca
tion
and
train
ing
prog
ram
s for
add
ress
ing
food
safe
ty in
ho
rticu
ltura
l sec
tor
-Ava
ilabl
e ch
ain
supp
ort c
an e
asily
be
acce
ssed
by
com
pani
es
e.g.
free
ly o
nlin
e ac
cess
, sea
sona
l dis
sem
inat
ion
activ
ities
like
w
eekl
y or
mon
thly
pub
lishe
d m
agaz
ines
, boo
ks, a
rticl
es e
tc)
Fo
od sa
fety
supp
ort
serv
ice
relia
bilit
y
The
supp
ly c
hain
supp
ort s
ecto
r in
tradi
tiona
l foo
d sy
stem
s is u
nrel
iabl
e, le
ss tr
ansp
aren
t, an
d ba
sic
i.e.
The
gove
rnm
ent/p
ublic
sect
or is
less
supp
ortiv
e an
d la
cks b
ack
up fr
om th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
. e.g
. age
ncie
s us
ually
hav
e lo
w e
xper
tise
and
skill
ed p
erso
nnel
in
food
safe
ty, u
se o
utda
ted
info
rmat
ion
to g
ive
solu
tions
to
com
pani
es, a
genc
ies a
re n
atio
nally
lice
nsed
but
they
of
ten
lack
inte
rnat
iona
l cre
dibi
lity
(e.g
. mos
t of t
he
test
ing
labo
rato
ries a
re n
ot a
ccre
dite
d in
tern
atio
nally
).
The
supp
ly c
hain
supp
ort s
ecto
r in
stru
ctur
ed fo
od sy
stem
s is
mod
erat
ely
relia
ble,
tran
spar
ent,
and
aver
age
i.e. B
oth
gove
rnm
ent/p
ublic
and
priv
ate
sect
ors a
re in
volv
ed e
.g.
agen
cies
usu
ally
hav
e go
od e
xper
tise
and
skill
ed p
erso
nnel
in
food
safe
ty, u
se v
alid
info
rmat
ion
to g
ive
solu
tions
to
com
pani
es, a
genc
ies u
sual
ly a
re n
atio
nally
lice
nsed
but
th
ey h
ave
rest
ricte
d in
tern
atio
nal c
redi
bilit
y (e
.g. a
few
of
the
test
ing
labo
rato
ries a
re a
ccre
dite
d in
tern
atio
nally
).
The
supp
ly c
hain
supp
ort s
ecto
r in
indu
stria
lized
food
syst
ems
is m
ore
relia
ble,
mor
e tra
nspa
rent
, and
adv
ance
d i.e
. The
go
vern
men
t/pub
lic se
ctor
is m
ore
supp
ortiv
e an
d ta
kes l
ead
thou
gh c
ompl
imen
ted
by th
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
, e.
g. a
genc
ies h
ave
hi
gh e
xper
tise
and
skill
ed p
erso
nnel
in fo
od sa
fety
, use
up
to-
date
info
rmat
ion
to g
ive
solu
tions
to c
ompa
nies
, nat
iona
lly
licen
sed
and
inte
rnat
iona
lly c
redi
ble.
.
Tab
le 3
.5:
The
glob
al c
onte
xt a
t the
mac
ro–l
evel
of t
he fr
esh
prod
uce
supp
ly c
hain
Glo
bal-
cont
ext
M
AC
RO
-LE
VE
L
Cha
in
enab
lers
/reg
ulat
ion
T
radi
tiona
l foo
d sy
stem
Is
typi
cally
cha
ract
eriz
ed b
y th
e do
min
ance
of
unor
gani
zed
supp
ly c
hain
s with
a li
mite
d m
arke
t in
frast
ruct
ure.
In th
is fo
od sy
stem
, agr
icul
ture
is
mai
nly
orie
nted
tow
ards
the
prod
uctio
n of
non
-m
arke
ted
stap
les
(e.g
. Uga
nda,
Rw
anda
, Gha
na)
St
ruct
ured
food
syst
em
Is st
ill c
hara
cter
ized
by
tradi
tiona
l act
ors i
n th
e m
arke
t bu
t with
mor
e ru
les a
nd re
gula
tions
app
lied
to m
arke
t pl
aces
and
mor
e m
arke
t inf
rast
ruct
ure.
In st
ruct
ured
food
sy
stem
s, or
gani
zed
chai
ns b
egin
to c
aptu
re a
gro
win
g sh
are
of th
e m
arke
t, bu
t tra
ditio
nal c
hain
s are
still
co
mm
on. S
truct
ured
food
syst
ems i
n th
e em
ergi
ng
mod
ern
econ
omie
s are
nei
ther
trad
ition
al n
or in
dust
rial
but s
omew
here
in b
etw
een.
(e
.g. K
enya
, Bra
zil,
Sout
h A
frica
, Egy
pt)
E
urop
ean
- con
text
In
dust
rial
ized
food
syst
em
Dom
inat
es th
roug
hout
the
deve
lope
d co
untri
es w
ith st
rong
pe
rcep
tions
of f
ood
safe
ty, h
igh
degr
ee o
f coo
rdin
atio
n, a
larg
e co
nsol
idat
ed p
roce
ssin
g se
ctor
and
wel
l org
aniz
ed re
taile
rs.
Typi
cally
, ind
ustri
aliz
ed sy
stem
s are
hig
hly
mec
hani
zed
and
scal
e ec
onom
ies a
re q
uite
pro
noun
ced.
Diff
eren
tiate
d pr
oduc
ts
flow
thro
ugh
wel
l-org
aniz
ed v
alue
cha
ins a
nd c
omm
odity
m
arke
ts m
aint
ain
basi
c sa
fety
stan
dard
s thr
ough
regu
latio
n (e
.g. U
SA, A
ustra
lia, J
apan
, Can
ada)
Food
safe
ty p
olic
y
Cou
ntrie
s in
the
tradi
tiona
l foo
d sy
stem
usu
ally
lack
w
ell e
stab
lishe
d
and
deta
iled
natio
nal f
ood
polic
ies w
ith sp
ecifi
cally
de
fined
legi
slat
ive
acts
on
food
safe
ty. T
heir
low
pr
iorit
y fo
r foo
d sa
fety
pol
icy
issu
es is
exp
ress
ed b
y th
e ge
nera
lly d
efin
ed fo
od sa
fety
legi
slat
ive
acts
in
thei
r nat
iona
l foo
d la
ws.
Som
etim
es th
ese
are
eith
er
not (
yet)
defin
ed o
r stil
l inc
ompl
ete
(e.g
. in
draf
t st
ate)
Cou
ntrie
s in
the
stru
ctur
ed fo
od sy
stem
usu
ally
hav
e go
od e
stab
lishe
d bu
t les
s det
aile
d na
tiona
l foo
d po
licie
s on
food
safe
ty. T
heir
incr
easi
ng p
riorit
y fo
r foo
d sa
fety
po
licy
issu
es is
exp
ress
ed b
y th
e up
grad
ing
and
revi
sion
of
thei
r foo
d sa
fety
legi
slat
ive
acts
to b
e in
line
with
in
tern
atio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
.
Indu
stria
lized
cou
ntrie
s nor
mal
ly h
ave
wel
l est
ablis
hed
and
deta
iled
natio
nal f
ood
polic
y w
ith sp
ecifi
cally
def
ined
legi
slat
ive
acts
on
food
safe
ty. T
heir
high
prio
rity
for f
ood
safe
ty p
olic
y is
sues
is e
xpre
ssed
by
the
deta
iled
and
spec
ific
defin
ed fo
od
safe
ty le
gisl
ativ
e ac
ts in
thei
r nat
iona
l foo
d la
ws.
Food
safe
ty a
utho
rity
in
stitu
tions
In m
ost c
ases
in th
ese
coun
tries
ther
e is
no
spec
ializ
ed
body
or
cent
ral a
utho
rity
to c
onso
lidat
e fo
od sa
fety
issu
es
unde
r ‘ o
ne u
mbr
ella
Spec
ializ
ed b
ody
or c
entra
l aut
horit
y to
con
solid
ate
food
sa
fety
issu
es u
nder
‘one
um
brel
la’ d
o fa
irly
exis
t (e
.g.
FLA
G-S
outh
Afri
ca, F
ood
Safe
ty C
ounc
il-C
hina
)
Maj
ority
of t
hese
cou
ntrie
s hav
e in
stitu
ted
a sp
ecia
lized
bod
y or
ce
ntra
l aut
horit
y to
con
solid
ate
food
safe
ty is
sues
und
er ‘
one
umbr
ella
’. Th
e ro
les o
f the
se a
utho
ritie
s gre
atly
var
y fro
m a
dvic
e,
coor
dina
tion,
risk
ass
essm
ent,
to re
gula
tion/
legi
slat
ion
and
enfo
rcem
ent.
(e.g
. EFS
A-E
U; F
ood
Safe
ty C
omm
issi
on- J
apan
, Fo
od a
nd D
rug
Adm
inis
tratio
n-U
SA; F
SAN
Z-A
ustra
lia a
nd N
ew
Zeal
and
etc.
) (B
oisr
ober
t et a
l., 2
010)
.
Stat
us o
f foo
d la
ws a
nd
regu
latio
ns
-Foo
d la
ws a
nd re
gula
tions
in m
ost c
ases
are
obs
olet
e or
out
date
d fro
m th
e in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
and
m
anda
tes.
-Em
ergi
ng im
porta
nce
of u
pgra
ding
and
revi
ewin
g fo
od
law
s to
acce
ss in
tern
atio
nal m
arke
ts e
.g. C
hina
Foo
d Sa
fety
Law
.
-Hav
e m
oder
n fo
od c
ontro
l sys
tem
s with
upd
ated
food
law
s and
re
gula
tions
-Foo
d la
ws a
nd re
gula
tions
are
pre
sent
but
ofte
n no
t ha
rmon
ized
with
inte
rnat
iona
l req
uire
men
ts
-Foo
d la
ws a
nd re
gula
tions
are
pre
sent
and
in th
e pr
oces
s of
bei
ng h
arm
oniz
ed w
ith in
tern
atio
nal r
equi
rem
ents
-Foo
d sa
fety
law
s and
regu
latio
ns a
re in
line
with
inte
rnat
iona
l re
com
men
datio
ns e
.g. E
U g
ener
al fo
od la
w (J
ohan
ness
en a
nd
Cud
joe,
200
9),
the
FDA
Foo
d sa
fety
mod
erni
zatio
n ac
t in
US
(US.
FDA
, 201
1),
Japa
n: F
ood
Safe
ty B
asic
Law
etc
whi
ch a
re
harm
oniz
ed w
ith in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
and
man
date
s fro
m
Cod
ex.
Stat
us o
f foo
d qu
ality
an
d sa
fety
Sta
ndar
ds
-Nat
iona
l foo
d st
anda
rds a
re u
sual
ly la
ckin
g -L
ittle
effo
rts in
the
role
of t
he p
rivat
e se
ctor
in fo
od
safe
ty c
ontro
l hen
ce le
ss p
rese
nce
of p
rivat
e st
anda
rds.
i.e. C
omm
erci
al o
pera
tors
are
not
yet
in
volv
ed i
n se
tting
thei
r ow
n fo
od q
ualit
y an
d sa
fety
st
anda
rds
-Nat
iona
l foo
d st
anda
rds a
re p
rese
nt a
nd b
ased
on
the
Cod
ex S
tand
ards
-A
few
Com
mer
cial
ope
rato
rs h
ave
star
ted
to b
ecom
e ac
tive
in se
tting
thei
r ow
n fo
od q
ualit
y an
d sa
fety
st
anda
rds
-Hav
e w
ell-e
stab
lishe
d na
tiona
l sta
ndar
ds w
ith a
ctiv
e pr
ivat
e se
ctor
s tha
t are
pro
activ
e to
est
ablis
h se
ctor
food
safe
ty a
nd
qual
ity st
anda
rds.
i.e. C
omm
erci
al o
pera
tors
are
ver
y ac
tive
in
setti
ng th
eir o
wn
food
qua
lity
and
safe
ty st
anda
rds e
.g. G
loba
l G
ap, B
RC
, IFS
, SQ
F et
c. a
nd c
omm
erci
al b
rand
labe
ls e
.g. F
air-
trade
.
3.4.2 Types of changes or modifications made in the tailored FSMS-DI for the global context
In order to obtain a tailored FSMS diagnostic tool for the global context, two tailoring approaches
were selected to categorize the types of changes or modifications that were made in the original version
of the FSMS diagnostic tool for the European context.
Tailoring approach 1:
The approach included identifying the necessary changes in the indicators, typified as No Changes
(NC), minor changes (MIC) and major changes (MAC) respectively.
No changes (NC), means that the indicators were clear and also relevant to the global context and
hence there was no need for any kind of alteration in their formulation. Minor changes (MIC), means
that short statements or phrases were added to indicators with an aim of improving the clarity or
understanding of the indicators. Major Changes (MAC), has two meanings: 1) complete reformulation
of indicators and 2) establishment of new indicators to cater for a missing content relevant for the
global context.
Tailoring approach 2:
The approach included adding examples in the FSMS diagnostic tool indicators and grids that reflect
on the realities and practices in the global context especially in respect to the use of basic and
indigenous knowledge by certain chain operators. Many of the examples were based on a case study
of hot peppers supply chain and other fresh produce commodities for both domestic and export markets
in Uganda.
3.5 Results of the tailored FSMS diagnostic tool for the global context
Table 3.6 shows the number of indicators with specific type of modifications or changes that were
made for the global tailored diagnostic tools for primary production, processing and trade for the fresh
produce sector.
3.5.1 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: context factors
In overall, (15) indicators for primary production, (15) indicators for processing and (14) indicators
for trade were tailored as “No Change” because they were considered to be applicable in the global
context. Concerning the 3 context factors with major changes, the first indicator of “the variability of
suppliers for initial materials” was created as a result of completely reformulating the indicator of
“supply source of initial materials” while the other two indicators of “the specificity of external
support” and “specificity food safety legal framework” were formulated as new indicators. Also the
product characteristic indicator of “initial materials of your RTU in respect to microbiological
contamination” for the trade FSMS diagnostic tool had a major change in its formulation by
distinguishing between products traded as whole fruits and vegetables and those traded as processed
products. Therefore the formulation of the two new indicators made the global tailored FSMS
diagnostic tool to have 23 context indicators in total as compared to 21 indicators in the FSMS
diagnostic tool for the European context. Table 3.7 shows the section of these three context factor
indicators with their motivation and grids that were tailored as major changes.
Table 3.6: Number of indicators with specific type of modifications or changes that were made for the global tailored diagnostic tools
Tailored FSMS diagnostic tools for the global context
Number of indicators with specific type of modification/change made
CONTEXT FACTORS
No Change (NC)
Minor Change (MIC)
Major Change (MAC)
Addition of Example (AOE)
Primary production 15 3 3 2 Processing 15 3 3 2 Trade 14 3 4 2 CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Primary production 11 7 - 10 Processing 18 6 - 8 Trade 15 5 - 8 ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES
Primary production 6 2 - - Processing 7 2 - - Trade 7 2 - - SYSTEM OUTPUT
Primary production 10 - - - Processing 10 - - - Trade 10 - - -
Tab
le 3
.7: S
elec
tion
of c
onte
xt fa
ctor
indi
cato
rs a
nd th
eir g
rids t
ailo
red
for t
he g
loba
l FSM
S di
agno
stic
tool
. In
dica
tor
Mot
ivat
ion
Situ
atio
n 1-
Low
ris
kine
ss
Situ
atio
n 2-
Mod
erat
e ri
skin
ess
Situ
atio
n 3-
Hig
h ri
skin
ess
Var
iabi
lity
of su
pplie
rs fo
r in
itial
mat
eria
ls: I
n w
hich
si
tuat
ion
wou
ld y
ou p
lace
the
varia
bilit
y of
supp
liers
for
initi
al m
ater
ials
in y
our
farm
/com
pany
?
Farm
s/C
ompa
nies
pur
chas
ing
from
su
pplie
rs th
at d
o no
t com
ply
to
inte
rnat
iona
lly a
ckno
wle
dged
QA
re
quire
men
ts, h
ave
an in
crea
sing
ch
ance
of u
nkno
wn
haza
rds a
nd
unex
pect
ed c
onta
min
atio
n, w
hich
pu
ts d
eman
ds o
n H
SMS
by re
quiri
ng
mor
e ad
vanc
ed c
ontro
l and
ass
uran
ce
activ
ities
(e.g
. inc
omin
g m
ater
ials
co
ntro
l, ve
rific
atio
n)
Com
pany
pur
chas
es fr
om sa
me
or
diffe
rent
supp
liers
but
all
com
ply
with
the
inte
rnat
iona
lly
ackn
owle
dged
QA
requ
irem
ents
(e
.g. G
loba
l GA
P)
Com
pany
pur
chas
es fr
om sa
me
or d
iffer
ent s
uppl
iers
but
som
e co
mpl
y w
ith in
tern
atio
nally
ac
know
ledg
ed (e
.g. G
loba
l Gap
) an
d ot
hers
com
ply
with
na
tiona
lly b
ench
mar
ked
QA
re
quire
men
ts (e
.g. K
enya
GA
P,
Chi
naG
AP
etc.
)
Com
pany
pur
chas
es fr
om sa
me
or
diffe
rent
supp
liers
and
they
hav
e no
in
tern
atio
nally
ack
now
ledg
ed o
r be
nchm
arke
d Q
A re
quire
men
ts
(e.g
. onl
y co
mpl
y to
loca
l bra
nd
requ
irem
ents
)
Spec
ifici
ty o
f ext
erna
l su
ppor
t: In
whi
ch si
tuat
ion
wou
ld y
ou p
lace
the
spec
ifici
ty o
f ext
erna
l sup
port
in re
spec
t to
your
RPU
?
Lack
of s
peci
fic p
rodu
ct o
r pr
oduc
tion
syst
em e
xter
nal s
uppo
rt w
ill in
crea
se th
e ch
ance
on
inad
equa
te sa
fety
dec
isio
ns w
hich
m
ay le
ad to
food
safe
ty p
robl
ems
henc
e pu
tting
mor
e re
quire
men
ts o
n H
SMS
(e.g
. by
requ
iring
mor
e te
stin
g of
act
ual s
ituat
ions
, adv
ance
d va
lidat
ion)
Exte
rnal
supp
ort o
n fo
od sa
fety
is
prod
uctio
n sy
stem
spec
ific,
sc
ienc
e ba
sed
and
wel
l es
tabl
ishe
d
O
ffic
ial d
ocum
ents
are
eas
y ac
cess
and
to u
nder
stan
d i.e
. av
aila
ble
in n
ativ
e la
ngua
ges (
e.g.
fr
ee o
nlin
e ac
cess
, wee
kly
mag
azin
es, n
ewsl
ette
rs )
Exte
rnal
supp
ort o
n fo
od sa
fety
is
sect
or sp
ecifi
c an
d re
stric
ted
In
form
atio
n is
diff
icul
t to
acce
ss
and
unde
rsta
nd (e
.g. u
pon
paym
ent,
docu
men
ts n
ot in
na
tive
lang
uage
and
nee
d ex
pert
to u
se )
Exte
rnal
supp
ort a
vaila
ble
on fo
od
safe
ty is
gen
eral
for t
he w
hole
food
se
ctor
e.g
. gen
eral
info
rmat
ion
from
va
rious
inte
rnet
sour
ces
Spec
ifici
ty fo
od o
f saf
ety
lega
l fr
amew
ork:
In w
hich
situ
atio
n w
ould
you
pla
ce th
e sp
ecifi
city
food
safe
ty le
gal
fram
ewor
k in
you
r cou
ntry
in
resp
ect t
o yo
ur R
PU?
Lack
of a
wel
l-est
ablis
hed
and
deta
iled
natio
nal f
ood
polic
y w
ith
spec
ifica
lly d
efin
ed le
gisl
ativ
e ac
ts
on fo
od sa
fety
will
incr
ease
cha
nces
fo
r ina
dequ
ate
safe
ty d
ecis
ions
, w
hich
put
s dem
ands
on
HSM
S (e
.g.
requ
iring
adv
ance
d co
ntro
l m
easu
res)
.
Nat
iona
l foo
d po
licy
is w
ell
esta
blis
hed
with
det
aile
d sp
ecifi
c de
fined
food
safe
ty l
egis
lativ
e ac
ts (e
.g. m
icro
biol
ogic
al c
riter
ia,
MR
Ls)
Nat
iona
l foo
d sa
fety
legi
slat
ive
acts
are
har
mon
ized
with
in
tern
atio
nally
ack
now
ledg
ed
reco
mm
enda
tions
(e.g
. Cod
ex
Alim
enta
rius )
Nat
iona
l foo
d po
licy
with
ge
nera
lly d
efin
ed fo
od sa
fety
le
gisl
ativ
e ac
ts (l
acks
info
on
e.g.
aut
horiz
ed p
estic
ides
, M
RLs
, mic
robi
olog
ical
crit
eria
)
Nat
iona
l foo
d sa
fety
legi
slat
ive
acts
are
not
(yet
) har
mon
ized
w
ith in
tern
atio
nally
ac
know
ledg
ed
reco
mm
enda
tions
(e.g
. Cod
ex
Alim
enta
rius)
Onl
y ge
nera
l nat
iona
l foo
d po
licy
avai
labl
e w
ith n
o fo
od sa
fety
le
gisl
ativ
e ac
ts. i
.e. e
ither
not
(yet
) de
fined
or s
till i
ncom
plet
e (e
.g. i
n dr
aft s
tate
)
3.5.2 Validation of the tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool
Following the same approach as for the FSMS diagnostic tool for the European context (Kirezieva et
al., 2012), validity of the FSMS diagnostic tool tailored to the global context instrument was considered.
Content validity of the instrument was addressed through the input from the international experts. These
experts were partner institutes and universities within Veg-i-Trade project. In particular, the non EU
countries: Brazil (leafy greens), Egypt (leafy greens and strawberries), India (mangoes), Serbia
(raspberries), Kenya (green beans), South Africa (leafy greens and fruits), and Uganda (hot peppers)
were contacted via online feedback to review and assess the tailored global context FSMS diagnostic
tools. The focus for expert review was on understandability, suitability of the descriptions in the grids
and availability of information in companies in the non EU countries. In a next step of the validation,
feedback of pre-test and pilot tests on the FSMS diagnostic tool for the global context in Kenya and
Uganda were instrumental in highlighting the real context scenarios in structured and traditional food
systems and led to addition of practical examples for certain indicators in developing countries. The
pilot tests conducted in five (5) farms and five (5) export companies in Kenya and showed that the farm
managers and quality managers had no major problems experienced during the assessments. The
information was readily available and easily understood by the farms and companies. Furthermore, the
assessments performed at five green bean farms and five green bean export companies allowed for a
comparison between the farms and companies building an overall picture of the FSMS activities and the
specific context in which they operate. The latter confirmed the construct validity of the FSMS-DI for
the global context. They also gave input for more practical examples in the indicators to make it suitable
for developing countries. For example “supplier control indicator situation 1” Supplier control not an
issue or no supplier control (e.g. major inputs like seeds, organic fertilizers are produced on the farm),
“pesticide program situation 2” Instructions about storage, application and frequency derived based on
own experience (e.g. pesticides typically bought in packages without clear instruction labels),
“irrigation method indicator situation 1” No irrigation applied (e.g. rain-fed), Situation 2 Common
surface irrigation methods such as gravity-flow/flood/furrow and sprinkler irrigation or manual
irrigation (e.g. use of watering cans, buckets, jerry cans, hand splashing etc.)
However, unlike the case of Kenya, where the primary production is more structured and consolidated,
problems were experienced with understanding the indicators and the grids of the FSMS-DI in the more
scattered hot pepper chain in Uganda with smaller cultivation units and export companies.
3.5.3 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: control activities
Overall, 11 indicators for primary production, (18) indicators for processing and (15) indicators for trade
were identified as “no Change” necessary because they were considered to be applicable in the global
context as well. Furthermore, there were no indicators that needed to be tailored with major changes for
the control indicators. However, most of the control activities’ indicators in the three chain tools were
tailored with minor changes, and addition of examples as shown in table 3.6 respectively.
3.5.4 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: assurance activities
In total, (6 indicators for primary production, (7) indicators for processing and (7) indicators for trade
were identified as “no Change” necessary because they were also considered to be applicable in the
global context FSMS diagnostic tool. However, like in the case of indicators for control activities, there
were no indicators that had major changes. Most of the assurance activities’ indicators in the three chain
tools were tailored with minor changes and addition of examples, as shown in table 3.6 respectively.
3.5.5 Tailored global FSMS diagnostic tool: system output
All the 10 system output indicators that were formulated in the first and original FSMS diagnostic tool
for the European context were all retained in their original formats in the tailored FSMS diagnostic tool
for the global context without minor/major changes and without addition of examples as shown in table
3.6.
Tailoring the FSMS diagnostic tool to the global context resulted in two new context factors, and a lot
of minor changes and examples to reflect and assess the realities and practices associated with the
performance of FSMS across traditional, structured and industrialized food systems, thus representing
EU and non EU countries. Table 3.8 summaries the comparisons between FSMS diagnostic tools for
the European and global contexts.
Table 3.8: Comparison of FSMS diagnostic tools between the European and global contexts FSMS-DI components Overall indicators in the two FSMS diagnostic instruments FSMS-DI (European context) FSMS-DI (Global context) Context factors 21 23 Control activities 32 32 Assurance activities 9 9 Food safety output 10 10 Total number of indicators 72 74 Fresh produce supply chain stages Overall indicators for chain specific FSMS tools Primary production 64 66 Processing 69 71 Trade 66 68
3.6 Conclusion
In this PhD study, the validated FSMS diagnostic tools for the global context were used for data
collection in Kenya and Uganda. In particular, the FSMS diagnostic tool for primary production was
used to assess the FSMS from certified green bean farms in Kenya and non-certified hot pepper farms
in Uganda (Chapter 4). From the chain perspective, both the FSMS diagnostic tools for primary
production and trade were also applied to assess FSMS performance from farm and trade levels in the
green bean chain in Kenya and hot pepper chain in Uganda (Chapter 5).
Chapter 4
Assessing the Status of Food Safety Management
Systems for Fresh Produce Production in East Africa:
Evidence from Certified Green Bean Farms in Kenya
and Non-certified Hot Pepper Farms in Uganda
Redrafted from: Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Kaaya, A.N., Uyttendaele, M., Luning, P.A., (2015). Assessing the status of food safety management systems for fresh produce production in East Africa: Evidence from certified green bean farms in Kenya and non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda. Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 78, No. 6, 2015, Pages 1081–1089
Abstract Fresh produce farmers are major sources of food contamination by microbiological organisms and
chemical pesticides. In view of their choice for farming practices, producers are influenced by food
safety requirements. This study analyses the role of food safety standards certification towards the
maturity of food safety management systems (FSMS) in the primary production of fresh produce. Kenya
and Uganda are two East African countries that export green beans and hot peppers respectively to the
European Union but have contrasting features in terms of agricultural practices and certification status.
In the fresh produce chain, a diagnostic instrument for primary production was used to assess context
factors, core control and assurance activities; and systems output so as to measure the performance of
FSMS of certified green bean farms in Kenya and non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda. Overall,
our findings show that in Uganda, non-certified hot pepper farms revealed only a ‘basic level of control
and assurance’ activities in their FSMS which was not satisfactory because no insight into potential
pesticide microbial contamination was presented by these farmers. On the other hand, certified green
bean farms in Kenya had an ‘average level of control and assurance’ which resulted in insight of the
delivered food safety and quality by the farmers. Farm size did not impact the maturity level of FSMS.
This study confirms the role played by food safety standards certification towards the maturity of FSMS
implemented in developing countries and can demonstrate the possibility of farms in Uganda to upgrade
their agricultural practices in the fresh produce sector.
4.1 Introduction
Of recent, Sub Saharan African countries have become important ‘breadbaskets’ to the world through
provision of off-season fresh fruits and vegetables to countries with temperate climates, and European
Union being one of their most important export markets. To maximize this opportunity, these exporting
countries (e.g. Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa, Cameroon among others) must meet the
increasingly exacting food safety and quality requirements of the industrialized, high value markets
(Berdegué et al., 2005; García and Poole, 2004; Gorton et al., 2011; Jaffee and Masakure, 2005a).
The increasing food safety issues of concern for fresh produce are products which have pesticides
residues that exceed the maximum residue limits and microbial contamination seeking to enter the global
fresh produce market (Donald, 2001; EFSA, 2011a; Katz and Winter, 2009).
Therefore Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) which are defined at international level in the Codex
Alimentarius Commission’s Code of practice for fresh fruits and vegetables (CAC, 2003); and Food
Safety Management systems (FSMS) at primary production need to be implemented so as to cope with
these hazards. Importers require these quality assurance guidelines more especially private standards (
e.g. GLOBAL GAP, BRC, among others) for the set up of FSMS (VanBoxstael et al., 2013). Challenges
in implementing these requirements are, however, more intense for developing countries where
smallholder agriculture is dominantly practiced and horticultural producers are largely perceived to be
inept at implementing GAPs (García and Poole, 2004; Henson et al., 2005; Henson et al., 2011b;
Williamson et al., 2008). Various studies have been done in developing countries, so as to understand
the effectiveness of FSMS in animal derived products e.g. dairy chain in Rwanda (Kamana et al., 2014),
and fish and dairy chain in Tanzania (Kussaga. et al., 2013). However, insights in the functioning of
FSMS in fresh produce chains in developing or growing countries are still limited, except in lettuce
production in South Brazil and fresh produce processing plants in Kenya (de Quadros Rodrigues et al.,
2014; Sawe et al., 2014).
Furthermore, in previous studies it was discussed that the FSMS performance also depends on the
context in which a farm or company is operating, existing out of the product risk, production process,
organizational and chain characteristics. Various studies have suggested constraints in the
implementation of effective good agricultural practices in developing countries, for example, weak local
food safety expertise, inadequate scientific and sector specific guidelines, limited training and capacity
building initiatives among others (Henson et al., 2005; Kussaga, 2014; Poulton et al., 2010; Poulton and
Macartney, 2012). Therefore, context characteristics play an important role in the actual performance of
GAPs and FSMS and thus must be taken into consideration. Our hypothesis is that in developing
countries, farms which embrace food safety standards certification are in position to implement their
FSMS at a more maturity level than non-certified farms. The aim of this study is to identify and compare
the influence of food safety standards certification on the performance of FSMS in the fresh produce
sectors of two East African countries with export activities in the European Union; green beans in Kenya
and hot peppers in Uganda. Although quite similar in terms of geographical location, export destination
and climatic conditions (i.e. tropical climate with increased risk of crop pest and disease pressures),
these two countries have very contrasting features of certification level, ecomonical trade values and
adoption of good agricultural practices, thus rendering the comparison of the performance of their
respective FSMS at farm level interesting.
Table 4.1: Characteristics of farmers and farms in the two countries Characteristic/country Kenya green
bean farms Uganda hot
pepper farms Average farm size (ha) 14.9 2.29 Farms with family labour (% farms) 36 98 Manager with university education (%) 86 4 Farm head with university education (%) 42 15 Audit or certificate required by customer (%) 99 0 Global GAP certified (%) 90 0 Own packing plant/ pack house (%) 44 2
Source: authors’ surveys of farmers in Kenya and Uganda (n = 60) (year 2012)
4.2 Materials and methods
4.2.1 Selection of case studies and identification of farms
Each of the selected vegetable crops; green beans in Kenya and hot peppers in Uganda for the case study
is currently the top export vegetable to the European fresh produce market with a turnover of US$ 55.8
million (FAOSTAT, 2013b) and US$ 0.5 million (UEPB, 2013b) respectively, in addition to generating
direct and indirect employment in the region. The mean size of the green bean farms in Kenya was 14.9
ha compared to 2.29 ha for the hot pepper farms in Uganda implying that the former is seven times
bigger than the latter. All the green bean farms that were randomly surveyed in Kenya were mostly
(multiple) certified for their FSMS (90% for Global GAP or other commercial quality assurance
standards, e.g. Tesco Nature’s Choice and 50% for the Kenya GAP standard). However, in Uganda none
of the randomly surveyed farms was certified with any (private or public) standard.
4.2.2 Selection of respondents
Initially meetings were held in each country with various horticultural stakeholders such as exporters,
farmers, agricultural officers, extension workers, and fresh produce organizations so as to obtain an
overview of the fresh produce sectors in the two countries. This was followed by informal meetings with
representatives of export companies and farmers to inform them about the aim of the survey. In both
cases, the main objective was to seek audience with the export companies for these two major export
vegetable crops. In total, sixty farms were randomly selected comprising of thirty farms in each country.
In addition, farm visits were undertaken in the two East African countries (Kenya and Uganda) to
examine in detail the current status of food safety management practices and operational infrastructure
available within farms to meet the increasing demands for food safety and quality standards.The
response of the farmers during the study was purely on a voluntary basis, so no representative farm
samples in each country could be obtained. For reasons of confidentiality, the identities of case farms
were withheld. Table 4.1 shows characteristics of farmers and farms in the two countries.
4.2.3 Study area
The bi-national study locations span the majority of the area of Uganda as well as the adjacent Kenya
highlands which are the country’s most populated and agricultural region. In Uganda the main hot
pepper production areas are located within 100km of Kampala City, and the farms visited included those
in the districts of Mpigi, Mukono, Luweero, and Wakiso while in Kenya, the target districts were Nyeri,
Kirinyaga, Mwea, and Meru which are dominant for green bean production.
4.2.4 Data Collection
A diagnostic tool was used in field surveys to collect data about the maturity of the food safety
management systems. In particular, the farm managers and farmers were asked by the interviewer to
respond to the paper based diagnostic tool as the key respondents. The survey was first conducted in
Uganda between May and June in 2012 and then in Kenya from June to August in 2012.
4.2.5 Food Safety Management System-Diagnostic Instrument
A diagnostic tool applicable to the primary production of fresh produce sector was used to collect data
about the ‘FSMS context’, activities in the FSMS (also addressed as good practices and management
systems) and system output in certified green bean farms in Kenyan and non-certified farms in Uganda
. The tool comprises of sixty-four indicators with corresponding grids having concise descriptions to
assess: 1) risk levels of a farm’s context factors, 2) levels of core control activities, 3) levels of core
assurance activities and 4) system output levels. The latter is measured by food safety (for both
microbiological (enteric bacteria) and chemical safety output (pesticides and mycotoxins)) and quality
indicators and gives an indication if the farmers themselves have insight in the safety, hygiene and the
quality of the products they are selling and exporting (Kirezieva. et al., 2013c). The overall assumption
behind such an assessment using the diagnostic tool is that high-risk context requires advanced levels
of FSMS to achieve good system output which results in a good quality product and acceptable food
safety status. Level of risk is defined by vulnerability of products and situations, uncertainty due to lack
of information and ambiguity caused by lack of understanding the mechanisms involved (Luning et al.,
2011b). The level of risk can be reduced through FSMS activities that use more structured, science-
based procedure-driven methods, and independent positions (Luning et al., 2008a; Luning et al., 2009a)
4.2.6 Diagnosis of context level of risk
The tool allows for an assessment of the four context factors: product, production, organizational and
chain characteristics. For each context indicator, there are three situational descriptions which represent
low (situation 1), moderate (situation 2), and high risk (situation 3) which aid in decision-making during
setting and operating the FSMS activities. For product and process characteristics, descriptions of low,
moderate, and high-risk situation represent respectively; low, potential, and high probability of
contamination (microbiological and chemical), growth, and or survival of pathogens. For organizational
characteristics, the different situations correspond to supportive, constrained, and lack of administrative
conditions respectively for appropriate decision-making. For the chain characteristics, the three
situations correspond to low, restricted, and high dependability on other supply chain actors respectively
(Kirezieva. et al., 2013c; Luning. et al., 2011).
4.2.7 Diagnosis of control and assurance activities (good agricultural practices and
management system)
For each control and assurance activity indicator, four descriptions represent; low (situation 1), basic
(situation 2), average (situation 3), and advanced situation (situation 4). Situation 1 is given to imply
that a control or assurance activity is not possible in the given production circumstances, it is not applied
or no information is available. The basic level (situation 2) for control activities is typified by use of
own experience, general knowledge, ad-hoc analysis, incomplete, not standardized, unstable, regular
problems. For assurance activities, the basic level (situation 2) is typified by problem driven, only
checking, scarcely reported, not independent positions. The average level (situation 3) for control
activities is typified by being based on expert (supplier) knowledge, use of (sector, governmental)
guidelines, best practices. For assurance activities, the average level (situation 3) corresponds with
active, additional analysis, regular reporting, and expert (s) support. The advanced level (situation 4)
means that the control or assurance activity is characterized by use of specific information, scientific
knowledge, critical analysis, procedural methods, systematic activities, and independent positions
(Kirezieva et al., 2013b).
4.2.8 Diagnosis of system output
The output of the activities is measured using key performance indicators, and the various situations
represent; no information (situation 1), poor (situation 2), moderate (situation 3), and good output
(situation 4). System output gives insight to the farmers in the safety, hygiene and/or quality of their
produce. The following indicators are included (Luning et al., 2015): (1) evaluation of FSMS by external
parties (e.g. certification bodies, food safety authority), (2) results of audits (e.g. minor or major
remarks), (3) chemical food safety complaints (e.g. exceeding a pesticide MRL), (4) microbial food
safety complaints (e.g. presence of Salmonella on crops), (5) visual quality complaints (mould, bruises)
(e.g. too high E. coli counts as indicator of fecal hygiene), (6) design of microbiological product
sampling, (7) judgment criteria to interpret microbiological and chemical results of analysis and finally
(8) non conformities related to hygiene or presence of pathogens. Poor output represents situations with
ad-hoc sampling, minimal criteria used for evaluation, and having various food safety problems or
remarks during inspections/audits. Moderate output represents regular sampling, several criteria used
for evaluation, and having restricted food safety problems mainly due to one (restricted) type of problem.
Good output represents systematic evaluation, using specific tailored criteria, and having no safety
problems or important remarks during inspections/audits.
4.2.9 Data Analysis
Overall scores for the FSMS diagnosis results were manually coded by assigning a unique code to the
two types of farms in Kenya and Uganda. The response scores for context levels of risk, activity levels
or system output levels for all the farms (n=60) of the diagnostic tool were entered into a multivariate
Excel spreadsheet.
4.3 Results and discussion
4.3.1 Systems output to gain insight in performance of microbiological and chemical
status of delivered crops
Table 4.2 shows the distribution of scores for the system output indicators, the mode and the farms
registered FSMS performance scores ranging from low to good. In Kenya, the majority of certified green
bean farms operated at moderate levels for most of the external FSMS output indicators. Chemical
safety-related and microbiological safety complaints were registered by all farms with majority of the
farmers operating at level 3 which is indicative of restricted complaints on one specific chemical and
microbiological hazard. On the sampling criteria, the majority of the green bean farms conducted a
structured sampling of the initial and final products; and the farm environment thus obtaining a score of
3. In addition, a combination of legal criteria and customer specifications are used to interpret results
and hence a moderate score. In Kenya, external food safety performance contributed more to the systems
output compared to internal food safety performance in certified green bean farms (Table 4.2). In
Uganda, the situation is completely different because the FSMS of non-certified hot pepper farms are
neither evaluated externally nor by any competent authorities and/ or 3rd party audits (all are score 1).
9% of the assessed farms had their system output at a moderate level, while only 0.6% had a good system
output (Table 4.2). Moreover, 76% of the non-certified hot pepper farms that were assessed in Uganda
had their system output at low level implying that it was unknown or not available. It can be concluded
that in Uganda, both external and internal evaluation of the current FSMS and is almost absent, resulting
in the fact that these farmers have no insight in the safety, hygiene or quality of the delivered hot peppers.
In Kenya, third party accredited agencies such as Africert and Foodplus conduct audits on behalf of
Global GAP, while in Uganda farmers are not certified to international private standards and thus are
not audited (Henson et al., 2011b; Ouma, 2010). Also in Uganda, the hot pepper exporters who source
from farmers are only required to have a phytosanitary certificate delivered by the crop protection
department under the Ministry of Agriculture at the time of their batch departure for export, but with no
further follow up or inspection conducted (refer to chapter 2) These differences in enforcement practices
could explain why the certified green bean farmers in Kenya have information and insights about their
good agricultural practices and food safety management systems, while in Uganda, the non-certified hot
pepper farmers lack insights in the performance of good agricultural practices and food safety systems
for their produced commodities.
Tab
le 4
.2: D
istri
butio
n of
leve
ls fo
r sys
tem
s ou
tput
resu
lting
in in
sigh
t and
kno
wle
dge
on a
ctua
l per
form
ance
tow
ards
pes
ticid
e re
sidu
es a
nd m
icro
biol
ogic
al
cont
amin
atio
n be
twee
n ce
rtifie
d gr
een
farm
s in
Ken
ya a
nd n
on-c
ertif
ied
hot p
eppe
r far
ms i
n U
gand
a (m
ode
in b
old)
Indi
cato
rs
Ken
ya (n
=30)
Uga
nda
(n=3
0)
(Low
) 1a
(Poo
r)
2 (M
oder
ate)
3
( Goo
d)
4
(Low
) 1
2 (Poo
r)
(Mod
erat
e)
3 ( G
ood)
4
Ext
erna
l sys
tem
out
put
ex
tern
al e
valu
atio
n (e
.g. a
udit,
insp
ectio
n)
1 3
14
12
30
0
0 0
Serio
usne
ss o
f rem
arks
1
12
6 11
30
0 0
0 H
ygie
ne &
mic
robi
olog
ical
food
safe
ty
com
plai
nts
1 12
12
5
15
8
5 2
chem
ical
food
safe
ty c
ompl
aint
s (e.
g.
exce
edm
ent o
f pes
ticid
e M
RLs
) 3
4 19
4
15
7
8 0
visu
al q
ualit
y co
mpl
aint
s 1
8 19
2
13
12
5
0 In
tern
al sy
stem
out
put
A
dvan
cem
ent o
f mic
robi
olog
ical
sam
plin
g 12
5
8 5
27
1
2 0
Adv
ance
men
t of p
estic
ides
sam
plin
g 11
4
6 9
25
5
0 0
Judg
emen
t crit
eria
for m
icro
bial
food
safe
ty
12
3 7
8
28
1 1
0 Ju
dgem
ent c
riter
ia fo
r che
mic
al fo
od sa
fety
12
4
7 7
29
1
0 0
Type
of n
on-c
onfo
rmiti
es
15
1 8
6
16
8 6
0 a S
ituat
ions
1, 2
, 3, a
nd 4
cor
resp
ond
to:
– lo
w si
tuat
ion
(1)
–
poor
situ
atio
n (2
) re
pres
ents
situ
atio
ns w
ith a
d-ho
c sa
mpl
ing,
min
imal
crit
eria
use
d fo
r eva
luat
ion,
and
hav
ing
vario
us fo
od sa
fety
pro
blem
s or
rem
arks
dur
ing
insp
ectio
ns/a
udits
; –
mod
erat
e si
tuat
ion
(3)
repr
esen
ts re
gula
r sam
plin
g, se
vera
l crit
eria
use
d fo
r eva
luat
ion,
and
hav
ing
rest
ricte
d fo
od sa
fety
pro
blem
s mai
nly
due
to o
ne
(res
trict
ed) t
ype
of p
robl
em
– go
od si
tuat
ion
(4)
repr
esen
ts sy
stem
atic
eva
luat
ion,
usi
ng sp
ecifi
c ta
ilore
d cr
iteria
, and
hav
ing
no sa
fety
pro
blem
s or i
mpo
rtant
rem
arks
dur
ing
insp
ectio
ns/a
udits
.
4.3.2 Core control activities
Table 4.3 shows the frequency distribution of scores for indicators representing the status of design and
actual operation of control measures. In Kenya, most of the certified green bean farms had their control
activities at average or advanced levels (3-4), whereby, thirty five percent (35%) of the farms operated
at moderate level and twenty eight percent (28%) at an advanced level of the core control activities. This
implies that certified green bean farms in Kenya use methods based on legislative requirements and
specific expert knowledge. However, the indicators for hygienic design of equipment and facilities,
storage facilities, and partial physical intervention were either not applied (1), or at basic level (2).
Previous studies report that shortcomings in equipment and storage facilities hinder the fresh produce
chain in developing countries, especially in the area between farm and storage facilities for export
(Mittal, 2007).
Furthermore, in most farms, there was either basic level application or a lack of application of the
monitoring and actual design indicators more especially those indicators related to physical and
packaging intervention equipment (Table 4.3). Overall, non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda scored
lower than the certified green bean farms in Kenya with majority at low level (74%) and basic level
(19%) (Table 4.3). In particular, the preventive control activities in non-certified hot pepper farms are
at level 2 or 3 meaning that such control activities (for example ‘hygienic design of facilities’, ‘storage
facilities’, and ‘sanitation program’ among others) are corresponding with best practice knowledge or
equipment, ad hoc, not procedure driven, or based on generic information for the product sector. In
addition, most of the preventive control activities for the non-certified hot pepper farms are level 1,
which implies that they are not applied.
In all the non-certified hot pepper farms, there is lack of a possibility to implement control activities,
such as cooling and packaging because during harvesting, the peppers are directly piled in polyethylene
sacks and put on trucks for transportation to export companies (Kussaga. et al., 2013; Obare, 2003).
During the farm visits, it was also observed that workers have standard requirements for all employees
such as clothing (gloves, and uniforms), common washing facilities and toilets though with no specific
hygiene instructions. Control of incoming planting materials is ad hoc and is mainly based on historical
experience with suppliers.
However, in some of the non-certified hot pepper farms, personal hygiene requirements are not
implemented (absence of washing facilities, long distant toilet structures on the farm and no emphasis
on personal care and health). Notably, control activities about intervention process design, monitoring
systems design and actual operation of control strategies were absent (level 1) in non-certified hot pepper
farms in Uganda as shown in Table 4.3. This is probably attributed to the fact that in all the farms
surveyed there was no testing for microbial and pesticides safety done for the harvested hot peppers,
thus corrective actions upon deviations are not foreseen at the farms.
The overall situation of low scores for control activities in non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda
might be explained by the fact that farmers are not aware of basic food safety practices such as
compliance with spraying deadlines, workers and equipment hygienic procedures at the farm, chemical
spray record keeping and equipment cleaning since all the farms are not GLOBAL GAP certified. In
Uganda, there is no hygiene legislation for fresh produce, that is detailed enough to put strict demands
on fresh produce farmers to implement good agricultural practices (Luz Diaz Rios et al., 2009; Ulrich
et al., 2009). Moreover, the majority of the farms in Uganda are independent, scattered and not organized
in cooperatives, which makes it is more difficult to acquire knowledge and capacity to implement these
necessary control activities (Henson et al., 2011b; Roth et al., 2008).
Tab
le 4
.3.
Dis
tribu
tion
of le
vels
for c
ore
cont
rol a
ctiv
ities
bet
wee
n ce
rtifie
d gr
een
farm
s in
Ken
ya a
nd n
on-c
ertif
ied
hot p
eppe
r far
ms i
n U
gand
a(m
ode
in b
old)
– – – sp
ecifi
c fo
od p
rodu
ctio
n sit
uatio
n.
4.3.3 Core assurance activities
Table 4.4 shows that in Kenya, all assurance activities are conducted at the average or advanced levels
(3-4). This is probably because all the green bean farms are Global G.A.P. certified which implies that
validation and verification among other requirements are met by these farms. In particular, for the
certified green bean farms in Kenya, assurance activities, such as ’translation of stakeholder
requirements into own FSMS’ are indeed required by the export companies. The export companies
which buy the green beans from farmers have to strictly comply with the different quality assurance
standards in the international markets such as the Global GAP and Tesco Nature’s Choice guidelines.
These guidelines mostly focus on both control and assurance activities (GlobalGAP, 2012; Parker et
al., 2012b). Validation of the preventive measures and intervention processes combined together, as well
as the verification of people and equipment performance were done by independent (scientific) experts
using scientific underpinning and structured analysis. For the small farms, independent validation and
verification is done by the export company agronomists and extension workers, who help to improve on
the monitoring activities of these farms (Jaffee and Masakure, 2005a; Narrod et al., 2009). The majority
of the certified green bean farms in Kenya showed an average or advanced level for documentation and
record keeping. Documentation supports the farms to ensure effective use of inputs such as planting
materials, pesticides, fertilizers, and water for their grown produce and can help in validating their
system.
In the non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda, the assessment reveals that the majority of the farms
do not implement assurance activities (low level). Only a few farms are performing assurance activities
at basic or average levels (2-3) (Table 4.4). Specifically to assure that best practices are effective and
executed according to plan a few farms currently base their validation and verification activities on
historical knowledge judged by own people and only ad-hoc performed. Furthermore, it was established
during the surveys that the quality assurance managers focus more on product aspects such as batch size,
freshness, and color for ripeness when it comes to documentation and record-keeping other than food
safety aspects (Kussaga. et al., 2014; Opiyo et al., 2013) . The results of this study indicated that there
is a lack of assurance activities in non-certified hot pepper farms in Uganda and therefore more farm
specific validation and verification activities should be performed. Farmers in Uganda lack both
knowledge and access to information sources for documentation of procedures and about food safety
(everything is based on memory and experience by operators). In addition, farmers rarely keep records
of either product or process data. During the field surveys, it was observed that record keeping was
mostly concerned with quantities and payments rather than food safety. This is probably because most
hot pepper farms in Uganda usually have no technical personnel to assist the farmers in carrying out
food safety record keeping and documentation. In most cases, majority of the small-scale operators
prefer verbal communication as a major role in the successful management of the food safety tasks for
their products and processes (Taylor, 2001).
4.3.4 Context risk characteristics for the certified farms in Kenya and non certified
farms in Uganda
Context factors influence the system output of a FSMS. Table 4.5 shows that overall in Kenya, the
majority of the certified green bean farms scored 1-2 for context reflecting a low to moderate-risk
context while in Uganda the majority of the non-certified hot pepper farms scored 2-3 reflecting a
moderate to high-risk context. There is a difference in the product characteristics particularly with the
initial materials used in the two countries. This result can be attributed to the fact that in Kenya green
bean seeds are less likely to be contaminated with micro-organisms and exceeding pesticide residues
because most farmers use only treated and certified seeds while in Uganda hot pepper farmers use non
treated and non-certified seeds which are saved by farmers and replanted season after season. Farms in
both countries were operating in similar tropical conditions, with open fields and using mainly surface
irrigation water. Thus, there were no differences in the indicators ‘susceptible to the production system’,
‘climate conditions of the production environment’ and ‘susceptibility of water supply’. Tropical and
warm climate conditions favor microbial growth and contamination (Jacxsens et al., 2010c; Janevska et
al., 2010; Tirado et al., 2010). Also, open field cultivation favors potential contamination from the
environment such as faecal wastes from wild animals (Nicola et al., 2009; Ongeng et al., 2011) thus
increasing the chance of products to be contaminated with enteric pathogenic micro-organisms. The
major differences between Kenya and Uganda as seen in (Table 4.5) were noted in their organizational
characteristics whereby the farms in the two countries show different types of organizational support.
The majority of certified green bean farms in Kenya had a quality department (or technical personnel)
responsible for quality and safety, which (or who) is depicted in the low risk scores (1) for technical
personnel, management commitment and formalization. Focus was also put to the training and
involvement of the workers. In addition, the small independent farms in Kenya are better organized in
terms of the producer organizations and/or cooperatives. Such collective action initiatives support
farmers by providing information about the market, quality assurance standards, financial investments,
and also assisting with extension services, traceability systems, procurement of cheap inputs and
monitoring (Narrod et al., 2009). Furthermore, in Kenya, some of the big farms have invested in
complying to the required export standards, for example, building modern pack houses, cold rooms,
refrigerated trucks, and training of human resources in food safety issues. The certified green bean farms
get support from export companies which offer much intensive oversight extension programs that are
provided by a committed management in order to enable them acquire and implement all the basic pre-
requisite programs under producer organizations (Fischer and Qaim, 2012; Henson et al., 2011b; Jaffee
and Masakure, 2005a; Narrod et al., 2009; Sawe et al., 2014). In Uganda, most of the non-certified hot
pepper farms scored 2-3 for their organizational characteristics reflecting a moderate-high risk context.
Hot pepper farms in Uganda are small scale and have not yet translated any food safety legal framework
and/or guidelines. This increases the chances of inappropriate operations of food safety issues in the
control and assurance activities, thereby negatively affecting their performance (Luz Diaz Rios et al.,
2009; Rudaheranwa et al., 2003; Ulrich et al., 2007).
The two countries also differ in the level of risk of their chain environment characteristics, since they
have very differently organized supply chains in terms of vertical integration. Although there was a
growth in the vertical integration in developing countries, the degree still differs greatly between the
two countries and sectors (Swinnen, 2007). In Kenya, certified green bean farmers are part of an
integrated supply chain, aimed at exporting to major markets in Western Europe. Therefore, these farms
scored 1 regarding the extent of power in supplier relationships which implies that they had the ability
to set and negotiate requirements with their suppliers in regards to suppliers’ specifications for their
FSMS (Kirezieva. et al., 2013c; Luning. et al., 2011). The high scores for customer relationship (no
influence on customer use of their products) were mainly found for the non-certified hot pepper farms
in Uganda. The majority of the certified green bean farms in Kenya scored situation 1 for supportiveness
of the food safety authority, specificity of external support, and specificity of the food safety legal
framework, reflecting a low-risk situation. On the contrary, in the case of Uganda, the majority of the
non-certified hot pepper farms scored 3, reflecting a high-risk situation.
Tab
le 4
.5: C
onte
xt o
f cer
tifie
d gr
een
farm
s in
Ken
ya a
nd n
on-c
ertif
ied
hot p
eppe
r far
ms
in U
gand
a as
def
ined
by
prod
uct,
proc
ess,
orga
niza
tiona
l and
ch
ain
envi
ronm
ent c
hara
cter
istic
s (m
ode
in b
old)
c Situ
atio
ns 1
, 2, a
nd 3
cor
resp
ond
to:
situ
atio
n 1
low
risk
of l
ikel
ihoo
d of
con
tam
inat
ion,
gro
wth
and
surv
ival
of p
atho
gens
, sup
porti
ve a
dmin
istra
tive
cond
ition
s to
supp
ort a
ppro
pria
te d
ecis
ion-
mak
ing
Situ
atio
n 2
pot
entia
l lik
elih
ood
of c
onta
min
atio
n, g
row
th a
nd su
rviv
al o
f pat
hoge
ns, c
onst
rain
ed/re
stric
ted
adm
inis
trativ
e co
nditi
ons t
o su
ppor
t app
ropr
iate
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g in
the
FSM
S Si
tuat
ion
3 h
igh
risk
of c
onta
min
atio
n, g
row
th a
nd su
rviv
al o
f pat
hoge
ns, c
onst
rain
ed/re
stric
ted
adm
inis
trativ
e co
nditi
ons t
o su
ppor
t app
ropr
iate
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g in
the
FSM
S
K
enya
Uga
nda
Low
(1c )
Mod
erat
e (2
) H
igh
(3)
L
ow (1
) M
oder
ate
(2)
Hig
h (3
) Pr
oduc
t cha
ract
eris
tics
In
itial
mat
eria
ls in
resp
ect t
o m
icro
biol
ogic
al c
onta
min
atio
n 30
0
0
0 16
14
In
itial
mat
eria
ls in
resp
ect t
o pe
stic
ide
cont
amin
atio
n 0
30
0
0 14
16
Fi
nal p
rodu
ct in
resp
ect t
o m
icro
biol
ogic
al c
onta
min
atio
n 2
28
0
0 30
0
Fina
l pro
duct
in re
spec
t to
pest
icid
e co
ntam
inat
ion
1 1
28
0
0 30
Pr
oces
s cha
ract
eris
tics
Su
scep
tibili
ty o
f pro
duct
ion
syst
em
0 1
29
0
0 30
R
isk
of c
limat
e co
nditi
ons o
f pro
duct
ion
envi
ronm
ent
0 0
30
0
0 30
Su
scep
tibili
ty o
f wat
er su
pply
2
5 23
0 15
15
O
rgan
isat
iona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
Pr
esen
ce o
f tec
hnol
ogic
al st
aff
12
16
2
0 10
20
V
aria
bilit
y of
wor
kfor
ce c
ompo
sitio
n 4
16
10
3
17
10
Suffi
cien
cy o
f ope
rato
rs’ c
ompe
tenc
es
10
15
5
1 8
21
Exte
nt o
f man
agem
ent c
omm
itmen
t 15
12
3
2
9 19
D
egre
e of
em
ploy
ee in
volv
emen
t 11
15
4
0
11
19
Leve
l of f
orm
aliz
atio
n 17
10
3
2
6 22
Su
ffici
ency
of s
uppo
rting
info
rmat
ion
syst
em
17
11
2
4 3
23
Cha
in e
nvir
onm
ent c
hara
cter
istic
s
Seve
rity
of st
akeh
olde
r req
uire
men
ts
10
10
10
28
0
2 Ex
tent
of p
ower
in su
pplie
r rel
atio
nshi
ps
19
9 2
1
4 25
D
egre
e of
info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
in su
pply
cha
in
21
7 2
0
10
20
Soph
istic
atio
n of
logi
stic
faci
litie
s 9
19
2
0 14
16
Su
ppor
tiven
ess o
f foo
d sa
fety
aut
horit
y 22
7
1
0 2
28
The
varia
bilit
y of
supp
liers
for i
nitia
l mat
eria
ls
27
3 0
0
2 28
Th
e sp
ecifi
city
of e
xter
nal s
uppo
rt 25
5
0
0 5
25
Spec
ifici
ty fo
od sa
fety
lega
l fra
mew
ork
in y
our
coun
try
27
3 0
0
3 27
These findings can be explained by the fact that in Kenya there is a committed governmental authority
dedicated specifically to regulate and support the horticultural sector known as the Horticultural Crops
Development Authority (HCDA). For example, some HCDA’s obligations to fresh produce farms
include training of safe and effective use of pesticides, proper record keeping and regular soil testing,
training of the production technology and organizing smallholders into production and marketing groups
through contract farming (HCDA, 2013).
In consideration of these two countries, and by also focusing solely at the written regulations and/or
guidelines, it was noted that Kenya has better formulated food safety legal framework and/or regulatory
systems in place for the fresh produce sector than Uganda. Jaffe (2003) and Oloo (2010) hold the view
that the existence of a food safety legal framework and an efficient private and public sector based chain
support system in Kenya have significantly aided the fresh produce stakeholders in practice. This might
have supported the implementation of food safety management systems in farms and export companies
unlike Uganda. A high-risk situation for external support and the food safety legal framework increases
the chances of inadequate decisions regarding the implementation of good agricultural practices which
require more follow ups and audits, thus putting demands on FSMS.
4.4 Conclusion
In summary, the study highlighted that Kenya and Uganda have contrasting features in terms of both
(Global GAP) certification and implementation status of agricultural practices. It explains the large
differences in the more mature and tailored food safety management systems practices adopted by
certified green bean growers in Kenya and basic systems present in non-certified hot pepper growers in
Uganda both involved in the export sector to the European Union. Precisely, our findings show that the
maturity of food safety management systems at primary production is simultaneously affected by
certification of food safety standards. Moreover, certification leads also to insight of the farmers in the
present systems by both external and internal evaluation leading to knowledge on the safety, hygiene
and quality of the exported fresh produce. This study pinpointed also the clear difference in organization
of the fresh produce export chain between Kenya and Uganda. From a policy perspective, two relevant
issues could be highlighted for further research and action; in Uganda, there is a need to assess the
potential impact of the challenging food safety legal framework at the national level and to understand
to what extent it may influence the adoption of mature FSMS practices at primary production. In
addition, the stakeholders in Uganda can learn from the situation in Kenya to clearly conceptualize how
to bring agricultural practices to a more advanced level and also to improve the safety status of the
cultivated commodities.
Chapter 5 Shift in performance of food safety management systems in supply
chains: case of green bean chain in Kenya versus hot pepper chain in
Uganda Redrafted from: Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Kaaya, A.N., Uyttendaele, M., Luning, P.A. Performance of food safety management systems in fresh produce supply chains in East Africa. Accepted in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
Abstract This study investigates the level of design and operation of food safety management systems (FSMSs)
in view of the context riskiness of fresh produce farmers and export traders in Kenya and Uganda in the
East African region. FSMS diagnostic tools developed for the fresh produce sector were used to assess
the levels of respectively context riskiness, FSMS activities and system performance in export trade
companies active in primary production (n = 60) and trade (n = 60). In this chapter, data for farms in
chapter 4 was used in the analysis of this study about FSMS from the supply chain perspective.
Additional data was collected for traders. High-risk context characteristics combined with basic FSMS
systems are expected to increase the risk on unsafe produce. In Uganda both farmers and export traders
of hot peppers operate in a high to moderate risk context but have basic FSMS and low systems output.
In Kenya, both farmers and export traders of green beans operate in a low to moderate risk context. The
farmers commonly have average performing FSMS whereas export trade companies showed more
advanced FSMS and system output scores ranged from satisfactory to good. Large retailers supplying
in the EU the premium fresh produce market play a crucial role in demanding compliance to strict
voluntary food safety standards, which was reflected in the more advanced FSMS and good system
output in Kenya. In the case of Uganda, they commonly supply to the less demanding EU wholesale
fresh produce markets like ethnic and specialty shops. They only have to comply with the legal
phytosanitary and pesticide residue requirements for export activities, which apparently resulted in basic
FSMSs.
5.1 Introduction
The demand for fresh produce has led to an increase of the types of produce and year-round availability
of fresh produce in the shelves in developed countries. In return, this has fundamentally changed the
fresh produce supply chain by a greater internationalization of markets and more stringent food safety
regulations mainly focusing on phytosanitary and pesticide residue requirements (2008; Liu and Yue,
2012; Ouma, 2010; Winchester et al., 2012). The effective management of food safety in this ever more
complex global fresh produce sector will require the implementation of robust food safety management
systems (FSMS) by chain actors in the whole supply chain (farm to trade) (Barrena et al., 2013; Bolwig
et al., 2013; Herzfeld et al., 2011). However, the managerial and/or technological capacity of different
countries and companies in setting up such systems are quite different. Studies have emphasized the
importance of improving food safety throughout the entire food chain and individual chain participants
look for assurances of the safety of the products supplied from preceding participants in the same chain
(Crerar, 2000; Kirezieva et al., 2013b; Kokkinos et al., 2012; Valeeva and Huirne, 2008; Valeeva et al.,
2007; Valeeva et al., 2006). Developing countries, especially those from Sub Saharan Africa, are
increasingly exporting fresh produce products to high-income countries and they have benefited from
the rising trends of global sourcing for fresh produce products to meet consumer demands for year round
supplies (Barno et al., 2011; Colen et al., 2012; Otieno and Kigamwa, 2011; Serem, 2011; Victor, 2007).
To do that (African) companies need to comply with stringent public and private standards due to the
concerns about the microbiological contamination of fresh produce and violate levels of pesticide
residues that have been revealed by several surveillance studies (CDC, 2011, 2012; DeWaal and Bhuiya,
2007; EFSA, 2011a; Katz and Winter, 2009; Lynch et al., 2009; Otsuki et al., 2001; Soon et al., 2012).
As a result, the problem of food safety outbreaks affects quality management practices and considerably
modifies the structure of the food supply chains (Aung and Chang, 2014; Motarjemi and Lelieveld,
2014; Yu and Nagurney, 2013). The question then arises as to how various actors from the concerned
countries within the fresh produce supply chain designed and operate their FSMS to guarantee the safety
and quality of their products, especially when these actors have differences in resource access,
technological development, and food safety legal frameworks. A number of studies have investigated
how FSMS perform in view of differing context characteristics in which companies are operating. These
studies, however, focused on an analysis of FSMS in (processing) companies and in particular for animal
food products (see, for example,(Jacxsens et al., 2013; Kussaga. et al., 2013; Luning et al., 2011a;
Luning et al., 2013a; Luning et al., 2013b; Osés et al., 2012; Sampers et al., 2012; Sawe et al., 2014)).
Only one of these studies assessed FSMS from a supply chain perspective (Osés et al., 2012). Moreover,
there is a gap in the empirical literature on FSMS along fresh produce supply chains in developing
countries. To our knowledge, only one study has been done for Kenya on fresh produce processing
companies (Sawe et al., 2014). The objective of this study was to investigate the level of design and
operation of food safety management systems (FSMSs) in view of the context riskiness of fresh produce
farmers and export traders in Kenya and Uganda in the East African region. Data was collected by using
diagnostic tools allowing assessment of the level of design and operation of FSMS in the fresh produce
sector covering the supply chain between primary production and trade (Jacxsens et al., 2013; Kirezieva
et al., 2013b; Kirezieva. et al., 2013c).
Tab
le 5
.1: C
hara
cter
istic
s of f
arm
s and
exp
ort c
ompa
nies
for g
reen
bea
ns a
nd h
ot p
eppe
rs in
Ken
ya a
nd U
gand
a re
spec
tivel
y w
ith m
ean
land
size
for g
reen
bea
ns fa
rms i
n K
enya
of 1
5.8
hect
ares
, w
hile
for h
ot p
eppe
r far
ms i
n U
gand
a be
ing
2.3
hect
ares
and
mea
n ex
port
volu
me
for g
reen
bea
n ex
porte
rs in
Ken
ya 1
,189
tonn
es/y
ear w
hile
811
,5 to
nnes
/yea
r for
hot
pep
pers
trad
ers o
f Uga
nda
5.2 Materials and Methods
5.2.1 Contacting and Characterization of participants
A total of 60 randomly selected farms participated in the study of which 30 were green beans farms in
Kenya and the other 30 were hot peppers farms in Uganda. Similarly, a total of 60 randomly selected
export trade companies participated in the study both in Kenya and Uganda. Table 5.1 gives a summary
of the characteristics of the assessed farms and export trade companies in Kenya and Uganda
respectively. As a first step, meetings were held in each country with various horticultural exporters to
obtain an overview of the fresh produce export trade in the two countries. In the next step, informal
meetings were organized with top management team (Managing Directors, Quality Control Directors
among others relevant) of the export trade companies that specifically exported green beans and hot
peppers from Kenya and Uganda respectively to approach them to participate to in the research.
In Kenya, the green bean farms and export trade companies used pre-requisite programs (PRPs) and
Hazard and Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCPs) guidelines to design their FSMS; and most of
the implementation was in accordance with Global GAP, Kenya GAP, and other voluntary standards
such as BRC or IFS. Moreover, they have Quality Assurance (QA) managers and quality departments
(with 4-30 personnel). None of the Ugandan hot pepper farms and export trade companies used PRP,
HACCPs or other standards to design respectively their good practices and FSMS. Moreover, they did
not have QA departments but 1 to 2 people in charge of quality control but mainly focused on visual
quality of the delivered hot peppers.
5.2.2 Diagnosis of food safety management system performance
In both Kenya and Uganda, the FSMS diagnosis involved personal visits to the farms and export trade
companies to get insight into the actual situation with respect to the FSMS activities. Intensive face-to-
face interviews with the quality control personnel and company managers were done to guide them on
how to fill in the FSMS diagnostic instrument (FSMS-DI), which took approximately 2-3 hours. The
FSMS-DI enables a systematic analysis and assessment of a company specific system regardless of the
QA standards or guidelines that have been used to develop the system (refer to chapter 3). (Kirezieva et
al., 2013b; Luning et al., 2008a; Luning et al., 2011b; Luning et al., 2009a). Table 5.2 summarizes the
judgement criteria for the different parts of the diagnostic tools.
.
Table 5.2. Description of situations (context riskiness), scores (control and assurance activity) and levels (system outputs) applied in the FSMS diagnostic tools to assess the status of current food safety management systems and their outputs along the fresh produce chain (as described in chapter 3)
Assessment of context indicators: low (situation 1), moderated (situation 2) and high-risk (situation 3) Product and process characteristics low, potential, and high probability of contamination (microbiological
and chemical), growth, and or survival of pathogens Organizational characteristics supportive, constrained, and a lack of administrative conditions for
appropriate decision-making Chain characteristics low, restricted, and high dependability on other supply chain actors
Assessment of control activities in a FSMS: low (level 1), basic (level 2), average (level 3), and advanced (level 4) performance level Low level a reflection that a control or assurance activity is not possible in the given
production circumstances; it is not applied and/or no information is available
Basic level by use of own experience, general knowledge, ad-hoc analysis, incomplete, non- standardized, unstable, regular problems. (Luning et al., 2008a)
Average level characterized by being based on expert (supplier) knowledge, use of (sector, legislative) guidelines, best practices, standardized, and (sometimes) irregular problems
Advanced or fit-for-purpose level characterized by use of specific information, scientific knowledge, critical analysis, procedural methods, systematic activities, and independent positions.(Kirezieva et al., 2013b)
Assessment of assurance activities in a FSMS: low (level 1), basic (level 2), average (level 3), and advanced (level 4) performance level Low level a reflection that a control or assurance activity is not possible in the given
production circumstances; it is not applied and/or no information is available
Basic level characterized by problem driven, only checking, scarcely reported, and no independent opinions
Average level corresponds with active, additional analysis, regular reporting, and experts support. (Luning et al., 2009a)
Advanced level characterized by use of specific information, scientific knowledge, critical analysis, procedural methods, systematic activities, and independent positions.(Kirezieva et al., 2013b)
Assessment of system output as : not applied (score 1), poor (score 2), moderate (score 3), and good (score 4) output (Jacxsens et al., 2010b) Level 1 (no indication of system output)
refers to absent, not present, not conducted. It shows, for example, the absence of FSMS evaluation and lack of an insight in actual microbial and hygiene performance of the system (no information is available on performance).
Level 2 (poor system output) is associated with aspects such as; ad-hoc sampling, minimal criteria used for FSMS evaluation, and having various food safety problems due to different problems in the FSMS.
Level 3 (moderate system output) represents regular sampling, several criteria used for FSMS evaluation, and having restricted food safety problems mainly due to one (restricted) type of problem in the FSMS.
Level 4 (good system output) pertains to a systematic evaluation of the FSMS using specific criteria and having no safety problems (information and insight on performance of FSMS is readily available).
5.2.3 Data processing and analysis The mean scores were calculated and transformed to assigned scores to obtain a first indication about
context riskiness, levels of FSMS activities, and system output as previously described by. (Jacxsens et
al., 2010a; Luning et al., 2011b; Luning et al., 2009a) The assigned scores represent the range within
which the mean falls and provide an indication of the overall level of context riskiness in addition to
FSMS performance (Table 5.2). The scores for the level of risk ranged from one (low risk) to three (high
risk). The FSMS activity and food safety output scores ranged from 1 (not applied or done) to four
(advanced for FSMS activities and good for systems output). The means were calculated for these scores
for farms and trade companies in the two countries.
5.3 Results
Detailed data analysis of the results for the farms in Kenya and Uganda were described and discussed
in chapter 4 and were applied in this chapter to introduce the chain perspective in the fresh produce
supply chain.
5.3.1 Context riskiness at farms and export trade companies in the supply chain in
Kenya and Uganda
Table 5.3 shows the overall mean scores and assigned scores of context riskiness, control and assurance
activities, and systems output in Kenya and Uganda for farmers and export traders. Obviously, the farms
and export trade companies in the green bean supply chain in Kenya seem to have their FSMSs operating
in a less risky context than their equivalents in Uganda. Specifically, in Kenya the green bean farms and
export trade companies operate in a low to moderate risk context (assigned score 1_2). In comparison,
both the farm and trade companies in Uganda operate with their FSMS in a moderate to high-risk context
(assigned score 2_3). More specifically, the frequency data (Table 5.4) revealed that respectively 42%
and 34% of the green bean farmers scored low and moderate risk, whereas 29% of the export traders
scored moderate risk and 48% export traders low risk for overall context riskiness. This contradicts with
the situation in Uganda where respectively. 27% and 62% of the hot pepper farmers scored moderate
and high-risk. Likewise, the majority of export traders (67%) scored high-risk whereas 27% scored
moderate-risk.
Tab
le 5
.3: M
ean
scor
es a
nd c
orre
spon
ding
ass
igne
d sc
ores
of f
ood
safe
ty m
anag
emen
t sys
tem
(FSM
S) a
ctiv
ities
, con
text
and
syst
em o
utpu
t ind
icat
ors
Mea
n sc
ore
cont
ext
/sys
tem
out
put
Ass
igne
d sc
ore
cont
ext
/sys
tem
out
put
Mea
n sc
ore
FSM
S ac
tiviti
es
Ass
igne
d sc
ore
FSM
S ac
tiviti
es
1 -1
.2
1 1
- 1.2
1
1.3-
1.7
1_
2 1.
3 - 2
.2
2
1.8
- 2.2
2
2.3
- 2.7
2_
3
2.3
- 2.7
2_
3 2.
8 - 3
.2
3
2.8
- 3.0
3
3.3
- 3.7
3_
4
- -
3.8
- 4.0
4
More in detail, interesting patterns on product and process; organizational and chain characteristics are
apparent in the two countries at farm and trade levels (Figure 5.1). The majority of green bean farms
and export trade companies operate with low to moderate risk initial and final products (assigned scores
1_2, 2). On the other hand, they are confronted with high risk process characteristics due to the
susceptibility of their production system, humid and warm climate conditions in the production
environment, and the high susceptibility of their water supply (assigned score 3) (Figure 5.1). In Uganda,
the hot pepper farms and export trade companies work with high-risk initial materials and final products
(assigned score 3) as well as having susceptible production systems, humid and warm climate conditions
in the production environment, and susceptible water supply (Figure 5.1).
Notably, the two countries differ mainly in their organizational and chain environment characteristics
as well at farm as trade level (Figure 5.1). In Kenya, farms and export trade companies seem to provide
more supporting organizational conditions (for example especially extension services where farmers are
guided in good agricultural practices and given the right inputs like certified seeds and acceptable
pesticides) creating lower risk situations (score 1_2) compared to the farmers and export traders in
Uganda, they scored 2_3 due to lack of guidance in good agricultural practices and limited access to
food safety information (Table 5.3).
5.3.2 Control activities in FSMS along the supply chain in Kenya and Uganda
Table 3 shows that in Kenya the design and operation of core control activities are more tailored and fit-
for-purpose at the traders (3_4) than the farms (2). Moreover, Table 5.5 shows that farms in Kenya
mostly scored 2 (basic level) compared to export companies that scored 3-4 (average to advanced level)
for the majority of indicators related to intervention process and monitoring system designs as well as
the actual operation of the core control strategies. Typical for the advanced level (score 4) is that the
specific activities, equipment, methods and programs are tailored and tested for the company specific
circumstances, and well documented. With respect to Uganda, Table 5.4 shows that for 58% farmers
and 52% of exporters scored 2 (basic level) for the control activities, which means that activities are
mainly designed based on own insights, historical knowledge, using general equipment, materials and
programs not specific for their production circumstances.
Interestingly, for the control activities as designed and operating in Uganda, neither the farms nor the
export trade companies obtained a score 4 compared to Kenya’s green bean supply chain, where 26%
of the farms and 37% of the companies that scored 4. It means that their control activities are typified
by being based on scientific evidence, procedure driven, structured, and tested and tailored for their
specific farm/company situation.
Figure 5.1: Database of responses on context riskiness, food safety m
anagement system
status and system output of K
enyan farms and traders and U
gandan farm
s and traders (each line represents a farm or trading com
pany and each column represents an indicators of the diagnostic tool), illustrating the higher risk
content and lower perform
ance of their food safety managem
ent systems (m
ore red colored) in Uganda com
pared to Kenya (m
ore green and yellow colored)
Figure 5.1A. Food Safety M
anagement System
s output for green bean farms and trade com
panies in Kenya
Kenya farm Kenya trade
"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1' 1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1" ~~~§~~~§~~~~ 2 g ~ ~ ~ ggg~~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ e~~~~~~~~~22~~~;~;~:a~;~::~:~:~~~ r Ri;k-mr..tmicrobia
"' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' '"' ' "' '"' ' "' '"' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' '"' ' "'' "'' "' ' "' ' "' ' "" ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' ' "' 1 ,... 1 ,.,. 1 ,.,. 1 Ri~k·m!ltp~~~i.:id, Ri;k-m~:~t m~cotox
Ri;k-prodmicrobi
Ri:k·prodpo:: tio:i
Production-~y;to:
Clirr.r1te-·conditio'
'v/l:~tc-r-~upply
.., . To:ch·~td
Vor·work
", 1,.,. 10po:r·comp
Mt~n•commit
Empl·involv
Form
lrlo•:y:t
Stako:·ro:q
Suppl-rd
lrlo·o:xch
log.fr..cil
,... 11Mp-outh
Glob-;uppl
Spo:cl-o:·xt-:upp
Spo:d-lo:gi: l
H~g-do:o;
M~:~in-prog
w 1 Stw:~ge-.fr..c
Sr~n·prog
w 1,.,. 1 Po:whygio:M
Mot·contr
N , P~:~ck·ll'qYip
w Iw Iw Iw r Suppl•contr
Org.fo:rt·prog
wla.lwi Po:~t·prog
wla.lw' 'W!lto:r•contr
w Iw Iw Iw Iw Iw ,l~rig·mo:t
..., 1Port·phy:·int
Anol·meth·p~;~th
w la. Iw 1 Anol·m.:-th·p.:-~tid
Sompl·d.:-~·micro~~
"'I w Iw Iw I Sompl·d.:-~·p.:-~t
Cor-oct
AYoil-proc
Compl·proc
Hy9·p.:-lf
S1ort19.:-·ct1p
Pt~lt·pl"ry,·int·Ctl~
Pock·cop
N1Anol·pelf
St&k'l'·req
lrlo·u~e
w la.rw 1 Vt~l·preY Vol·intm
wlw 1V.:-r·people
w 1 Ve~·equip
wla.lwi Doc·'~~
R.:-c·~~~
FSMS·eYol
w' S.:-r·r.:-m
w1Micro·compl
w Iw Iw Iw Iw IN I Chem-compl
wlwiNiwla. l.., lwlw IN Iw Iw Iw Iw Iw IN Iw IN Iw Iw I Vi,u~;~l·compl w 1 P1od·~cmpl-micro
wla.lw1Jud9·crit-micro
N la. Iw 1 Prod·~cmpl·pe"
", 1Jud9·crit·pe;t
Non·corl
Figu
re 5
.1B
: Foo
d Sa
fety
Man
agem
ent S
yste
ms o
utpu
t for
hot
pep
per f
arm
s and
trad
e co
mpa
nies
in U
gand
a
Uganda farm Uganda trade
6oJd·U:~d "'"' M"' "'"'"' "'"'"' M "'"' l'o "'"' "'"'"' 111111"'"' N
6oJd-UO:S 1\1 111 111
"' 1\1 '"" ""
np-6'H
1s,6~1-1p~ds
1ddns. qo10
'4~AIR-dsu1
b~•-~••lS
~ds-o,..l
.JOA• HlJ\ I\INNNNNN
'!PU03-~l••!l:)
~'S-UO!l3Ap01d
llUd po•d-• S!tl
U3!• poJd •• S!tl
Tab
le 5
.4: D
istri
butio
n of
freq
uenc
y fo
r ind
icat
ors i
n pe
rcen
tage
s and
mea
n an
d as
sign
ed sc
ores
for c
onte
xt, F
SMS
activ
ities
and
syst
em o
utpu
t all
farm
s and
ex
port
com
pani
es b
etw
een
Ken
ya a
nd U
gand
a Fo
r con
text
fact
ors:
Situ
atio
ns 1
, 2, a
nd 3
repr
esen
t; lo
w, m
oder
ate
and
high
risk
resp
ectiv
ely
(see
Tab
le 2
) Fo
r con
trol a
nd a
ssur
ance
act
iviti
es: L
evel
s 1, 2
, 3 a
nd 4
repr
esen
t; lo
w, b
asic
, ave
rage
and
adv
ance
d ac
tivity
resp
ectiv
ely
(see
Tab
le 2
) Fo
r sys
tem
s out
put:
Scor
es 1
, 2, 3
and
4 re
pres
ent;
abse
nt, p
oor,
mod
erat
e an
d go
od re
spec
tivel
y (s
ee T
able
2)
K
enya
U
gand
a
G
reen
bea
n fa
rms (
n=30
)
Gre
en b
ean
trad
e co
mpa
nies
(n=3
0)
H
ot p
eppe
r fa
rms
(n=3
0)
H
ot p
eppe
r tr
ade
com
pani
es (n
=30)
1
2
3
Mea
n
Ass
igne
d Sc
ore
1 2
3
Mea
n
Ass
igne
d Sc
ore
1 2
3
Mea
n
Ass
igne
d Sc
ore
1 2
3
Mea
n
Ass
igne
d Sc
ore
Con
text
fa
ctor
s 42 %
34%
24
%
1.
7 1_
2 48
%
29%
23
%
1.
7 1_
2 11
%
27%
62 %
2.6
2_3
6%
27%
67 %
2.6
2_3
1
2
3 4
Mea
n A
ssig
ned
Scor
e 1
2 3
4 M
ean
Ass
igne
d Sc
ore
1 2
3 4
Mea
n A
ssig
ned
Scor
e 1
2 3
4 M
ean
Ass
igne
d Sc
ore
Con
trol
activ
ities
20%
41 %
13%
26
%
2.1
2 3%
7%
37
%
53 %
3.2
3_4
16%
58 %
26
%
0%
1.4
2 18
%
52 %
30%
0%
1.
5 2
Ass
uran
ce
activ
ities
0%
4%
63 %
33
%
3.1
3 4%
7%
27
%
62 %
3.4
3_4
20%
62 %
18
%
0%
1.5
2 20
%
72 %
8%
1%
1.9
2
Syst
ems
outp
ut
5%
35
%
37 %
23%
2.6
2_3
3%
10%
36
51 %
3.4
3_4
10%
69 %
20
%
1%
1.4
2 3%
70 %
25
%
2%
1.4
2
5.3.3 Assurance activities at farms and export trade companies along the supply chain in
Kenya and Uganda
Table 5.5, shows that in Kenya, 63% of the farms have assurance activities that scored 3 (average level)
while 62% of the export trade companies scored 4 (advanced level). In Uganda, most farmers (62%) and
traders (72%) scored 2 (basic) for their assurance activities implying that these activities are executed
according to historical knowledge judged by own people and only on ad-hoc basis in case of problems.
Moreover, assurance activities such as defining system set-up, validating and verifying are at the low
level for 20% of the farmers and 20% of the traders, which implies that they are not conducted at all.
The lower scores for assurance activities could be explained by the fact that none of the hot pepper farms
and export trade companies are certified against quality assurance standards, which necessitate the
implementation of assurance activities in their FSMS (Table 5.1).
5.3.4 Systems output for farms and export trade companies along the supply chain in
Kenya and Uganda
Table 5.3 also shows the data for the systems output. The overall system output for the green farms in
Kenya is poor to moderate (score 2 to 3), while for the export companies, it is moderate to good (score
3 to 4). Thirty-seven % of the assessed farms had a system output at moderate level, while 51% of the
export companies had a good systems output (Table 5.4). In Uganda, the overall system output achieved
for both the farms and export companies scored 2 which represents a poor output (69% for farms and
70% for export companies) (Table 5.4).
Tab
le 5
.5: A
ssig
ned
scor
es fo
r con
trol a
nd a
ssur
ance
act
iviti
es a
long
the
supp
ly c
hain
s in
Ken
ya a
nd U
gand
a
CO
NT
RO
L A
CT
IVIT
IES
Ken
ya
Uga
nda
Fa
rm (n
=30)
T
rade
(n=3
0)
Farm
(n=3
0)
Tra
de (n
=30)
Prev
entiv
e m
easu
res d
esig
n in
dica
tors
: H
ygie
nic
desi
gn o
f equ
ipm
ent &
faci
litie
s, m
aint
enan
ce p
rogr
am,
stor
age
faci
litie
s, sa
nita
tion
prog
ram
, per
sona
l hyg
iene
requ
irem
ents
, in
com
ing
mat
eria
ls c
ontro
l, pa
ckag
ing,
supp
lier c
ontro
l, fe
rtiliz
er
prog
ram
, pes
ticid
e pr
ogra
m, w
ater
con
trol,
and
irrig
atio
n m
etho
d
3 3
2 2
Inte
rven
tion
proc
ess d
esig
n in
dica
tors
: pa
rtial
phy
sica
l int
erve
ntio
n as
was
hing
2
3 2
2
Mon
itori
ng sy
stem
des
ign
indi
cato
rs :
A
naly
tical
met
hods
to a
sses
s pat
hoge
ns, A
naly
tical
met
hods
to a
sses
s pe
stic
ides
, Sa
mpl
ing
plan
for m
icro
bial
ass
essm
ent,
Sam
plin
g pl
an
for p
estic
ide
asse
ssm
ent,
and
Cor
rect
ive
actio
ns
2_3
3_4
1 1
Act
ual o
pera
tion
of c
ontr
ol st
rate
gies
indi
cato
rs :
av
aila
bilit
y of
pro
cedu
res,
com
plia
nce
to p
roce
dure
s, hy
gien
ic
perfo
rman
ce o
f equ
ipm
ent a
nd fa
cilit
ies,
stor
age
capa
city
, cap
abili
ty
of p
artia
l phy
sica
l int
erve
ntio
n, c
apab
ility
of
pack
agin
g an
d pe
rform
ance
of
anal
ytic
al e
quip
men
t
2_3
3_4
1 1
ASS
UR
AN
CE
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
Def
inin
g sy
stem
set-
up in
dica
tors
: st
akeh
olde
r req
uire
men
ts a
nd sy
stem
atic
use
of f
eedb
ack
info
rmat
ion
3 3_
4 1
1
Val
idat
ion
indi
cato
rs:
prev
entiv
e m
easu
res a
nd in
terv
entio
n pr
oces
ses
2_3
3_4
1 1
Ver
ifica
tion
indi
cato
rs:
peop
le re
late
d pe
rform
ance
and
equ
ipm
ent a
nd m
etho
ds re
late
d pe
rform
ance
2_3
3_4
1 1
Doc
umen
tatio
n &
Rec
ord
keep
ing
indi
cato
rs:
App
ropr
iate
ness
doc
umen
tatio
n an
d re
cord
kee
ping
3
2_3
2 2
5.4 Discussion
This study systematically analysed the design and operation level of best practice and FSMS at
respectively farmers and traders in fresh produce supply chains in Kenya and Uganda, with their typical
context characteristics. The basic principle behind the FSMS diagnosis states that companies operating
in a high-risk context (overall score 3) need to have an advanced/ fit-for-purpose FSMS (overall score
4) to realize a good system output (overall score 4). (Kirezieva et al., 2013a; Luning et al., 2008a; Luning
et al., 2011a; Luning et al., 2011b) In case an unacceptable system output (<3) is achieved then an in-
depth analysis of the FSMS activities in view of their context riskiness could give insights into possible
opportunities for improvement.(Jacxsens et al., 2010a; Kirezieva et al., 2013a; Luning et al., 2013a;
Sampers et al., 2012) From a supply chain perspective, a good system output in the fresh produce supply
chain should be realized and maintained right from the primary production, processing up to
trade(Aramyan et al., 2006; Bigioi and Dobre, 2007; Kirezieva et al., 2013c; Trienekens and Zuurbier,
2008; Trienekens et al., 2012; Van der Vorst, 2006). The fact that export traders are in closer contact to
their (EU) customers, it is presumed that they have a higher performing FSMS compared to the farms,
which deliver to the traders or exporters.(Rouviere and Latouche, 2014)
Our findings indicated considerable differences in the level of design and operation of core control and
assurance activities in the analysed FSMSs across the two export chains in Kenya and Uganda
respectively. In both countries, the process characteristics at the farm and trade level are at moderate to
high risk, because of the susceptibility of the available water supply sources, the tropical climatic
conditions that favor microbial growth and contamination(Jacxsens et al., 2010c; Janevska et al., 2010;
Tirado et al., 2010), and the vulnerability of the production systems. Open field cultivation is a common
production method, which favors contamination from the environment such as wild animals(Nicola et
al., 2009; Ongeng et al., 2011) thereby increasing the possibility of green beans and hot peppers to be
contaminated with enteric pathogenic micro-organisms.
Figu
re 5
.2: M
ean
scor
es o
f ind
icat
ors f
or p
rodu
ct a
nd o
rgan
izat
iona
l con
text
risk
ines
s at f
arm
and
trad
e le
vel i
n th
e gr
een
bean
and
hot
pep
per
supp
ly c
hain
in K
enya
and
Uga
nda
resp
ectiv
ely.
KE
NY
A
Farm
Tra
de
U
GA
ND
A
Far
m
T
rade
123
Initi
alm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Initi
al p
estic
ides
Fina
lm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Fina
l pes
ticid
espr
oduc
tion
syst
ems
clim
ate
wat
er s
uppl
y
123Te
chno
sta
ffw
orkf
orce co
mpe
tenc
es
Man
agem
ent
invo
lvem
ent
form
aliz
atio
n
info
rmat
ion
syst
emS
take
hold
er re
qs s
uppl
ier p
ower
Info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
logi
stic
s
food
saf
ety
auth
ority
Var
iabi
lity
supp
liers
Ext
erna
l sup
port
Food
saf
ety
fram
ewor
k
123
Initi
alm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Initi
al p
estic
ides
Fina
lm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Fina
l pes
ticid
espr
oduc
tion
syst
ems
clim
ate
wat
er s
uppl
y
123Te
chno
sta
ffw
orkf
orce com
pete
nces
Man
agem
ent
invo
lvem
ent
form
aliz
atio
n
info
rmat
ion
syst
emS
take
hold
erre
qs s
uppl
ier p
ower
Info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
logi
stic
s
food
saf
ety
auth
ority
Var
iabi
lity
supp
liers
Ext
erna
l sup
port
Food
saf
ety
fram
ewor
k
123
Initi
alm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Initi
al p
estic
ides
Fina
lm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Fina
l pes
ticid
espr
oduc
tion
syst
ems
clim
ate
wat
er s
uppl
y
123Te
chno
sta
ffw
orkf
orce co
mpe
tenc
es
Man
agem
ent
invo
lvem
ent
form
aliz
atio
n
info
rmat
ion
syst
emS
take
hold
er re
qs s
uppl
ier p
ower
Info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
logi
stic
s
food
saf
ety
auth
ority
Var
iabi
lity
supp
liers
Ext
erna
l sup
port
Food
saf
ety
fram
ewor
k
123
Initi
alm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Initi
al p
estic
ides
Fina
lm
icro
bial
ogic
al
Fina
l pes
ticid
espr
oduc
tion
syst
ems
clim
ate
wat
er s
uppl
y
123Te
chno
sta
ffw
orkf
orce co
mpe
tenc
es
Man
agem
ent
invo
lvem
ent
form
aliz
atio
n
info
rmat
ion
syst
emS
take
hold
er re
qs s
uppl
ier p
ower
Info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
logi
stic
s
food
saf
ety
auth
ority
Var
iabi
lity
supp
liers
Ext
erna
l sup
port
Food
saf
ety
fram
ewor
k
Figu
re 1
F. O
rgan
isat
iona
l and
ch
ain
char
acte
ristic
s
Figu
re 1
A. P
rodu
ct a
nd p
roce
ss
char
acte
ristic
s Fi
gure
1C
. Pro
duct
and
pro
cess
ch
arac
teris
tics
Figu
re 1
E. P
rodu
ct a
nd p
roce
ss
char
acte
ristic
s Fi
gure
1G
. Pro
duct
and
pro
cess
ch
arac
teris
tics
Figu
re 1
B. O
rgan
isat
iona
l and
ch
ain
char
acte
ristic
sFi
gure
1D
. Org
anisa
tiona
l and
ch
ain
char
acte
ristic
s
Figu
re 1
H. O
rgan
isatio
nal a
nd
chai
n ch
arac
teris
tics
The farms and companies in both countries scored moderate risk for susceptibility of initial materials to
microbial contamination because the green beans and hot peppers have surface characteristics that
hinder the entrance micro-organisms. However, farms and export companies in Kenya reported a low
risk (score 1) with respect to pesticide contamination in both initial materials and final products while
in Uganda a high risk was reported (score 3). The traders in Kenya typically source their initial materials
from Global GAP-certified farms where minimum requirements on good agricultural practices and
hygiene requirements are mandatory.(GLOBALG.A.P, 2013) Additionally, in Kenya, the use of only
approved pesticides and proper application (rates and methods) are required by the Global GAP system,
and hence a low risk is associated with pesticide contamination. The use and application of pesticides
by the green bean farmers in Kenya is strictly monitored by the government agency called Kenya Plant
Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS).(HCDA, 2010) This agency coordinates matters related to pest
and disease control, monitors levels of pesticides toxicity and it is also responsible for the inspection of
final produce for export.(KEPHIS, 2012) However, in Uganda, the hot pepper farms and export
companies do not have quality assurance standards certification and there is no particular government
agency responsible for pesticide monitoring and control.
For the organizational and chain characteristics, in Kenya both farmers and traders scored on similar
most context indicators except for ‘presence of technological staff’, ‘operators competence’,
‘management and employment commitment’ where the differences were noticed. (Jaffee and Masakure,
2005b; Narrod et al., 2009; Okello and Swinton, 2007b; Okello and Swinton, 2010) Most of the green
bean export trade companies in this study have a QA department but with varying expertise and level of
competence, they provide regular food safety and hygiene trainings, and documented food safety
policies and objectives were present. The green bean export trade companies in Kenya have invested
remarkably in their FSMS especially at their pack houses compared to the green bean
farmers.(Dannenberg, 2011; Dannenberg and Nduru, 2013) All these efforts are undertaken because
green bean traders are supplying to EU retailers who are demanding compliance to the EU regulation
and to private standards such as BRC, IFS and Global GAP (Kirezieva. et al., 2013a; Rouviere and
Latouche, 2014) The situation in Kenya indicates that the average green farmer is more aware of and
more compliant with crop protection and other good practices. In addition, many green bean export trade
companies are much more involved in providing support and guidance on good agricultural practices to
out growers.(Okello and Swinton, 2007a)
In Uganda, the high riskiness scores inherent to the organizational and chain characteristics of farmers
and export traders in the hot pepper supply chain seem to be similar (Figure 5.1). This is attributed to
the fact that Uganda lacks an established institution (private or public) that is dedicated to coordinate
and spearhead the provision of necessary and key support services related to food safety for the
horticultural sector.(Nanyunja et al., 2014 in review) (Luz Diaz Rios et al., 2009; Ulrich et al., 2009)
According to Parker, et al., (2012a) fresh produce chain actors must have easy access to reliable sector
specific support systems (e.g. private and/or public agricultural agencies, food safety authorities,
research institutes etc.) which play a role in food safety information sourcing, training services, guidance
on technical food safety issues among others. A well-organized sector specific chain support system is
required to increase chain operators’ awareness and understanding about food safety tasks in their
FSMS.
Furthermore, in Uganda, traders export hot peppers to the less demanding EU wholesale fresh produce
markets like ethnic and specialty shops without requiring certification against voluntary standards but
requirements are restricted to the legal EU requirements with respect to phytosanitary and pesticide
residue requirements.(Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, 2002)
Competitiveness in these EU wholesale markets is based upon price, quality, supply consistency, the
range of varieties offered, and trust and not specifically on food safety.(Codron et al., 2014b; Parker et
al., 2012a; Van Hoi et al., 2009). However, in the case of the Ugandan hot peppers, the competition was
mainly on price and delivery conditions, rather than on quality. In contrast, many quality certifications
and additional requirements were put to the Kenyan green bean suppliers, which are not posed on the
actors in the hot pepper supply chain in Uganda.
Overall, the hot pepper farmers in Uganda seem to be less well organized due to their dependency on
family labor with limited financial resources to invest in training or accessing skilled labor in their
operations. (Giller et al., 2006; Poulton et al., 2010; Wiggins et al., 2010) Furthermore, the hot pepper
export traders in Uganda highly depend on these farmers and yet themselves do not have average to
advanced FSMS in place to shield potential food safety risks. All food chain actors must attain a
sufficient degree of food safety knowledge in order to achieve consistent safe food handling practices.
(Ko, 2010; Parker et al., 2012a; Powell et al., 2011)
In Kenya, the farmers and traders have implemented core control activities at average up to advanced
levels. The export traders set high and specific hygiene requirements for all food operators regarding
clothing, personal care and health, provide specific training and hygiene instructions implemented in
daily practice. Additionally, all food handlers have to comply with national public health legislation
requirements on communicable diseases (CAP319, 2008). Equipment and facilities at both the farms
and export trade companies in Kenya meet basic hygiene requirements. Packaging of the green beans is
mostly done manually with personnel putting the final product in the packages before sealing them with
simple induction sealing machines. All the export companies had their green beans analyzed for
pesticide residues in accredited laboratories thus they all achieved an advanced level for this indicator.
This is attributed to the stringent requirements on MRLs set by the EU retailers in the premium market
where the bigger percentage of Kenya’s green beans are sold. The criteria for interpretation of results
are established in the internal guidelines for the export traders but they are also based on legal documents
and customer specifications, especially EU MRLs requirements. The farms and export companies have
simple equipment (mainly knives, and table weighing scales) for monitoring the process or product
status, which are offline and not tested for accuracy. This is because there is no complexity in handling
the green beans since they are exported without any transformation. In addition, most of the farms and
companies acknowledged having up- to- date and accessible procedures, which are known by the
majority of operators at designated locations. Studies have found that availability and compliance to
procedures are useful in dealing with variability of sanitary behavior among fresh produce
workers.(Kirezieva et al., 2013b) A high level of actual compliance corresponded with operators who
check their own compliance, have a comprehensive understanding of safety control tasks and
procedures, and with internalized safety control activities.(Luning et al., 2008a).
Concerning assurance activities in Kenya, the majority of the green export trade companies work closely
with the farmers. They have well established assurance systems whereby the company agronomists work
closely with the farmers. The agronomists ensure that validation and verification of crucial processes
and people actions are done following strict procedures with comprehensive reporting, and
independency in order to provide evidence and confidence to stakeholders. The results in the present
study indicate that farmers and export traders in the green bean chain in Kenya are keen on adapting
their FSMS to comply with the needs and requirements of their retail customers in the EU premium
market. This can be attributed to the fact that 99% of the farms have Global GAP and 100% of the
companies have BRC, IFS, SQF 2000 and ISO 9001 FSMS certification (Table 1) in which assurance
activities such as validation, verification and documentation are mandatory.(BRC, 2011;
GLOBALG.A.P, 2013; IFS, 2012; ISO, 2008; SQF, 2008)
Moreover, in most of the fresh produce export supply chains in Sub-Saharan Africa, exporters greatly
rely on farmers especially smallholders for their supplies. This means that if the implemented FSMS is
basic or low at farm level then the whole sector would be vulnerable in case of a food safety outbreak.
(Barno et al., 2011; Dannenberg, 2011; Ferrucci et al., 2011; Narrod et al., 2009; Okello and Swinton,
2007a)
The system output for farms in Kenya scored moderate to advanced level for the export trade companies.
The chemical safety-related complaints were registered more by the export trade companies than by the
farms, these were mainly limited complaints on one specific pesticide. This may be due to the available
national guidelines for the Kenya fresh produce sector, the retailer specifications, and the strict EU
regulations on MRLs. In particular, the rigorousness of sampling for pesticide residue analysis was at
an advanced level for all the traders because (CAP319, 2008) they delegate the responsibility of residue
monitoring on the producer and/or exporter. In December 2012, the European Commission decided to
increase up to 10% the frequency of pesticide residues border controls on green beans and peas imported
from Kenya due to numerous alerts (Rapid Alert System on Foods and Feed, RASFF) issued by the
EU.(PIP, 2014) Since January 1st 2013, this decision has been impacting directly on the way farmers
and traders are implementing their FSMS. As an institutionary response, the national food safety
coordinating committee (NFSCC) and fresh produce stakeholders in Kenya have organized themselves
to address the MRL crisis and develop long and short-term solutions. Particular focus has been put on
intensifying the frequency of testing for pesticides residues at sector level. The scores on ‘translation of
stakeholder requirements and systematic use of feedback to modify FSMS’ were at an advanced level
for both farms and export companies implying that there is active and pro-active translation of external
assurance requirements and regular use of feedback to modify their FSMS.
In Uganda, the overall situation of low scores for control activities at both farm and trade level in the
hot pepper supply chain could be explained by the fact that the majority of farms are not Global GAP
certified. Moreover, the export traders are not certified for the specific quality assurance standards,
which are helpful in setting reliable FSMS. Similarly, the scores for the assurance activities at farm and
trade levels along the hot pepper chain are basic (score 2). During the surveys, farmers and exporters
revealed that validation and verification activities are done by own people based on historical knowledge
only and the activities are performed occasionally on an ad-hoc basis. When it comes to documentation
and record-keeping the quality assurance managers focus more on other than food safety aspects like
batch size, freshness, and color for ripeness. In fact, in most cases, the majority of the farmers and export
traders prefer verbal communication as a major role in successfully managing their food safety tasks for
their product and processes. (Taylor, 2001) For the system output, the overall score was the same at both
the farm and trade levels in the hot pepper supply chain and was poor (score 2). This indicates that the
national food safety agency (Jacxsens et al., 2010a) did not perform any inspection and or only
accredited party performed an audit. No complaints on microbiological and chemical safety are
registered; however, various complaints regarding visual quality are received by the customers.
Microbiological samples are not taken. The results suggest little insights on the actual situation since no
sampling is done and there is no registration of complaints regarding safety issues. At a closer look at
the farms’ and companies’ food safety results it is clear that limited insight is available in Uganda
regarding both chemical and microbiological safety performance.
5.5 Conclusion
This research confirms that the tendency to achieve mature and efficient food safety management
systems is linked to existing market and institutional forces within a country and the target export
destination. Farmers and exporters in Kenya have their FSMS operating within a low-moderate risky
contextual situation while those in Uganda operate from a moderate-high risky contextual situation. The
lower risky context in Kenya is due to better organizational and chain characteristics, supported by a
strong government food safety policy for the fresh produce sector and the stringent retail food safety
requirements in Europe by their high demanding retail customers. This also results in higher
performance of their FSMS unlike for the case of Uganda. It is noted that in Uganda there are no shifts
in performance of FSMS at the farm and trade companies (both are basic), while in the case of Kenya
there is a shift from the average FSMS at the farms to the advanced FSMS at the trading companies.
The results highlight that large branded retailers in the EU premium fresh produce market where the
Kenya green beans are sold, play a critical role in demanding compliance to strict voluntary food safety
standards that enable FSMS for green bean farms and export companies in Kenya to achieve a good
systems output.
In the case of Uganda, hot peppers are grown and exported to the less demanding EU wholesale fresh
produce markets like ethnic and specialty shops without voluntary food safety standards. With only legal
phytosanitary and pesticide residue requirements to comply with, the hot pepper farms and export
companies in Uganda have their FSMS operating at basic levels. The results suggest that in order to
empower the fresh produce chain actors in developing countries to achieve mature FSMS, there is need
to have in place the enabling regulatory environment both at governmental and sector level and
commercial requirement are pushing towards more mature FSMS and insights in system outputs and
delivered safety and quality of fresh produce.
Acknowledgements
Our heartfelt gratitude goes to the green bean farmers and exporters in Kenya and hot pepper farmers
and exporters in Uganda who shared the information diligently on a wide range of questions regarding
the horticulture safety management system diagnostic instrument. Many thanks to Mr. Alex Kahuma
and Mrs. Sawe Chemutai who accompanied us on our field visits and made it an enriching experience
for us in Uganda and Kenya respectively.
Chapter 6
Opinions on fresh produce food safety and quality
standards by fresh produce supply chain experts from
Kenya and Uganda
Redrafted from:
Jacxsens1, L., Van Boxstael, S., Nanyunja, J., Jordan, D., Luning, P., Uyttendaele, M., (2015). Opinions
on fresh produce food safety and quality standards by fresh produce supply chain experts from the global
South and North. Journal of Food Protection, 78, vol 9, doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-537 with
additional data collection with stakeholders in Uganda and Kenya.
6.1 Introduction
In the current global agri-food system, the modus operandi by governments and private companies to
assure food safety and quality, is by imposing product standards (e.g. maximum residue levels on
pesticides) but also process standards (e.g. Codex Code of Practice (CAC, 2003)) related to working and
handling practices during production, processing, trade and storage of fresh produce (Broberg, 2009;
Henson and Humphrey, 2008). Standards have been defined as written guidelines which help or make
products or processes, more efficiently or safely (VanBoxstael et al., 2013). They are often written
through a formal prescribed process which involves consultation with relevant bodies and reaching
consensus across all interested parties so that the final document meets the needs of business and society.
All standards take the form of either specification, methods, codes of practice or guides (Winkler and
Freund, 2011).
Farmers at the beginning of the supply chain are confronted with many standards and certification
requirements from downstream buyers such as traders, retailers or processors. These demands are also
continuously changing and increasingly complex. Producers wanting to penetrate or maintain access to
produce markets face many interrelated standards that can be of private or public nature and also be
voluntary or obligatory (Baines, 2010; Handschuch et al., 2013; Trienekens and Zuurbier, 2008). This
was discussed in chapter 4 and it entails on how food safety standards certification influences the level
of maturity in FSMS implemented. Farmers in Kenya work closely with standards requirements imposed
by importers of green beans in the EU thus their implemented FSMS were more mature unlike hot
pepper farms in Uganda which operate in basic FSMS because they export to less demanding markets
in terms of food safety standards.
There are many claims that developing countries struggle to meet the increasingly food safety and other
requirements of industrialized countries (Codron et al., 2014a; García and Poole, 2004; Mainville et al.,
2005; Neeliah et al., 2013). It was exemplified in this PhD thesis in chapter 5 where the pressures of the
high demanding customers in Kenya resulted in more mature FSMS along the fresh produce supply
chain due to strict food safety requirements from importers in the EU. In most of the fresh produce
export supply chains in Sub-Saharan Africa, exporters greatly rely on farmers, especially smallholders
for their supplies. This means that if the implemented FSMS is basic or low at farm level then the whole
sector would be vulnerable in case of a food safety outbreak. (Barno et al., 2011; Dannenberg, 2011;
Ferrucci et al., 2011; Narrod et al., 2009; Okello and Swinton, 2007a)
In the frame of the EU FP 7 Veg-i-Trade project investigating the impact of climate change and
globalisation on the safety of fresh produce an on-line survey with fresh produce supply chain experts
working with producers from global North (n=41, twenty countries) and global South (n=63, twenty
nine countries) was conducted to measure their opinions on fresh produce food safety and quality
standards. The classification of countries in the global North (North) or global South (South) group was
made according to a list of Wikimedia (WikiMedia., 2013). In the case where the respondents answered
countries from both the North and the South, they were assigned the region corresponding with the most
answered countries. The outcome of this research is published by Jacxsens et al., (2015b). They
expressed their view using 1 to 5 Likert scales on several items related to four types of food safety and
quality standards and legislation: Codex Alimentarius standards as international standards, EU
legislation as export destination requirement, national legislation and private standards set by export
customers. The results reflected the different context in which the southern and northern farmers produce
but also indicate similar challenges, in particular with regard to the role of private standards. Private
standards were perceived to demand the highest implementation effort for northern and southern farmers
compared to the other three types of standards. Private standards were perceived strongly to exclude
southern and northern small and medium scale producers from high value markets while EU legislation
was perceived to strongly exclude small and medium scale southern producers. The results further
highlight concerns on costly control measures in a FSMS and third party certification that are required
by downstream buyers but mostly paid by upstream suppliers. The results also acknowledge advantages
of standards in terms of farmer health, spill-over of knowledge to non-certified activities and
environmental sustainability. For example in most standards certified export chains with small holders
in Africa, these farmers also apply learned good agricultural practices for their products for the local
domestic markets. Standards are seen in their dual role both as a catalyst for upgrading food safety
management systems on the one hand and as a non-tariff barrier to trade on the other hand. An increasing
governance shift from public to private standards was also indicated, both by the North and South group,
particularly in relation to the structure (e.g. consolidation) and organization (e.g. third party certification)
of the global fresh produce supply chain. The importance of technical assistance and support of
producers by governments, farmer and trade associations with implementing and certification of
standards is highlighted by this global study.
After having these insights on global level, it was the objective to gain additional information on the
opinions of the fresh produce supply chain stakeholders in Kenya and Uganda related to these standards.
Therefore, the survey questionnaire of Jacxsens et al., (2015b) was tailored to the Kenyan/Ugandan
situation and additional interviews were conducted with stakeholders in fresh produce supply chain in
both countries.
6.2 Materials and methods
6.2.1 The survey questionnaire
The applied survey adapts and builds on the questionnaire by Jacxsens et al., (2015b) to assess the
relevance of food safety and quality standards in the fresh produce sectors in Kenya and Uganda. The
modified questionnaire contained six questions to convey relevant issues for developing countries and
also to enable the respondents in Kenya and Uganda to answer knowledgably about the standards. The
questions included opinions of respondents on costs of implementation and certification of standards,
benefits of standards (spill-over of knowledge, worker health and environmental issues), standards and
legislation as non-tariff barrier to trade, exclusion from high value markets due to stringent standards,
harmonization of standards and standards requirements demanding the most efforts. The questions
addressed four groups of standards and legislation namely: 1) the global standards defined by the Codex
Alimentarius such as the Code of hygienic practices for fresh fruits and vegetables (CAC, 2003) or
Codex pesticide residue database (CAC, 2013). 2) the legislation on fresh produce defined by the
European Union (e.g. the General Food Law Regulation (EC) 178/2002 containing requirements on
traceability, Regulation (EC) 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs, Regulation (EC) 2073/2005 on
microbiological criteria, and Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 on food contaminants. 3) the national
legislation in Kenya or Uganda and 4) the international private standards (e.g. Global GAP, BRC or
IFS).
A seven- point ordinal Likert scale was used for measurement purposes: ‘‘1–2: not important; 3–5: of
medium importance; 6–7: very important”. Also comments could be formulated by the interviewees.
The questionnaire was pilot tested for understandability, suitability of the questions and availability of
information on standards with key informants who were intentionally selected in both Kenya (n=5) and
Uganda (n=5) to include fresh produce experts from industry (representatives of produce organizations),
institutes/ laboratories and universities. These ten pilot tests resulted in discussion of content with easy
to understand and short statements. The pilot test results were not considered to be part of the
respondents for the final data collection.
6.2.2 Acquisition of respondents
Respondents were contacted via face-to-face interviews in Kenya and Uganda. These were selected
based on their availability and willingness to respond. In reference to the survey, the attention was drawn
on the fact that respondents needed to have good expertise in food safety and quality standards and also
a good insight in the impact of food safety and quality standards on the producers/exporters they work
with. For both countries, respondents were classified into three groups at the macro, meso and micro
levels as shown in Table 6.1. For each country, 15 respondents were interviewed during 2013-2014
using the paper version of the questionnaire and each interview lasted for approximately one hour. While
the results are maybe not fully representative of the whole sector or country, the study does explore the
various individual experiences and opinions about food safety standards for the fresh produce sectors in
developing countries and East African Community in particular.
6.3 Results and discussion
6.3.1 Characterization of respondents
Thirty respondents participated in the survey. In Kenya and Uganda: three respondents were classified
in the macro level group, four in the meso-level group and eight were classified in the micro level group
(for definitions of macro, meso and micro level refer to Chapter 2). In total each country had fifteen
respondents. For the respondents for the macro level group, most experts worked for governments and
government institutions, at the meso level group respondents worked for food safety authorities, research
institutes & universities and also sector associations while for the micro level group all respondents
worked for farms and export companies. All respondents were involved in fresh produce food safety
and quality in their professional function. An overview of the types of organizations they are
professionally affiliated to is given in Table 6.1.
6.3.2 Costs of implementation and certification
Figure 6.1 depicts the opinion scores of costs of implementation and certification (1= not important
(Likert scale 1, 2), 2= of medium importance (Likert scale 3, 4, 5) and 3= very important (Likert scale
6, 7) of the four types of fresh produce standards and legislation in Kenya and Uganda. For both
countries, the EU legislations were perceived to demand the highest costs of implementation. However,
the position on cost of implementation for EU legislations is more convincing in Kenya than in Uganda
with Kenya having 14 out of 15 respondents that perceived EU legislations to be very important in costs
of implementation. In both Kenya and Uganda the national standards were perceived to demand the
lowest cost of implementation with score 1 but private standards and Codex standards were of medium
importance with score 2. Respondents in Uganda also had a low important perception for
implementation costs for the Codex standards and private standards. This result supports the hypothesis
that food safety standards have an impact on the export ability of countries (Chemnitz et al., 2007; Chen
and Mattoo, 2008; Chen et al., 2006). However, as stated by different respondents in Kenya, even with
the necessary financial resources and technical equipment, the requirements of the international
standards and EU legislation in particular are still highly complex and often inscrutable for average
Kenyan farmers and exporters. Two lead exporters in Kenya stated that:
[We spend a lot of money on the EU MRLs requirements especially to ensure that our
suppliers comply right from the farms, our monthly budget always focuses on trainings,
extension services and analysis for pesticides].
.
Tab
le 6
.1: C
hara
cter
izat
ion
of th
e re
spon
dent
gro
ups f
or fo
od sa
fety
stan
dard
s sur
vey
in K
enya
and
Uga
nda
resp
ectiv
ely
K
enya
U
gand
a
Gro
up o
f res
pond
ents
N
ame/
type
of R
espo
nden
t N
umbe
r of
resp
onde
nts
Nam
e/ ty
pe o
f Res
pond
ent
Num
ber
of
resp
onde
nts
Mac
ro le
vel:
This
gro
up o
f re
spon
dent
s in
clud
es c
onsu
ltant
s
and
offic
ers
from
gov
ernm
ent a
genc
ies
that
hav
e
food
saf
ety
man
date
s. Th
ey c
oope
rate
with
oth
er
stak
ehol
ders
to
regu
late
and
gen
eral
ly a
dvis
e on
spec
ific
aspe
cts o
f saf
ety
of fr
esh
prod
uce.
Hor
ticul
tura
l Cro
ps D
evel
opm
ent A
utho
rity
1 U
gand
a N
atio
nal B
urea
u of
Sta
ndar
ds
1
Min
istry
of A
gric
ultu
re
1 M
inis
try o
f Agr
icul
ture
1
Ken
ya B
urea
u of
Sta
ndar
ds
1 N
atio
nal A
gric
ultu
ral A
dvis
ory
Serv
ices
1
Mes
o le
vel:
This
gro
up o
f re
spon
dent
s pr
ovid
es s
uppl
y ch
ain
spec
ific
serv
ices
and
gen
eric
bus
ines
s se
rvic
es to
all o
pera
tors
in th
e se
ctor
. The
y ca
n th
eref
ore
be
help
ful
in i
dent
ifyin
g w
eakn
esse
s an
d st
reng
ths
rela
ted
to f
ood
safe
ty is
sues
in th
e fre
sh p
rodu
ce
sect
or.
Fres
h pr
oduc
e Ex
porte
r Ass
ocia
tion
of K
enya
1
Uga
nda
Expo
rt Pr
omot
ion
Boa
rd
1
Expo
rt Pr
omot
ion
Cou
ncil
1 H
ortic
ultu
re P
rom
otio
n O
rgan
izat
ion
of U
gand
a 1
Ken
ya A
gric
ultu
ral R
esea
rch
Inst
itute
1
Nat
iona
l Agr
icul
ture
Res
earc
h O
rgan
izat
ion
1
Ken
ya P
lant
Hea
lth In
spec
tora
te S
ervi
ces
1 A
grib
usin
ess M
anag
emen
t Ass
ocia
tes
1
Mic
ro le
vel:
This
gro
up o
f re
spon
dent
s co
nsist
s of
gr
ower
s
and
trade
rs o
f fre
sh p
rodu
ce a
nd th
ey a
re li
kely
to
know
the
oppo
rtuni
ties
and
cons
train
ts th
ey f
ace
with
food
safe
ty st
anda
rds
East
Afri
can
Gro
wer
s 1
Ice
mar
k Lt
d 1
Ken
ya H
ortic
ultu
ral E
xpor
ters
1
Kiw
a gr
ower
s Ltd
1
Ever
est L
td
1 M
addu
farm
1
Sunr
ipe
Ltd
1 A
gape
(U) L
td
1
Ken
ya fr
esh
Ltd
1 A
gro
Fres
h Lt
d 1
Mer
u gr
ower
s Ltd
1
Ben
da fr
esh
prod
uce
Ass
ocia
tes
1
AA
A G
row
ers L
td
1 A
fri (U
) Ltd
1
Kei
th E
xpor
ters
Ltd
1
KK
fres
h pr
oduc
e ex
porte
rs lt
d 1
Tot
al n
umbe
r of
res
pond
ents
15
T
otal
num
ber
of r
espo
nden
ts
15
The implementation and certification of standards requires a public infrastructure of laboratories and
laws which guarantee public testing, monitoring and food quality management facilities (Henson and
Jaffee, 2008; Maskus et al., 2005; Okello and Roy, 2007). This is especially true in case of private
standards which include on-farm process certification, because of the sudden increase in the higher level
of requirements and the cost of compliance with respect to information, communication and
documentation involved in process certification (Henson and Jaffee, 2008; Martinez and Poole 2004;
Maskus et al., 2005)
This is in contrast to most public product standards, which have evolved gradually over time and
typically do not require sudden fundamental adjustments in farm management and on-farm certification.
Private standards and EU legislation on MRL’s on pesticide residues and moreover the EU legislations
are often more stringent than Codex Alimentarius standards (Fulponi, 2006; Henson and Humphrey,
2009; Henson and Humphrey, 2010).
EU legislations were perceived to be more associated with higher costs of implementation and
certification in Kenya than in Uganda because fresh produce products from Kenya target the premium
export market while Uganda targets the wholesale market in the EU (chapter 2).
Figure 6.1: Opinion scores on costs of implementation and certification for Kenya versus Uganda for
various food quality and food safety standards
6.3.3 Benefits of standards
The opinion scores on whether the four types of fresh produce standards and legislation were all
perceived to have more or less equal benefits (1= not important, 2= of medium importance and 3= very
important) are presented in Figure 6.2. The implementation process of standards or legislation may lead
for example to an increase farmers’ good agricultural practices knowledge. This spill-over of knowledge
was strongly acknowledged by both the experts for Kenya and Uganda. Overall Kenya is acquiring more
benefits of standards compared to Uganda and differentiation is made between the different standards.
In Kenya some experts at the macro level asserted that indeed the implementation of standards has led
to safer production practices for the farmers. One respondent from the ministry of agriculture in Kenya
said that:
[Our green bean farmers also grow tomatoes as a side business for the local market
and they are using the same good agricultural practices adopted from
implementation of standards in their tomato fields].
Kenya has a longer history of exporting fresh produce to Europe than Uganda and as a result Kenya has
strengthened its institutional food safety environment to enable actors to comply to food safety standards
(Mithofer et al., 2008; Otieno and Kigamwa, 2011; Ouma, 2010). Respondents from Kenya at the micro
level (farmers and exporters) highlighted number of benefits from complying to standards as follows:
[higher product prices; option to sell a larger quantity on the market requiring the
standard; less risk of being excluded from the market requiring the standard; higher
production yields through optimized input use/technological change and the reduction
in costs through optimized input use/technological change].
In Uganda approximately half of the respondents see benefits of standards not so convincing as those in
Kenya. In particular respondents at the macro and meso level agreed that standards are important for
accessing markets with higher prices but farmers and especially exporters at the micro level were
reactive. One exporter commented that:
[We do not have a problem with the prices we get in the ethnic markets and there is
no need to go for tough standards in high markets]
Given the nature of the main EU market served by Ugandan fruit and vegetable exporters, wholesale
markets directed at ethnic food retailers, few firms have experienced strict demands from their buyers
in terms of good practice implementation and guarantees of compliance (Rio et al., 2009) and chapter 5
elaborates how market institutions influence food safety management systems along the two export
chains in Kenya and Uganda. Some studies have also shown clear benefits about stringent food safety
and quality standards including social and environmental requirements (Asfaw et al., 2010a;
Handschuch et al., 2013; Hansen and Trifkovi , 2014; Jaffee and Masakure, 2005b; Traill and Koenig,
2010).
Figure 6.2: Opinion scores on benefits of standards in Kenya versus Uganda: spill-over of knowledge,
worker health and environmental impact for various food quality and food safety standards
6.3.4 Standards and legislation as non-tariff barrier to trade
Figure 6.3 presents the opinion scores on whether the four types of fresh produce standards and
legislation were perceived as a non-tariff barrier (NTB) to trade (1= not important, 2= of medium
importance and 3= very important). In both Kenya and Uganda, the EU legislations and private standards
were perceived by respondents to be the most important standards to be non-tariff barriers. Also for
Kenya and Uganda, national legislations and the Codex standards were perceived to be the least
important standards to be non-tariff barriers. Several studies highlight the role of standards as a barrier
to trade while others see it as a catalyst for upgrading the food safety system (Anders and Caswell,
2009; Asci et al., 2013; Asfaw et al., 2007; Beghin and Bureau, 2001). Although situations may differ
within a country and also between various chain actors. For the case of Kenya, much as the fresh produce
export sector implements majority of the EU legislations and private standards with a well-established
institutional environment they still face product rejections for their green beans (Disdier et al., 2008;
Okello and Swinton, 2007b; Otieno and Kigamwa, 2011). In December 2012, the European Commission
decided to increase to 10% the frequency of pesticide residues border controls on green beans and peas
imported from Kenya due to numerous alerts (Rapid Alert System on Foods and Feed, RASFF) issued
by the EU (PIP, 2014). Since January 1st 2013, this decision has been impacting directly on the quantity
of green beans exported to the EU. Similarly for Uganda, the EU Regulation 669/2009 imposes certain
percentages of checks including the analysis for produce from third countries considered to be a risk on
Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticides and microbiological hazards (Anonymous, 2011). In
2012, egg plants and aubergines originating from Uganda were also subjected to strict EU border checks
(RASFF, 2012).
This has implications for developing countries’ export earnings, income and in turn their quest for
sustainable development through reduction in poverty, unemployment and smallholder producers’
inclusively in the trajectory of development (Idowu, 2014). This highlights the importance of technical
assistance and support for developing countries to overcome these barriers.
Figure 6.3: Opinion scores on standards and legislation as non-tariff barrier to trade (NTB) in Kenya versus
Uganda for various food quality and food safety standards
6.3.5 Exclusion from high value markets due to stringent standards
Figure 6.4 presents the opinion scores on whether the four types of fresh produce standards and
legislation were perceived to be a source of exclusion from high value markets due to stringent standards
(1= not important, 2= of medium importance and 3= very important). For both countries, the EU
legislations and private standards were perceived to be the most important standards for exclusion from
high value markets due to their stringency. On the other hand, for both Kenyan and Ugandan respondents
the national legislations and the Codex standards were perceived to be the least important standards for
exclusion from high value markets due their low level of stringency. This is explained by the fact that
the Kenyan fresh produce export sector has focused on the EU premium fresh produce market where
the food safety demands are higher and retailers are the lead players. The strong development of
individual or collective private retailer standards imposed on the suppliers is the main driver of exclusion
from high value markets because of the need for vertical integration. Consequently, the higher the degree
of coordination in the supply chain, the greater the motivation for the supplier to adopt to more food
safety demands (Codron et al., 2003; Emlinger et al., 2010). Special attention is paid both to private
regulation in customer countries which may be more restrictive than public regulation for exporting
industries – this is the case in some European countries where consumers are greatly concerned by
chemical contamination – and to the strength of local institutions and market forces (Codron et al.,
2014a; Fulponi, 2006; Henson and Hooker, 2001). This was the case for small green bean farmers in
Kenya when the traders first adopted the Global GAP standard, many of them were excluded from the
export supply chain to the EU because they were not complying to the requirements (Asfaw et al., 2010b;
Humphrey, 2009). Conversely, for the case of Uganda given the low market incentives for exporting to
the premium fresh produce markets, traders have consistently targeted the less demanding whole sale
markets which do not provide them strong motivation to adopt stringent food safety requirements (Rio
et al., 2009).
Figure 6.4: Opinion scores on exclusion from high value markets due to stringent standards in Kenya
versus Uganda for various food quality and food safety standards
6.3.6 Harmonization of standards
Figure 6.5 presents the opinion scores on whether the four types of fresh produce standards and
legislation were to be harmonized (1= not important, 2= of medium importance and 3= very important).
Majority of the respondents from Kenya and Uganda agreed that harmonization of standards and
legislation is very important to reduce the impact of standards as a NTB to trade. For Kenya, the EU
legislations and private standards were perceived to be the most important standards for harmonization
while in Uganda private standards were very important. For both countries, respondents agreed that it
was not that important to harmonize national standards. For most developing countries, the demands for
stringent food safety and quality standards should be accompanied with technical support from
developed countries that are focused on capacity building for easier compliance with standards while
managing the unintended consequences of standards, especially for small producers. Mutual recognition
is, however, not an option if there are significant differences in the priority standards of the countries.
For example in the case of the EU fresh produce market where conflicting requirements especially on
pesticide residues do exist: with the normal EU MRLs limits and for the retailers theirs goes to 30%
below the normal set MRLs. One wonders how farmers are to practically respond to such scenarios. In
such cases, some degree of standard harmonization is a precondition for countries to allow products of
other countries to access their markets (Beulens et al., 2005; Engler et al., 2012; Vellema and van Wijk,
2015). Specifically in the case of harmonization of food regulations, the EU has sought to remove
differences in national regulations on a common set of binding requirements in the form of detailed
directives for a single or group of products. This also could be adopted regionally in other parts of the
world like the East African Community for the case of Kenya and Uganda as long as it leads to
significant increases in trade between EAC participating countries.
Figure 6.5: Opinion scores on harmonization of standards in Kenya versus Uganda for various food
quality and food safety standards
6.3.7 Standards requirements demanding the most efforts
Figure 6.6 presents the opinion scores on the four types of fresh produce standards and legislation that
were perceived to demand the most efforts (1= not important, 2= of medium importance and 3= very
important). In both Kenya and Uganda, sampling and analysis, pesticide residues and free of pests and
diseases were the most important requirements demanding the most efforts. For the rest of the
requirements, Kenya had more respondents who perceived them very important compared to Uganda.
Water control was the only exceptional requirement between the two countries. This is explained by the
fact that majority of the fresh produce production is intensive and most farms greatly depend on
irrigation unlike in Uganda where fresh produce production is rain dependent (Okello and Swinton,
2007b; Ouma, 2010; Rio et al., 2009). Also in Kenya and Uganda, absence of foreign matters and
packaging requirements were the least important requirements in effort demands. The effort by a country
to implement certain public or private standards will depend on the initial level of the food safety system
that the country has in place. If the level of the country’s food safety system is sophisticated and well
developed, the required effort will be minimal (just like the case of the fresh produce sector in Kenya)
while if country’s food safety system is rather basic, the required efforts will be high (like for the case
of the fresh produce sector in Uganda as demonstrated in chapter 5 (Humphrey, 2009; Rio et al., 2009).
Furthermore, developed country suppliers will therefore tend to have lower costs of compliance than
developing country suppliers (Henson and Jaffee, 2008; Martinez and Poole 2004).
Figure 6.6: Opinion scores on standards requirements demanding the most efforts in Kenya versus Uganda
for various food quality and food safety standards
6.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, opinions of thirty fresh produce supply chain experts working in Kenya and Uganda on
food standards for fresh produce were collected. Overall, the 15 experts in Kenya were more proactive
compared to the 15 experts in Uganda with a reactive position on food standards. The demanding role
of private standards and EU legislation was highlighted: they were perceived as the most costly and
difficult to implement by both Kenyan and Ugandan stakeholders although higher perceived by Kenya
than by Uganda because of the different export destination markets in the EU. This situation is seen to
have a profound effect on the structure (e.g. consolidation, vertical coordination) and the organization
(e.g. third party certification) of the fresh produce supply chain (refer to Chapter 2: micro, meso, macro
levels of the supply chain).
Standards were also seen both as non-tariff barrier to trade especially for the case of Uganda where
experts confessed that they cannot go for the premium export markets in the EU due to their stringent
requirements compared to the whole fresh produce markets. International harmonization of food safety
standards was highlighted to reduce the effect of standards as non-tariff barrier to trade. Complying with
food safety and quality standards may be often perceived as a strong burden but advantages, besides
assurance of food safety and quality include; adoption of improved technology with spillover benefits
for staple crops (Minten et al., 2009), higher or more stable labor income (Maertens et al., 2009;
Maertens and Swinnen, 2009), or improved health through reduced on-farm exposure to pesticides
(Asfaw et al., 2009; Kersting and Wollni, 2012b; Okello and Swinton, 2009).
African countries’ agricultural policy agenda must include partnership and alliances with national,
regional and international institutions in order to support and assist in improving technology, institutions
and human capacity for standards compliance, particularly among the commercial and smallholder
farmers. Enabling institutional, regulatory and domestic policies that will stimulate quality outputs for
export must be designed and adequately implemented. Thus, this study proposes well-structured export
technical regulatory policy for the fresh produce sector in Uganda where it is mildly available and for
the case of Kenya, it should be further improved upon.
Chapter 7
General Discussion, Conclusions, and Future
Perspectives
7.1 Rationale of fresh produce safety in the international trade and East African
Community
Fresh produce (whole fresh fruits and vegetables and their minimally processed products) is an
important part of a healthy diet. The consumption of fresh produce is known to have a protective health
effect against a range of illnesses such as cancers, obesity and cardiovascular diseases (Amiot and
Lairon, 2008; Bazzano, 2008; Block et al., 1992; Giaconi et al., 2012). Despite the beneficial health
effects of fresh produce, there is a growing awareness concerning its microbial and chemical food safety
(Lynch, 2009; Strawn, 2011). Health risks related to microbial hazards such as Salmonella spp.,
verotoxin producing Escherichia coli (VTEC) and norovirus (NoV) increasingly support this allegation
(Berger, 2010; FAO/WHO, 2008; Sivapalasingam, 2004). In the EU, vegetables were implicated in 39
outbreaks in 2012 and the causative agents were primarily viruses (25.6 %), and Salmonella (23.1 %)
(EFSA/ECDC, 2014). Besides very severe consequences for public health, such outbreaks also have a
significant economic impact (Calvin, 2004; WHO, 2011). Other food safety issues such as pesticide
residues and mycotoxins are increasingly becoming a concern for the fresh produce supply chain
(Domingo and Gine Bordonaba, 2011; Magnuson, 2011; Tait, 2001; Van de Perre et al., 2015;
VanBoxstael et al., 2013) (Figure 7.1). Currently, there is an increase in international trade of fresh
fruits and vegetables as demonstrated in Chapter 1 (FAOSTAT, 2012). As a result, developing countries
have equally experienced an increase in exports of non-traditional crop products (Diop and Jaffee, 2005;
Neeliah et al., 2013; World Bank, 2005). Consumers in developed countries have raised serious concerns
about the safety of fresh produce, often related to inadequate sanitation, hygiene deficiencies, and
improper production practices (Baert et al., 2011; DeWaal and Bhuiya, 2007; Trienekens and Zuurbier,
2008), and the increased risks associated with global sourcing which is nowadays typical for most fresh
produce supply chains. The perceived food safety risks and pesticide-related concerns for consumption
of fresh produce probably have the greatest implications for trade and the organization of fresh produce
supply chains around the world (Uyttendaele et al., 2015). Consequently, unprecedented requirements
are put to control and guarantee food safety throughout the global fresh produce supply chain. For
instance, the recent proliferation and strengthening of food safety and quality requirements (e.g. Codex
Alimentarius standards at international level, EU food safety legislations, voluntary Quality Assurance
standards like ISO 22000 and Global G.A.P, Private labels and Brand labels) as demanded by various
stakeholders along the fresh produce supply chain (Chapter 6). Moreover, information in the functioning
of FSMS in fresh produce chains in developing countries is still limited. Figure 7.1 illustrates the
interplay of issues regarding the rationale of fresh produce safety in the international trade and East
African Community. Against this background, the overall objective of this thesis was to assess the status
of the fresh produce sector(s) FSMS in the East African Community with specific focus to the green
bean and hot pepper chains in Kenya and Uganda respectively in view of their different export trends in
the global fresh produce market.
Figure 7.1: Interplay of issues regarding the rationale of fresh produce safety in the international trade and East African Community
US$ 55.8 millions
US$ 0.5 millions
7.2 Major research findings
To determine the economic relevancy of the East African Community in the global fresh
produce market; and the fresh produce export performance of Kenya and Uganda compared to
other EAC member states.
To examine the impact of the organization of the fresh produce supply chain on the adoption of
FSMS in the hot pepper chain in Uganda.
To analyze the influence of food safety standards certification on the level of performance of
FSMS in the green bean and hot pepper chains in Kenya and Uganda respectively.
To compare the performance of FSMS along the green bean and hot pepper chains in Kenya
and Uganda respectively.
To evaluate the relevancy of food safety standards in the fresh produce sector(s) in Kenya and
Uganda in view of food sovereignty discussion.
7.2.1 Economic relevancy of the fresh produce trade in Kenya and Uganda
In general, the East African Community as a trade bloc, and benefits from the production and trade of
fresh produce as each member state has participated in the global fresh produce market respectively.
However, out of the five member states, Kenya has exceedingly performed better than the rest in export
value (61 %) as seen in Chapter 1.
In Kenya, green beans are the top vegetable export product and in 2011 they accounted for 29 % that
is, KSh 4 billion of Kenya’s total vegetable export earnings worth KSh 13.7 billion (HCDA., 2010). The
fresh bean production is mainly dominated by smallholder farmers, estimated at 50,000 growers, who
are mainly households with less than 2 acres of land. These farmers have greatly gained from fresh bean
cultivation through employment and income earned from the sale of crops. However, due to increased
exports of green beans, the sub-sector has grown from its base of small businesses and small farmers, to
being dominated by very sophisticated businesses that are becoming increasingly vertically integrated.
As such, the increasing foreign exchange earnings from the green bean sub-sector have propelled public-
private partnerships to provide incentives to the stakeholders. For example, increased exports in green
beans have created regulatory changes, improved infrastructure, a competitive labor force with good
education and technical background in horticulture. Another key benefit has been the lobbying efforts
of the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK) which partnered with the Kenyan
government to expand the fresh produce terminal at the Nairobi airport, thus, improving the
competitiveness of the fresh vegetable exports (SNV., 2012). Moreover, the fact that Kenya has a sea-
port also makes transportation costs of green beans to the international markets cheaper compared to the
case of Uganda which is land locked and depends on high freight charges to export its hot peppers.
In Uganda, given the industry’s small size ($4.7 million, the value of exports to the EU in 2007) (Chapter
1), low profitability, and fragile competitive position in the European markets, it is difficult to see how
horticultural exports have yielded significant gains in terms of rural income and employment. A few
thousands smallholders are irregularly involved in supplying this trade. Some recent gains have been
made in exports, notably hot peppers with only US$ 0.5 million in export value in 2013 (UEPB, 2013a),
yet overall the industry is probably falling farther behind its main competition from within and outside
of Africa. In spite of various donor efforts, the horticulture sector in Uganda has attracted quite few
investors with relevant experience, managerial capacity, and/or ample access to financial resources. The
available evidence suggests that most firms have very limited capacity to absorb the donor assistance
and, more importantly, to translate it into more competitive and sustainable operations. With limited
exceptions, increased awareness and knowledge has not been translated into improved practices along
the value chain, predominantly because exporters in Uganda lack the financial resources to invest in
improved and sustained upgrading of the physical facilities, operating systems and ongoing training of
staff (Luz Diaz Rios et al., 2009). The above two case scenarios for Kenya and Uganda, imply that the
more economic benefits from the fresh produce trade, the more investments and attention will be
accorded to make the industry more competitive.
7.2.2 Impact of the organization of the fresh produce supply chain on the adoption of
FSMS in Kenya and Uganda
The organisation of the hot pepper supply chain at the micro, meso and macro levels and how it impacts
on assurance of food safety in Uganda was investigated in Chapter 2. This research revealed that the hot
pepper supply chain in Uganda still has constraints impacting on food safety and quality so as to access
the premium export market in EU. These findings concur with previous studies conducted in other
developing countries (De Battisti et al., 2009; Henson et al., 2011a; Mithofer et al., 2008; Neeliah and
Goburdhun, 2010; Ouma, 2010) which concluded that food safety is usually a concern, especially in
the fresh produce trade. Hot pepper farmers and exporters in Uganda revealed a lack of awareness of
food safety requirements for the fresh produce sector as a major challenge at the micro level.
Furthermore, majority of the hot pepper exporters in Uganda are small to medium companies with
limited vertical integration, and hence limited control over the chain. The absence of stronger and more
established producer organizations at the meso level for the numerous small-scale hot peppers farmers
in Uganda hinders information dissemination with regard to export standards required by commercial
customers (Chapter 2). Finally, the underlying constraint at the macro-level for the hot peppers supply
chain is that Uganda’s legislative body which pertains to food safety, agriculture, public health, and
compliance control with international sanitary, phytosanitary measures and technical barriers to trade
matters is in a state of transition, with many areas covered by obsolete legislation, other areas are still
facing a legal or regulatory vacuum, and a large queue of draft bills and policies are positioned at various
points in the national legislative process (Jaffee, 2006) and this is still the case to-date.
However, the situation in Kenya is different when it comes to organization of the fresh produce supply
chain. The green bean sub-sector is governed by various public and private institutions with legal and
institutional mandates, and has articulated the sub-sector’s visions within three mandates. Public
institutions established under various statutes have a national mandate on various regulatory aspects
with view of improving service delivery as well as providing an enabling environment for the sector to
remain competitive locally and internationally. Private institutions are based on voluntary membership
and focus on self-regulation and advocacy; there are also commodity based associations (SNV., 2012).
A brief overview of what has transpired over the years in the organization of the fresh produce supply
chain in Kenya at the micro, meso and macro level is discussed below, detailed information on the
Ugandan case is described in Chapter 2. Table 7.1 summarizes a comparison about the organization of
the fresh produce supply in Kenya and Uganda at the micro, meso, and macro levels (SNV., 2012).
Micro-level: In order to survive the effect of standards, some smallholder farmers have adopted two
non-market institutional arrangements for overcoming the screening effects of standards on smallholder
farmers namely, collective action and public-private partnerships. As a group, smallholders invested in
facilities needed to comply with European Food Safety Standards (EFSS) at major CCPs thus reducing
their per-person costs of meeting EFSS. Similarly, smallholder farmers sought certification (especially
for Global G.A.P) jointly in order to demonstrate compliance with EFSSS, though mostly with external
support from governments, private sector or partnership of the two (i.e., public-private partnerships). To
maintain the participation of smallholder farmers in the green bean chain, public-private partnerships
(PPPs) have mainly focused on provision of information, financial support (for investment in lump
assets), and capacity building (through financing audits and certification for Global G.A.P compliance
and the construction of grading facilities) to smallholders.
There has been crucial donor support to the chain in terms of building up national
certification capacities and certifying smallholder farmer groups. For instance, in 2005, an
internationally accredited local certification body (Africert) was established with the assistance of the
German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and an international agricultural research institute to lower the
costs of GLOBAL G.A.P. certification and some other standards. So as to lower the costs of analyzing
pesticide residues, as required by GLOBAL G.A.P., the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services
(KEPHIS) was accredited to ISO17025 in 2006, which is the benchmark for phytosanitary testing
services under the standard scheme. Transnationally connected expert networks, coordinated by the
European Union and the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), among others, also
mainstreamed implementation know-how among Fresh Produce Exporters Association Kenya
(FPEAK), policymakers, service providers, exporters, and farmer groups (Ouma, 2010).
Macro-level: From 2003 onward, international development organizations, the industry association
FPEAK, a National Technical Committee on Global G.A.P, and the National Horticultural Task Force
(NHTF) have played a significant role in shaping adjustment dynamics in the subsector. The
development of the National Horticultural policy in 2010 has played a key role in the fresh produce
sector. The policy analyses the various industries concerns and highlights the challenges they face. It
offers policy interventions for production, support services (financing the industry, research and
extension), marketing (local, regional and export markets), infrastructure as well as regulatory and
institutional arrangements (SNV., 2012).
From this comparison, it is evident that the organization of the fresh produce supply chain in Kenya and
Uganda has an important bearing on their capacity to implement satisfactory FSMS (Table 7.1). On one
hand, for the case of Uganda, improvements on the existing basic food safety management systems
along the hot pepper chain towards satisfactory FSMS output can be achieved comprehensively only if
interventions in the current gaps at the micro, meso and macro levels of organization of the fresh produce
supply chain are considered. On the other hand, Kenya illustrates that sustained implementation of
satisfactory FSMS output is highly dependent upon the capacities of the industry to overcome
competitive and compliance challenges at all the three levels.
Table 7.1: A comparison of the organization of the fresh produce supply in Kenya and Uganda at the micro, meso and macro levels
Kenya Uganda (summary based on chapter 2) Micro level
• • • • • •
• • • •
Meso level •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Macro level •
•
•
• •
•
7.2.3 FSMS performance on certified farms in Kenya and non-certified farms in Uganda
The role of certification of food safety standards on the maturity of food safety management systems at
primary production is investigated in chapter 4 of this research study. Certified green bean growers in
Kenya have more mature and tailored food safety management systems practices compared to the non-
certified hot pepper growers in Uganda with basic systems and where many control and assurance
activities are not yet elaborated. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of certification to food
standards in improving food safety practices and guaranteeing easy access to trade in the international
markets (De Battisti et al., 2009; García and Poole, 2004; Handschuch et al., 2013; Henson et al., 2011a;
Henson et al., 2005; Jaffee and Masakure, 2005b). In addition, chapter 4 highlights that certification
enables farmers to have better insights in the performance of their systems output through external and
internal evaluations. This helps them to have practical knowledge about the safety, hygiene and quality
of their fresh produce. However, the outcome of FSMS performance in certified farms in Kenya and
non-certified farms in Uganda reflects on the kind of enabling and supportive environment that exists in
the two countries. More work has been done in Kenya at the meso and macro levels to support
smallholder farmers into complying with food standards which has positively influenced the
performance of their FSMS (Table 7.1). Several institutions in the government and private sector players
mentioned in the sections above have helped green bean farmers to be certified to food safety standards.
In Uganda, dedicated programs focusing simply on standards compliance (or, more narrowly,
certification) to improve the performance of FSMS are not likely to be successful in the context of the
emergent (immature) fresh produce sector. Efforts to promote GAP and associated systems of record
keeping and traceability are more likely to be successful where: a) farmers have reliable market outlets,
b) the basic agronomic challenges for the focal crop(s) have been well addressed, and c) provision of
strong incentives for farmers to adjust practices and make investments as per the recommendations or
urgings of buyers. Thus, government interventions focused on standards compliance and related
upgrading are likely to have greater and more sustainable impact when applied in contexts where many
other technical and supply chain problems have been resolved and where there are clear market signals
that compliance is demanded. In circumstances where more fundamental constraints are still unsolved,
efforts to build awareness and capacity for standards management need to go hand in hand with
complementary measures. Much as this has not been the case in the fresh produce export context in
Uganda, the government has managed to do it in other sectors for example; the fish export, coffee export,
and the organic fresh produce sectors. Furthermore, some studies have highlighted the need for
promoting capacity building within companies in emerging and developing countries to enable them to
respond to the stringent requirements of private brand standards. Moreover, the legislative framework
in these countries still requires improvements in the establishment and enforcement. All this has negative
consequences for the FSMS in companies supplying the international markets (de Quadros Rodrigues
et al., 2014; Kirezieva et al., 2014c; Sawe et al., 2014).
7.2.4 FSMS chain performance for producers and traders in Kenya and Uganda
Achieving mature and efficient food safety management systems is linked to a well-established enabling
environment within a country to respond to the market and institutional forces from the target export
destination. FSMS chain performance improves along the green bean chain from an average FSMS at
the farm level to an advanced FSMS at trade level (Chapter 5). This result implies that the well-organized
fresh produce supply chain at the micro, meso and macro levels in Kenya is a key factor in responding
to the institutional and market forces imposed by buyers of green beans in the strict premium European
markets. As such, this has led Kenya and Uganda to have different strategies for risk management of the
pesticide issues, which they have recently been facing as elaborated below.
In December 2012, the European Commission decided to increase up to 10% the frequency of pesticide
residues border controls on green beans and peas imported from Kenya due to numerous alerts (Rapid
Alert System on Foods and Feed, RASFF) issued by the EU (PIP, 2014). Since 1st January 2013, this
decision has been impacting directly on the way farmers and traders are implementing their FSMS. As
an institutionary response, the national food safety coordinating committee (NFSCC) and fresh produce
stakeholders in Kenya have organized themselves to address the Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) crisis
and develop long and short-term solutions. Particular focus has been put on intensifying the frequency
of testing for pesticides residues at sector level. Despite the negative externalities on Kenya’s reputation
that arose when green bean exporters were controlled at the EU border with an excess of pesticide
residues, efforts to comply with residue constraints have been collective at all levels of organization of
the fresh produce supply chain in Kenya unlike in the case of Uganda.
In Uganda, there were rapid alert notifications on fresh produce in 2012 and in particular egg-plants
originating from Uganda were subjected to EU border rejections (RASFF, 2012). Furthermore, as recent
as the early 2015, hot peppers have been shortlisted for having unacceptable pesticide residues at the
EU border. However, there is a state of panic in the fresh produce supply chain in Uganda because
stakeholders are unaware of the proactive measures to take in order to address this problem. Moreover,
the government’s short term response has been to ban the exportation of hot peppers to the EU by export
companies, a move which is not sustainable considering the large number of small scale farmers who
have been earning their income from the hot pepper export sub sector.
The above two scenarios show that not only does the organization of the supply chain affect the
performance of FSMS for fresh produce in developing countries, but also the capacity of the country to
efficiently respond to managing food safety risks that may affect the economic status of the country.
From this research study, it is evident that the pressures and forces from the global markets transmitted
through the broad food safety regulation and enforcement networks have had an important bearing on
the performance of food safety management systems along fresh produce chains in developing countries.
Apart from the smallholder farmers and exporters in both Kenya and Uganda that were affected directly
with the pesticide warnings from the EU, other chain stakeholders have also responded to market forces
in order to promote and support improvements in the production controls for fresh produce to ensure
that they continue to compete at the international level.
7.2.5 Opinions on the fresh produce food safety and quality standards
In recent years, official regulations and private sector standards have evolved in parallel, leading to more
stringent requisites for producers and exporters covering a wide range of sanitary, phytosanitary and
quality-related (SPSQ) regulations and standards, effectively reshaping the governance structure of
global agri-food export chains (Henson et al., 2011a; Henson and Humphrey, 2010; Ouma, 2010).
The question is whether these requirements have made sense from the bottom to top (farmers and
exporters at the bottom to the importers and retailers at the top) governance structure in the global value
chains. While in the EU FP7 funded Veg-i-Trade project, Jacxsens et al., (2015b) investigated opinions
on the fresh produce food safety and quality standards from the global perspective, in this research study
a similar study was done in Chapter 6 but for Kenya and Uganda. The demanding role of private
standards and EU legislation was highlighted and they were perceived as the most costly and difficult
to implement compared to the rest of the world by stakeholders in both Kenya and Uganda. However,
there are stronger opinions of Kenya concerning cost and difficulty to implement private standard and
EU legislation than Uganda because Kenya’s exports are targeting the premium markets in the EU. This
situation is seen to have a profound effect on the structure (e.g. consolidation, vertical coordination) and
the organization (e.g. third party certification) of the fresh produce supply chain between both countries
as discussed in the above sections. In Kenya while more respondents perceived food standards a catalyst
for implementation of structured food safety management systems, in Uganda more respondents
perceived them as a nontariff barrier to trade. In addition respondents in Kenya highlighted the
advantages of enforcing food safety and food quality standards in terms of knowledge spillover to the
non-export oriented vegetable chains where thus also good agricultural practices are being implemented,
leading to increased revenues, and improved food safety of delivered produce, also for local market.
Overall, the opinions of experts in Kenya concerning the fresh produce food safety and quality standards
were proactive while those for experts in Uganda were reactive. This attributed to the fact that in Kenya
the farms and export companies have been sophisticated and well developed to meet the more stringent
requirements in the EU premium markets which thus they view the required efforts worthy the benefits
from more export revenues. In Uganda, in most farms and export companies the systems for ensuring
food safety in fresh produce production or trade are not fully developed or do not exist yet as a formal
written system, which makes actors to perceive the required efforts much higher in premium markets.
Moreover, they prefer to keep their status quo in wholesale markets which are less demanding in food
safety requirements.
7.3 Lessons learned and the way forward What can we learn from this comparison study on Kenya and Uganda in terms of the performance of
their FSMS in the fresh produce chain considering their different contexts?
7.3.1 The situation in Kenya
Kenya has been exporting fresh vegetables to Europe since the 1950s. The reasons for Kenya’s success
have varied with the changing market forces of the highly competitive UK and European markets. In
particular, the green bean subsector success in improving the performance of its FSMS has been
attributed to market segmentation, investing in certification schemes, adding value to products through
sophisticated packaging, servicing niche markets and investing in marketing activities. Over the years,
due to effective public-private dialogue, the government of Kenya has been receptive to implementing
regulatory changes, investing in education, and improving infrastructure, which have increased the
competitiveness of the industry.
In addition, the development of the National Horticultural policy in 2010 has played a key role in the
fresh produce sector. The policy analyzed the various industries concerns and highlights the challenges
they face. It offers policy interventions for production, support services (financing the industry, research
and extension), marketing (local, regional and export markets), infrastructure as well as regulatory and
institutional arrangements. A number of exporters have also invested heavily in growing their own high
quality, certified vegetables to take advantage of the increased market opportunities for high quality
produce. The experiences in the green bean chain in Kenya illustrate how improved food safety can be
achieved, and how this supports improved livelihoods. The good systems output along the green bean
supply chain in Kenya demonstrate that good collaborations at the micro, meso, and macro levels of the
fresh produce supply chain make it feasible to attain such improvements in developing countries. It also
demonstrates how improvement in FSMS leads to higher incomes for developing country smallholders.
Finally, the livelihood economic impacts in Kenya from the green bean export chain are positive but
ultimately these only accrue to a relatively small number of households. In a country where famine and
drought have greatly affected food security for its citizens, the government of Kenya needs to prioritize
the limited available arable land towards assuring more food crop production for domestic consumption
than cash food production for the export market. Moreover, the fact that Kenya has also recently faced
pesticide issues for the green beans in the EU market, the actors at the micro level should continue to
improve their FSMS in a more sustainable way to guarantee safety of the green beans for both the
domestic and export markets.
7.3.2 The situation in Uganda
Uganda has barely benefited from its scanty hot pepper exports to the European market but it has enjoyed
sufficient food production for domestic consumption and has continued to be a stronghold in staple food
production in the East African region. However, the current situation shows that food safety compliance
and enforcement for both the export and domestic markets is weak. The government of Uganda needs
to prioritize establishing a legal framework to handle food safety issues as well as an enforcement
strategy that will guarantee food safety improvements while also strengthening food security and
supporting improved productivity and livelihoods.
The question is how can the hot pepper chain and/ or conventional fresh produce sector in Uganda evolve
more quickly and more efficiently towards improved food safety management systems? In other words,
how can the process of market modernization, which includes improved food production systems, and
food safety management systems be supported and encouraged? This research suggests three take-away
lessons from the literature and observations during field surveys. These lessons are necessarily
speculative, and thus also imply areas for future research.
First, the government of Uganda has to appreciate that a national legal framework on food safety is very
important to guide food safety policy design, as it provides the foundation for any actions on the
enforcement strategy to improve food safety practices. Also a national legal framework on food safety
is used to design food safety policy interventions and risk management systems. For example, since the
late 2014 and currently in 2015, Uganda has been facing a challenge of excess MRLs of pesticides that
has hit hard on the hot pepper subsector to the extent of the government issuing a public ban on all hot
pepper exports to the EU market. However, this has created panic both within the government and the
stakeholders involved because there is lack of a national platform to address this challenge. Therefore,
the government of Uganda needs to develop public capacity for risk prioritization to inform any public
interventions. This is well elaborated in the case of Kenya when they faced the same challenge for the
green beans between 2012 and 2013.
The second take-away is that, investments are required both in the private and public sectors in order
to support chain actors in the hot pepper chain to comply with agro-food standards required for accessing
markets. Uganda needs to invest substantially in supporting the competitiveness of horticultural value
chains with export potential. In the hot pepper chain, there is an urgent need to invest in export-oriented
support services related to conformity of products to market requirements in order to expand trade and
earn higher returns. In particular, capacity building on FSMS implementation at farm and trade levels is
paramount. The government of Uganda can adapt the same success lessons it has applied to improve
food safety regulation and performance from two export chains namely; the organic fresh produce
subsector and the tilapia fish export chain which faced food safety related bans in the EU export market
(refer to Chapter 2). Another important aspect is to foster public-private partnerships to investigate what
is feasible and to address weak enforcement capacity in Uganda through leveraging industry incentives.
In Kenya, this has worked well and it has been revealed that a strong private-public partnership role in
food safety regulations for export in the fresh produce sector has been important in the adoption of
approaches that are acceptable to the private sector and viable in practice to enable actors comply with
the higher food safety demands.
The third take-away is to understand that implementing effective FSMS at hot pepper farms and export
companies will require proper coordination along the supply chain, so as to ensure that risk-reducing
practices are followed. In particular, producer organizations for new farmer groups have to be introduced
to facilitate coordination of food control and assurance activities. Effective coordination of hot pepper
actors will enable handling and hygiene practices during harvesting, grading and packing of hot peppers
to be closely monitored. However, there are still significant hurdles to overcome in implementation of
improved FSMS in Uganda where the prevailing traditional based food system still dominates in the
country. For instance, during the diagnostic tool surveys the indicator on assurance activities that require
farmers to keep records on the type and quality of inputs used was not in place for majority of the hot
pepper farmers in Uganda. Keeping most of these records requires special skills and functional literacy,
and is therefore a significant hurdle to the illiterate and low skilled farmers. There is therefore need for
training and sensitizing farmers on farm level documentation and record keeping in the simplest ways
possible and also adherence to hygiene practices to maintain product quality and safety. In addition,
deliberate efforts by hot pepper farmers and exporters should be made towards investments so as to
increase the produce shelf life, reduce post-harvest losses, and improve acceptance in the international
markets. Particular areas which need improvement include but not limited to; use of non-refrigerated
trucks and motor bikes to transport hot peppers from long distances to export companies, poor handling
premises used to handle the peppers at export company facilities (sorting is done in open space without
temperature controlled conditions and on floor fiber mats), workers do not wear special clothes and
rubber boots in the sorting sheds and they are also not required to wash hands at regular intervals. The
specific recommendations at all the three levels of the supply chain in Uganda are summarised in figure
7.2.
This PhD study has contributed to the advancement of knowledge on FSMS by applying the FSMS
diagnostic instruments for the global context to fresh produce supply chains in two East African
countries on a sector level. This study can be replicated for other food sectors in other African countries
with an aim of setting up sector based recommendations for improvement of FSMS in different food
sectors.
Figure 7.2: Specific recommendations at all the three levels of the fresh produce supply chain in Uganda
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • • •
• • • •
• • • •
7.3.3 Limitations and future research
The results of the present study are undoubtedly meaningful for a better explanation and understanding
of the cross-country differences in modalities and incentives for implementation of Food Safety
Management Systems (FSMS) in the supply chain at both the farm and trade levels in the two East
African neighboring countries. Nonetheless, the choice for a specific research design, with its
corresponding materials and methods also imposed some limitations on this doctoral research.
The cross-sectional data were obtained from a representative sample of respondents from Kenya and
Uganda. These countries are rather few, which could have its drawbacks with respect to the validity of
a generalization of our findings for the rest of the other three East African Community member states
(Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania) not included in this study. Future research focusing on FSMS
assessments including all other EAC member states (Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania with their top
export fruits and vegetables) apart from only Kenya and Uganda is recommended.
This broad type of study on FSMS assessments across the five EAC member states would yield three
results; i) A well elaborated sector based insight into the performance of FSMS for fresh produce in
EAC and ii) A detailed assessment of the role of micro, meso and macro organization levels of the
supply chain towards the implementation of sustainable FSMS practices for fresh produce in the EAC
and iii) A detailed guideline on possible improvements on the performance of the FSMS in the fresh
produce sector in the EAC.
All these findings from the FSMS surveys that were done relate with the FSMS diagnostic tools, as
research tools, which the respondents in both Kenya and Uganda found to be quite lengthy, thus, making
it hard for them to focus during the interviews. Especially for the case of Uganda, the farmers found
some difficulty in fully understanding all the terminologies used in the FSMS diagnostic tools. Therefore
a simpler version of the FSMS diagnostic tool is recommended for the small scale farmers with low
literacy levels in developing countries. The tool would be applied as a stand-alone tool for internal self-
checking as often required in QA standards to prepare for third party audits.
Finally, quite a number of scientific studies have been conducted on food safety issues of the fresh
produce supply chain in Kenya while in Uganda most of work done about the fresh produce supply chain
is grey literature (government reports and NGO reports). This has made it difficult to have substantial
and recent scientific based literature to exhaustively compare these two case study countries.
References
Abadias, M., Usall, J., Anguera, M., Solsona, C., and Viñas, I. (2008). Microbiological quality of fresh,
minimally-processed fruit and vegetables, and sprouts from retail establishments. International Journal of Food Microbiology 123, 121-129.
Ait Hou, M., Grazia, C., and Malorgio, G. (2015). Food safety standards and international supply chain organization: A case study of the Moroccan fruit and vegetable exports. Food Control 55, 190-199.
Alli, I. (2003). "Food quality assurance: principles and practices," CRC Press LL, Washington, D.C. Amiot, M. J., and Lairon, D. (2008). 5 - Fruit and vegetables, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and
obesity. In "Improving the Health-Promoting Properties of Fruit and Vegetable Products" (F. A. Tomás-Barberán and M. I. Gil, eds.), pp. 95-118. Woodhead Publishing.
Anders, S., and Caswell, J. (2009). Standards as Barriers versus Standards as Catalysts: assessing the Impact of HACCP implementation on U.S. seafood imports. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91, 310–321.
Anonymous (2011). Commission Regulation (EC) No 187/2011 of 25 February 2011 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin. pp. 45-50. Official Journal of the European Union.
Aramyan, L., Ondersteijn, C., van Kooten, O., and Lansink, A. O. (2006). "Performance indicators in agri-food production chains."
Asci, S., Ali Koc, A., and Sukru Erdem, M. (2013). The Impact of Non-Tariff Barriers on Trade:The Gravity Model of Turkish Agri-Food Producers, Poster Prepared for Presentation at the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s 2013
AAEAA and CAES Joint Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., August. Asfaw, S., Mithofer, D., and Waibel, H. (2010a). Agrifood supply chain, private-sector standards, and
farmers' health: evidence from Kenya. Agric. Econ, 251-263. Asfaw, S., Mithöfer, D., and Waibel, H. (2009). EU food safety standards, pesticide use and farm-
levelproductivity: the caseof high-value crops in Kenya. Agriculture Economics 60, 645–667. Asfaw, S., Mithöfer, D., and Weibel, H. (2010b). What impact are EU supermarket standards having on
developing countries export of high value horticultural products? Evidence from Kenya. Int. Food Agribusiness Marketing 22, 262–276.
Asfaw, S., Mithofer, D., and Weibet , H. (2007). "What Impact Are EU Supermarket Standards Having on Developing Countries Export of High – Value Horticultural Products?: Evidence from Kenya”, Contributed Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 105th EAAE Seminar “International Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food Products”, Bologna, Italy, March.
Aung, M. M., and Chang, Y. S. (2014). Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 39, 172-184.
Baert, L., Mattison, K., Loisy-Hamon, F., Harlow, J., Martyres, A., Lebeau, B., Stals, A., Van Coillie, E., Herman, L., and Uyttendaele, M. (2011). Review: Norovirus prevalence in Belgian, Canadian and French fresh produce: A threat to human health? International Journal of Food Microbiology 151, 261-269.
Baines, R. (2010). 15 - Quality and safety standards in food supply chains. In "Delivering Performance in Food Supply Chains" (C. Mena and G. Stevens, eds.), pp. 303-323. Woodhead Publishing.
Barno, A., Ondanje, B., and Ngwiri, J. (2011). Dynamics of Horticultural Export to European Union Market: Challenges and Opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa. In "I All Africa Horticultural Congress" (J. Wesonga and R. Kahane, eds.), Vol. 911, pp. 61-72.
Barrena, J., Nahuelhual, L., Engler, A., Echeverria, R., and Cofre, G. (2013). Heterogeneity of farms entering export supply chains: the case of fruit growers from central-south Chile. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 11, 281-293.
Bazzano, L. A. (2008). 6 - Epidemiologic evidence for the effect of fruit and vegetables on cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and obesity. In "Improving the Health-Promoting Properties of Fruit and Vegetable Products" (F. A. Tomás-Barberán and M. I. Gil, eds.), pp. 119-144. Woodhead Publishing.
Beghin, J., C, and Bureau, J. (2001). Measurement of Sanitary, Phytosanitary and Technical Barriers to Trade. A consultants’ report prepared for the Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Directorate, OECD.
Berdegué, J. A., Balsevich, F., Flores, L., and Reardon, T. (2005). Central American supermarkets’ private standards of quality and safety in procurement of fresh fruits and vegetables. Food Policy 30, 254-269.
Berger, C. N., Sodha, S. V., Shaw, R. K., Griffin, P. M., Pink, D., Hand, P., et al (2010). Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles for the transmission of human pathogens. Environmental Microbiology, 2385-2397.
Beulens, A. J. M., Broens, D.-F., Folstar, P., and Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Food safety and transparency in food chains and networks Relationships and challenges. Food Control 16, 481-486.
Bibangambah, J. R. (2001). "Africa’s Quest for Economic Development: Uganda’s Experience.," Fountain Publishers, Kampala.
Bigioi, D., and Dobre, I. (2007). The importance of quality management for the agri-food products. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 8, 688-700.
Blasa, M., Gennari, L., Angelino, D., and Ninfali, P. (2010). Chapter 3 - Fruit and Vegetable Antioxidants in Health. In "Bioactive Foods in Promoting Health" (R. R. W. R. Preedy, ed.), pp. 37-58. Academic Press, San Diego.
Block, G., Patterson, B., and Subar, A. (1992). Fruit, vegetables, and cancer prevention-a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Nutrition and Cancer-an International Journal, 1-29.
Boisrobert, C., Stjepanovic, A., Oh, S., and Lelieveld, H. (2010). Chapter 2 - Development of Food Legislation Around the World. In "Ensuring Global Food Safety", pp. 5-69. Academic Press, San Diego.
Bolwig, S., Riisgaard, L., Gibbon, P., and Ponte, S. (2013). Challenges of Agro-Food Standards Conformity: Lessons from East Africa and Policy Implications. European Journal of Development Research 25, 408-427.
BRC (2011). British retail consortium global standard for food safety. BRC (2015). Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 7 UK. Accessed on 27th January 2015 via:
http://www.brcbookshop.com/p/1651/brc-global-standard-for-food-safety-issue-7-uk-free-pdf. Brenes, E., Montoya, D., and Ciravegna, L. (2014). Differentiation strategies in emerging markets: The
case of Latin American agribusinesses. Journal of Business Research 67, 847-855. Broberg, M. (2009). European Food Safety Regulation and the Developing Countries. Regulatory
problems and possibilities. DIIS Working Paper 2009:09. Available at: http://diis.inforce.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2009/WP09-09 _European_Food_Safety_Regulation_web.pdf. Accessed 24 December 2014.
Busch, L., and Bain, C. (2004). New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociology 69, 321-346.
Buyinza, M. (2010). Economic viability of hot pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) cultivation in agroforestry farming system in Kamuli district, Uganda. J. Innov. Dev. Strategy 4, 12-17.
CAC (2003). Codex Alimentarius. Code of Hygienic practices for fresh fruit and vegetables. CAC/RCP53-2003.
Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/publications/Booklets/FreshFruitsVeg/FFV_2007_EN.pdf Accessed on 04 December 2014.
CAC (2009). Food hygiene. Basic texts. . In World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
CAC (2013). Codex Pesticides Residues in food on-line database. Available at :http://www.codexalimentarius.net/pestres/data/index.html;jsessionid=B6603640B8182F21EA39B494DF1106F4. Accessed 04 December 2014.
Calvin, L., Avendano, B., & Schwentesius, R (2004). The economics of food safety: The case of green onions and Hepatitis A outbreaks. USDA Economic Research Service, Report accessed on 21/December/2014 via: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs/nov04/VGS30501/VGS30501.pdf.
CAP319 ( 2008). Chapter 319, Laws of Kenya. In The agricultural produce (Export) (Horticultural) Act. CDC (2011). Multistate Outbreak of Human Salmonella Agona Infections Linked to Whole, Fresh
Imported Papayas. Outbreak Highlights, August 29, 2011 (FINAL Update). http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/agona-papayas/index.html. Accessed on 01/03/ 2012.
CDC (2012). Multistate Outbreak of Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli O26 Infections Linked to Raw Clover Sprouts at Jimmy John's Restaurants. http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O26-02-12/index.html. Accessed on 1 March 2012.
Chemnitz, C., Grethe, H., and Kleinwechter (2007). “Quality Standards for Food Products - A Particular Burden for Small Producers in Developing Countries?," Working Paper Series 10010, Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural
Economics. Chen, and Mattoo, A. (2008). "Regionalism in Standards: Good or Bad for Trade?" Canadian Journal of Economics 41. Chen, Otsuki, T., and Wilson, J. S. (2006). “Do Standards Matter for Export Success?, World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 3809, January. Codex Alimentarius (1969). Recommended international code of practice – General principles of food
hygiene, CAC/RCP 1-1969, Rev.4-2003, 31 p. Codex Alimentarius Commission (2007). Strategic Framework 2003–2007: Strategic objectives and
priorities. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) ( 2003). Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)
system and guidelines for its application. ANNEX to recommended international code of practice. CAC/RCP 1-1969. Rev 4. FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Codron, Adanacio lu, H., Aubert, M., Bouhsina, Z., El Mekki, A. A., Rousset, S., Tozanli, S., and Yercan, M. (2014a). The role of market forces and food safety institutions in the adoption of sustainable farming practices: The case of the fresh tomato export sector in Morocco and Turkey. Food Policy 49, Part 1, 268-280.
Codron, Sterns, J., and Reardon, T. (2003). Strategic choices in produce marketing: issues of compatible use and exclusion costs. J. Food Distribution Res 34, 1–12.
Codron, A., Hakan, Aubert, M., Bouhsina, Z., El Mekki, A. A., Rousset, S., Tozanli, S., and Yercan, M. (2014b). The role of market forces and food safety institutions in the adoption of sustainable farming practices: The case of the fresh tomato export sector in Morocco and Turkey. Food Policy 49, Part 1, 268-280.
COLEACP (2008). "Traceability: The Centre of Attention." COLEACP, Paris.
Colen, L., Maertens, M., and Swinnen, J. (2012). Private Standards, Trade and Poverty: GlobalGAP and Horticultural Employment in Senegal. World Economy 35, 1073-1088.
Cook, R. L. (2003). The evolving global marketplace for fruits and vegetables. Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, University of California, Davis, CA, USA. Accessed on 17/January/2015 via: http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/globalmarketplace_e2bae7eb1e831.pdf.
Crerar, S. K. (2000). Ensuring food safety throughout the food supply chain. Asian-Australasian Journal Of Animal Sciences 13, 376-376.
da Cruz, A. G., Cenci, S. A., and Maia, M. C. A. (2006). Quality assurance requirements in produce processing. Trends in Food Science & Technology 17, 406-411.
Dannenberg, P. (2011). Overcoming Exclusion - Informal Dealing with the Standard GlobalGAP in the Kenyan Horticulture Industry. Geographische Zeitschrift 99, 237-255.
Dannenberg, P., and Nduru, G. M. (2013). PRACTICES IN INTERNATIONAL VALUE CHAINS: THE CASE OF THE KENYAN FRUIT AND VEGETABLE CHAIN BEYOND THE EXCLUSION DEBATE. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 104, 41-56.
Daszykowski, M., Kaczmarek, K., Vander Heyden, Y., Walczak, B., (2007). Robust statistics in data analysis—a review. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 85, 203–219.
De Battisti, J. MacGregor, and Graffham, A. (2009). Impact of GLOBALGAP on small-scale vegetable growers in Uganda, p. 61-65. In A. B. de Battisti, J. MacGregor, and A. Graffham (ed.), Standard bearers: horticultural exports and private standards in Africa. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. SBN: 978-1-84369-710-7. Available at: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/16021IIED.pdf.
de Quadros Rodrigues, R., Loiko, M. R., Minéia Daniel de Paula, C., Hessel, C. T., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Bender, R. J., and Tondo, E. C. (2014). Microbiological contamination linked to implementation of good agricultural practices in the production of organic lettuce in Southern Brazil. Food Control 42, 152-164.
Deaton, B. J. (2004). A theoretical framework for examining the role of third-party certifiers. Food Control, 615–619.
DeWaal, C. S., and Bhuiya, F. (2007). Outbreaks by the numbers: fruits and vegetables 1999-2005: International Association for Food Protection. Poster Presentation P3-03, July 8–11, Orlando, Florida.
DeWaal, C. S., and Robert, N. (2005). "Global and Local: Food Safety Around the World. http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/global.pdf Acessed on 22 February 2012." The Center for Science in the Public Interest and Safe Food International.
Dey, I. (1993). "Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-friendly Guide for Social Scientists," Routledge, London.
Diop, N., and Jaffee, S. (2005). Fruits and vegetables: global trade and competition in fresh and processed product markets. In: Aksoy, M.; Benghin, J. (Eds.) (2005), Global Agriculture Trade and Developing Countries, Manas, New Delhi: 237-257.
Disdier, A. C., Fontagne, L., and Mimouni, M. (2008). The impact of regulations on agricultural trade: Evidence from the SPS and TBT agreements. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90, 336-350.
Dolan, C., and Humphrey, J. (2000). Governance and Trade in Fresh Vegetables: The Impact of UK Supermarkets on the African Horticulture Industry. The Journal of Development Studies 37, 147-176.
Domingo, J. L., and Gine Bordonaba, J. (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environment International, 734-742.
Donald, E. (2001). Pesticide use in developing countries. Toxicology 160, 27-33.
EC (2007). European Commission: Agricultural commodity markets, past developments fruits and vegetables. Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Directorate G. Economic analyses and evaluation, G.5 Agricultural trade policy analysis. Accessed on 17th November 2014
EFSA (2011a). The 2009 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. Available via: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2430.pdf. Accessed on 10/01/2012. EFSA Journal 9.
EFSA (2011b). Tracing seeds, in particular fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) seeds, in relation to the Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) O104:H4 2011 Outbreaks in Germany and France. Technical Report of EFSA.
EFSA/ECDC (2014). The European Union Summary Report on Trends and Sources of Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents and Food-borne Outbreaks in 2012. EFSA Journal 12, 266-267.
Emlinger, C., Chevassus-Lozza, E., Jacquet, F., and . (2010). Fruit and vegetable access to EU markets: dissecting tariffs faced by mediterranean countries. Food Policy 35, 599–611.
Engler, A., L, Nahuelhual, G. C., and Barrena, J. (2012). How far from harmonization are sanitary, phytosanitary and quality-related standards? An exporter's perception approach. Food Policy, 162-170.
Escriche, I., Domenech, E., and Baert, K. (2006). "Design and implementation of an HACCP system. In P. A. Luning, F. Devlieghere, & T. Verhe´ (Eds.), Safety in agri-food chains pp (303-354)," Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
European Commission (2002). Regulation EC/178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28th January 2002 laying down the principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of the European Communities, Series L, issue 31, 1.2.2002, pages 1-24.
European Commission (2005a). Commission Regulation EC/2073/2005 of 15th November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European Union, Series L, issue 338, 22.12.2005, pages 1-26.
European Commission (2005b). Regulation EC/396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23rd February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, Series L, issue 70, 16.3.2005, pages 1-16.
European Union, H. C. P. D. G. (2002). Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (2002).
Eurostat (2011). Data extracted from Eurostat Comext database, EU_27 EXTRA total imports from third countries. Accessible via:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/. Eurostat (2014). EU Statistics. Accessed on 27th December, 2014 via: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/. FAO (2006). World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050, Interim Report.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/esag/docs/Interim_report_AT2050web.pdf Accessed on 4th October, 2011.
FAO (2007). Overview of standards: international agreements, national regulations and private standards.
Accessed on 10th December 2014, Available via: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1245e/a1245e02.pdf.
FAO/WHO (2008). Microbiological hazards in fresh leafy vegetables and herbs. Accessed on 23/April/2014 via: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/micro/mra_fruitveges/en/index.html. Microbiological Risk Assessment Series, 1-163.
FAOSTAT (2012). FAO Statistical Database, Accessed on 29th October, 2013 via: http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx.
FAOSTAT (2013a). Food and Agricultural commodities trade database. Accessed on 02/11/2014 via:http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#DOWNLOAD.
FAOSTAT (2013b). Food and Agricultural commodities trade database. Accessed on 21/02/2013 via:http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html#DOWNLOAD.
FAOSTAT (2014). FAO statistical yearbook 2014: Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database. Accessed on 20/January/2015 via: http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3591e/i3591e.pdf.
FAOSTAT (2015a). FAO Statistical Database, Accessed on 29th August, 2015 via: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/QC/E
FAOSTAT (2015b). FAO Statistical Database, Accessed on 29th August, 2015 via: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/T/TP/E.
Ferrucci, D., Passeri, N., Pancino, B., and Scipione, D. (2011). The Challenge of GlobalGap (R) Standard on Kiwifruit. In "Vii International Symposium on Kiwifruit" (G. Costa and A. R. Ferguson, eds.), pp. 661-664.
Fischer, E., and Qaim, M. (2012). Linking Smallholders to Markets: Determinants and Impacts of Farmer Collective Action in Kenya. World Development 40, 1255-1268.
Fletcher, S. M. (1993). CHAPTER 14 - PRODUCE MARKETING: NEW TECHNIQUES AT THE SUPERMARKET. In "Postharvest Handling" (R. L. S. E. Prussia, ed.), pp. 293-300. Academic Press, London.
Florkowski, W. J., Klepacka, A. M., Nambiar, P. M., Meng, T., Fu, S., Sheremenko, G., and Sarpong, D. B. (2014). Chapter 7 - Consumer Expenditures on Fresh Fruit and Vegetables. In "Postharvest Handling (Third Edition)" (W. J. F. L. S. B. E. Prussia, ed.), pp. 147-166. Academic Press, San Diego.
Fontaine, D., Gaspart, F., and Henry de Frahan, B. (2008). Modelling the impact of private quality standards on the fresh fruit and vegetable supply chains in developing countries.
Fulponi, L. (2006). Private Standards in the food system: the perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy 31, 1–13.
García, M., and Poole, N. (2004). The development of private fresh produce safety standards: implications for developing Mediterranean exporting countries. Food Policy 29, 229-255.
Giaconi, J. A., Yu, F., Stone, K. L., Pedula, K. L., Ensrud, K. E., Cauley, J. A., Hochberg, M. C., and Coleman, A. L. (2012). The Association of Consumption of Fruits/Vegetables With Decreased Risk of Glaucoma Among Older African-American Women in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. American Journal of Ophthalmology 154, 635-644.
Giller, K. E., Rowe, E. C., de Ridder, N., and van Keulen, H. (2006). Resource use dynamics and interactions in the tropics: Scaling up in space and time. Agricultural Systems 88, 8-27.
GLOBALG.A.P, ed. (2013). "General regulations part I, part II, part III. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) Standard Version 4. Accessed on 12th December 2014 via:http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/130315_gg_ifa_intro_and_specific_rules_v4_0-2_update_Mar13_en.pdf."
GlobalGAP (2012). GlobalGAP integrated farm assurance: All farm base/ crops base/ fruit and Vegetables. Accessed on 12/01/2013 via: http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/for-producers/crops/FV/.
Goetz, L., and Grethe, H. (2009). The EU entry price system for fresh fruits and vegetables – Paper tiger or powerful market barrier? Food Policy 34, 81-93.
Golan, E., Krissoff, B., Kuchler, F., Calvin, L., Nelson, K., and Price, G. (2004). Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies. Accessed on 4th October, 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer830/aer830.pdf.
Goldberg, G. (2003). Plants: Diet and Health. The report of a British Nutrition Foundation Task Force. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
Gorton, M., Zari , V., Lowe, P., and Quarrie, S. (2011). Public and private agri-environmental regulation in post-socialist economies: Evidence from the Serbian Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Sector. Journal of Rural Studies 27, 144-152.
Grunert, K. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. Agricultural Economics, 369–391.
Halaswamy, D., and Subhas, M. S. (2014). Branding of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (FFV): An Overview. International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering & Management 3, 191-196.
Handschuch, C., Wollni, M., and Villalobos, P. (2013). Adoption of food safety and quality standards among Chilean raspberry producers - Do smallholders benefit? Food Policy 40, 64-73.
Hansen, H., and Trifkovi , N. (2014). Food Standards are Good – For Middle-Class Farmers. World Development 56, 226-242.
Harker, F. R., Gunson, F. A., and Jaeger, S. R. (2003). The case for fruit quality: an interpretive review of consumer attitudes, and preferences for apples. Postharvest Biology and Technology 28, 333-347.
Hatanaka, M., Bain, C., and Busch, L. (2005). Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy, 354–369.
HCDA (2010). Horticultural Crops Production Report-2010, Nairobi, Kenya: Horticultural Crops Development Authority and Ministry of Agriculture.
HCDA (2013). Horticultural Crops Development Authority Accessed on 15/01/ 2013 via http://www.hcda.or.ke/tech/index.php.
HCDA. (2010). Smallholder farmers' involvement in commercial horticulture. Kenya's perspective video conference on high value horticulture for Eastern and Southern Africa held on 2nd Nover 2010.
Heinze, A. S. (2007). Value Links Manual-The methodology of value chain promotion, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ). Accessed on 12th January 2013 via:
http://www.valuelinks.org/images/stories/pdf/manual/valuelinks_manual_en.pdf., Eschborn (Germany).
Henson, Masakure, O., and Cranfield, J. (2011a). Do Fresh Produce Exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa Benefit from GlobalGAP Certification? World Development 39, 375-386.
Henson, S., and Hooker, N. H. (2001). Private sector management of food safety: public regulation and the role of private controls. Int. Food Agribusiness Manage, 7–17.
Henson, S., and Humphrey, J. (2008). Understanding the Complexities of Private Standards in Global Agri-Food Chains. Paper presented at the workshop: Globalization, Global Governance and Private Standards, University of Leuven, November 2008. Available at : https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/HensonHumphreyLeuvenOct08.pdf Accessed 24 October 2014.
Henson, S., and Humphrey, J. (2009). The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on Public Standard-Setting Processes, ALINORM 09/32/9DPart II. (Rome: Codex Alimentarius Commission).
Henson, S., and Humphrey, J. (2010). Understanding the Complexities of Private Standards in Global Agri-Food Chains as They Impact Developing Countries. Journal of Development Studies 46, 1628-1646.
Henson, S., and Jaffee, S. (2008). Understanding Developing Country Strategic Responses to the Enhancement of Food Safety Standards. The World Economy 4, 548-568.
Henson, S., and Loader, R. (1999). Impact of sanitary and phytosanitary standards on developing countries and the role of the SPS Agreement. Agribusiness 15 355–369.
Henson, S., Loader, R., Swinbank, A., Bredahl, M., and Lux, N. (2000.). Impact of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures on Developing Countries. Centre for Food Economics Research, Reading.
Henson, S., Masakure, O., and Boselie, D. (2005). Private food safety and quality standards for fresh produce exporters: The case of Hortico Agrisystems, Zimbabwe. Food Policy 30, 371-384.
Henson, S., Masakure, O., and Cranfield, J. (2011b). Do Fresh Produce Exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa Benefit from GlobalGAP Certification? World Development 39, 375-386.
Henson., and Reardon, T. (2005). Private agri-food standards: Implications for food policy and the agri-food system. Food Policy 30, 241-253.
Herzfeld, T., Drescher, L. S., and Grebitus, C. (2011). Cross-national adoption of private food quality standards. Food Policy 36, 401-411.
Hjelmar, U. (2011). Consumers’ purchase of organic food products. A matter of con-venience and reflexive practices. Appetite, 336–344.
Hodder, A. (2005). World production of fruit and vegetables. In: WHO/FAO (2005). World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Fruit and Vegetables for Health. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Workshop, 1–3 September Kobe, Japan, 2004, pp. 10–11. Available at http, //www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/index1.html Accessed 17 Augustl 2014.
Huang, S. (2004). Global Trade Patterns in Fruits and Vegetables. USDA, ERS Accessed on 27/February/2015 via: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/WRS0406/WRS0406.pdf.
Humphrey, J. (2009). Private standards in Kenyan horticulture : did the donors respond effectively to the challenge ? Paper prepared for conference 'Towards Priority Actions for Market Development for African Farmers’, Nairobi, May 2009. Available at :https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/humphreyagramay09.pdf. Accessed 24 November 2014.
Humphrey, J., McCulloch, N., and Ota, M. (2004). The impact of european market changes on employment in the kenyan horticulture sector. International Development 16, 63-80.
Idowu, O. (2014). Standards and Food Exports in a South - North Trade: Evidence from the ‘Hurdles to Pass’ for High-Value Products.
IFS (2012). Standard for auditing quality and food safety of food products. Ilic, S., Odomeru, J., and LeJeune, J. T. (2008). Coliforms and Prevalence of Escherichia coli and
Foodborne Pathogens on Minimally Processed Spinach in Two Packing Plants. Journal of Food Protection, 2398-2403.
ISO (2008). ISO 9000 - Quality management. Accesed on 19/November/2014. Available via: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm.
Jacxsens, Uyttendaele, M., Devlieghere, F., Rovira, J., Gomez, S. O., and Luning, P. A. (2010a). Food safety performance indicators to benchmark food safety output of food safety management systems. International Journal of Food Microbiology 141, , S180-S187.
Jacxsens, Uyttendaele, M., Devlieghere, F., Rovira, J., Gomez, S. O., and Luning, P. A. (2010b). Food safety performance indicators to benchmark food safety output of food safety management systems. International Journal of Food Microbiology 141, S180-S187.
Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., and Uyttendaele, M. (2009a). "Quality Management Systems in the Food Industry," St Kliment Ohridski University Press, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Jacxsens, L., Devlieghere, F., and Uyttendaele, M. (2009b). "Quality management systems in the food industry. Book in the framework of Erasmus, ISBN 978-90-5989-275-0."
Jacxsens, L., Ibañez, I. C., Gómez-López, V. M., Fernandes, J. P. A., Allende, A., and Uyttendaele, M. (2015a). Belgian and Spanish Consumption Data and Consumer Handling Practices for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Useful for Further Microbiological and Chemical Exposure Assessment
Journal of food protection 78, 784-795. Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Luning, P. A., Ingelrham, J., Diricks, H., and Uyttendaele, M. (2013).
Measuring microbial food safety output and comparing self-checking systems of food business operators in Belgium. Food Control.
Jacxsens, L., Luning, P. A., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Devlieghere, F., Leemans, R., and Uyttendaele, M. (2010c). Simulation modelling and risk assessment as tools to identify the impact of climate change on microbiological food safety – The case study of fresh produce supply chain. Food Research International 43, 1925-1935.
Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Devlieghere, F., Rovira, J., Gomez, S. O., and Luning, P. A. (2010d). Food safety performance indicators to benchmark food safety output of food safety management systems. International Journal of Food Microbiology 141, Supplement, S180-S187.
Jacxsens, L., Van Boxstael, S., Nanyunja, J., Jordaan, D., Luning, P., and Uyttendaele, M. (2015b). Opinions on fresh produce food safety and quality standards by fresh produce supply chain experts from the global South and North. Food protection.
Jacxsens., Kussaga, J., Luning, P. A., Van der Spiegel, M., Devlieghere, F., and Uyttendaele, M. (2009). A Microbial Assessment Scheme to measure microbial performance of Food Safety Management Systems. International Journal of Food Microbiology 134, 113-125.
Jaffee (2003). From Challenge to Opportunity Transforming Kenya’s Fresh Vegetable Trade in the Context of Emerging Food Safety and Other Standards in Europe. Accessed on 05/02/2013 via: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/01/24/000112742_20050124135734/Rendered/PDF/310100revised0ARD1DP11KE.pdf. In "World Bank Agricultural and Rural Development Discussion Paper", Washington DC.
Jaffee (2006). "Uganda, Standards and Trade:Experience, Capacities, and Priorities. Available via: http://vle.worldbank.org/bnpp/files/TF053504Uganda_Standards_final.pdf."
Jaffee, and Masakure, O. (2005a). Strategic use of private standards to enhance international competitiveness: Vegetable exports from Kenya and elsewhere. Food Policy 30, 316-333.
Jaffee, S., and Masakure, O. (2005b). Strategic use of private standards to enhance international competitiveness: Vegetable exports from Kenya and elsewhere. Food Policy 30, 316-333.
Janevska, D. P., Gospavic, R., Pacholewicz, E., and Popov, V. (2010). Application of a HACCP–QMRA approach for managing the impact of climate change on food quality and safety. Food Research International 43, 1915-1924.
Johannessen, G. S., and Cudjoe, K. S. (2009). Chapter 14 - Regulatory Issues in Europe Regarding Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Safety. In "The Produce Contamination Problem" (M. S. Gerald, B. S. Ethan, E. B. S. Karl R. MatthewsA2 - Gerald M. Sapers and R. M. Karl, eds.), pp. 331-352. Academic Press, San Diego.
Johnston, L. M., Jaykus, L. A., Moll, D., Anciso, J., Mora, B., and C.L., M. (2006). A field study of the microbiological quality of fresh produce of domestic and Mexican origin. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 83-95.
Joseph, J. A., Shukit-Hale, B., Denovisa, N. A., Bielinski, D., Martin, A., McEwen, J. J., and Bickford, P. C. (1999). Reversal of age-related declines in neuronal signal transduction, cognitive and
motor behavioural deficits with blueberry, strawberry, spinach or strawberry dietary supplementation. Journal of Neurosciences 19, 8114-8121.
Juan, A., Tudela, M. I. G., Allende, A., Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Van Boxstael, S., and Uyttendaele, M. (2014). Establishment of the organizational structure of fresh produce production, processing and trade in representative EU and EU trading partners. Deliverable report D 1.1 submitted to the European Commission under the Veg-i-Trade project Grant Agreement Number: 244994.
Kamana, O., Ceuppens, S., Jacxsens, L., Kimonyo, A., and Uyttendaele, M. (2014). Microbiological Quality and Safety Assessment of the Rwandan Milk and Dairy Chain. Food protection, 299-307.
Katz, J. M., and Winter, C. K. (2009). Comparison of pesticide exposure from consumption of domestic and imported fruits and vegetables. Food and Chemical Toxicology 47, 335-338.
Kaur, C., and Kapoor, H. C. (2001). Antioxidants in fruits and vegetables – the millennium health. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 36, 703–725.
Keller (2002). The WHO Fruit and Vegetable survey - definitions and recommended intakes. Accessed on 23rd January, 2015 via:http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/media/gs_fv_ppt_ikeller.pdf. (P. A. a. H. W. H. O. G. Global Strategy on Diet, ed.).
KEPHIS (2012). "Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services: Strategic plan (2012/13-2016/17) Accessed on 20/Novemeber/2014 via: http://www.kephis.org/index.php/downloads-documents/doc_download/2-kephis-strategic-plan."
Kersting, S., and Wollni, M. (2012a). New institutional arrangements and standard adoption: Evidence from small-scale fruit and vegetable farmers in Thailand. Food Policy 37, 452-462.
Kersting, S., and Wollni, M. (2012b). New institutional arrangements and standard adoption: evidence from small-scale fruit and vegetable farmers in Thailand. Food Policy 37, 452–462.
Kinsey, J., and Senauer, B. (1996). Consumer trends and changing food retailing formats. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78, 1187-1191.
Kirezieva, Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Uyttendaele, M., and Luning, P. A. (2013a). Context factors affecting design and operation of Food Safety Management Systems in the fresh produce chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.06.001.
Kirezieva, K. (2015). Impact of context on food safety management systems in fresh produce chains. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL (2015). ISBN 978-94-6257-259-1.
Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Hagelaar, G. J. L. F., van Boekel, S., Uyttendaele, M., and Luning, P. A. (2014a). Exploring the influence of context on food safety management: Case studies of leafy greens production in Europe. Food Policy, 158-170.
Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Martinus, A. J., Van Boekel, S., and Luning, P. A. (2015). Towards strategies to adapt to pressures on safety of fresh produce due to climate change. Food Research International, 94-107.
Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Van Boekel, M., and Luning, P. A. (2013b). Assessment of Food Safety Management Systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food Research International 52, 230-242.
Kirezieva, K., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., and Luning, P. A. (2013c). Assessment of Food Safety Management Systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food Research International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.03.023.
Kirezieva, K., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., Allende, A., Johannessen, G. S., Tondo, E. C., Rajkovic, A., Uyttendaele, M., and Van Boekel, M. A. J. S. (2014b). Factors affecting performance of food safety management systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food Control, 85-97.
Kirezieva, K., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., Allende, A., Johannessen, G. S., Tondo, E. C., Rajkovic, A., Uyttendaele, M., and van Boekel, M. A. J. S. (2014c). Factors affecting performance of food safety management systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food Control 52, 85-97.
Kirezieva, K., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., and Uyttendaele, M. (2012). Deliverable D2.1: Report on validated diagnostic instrument for European context
Kirezieva, K., Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Uyttendaele, M., and Luning, P. A. (2013d). Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 32, 108-127.
Kirezieva., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., and Luning, P. A. (2013a). Assessment tool for Food Safety Management Systems in the global fresh produce chain. . Food research international, 230-242.
Kirezieva., Jacxsens, L., Uyttendaele, M., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., and Luning, P. A. (2013b). Assessment tool for Food Safety Management Systems in the global fresh produce chain. Food research international, 230-242.
Kirezieva., Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Uyttendaele, M., and Luning, P. A. (2013c). Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 32, 108-127.
Ko, W.-H. (2010). Evaluating food safety perceptions and practices for agricultural food handler. Food Control 21, 450-455.
Kokkinos, P., Kozyra, I., Lazic, S., Bouwknegt, M., Rutjes, S., Willems, K., Moloney, R., Husman, A. M. D., Kaupke, A., Legaki, E., D'Agostino, M., Cook, N., Rzezutka, A., Petrovic, T., and Vantarakis, A. (2012). Harmonised Investigation of the Occurrence of Human Enteric Viruses in the Leafy Green Vegetable Supply Chain in Three European Countries. Food and Environmental Virology 4, 179-191.
Kussaga, J. B. (2015). Status assessment and roadmaps for improvement of food safety management systems in food production sectors in Africa: a case of Tanzania. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor (Ph.D.) in Applied Biological Sciences. Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University.
Kussaga, J. B., Jacxsens, L., Tiisekwa, B.P.M. & Luning, P.A. (2014). Food safety management systems performance in African food processing companies: a review of deficiencies and possible improvement strategies. Science of Food and Agriculture.
Kussaga., Luning, P., Tiisekwa, B., and Jacxsens, L. (2014). Challenges in Performance of Food Safety Management Systems: A Case of Fish Processing Companies in Tanzania Food protection 77, 621-630
Kussaga., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., and Tiisekwa, B. P. M. (2013). Diagnosis of food safety management systems performance in food processing sectors for export and domestic markets. African Journal of Food Science and Technology 4, 240-250.
Lehto, M., Kuisma, R., Määttä, J., Kymäläinen, H. R., and Mäki.M. (2011). Hygienic level and surface contamination in fresh-cut vegetable production plants. Food Control, 469-475.
Lenne, J. M., and Ward, A. F. (2010). Improving the efficiency of domestic vegetable marketing systems in East Africa Constraints and opportunities. Outlook on Agriculture 39, 31-40.
Little, C. L., and Gillespie, I. A. (2008). Prepared salads and public health. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 1729-1743.
Liu, L., and Yue, C. Y. (2012). Investigating the impact of SPS standards on trade using a VES model. European Review of Agricultural Economics 39, 511-528.
Luning, Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., and Marcelis, W. J. (2008a). Comprehensive analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19, 522-534.
Luning, Jacxsens, L., Rovira, J., Osés, S. M., Uyttendaele, M., and Marcelis, W. J. (2011a). A concurrent diagnosis of microbiological food safety output and food safety management system performance: Cases from meat processing industries. Food Control 22, 555-565.
Luning, Kirezieva, K., Hagelaar, G., Rovira, J., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2013a). Performance assessment of food safety management systems in animal-based food companies in view of their context characteristics: A European study. Food Control.
Luning, Marcelis, W., Rovira, J., van Boekel, M., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2011b). A tool to diagnose context riskiness in view of food safety activities and microbiological safety output. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22, Supplement 1, S67-S79.
Luning, and Marcelis, W. J. (2007). A food quality management functions model from a techno-managerial perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology 18, 159-166.
Luning, Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van der Spiegel, M., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2009a). Systematic assessment of core assurance activities in company specific food safety management. Trends in Food Science & Technology 20, 300-312.
Luning, Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van der Spiegel, M., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2009b). Systematic assessment of core assurance activities in company specific food safety management systems. Trends in Food Science & Technology 30, 300-312.
Luning, P. A., Bango, L., Kussaga, J., Rovira, J., and Marcelis, W. J. (2008b). Comprehensive analysis and differentiated assessment of food safety control systems: a diagnostic instrument. Trends in Food Science & Technology 19, 522-534.
Luning, P. A., Chinchilla, A. C., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., and Rovira, J. (2013b). Performance of safety management systems in Spanish food service establishments in view of their context characteristics. Food Control 30, 331-340.
Luning, P. A., Kirezieva, K., Hagelaar, G., Rovira, J., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2015). Performance assessment of food safety management systems in animal-based food companies in view of their context characteristics: A European study. Food Control, 11-22.
Luning, P. A., and Marcelis, W. J. (2009a). "Food quality management: Techno-managerial principles and practices.," Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
Luning, P. A., and Marcelis, W. J. (2009b). "Food quality management: Technological and managerial principles and practices," Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2011c). A tool to diagnose context riskiness in view of food safety activities and microbiological safety output. Trends in Food Science & Technology 22, Supplement 1, S67-S79.
Luning, P. A., Marcelis, W. J., Rovira, J., Van der Spiegel, M., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2009c). Systematic assessment of core assurance activities in a company specific food safety management system. Trends in Food Science & Technology 20, 300-312.
Luning, P. A., Van der Spiegel, M., and Marcelis, W. J. (2006). "Quality assurance systems and food safety. In P. A. Luning, F. Devlieghere, & R. Verhe´ (Eds.), Safety in agri-food chains (pp. 249-302)," Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen.
Luning., Marcelis, W. J., Van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Rovira, J., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2011). A tool to diagnose context riskiness in view of food safety activities and microbiological safety output. Trends in food Science & technology 22, S67-S79.
Luz Diaz, R., Spencer, H., and Johnny, M. (2009). "Not yet up to standard:The Legacy of Two Decades of Private, Governmental, and Donor Efforts to Promote Ugandan Horticultural Exports.."
Luz Diaz Rios, J. S., Jaffee, S., Henson, S., and Mugisha, J. (2009). Not yet up to standard :The Legacy of Two Decades of Private, Governmental, and Donor Efforts to Promote Ugandan Horticultural
Exports. Accesed on 16/12/2012 via: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/uganda_horticulture_web.pdf.
Lynch, M., Tauxe, R.,V., & Hedberg, C (2009). The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology and Infection, 307-315.
Lynch, M. F., Tauxe, R. V., and Hedberg, C. W. (2009). The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology and Infection 137, 307-315.
Maertens, M., Minten, B., and Swinnen, J. (2009). Growth in high-value export markets in Sub-Saharan Africa and its development implications.LICOS Discussion Paper 245/2009. Catholic University of Leuven.
Maertens, M., and Swinnen, J. F. M. (2009). Trade, standards, and poverty:evidence from Senegal. World Development 37, 161–178.
Magnuson, B. A., Jonaitis, T. S., and Card, J. W. (2011). A brief review of the occurrence, use, and safety of food-related nanomaterials. Food Science and Food Agriculture, R126-R133.
Magnuson, B. A., Jonaitis, T. S., & Card, J. W (2011). A brief review of the occurrence, use, and safety of food-related nanomaterials. Journal of Food Science, R126-R133.
Mainville, D. Y., Zylbersztajn, D., Farina, E. M. M. Q., and Reardon, T. (2005). Determinants of retailers’ decisions to use public or private grades and standards: Evidence from the fresh produce market of São Paulo, Brazil. Food Policy 30, 334-353.
Manning, L., and Soon, J. M. (2013). GAP framework for fresh produce supply. British Food Journal 115, 796-820.
Martinez, G. M., and Poole , N. (2004). The Development of Private Fresh Produce Safety Standards: Implications for Developing Mediterranean Exporting Countries. Food Policy 29, 229-255.
Martinez, M. G., and Poole, N. (2004). The development of private fresh produce safety standards: implications for developing Mediterranean exporting countries. Food Policy 29, 229-255.
Maskus, K. E., Otsuki, T., and Wilson, J. S. (2005). The Cost of Compliance with Product Standards for Firms in Developing Countries: An Econometric Study, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3590.
McCulloh, N., and Otta., M. (2002). "Export horticulture and poverty in Kenya." IDS Working Paper 174. Institute of Development Studies. University of Sussex, UK.
McCullough, E. B., Prabhu, L. P., and Kostas, G. S., eds. (2008). "The Transformation of Agri-food Systems: globalization, supply chains and smallholder farmers." FAO and Earthscan Publishers, London.
McLaughlin, E. W. (2004). The dynamics of fresh fruit and vegetable pricing in the supermarket channel. Preventive Medicine 39, Supplement 2, 81-87.
Melanie, L. L. I., LeJeune, J. T., and Miller, S. A. (2012). Vegetable producers’ perceptions of food safety hazards in the Midwestern USA. Food Control 26, 453-465.
Michelson, H., Reardon, T., and Perez, F. (2012). Small Farmers and Big Retail: Trade-offs of Supplying Supermarkets in Nicaragua. World Development 40, 342-354.
Miles, B., Huberman, A.M., (1994). "Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook," 2/Ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Minten, B., Randrianarison, L., and Swinnen, J. F. M. (2009). Global retail chains and poor farmers: evidence from Madagascar. World Development 37, 1728–1741.
Mithofer, D., Nang'ole, E., and Asfaw, S. (2008). Smallholder access to the export market The case of vegetables in Kenya. Outlook on Agriculture 37, 203-211.
Mittal, S. (2007). Strengthening backward and forward linkages in horticulture: some successful initiatives. Agricultural Economics 20, 457–469.
Motarjemi, Y., and Lelieveld, H. (2014). Chapter 1 - Fundamentals in Management of Food Safety in the Industrial Setting: Challenges and Outlook of the 21st Century. In "Food Safety Management" (Y. M. Lelieveld, ed.), pp. 1-20. Academic Press, San Diego.
Muriithi, B. W., Mburu, J., and Ngigi, M. (2011). Constraints and Determinants of Compliance With EurepGap Standards: A Case of Smallholder French Bean Exporters in Kirinyaga District, Kenya. Agribusiness 27, 193-204.
Murray, W. E. (1997). Competitive global fruit export markets: Marketing intermediaries and impacts on small-scale growers in Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research 16, 43-55.
Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Van Boxstael, S., D’Haese, M., Luning, P. A., and Uyttendaele, M. (2014 in review). Constraints at micro-, meso- and macro-level of the Ugandan hot pepper supply chain and their impact on assurance of food safety. World Development.
Narrod, C., Roy, D., Okello, J., Avendaño, B., Rich, K., and Thorat, A. (2009). Public–private partnerships and collective action in high value fruit and vegetable supply chains. Food Policy 34, 8-15.
NCECA (2009). North Carolina Extension and Community Association Educational Program 2009 Fresh Produce Safety accessed on 12/01/2014 via: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/NCECA/Fresh%20Produce%20Safety.pdf
Neeliah, S. A., and Goburdhun, D. (2010). Complying with the clauses of the SPS Agreement: Case of a developing country. Food Control 21, 902-911.
Neeliah, S. A., Neeliah, H., and Goburdhun, D. (2013). Assessing the relevance of EU SPS measures to the food export sector: Evidence from a developing agro-food exporting country. Food Policy 41, 53-62.
Ness, A. R., and Powles, J. W. (1997). Fruit and vegetables and cardiovascular disease: a review. International Journal of Epidemiology 26, 1-13.
Nguz, K. (2007). Assessing food safety system in sub-Saharan countries: An overview of key issues. Food Control 18, 131-134.
Nicola, S., Tibaldi, G., and Fontana, E. (2009). Chapter 10 - Fresh-cut Produce Quality: Implications for a Systems Approach. In "Postharvest Handling (Second Edition)" (J. F. Wojciech, L. S. Robert, B. Bernhard, R. L. S. B. B. Stanley E. PrussiaA2 - Wojciech J. Florkowski and E. P. Stanley, eds.), pp. 247-282. Academic Press, San Diego.
Obare, G. A., Omamo, S.W. and Williams, J.C. (2003). Smallholder production structure and rural roads in Africa: the case of Nakuru District, Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 245–254.
Okado, M. (2001). "Background paper on Kenya off-season and specialty fruits and vegetables: Lessons of experience from the Kenya horticulture industry". Presented at United Nations Conference for Trade and Development regional workshop for horticultural economies in Africa, Nairobi, Kenya. May 29-31.
Okello, Narrod, C. A., and Roy, D. (2011). Export standards, market institutions and smallholder farmer exclusion from fresh export vegetable high value chains: experiences from Ethiopia, Kenya, and Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Science 3, 188-195.
Okello, and Roy, D. (2007). Food Safety Requirements in Africa Green Bean Exports and Their Impact on Small Farmers. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00737, December.
Okello, and Swinton (2007a). Compliance with international food safety standards in Kenya's green bean industry: Comparison of a small- and a large-scale farm producing for export. Review of Agricultural Economics 29, 269-285.
Okello, and Swinton, S. M. (2007b). Compliance with international food safety standards in Kenya's green bean industry: Comparison of a small- and a large-scale farm producing for export. Review of Agricultural Economics 29, 269-285.
Okello, J. J., and Swinton, S. M. (2009). From circle of poison to circle of virtue: pesticides, export standards and Kenya's Green Bean farmers. Agriculture Economics 61, 209–224.
Okello, J. J., and Swinton, S. M. (2010). From Circle of Poison to Circle of Virtue: Pesticides, Export Standards and Kenya's Green Bean Farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61, 209-224.
Oloo, J. (2010). Food safety and quality management in Kenya: An overview of the roles played by various stakeholders African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 10, 4379-4397.
Omamo, S. (2003). Fertilizer trade and pricing in Uganda. Agriculture economics Vol 42. Ongeng, D., Muyanja, C., Ryckeboer, J., Geeraerd, A. H., and Springael, D. (2011). Rhizosphere effect
on survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium in manure-amended soil during cabbage (Brassica oleracea) cultivation under tropical field conditions in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Food Microbiology 149, 133-142.
Onjong, H. A., Wangoh, J., and Njage, P. M. (2014). Current food safety management systems in fish-exporting companies require further improvements to adequately cope with contextual pressure: case study. Journal of Food Science 79.
Opiyo, B., Wangoh, J., and Njage, P. (2013). Microbiological Performance of Dairy Processing Plants Is Influenced by Scale of Production and the Implemented Food Safety Management System: A Case Study Food Protection 78, 975-983
Osés, S. M., Luning, P. A., Jacxsens, L., Santillana, S., Jaime, I., and Rovira, J. (2012). Food safety management system performance in the lamb chain. Food Control 25, 493-500.
Otieno, W., and Kigamwa, J. N. (2011). Challenges in Compliance with Official Standards and Implications in Market Access: Case of Kenya's Horticultural Produce. In "I All Africa Horticultural Congress" (J. Wesonga and R. Kahane, eds.), Vol. 911, pp. 263-268.
Otsuki, T., Wilson, J. S., and Sewadeh, M. (2001). Saving two in a billion: quantifying the trade effect of European food safety standards on African exports. Food Policy 26, 495-514.
Ouma, S. (2010). Global Standards, Local Realities: Private Agrifood Governance and the Restructuring of the Kenyan Horticulture Industry. Economic Geography 86, 197-222.
Parker, J., Wilson, R., LeJeune, J., Rivers Iii, L., and Doohan, D. (2012a). An expert guide to understanding grower decisions related to fresh fruit and vegetable contamination prevention and control. Food Control 26, 107-116.
Parker, J. S., Wilson, R. S., LeJeune, J. T., Rivers Iii, L., and Doohan, D. (2012b). An expert guide to understanding grower decisions related to fresh fruit and vegetable contamination prevention and control. Food Control 26, 107-116.
Phipps, E. J., Stites, S. D., Wallace, S. L., and Braitman, L. E. (2013). Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Purchases in an Urban Supermarket by Low-income Households. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 45, 165-170.
PIP (2014). EU increased controls on Kenyan peas and beans: impact, response and perspectives Accessed on 21/November/2014 via: http://pip.coleacp.org/en/pip/26534-eu-increased-controls-kenyan-peas-and-beans-impact-responses-and-perspectives.
Pomerleau, J., Lock, K., McKee, M., and Altmann, D. R. (2004). The challenge of measuring global fruit and vegetable intake. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 1175–1180.
Poulton, C., Dorward, A., and Kydd, J. (2010). The Future of Small Farms: New Directions for Services, Institutions, and Intermediation. World Development 38, 1413-1428.
Poulton, C., and Macartney, J. (2012). Can Public–Private Partnerships Leverage Private Investment in Agricultural Value Chains in Africa? A Preliminary Review. World Development 40, 96-109.
Powell, D. A., Erdozain, S., Dodd, C., Costa, R., Morley, K., and Chapman, B. J. (2013). Audits and inspections are never enough: A critique to enhance food Safety. Food Control 30, 686-691.
Powell, D. A., Jacob, C. J., and Chapman, B. J. (2011). Enhancing food safety culture to reduce rates of foodborne illness. Food Control 22, 817-822.
Preissel, S., and Reckling, M. (2010). Smallholder group certification in Uganda - Analysis of internal control systems in two organic export companies. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 111, 13-22.
Prior, R. L., and Cao, G. (2000). Antioxidant phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables; diet and health implications. Horticultural Science 35, 588–592.
Rae, A. N. (2004). International trade in fruits and vegetables: Barriers to trade, WTO proposals for reform and modelling alternative outcomes. In "Proceedings of the Xvth International Symposium on Horticultural Economics and Management" (W. Bokelmann, ed.), pp. 429-438.
Ragaert, P., Verbeke, W., Devlieghere, F., and Debevere, J. (2004). Consumer perception and choice of minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits. Food Quality and Preference 15, 259-270.
RASFF (2012). "The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)." Reardon, T., Barrett, C. B., Berdegue, J. A., and Swinnen, J. F. M. (2009). Agrifood Industry
Transformation and Small Farmers in Developing Countries. World Development 37, 1717-1727.
Reardon., and Flores, L. (2006). Viewpoint: "customized competitiveness"; strategies for horticultural exporters - central america focus with lessons from and for other regions. Food Policy 31, 483-503.
Reardon., Timmer, C. P., Evenson, R. E., Pingali, P., and Schultz, T. P. (2005). Transformation of Markets for Agricultural Output in Developing Countries Since 1950: How Has Thinking Changed? Elsevier Press, 2005.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, e. t. E. (2002).
Rio, L. D., Jaffee, S., Henson, S., and Mugisha, J. (2009). Net Yet Up to Standards: The Legacy of Two Decades of Private, Government, and Donor Efforts to Promote Ugandan Horticultural Exports. Joint Discussion Paper of the World Bank, University of Guelph and the University of Makerere.
Rischke, R., Kimenju, S. C., Klasen, S., and Qaim, M. (2015). Supermarkets and food consumption patterns: The case of small towns in Kenya. Food Policy 52, 9-21.
Robert Koch Institute (2011). Presentation and Evaluation of previous epidemiological findings regarding the EHEC/HUS 0104:H4 outbreak: Technical Report: EHEC/HUS 0104:H4 outbreak Germany
Roth, A. V., Tsay, A. A., Pullman, M. E., and Gray, J. V. (2008). Unraveling the food supply chain: strategic insights from china and the 2007 recalls. Supply Chain Management, 22–39.
Rouviere, E., and Latouche, K. (2014). Impact of liability rules on modes of coordination for food safety in supply chains. European Journal of Law and Economics 37, 111-130.
Rudaheranwa, N., Matovu, F., and Musinguzi, W. (2003). Enhancing Uganda's Access to International Markets; A focus on quality. Accessed on 14/10/2012 In "Standards and global trade: a voice for Africa.
" (S. John, Wilson and O. Victor, Abiola, eds.). Saitone, T. L., and Sexton, R. J. (2010). Product differentiation and quality in food markets: Industrial
organization implications. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ, 341–368. Sampers, I., Toyofuku, H., Luning, P. A., Uyttendaele, M., and Jacxsens, L. (2012). Semi-quantitative
study to evaluate the performance of a HACCP-based food safety management system in Japanese milk processing plants. Food Control 23, 227-233.
Santacoloma, P., and Casey, S. (2011). Investment and capacity building for GAP standards: Case information from Kenya, Chile, Malaysia and South Africa. Acccessed on 19th December 2014 via: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/ba0033e/ba0033e00.pdf.
Sargeant, A. (2005). "Horticultural and Floricultural Exports: Constraints, Potential and An Agenda for Support. Prepared for the World Bank as part of the Diagnostic Trade Integration Study.."
Sawe, C. T., Onyango, C. M., and Njage, P. M. K. (2014). Current food safety management systems in fresh produce exporting industry are associated with lower performance due to context riskiness: Case study. Food Control 40, 335-343.
Schillhorn van Veen, T. W. (2005). International trade and food safety in developing countries. Food Control 16, 491-496.
Serem, A. (2011). International Trade Opportunities and Challenges for Small Scale Horticultural Production Systems. In "I All Africa Horticultural Congress" (J. Wesonga and R. Kahane, eds.), Vol. 911, pp. 53-60.
Shewfelt, R. L., and Prussia, S. E. (2009). Chapter 2 - Challenges in Handling Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. In "Postharvest Handling (Second Edition)" (E. b. J. F. L. S. B. E. Prussia, ed.), pp. 9-22. Academic Press, San Diego.
Singh, B. P., ed. (2002). "Non-traditional crop production in Africa for export.." VA: ASHS Press, Alexandria.
Sivapalasingam, S., Friedman, C. R., Cohen, L., & Tauxe, R. V (2004). Fresh produce:a growing cause of outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States, 1973 through 1997. Journal of Food Protection, 2342-2353.
Smith, F. I., and Eyzaguirre, P. (2007). African leafy vegetables: their role in the World Health Organization’s global fruit and vegetable initiative. African Journal of Food Agricultural Nutrition and Development 7, 1-17.
SNV. (2012). The beans value chain in Kenya. A report by the Netherlands Development Organisation. Accessed on 12th May, 2015 via: www.snvworld.org/.../bean_value_chain_analysis_kenya_2012.pdf.
Soon, J. M., and Baines, R. N. (2013). Public and Private Food Safety Standards: Facilitating or Frustrating Fresh Produce Growers? Laws 2, 1-19.
Soon, J. M., Manning, L., Davies, W. P., and Baines, R. (2012). Fresh produce-associated outbreaks: a call for HACCP on farms? British Food Journal 114, 553-597.
Southon, S. (2000). Increased fruit and vegetable consumption within the EU: potential health benefits. Food Research International 33, 211-217.
SQF (2008). SQF 2000 Code: A HACCP-Based Supplier Assurance Code for the Food Manufacturing and Distributing Industries. Accessed on 19/November/2014 via: http://www.sqfi.com/wp-content/uploads/SQF-2000-Code.pdf.
Steinmetz, K. A., and Potter, J. D. (1996). Vegetables, Fruit, and Cancer Prevention: A Review. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 96, 1027-1039.
Strawn, L. K., Schneider, K. R., & Danyluk, M. D (2011). Microbial safety of tropical fruits. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 132-145.
Swami, C. (2013). Importance of food safety and quality standards at various levels in the tomato supply chain of South Africa. Master's dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Food Technology at Ghent University. Accessed on 15th April 2015 via: http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/063/537/RUG01-002063537_2013_0001_AC.pdf.
Swinnen (2007). The Dynamics of Vertical Coordination in Agri-food Supply Chains in Transition Countries. In "Global Supply Chains, Standards and the Poor: How the Globalization of Food
Systems and Standards Affects Rural Development and Poverty" (J. F. M. Swinnen, ed.). CAB International, Cambridge.
Tait, J., & Bruce, A (2001). Globalization and transboundary risk regulation: pesticides and genetically modified crops. Health Risk & Society, 99-112.
Tait, J., and Bruce, A. (2001). Globalization and transboundary risk regulation: pesticides and genetically modified crops. Health Risk & Society, 99-112.
Tanner, B. (2000). Independent assessment by third-party certification bodies. Food Control 11, 415-417.
Taylor, E. (2001). HACCP in small companies: benefit or burden? Food Control 12, 217-222. Tirado, M. C., Clarke, R., Jaykus, L. A., McQuatters-Gollop, A., and Frank, J. M. (2010). Climate
change and food safety: A review. Food Research International 43, 1745-1765. Traill, W. B., and Koenig, A. (2010). Economic assessment of food safety standards: Costs and benefits
of alternative approaches. Food Control 21, 1611-1619. Trienekens, J., and Zuurbier, P. (2008). Quality and safety standards in the food industry, developments
and challenges. International Journal of Production Economics 113, 107-122. Trienekens, J. H., Wognum, P. M., Beulens, A. J. M., and van der Vorst, J. (2012). Transparency in
complex dynamic food supply chains. Advanced Engineering Informatics 26, 55-65. UEPB (2011). Uganda Export Promotion Board: Export statistics database., Kampala, Uganda. UEPB (2013a). Uganda Export Promotion Board: Export statistics. Accessed on 11/11/2014 via:
http://www.ugandaexportsonline.com/2009/statistics.php. UEPB (2013b). Uganda Export Promotion Board: Export statistics. Accessed on 21/02/2013 via:
http://www.ugandaexportsonline.com/2009/statistics.php. Ulrich, K., Ssango, F., Kyazze, F., Graffham, A., and MacGregor, J. (2007). "Impact of EurepGAP on
small-scale fruit and vegetable growers in Uganda," Rep. No. 10. Ulrich, K., Ssango, F., Kyazze, F., Graffham, A., and MacGregor, J. (2009). Impact of GLOBALGAP
on small-scale vegetable growers in Uganda. In "Standard bearers Horticultural exports and private standards in Africa" (Adeline Borot de Battisti, James MacGregor and A. Graffham, eds.), pp. 61-65. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London WC1H 0DD.
UNCTAD (2008). Private-Sector Standards and National Schemes for Good Agricultural Practices: Implications for Exports of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables from sub-Saharan Africa Experiences of Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Unnevehr, L., and Roberts, T. (2002). Food safety incentives in a changing world food system. Food Control 13, 73-76.
US.FDA (2011). Public Law 111–353: Food Safety Modernization Act. Accessed on 22/09/2011 at: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm.
USAID (2013). "The fresh fruit and vegetable markets of East Africa: An assessment of regional value chain actors, activities and constraints in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
Accessed on 28th August 2015 via: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/eatradehub/pages/808/attachments/original/1432639115/FFV_Markets_of_East_Africa_final_approved_and_compressed_July_17_2013.pdf?1432639115."
Uyttendaele, M., Jacxsens, L., and Van Boxstael, S. (2014). 4 - Issues surrounding the European fresh produce trade: a global perspective. In "Global Safety of Fresh Produce" (J. Hoorfar, ed.), pp. 33-51. Woodhead Publishing.
Uyttendaele, M., Jacxsens, L., and Van Boxstael, S. (2015). Food safety standards in the fresh produce supply chain. In "Advances in microbial food safety", Vol. 1.
Valeeva, N. I., and Huirne, R. B. M. (2008). "Strategies to improve food safety in the dairy chain: A case-study from the Netherlands."
Valeeva, N. I., Huirne, R. B. M., Meuwissen, M. P. M., and Lansink, A. (2007). Modeling farm-level strategies in the dairy for improving food safety chain. Agricultural Systems 94, 528-540.
Valeeva, N. I., Meuwissen, M., Lansink, A. O., and Huirne, R. (2006). Cost implications of improving food safety in the Dutch dairy chain. European Review of Agricultural Economics 33, 511-541.
Van Boxstael, S., Jacxsens, L., and Uyttendaele, M. (2013). Fresh produce rejections at EU border inspection posts. Accessed on 12th April 2015 via: http://www.newfoodmagazine.com/12322/new-food-magazine/past-issues/issue-5-2013/fresh-produce-rejections-at-eu-border-inspection-posts/. In "New food magazine".
Van de Perre, E., Jacxsens, L., Liu, C., Devlieghere, F., and De Meulenaer, B. (2015). Climate impact on Alternaria moulds and their mycotoxins in fresh produce: The case of the tomato chain. Food Research International 68, 41-46.
Van der Vorst, J. (2006). "Performance measurement in agri-food supply-chain networks - An overview."
Van Hoi, P., Mol, A. P. J., and Oosterveer, P. J. M. (2009). Market governance for safe food in developing countries: The case of low-pesticide vegetables in Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 380-388.
VanBoxstael, S., Habib, I., Jacxsens, L., De Vocht, M., Baert, L., Van De Perre, E., Rajkovic, A., Lopez-Galvez, F., Sampers, I., Spanoghe, P., De Meulenaer, B., and Uyttendaele, M. (2013). Food safety issues in fresh produce: Bacterial pathogens, viruses and pesticide residues indicated as major concerns by stakeholders in the fresh produce chain. Food Control 32, 190-197.
Vellema, S., and van Wijk, J. (2015). Partnerships intervening in global food chains: the emergence of co-creation in standard-setting and certification. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Victor, A. S. (2007). The dynamics of horticultural export value chains on the livelihood of small farm households in Southern Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2, 435-440.
Wargovich, M. J. (2000). Anticancer properties of fruits and vegetables. Horticulture Science 35, 573–575.
WHO (2003a). World Health Organization: Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, WHO Technical Report Series #916, Geneva, 2003. Accessed on 14th January, 2015 via: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_916.pdf.
WHO (2003b). World Health Organization: Fruit and Vegetable Promotion Initiative – report of the meeting, Geneva, 25–27 August. Accessed on 17 April 2014, via: www.who.int.
WHO (2003c). World Health Organization: Fruit, vegetables and NCD disease prevention. Accessed 17 December 2014 via: www.who.int/hpr/global.strategy.shtml.
WHO (2011). Foodborne outbreaks: managing the risks. Accessed on 21/July/2014 via: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/8/11-040811/en/index.html. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 554-555.
WHO/FAO (2005). World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Fruit and Vegetables for Health. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO. Accessed on 10th August 2014 via:http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/fruit_vegetables_report.pdf.
Wiggins, S., Kirsten, J., and Llambí, L. (2010). The Future of Small Farms. World Development 38, 1341-1348.
WikiMedia. (2013). List of Countries by Regional Classification. Available at :http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Countries_by_Regional_Classification Accessed 20 October 2014.
Will, M., and Guenther, D. (2007). Food quality and safety standards as required by EU law and private industry: with special reference to MEDA countries' exports of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, herbs and spices. Accessed on 22nd February 2015 via: http://www2.gtz.de/dokumente/bib/07-0800.pdf.
Willer, H., and Kilcher, L. (2010). "The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009." IFOAM: Bonn, FiBL: Frick, ITC: Geneva.
Williamson, S., Ball, A., and Pretty, J. (2008). Trends in pesticide use and drivers for safer pest management in four African countries. Crop Protection 27, 1327-1334.
Winchester, N., Rau, M. L., Goetz, C., Larue, B., Otsuki, T., Shutes, K., Wieck, C., Burnquist, H. L., de Souza, M. J. P., and de Faria, R. N. (2012). The Impact of Regulatory Heterogeneity on Agri-food Trade. World Economy 35, 973-993.
Winkler, A., and Freund, M. (2011). The potential for third party standards at manufacturing and retail to reduce the risk of listeriosis arising from consumption of Listeria monocytogenes from ready-to-eat foods. Food Control 22, 1503-1505.
Wismer, W. V. (2014). Chapter 3 - Consumer Eating Habits and Perceptions of Fresh Produce Quality. In "Postharvest Handling (Third Edition)" (W. J. F. L. S. B. E. Prussia, ed.), pp. 31-52. Academic Press, San Diego.
World, and Bank (2006). "China’s compliance with food safety requirements for fruits and vegetables: Promoting food safety, competitiveness and poverty reduction, Washington, D.C./Beijing: World Bank.."
World Bank (2005). Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Country Exports.
World Bank (2008). "World Development Report: Agriculture for Development." World Bank, washington,DC.
World Bank (2012a). "Uganda at glance. Accessed on 10/12/2012 via:http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/uga_aag.pdf ".
World Bank (2012b). "World Bank List of Economies. Accessed on 02/09/2012 via: http://www.healthsystemsglobal.org/Portals/0/files/World_bank_list_july2012.pdf." World Bank, Washington.
World Bank. (2008). "World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. ." Yin, R. K. (1994). "Case study research: design and methods," 2nd/Ed. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA. Yu, M., and Nagurney, A. (2013). Competitive food supply chain networks with application to fresh
produce. European Journal of Operational Research 224, 273-282.
Scientific curriculum vitae
Jessica Nanyunja Sentongo was born in Mengo (Uganda) on October 23, 1983. She completed her
Bachelor of Science in Human Nutrition and Dietetics at Kyambogo University funded by the
government of Uganda scholarship, in Kampala, in 2008.
The same year, she was selected for the Vlirous scholarship to continue with her education of Master of
Science in Human Nutrition and Rural Development main subject: Human Nutrition at the Ghent
University, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, where she completed in June 2010 with a distinction.
In the same year of 2010 in August, she started working at the Ghent University, Department of Food
Quality and Safety, as a PhD student on the Work Packages 1 and 2 funded by the European Union as
part of the Seventh Framework Program (FP7) for Research and Technological Development
(www.veg-i-trade.org, grant agreement no 244994). She participated in many national and international
scientific conferences, seminars and workshops with oral and poster contributions.
She continued her research in Uganda and Kenya with the International Foundation For Science (IFS)
funding in 2012 and 2013. During this PhD, Jessica participated in several (inter)national conferences
and published in peer-reviewed international journals. In addition, she guided (master) thesis students
and assisted in the ITP food safety training under the theme ‘Food safety in the international context’.
During her PhD study, Jessica has done consultancy work about food safety issues for fresh produce
with the agencies of the government of Uganda, farms, companies and NGOs like ABI Trust Uganda.
Jessica is also the founder and CEO of Harmony Nutrifoods Ltd, a food company in Uganda that
processes nutrition food products in collaboration with international nutrition research partners in
Copenhagen, Denmark and Bioversity International in Maccarese, Italy.
Articles in peer-reviewed international journals included in the Science Citation Index
(A1) Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Kaaya, A. N., Uyttendaele, M., and Luning, P. A. (2015). Assessing the Status of Food Safety Management Systems for Fresh Produce Production in East Africa: Evidence from Certified Green Bean Farms in Kenya and Noncertified Hot Pepper Farms in Uganda. Food Protection 78, 1081–1089.
Kirezieva, K., Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., Uyttendaele, M., and Luning, P. A. (2013). Context factors affecting design and operation of food safety management systems in the fresh produce chain. Trends in Food Science & Technology 32, 108-127. Jacxsens, L., Van Boxstael, S., Nanyunja, J., Jordaan, D., Luning, P., and Uyttendaele, M. (2015). Opinions on fresh produce food safety and quality standards by fresh produce supply chain experts from the global South and North. Food protection Vol. 78. doi:10.4315/0362-028X. JFP-14-537 Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Kirezieva, K., Van Boxstael S. Van, Kalibbala, E., Kaaya, A.N., Uyttendaele, M., Luning, P.A. Shift in performance of food safety management systems in supply chains: case of green bean chain in Kenya versus hot pepper chain in Uganda (Accepted for publication in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture)
Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., D’Haese , M., D’Haese, L., Van de Vorst, J., Cudjoe , K.S., Uyttendaele, M. Constraints at micro-, meso- and macro-level of the Ugandan hot pepper supply chain and their impact on assurance of food safety (Submitted to Journal of World Development).
Abstracts, Conferences Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., D’Haese , M., D’Haese, L., Van de Vorst, J., Cudjoe , K.S., Uyttendaele, M. (2011). "FP7 EU Veg-i-Trade: Compliance to food safety standards in the fresh produce chain: increasing pressures and challenges for third party countries supplying the European and US markets". International Association for Food Protection Poster Presentation P2-34, May 18–20, Ede, Netherlands. Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Tudela, J.A., Gil, M.I., Marijke, D., Uyttendaele, M., Allende, A. (2011). "FP7 EU Veg-i-Trade: Assessment of the global food market of fresh produce: production and trade in representative EU and EU trading partners". International Association for Food Protection Poster Presentation P2-35, May 18–20, Ede, Netherlands. Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens, L., Marijke, D., Rajkovic, A., Uyttendaele, M., (2011). "FP7 EU Veg-i-Trade: Assessment of the organization structure of the global fresh produce food supply chain at the EU and global level". P2-36, May 18–20, Ede, Netherlands. Nanyunja, J., Jacxsens L., (2013). The status of Food Safety Management Systems in East Africa: The case of Kenyan Green bean and Ugandan Hot pepper Export Companies. The 7th symposium of the Ghent Africa Platform: “Africa and Food: challenges, risks and opportunities".
Nanyunja, J., L. Jacxsens, K. Kirezieva, P.A. Luning, S. V. Boxstael, M. Uyttendaele. (2014). Food sovereignty in the East African community: Green Beans in Kenya Versus Hot Peppers in Uganda. The 6th Consortium meeting and Food Sovereignty Public Conference at University of Pretoria. March, 18 – 23 South Africa.
Nanyunja, J., L. Jacxsens, M. Uyttendaele. (2015). Food sovereignty in fresh produce supply chain: Kenya versus Uganda. The EU-funded “Food Smart Cities for Development” conference on the international Debate on Local Urban Food Policies in the global food sovereignty. June, 11-12 Ghent city, Belgium
