Better lives through livestock
The future of food safety in Africa: Research perspective
Delia Grace1,2*, Silvia Alonso2, Kebede Amenu3, Elizabeth Cook2, Michel Dione2, Theo Knight-Jones2, Johanna Lindahl2,4,5, Florence
Mutua2, Hung Nguyen-Viet2, Kristina Roesel2 and Lian Thomas2
1 Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich
2 International Livestock Research Institute
3 Addis Ababa University
4Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
5Uppsala University

2
Research for evidence, policy, capacity, innovation,
& IMPACT
1. Evidence for policy on food-borne disease burdens & capacity
• Ground truthing FERG foodborne disease burdens
• Assessing economic costs of FBD
• Conducting SLRs on hazards and interventions
• Conducting a Situational Analysis of Food Safety in East Africa
• Supporting AU in first regional food safety index, reviewing AU food safety strategy, UNFSS
2. Strengthening food safety education in Africa
• Benchmarking a curriculum on Food Safety in universities in East Africa region
• Developing & implementing capacity building in Uganda and Nairobi
• On-line training course on risk assessment food safety for LMICs
• OHRECA supporting graduate fellows
3. Food safety innovation
• Community-led total sanitation in Mali
• Nudges for food safety in Uganda and Nairobi
• Aflatoxin binders for animal feed
4. Interventions to improve food safety at scale in east and west Africa
• Consumer-driven and market-based approaches in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Burkina Faso
• Upgrading food safety value chains

Evidence: health burden
3
Havelaar et. Al. 2015; Gibb et al., 2019

Evidence: Economic costs
‘Productivity Loss’ =
Foodborne Disease DALYs x Per Capita GNI
Jaffee et al. Illness treatment =
US$27 x # of Estimated foodborne illnesses
Trade loss or costs =
2% of developing country high value food exports
In Africa losses
are $16.7 billion a
year

5
Evidence: Systematic Literature Review

6
Evidence: Situational Analysis EAC
1. The partner states in the region do not lack policies, regulations and
legislation to govern food safety
2. They have adopted a multi-agency food safety management system,
which, given the lack of clear demarcation on the agencies’ influence
boundaries leads to duplication of tasks, redundancies, lack of prudent
financial management, and inadequacy in addressing food safety issues.
3. The agencies are poorly resourced and rarely implement their food
safety mandates.
4. There are no policies or legislations which explicitly target
transformation of informal markets, although up to 90% of the
population are sourcing their food from informal channels.
5. None of the six states has a formal food safety surveillance system.
6. Several promising initiatives

7
Enabling food safety policy in Africa
African Food Safety Index
• Tracking progress on agriculture in
Africa (2015-2025)
• 43 indicators (7 nutrition)
• African food safety index (AFSI)
introduced in 2019
• 50/55 countries reported
• Opportunity to up-scale food
safety in Africa: high interest
and buy-in.
• Countries need support:
financial and sensitization of
institutions.

8
• Develop guidelines that universities in the region can use to benchmark and develop curricula on
food safety
• Partnering IUCEA, EAC, TWG (UB, UN, UR, SUA, MOH SS)
• A Delphi tool has been developed and will be used to solicit inputs from stakeholders, on the
domains / sub-domains to consider. A detailed list of stakeholders has already been constituted.
• In September – December 2021: Running Delphi questionnaire rounds (September – October);
review of findings and drafting of the benchmarks based on the results; development of expected
learning outcomes; and final reporting.
Education: food safety curriculum

9
Education: capacity building

10
A PLA approach based on
awakening the “disgust,
shame and fear "among
community members as
they confront the crude
reality of “mass open
defecation” and its negative
effects on the health and
environment of the whole
community.
Gold standard for
community-led sanitation.
Does not address animal
waste.
Innovation: CLTS
Child playing with animal feces
Un-composted animal waste

Multiple benefits:
 Increase animal productivity
 Reduce aflatoxins in animal-source foods
 Create safe “sink” for aflatoxin
 Improved animal welfare
Food safety/security tradeoff  win-win opportunity
Results of trials:
 Farmers use the binders when provided
 Perceived improved milk production
 Reduced aflatoxin levels in the milk
However:
1. Binders on the market often not of
proven quality
2. Difficult to find small amounts for small-
scale farmers
11
Innovation: Aflatoxin binders

12
Innovation: Nudges
3 bucket cleaning system

13
Impact: upgrading VC
Reach:
50% of all pork butchers/joints
and
500,000 consumers in Kampala
savings on firewood / month
= 900,000 UGX (260 US$) + >100 trees

Pull approach (demand safe food) Push approach (supply safe food)
Reduced burden FBD, professionalizing
informal sector, appropriate governance
ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT
Consumers recognize
& demand safer food
VC actors respond to
demand & incentives
Inform, monitor &
legitimize VC actors
Build capacity &
motivation of regulators
Consumer campaign for
empowered consumers
Gather baseline information for detailed intervention planning and advocacy
Key innovation
Impact: Pull-Push approach

15
• The first evidence-based global
estimates of the many scientific,
economic, policy and capacity
development impacts of livestock
research in and for developing
countries.
• Four main sections (18 chapters)
• Animal Genetics, Production
and Human Health
• Primary Production
• Tropical Livestock Systems
and Policies
• Future of Livestock Research
What we did
• Veterinary epidemiology
• Zoonoses
• Food safety & nutrition
• 2 chapters on trypanosomosis
• East Coast fever
• Immuno-parasitology
• Policy and economics
• Gender

One Health Research, Education and
Outreach Centre in Africa (OHRECA)

THANK YOU