Less sticks, more carrots:
New directions for improving food safety in informal
markets in low- and middle-income countries
World Food Safety Day webinar, 7 June 2023

House Keeping
Tech Tips
• Use the chat to post comments during the presentations. Create a conversation! microphone is the next
best solution.
• Use the question function to ask questions to the panelists
• Put your full name and organization - Tsehay Gashaw (ILRI)
• If you can’t hear or see: close and restart zoom, close other programs
• The session is recorded - audio, video and chat - and any private chats are also visible to the organizers.

Agenda
Time What
9.00 - 9.05 Welcome to the event (Silvia Alonso)
9.05 – 9:15 Opening remarks
1 Appolinaire Djikeng (ILRI) - DG ILRI
2. Julian Lampietti (World Bank) - Manager, Global Engagement, Agriculture and Food Global Practice
9.15 - 9.35 Overview of the report and recommendations, Steve Jaffee
9.35 - 9:45 A new agenda for informal markets – ILRI’s ideas on how to move forward the recommendation,
Delia Randolph
9:45 – 10:10 Commentary on the Launch – facilitated by Silvia Alonso
1. Simone Moraes Raszl (WHO)
2. Markus Lipp (FAO)
3. Pawan Agarwal (Food Future Foundation)
4. Amare Ayalew (African Union Commission)
5. Nika Larian (USAID’s Bureau for Resilience and Food Security)
Response from authors (from 3-4 minutes)
10:10 – 10:15 Summing up and final remarks, Hung Nguyen, ILRI

New directions for tackling food safety
risks in the informal sector of low- and
middle-income countries
Spencer Henson, Steven Jaffee and Shuo Wang

The Context or
Problem Statement

Food systems in low- and middle-income countries
Hybrid food systems yet fragmentation & informality are the norm
Micro and small-scale aggregators,
processors, distributors & food
service operators collectively account
for large shares of marketed foods.
Especially for:
Source: Adapted and modified from Teftt et al, 2017

Numerous surveys highlight food safety deficiencies in
fragmented food systems & informal distribution channels
Low food safety awareness and
knowledge
Weak and unhygienic physical
environment
Poor hygiene and unsafe food
safety practices
Limited effective consumer self-
protection

A description from the community marketplaces of one capital
city in Asia…a story common to many other locales
“Degradation is widespread; waste and wastewater collection and treatment does not meet the required
capacity; the supply of clean water is insufficient; the risk of inundation and poor drainage is high;
equipment for business does not meet food safety requirements; fire protection doesn’t meet practical
requirements….
… Meat has not been stored in cold containers, leading to exposure to the environment; vendors leave fresh
meat and processed ones next to each other… no record on product origin… wastes are thrown directly to
the floor and sidewalks….
…The infrastructure conditions and practices suggest a high risk of microorganism contamination to fresh
agriculture product, especially meat. Especially in the summer when it is hot and humid, microorganism
such as Norovirus, Salmonella, E. coli bacteria are in favourable conditions for growth, spoiling the meat
and causing foodborne illness.”

But are small players really a big part of the food safety
problem in developing countries? YES!
The informal sector could account for a majority of the burden of foodborne disease
associated with marketed foods in low and lower middle income countries

The Perspective

Incremental structural changes and top-down
regulatory approaches will not solve the problem!
The problem eventually goes away?
1. Formalization and consolidation?
The problem stays & even worsens?
• Traditional outlets & informal channels will
remain prominent for the foreseeable future
• Demographic, dietary & other changes are
increasing consumer food safety risk
exposures
• Central government agencies have minimal
interface with the informal sector
2. ‘Food control’ strengthening
trickles down?

Recasting the problem and players and venues
.… low incentives AND
low capacity
The ‘problem’: defined as an awareness gap and/or regulatory enforcement gap.
Little distinction made among types of informal sector players or LMIC settings.
Instead, need to recognize that there are….
different types of players with varied risk profiles
.... and very different national,
administrative and food system contexts.

Review of on-going, mixed experiences
Broad strategies: Exclusion vs. incremental formalization
Examples from other areas requiring behavioral change
Sub-national state of play (i.e. Asian cities)
Capacity:
◦ Training: Necessary but insufficient
◦ Collective action: Scope to better leverage
◦ Clustering players: Upgrading infrastructure strategically
Incentives:
◦ Hygiene ratings & voluntary certification schemes
◦ Institutional procurement
◦ Engaging and empowering consumers
Promising on-going experiment: ‘Eat Right India’ & differentiated
approaches to food safety engagement and compliance support

Overall Assessment?
Missing pieces, counterproductive measures, or promising elements which
aren’t commensurate with the scale & complexity of the challenge
Uncertain policy or benign neglect
of traditional, community markets
Punish and disrupt informal
business operators
Periodic training and
awareness-raising programs
Weak links to complementary
areas of public policy
Informal sector missing from
national food vision & food law

Who is most at risk? Low and lower middle-income
countries are the ‘critical hotspots’
Low/insufficient capacities to manage
food safety risks from animal sources
Multiple barriers to effective action on food safety
matters among LMIC Asian cities

The Way Forward

1. Local action, centrally guided
Interventions at the municipal level:
◦ Both regulate and facilitate
◦ Part of urban (food & broader)
governance
◦ Informal sector included in vision for
healthy, sustainable and resilient cities
Central government and agencies:
◦ Empower cities
◦ Provide technical guidelines
◦ Mobilize/unlock resources
◦ Facilitate experience-sharing

2. Multisectoral & multi-stakeholder interventions
• Synergistic interventions rather than stand-
alone food safety measures and projects
• Enhance capacity and incentives, both internal
and external to food businesses
• Foster & leverage collective action
• Operationalize ‘shared responsibility’ between,
business, consumers and government
Big problem adversely
impacting many
Collective action
mitigates a big problem

And, engaging with food operators differently…
Less sticks and more carrots
Enact and enforce
Punish non-Compliance
Engage and enable
Motivate and facilitate compliance
19

A need for differentiated mixes and priorities
Across countries and sub-sectors of the informal sector
Key: Green relate to capacity; Orange relate to incentives

Thank you !

World Food Safety Day
2023
Natural Resources Institute , UK & International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya
Delia Grace

Years of life lost annually for FBD
FERG: Havelaar et al., 2015; Gibb et al., 2019
Health impact of FBD comparable to
that of malaria, HIV/AIDs or TB
USA – 1 in 6
Greece 1 in 3
Africa 1 in 10??
zoonoses
non zoonoses
31 hazards
• 600 mio illnesses
• 480,000 deaths
• 41 million DALYs

The public health and domestic economic costs –
> 20 times trade related costs
of unsafe food may be 20 times the trade-related costs for
developing countries
Cost estimates 2016 (US$ billion)
Productivity loss 95
Illness treatment 15
Trade loss or cost 5 to 7

Foods implicated
World Health
Organisation, 2017
Fruit Milk Veggies Fish Meat/eggs

Informal markets have a major role in food security and food safety
Benefits of wet markets
Cheap,
Fresh,
Local breeds,
Accessible,
Small amounts,
Sellers are trusted,
Livelihoods for women,
Credit may be provided
(results from PRAs with
consumers in Safe Food, Fair Food
project)
Wet market
milk
Supermarket
milk
Most common
price /litre
56 cents One dollar
Infants
consume daily
67% 65%
Boil milk 99% 79%
Survey in supermarkets and wet markets in Nairobi in 2014

Food safety research at ILRI
• 2006: Food safety research initiated
• 2006-2016: focus risk assessment, policy analysis, understanding
risk factors, literature review
• 2016-2023: focus on interventions that are affordable, s scalable
and will continue over the life of the project
• Increasing engagement with national, regional and international
actors
• Co-led Food Safety Theme in Action Track One of UNFSS

savings on firewood / month
= 900,000 UGX (260 US$) + >100 trees
Reach:
50% of all pork butchers and
their 300,000 customers in Kampala
Abattoir and butcher intervention Uganda

PARTICULARS KENYA ASSAM CAPITAL,
INDIA
KENYA IBADAN,
LAGOS
DAKAR,
SENEGAL
Value chain Informal milk sector
National
Informal milk sector
Capital
Slaughterhouse
(3)
Butchers
Large city
Ready to eat
meat,
When 1997-2006 2009-2013 2010-2011 2009-2011 2015
Cost project
actor
Several million
Medium
<0.5 M
Low
<50 k
Low
<50k
Low
<50k
Low
Number of
traders
25,000-30,000
national
Around 300 traders
and 600 producers in
the main milkshed
Several hundred
in the
Around 900 in
the market
Number of
market actors
trained
In 2010, 4,200 traders
registered nationally.
In pilot areas, 85% of
traders had been
trained
265 traders and 480
producers have been
trained
Around 100
trained
80 directly by
the project and
around 420 by
peer to peer
training
40 shops
selling roasted
goat meat
Consumers
reached
Around 0.5 to 5 million Around 1.5 million Nearly 1 million Around 360,000

KENYA ASSAM
STATE,
INDIA
KENYA IBADAN,
LAGOS
SENEGAL
Enabling
environment
Yes
KDB approval
Yes
Govt support
No
No
No
No
No
No
Policy
influence
High –
legislation
changed and
new
institutions
High- new
institutions
but no change
to legislation
None Low- only
engagement
with market
authorities
None

Kenya Assam state, India Kenya Ibadan, Lagos Senegal
Intervention Training in hygiene
and business
practices;
provision of
hygienic dairy cans
s; a certificate was
given to successful
trainees and this
reduced
harassment by
officials.
In depth training needs
analysis; training of
trainers; training covered
hygiene and business
skills; traders motivated
by better relations with
officials and positive
publicity; farmers by
visible reduction in
mastitis
Training in
hygiene; raising
awareness on
food safety
Peer-to-peer
training on basic
hygiene; provision
equipment;
banners and
promotional
material; use of
butchers’
associations to
monitor
performance and
ensure compliance.
Control & 3
arms:
Training &
feedback on
previous study,
Hygiene pack,
Training &
hygiene pack
Simple training
& pack (brush,
soap, trash can,
apron etc).
Pack=$60
Incentive Certificate
 business perf
Various – oath,
professionalization,
Peer pressure
Follow
regulations
Social norms
Nudges Heuristics, rules of
thumb
Posters

Kenya Assam state, India Kenya Ibadan, Lagos Dakar, Senegal
Documented
impact
Improved KAP after
training
Improved milk safety
after training - reduction
in unacceptable
coliforms from 71% to
42%
High economic benefits
from the initiative -
$33.5 million a year
Improved KAP after
training
Significantly higher milk
production after training
(7.8 and 6.8 liters
respectively) and
tendency for reduced
mastitis
Sector level benefits in
Kamrup at least $5.6
million a year
No change in KAP after
training – the
management did not
provide soap or other
necessities and were
rather indifferent to
practices and there was
no obvious incentive for
behavior change
Reduction of
unacceptable meat from
97.5% to 78.5%
(p<0.001);
Significant
improvements in KAP
after training
Cost of training is $9 per
butcher and estimated
gains through diarrhoea
averted was $780 per
butcher
70% microbial
satisfactory before,
improved after (n.s);
No sig diff between
arms
No sig diff in economic
performance
Current status
of the initiative
Training and
certification is episodic
and project-led but
trained vendors have an
important share of the
market . However, milk
safety similar to
untrained
Training and monitoring
is ongoing and
supported by
government
None – one off training
at the end of a
prevalence study
Safety worse than
before,
Govt. tried to relocate
abattoir
Butchers shot dead in
street,
Ongoing conflict
one – one off research

1. Many food safety interventions in LMICs do not scale
2. Scaling must be incorporated from the start
3. We know the critical success factors for scaling
4. We often need change only a small number of behaviours
5. Behaviours can be changed by a wide range of incentives and nudges
6. Authorities must be on board (or at least not anti informal market)
Take home messages
Learnings from first phase research

Pull approach
(demand for safe
food)
Push approach
(supply of safe
food)
ENABLING
ENVIRONMENT
Consumers recognize &
demand safer food
VC actors respond to
demand & incentives
Inform, monitor &
legitimize VC actors
Build capacity &
motivation of regulators
Empower consumers
Three legged stool
Progressive
improvements
infrastructure

Portfolio research projects
1. Safe Pork, Vietnam
2. Safe Food, Fair Food, Cambodia
3. BUILD – abattoirs Uganda
4. Pork and dairy value chains, India
5. MoreMilk, Kenya
6. Pull-Push Ethiopia and Burkina Faso
7. Safe African Vegetables, Nigeria
8. EatSafe, Ethiopia
9. One CGIAR butchers, Ethiopia

Control: Vendors who practices
and operate their selling as usual
Current surface
(carton board)
Washing
detergent
Trial: Vendor who get our incentive and used
Easy to clean
table surface
Signpost
And Training
certificate
Apron
Tray
Trial retailers:
- 84% of the trial retailers had a good
knowledge of safe meat handling
compared to the control group
(44%)
- The KAP scores of retailers in the
intervention significantly improved.
MARKET VENDORS CAMBODIA

Acknowledgement

Next steps
Recording will be available
Questions, answers and disucsison wil be put together in a blog
More information can be found here: https://www.ilri.org/world-food-safety-day-2023

THANK YOU