Situational analysis of the Tanzanian food safety control system Beatrice Mgaya Kilima Suleiman Ali Rashid Athumani Msalale Lupindu Joseph Bazili Tarimo Marco Koipapi Laizer July 2020 Table of Contents List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ iii Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... v Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 2 3. Food Safety Stakeholders and Food Control Management ................................................ 2 4. Private Sector in Food Control ......................................................................................... 21 4.1 Civil Society in Food Regulation and Control .............................................................. 22 5. Food safety policy and regulatory framework .................................................................. 23 5.1 Inspection services .......................................................................................................... 23 5.2 National Policies ........................................................................................................... 30 5.3 Description of food value chains .................................................................................. 31 5.3.1 Farm-level activities............................................................................................... 32 5.3.2 Wet markets ........................................................................................................... 33 5.4 Fruits and vegetables produced, processed, and sold in the formal sector ................... 34 5.5 The linkages between the formal, informal, and export sectors ................................... 35 5.6 The extent to which the informal sector counterfeits the formal sector ........................ 36 6. Detection and management of foodborne diseases of animal origin in Tanzania ............ 42 6.1 Major food safety hazards and foodborne diseases of animal origin in Tanzania ........ 42 6.1.1 Anthrax outbreaks .................................................................................................. 43 6.1.2 Taenia solium cysticercosis ................................................................................... 43 6.1.3 Brucellosis.............................................................................................................. 44 6.2 Laboratory services ....................................................................................................... 44 6.3 Management of foodborne disease outbreaks ............................................................... 46 7. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 47 8. References ......................................................................................................................... 48 i List of Tables Table 1. Tanzania policies and legislation addressing food safety in animal source foods and fruits and vegetables Table 2. Zanzibar legislation addressing food safety in animal source foods and fruits and vegetables Table 3. Estimated proportion (%) of private sector actors involved in the implementation of various food standards Table 4. Estimated probability of food inspection along the value chains in Tanzania* Table 5. Categorization of food inspectors in Tanzania Table 6. Probability of animal source food having been inspected* Table 7. Probability of fruits and vegetables source food having been inspected* Table 8. National policies addressing food safety Table 9. Consumption, production, export, and import of animal source foods Table 10. Estimated proportion of various animal source foods produced, processed, and sold in the large-scale, formal sector based on national statistics Table 11. The main players in the formal private sector, including the most important producers, processors, retailers, importers, and exporters Table 12. Common foodborne diseases reported in the last 10 years in Tanzania Table 13. Summary of food-related laboratory services in Tanzania ii List of Figures Figure 1. Local practice of slaughtering sheep in villages, where no hygienic practices are observed and meat inspectors/public health professionals are neither contacted nor involved. iii Acronyms ASF animal source food DALY disability-adjusted life year DIT Dar Es Salaam Institute of Technology FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation Statistical Databases GCLA Government Chemist Laboratory Authority GMOs genetically modified organisms HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point ILRI International Livestock Research Institute LGAs local government authorities LMIC low- and middle-income countries MUHAS Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences MUST Mbeya University of Science and Technology NBS National Bureau of Statistics OIE World Organisation for Animal Health SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SUA Sokoine University of Agriculture TBS Tanzania Bureau of Standards TCU Tanzania Commission for Universities TDB Tanzania Dairy Board TFDA Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority TMDA Tanzania Medicines & Medical Devices Authority UDSM University of Dar es Salaam WHO World Health Organization iv Acknowledgments We would like to express our deepest appreciation and profound gratitude to the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) for financial support that enabled this study to be done. We would like to acknowledge the valuable input from internal and external reviewers from Purdue University and Dr. Jamal Kussaga from Sokoine University of Agriculture who have read and commented on this work. We would also like to underscore the dynamic efforts of the team and their expert advice and contributions to the preparation of this report. Last but not least, we would like to offer our heartiest thanks to Professor Erastus Kangethe and Florence Mutua from ILRI Nairobi for their advice, support, and willingness to take the time to review our work. This report was funded in part by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety under Cooperative Agreement No. 7200AA19LE00003. The contents are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S. government. v Executive Summary The global burden of food hazards is estimated at 33 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). The cost of foodborne diseases in low- and middle-income countries is estimated at USD 110 billion per year with Sub-Saharan Africa accounting for USD 16.7 billion. Food safety is also important for public health and trade. The main objective of this study was to review the current food safety control system in Tanzania. The work was undertaken between October 2019 to July 2020; online databases, ministry information, and statistics were consulted in the review. Although several ministries have mandates related to food safety, Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) is the main agency involved in food control and regulation in the country as well as over-arching responsibility for food safety across the entire food production chain. The review observed that the food value chain includes a multitude of players operating at several nodes along the farm-to-fork continuum. The chain was divided into formal and informal segments; however, the informal value chain drives the largest proportion of food value chains. It was found that ineffective or inadequate inspection and monitoring of foods along the supply chain is linked to outbreaks of various foodborne diseases in the country. Also, the project found more emphasis is on imported and exported food products than foods manufactured or produced for the domestic market. Although domestic market-oriented sectors receive little inspection, some sectors like dairy and meat are relatively more monitored than other sectors. Anthrax, Rift Valley Fever, salmonellosis neurocysticercosis, cholera, brucellosis tuberculosis, campylobacteriosis, and brucellosis are among the foodborne diseases reported in the country. Testing of foodborne hazards is done by laboratories affiliated to health facilities, research and academic institutions, and inspectorate and regulatory institutions. The inspection is generally done episodically. These laboratories handle human, animal, and food-related samples. In the case of management of foodborne disease outbreaks, the project found that all district, regional, referral, and national hospitals have a disaster committee and a disaster plan as part of their preparedness and response plan. The information flows from district health authorities to the regional health authority of the ministry and eventually to the World Health Organization (WHO). vi 1. Introduction The global burden of food hazards is estimated at 33 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) (Havelaar et al., 2015). Children under the age five years are the most (40%) affected. Foodborne diarrhea infections, particularly the non-typhoid Salmonella enterica, is responsible for 230,000 deaths. The global burden of animal source foods (ASFs) is 168 DALYs per 100,000 population (Li et al., 2019). The cost of foodborne diseases in low- and middle- income countries (LMIC) is estimated at USD 110 billion per year with Sub-Saharan Africa accounting for USD 16.7 billion (Jaffee et al., 2019). Food safety is important for public health; trade in safe products can improve national economies. Increasing food trade by 2025 is one of the goals in the Malabo Declaration (AU, 2014); however, achieving this goal is unlikely if the seemingly high problem of food safety is not properly addressed. Unsafe food can also delay achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and negate what has been previously achieved. An effective national food safety control system protects health and safety of consumers and provides a sound regulatory framework for domestic and international trade in food (FAO, 2003). A review of the national food safety control system generates evidence that could support development of interventions to improve food safety. Understanding the functionality of such a system would enable countries to develop policies and legislation that not only improve health but also spur development. A national food control system ensures that food available within a country is safe, wholesome, fit for human consumption, conforms to food safety and quality requirements, and is honestly and accurately labelled as prescribed by the law (Jabbar & Grace, 2012). The world experiences rapid changes in food technology and increases in global food trade, and it is essential to control foodborne hazards along the entire food chain. To operate effectively, food safety control systems require appropriate legal and policy instruments, well-qualified human resources, sound institutional frameworks, financial assets, equipment, and infrastructure (http://www.fao.org/food-safety/food-control-systems/en/). Regulatory authorities are responsible for ensuring food safety and quality along the food chain. The situational analysis project was designed to review food safety control systems in 1 countries within East Africa, also including Ethiopia. It was a follow-up of the situational analysis of food safety control systems conducted in 2011 in eight Sub-Saharan African countries, including three countries targeted by the current review. The project aligned with SDGs numbers Two and Six, as well as the Malabo Declaration. This part of the report presents findings of a review of the Tanzanian food safety control system. It was supported by the Food Safety Innovation Lab with some contribution from CRP A4NH. 2. Methodology The project was carried out between October 2019 and July 2020. The authors attended a two-week food safety training workshop at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Campus in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from August 12 to August 23, 2019. Online databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and Emerald Insight were used to collect data from peer reviewed and grey literature. Additional information and statistics were gathered from Tanzania’s government ministries, e.g., Ministry of Agriculture; Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries; Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children; Ministry of Industries, Trade, and Investment; National Bureau of Statistics (NBS); Tanzania Dairy Board; Tanzania Meat Board; Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS); universities; and research institutions. Also, the websites of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation Statistical Databases (FAOSTAT) and the World Health Organization (WHO) were reviewed. More than 20 peer-reviewed journal articles and several documents were reviewed. 3. Food Safety Stakeholders and Food Control Management The national food control system has the following components: food control management, food laws and regulations, inspection service, laboratory services, information, education, communication, and training. Several ministries have mandates related to food safety in Tanzania. Such ministries include the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries; Ministry of Agriculture; Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children; Ministry of Industries, Trade, and Investment; Ministry of Regional Administration and Local Government; and Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Until recently, the Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority (TFDA) and Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) were the main organizations involved in 2 food control and regulation in the country. However, the food safety mandate of the two institutions was overlapping and the activity boundaries were unclear. The biggest food law amendment in the last 10 years was that of the Tanzania Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (Cap 219). Through the Finance Act, No. 8 of 2019, the responsibility of regulating food was moved from the TFDA to the Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) (https://www.tmda.go.tz/announcements/shifting-of-functions-for-regulating-food-and- cosm). Consequently, the name of Tanzania Foods and Drugs Authority (TFDA) was changed to Tanzania Medicines & Medical Devices Authority (TMDA) which now regulates the quality, safety and effectiveness of medicines, medical devices, and diagnostics. Thus, all activities that were conducted by TFDA relating to quality assurance and the safety of food and cosmetic products were transferred to Tanzania Bureau of Standards (TBS) effective July 1, 2019. Apart from standards formulation, TBS also handles all activities relating to registration of production premises for food and cosmetic products and registration and certification of locally produced and imported food and cosmetic products. Another significant change in food regulation was the establishment of Zanzibar Bureau of Standards (ZBS) in 2011 in accordance with the Zanzibar Standards Act of 2011. One of the key roles of the Bureau is to ensure that products, whether produced in Zanzibar or imported to Zanzibar, comply with the developed Zanzibar standards or other national recognized standards or international standards. Hence ZBS has to develop, promote, and enforce standards in order to ensure the health and safety of consumers as well as protecting the environment while promoting favorable manufacturing and trade based on quality of goods and services (http://www.zbs.go.tz/standard_development). The Tanzania Bureau of Standards is the only agency with primary and overarching responsibility for food safety across the entire food production chain. Other agencies that share responsibilities are all product/produce boards like Tanzania Dairy Board (TDB), Tanzania Meat Board (TMB), Cereals and other Produce Board (CPB), Sugar Board of Tanzania, Tea Board of Tanzania, Tanzania Coffee Board, and Government Chemist Laboratory Authority (GCLA). Previously, there was poor coordination between these agencies. Several Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) arrangements have been established between TBS and other regulatory agencies with related functions. For example, 3 example local government areas (LGA) and TBS have an MoU that allows health workers affiliated with local authorities to inspect food premises, shops, and slaughterhouses, among others, to assess their adherence to food hygiene regulations. In addition to the food safety mandate, products and produce boards like TDB and TMB develop policies and strategies for promotion, development, and production of products within their areas of jurisdiction. Although TBS and ZBS have the same functions, food regulations and standards are not union matters. Thus, each bureau works independently; however, these bureaus have signed MoU to jointly protect consumers from unsafe and substandard products (http://www.tbs.go.tz/index.php/highlights/view/tbs_zbs_sign_pact_to_strengthen_coope ration). Table 1 provides an overview and summarizes policies and legislation addressing food safety on the Tanzania mainland. In addition, Table 2 summarizes food safety legislations in Zanzibar. Although food control authorities are required to adopt a risk-based approach, none of the authorities use formal risk assessment framework. In most cases, they rely on informal risk assessment methods. For instance, typical laboratory analysis is conducted on samples suspected to have caused harm to people for verification purposes. TBS conducts laboratory analyses for product registration, certification purposes, and compliance with declared standards. Risk-based inspection and control of food is not common. 4 Table 1. Tanzania policies and legislation addressing food safety in animal source foods and fruits and vegetables Act/regulations Implementing Object of the law Section(s) addressing Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/agency food safety chain? Standard Act, 2009 Ministry of Samples and PART V: Promotion of the Entire food Standard setting, Industry and information establishment of standardization of chain with Standard Act (tested Trade/Tanzania standards and specifications of exception of Training for product) regulations, Bureau of Appointment of enforcement commodities and services primary industries on quality 2009 Standards (TBS) inspectors provisions production and safety assurance Establishment of TBS Standard Act Powers of Standard (compulsory batch inspectors Provisions for functions, enforcement, certification of management, and control including inspection imports) regulations, Compulsory of the Bureau to repeal of plants, processing 2009 commodity recall the Standards Act, Cap of TBS quality mark 130, and to provide for registration of Standard Act Obstruction other related matters product and (certification premises, sanction regulation), 2009 General penalties in collaboration with judiciary, Commission of an laboratory services, offense by a food safety, control corporate board and food export health certification Compounding of offenses 9 Act/regulations Implementing Object of the law Section(s) Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/agency addressing food chain? safety Meat Industry Act, Ministry of Functions and duties PART IV Provisions for the All meat except Meat and meat 2006 Livestock and of the registrar Provisions relating restructuring of the processed meat products regulation Fisheries/ to registration meat industry, to Meat Industry Act Tanzania Meat Refusal to register provide efficient (import and export of Board (TMB) management, to ensure livestock, meat, and Revocation of provision of high- meat products) registration quality meat products, regulations, 2014 and for matters related Validity of therewith Meat Industry Act registration (inspection of meat industry stakeholders’ Certificate not to be activities) regulations, transferable 2019 Replacement of lost or destroyed document Obstruction General penalties Dairy Industry Act, Ministry of Registration PART IV All milk value Milk and dairy 2004 Livestock and Registration chain system products regulation Fisheries/ Refusal to register provisions except processed Dairy Industry Act Tanzania milk (treatment and Dairy Board Revocation of disposal of unfit milk) (TDB) registration regulations, 2007 Validity of a Dairy Industry Act (raw milk registration transportation) regulations, 2007 Certificate not to be transferable Replacement of lost or destroyed document 10 Act/regulations Implementing Object of the law Section(s) addressing Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/agency food safety chain? (cont.) Document Appeals Dairy Industry Act (import and export of milk and Obstruction of an milk products) regulations, officer 2012 General penalties Dairy Industry Act (raw milk grading and minimum quality and safety requirements) regulations, 2007 Fisheries Act, 2003 Ministry of Conditions for PART VI The fish inspectors are All fish value chain Fish inspection Livestock and quality On fish quality, given power to destroy, Registration and Fisheries/ management management, confiscate tools/ Fish regulations licensing of vessels, Fisheries and standards equipment used in fishers, and fish dealers, Department Competent illegal fishing etc.; Training of 2018 authority control dynamite/ fishermen and chemical fishing processors Fish (quality control and Prevention of standards) regulations, commercial fraud Control of fish export 2000 Fish marketing National Fisheries Policy, 2015 11 Act/regulations Implementing Object of the law Section(s) addressing Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/agency food safety chain? Government Chemistry Ministry of Management of PART IV An act to provide for Entire food chain Contaminants Laboratory Authority Health, samples On management of the establishment of the except primary analysis Act, 2016 Community samples and Government Chemist production (e.g., heavy metals, Development, Laboratory analytical results, Laboratory Authority, aflatoxins, Gender, analytical report respectively to provide for its pesticides, and Elderly and and its effect powers and functions, melamine) Children / and to provide for Government Issuance of matters related thereto. Central laboratory Laboratories analytical reports (GCLA) Expert witness Animal Diseases Act, 2003 Ministry of Movement of PART VII An act to make Primary livestock Meat hygiene Livestock and livestock On compulsory provisions for control production and Animal Diseases Act Fisheries / animal disease and prevention of animal produce Animal health (animals and animal Directorate of Issuance of prevention measures animal diseases, for products movement Veterinary permits monitoring production Abattoir inspection control) regulation, 2018 Services (DVS) of animal products, for Zoo sanitary disposal of animal Animal traceability Animal and animal border post and carcasses, and for products movement control checkpoints other related matters Veterinary drug regulation, 2018 control Compulsory Livestock Identification, animal Food safety and Registration and identification quality Traceability Act, 2010 System for disease Livestock Policy, 2006 control Declaration of disease-free areas Declaration of chemicals for use in disease control 12 Act/regulations Implementing Object of the law Section(s) Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism Ministry/Agency addressing food chain? safety Plant Ministry of 1. Reporting on and destruction PART II Act to prevent the Primary production Phytosanitary issues, Protection Agriculture/ of infectious articles Plant protection introduction and spread and processed including plant Act, 1997 Directorate 2. of harmful organisms products for export health of Crop Duties of occupiers of land Plant protection Protection 3. Control the Plant protection regulations, Right of entry and destruction importation and use 1998 of infectious articles of plant protection Pesticides 4. substances registration • National Contingency measures for the Agriculture containment of outbreak of To regulate export and Export certification Policy, 2013 pests imports of plants and 5. plant products and Control of GMOs Power to make special ensure the fulfillment regulations of international 6. commitments, to National quarantine measures, entrust all plant plant import and export control protection regulatory 7. functions to the Importation for research government, and for purposes matters incidental thereto or connected Conveyance therewith Packing material Plant, plant products, etc., in transit 8. Seizure of illegally imported plants. Declaration of points of entry and quarantine station Export of plants, plant products, etc. 13 Act/regulations Implementing Object of the law Section(s) addressing Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/agency food safety chain? Local government President's Duty to discharge PART V An act to make better All food chain Food hygiene control Office functions Functions of urban provision for the value except and preparation of Local Government (Urban authorities establishment of urban primary production food establishment Authorities) Act; 1982 Regional Basic functions of authorities for the sanitation ordinances Administration local government purposes of local Local Government authorities government, to provide Food inspection (District Authorities) Act, Local for the functions of 1982 Government Duties of urban those authorities, and authorities for other matters Public Health Act, 2009 connected with or Regulations incidental to those National Health Policy, conferring specific authorities. 2003 functions Functions and duties under other written laws Liability of members, etc. Universities Act, 2005 Higher learning PART II Training and research Training, research, institution/ The Tanzania in food quality/safety and advisory services The Sokoine University Sokoine Commission or control related areas of Agriculture Act, 1984 University of for Universities Agriculture The University of Dar es Salaam Act, 1970 Nelson Mandela African Institute of Science and Technology University of Dar es Salaam 14 Table 2. Zanzibar legislation addressing food safety in animal source foods and fruits and vegetables Act/legislation Implementing Object of the law Section(s ) Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/ addressing food chain? agency safety Zanzibar Standards Ministry of Standard marks Part III An act to provide for Entire food chain Standard setting Act, 2011 Trade and Provisions the development, system except Industry/ Application and use relating to promotion and primary production Training for industries Zanzibar of standard marks standardization maintenance of on quality and safety Bureau of standardization and assurance Standards Appeal quality in connection with commodities and Standard enforcement, Compulsory standards the rendering of related including inspection of conformity assessment plants National standards services and to provide for other matters Sanctions in Deficient connected therewith. collaboration with commodities judiciary Restriction of use for Laboratory services the word “standard” Food safety control Examination of imported Food export health commodities certification 15 Act/legislation Implementing Object of the law Section(s ) Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism ministry/ addressing food chain? agency safety Zanzibar Food, Ministry of Food offered as PART III An act to provide for Entire food chain Registration of product Drugs and Cosmetics Health/ prizes, etc. Provisions the efficient and system except in and premises Act, 2006 Zanzibar regarding food comprehensive primary production food, drugs, Examination of food regulation and control Sanctions in collaboration Zanzibar Food, Drugs and cosmetics suspected to be unfit of food, drugs, medical with judiciary and Cosmetics Act for human devices, cosmetics, (slaughter of animals consumption herbal drugs, and Laboratory services for human poisons and to repeal consumption—hygiene Power to seize and the Pharmaceuticals and Food safety control and inspection dispose of carcasses Dangerous Drug Act, regulations), 2015 unfit for human 1986 and to provide for Audit local council consumption related matters inspection Zanzibar Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Restriction on Training of inspectors (milk regulations), importation of food 2006 Food export health Application for certification registration of importers Restriction on movement of imported food Rules relating to milk, milk products, and milk substitutes Milk from diseased dairy animals not to be used for human consumption Restriction on use of premises for slaughter of animals and sale of meat 16 Regulations regarding premises for slaughtering, slaughter and butchery facilities, etc. Transport of meat Fair trading and Ministry of Product quarantine PART VII Enact the new fair All food value chain consumer Industry and Provisions competition and system protection Act, Trade Manufacturers’ or relating to consumer protection 1995 agents’ obligation consumer act, to provide for better protection provisions and other Product recall matters related thereto. Prohibition of unsafe food Seizure of unsafe and counterfeit products Disposal of unsafe counterfeit goods Act/legislation Implementing Object of the law Section(s ) Powers they have Where in the Mechanism ministry/ addressing food food chain? agency safety 17 Animal Resource Ministry of Carcass Disposal PART II An act to providing for Primary livestock Meat hygiene Management agriculture, Animal Diseases animal resource production and Act, 1999 natural Directions for disposal management in animal produce Animal health resources, of carcasses, etc. of Zanzibar and other livestock and diseased animals matters connected Abattoir inspection fisheries therewith management Tests Animal traceability Prohibition of sales, Veterinary drugs control, etc. Power of examination, etc. Disinfecting areas Restriction on importation of animals Certification for importation Quarantine station Failure to remove animals under quarantine in time Slaughter of diseased animals Prohibition of importation of carcass Power of arrest Obstruction of officers 18 Act/legislation Implementin Object of the law Section(s ) Powers they have Where in the food Mechanism g ministry/ addressing food chain? agency safety Plant Protection Act, Ministry of Declaration of point of PART II An act to make Primary production Phytosanitary issues, 1997 Agriculture, entry and quarantine Importation of provisions for and processed including plant health, Natural stations plants preventing the products for export plant protection, and Resources, introduction and spread pesticides registration Livestock and Importations generally of plant pests and other Fisheries connected matters Export certification Importation for research purposes Control of GMOs Conveyances Packing material Seizure of illegally imported plants Fisheries Act, 2010 Ministry of Minister may regulate PART III An act to repeal the Entire fish value Fish inspection Agriculture, fishing industry Development Fisheries Act, 1988 and chain Natural Management and and control of to enact better Fish regulations Resources, Development the fishing provisions related to the Livestock industry management and Training of fishermen and and Management measures development of processors Fisheries fisheries in the internal Minister may declare and territorial waters of Control of fish export controlled area Zanzibar and matters connected therewith Protection of fishing and incidental thereto industries Establishment of fish landing sites Written consent to foreigner Act/legislation Implementin Object of the law Section(s ) Powers they have Where in the Mechanism g ministry/ addressing food food chain? agency safety 19 Chief Government Ministry of Establishment of the PART II An act to make Entire food Contaminants analysis Chemist Laboratory Health/Chief laboratory Establishment provisions for the chain, except (e.g., heavy metals, Act, 2011 Government and establishment and primary aflatoxins, pesticides, and Chemist Functions of the administration of operation of the chief production melamine) Laboratory laboratory the laboratory government chemist Agency laboratory and to (CGCLA) Seal of the laboratory provide for the matter Zanzibar connected there with Relationship with and incidental thereto other institutions Government analyst Functions of the government analyst Responsibilities of powers of the chief government chemist Confidentiality of analytical results Offenses and penalties 20 4. Private Sector in Food Control The private sector can have standards that focus either on the product itself or on the production process. Product standards refer to standards on the a) physical appearance such as shape, color, and absence of blemishes, and b) nutritional contents or absence of undesirable elements, such as contaminants and pesticide residues. Process standards involves a set of conditions such as prohibited use of agrochemicals, documentation, and availability of sanitary services (Lui, 2009; Smith, 2009). It is the mandate of TBS to prepare standards for food products in the country with which the private sector products have to comply with (monitoring of standards is done by TBS). Tanzania has 150 processing industries for milk and milk products, such as ASAS Dairy and Tanga fresh produce whole milk, yoghurt, and sour milk. Dairy associations, including the Tanzania Milk Producers Association (TAMPRODA) and Tanzania Milk Processors Association (TAMPA), work with companies to ensure the safety of milk and dairy products. The companies conduct various tests (organoleptic, quality, and safety assessment) at the receiving point to ensure the milk received by factories is safe and of good quality. These organizations do not have their own standards. For fruit and vegetable safety, there is the Tanzania Horticultural Association (TAHA), an apex-based member of private sector organization that advocates for the growth and competitiveness of the horticultural industry in Tanzania. The industry depends largely on small-scale farmers who can export fruits and vegetables up to 70% from farmers with land holdings less than two hectares (TAHA, 2018). In 2015, Arusha City joined the Milan Urban Food Policy, signed by 115 cities worldwide, which promotes city-to-city learning on developing and implementing sustainable food policies. In 2018, under the leadership of the Arusha city council, Rikolto and TAHA launched the Arusha Food Safety Initiative. In the setting of standards, TBS procedures allow for private sector representation in various technical committees (dairy and meat, fruits and vegetables). The committee drafts standards before inviting the public to review and provide comments. Although the private sector does not participate in the monitoring of standards, they use the standards as the baseline for their product quality. Food companies processing for the domestic market have to comply with standards set by TBS, 24 while export-oriented ones in addition to TBS need to meet the destination market’s standards. Table 3 show the proportion of private sectors involved in implementation of different standards. Table 3. Estimated proportion (%) of private sector actors involved in the implementation of various food standards Private sector Individual Pre- HACCP HACCP ISO QMS ISO standards requisites approach certification standards food safety Smallholder - - - - - - farms Commercial - 5% - - - - farms Food 95% 90% 95% - - - collection units Slaughter- 10% 80% 5% - - - houses Food 50% 65% 38% - - - transporters Food 65% 60% 25% 15% 2% 1% processing sites Markets 10% 6% - - - - Shops 20% 30% - - - - Eating places 5% 20% - - - - 4.1 Civil Society in Food Regulation and Control The Tanzania Consumer Advocacy Society (TCAS) is a private, voluntary, non- governmental and non-partisan organization established in 2007 with the objective of building a society of well-informed consumers empowered to change market terms. TCAS works toward raising Tanzania consumers’ awareness of their rights and obligations and to make their voices heard. It strives to build the capacity of Tanzania consumers to claim their rights by making markets accountable and responsive to consumers’ needs and interests. There is also the Tanzania Consumer Protection Association (TCPA) with related functions, mainly sensitizing consumers. They are mainly based in Dar es Salaam and do not have any role in the regulation or control of food products (i.e., responding to technical issues related to processing storage and distributions of the food produce). Consumer protection is derived 24 from Articles 11, 14, and 18 of the 1977 Constitution of United Republic of Tanzania (which recognizes consumer rights and their protection roles). 5. Food safety policy and regulatory framework 5.1 Inspection services Food safety is a global concern, not only because of its importance to public health, but also its impacts on international trade (FSSC, 2010). Consumers today are demanding safe, nutritious, and high-quality food (Faße et al., 2015) and to meet this demand, food must be inspected throughout the value chain (from farm to fork). Food inspection is defined as examination of foods or systems to verify their conformity to specified requirements or standards. Its ultimate objective is to ensure consumers are protected against foodborne diseases and fraud (Hoag et al., 2007). There are two main types of food inspection: 1) traditional food inspection, and 2) risk-based food inspection. Traditional inspection includes methods that focus on the processing environment and end product. Conversely, risk-based food inspections are those inspections focusing on risk factors that may cause foodborne diseases and rely on quality assurance systems such as Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, or HACCP (Sareen, 2014). Table 4 shows the type of food inspection that is conducted along the value chain from producers to consumers in Tanzania. Tanzania, like other developing countries, does not have enough food safety inspectors. As a result, many food industries in the country are largely self-regulated/inspected. Food inspectors in Tanzania are employed by the government at both the national and local levels. The availability of the post depends on several factors, such as the need for the inspectors, government budget, and activities in the specific regions. For instance, more food inspectors are located in regions with high industrial activities like Dar es Salaam, Arusha, and Mwanza. According to Kurwijila et al. (2010), the national inspectorate employs about 50 24 personnel while the Local Government Authorities employ about 500 employees at the district level and below (ward and village levels). Tanzania Mainland has 26 regions and 161 districts. The majority of the inspectors are employees of food control authorities (e.g., TBS), LGA (health and environmental officers, livestock officers) and ministerial level (Plant Health Services; Tropical Pesticides Research Institute [TPRI]; Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives) and the Ministry of Health or the local government authorities throughout the country. A food inspector must be a professional with a solid background in any of the following: field food science and technology, environmental health science, animal science, veterinary medicine, or public health. Their qualifications may range from an ordinary certificate or diploma to a university degree (BSc, MSc or PhD). Table 5 shows specialization for food inspectors in Tanzania. Availability of inspectors may limit the level of execution of the control activities along the food chain. Due to the limited number of inspectors, focus is usually at one specific point in the food chain, unless there is a need to inspect the whole value chain, like during crises such as aflatoxicosis. 24 Table 4. Estimated probability of food inspection along the value chains in Tanzania* Steps in animal Type and level What is Responsibility Total no. of Total no. Est. source food value of inspection inspected? premises of premise proportion of chain inspections premises per year inspected each year (%) Smallholder 100% informal Process Local Government 4 million Less than 10 0.1 farms (no regular Authorities (LGAs) inspection) Commercial farms 1% formal, Process LGAs 500 300 0.6 99% informal Company quality control team Collection sites Milk: 100% Process LGAs 123** 80 0.6 (e.g., milk and formal Product (for Company quality eggs) Eggs: 100% milk) control team (for informal milk) Informal slaughter 90% informal Process LGAs 500 50 0.1 sites Abattoirs 100% formal Process LGAs 90,000 20,000 1 Product Exporters of 100% formal Process TBS 400 300 0.9 processed animal Product source foods Exporters of 100% formal Process CVL 50 35 0.9 unprocessed Product animal source foods Transporters of 60% formal Process CVL 8,000 4,000 0.65 unprocessed animal source foods 26 Steps in animal Type and level What is Responsibility Total no. of Total no. of Est. proportion source food of inspection inspected? premises premise of premises value chain inspections per inspected each year year (%) Transporters of 100% formal Process TBS 50,000 5,000 0.95 processed animal source foods Food processing 95% formal Process TBS 1,000 800 0.95 sites 5% informal Product Occupational Health Authorities (OHA) LGAs Markets 10% formal Process LGAs 1,000 400 0.85 90% informal Shops 80% formal in Process TBS 700,000 40,000 0.4 wholesale Product Eating places 60% formal Process TBS 400,000 100,000 0.5 40% informal Product LGAs Street food Less than Process LGAs 100,000 40,000 0.15 vendors 10% formal Product Consumers 0% formal Product NI NI NI NI * Numbers in the Table are based on Kurwijila et al. (2010) and author estimation ** Information for milk only 26 Table 5. Categorization of food inspectors in Tanzania 1. Food Technologists Certification Duration (years) Qualification University/college Diploma 2 Diploma in Food Science and Technology (NTA Dar es Salaam Institute of Technology level 4-6) Mbeya University of Science and Technology Bachelor’s degree 3 Food Science and Technology Sokoine University of Agriculture University of Dar es Salaam Master’s degree 2 Food Science Sokoine University of Agriculture Food Safety and Quality Assurance Food Safety and Public Health 2. Veterinary Officers Diploma 2 Diploma in Livestock Production Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Bachelor’s degree 5 Veterinary Medicine Sokoine University of Agriculture Bachelor’s degree 3 Animal Science Sokoine University of Agriculture 3. Health Officer Diploma 2-3 Diploma in Health Officer Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children Environmental Health Officers Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences Degree 3 Environmental Health Officers Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences Sources: TCU, SUA, UDSM, DIT, MUST, MUHAS, and the Ministry of Health 27 Food inspectors have powers to seize, forfeit, condemn, and destroy a product if upon inspection it is declared unfit for its intended use (TFDCA, 2003). Inspection of food commodities (local and imported) and food premises is among the functions of TBS (TBS, 2009). However, more emphasis is on imported and exported food products than foods manufactured or produced for the domestic market (Kussaga et al., 2014). Although domestic market-oriented sectors receive little inspection, some sectors like dairy and meat are relatively more monitored than other sectors (Kussaga, 2015). Moreover, informal markets are the dominant channels through which trading of food and food products is done, yet they are rarely or receive no inspection to assess their compliance with national food hygiene regulations. The probability that a food (animal source and fruits and vegetables) has been inspected and approved for consumption varies from the type of food and the channel used to market the product (Tables 6 and 7). The following applies to Tables 6 and 7. *Notes: 1 = every item of food has almost certainly been individually inspected 0.01= Out of every 100 items sold, around one will have undergone individual visual inspection 0.001 = Out of every 1,000 items sold, around one will have undergone individual visual inspection 0 = it is very unlikely that an item of food has been inspected Table 6. Probability of animal source food having been inspected* Type of food Probability of being inspected Street foods 0.001 Animal source foods sold in small rural villages 0.01 Animal source foods sold in pastoralist areas 0 Animal source foods sold in open markets 0.001 Animal source foods hawked door to door 0.001 Animal source foods at celebrations, feasts, events 0.001 (by definition, these can’t be inspected regularly) Animal source foods in remote areas 0 Animals killed for home consumption 0.001 Animal source foods in institutions (hospitals, 0.01 schools, canteens) 28 (Table 6, continued) Animal source foods sold in supermarkets 1 Animal source foods sold in eating places 0.01 Animal source foods exported 1 Source: Jabbar and Grace, 2012 Table 7. Probability of fruits and vegetables source food having been inspected* Type of food Probability of being inspected Fruits and vegetables sold in small rural villages 0 Fruits and vegetables sold in open markets 0 Fruits and vegetables hawked door to door 0 Fruits and vegetables at celebrations, feasts, events (by 0 definition, these can’t be inspected regularly) Fruits and vegetables in remote areas 0 Fruits and vegetables for home consumption 0 Fruits and vegetables in institutions (hospitals, 0.01 schools, canteens) Fruits and vegetables sold in supermarkets 0.01 Fruits and vegetables sold in eating places 0.001 Fruits and vegetables for export 1 Source: Kilima et al., 2020 Food products processed in formal industrial settings are more likely to receive inspection and monitoring than those in informal settings. Likewise, pre-packaged products are more likely to receive inspection than unpackaged products, including locally produced fresh fruits and vegetables. Rural area markets and food retailers may receive less inspection and monitoring than their counterparts in urban areas. However, products are inspected to assess adherence to legislative requirements like labeling, safety, adulterations, fortification, etc. Ineffective or inadequate inspection and monitoring of foods along the supply chain has been linked to outbreaks of various foodborne diseases (Oyesola, 2016). However, for trade of live animals, the phytosanitary measures stipulated by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) are 29 judiciously applied to animal health. Similarly, the meat transport Act of 2003 and the Animal Diseases Act of 2003 prescribe the approach to the transport of meats and control of scavenging animals near the premises where housed animals or animals destined for slaughter are handled. In addition, plant foods such as roots and tubers, grains and cereals, oilseeds, and fruits and vegetables for export outside the countries follow the WTO protocol on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) measures. Standards for foods are set by TBS and the East African Community in consultation with all stakeholders along the food chain, including farmers, processors, consumers, academia, and policy makers. Also, the country recognizes the standards, guidelines, and codes of practice established by CAC and ISO. 5.2 National Policies The Tanzania constitutions clearly state the right of all citizens to safe food. However, Tanzania has not yet created a specific national food safety policy, even though food safety has been the driver for formulation of several national policies such as the National Agricultural Policy of 2013, Livestock Policy of 2006, and the National Health Policy of 2017 as well as a national food and nutrition policy. Table 8 shows some of the national policies and food safety aspects covered. Table 8. National policies addressing food safety Policy Section Issues related to food safety National Agricultural 1.2.3 Rationale and Food safety Policy of 2013 Justification for Policy Formulation (pg. 7) Livestock policy of 2006 1.5. importance of livestock Food safety policy (pg. 6) 5.0. Policy management (pg. 49) National Health 2.19. Water, Sanitation, Food safety Policy of 2017 Hygiene and Food Safety Food quality (pg.15) Food and Nutrition Policy 3.1. Strengthen the Food safety in Tanzania implementation, Food quality monitoring and Nutritious food enforcement of legislation (pg. 30) 30 5.3 Description of food value chains The food value chain includes a multitude of players operating at several nodes along the farm to fork continuum. It includes primary producers, i.e., livestock keepers and farmers; agents who buy, sell, and move stock to and from primary and secondary markets (distributors); and trekkers and transporters of agricultural products (for internal and external markets). In addition to these principal actors, there are many other small operators who make a living from the food value chain business. It is unusual to find fewer than three links between the producer and the plate, and there may be as many as 10 transactions before the final product reaches the consumer. Both animal and plant food value chains entirely drive the national food requirement and economic development both at the individual and national level. The estimated per capita consumption of meat, milk, and eggs increased from 5.3 kg, 22 liters, and 19 in 2000–01 to 12 kg, 43 liters, and 75 eggs, respectively, in 2009–10. That reflects an increase of 140%, 95.4%, and 295% equivalent to an annual average growth rate of 11.9%, 10.1%, and 30.9% for meat, milk, and eggs, respectively. Nevertheless, these consumption levels are still lower than those recommended by FAO of 50 kg of meat, 200 liters, of milk and 300 eggs per capita needed for sustainable human growth and development. From the data, it shows that the current per capita consumption of meat, milk, and eggs stands at only 24%, 22%, and 25%, respectively, when compared to recommended levels by FAO (Livestock development strategy, 2010). Table 9 show consumption, production, exports, and imports of animal source foods and fruits and vegetables, respectively. Table 9. Consumption, production, export, and import of animal source foods ASF Consumption (t) Total production(t) Exports (t) Imports (t) Beef 30,0140 479,071 1,759.12 516.63 Shoat 63,219 66,184 2020 57 Poultry 90,468 104,062 - 2327 Pork 15,981 14,778 251 449 Eggs 28,360 107,000 60 12 Milk/ 198,4506 2,700,000 39 5376 milk products Fish 232,162 389,459.40 39,537.43 7,760.12 31 Tomatoes 565,441 954 30 Oranges 450,000 21200 62 Bananas 3,484,788 899 4 Cauliflower - - 33 Onions 256,044 5068 162 Mangoes 434,344 3 508 Carrots - - 722 Pineapples 434,969 2 18 Apples - 18 2018 FAOSTAT (2017) and MLFD (2018/2019) government budget The informal value chain drives the largest proportion of most food value chains. However, they are not formally regulated in terms of quality and marketing and this has implications for food safety. 5.3.1 Farm-level activities Rural households obtain animal products from their own farms or purchase them from their neighbors. Slaughtering at home is a practice mostly seen in the rural areas where poultry, sheep, and goat slaughter is common (Figure 1). In this case, no formal quality control measures are implemented by local authorities. Animals that die from injuries or diseases may be also be consumed by community members without inspection as long as the household members feel it is safe to consume such carcasses. More than 90% of milk is consumed off- farm in Tanzania, mostly through direct farm gate sales (http://www.fao.org/3/x5661e/x5661e07.htm). However, the beef sector is smallholder producer-driven and is championed by traditional pastoralists and agro-pastoralists (who together command over 98% of meat production in Tanzania). The meat produced by this channel is almost entirely for local consumption. Poor infrastructures and requisite inspection services are a concern. Less than 10% of the horticultural products produced in Tanzania are exported to European Union regional markets (i.e., East African Community [EAC], Southern African Development Community [SADC]) and the Middle East. This implies that the local market consumes most of the horticultural produce, predominantly in its fresh form; a very small proportion is 32 processed. A significant proportion of horticultural produce also goes to waste due to poor and inadequate post-harvest handling and also because of the perishable nature of horticultural produce. Figure 1. Local practice of slaughtering sheep in villages, where no hygienic practices are observed and meat inspectors/public health professionals are neither contacted nor involved. The proportion of the population that is largely dependent on subsistence production of foods of animal origin is 2%. A small proportion of animal source food is produced, processed, and sold in the formal sector. The bulk of the animal source foods are produced by small scale farmers and a large percent of the produce is consumed locally and sold through informal markets in the raw form, with very few exports. Because a large percentage of informal markets do not observe the food safety and hygiene regulations, it exposes consumers to a high risk of hazards. More than 85% of agricultural produce is channeled through informal retail sales. Informal retail includes small grocers as well as open air markets (locally “machinga”). 5.3.2 Wet markets These involve food products that are already processed. They are sold to individual households, hotels, restaurants, and street vendors where they are processed into ready-to-eat food by boiling, frying, etc. before consumption. Some animals, especially poultry, sheep, pigs, and goats are slaughtered at livestock market settings and prepared in various ways before consumption (including roasting, boiling, and frying). The majority of livestock market auctions have small constructed slaughter slabs that are not adequately equipped (for example, they have no regular water supply) and hygienic practices are therefore not observed. 33 Wet markets for slaughter at home/home grown Common during the festive events in both rural and urban areas; people buy the live animals from the auction markets or from neighbors and slaughter the animals at home. From small shops/kiosks/vegetable stalls This system is very common in urban and peri-urban areas where low and medium- income families live. Supermarkets Supermarkets are used by high-income people who are able to pay for the extra cost of a high level of quality and hygiene. This is seen in cities and towns whereby storage (chilling and cold chain system) is maintained, hence shelf life is extended. Table 10 shows the estimated proportion of various animal source foods produced, processed, and sold in the large-scale and formal sectors. Table 10. Estimated proportion of various animal source foods produced, processed, and sold in the large-scale, formal sector based on national statistics ASF Produced (t) Processed and sold Sold in the informal in the formal sector sector Beef 479,071 3% 98% Sheep and goats 94,453 2% 98% Poultry 79,332 - - Pork 37,773 - - Eggs (billion) 3,575,621 - - Milk and milk 2,700,000 3% 97% (70 marketed, 30 products (liters) not marketed) Source: Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries budget, 2018–19 5.4 Fruits and vegetables produced, processed, and sold in the formal sector A large variety of fruits and vegetables are produced in Tanzania. The most important fruits include mangoes, oranges, pineapples, passion fruits, bananas, avocados, jackfruits, papayas, peaches, pears, guavas, and grapes. The main vegetables include tomatoes, okra, and chilies. Annual Tanzanian production is 2.75 million tons of fruits and vegetables, but only 4% is 34 processed (www.export.gov). Less than 10% of the horticultural products produced in Tanzania are exported to European Union regional markets (i.e., East African Community [EAC], Southern African Development Community [SADC]) and the Middle East. This implies that the local market consumes most of the horticultural produce, predominantly in fresh form, and only a very small proportion is processed. A significant proportion of horticultural produce also goes to waste due to basic and inadequate post-harvest facilities and the perishable nature of horticultural crops. 5.5 The linkages between the formal, informal, and export sectors The informal sector is a seedbed for formal sector or small enterprises. They depend on each other to a large extent. For example, in the milk value chain, the traditional sector contributes 70% of the milk produced in the country (the remaining 30% is from improved dairy herds). It’s very clear that the informal sector dominates the formal sector with raw material (milk). The formal sector also provides backup support for the traditional sector with the purchase of raw materials for processing. The formal sector is closely linked with the export sector. About 98% of the beef livestock in Tanzania is owned by traditional herdsmen (smallholders); they are therefore the main source of meat and milk supplied via the informal and formal channels. The commercial beef sector represents a very small fraction (2%) of the national cattle stock and is practiced mainly by the National Ranching Company (NARCO) with 15 ranches covering 623,000 hectares (ha) with a stated stocking capacity of 155,300 head. With globalization and urbanization, market changes have provided opportunities for livestock farmers to sell live animals and animal products wherever demand exists. Consumers in the informal sector tend to place more weight on price considerations than on quality. The chain of hygiene standards linking the sectors is not well harmonized or controlled. A common feature in all channels is the way inspection is done (i.e., the same inspection procedure is conducted by personnel recognized by state authorities and regulations applied are the same). In terms of quality assurance, both informal and formal channels share the hygienic standards up to when the abattoir releases meat products to the transporter where handling practices change between the various agents leading to the final retail outlets and final consumption points (home, street food outlets, hotel, restaurants). Tanzania is not doing 35 well in the export and imports markets due to a number of reasons, including bureaucratic customs procedures, especially at the point of exit, which discourage the exporters, the long delay of produce from Tanzania to meet international market requirements in general and to comply with many other specific standards, and the lack of large-scale professional exporters to drive the sector forward and ensure the thousands of small producers are linked to modern supply chains. 5.6 The extent to which the informal sector counterfeits the formal sector Findings indicate that Tanzania and Kenya suffer higher levels of counterfeit goods than the other three East African Community (EAC) countries, perhaps because of their geographical location. In Tanzania, counterfeiting is a large and growing challenge based on findings from previous reports. Between 2010 and 2016, the Fair Competition Commission (FCC) seized 1,151 containers of counterfeit products and further carried out 138 raids in different premises and regions within Tanzania. A total of 1,711 offenders were dealt with as per the provisions of Merchandise Marks Act, 1963. The total value of the seized goods was TZS 2,898,904,833.3, equivalent to USD 1.3 million. The “hot spots” for counterfeit goods are Dar es Salaam, Arusha, Mwanza, and Mbeya. Based on their seizure data, the FCC is of the opinion that approximately 10% of goods available in Tanzania are likely to be counterfeits (CTI, 2017). Table 11 lists the main players in the formal private sector. 36 Table 11. The main players in the formal private sector, including the most important producers, processors, retailers, importers, and exporters Actors and roles Beef Beef production At the production level, feedlots are emerging as the preferred practice for fattening/finishing beef cattle before slaughter for the modern abattoirs. These include Grlienshills feedlot near Morogoro, Kongwa NARCO (National Ranching Company) in Dodoma, and Sumbawanga Agricultural and Animal Feed Industry (SAAFI) company of Sumbawanga. Their role is to fatten animals to reach slaughter weight, control animal diseases at the farm level, and supply high-quality meat products under good hygienic practices to the Shoprite supermarkets and grocery stores. Meat processing The major processors include the Arusha Meat Company, Dodoma abattoir (Tanzania Meat Company), and Tanzania Pride Meat (Morogoro). Their major roles are to pack meat using clean materials and to transport meat products from processing centers to markets. Retailers Among the major retailers of processed animal source food in the country are Shoprite supermarkets, Game supermarkets, and grocery and convenience food stores in cities and towns. Their role is to sell meat products on a retail basis, either as ready-to-eat foods or raw meat. They observe hygienic standards because customers are willing to pay for quality. 38 Beef, cont. In the Southern Highlands, SAAFI has intermittently exported carcasses and cuts to Egypt, the Gulf, and DRC. It has a contract with Zambeef (Zambia), whose vision is “to be the most accessible and affordable quality protein provider in the region.” Goat Most players who are involved in beef in Tanzania are also involved in mutton and goat meat. So, the information provided for beef is also the same in this scenario. Exporters Dodoma abattoir has regularly exported goat and sheep carcasses to the Arabian Gulf and has a steady weekly export by air of 600 goats to Dubai and 200 goats and 10 sheep to Kuwait. Poultry Poultry production Interchick (producer of day-old chicks (DOC), whole/dressed chicken) Silverlands (exclusive rights in Tanzania for the SASSO birds) Kuku Poa (dressed chicken), also Organia and Mkuza Chicks They are the main producers for exotic breeds of laying and broiler chickens in the country. They import eggs, hatch the eggs to chicks, and rear them to produce chicken and eggs for sale in the formal and informal sectors. They act as a distributor of chicks to other regions in the country. Eggs The facts described above for poultry are also true in the case of eggs. However, eggs consumed in the formal sector come from commercial exotic poultry. Supply of eggs from traditional production system is of limited commercial value and goes largely undocumented. Milk and Most milk is produced by traditional small producers in the rural areas where the bulk is being consumed, with the small surplus milk filtering into growing urban centers. Dairy farms contribute around 30% to the total milk production. products The main producers and processors of milk in Tanzania include Tanga Fresh (Tanga), Azam Dairy (DSM), Tan Dairies (DSM), ASAS Dairies (Iringa), TDL Northern creameries (Arusha), CEFA Njombe Milk (Njombe), International Dairy Products (Arusha), Grand Demam Dairy Company, Galaxy Foods and Beverages (Moshi). Due to poor milk collection and marketing infrastructure, most of 39 them are operating under capacity. Milk, cont. The role of milk processing plants is to collect milk from small-scale producers and process it into various wholesome dairy products (e.g., pasteurized milk, UHT milk yoghurt, cultured fermented [sour] milk, ghee, cheese, butter) and then sell and distribute the products in the formal market chain. Usually cold chain storage is maintained throughout the transportation marketing pathway. Absence of electricity in both rural areas and some sections of urban and peri-urban areas limits the marketing reach in low-income settlements where the majority of the people live. Pork Pig production in Tanzania is dominated by several thousand smallholder farmers who are mainly concentrated in the north (Manyara, Babati) and southern highlands (Mbeya and Iringa). There are few commercial producers, and they are mainly on institutional and private farms. Inbreeding, religious taboos, poor nutrition, lack of pig extension services, and research are the main constraints in this sector. Pork production Meat King Limited (smoked pork) 40 Fruits Input suppliers (pineapples, Seed, fertilizer, pesticides, farm equipment, and machinery: mangoes, Input suppliers like Bytrade, Yara, Minjingu, and Balton are important partners for horticulture farmers. They provide a oranges, range of pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizers necessary to cope with increasing demand among horticulture farmers. bananas, tomatoes) Research institutes Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA); Agricultural Research Institute, Uyole; the World Vegetable Center; the Horticultural Research and Training Institute Tengeru; the Selian Agricultural Research Institute; and the Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute are among the institutes that support horticultural producers and processors with research- related services to promote their compliance to standards. In addition to research, they produce and sell grafted seedlings of various fruits produced in the country. Fruits, cont. Processors Azam Bakhresa Group: juice from mangoes, avocadoes, and pineapples. The group distributes to large and medium retailers all over the country. Retailers Freshmark (the Shoprite group’s fruit and vegetable procurement and distribution arm) and many other supermarkets, groceries, and food stores in the cities. TAHAFresh is dedicated to dealing with export logistics. Others include Crop Bioscience Solutions Ltd, NatureRipe Kilimanjaro, and Mara Farming Ltd (a subsidiary of a Kenya-based company). Sources: FAOSTAT, 2017; MLFD, 2018/2019; Livestock Development Strategy, 2017; and Confederation of Tanzania Industries, 2017 41 6. Detection and management of foodborne diseases of animal origin in Tanzania 6.1 Major food safety hazards and foodborne diseases of animal origin in Tanzania Different meat types, including beef, pork, poultry, and fish are a good source of protein in Tanzania (in addition to milk and eggs). These food types of animal origin are traded in both formal and informal markets. The multiple handlings at different stages of the production chain expose the products to hazards and increase risks of foodborne diseases. Food safety hazards can be biological, physical, or chemical agents. Biological hazards include pathogenic microbes and toxins, while chemical hazards include heavy metals (lead, mercury), pesticides, antimicrobial residues, feed additives etc. Reports of important foodborne diseases in Tanzania are based presence/detection of hazards or disease outbreaks. During the past 10 years, there have been reports of animal-related foodborne outbreaks in Tanzania including anthrax, Rift Valley fever, salmonellosis neurocysticercosis, cholera, brucellosis tuberculosis, campylobacteriosis, and brucellosis (Table 12). Table 12. Common foodborne diseases reported in the last 10 years in Tanzania Disease Implicated food product References Brucellosis Milk Swai & Schoonman (2011) Anthrax Beef Mwakapeje et al. (2018), WHO (2019) Tuberculosis Milk Msalya (2017) Campylobacteriosis Chicken, eggs, milk, beef Kashoma et al. (2016), Komba (2018) Non-typhoidal Chicken, eggs, fish Baniga et al. (2019) salmonellosis Cysticercosis Beef, pork Trevisan et al. (2017), Mellau et al. (2011), Mwanjali et al. (2013) Rift Valley fever Chevon, mutton Ahmed et al. (2018) Quantified burden of these foodborne diseases is not readily available, but isolated incidences can be accessed, especially for notifiable diseases. Examples of formal reported are given below. 42 6.1.1 Anthrax outbreaks Anthrax outbreaks have been reported in different regions of Tanzania. A total of 345 human cases and 24 deaths were reported between 2013 and 2016 in Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Mara, and Dar es Salaam (Mwakapeje et al., 2018). The health data were obtained through the electronic integrated disease surveillance and response (eIDSR) system. This centralized reporting system links all health facilities in Tanzania. In the system, registered mobile phones are used to report suspected anthrax cases (i.e., those that meet standard case definition) within 24 hours to responsible health facilities. Alternately, an animal health information system is in place to collect, process, and disseminate information under a surveillance system that links farm, clinics, laboratories, livestock markets, slaughterhouses, and dip tanks. In March 2017, 36 people were infected with anthrax in the Hai district of Kilimanjaro after eating an anthrax-diseased cow carcass (East Africa Monitor, https://eastafricamonitor.com/tanzania-36-people-infected-anthrax-eating-cow/). Another anthrax outbreak occurred in the Momba District of the Songwe region between December 2018 and January 2019, whereby 81 human cases and four deaths were reported. Community village leaders reported the incidences to district health authorities and information flow went through the regional health authority to the ministry and eventually WHO. Skin lesion swabs and blood samples from victims were processed at the Vwawa referral hospital and Bacillus anthrasis were isolated and also detected by PCR at a Tanzania veterinary laboratory agency (Dar es Salaam). The majority of cases were farmers and livestock keepers who had either handled or consumed meat of the anthrax-diseased animals. The authorities convened meetings with the community to educate them on prevention and control of anthrax. The patients were given medications and a quarantine on livestock and livestock products was imposed (WHO, 2019). All of the above anthrax cases were confirmed by health and administrative personnel at different levels, suggesting that they were captured by the eIDSR system. 6.1.2 Taenia solium cysticercosis Zoonotic Taenia solium infection in Tanzania follows an endemic pattern. There is a relationship between Taeniasis (due to T. solium), neurocysticercosis, and epilepsy in people 43 (WHO, 2018). Porcine cysticercosis, which forms a platform for human cysticercosis, has been reported in different parts of Tanzania in clustered endemic patterns (Ngowi et al., 2010; Ngowi et al., 2018). There have been few reports of human cysticercosis in Tanzania. Trevisan et al. (2017) analyzed the societal burden of T. solium cysticercosis in Tanzania and reported a total of 17,853 neurocysticercosis-associated epilepsy cases and 212 deaths in 2012. A total of 31,863 DALYs were reported for the same year. In this report, the Morogoro, Manyara, Kilimanjaro, and Mbeya regions were considered hot spots for the disease. In another study involving 820 people (most of them farmers) in the Mbozi district of the Mbeya region, 3.7% were found to be positive for neurocysticercosis (Mwanjali et al., 2013). There was cooperation in diagnosis between the Vwawa district hospital laboratory for serology and coprology (blood and stool, respectively) and Muhimbili National Hospital for CT scans. Available reports do not give details on temporo-spatial pattern, or the government and community response to the disease, but only present the magnitude of the burden and suggested potential intervention strategies. 6.1.3 Brucellosis Brucellosis in livestock is reported to be endemic and there are reports cases of brucellosis in humans in different parts of Tanzania. For instance, Chota et al. (2016) have reported a prevalence of 28.2% (n=578), whereas in another screening in northern Tanzania, a prevalence of 8.9% has been reported (Cash-Goldwasser et al., 2018). Matching in geographical location for incidences of brucellosis in livestock and humans suggests possible transmission between the two life compartments. 6.2 Laboratory services Detection of foodborne hazards is done by laboratories affiliated with health facilities, research and academic institutions, and inspectorate and regulatory institutions. These laboratories handle human, animal, and food-related samples through screening to confirmatory tests; however, accreditation information/status in terms of international standards is difficult to access. Some of the laboratories are listed in Table 13. 44 Table 13. Summary of food-related laboratory services in Tanzania Name Samples Type of analysis Accreditation Government Fish and fish products Microbiological Not known Chemist analysis Laboratories Spices Forensic Fruits and vegetables investigation Cooking oil Molecular analysis Animal products (e.g., milk, cheese, butter. and meat) Pharmaceuticals Food preservatives Food samples for detections of pathogens National Blood Bacteriology Not known Institute for Medical Tissues Serology Research (NIMR) labs Carcasses Molecular analysis Milk Tanzania Blood Bacteriology Not known Veterinary Laboratory Tissues Serology Agency (TVLA) and Carcasses PCR Zonal Veterinary Milk Centers (ZVC) labs Tanzania Food substances Food chemistry European Auditors Bureau of (composition: moisture and South African Standards content, oil content, National Accreditation (TBS) protein, mineral ash System (SANAS) laboratories and acid insoluble ash ISO 17025 and mineral contaminants) Food microbiology (screening and total bacterial counts) Sokoine University Blood Microbiological Not accredited of Agriculture culture laboratories Tissues Serology Carcasses Coprology Milk Pathological analysis 45 Molecular typing Nelson Food substances Food analysis Not known Mandela African Blood Microbiological culture Institute of Science and Stool Molecular typing Technology Tissues Serology Tissue culture National, Clinical samples Microbiological Not known referral, culture regional, and Blood district hospital Serology labs Stool Coprology CT scan Assessment of risk of foodborne diseases in Tanzania is mostly carried out by public and private research institutions and universities. It includes identification of hazards and quantification of effects of different predictors. In most cases, these risk assessment investigations are not part of routine active surveillance but academic in nature. 6.3 Management of foodborne disease outbreaks All district regional, referral, and national hospitals have a disaster committee and a disaster plan as part of their preparedness and response plans (Koka et al., 2018). These are supported by Local Government Authorities as stipulated by the Disaster Management Act of 2014 and National Disaster Management Policy (2004). Cases are presented to health centers for normal diagnostic procedures and when there are indications of an outbreak, the disaster committee is activated for action through its command center. The information flows from district health authorities to regional health authorities to the ministry and eventually WHO. There is a Disaster Management Department under the Prime Minister’s office that is responsible for resource mobilization and coordination and management of the emergency preparedness plan, taking into consideration the multidisciplinary nature of interventions. The Disaster Management Department executes its duties through the established and well- 46 coordinated regional, district, ward, and village disaster management committees according to the Disaster Management Act of 2015. Communication to and from each disaster management level follows the same hierarchy. However, there are emergency preparedness plans for specific diseases, including Rift Valley fever (Fyumagwa et al., 2011). Foodborne outbreak management as part of disaster management in Tanzania is confronted by lack of a well-established disaster preparedness. Human resources available at different levels of healthcare facilities and hospitals are below the recommended ratio for all the cadres. More than half of regional hospitals do not have a disaster management committee and also lack a disaster management plan. The diagnostic capacity is also low for most hospitals, including the ability to handle hazardous pathogens (Koka et al., 2018) 7. Conclusions This report reviews regulations and control in food management, food inspection, and the private sector. It also covers the food product value chain and foodborne diseases. Although several ministries are involved in the management of food safety in Tanzania, TBS is the main player. The country lacks a risk-based inspection system. A systematic risk assessment system is still lacking in the domestic market and more emphasis is placed on the inspection of food products meant for export or being imported from other countries. In addition, the informal value chain drives the largest proportion of both the animal source foods and fruit and vegetable value chains. However, data are lacking on products marketed and sold through informal sectors. Microbiological hazards and toxins (mycotoxins), pesticides, antimicrobial residues, and feed additives are hazards of concern. The most common foodborne diseases are brucellosis, anthrax, tuberculosis, cysticercosis, and Rift Valley fever. 47 8. References African Union. (2014). Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods. AUDA-NEPAD. https://www.nepad.org/caadp/publication/malabo-declaration-accelerated- agricultural-growth Ahmed, A., Makame, J., Robert, F., Julius, K., and Mecky, M. (2018). Sero-prevalence and spatial distribution of Rift Valley fever infection among agro-pastoral and pastoral communities during Interepidemic period in the Serengeti ecosystem, northern Tanzania. BMC Infectious Diseases, 18(1): 276. Baniga, Z., Mdegela, R. H., Lisa, B., Kusiluka, L. J., & Dalsgaard, A. (2019). Prevalence and characterisation of Salmonella Waycross and Salmonella enterica subsp. salamae in Nile perch (Lates niloticus) of Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Food Control, 100, 28-34. Cash-Goldwasser, S., Maze, M. J., Rubach, M. P., Biggs, H. M., Stoddard, R. A., Sharples, K. J., ... & Muiruri, C. (2018). Risk factors for human brucellosis in northern Tanzania. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 98(2), 598-606. Chota, A. C., Magwisha, H. B., Stella, B., Bunuma, E. K., Shirima, G. M., Mugambi, J. M., ... & Gathogo, S. (2016). Prevalence of brucellosis in livestock and incidences in humans in east Africa. African Crop Science Journal, 24(1), 45-52. Confederation of Tanzania Industries. (2017).The state of counterfeit goods in Tanzania, research report. http://www.best-dialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CTI- Counterfeit-report-Oct-2017.pdf?x82837 Faße, A., Oelze, N, and Grote. U. (2015). The role of food safety standards in Tanzania and their implications for food security. Trans-SEC. http://www.trans-sec.org/ FAO. (2003). Elements of a National Food Control System. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/y8705e/y8705e04.htm FSSC. (2010). Food safety system certification 22000. Certification scheme for food safety systems in compliance with ISO 22000: 2005 and BSI-PAS 220: 2008. Fyumagwa, R. D., Ezekiel, M. J., Nyaki, A., Mdaki, M. L., Katale, Z. B., Moshiro, C., & Keyyu, J. D. (2011). Response to Rift Valley fever in Tanzania: challenges and opportunities. Tanzania Journal of Health Research, 13(5). Havelaar, A.H., Kirk, M.D., Torgerson, P.R., Gibb, H.J., Hald, T., Lake, R.J., Praet, N., Bellinger, D.C. and Silva, N.R. De, (2015). World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010 PLoS Medicine, 12(12). Hoag, M.A., Porter, C, Uppala, P.P, and Dyjack, D.T. (2007). A risk-based food inspection 48 program. Journal of Environmental Health, 69(7): 33-36. Jaffee, S., Henson, S., Unnevehr, L., Grace, D. and Cassou, E. (2019). The Safe food Imperative--Accelerating Progress in Low and Middle-Income countries. Agriculture and Food Series; Washington, DC: World Bank. Jamal, B. K., Luning, P. A, Tiisekwa, B. P. M, and Jacxsens, L. (2014). Challenges in Performance of Food Safety Management Systems: A Case of Fish Processing Companies in Tanzania. Journal of Food Protection, 77(4): 621–630. Kashoma, I. P., Kassem, I. I., John, J., Kessy, B. M., Gebreyes, W., Kazwala, R. R., and Rajashekara, G. (2016). Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of campylobacter isolated from dressed beef carcasses and raw milk in Tanzania. Microbial Drug Resistance, 22(1), 40-52. Koka, P.M., Sawe, H.R., Mbaya, K.R., Kilindimo, S.S., Mfinanga, J.A., Mwafongo, V.G., Wallis, L.A. and Reynolds, T.A. (2018). Disaster preparedness and response capacity of regional hospitals in Tanzania: a descriptive cross-sectional study. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 835. Komba, E. V. G. (2018). Co-colonization by antimicrobial resistant thermophilic Campylobacter and Escherichia coli in the intestines of local chicken presented for disposal at vending areas in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania. Tanzania Veterinary Journal, 33(2), 21-29. Kurwijila, L. R., Mingora, J, Karimuribo, E, Shirima, G, Lema, B, Ryoba, R and Kilima, B. (2010). Tanzania’s Food Safety System. (A Situation Analysis Report). Building capacity to improve the safety of animal source foods and ensure continued market access for poor farmers in sub Saharan Africa. A collaborative research project between the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and research partners in Germany and Africa. Li, M., Havelaar, A., Hoffman, S., Hald, T., Kirk, M.D., Torgerson, R. and Devleesschauwer, B. (2019). Global disease burden of pathogens in animal source foods 2010. PLoS ONE 14(6): e0216545 Livestock Development Strategy (2017). MLFD (2018). Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (2018/2019) Mellau, B. L., Nonga, H. E., and Karimuribo, E. D. (2011). Slaughter stock abattoir survey of carcasses and organ/offal condemnations in Arusha region, northern Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43(4), 857-864. 49 Msalya, G. (2017). Contamination levels and identification of bacteria in milk sampled from three regions of Tanzania: evidence from literature and laboratory analyses. Veterinary Medicine International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9096149 Mwakapeje, E. R., Høgset, S., Fyumagwa, R., Nonga, H. E., Mdegela, R. H., & Skjerve, E. (2018). Anthrax outbreaks in the humans-livestock and wildlife interface areas of Northern Tanzania: a retrospective record review 2006–2016. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 106. Mwanjali G, Kihamia C, Kakoko DVC, Lekule F, Ngowi H, et al. (2013) Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated with Human Taenia Solium Infections in Mbozi District, Mbeya Region, Tanzania. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 7(3): e2102. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002102 Ngowi, H. A., Kassuku, A. A., Carabin, H., Mlangwa, J. E., Mlozi, M. R., Mbilinyi, B. P., & Willingham III, A. L. (2010). Spatial clustering of porcine cysticercosis in Mbulu district, northern Tanzania. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 4(4), e652. Ngowi, H. A., Winkler, A. S., Braae, U. C., Mdegela, R. H., Mkupasi, E. M., Kabululu, M. L., ... & Johansen, M. V. (2018). Taenia solium taeniosis and cysticercosis literature in Tanzania provides research evidence justification for control: A scoping review. Tanzania Veterinary Journal, 36(1), 97-108. Sareen, S. (2014). Introduction to Risk-Based Food Inspection. APEC PTIN Workshop on Improved Food Inspection Capacity Building Based on Risk Analysis (May 21-23, 2014; Seoul, Korea). Swai, E.S. and Schoonman, L. (2011). Microbial quality and associated health risks of raw milk marketed in the Tanga region of Tanzania. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, 1(3), 217-222. Tanzania Bureau of Standards. Accessed 05 July, 2020. (http://www.tbs.go.tz/index.php/highlights/view/tbs_zbs_sign_pact_to_strengthen _cooperation) Tanzania Medicine & Medical Devices Authority. Accessed 05 July, 2020. (http://www.tmda.go.tz/pages/tfda-profile)The East Africa Monitor (2017). Tanzania: 36 people infected with anthrax after eating cow. https://eastafricamonitor.com/tanzania-36-people-infected-anthrax-eating-cow/ The East Africa Monitor (2017). Tanzania: 36 people infected with anthrax after eating cow. https://eastafricamonitor.com/tanzania-36-people-infected-anthrax-eating-cow/ Tanzania Bureau of Standards. Accessed 05 July, 2020. (http://www.tbs.go.tz/index.php/highlights/view/tbs_zbs_sign_pact_to_strengthen _cooperation .) 50 Trevisan, C., Devleesschauwer, B., Schmidt, V., Winkler, A. S., Harrison, W., & Johansen, M. V. (2017). The societal cost of Taenia solium cysticercosis in Tanzania. Acta Tropica, 165, 141-154. Urassa, G and Martin, G. (2013). A baseline study on the implementation of the vat rate of zero percent in the dairy sector in Tanzania. Tanzania Milk Processors Association (TAMPA).https://www.tdb.go.tz/uploads/documents/sw/1511180020- TAMPA_VAT_BASELINE_STUDY_09_2013.pdf World Health Organization. (2018). Taeniasis/cysticercosis. World Health Organization.. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/taeniasis- cysticercosis World Health Organization. (2019). Weekly Bulletin on Outbreaks and other Emergencies: Week 3: 12-18 January 2019. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/279763/OEW03-1218012019.pdf Zanzibar Bureau of Standards. (n.d.) Standard Development Process. Zanzibar Bureau of Standards. http://www.zbs.go.tz/standard_development 51