Dr. Jocelyn Boiteau is a postdoctoral associate with the Tata-Cornell Institute for Agriculture and Nutrition (TCI). A registered dietitian, she conducted doctoral work measuring food loss and waste along tomato value chains in South India. With TCI Founding Director, Dr. Prabhu Pingali, she is writing a book on food loss and waste that considers qualitative aspects of food loss and waste — including food quality losses that impact nutrition — in low- and middle-income countries along the continuum of traditional, mixed and modern food systems. We asked her to share her insights on food loss and waste as it pertains to food quality loss and food safety.

What is your working definition of food loss and waste?
There’s no harmonized definition for food loss and waste. But we recently came out with a paper in Global Food Security where we reviewed different definitions and frameworks used in the [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations] FAO’s food loss and waste database. This tracks progress for the Sustainable Development Goal target 12.3 [aiming to halve per capita global food waste by 2030]. We concluded that the definition put forth by a group led by the FAO in 2014 was both globally applicable and also comprehensive. As we summarize it, food loss and waste is a reduction in both the quantity (physical food loss and waste) and/or quality (nutritional value and food safety) of the edible portion of food, from the time the food is ready for harvest or slaughter to human consumption.

Why is it important to consider food quality loss as well as physical food loss and waste?
In our book, we look at how food loss and waste pathways are linked to food security. More than just the number of calories people eat, the definition of food security — just like that of food loss and waste — incorporates nutritious and safe foods that are available and accessible to people. To date, a lot of the focus of food loss and waste has been on how much mass or volume is removed from the system. We consider how food quality loss happens in a system and may or may not be linked to quantitative food loss. For example, as a food moves through a food value chain, it may lose quality and food safety, but it’s still in the system and may become available to consumers. If you remove that from the value chain, you have physical food loss and waste, but you’ve also diverted unsafe food away from consumers, which can be looked at as positive. As we consider different strategies to reduce food loss and waste, it might not be enough to focus only on physical food loss and waste.

Food loss and waste have been well-studied in high-income countries. However, food systems in low- and middle-income countries are transforming and may have sectors with traditional production systems and value chains that are modernizing. How does this affect food loss and waste, including food quality loss?
We look at different types of food systems as they transform from traditional to modern systems. Traditional food systems have very short supply chains, both geographically and in terms of the number of actors involved. They tend to be staple-heavy, and there is less processing involved. As systems evolve, we see an elongation of value chains, for example with increased demand for food, especially perishable items like fruits and vegetables but also animal products, from growing populations in urban areas. In modern food systems, there are long distances and consolidation of value chain actors. Different infrastructure enables cold chain processes for storage and transportation, and processing is more modern due to technology. The diversity of foods changes with consumer demand, based on what they can afford. And so, as consumers are demanding more perishable produce, for example, the implications for food loss and waste may be different than in value chains for staple grains. So we need to look at how both quantitative and qualitative aspects are changing.

For example, looking at fresh fruits or vegetables being transported over increasing distances — when they are handled roughly or packaged in containers either too tightly or without enough support, they may get bruised, cut or exposed to other damaged produce that leaks moisture. This type of physical damage predisposes produce to decay and leads to accelerated deterioration. Sometimes this damage isn’t visible to consumers at the time of purchase. Other times, the only affordable option to consumers is the lower quality produce with these visible defects.

As food systems evolve, how do food safety risks change?
Biological, chemical or physical safety hazards can come up on the production side and affect people once the food enters the value chain to be consumed, or they can occur postharvest or postproduction. In traditional food systems, there’s a significant foodborne disease burden for things like zoonotic diseases and parasites of animal source foods. As we move toward mid- to late-transitional systems with longer value chains, we get other types of food hazards like food additives or adulterants, maybe heavy metals or different microbial pathogens. There may also not be food safety standards or, even when standards exist, infrastructure for monitoring time and temperature abuses. When we move to modern systems, both private and public food safety standards are higher, so we see the burden for a lot of these biological, chemical and physical hazards drop off compared to earlier stages.

What are critical loss points for food safety and quality in transitional food systems?
The critical loss points depend on the specific value chain and food commodity. For example, a lot of fresh produce may still be consumed fresh in transitional food systems. The wholesale markets with poor sanitation — such as the ones I observed during my Ph.D. fieldwork in South India — represent a critical loss point. Tomatoes were traded between farmers and wholesalers at markets that were crowded with people, livestock, trucks and other vehicles, and tomatoes spoiled, particularly during peak season. Crates of tomatoes were stacked on the dirt. Sometimes tomatoes would spill out onto the ground and be placed back into the crates. So I imagine the exposure to different food hazards was high.
With growing value chains, some of the fruits and vegetables are entering processing facilities, where there could be issues with certain food safety hazards, such as additives and adulterants. A really good example of how efforts to reduce physical loss and waste can actually generate a food safety issue is when grains are stored in some value chains in transitional food systems. To reduce physical food losses due to insect infestation, sometimes pesticides are used — adding a potential chemical food safety hazard. If we’re just measuring the physical food loss and waste, this might seem like a great intervention, but if we consider the qualitative aspects as well, we also ask about the trade-offs.

What do you consider some of the most promising interventions that can help reduce both food quality loss and food safety loss?
Interventions are multifactorial and can start at different levels. Take targeting time and temperature abuses for perishable items, for example. That might require some sort of infrastructure to develop on the public side if there’s not sufficient electricity for storage or if road conditions make transportation take a long time. We are trying to identify what these critical points are across different types of value chains and what is needed from actors at different levels. We also know that as these systems are transitioning, private food safety standards usually emerge before or alongside public standards. An example of this would be a private company, such as a regional or global supermarket chain, implementing food safety and quality standards to build their reputation and develop consumer brand loyalty. This can create positive competition between brands and potentially improve local food safety environments when public standards are limited. However, there is the challenge to adapt food safety management systems that are designed and used in high-income countries to fit low- and middle-income country contexts.

In connecting food quality loss to physical food loss and waste in practice, a huge part is first identifying the food safety loss. Private or public standards or rules are needed to identify the threshold that says, OK, now this is a food safety concern. Then there are monitoring and action steps and how they are actually implemented to physically remove food from the system. What’s really challenging is when the food quality loss hasn’t been identified or the food hasn’t been removed from the system.

You are currently writing a book on this topic with Dr. Prabhu Pingali. What can we expect from it?
We’re hoping to have a first draft finished by early 2024. Our motivation is that there’s been a lot of interest in food loss and waste — broadly speaking, from environmental, socioeconomic and food security perspectives. We focus on food security, because there is an assumption that when you reduce physical food loss and waste, you improve food security, without really defining how that works throughout different food systems and value chains. We have to understand the problem of loss and waste reduction in certain contexts. How do we account for the structural transformation of economies? How do we account for these different types of food systems and the direction of these transformations in what is important for food loss and waste, both the quantitative and qualitative aspects? Our target audience is people doing both research and programming on food loss and waste and involved in policymaking. I hope we’ll get the conversation going on how to measure qualitative aspects of food loss and waste and how they indicate what types of policies or interventions would be best suited in different contexts.

This conversation was lightly edited by Olivia Hall, a freelance writer with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety. The lab is one of 20 such labs with U.S. universities under Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative led by USAID.

From informing an experiment’s design and analyzing data to interpreting results and informing decision-making, statistics ensure that research outcomes are both sound and publishable. Because statistics expertise is a key part of strengthening agricultural research capacity, researchers with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety (FSIL) recently held an intensive, week-long agricultural statistics course at Cambodia’s Center of Excellence for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Nutrition (CE SAIN) at the Royal University of Agriculture in Phnom Penh.

The course was taught by Dr. Nora Bello, professor of systems modeling in the Department of Animal Sciences at The Ohio State University and co-principal investigator (PI) of a FSIL-funded, Cambodian-led research project to reduce foodborne pathogens in nutritious, but highly perishable, salad vegetables in Cambodia. Through this project and others, Bello recognized that Cambodia’s surging research capacity had created a need for more advanced statistics training.

“The research engine in Cambodia has really ramped up in recent years,” said Bello. “More people and more institutions are involved, and the increasing sophistication of the research questions being addressed often calls for studies that require more complex experimental designs. The need for training in more sophisticated methods of data analyses is but a natural consequence of this growth process in research capacity.”

The course was developed by Bello with support from project co-lead PIs Dr. Paul Ebner, professor of animal sciences at Purdue University, and Dr. Jessie Vipham, associate professor of animal sciences at Kansas State University. The statistical topics covered were selected based on a precourse survey that assessed the local research needs and the background knowledge of a sample of participants. Bello developed the lectures, class discussions and hands-on practical data analysis exercises using statistical software, drawing on relevant datasets from ongoing local collaborations. She further prepared attendees to design experiments that will best address their own research questions and to select appropriate statistical methods for data analysis.

In addition, course participants had the opportunity to consult with Bello on planned and ongoing research projects. Consulting sessions helped researchers specify a statistical model that properly reflects their data generation process and was thereby tailored to their research project. Further support included troubleshooting how to fit the model to their data and how to conduct testing and articulate results. And because consulting sessions were open to all attendees, the class worked as a group to practice statistics using the wide range of research projects and data brought forward by their peers.

“This statistical modeling training program has been incredibly beneficial to me as a researcher, allowing me to enhance my skills and improve the overall quality of my research,” said Oudam Heng, lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Technology of Cambodia (ITC). “Prior to participating in this training session, I faced significant challenges when it came to selecting an effective method for analyzing and interpreting my research data in a more scientific manner. In addition to gaining a deeper understanding of statistics, this program has also provided me with valuable knowledge on designing studies with adequate power to reach conclusive results.”

In addition to ITC, the 24 attendees included students, faculty, postdoctoral fellows and research associates from CE SAIN, the Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) and the Institut Pasteur du Cambodge (IPC). Because of the participation of researchers from across the agricultural research community, the class learned from peer datasets involving topics like food safety in informal vegetable markets, antimicrobial resistance in aquaculture and microbial pathogen contamination in mixed livestock-vegetable farms. Regardless of the specific domain, the underlying theme of the course was the proper use of statistics to ensure a sound and reproducible approach to data collection and analysis. Throughout, Bello, Ebner and Vipham’s ultimate goal was to increase the credibility — and therefore the potential impact — of Cambodian-led scientific research through successful publication in indexed, peer-reviewed scientific journals.

“If you do research and no one ever reads it, it’s like it never happened,” said Ebner. “The number one reason a study is going to get rejected from a journal is if the experimental design and statistics don’t test what you think you’re testing.”

To help participants prepare for publication, Bello also shared examples of how to describe the methods and results for different statistical analyses in a journal article. This and other collaborative course activities were intended to bridge what Bello feels is an increasingly urgent global gap between domain-specific scientific research and statistical expertise — one that she notes is crucial for research to retain its credibility and impact on decision-making. Working together with colleagues, she has recently held similarly themed, locally tailored workshops in the United States, Canada, Uruguay, and Argentina.

“If you want capacity growth that really stands by itself, that’s independent of any specific person, it needs to be growth through people, through capacity development,” said Bello. “We need to be training students that can take the baton further.”

Amanda Garris is a communications specialist with FSIL. The Innovation Lab is one of a network of 20 such labs led by U.S. universities under Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative led by USAID.

Strengthening food safety is ultimately about behavior change, which can be bolstered by motivation and stymied by obstacles. To develop effective outreach programs in Cambodia informed by behavior change theory, researchers funded by the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety (FSIL) conducted a survey that revealed relatively higher motivation to implement a food safety behavior — but lower perceived opportunity — among produce farmers, distributors and vendors.

“In Cambodia, the produce sold in informal vegetable markets comes from farms via distributors, and preventing contamination with foodborne pathogens is important at every step,” said lead author Sabrina Mosimann, who participated in the research as part of her master’s degree in Animal Sciences at Purdue University. “If you want to encourage someone to adopt a food safety practice, whether or not they know how to do it is one thing. Our goal was to figure out whether or not people thought they could do it, whether they felt they had the opportunity to do it and whether they felt like, ‘Oh, this would motivate me to do it’.”

The researchers used a behavior change theory known as the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior (COM-B) model to develop a survey tool for identifying potential barriers to behavior change. Within the COM-B model, capability captures an individual’s psychological and physical capacity, including knowledge and skills; opportunity encompasses outside factors that make the action possible, such as access to resources; and motivation covers the mental processes that spark action, including identity, beliefs and emotions. Taken together, COM-B data can both zero in on the major obstacles to behavior change and identify low barrier areas where intervention could have a greater immediate payoff on health outcomes.

The questions in the survey captured participants’ perceptions about implementing a specific food safety practice: the daily washing with soap and water of surfaces that come into contact with vegetables. The intervention is key to preventing vegetables from becoming contaminated with foodborne pathogens, such as Salmonella and E. coli, significant contributors to the diarrheal diseases that impact the global burden of foodborne illness.

Researchers from Cambodia’s Royal University of Agriculture (RUA) and Center of Excellence on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Nutrition (CE SAIN) surveyed 181 vegetable producers, vendors, and distributors in Battambang and Siem Reap provinces. The results indicated that among vendors and distributors, perceived motivation and capability were significantly higher than their perceived opportunity. In contrast, farmers’ levels of perceived motivation were higher than both their perceived opportunity and capability.

“This suggests that the main barrier to implementing washing of food contact surfaces across all groups is not motivation, which was relatively high across the board,” said Mosimann. “However, universally, their perceived opportunity was lower relative to their motivation. Opportunity can be rooted in access to sufficient resources, such as time to perform the washing step or money to buy soap.”

The researchers also noted a significant difference in the responses from vendors in Battambang and Seim Reap provinces. Vendors in Battambang reported significantly higher levels of opportunity, motivation and capability than their peers in Siem Reap.

“It does raise the question of why one group of vendors has fewer perceived barriers than the other,” said Mosimann. “In the future, it could be valuable to look into what’s going on in Battambang that has given vendors higher levels across all three factors, indicating a lower barrier to strengthening food safety practices.”

The results of the survey point to several options for designing more effective approaches to food safety outreach. One option would be to prioritize outreach to farmers because they seemed to face greater barriers, with capability and opportunity both being perceived as relatively low. However, outreach to vendors would likely face a lower barrier to behavior change because their capability and motivation were already relatively high. Interventions would primarily need to focus on increasing vegetable farmers’, vendors’ and distributors’ perceived opportunity for behavior change; among other things, such interventions might focus on improving access to water and soap in the markets. In the end, the design of the project’s outreach programs will be informed by the survey in combination with new data on pathogen contamination levels on farms, in distribution centers and in markets.

“The results that we have found are valuable for understanding food safety perspectives and current levels of food safety practices,” said Keorimy Ouk, coauthor and graduate student at CE SAIN and RUA. “It’s the first step to designing an intervention program to encourage food producers and distributors in Cambodia to engage in food safety practices and behavior change. By raising awareness about reducing food contamination, Cambodia can produce high-quality food that will enable everyone to have better nutrition and overall well-being.”

Mosimann noted that although their survey focused on daily washing of vegetable contact surfaces, it could readily be adapted by others to explore other food safety- or nutrition-related behavior changes. Translated, it could be used in a range of countries and contexts, including farms, markets, processing facilities, restaurants and households.

The survey was conducted as part of a four-year project funded by FSIL to reduce foodborne pathogen transmission during vegetable production, distribution and sale in informal markets in Cambodia. Co-led by principal investigators Jessie Vipham, associate professor of Animal Sciences and Industry at Kansas State University, and Paul Ebner, professor of animal sciences at Purdue University, the project combines social science research, gender studies, and microbial assessments to chart a path to strengthening food safety across Cambodia’s vegetable value chain.

The paper, “Describing Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation for Food Safety Practices among Actors in the Cambodian Informal Vegetable Market,” was published March 2, 2023, in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. In addition to Mosimann and Ouk, coauthors included Nora M. Bello (The Ohio State University), Malyheng Chhoeun (CE SAIN/RUA), Jessie Vipham (Kansas State University), Lyda Hok (CE SAIN/RUA) and corresponding author Paul Ebner (Purdue University).

Amanda Garris is a communications specialist with the FSIL. The Innovation Lab is one of a network of 20 such labs led by U.S. universities under Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative led by USAID.

The rapid growth of Senegal’s dairy sector has outpaced the implementation of food safety practices and policies to reduce the risk of foodborne disease from the consumption of raw and fermented milk. Recent outreach by a project funded by the FSIL has equipped partners at the Food Technology Institute (ITA) and the Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA) with knowledge and tools to detect and identify foodborne pathogens in the domestic milk supply.

“To date, Senegal’s milk production and processing industries have not yet been thoroughly studied beyond a literature review and a handful of student theses,” said Woubit Abebe, professor and director of the Center for Food Animal Health, Food Safety and Food Defense in the Department of Pathobiology at Tuskegee University and co-principal investigator (PI) of the FSIL dairy safety project. “Our partners in Senegal will be identifying the issues and pathogens relevant to the sector that deserve a closer look.”

The goal of the four-year project, led by project PI Manpreet Singh, department head and professor of Food Science and Technology at the University of Georgia, is to build food safety capacity in Senegal’s dairy sector, reduce foodborne disease and improve market access. At the heart of the project’s current work is a survey of small, traditional dairy producers that will offer insights into microbial safety, socioeconomics and gender roles in Senegal’s dairy sector. It includes responses from 158 producers from three regions responsible for 38% of the country’s milk supply.

“I think this project will provide a breakthrough in understanding the major pathogens associated with milk quality and safety in Senegal,” Abebe said.

Abebe visited project partners at ISRA and ITA in the spring to prepare the researchers to conduct testing on milk samples from the producers who participated in the survey. The team worked through detailed protocols outlining the method that will be used for microbial quality assessment — from sample size determination and sample collection to genetic analysis of pathogenic bacteria.

At ITA, the academic home to the project’s in-country co-lead Dr. Cheikh Ndiaye, Abebe introduced lab staff to food safety lab techniques to identify milk from cows with mastitis and other infections that increase the risk of foodborne illness. They included somatic cell counts, which identify milk from cows with udder infections by the presence of immune system cells, and California mastitis testing, which measures inflammation as a proxy for infection. Their use is widespread in the United States and other countries, but not yet common in Senegal, and both can be performed using commercial kits.

“The kit is a very cheap and accessible tool that will help you determine the milk quality,” Abebe said.

In addition, in a presentation to some 20 ITA staff, Abebe focused on the importance of diagnosis, prevention and management of mastitis, laboratory biosafety and biosecurity.

All molecular genetic work to identify which pathogens are present in milk samples will be completed at the ISRA labs, whose established field stations are equipped with refrigerators and staffed with technicians to collect the milk samples. At ISRA, Abebe worked with staff, including Dr. Fatou Tall Lo, head of the microbiology department, and engineer Aida Diop, focusing on genetic analysis to identify foodborne pathogens in milk samples. As the project advances, the labs will process samples to isolate, characterize and identify priority organisms for Senegal’s milk safety.

“We were honored to have Dr. Abebe in our lab and have her share her experience with mastitis diagnosis and milk quality assessment, we intend to strengthen this collaboration through the project’s activities,” said Dr. Lo. “The procedures she shared are being adapted in the laboratory, particularly for genetic diagnosis. The supplies she brought for detection of certain foodborne pathogens will allow us to better improve research for better food security.”

The data on foodborne pathogens in milk, along with the survey data on current dairy food safety knowledge, attitudes and practices, will be used to develop outreach programs to strengthen food safety during milk production. Ultimately, Abebe is hopeful that it will not only advance the project’s goal of raising awareness about food safety issues, but it will also inform science-based food safety regulations and create economic opportunities for women and youth, who play a vital role in Senegal’s dairy sector. Long-term, sustainable change will require strong local research capacity, and her partnership with colleagues at ISRA and ITA fuels her optimism.

“I found the people to be wonderful, very cooperative and ready to proceed and help out,” she said. “Their capabilities are exactly what we need to conduct the research.”

This post was written by Olivia Hall, freelance writer with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety (FSIL). The Innovation Lab for Food Safety is one of a network of 20 such labs led by U.S. universities under Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative led by USAID.

Consumer demand as a driver of food safety 

Food safety research often focuses on the supply side — production and processing — and identifying ways to reduce, manage and mitigate contaminants and foodborne pathogens. However, consumers are important actors who can drive positive change in market systems through their demand for safe, nutritious foods. Their purchasing decisions can create demand, impact pricing and spur the supply side to offer value-added products with sustainable production practices, nutrient enrichment or higher levels of food safety. Even with limited budgets, consumers in low- and middle-income countries balance priorities such as food type, quantity and quality, including food safety. Understanding and quantifying consumer demand for food safety can provide incentives to producers and to make informed decisions on market development of safer food products.

What is willingness to pay?

One method for quantifying consumer demand for food safety is through willingness-to-pay experiments. Willingness to pay is the maximum amount consumers will pay for a product or service. It captures how valuable the product is to them, based on their needs, preferences and the perceived benefits. Quantifying the demand for safer food through willingness to pay helps us understand the economic feasibility of safe food practices, enabling businesses to make informed decisions about value-added products and new market development. For example, if consumers are willing to pay a premium for food with safety features, and that premium is sufficient to cover the increased cost of the safer practices, that can incentivize producers to implement them. If the premium is not sufficient but the food safety practices are necessary to protect public health, the data can inform government efforts to offset costs, through subsidies or technological innovation. An understanding of willingness to pay creates a proper feedback mechanism between producers, actors in the value chain and supply chain management, and consumers in the market system.

What drives willingness to pay for food safety?

Many factors can affect consumers’ willingness to pay for food safety. Most fall under the broad umbrella of their awareness, knowledge and level of understanding of foodborne illness. Have they been exposed to a foodborne illness outbreak and how severe was their experience? Do they know of potential contamination sources, such as pesticide misuse? In addition to their awareness and knowledge, demographics like age, gender, education level and income play a role. If consumers are aware of the risks of unsafe foods to their families, they may value and prioritize safety-certified foods and be willing to pay more for them. Understanding the factors that influence willingness to pay is an important foundation for developing outreach and education programs that not only target knowledge gaps but also consider the perspectives of different sectors of consumers.

Measuring willingness to pay

The goal in any willingness-to-pay study is to learn what price truthfully reflects a product’s value to consumers. Broadly, revealed or stated preference methods are used by researchers. While revealed preference methods use existing market data to derive the value, often for existing goods or products in well-established markets, stated preference methods ask consumers to state or reflect their values directly or indirectly through surveys and experiments. Among approaches developed to capture the true willingness to pay through proper elicitation and experiment, the experimental action is one of the incentive-compatible approaches — which means that it builds mechanisms in the experiments such that the people have no benefit by deviating from or not reflecting their real value. Experimental auctions mimic the market system by building an active market environment, striving to create situations that are realistic and binding.

In one kind of typical experimental auction, the researchers, acting as marketers, describe the products using information contained on the label. As bidding begins, enumerators display the products in a randomized order and participants have a chance to buy products for their family by submitting bids for each product. After the bidding, the researchers let participants pick a price of the binding product by a selection of price on a random draw from a uniformly distributed range of prices, unknown to the participant. The participants’ bids are compared to the selected price, which determines whether they win the bid and are allowed to buy that product or not. The experimental auction of this kind is constructed so that participants are encouraged to bid their willingness to pay for the product and researchers can capture true participant preferences in this mock market system environment.

Considerations for willingness-to-pay experiments

For any willingness-to-pay experiment, design and planning can help reduce bias and get realistic estimates of consumer demand. In addition to standard approaches like randomization and conducting preliminary trials and practice sessions, balancing context and control is key. The auction context should ensure participants are aware that reflecting their true willingness to pay is helpful within the bigger context of the research. For control, researchers must be trained to create an auction environment such that no unmeasured external forces influence consumer choices, including the researchers themselves. For example, anchoring bias can cause input from researchers to have a “warm glow effect” on participants. If participants can tell that higher willingness to pay is viewed more favorably by researchers, that could affect their answers. Study design and execution should also aim to minimize hypothetical bias, sample selection bias and leading question bias, among others. Through these considerations, researchers can create an effective willingness-to-pay experiment that balances context and control and obtains data with implications applicable in the real-world market system.

Market implications of willingness to pay

The counterpart to consumers’ willingness to pay is producers’ willingness to accept the findings and implement food safety practices at the expected price point. Provided with the cost of specific inputs for food safety (e.g., good agricultural practices and food safety infrastructure) and the amount consumers are willing to pay, are commercial growers willing and able to deliver a safer product? If so, it’s the right time to adopt food safety interventions. Sufficient consumer demand also indicates the potential for economic development through a new market segment for food safety-augmented products. Putting together consumer demand and producer incentives creates market system feedback mechanics that can strengthen food safety.

Policy implications of willingness-to-pay studies

When it comes to food safety interventions and policy decisions, willingness-to-pay data provides a valuable metric for understanding consumer preferences and evaluating market opportunities. There may be cases where the prices consumers are willing to pay will not provide sufficient producer incentive to increase the accessibility and availability of safe, nutritious food. Protecting public health may then require government-driven policy changes, such as subsidies or investment in infrastructure or innovations to offset the increased cost of food safety interventions. Willingness-to-pay data enables informed decisions by local governments when prioritizing local investment strategies to support public health.

Case study: Market systems food safety research in Nepal 

Food safety is an emerging issue in Nepal, which presents both opportunities and challenges. In Nepal, the global hunger index has steadily improved over the years. At 19.1, it is currently in the moderate range, with a decrease from 37 in the past two decades, indicating significant progress toward hunger reduction. However, to build on this progress, we must ensure that food is both nutritious and safe, because contaminated food will not provide the intended nutritional benefits. In my ongoing project, Market-Led Food Safety in Nepal: Harnessing Production Incentives and Consumer Awareness, with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety, we are addressing food safety in fresh produce systems. We are focusing on salad vegetables because they are nutrient rich but carry a heightened risk of foodborne illness from contamination with microbial pathogens when consumed uncooked.

Our approach is to first understand consumers’ existing knowledge and awareness of food safety. From there, we are assessing if they value food safety, how much of a premium they are willing to pay for safer produce, and what factors affect their willingness to pay, including income, awareness, age and gender. We can then test how income and interactions of income with other factors play a role in food safety-related purchasing behaviors. We are also looking at producers’ willingness to accept the added cost to employ a safety-augmented production system and better understand the supply-demand cycle for food safety within this specific sector of the market system.

We look forward to integrating our findings on producer incentives and consumer demand into outreach, workshops, training and policy/stakeholder meetings in Nepal in 2024. It is our hope that the data will facilitate the design of an informed investment study for the government of Nepal, which has made advances in food security, but for which food safety is an emerging concern. Having informed investment strategies can help prioritize policies on food safety.

Our work in food safety within the market system of Nepal aligns with the Food Safety Innovation Lab’s multidisciplinary approach to food safety. Teams like ours bring together the expertise of microbiologists, statisticians, gender specialists, social scientists and others to create holistic, market-driven solutions to increase the availability and accessibility of safe, nutritious food. My colleagues working with Food Safety Innovation Lab projects in Bangladesh and Cambodia are asking similar questions about consumer demand in those food systems, specifically around poultry, fish and produce food safety. Approaches that include understanding market system dynamics that relate to food safety, such as consumer demand, are better positioned to produce sustainable food safety policies and practices that will get safer food into market stalls and onto consumer plates.

Dr. Aditya Khanal is an associate professor of agribusiness and agricultural economics in the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at Tennessee State University and principal investigator (PI) of the project Market-Led Food Safety in Nepal: Harnessing Production Incentives and Consumer Awareness, funded the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety. The Innovation Lab is one of a network of 20 such labs led by U.S. universities under Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative led by USAID.

Olufemi Aluko vividly remembers the day his father took him to visit their local hospital in Nigeria. As a young boy still in primary school, he initially wondered why, since he neither felt sick nor had a doctor’s appointment. However, Olufemi soon realized that his father, a schoolteacher, wanted him to witness firsthand the medical professionals hard at work, helping others in their community.

“He made me understand that those people took their education seriously, and that is why they can wear the laboratory coats that they do,” says Aluko, who serves as senior lecturer in the Department of Community Health at Obafemi Awolowo University. “This moment was a key motivator for me to pay more attention to my studies.”

While his father taught him to value education, his mother sparked his interest in food safety and hygiene at an early age. She trained all the children of her household in the basic tenets of food preparation, such as how to pick out quality produce and meat from the market.

Once, Aluko came home with the cheapest items he could find. However, his mother quickly pointed out that the items were spoiled and that eating them would cause the whole family to become ill.

“At that time, my mother told me there are some chemicals that will develop in those spoiled foods — even heating cannot remove them — and eating them could kill any family member,” he recalls.

These two lessons from his parents stayed with him throughout his school years, eventually leading him to pursue an undergraduate degree in microbiology from Obafemi Awolowo University. From there, he received a Master’s and Ph.D. in Public Health with a focus on environmental health science from the University of Ibadan.

His research career has addressed different aspects of disease prevention, including water and sanitation service dimensions, wastewater management, food safety and antimicrobial resistance arising from environmental abuses. For example, recent studies in Nigeria have investigated the association between household water security and diarrheal disease in children; sanitation and hygiene services in a maximum-security correctional facilities; and the parasitic contamination of commonly consumed vegetables such as African eggplant, cucumber and spinach.

In addition, he previously served as a consultant to Akintola Williams Deloite for UNICEF Nigeria, Save the Children International, and WaterAid Nigeria, highlighting best practices in Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) service delivery interventions and other key areas. Ongoing endeavors include work on capacity building technical assistance with the Plateau State Water Board, a water supply agency based in east-central Nigeria, and lifecycle assessment of pesticides in farm settlements in southwest Nigeria.

Aluko also brings this public health and hygiene expertise to the “Strengthening household and community food safety in Nigeria” project, funded by the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety. The lab is one of 20 such labs in a network under Feed the Future, the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative led by USAID. Household-level food safety is a significant economic and public health concern in his home country. The impact of foodborne pathogens on the development and nutritional status of children under the age of five is of particular concern.

The ongoing project aims to identify strategic actions to mitigate and prevent household foodborne illnesses using a community-driven approach. The researchers are gathering the perspectives of local youth, mothers, primary health care providers, community development personnel, government representatives, academia and civil society leaders to develop community-based solutions.

Aluko joins an interdisciplinary team of scientists from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Bowen University, the University of Ibadan and Utah State University. He is involved in every facet of the research, from conception and data collection to analysis and report writing. The team is currently conducting environmental sanitation assessments of foodborne pathogens on food contact surfaces and non-food contact surfaces in households in metropolitan Ibadan to identify the scope of the problem.

“I am excited to be part of this particular research with the other collaborators in the United States and Nigeria. The project has pulled us together,” he says. “I have learned a lot in the process, and it has also strengthened my resolve to further contribute to the development or evolution of the food safety sector in Nigeria.”

He emphasizes that Nigeria’s food safety sector, as it stands today, is unstructured and loosely regulated. Looking across the food system, gaps at every step leave households vulnerable to severe foodborne illnesses. Food purchased at the markets will often contain high concentrations of pesticides, herbicides, microorganisms and preservatives that are not permissible under the country’s food safety standards.

Aluko notes that many people involved in food production and preparation are unaware of food safety risks and the practices to reduce them. In particular, for owners of small businesses, the economic pressure to sell enough products to provide for their families may outweigh food safety concerns. Furthermore, foodborne illness prevalence is difficult or even impossible to quantify in Nigeria because many individuals suffering from such conditions will not seek medical treatment.

His overarching goal is to push for system-wide changes so that his fellow citizens — in particular, members of vulnerable populations like children and the elderly — can avoid foodborne disease and malnutrition.

“I want to play a major role in policy reengineering in the food safety sector. There is a need for us to develop a homegrown, appropriate policy that will address multiple challenges across the food chain,” says Aluko. “In this way, I hope that my research will contribute to shaping the food safety and hygiene sector in Nigeria.”

Meeri Kim is a freelance writer with the Feed the Future Food Safety Innovation Lab.

Food safety priorities for fish consumed in Bangladesh — which boasts over 12 million fish farmers and robust domestic demand — should focus on reducing levels of formalin, heavy metals and antibiotics and other growth promoters, according to a new paper from researchers with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety.

The team, led by Madan Dey, professor and chair of the Department of Agricultural Sciences at Texas State University, conducted a systematic review of published findings on adulteration of fish in Bangladesh. The studies included domestic, imported, wild-harvested and aquaculture-farmed fish. Their goal was to characterize the scope and magnitude of fish adulteration encountered by Bangladeshi consumers, providing a guide for policymakers and government regulators to strengthen the food safety of fish.

Among the most pressing concerns were formalin, which is sometimes added to fish to prevent spoilage and extend shelf life. Heavy metals, including chromium, arsenic, lead, iron, mercury and cobalt, were reported in fish and feed. In addition, antibiotics and growth promoters, used in aquaculture to increase yields, exceeded permitted levels in some cases.

“Are we saying that fish in Bangladesh are unsafe to eat? No, we are not,” said Dey. “A similar survey elsewhere in the world might find similar results. We are simply saying that given the socio-economic environment in Bangladesh and the potential health effects, we can do much better, right? These are the key problems that deserve a solution.”

The team’s paper, A systematic review of fish adulteration and contamination in Bangladesh: A way forward to food safety,  was published in the February 16 issue of Reviews in Aquaculture. The researchers searched multiple databases and identified 37 studies of fish adulteration. Formalin, antibiotics and heavy metals were key categories of concern.

Dey noted that while heavy metals may enter the food chain passively — and inadvertently — through water sources or feed, producers or vendors may have financial incentives to use formalin and antibiotics. This raises questions Dey hopes economics can play a part in answering.

“What kind of policy could we have so that formalin is not being used or to dramatically reduce the use of antibiotics in fish production?” he asked. “How could we solve this in an economically viable way?”

Dey and the team are addressing these questions through a project with the Food Safety Innovation Lab, which aims to explore the economics of producing safer fish in small-scale aquaculture farms. Through experimental auctions, they have found that Bangladeshi consumers are willing to pay higher prices for fish with healthier attributes and less adulteration. Their current research is investigating the production side, to determine the cost for farmers to produce safer fish.

“In some cases, it might increase the cost of production, but it may be okay because safer fish can garner a 30-percent price premium,” said Dey. “And we can also say to producers: ‘You may not realize that you may be using some ingredients that are not necessary or healthy for consumers.’ With a 30% premium, can you produce fish to those standards? If safer feed does not cost more and gives you equal or more yield, then it is a win-win situation for everybody.”

Dey noted that the government and regulatory agencies that set food safety policies need assistance finding marketable solutions that conform to the country’s political, economic and institutional structure. To build on this work, the team is also working to raise awareness about the food safety risks of fish adulteration with producers and government agencies.

“We are developing training programs for fish farmers and other value chain actors based on our research,” said Md. Akhtaruzzaman Khan, professor in the Department of Agricultural Finance at BAU and the paper’s lead author. “We have a strong partnership with the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority, and we are planning to create a brief to advise them of our findings. The end goal of our project is to solve some of these problems in an economically viable way.”

Coauthors of the study include Md. Emran Hossain (BAU), Md. Sayemul Islam (BAU), Mohammad Saidur Rahman (BAU), and Pratheesh Omana Sudhakaran (Texas State University).

Amanda Garris is a communications specialist with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety.

Foodborne pathogens, such as E. coli and Salmonella, are a significant source of intestinal illness in Cambodia. Identifying where they enter the vegetable supply chain — on farms, during transport, at distribution centers or in markets — is key information for developing strategies to strengthen food safety. A recent training has equipped Cambodian researchers at three institutions in a cutting-edge genomic technique to bolster pathogen tracking and reduce foodborne illness.

The week-long virtual workshop provided by scientists at The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) focused on whole genome sequencing (WGS) of bacteria. Because WGS can be used to distinguish among closely related strains, researchers can pinpoint precisely where contamination with foodborne pathogens is occurring in the supply chain. Fifteen students and researchers from four institutions participated in the training, including the Institut Pasteur du Cambodge, the Institute of Technology of Cambodia and the Royal University of Agriculture. The workshop is part of a project funded by the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety to reduce the prevalence of foodborne pathogens in fresh produce in Cambodia.

“Currently, our lab provides food safety testing, and we have expertise on normal test method standards for bacteria, but not on molecular biology of those bacteria,” says Navin Sreng, head of Laboratory of Environment and Food Safety at the Institut Pasteur du Cambodge and project co-principal investigator (PI). “Therefore, this WGS training is very important for us in order to develop the research abilities of the lab.”

Traditionally, scientists have used microbiology tools to detect foodborne pathogens in foods and food processing environments. They include swabbing surfaces to collect bacteria and growing them on special plates until visible colonies form. While those methods can be used to identify the species present, WGS adds precision. WGS can be used to tell if the specific strain found in a market is highly similar or identical to a strain present at a different point in the supply chain, such as the farm. The detailed information provided by WGS is valuable for tracking down sources of contamination and outbreaks.

“By using whole genome sequences, we get a lot more information, and we use that information to infer or make some assumptions as to how that pathogen has been moving through the supply chain,” says project co-PI Jasna Kovac, the Lester Earl and Veronica Casida Career Development Professor of Food Safety at Penn State’s Department of Food Science. “Whole genome sequencing really helps us identify precisely what the major sources of contamination are and where pathogens are entering the food supply chain.”

Kovac uses the analogy of a fingerprint. “Each individual has a unique DNA fingerprint, so by finding an identical fingerprint in two locations, we can infer that that individual was present at those two locations,” she says. “And once we have that information, we can develop more targeted and more effective contamination mitigation strategies. Instead of trying to implement control strategies at all points of the supply chain, we can really focus on the one that is likely going to be most impactful.”

Initially, the plan was for bacteria samples collected in Cambodian farms, distribution centers and markets to be sequenced and analyzed only at Penn State. Kovac and project co-lead PI Jessie Vipham, associate professor in food safety and food security at Kansas State University, pivoted to teaching their collaborators in Cambodia how to perform WGS using a portable nanopore sequencer and how to analyze sequences to construct a complete genome for each bacterial isolate and compare genomes of isolates across samples. Taejung Chung, a Ph.D. candidate at Penn State, and Xiaoyuan Wei, a postdoctoral scholar, developed the trainings as well as online materials that the team can access at any time for future use.

“We provided the equipment, we shipped everything the teams needed in Cambodia from the U.S., and also provided them with videos that demonstrated step-by-step procedures on how to do DNA extraction and sequencing,” says Kovac.

Once the Cambodia researchers had collected their data, they processed it during the week-long WGS analysis workshop. The data is complex: The Salmonella genome has about five million base pairs encoding some 4,000 genes, and researchers must assemble sequences of DNA to construct whole genomes, and then compare the genomes of different isolates. The genomic analysis can provide information about whether a pathogen carries any antimicrobial resistance genes, which could compromise treatments of infections using antibiotics or that might help them survive the sanitizers or disinfectants that are used in food processing environments.

“Whole-genome sequencing is a rapid and accurate method to detect potential foodborne pathogens along the food supply chain, ensuring food safety,” says co-PI Chanthol Peng, a lecturer and researcher of the Faculty of Chemical and Food Engineering, Food Technology, and Nutrition Research Unit at the Institute of Technology of Cambodia. “The training has expanded my abilities, and I’ll use that knowledge to aid in improving local food safety. The added level of precision in the surveillance of pathogens will lead to faster and more efficient decision-making in the preparedness and response to foodborne outbreaks.”

Christina Frank is a freelance writer with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety. 

For researchers in global development, engaging with stakeholders is essential. Our projects alone cannot solve large-scale problems like food security, malnutrition and food safety. For research to influence the food system, farmers, private companies and governments must buy into the new concepts and data arising from our research and translate them into practice and policy. This can be challenging because they may see us as presumptuous outsiders rather than the allies we wish to be. I experienced this early in my career when a research proposal was rejected outright by an in-country government agency. As I later discovered, the reason was not the merits of the proposal but rather the perception that we were outsiders intending to impose our ideas and that we did not have prior consultations. In short, building a relationship with key stakeholders needed to come first. It was a formative learning experience for me, and I’d like to share what I’ve subsequently learned about how to develop long-term, productive stakeholder relationships in three decades of working in economics and agricultural development.

Embracing marginal gains. We economists often think in terms of marginal gains, marginal losses and marginal costs. Marginal gains theory is the idea that small improvements across several areas will result in big gains overall. In my experience, this accurately captures the process of engaging with government and other stakeholders. An individual meeting or dialogue may not pay off immediately. However, the repeated interactions build trust and form a long-term relationship that can deliver the ultimate prize: their attention to the issues you are addressing, recognition of the issues as priorities and the use of your data to develop policy recommendations and new operating procedures. Embracing marginal gains can help you sidestep a common pitfall — rushing a new concept and creating negative feedback instead of common ground. It’s not realistic to expect buy-in after a single meeting, but taking the time to introduce a new concept gradually will pay dividends over time.

Engaging early. Too often, engaging with government and other stakeholders is viewed as a final step in a project, undertaken when there are results to be shared. However, effective engagement begins before the proposal is even written. We need to seek out government representatives, as well as other stakeholders, during the formulation of a project. One strategy is to first align your research with national goals — often articulated in a multiyear plan — if at all possible. The benefit of alignment, rather than an ad hoc proposal, is that your project is firmly situated as a part of the country’s existing efforts and framework. Through direct dialogue, you can identify what questions they need answered, existing findings and trends, how you could contribute and how the research would benefit the country. This early engagement positions your project as within the system, rather than imposed from outside, facilitating buy-in when results are relevant for policy formation and providing the basis for long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.

Listening first. My advice when engaging stakeholders and government representatives is to start with a listening attitude. First, let’s listen to the people who have been there for generations: What are their concerns? What are their potential suggestions for solutions? It’s not uncommon for U.S.-based researchers to discover that what we learned working in our home universities is not readily transferable to a particular farming situation in Africa or Asia, and our naivete can drive justifiable pushback. However, if we first present the general goal for the research, for example, strengthening food safety, and then listen to their priorities — government officials can probably name 15 or 20 ideas — it allows us to identify the three or four we could pursue in a project. Even if it’s a small project, it will lay the groundwork for more work in the future, and that’s a solid start.

Building a broad in-country network. It’s important for researchers to demonstrate their long-term commitment in a country by building a network that includes government colleagues as well as other researchers and stakeholders. For a U.S.-based researcher, this sometimes means being on Zoom at 3 a.m. to participate in a policy discussion or webinar, but it’s worth it to be a part of the dialogue. Look for opportunities to participate in professional meetings with diverse audiences, for example government budget discussions, nongovernmental organization (NGO) forums and webinars hosted by in-country universities, and one event will build on the next. It’s helpful to think broadly as you develop your network, including not just the stakeholders who’ll benefit from your current work, but planning ahead to related value chains or regions where the work could be expanded in the future.

Leveraging events. For building relationships and raising awareness, it’s valuable to host events throughout the life of a project and to plan outreach that brings together government and value chain stakeholders. In our Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety project to strengthen the food safety in the fish and chicken value chains in Bangladesh, we seize every opportunity to gather. Recently, harvesting the fish for an experimental auction became an occasion to invite university, government and stakeholder representatives to hear research updates and provide feedback to us. Periodically hosting different types of events — extension events, research updates and sensitization workshops — gives us the flexibility to accommodate the schedules of key government figures and relieves the pressure to schedule a single annual event where everyone can attend.

We’ve noticed that the strategic inclusion of both stakeholders and government representatives in an event is beneficial in two ways: we get useful feedback on the project’s design and implementation, and our alignment with government builds trust with growers, whose cooperation is necessary for implementing change. Hearing from trusted government officials can have a stronger impact on farmers than hearing from unfamiliar university researchers. As key venues for stakeholder input, including government feedback, the events contribute to the long-term sustainability of our project and have resulted in valuable modifications in our research trajectory.

In addition, we routinely invite local media to cover our events and provide them with written briefings ahead of time to assist with the stories. Media coverage is another productive avenue to engage with government in particular, because many government officials are media savvy. Over time, we’ve learned that one media story builds on the others, accumulating more marginal gains.

Articulating policy implications. Once your research is completed, how does it get translated into data-informed policy, rather than just a citation in your C.V.? Each time we publish a paper, we try to consider how it could inform the general direction of policy. What do the results mean for a policymaker? What concepts would be applicable? Can we develop a policy brief to share? Articulating the policy implications of research is part of sustaining a continuous dialogue with government. In July, we are taking this idea one step further by hosting a policy cocreation workshop in Bangladesh for the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Fish. We will present our findings from several papers and discuss with officials what value the results hold for policy formation. To be clear, we are not dictating policy, but rather ensuring officials are aware of the data and offering help, if desired, in their translation into policy.

Fostering cultural change. Effective engagement involves cultural change, within both universities and government agencies. One of the most profound changes in mindset we have seen is among our researchers. In academia, the focus is often on publishing papers, and many resist involvement in policy discussions. However, within our research partnerships, we have developed a culture of considering and sharing what our econometric results mean to farmers and policymakers. We hope to inspire a complementary change in government, where government agencies begin to prioritize data-driven policy as part of their planning process.

Through our projects, we are also fostering a culture of collaboration across governmental agencies. In Bangladesh, like many other countries, the responsibility for food safety falls under several ministries and agencies, each with their own reporting guidelines, policies and administrative structure. It’s a long-term process, but by hosting interministerial discussions at our project events, we are seeing a shift toward collaboration across agencies, such as the Bangladesh Food Safety Authority working with the Department of Fisheries to strengthen the food safety of fish produced in Bangladesh. This kind of shift can create dividends for decades to come.

Concluding thoughts. Across Feed the Future Innovation Labs, we are addressing the world’s greatest challenges in agriculture and food security, with goals that are shared by the governments and other stakeholders in our focus countries. Governments are crucial partners in effecting change through policy development and food system investments, and private companies and producers have significant leverage in implementation. In my experience, effective engagement is the product of long-term relationships which are built on mutual respect, trust and continuous dialogue. It requires strategic actions that demonstrate our commitment and alignment with their aspirations for the well-being of their citizens, communities and customers. It’s never too early to start.

Dr. Madan Dey is a professor of agricultural business and economics and chair of the Department of Agricultural Sciences at Texas State University. He leads the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety-funded project, Enhancing Food Safety in Fish and Chicken Value Chains of Bangladesh, and serves as the Asia specialist for the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Fish.

Dairy products are an important source of nutrition in Senegal, but preventing foodborne illness in local supply chains is challenging to maintain across the system of small farms, aggregation sites, and artisanal processing facilities. Two papers published by researchers working with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety (FSIL) highlight the challenges and potential solutions to increasing the food safety of milk production and processing in Senegal.

“The burgeoning local dairy industry in rural areas of the country has significant potential to promote economic development, improving the economic prospects for women and youth in particular, as they play critical roles in the dairy value chain,” said Manpreet Singh, FSIL’s Senegal project leader and head of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of Georgia. “Achieving self-sufficiency, rather than relying on imported milk and milk powder, is a top priority for Senegal’s government. But we needed a baseline understanding of food safety gaps in production and processing gained through these review papers to develop data-driven safety practices, policy recommendations, and training for food-safety professionals.”

The first paper, Food Safety Issues in Dairy Production in Senegal: Challenges and Pragmatic Solutions for the Dairy Value Chain, was published in the January/February issue of Food Protection Trends and addresses concerns in small-scale dairy production. Among the foremost challenges is preventing contamination with bacterial foodborne pathogens. The authors note that milk is typically consumed unpasteurized in raw or fermented form, increasing the risk from Mycobacterium bovis, Brucella abortus, and Coxiella burnettii, all of which pose significant public health concerns. Data is scarce on the incidence of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are common pathogens in dairy production systems around the world.

Raising awareness about food safety risks and addressing traditional beliefs about milk are key to reducing foodborne illness, according to lead author Woubit Abebe, DVM, director of the Center for Food Animal Health, Food Safety, and Food Defense in the Department of Pathobiology at Tuskegee University.

“A large number of people, men more than women, don’t believe that unpasteurized milk could transmit illness,” Abebe said. “They don’t boil the milk at all. Boiling for them is like taking the soul out of the milk.”

Abebe’s current research and outreach efforts with project collaborators at Senegal’s Institut de Technologie Alimentaire (ITA) address the challenges identified in the review. Abebe and her team have conducted detailed surveys to understand current milk production practices on small dairy farms.

“Do they practice cleaning the udder? Do they wash their hands before milking? What kind of towel are they using to dry their hands?” Abebe said. “Even little things may make a difference.”

This spring, Abebe is training students and staff at ITA in pathogen sampling methods to characterize the risk from more than a dozen common pathogens of dairy systems in preparation for on-farm sample collection. This data will fill gaps in current knowledge and help the team identify the most important targets for new food safety practices.

The team’s other paper, Safety and Quality of Milk and Milk Products in Senegal—A review, was published in the November 2022 issue of MDPI Foods and provides a complementary analysis of food safety challenges after milk leaves the farm–during transit, processing, and sale.

The authors conclude that the main food safety challenges arise from the informal milk collection systems for delivery of raw milk to processors; traditional, artisanal processing methods that don’t include heat treatment; and the lack of consistent refrigeration to slow microbial growth. Together, they significantly increase the risk of foodborne illness from bacterial pathogens. The solutions lie in outreach, infrastructure, and science-based food safety interventions.

“There is a need to educate milk producers, small-scale processors, and vendors on common food safety measures for milk and milk products, particularly the importance of refrigerating milk immediately after milking as well as maintaining the cold chain until the milk is heat treated and subsequently marketed to the consumer,” said Singh. “Proper operation of equipment such as pasteurizers to ensure the safety of milk is a key focus, along with a comprehensive risk assessment of high-risk areas for cross-contamination that can compromise the safety of the dairy value chain.”

Singh believes it is important to establish large, organized dairies to collect milk from rural production areas as well as to develop small-scale processing units such as mini dairies, noting that economics can constrain food safety efforts. Without assistance, obtaining the equipment necessary for cold storage and processing of milk can be challenging for farmers and small-scale dairies. He also stressed the importance of engaging women and youth.

“Youth and women play key roles in the dairy value chain, therefore, involvement of these groups on decision-making as it relates to policies and ensuring safety of the dairy value chain is critical,” he said.

In addition to Abebe and Singh, the Food Protection Trends article on dairy production was coauthored by Rawah Faraj (Tuskegee University), Cheikh Ndiaye (ITA), Younoussa Diallo (ITA), and Harshavardhan Thippareddi (UGA). Coauthors of the MDPI Foods article on dairy processing include lead author Cortney Leone (UGA), Harshavardhan Thippareddi (UGA), Cheikh Ndiaye (ITA), Ibrahima Niang (ITA), and Younoussa Diallo (ITA).

Christina Frank is a freelance writer with the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety.