Food Safety Regulation for Small Food Businesses in Southern Africa Development Communities: An Integrated Review of Public Health Laws, Informal Food Markets, and Risk-Based Regional Frameworks

1. Introduction

Foodborne diseases (FBD) continue to pose a significant global burden within the context of food security and national economic growth. The report of (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2023; Henson et al., 2023) states that 600 million people worldwide fall ill after consuming unsafe food, resulting in an estimated 480,000 deaths, with 40% children under 5 years annually. This has led to US$115 billion loss in productivity and medical expenses for eating unsafe food, mostly exacerbated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)(Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2023; Henson et al., 2023). A country that can assure safe food would benefit from international trade opportunities, thereby increasing its Gross Domestic Product GDP (FAO, 2007), directly addressing Sustainable Development Goals 2 and 3, also aligning with the Africa 2063 agenda of the “Africa we want”. Asian and African regions are more severely burdened with 53% of infectious diseases, and 72% of global disability adjusted life years (DALYs) lost to FBD are attributed to the region, which collectively comprises 41% of the global population (Gibb et al., 2019).

Figure 1. Graphical Abstract.

Figure 1. Graphical Abstract.

In the SADC region, small and micro food businesses (SFBs) constitute up to 65% which accounts for over 2.5 million jobs in South Africa alone Nyathi et al., (2025), providing domestic markets for fish, meat, fruit, milk, and vegetables in LMICs, which are all nutrient-dense foods that simultaneously serve as primary vectors of FBD (Ayalew et al., 2023; Henson et al., 2023).

The scope of their businesses encompasses informal street food operators, street food vendors, small-scale processors, caterers, spaza shops, and family-owned restaurants (Gallo et al., 2020). They serve as critical entry points for women and adolescents into the economy, generating employment opportunities.

Despite the importance of this sector, it comes with uniquely intricate challenges because of its complex nature and mostly burden on the consumers, as found by many authors this includes but not limited to inconsistent enforcement, inadequate infrastructure, low knowledge, attitude and practice of operators, poor data management, limited consumer awareness, poor hygiene, lack of finance and technological capabilities across LMICs including SADC (Dama et al., 2024; Leahy et al., 2022; Mbombo-Dweba et al., 2022; Rugji et al., 2025; Sosah & Donkor, 2025).

The assurance of safe food is essential to improving the quality of life for those already affected by diseases like HIV, malaria, and Tuberculosis because their immune system is already compromised (Mwanza, 2024).

Food safety, as defined by WHO (2024), is the assurance that food will not cause harm to the consumer when prepared and/ or eaten according to its intended use, and further describes food hygiene as all the measures taken to ensure the wholesomeness of food from farm to fork (WHO, 2024). The food safety regulation forms the bedrock on which food security and economic prosperity can be achieved, most especially in Africa (Jaffee et al., 2018). The responsibility to achieve food safety is shared among different national authorities and requires a multisectoral approach FAO/ WHO, 2024; Codex Alimentarius Commission,(Büthe et al., 2011; Piližota, 2023). The international consensus to achieve food safety is through a risk-based, farm-to-fork approach that focuses on cost-effective prevention integrated with innovative technologies (Arimi & Adebayo, 2024). Governments are obligated to safeguard the health of consumers, which encompasses the prevention of infectious illnesses. Consequently, food standards are essential to aid governments in protecting public health (Mphaga et al., 2024). An efficient food control system is essential for the effective enforcement of the standards (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2007). To achieve an effective food control system, the food regulators, particularly in the case of small food business regulation, the environmental health practitioners (EHPs) must be adequately trained and have access to updated resources to discharge their responsibilities, supported by a strong institutional and political component (Alemu et al., 2023; Battersby & Miles, 2025).

The SADC is a regional economic community that is composed of 16 member states in Figure 2 with a mission to foster sustainable, equitable economic growth and socio-economic development by fostering efficient, productive systems, deeper cooperation and integration, good governance, and durable peace and security. This will enable the region to become a competitive and effective player in international relations and the global economy, just like the European Union (www.sadc.int/memberstate, 2025.10.03). The region has an estimated 254 million people with a mean age of 15 years old, about 76% of the entire population is below the age of 35 years (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2014). If this population is well harnessed, it could translate into economic prosperity for the region. It has been identified that South Africa and other SADC states' food safety regulations are either incomplete or fragmented, lacking in communication, coordination, and confidence (Grace et al., 2019; Hunter-Adams et al., 2018; S. B. Kushitor et al., 2022; Mkhwanazi et al., 2024; Mwamakamba et al., 2012). South Africa's food control and safety system plays, or should be playing, a vital role in protecting public health. However, recent food poisoning scandals and the listeriosis outbreak have underscored the need for improvements (Sithole, 2023a, 2023b).

Figure 2. SADC Map Source: (Southern African Development Community (SADC), 2011).

Figure 2. SADC Map Source: (Southern African Development Community (SADC), 2011).

Historically, in SADC states, food safety regulation has been developed with formal businesses and export markets in mind, largely disregarding the realities of micro and small food business operators (Grace, 2015; Kasapila, 2023). In the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, risk management was emphasized as a global benchmark for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and WHO in the general principles of Food Hygiene CXC 1-1969, revised 2020, of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Büthe et al., 2011). The hygiene requirements for food premises and transport in South Africa are exhaustive, as presented in Regulation R638 of 2018, according to the Department of Health, and were consistent with the principles of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (Lang, 2024). Nevertheless, the implementation within the broader SADC region is uneven, with small food businesses facing high compliance costs, inadequate laboratory infrastructure, and limited inspector capability (Chilenga et al., 2024).

A rigorous examination of the existing food safety regulations of the SADC states could assist in creating a robust regional food safety regulation that can address the complexities in the small food business within the region, thereby safeguarding public health and maintaining standards within the SADC. This will help to answer the following questions.

RQ1: Framework. What food safety regulatory framework exists for SFB within the SADC states?

RQ2: Compliance. How well do these regulations address the identified challenges of SFBs?

RQ3: Best Practices. What best practices emerge for improving food safety regulation in the SADC states?

RQ4: Limitations: What are the limitations to addressing food safety regulation among the SFBs?

Objective: to assess available food safety regulation for small food businesses and their compliance level to attain a sustainable local food system in the SADC states.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The literature search was done across various online databases, like Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ProQuest, to identify articles related to food safety regulation and compliance in the SADC regions. Search strings used are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Research question and search string.

Research Question	Search String
RQ 1:	("food safety" OR "food hygiene") AND ("regulatory framework" OR "regulation" OR "policy" OR "legislation") AND ("small food business*" OR "small and medium enterprise*" OR "informal sector" OR "street vendor*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)
RQ 2:	("food safety" OR "food hygiene") AND ("compliance" OR "adherence" OR "implementation" OR "assessment") AND ("small food business*" OR "small and medium enterprise*" OR "informal sector" OR "street vendor*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)
RQ3:	("food safety" OR "food hygiene") AND ("regulator*" OR "authority" OR "enforcement" OR "inspection") AND ("challenge*" OR "barrier*" OR "constraint*" OR "difficulty") AND ("informal sector" OR "street vendor*" OR "small food business*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)
RQ4:	("best practices" OR "standard") AND ("good practice*" OR "criterion" OR "metric" OR "best guide") AND ("benchmark*" OR "best method*" OR "baseline*" OR "difficulty") AND ("informal sector" OR "street vendor*" OR "small food business*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)

Table 1. Research question and search string.

Research Question	Search String
RQ 1:	("food safety" OR "food hygiene") AND ("regulatory framework" OR "regulation" OR "policy" OR "legislation") AND ("small food business*" OR "small and medium enterprise*" OR "informal sector" OR "street vendor*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)
RQ 2:	("food safety" OR "food hygiene") AND ("compliance" OR "adherence" OR "implementation" OR "assessment") AND ("small food business*" OR "small and medium enterprise*" OR "informal sector" OR "street vendor*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)
RQ3:	("food safety" OR "food hygiene") AND ("regulator*" OR "authority" OR "enforcement" OR "inspection") AND ("challenge*" OR "barrier*" OR "constraint*" OR "difficulty") AND ("informal sector" OR "street vendor*" OR "small food business*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)
RQ4:	("best practices" OR "standard") AND ("good practice*" OR "criterion" OR "metric" OR "best guide") AND ("benchmark*" OR "best method*" OR "baseline*" OR "difficulty") AND ("informal sector" OR "street vendor*" OR "small food business*") AND ("SADC" OR "Southern Africa" OR "South Africa" OR "Botswana" OR "Namibia" OR "Zambia" OR "Zimbabwe" OR "Mozambique" OR "Tanzania" OR "Angola" OR "Lesotho" OR "Eswatini" OR “DRC” OR “Malawi” OR “ Mauritius” OR “Seychelles” OR “Madagascar” OR “Comoros”)

We also searched for the reference list of articles included to identify other relevant articles that were published between 2018 and 2025. The inclusion and exclusion criteria followed the Population, Interventions, Comparator, Outcomes PICOS framework as explained in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Database	Scopus Google Scholar Web of Science ProQuest	Thesis and dissertations
P - Population	Small food businesses (SFBs), small and medium enterprises (SMEs), or informal food sector actors such as street vendors and small processors, spaza shops, and environmental health practitioners	Exclusively on large-scale food manufacturers, multinational corporations, or formal retail chains.
I- Intervention	Only study that addresses food safety Regulations, Policies, Frameworks, or Interventions such as HACCP, hygiene training, and regulatory enforcement.	Solely on food quality, food security, or nutritional value, without a direct link to safety/hygiene regulations.
O - Outcome	Studies reporting any of these: Level of Regulatory Compliance, Challenges to Compliance, either for businesses or regulators, and effectiveness of regulatory interventions.	Opinion pieces, editorials, commentaries, or theoretical models that do not report empirical data on compliance or challenges.
S - Study Design	Empirical studies, Systematic Reviews for background/context only, but not for primary data extraction.	Non-research articles such as book chapters, conference abstracts without a full paper, dissertations not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
G - Geography	Studies conducted in one or more SADC member states: South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, etc.	Studies were conducted in non-SADC African countries like West Africa, North Africa, or outside of Africa.
L - Language	Articles published in English.	Articles not published in English
T - Timeframe	Articles published from January 2018 to the present	Articles published before January 1, 2018.

Table 2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Database	Scopus Google Scholar Web of Science ProQuest	Thesis and dissertations
P - Population	Small food businesses (SFBs), small and medium enterprises (SMEs), or informal food sector actors such as street vendors and small processors, spaza shops, and environmental health practitioners	Exclusively on large-scale food manufacturers, multinational corporations, or formal retail chains.
I- Intervention	Only study that addresses food safety Regulations, Policies, Frameworks, or Interventions such as HACCP, hygiene training, and regulatory enforcement.	Solely on food quality, food security, or nutritional value, without a direct link to safety/hygiene regulations.
O - Outcome	Studies reporting any of these: Level of Regulatory Compliance, Challenges to Compliance, either for businesses or regulators, and effectiveness of regulatory interventions.	Opinion pieces, editorials, commentaries, or theoretical models that do not report empirical data on compliance or challenges.
S - Study Design	Empirical studies, Systematic Reviews for background/context only, but not for primary data extraction.	Non-research articles such as book chapters, conference abstracts without a full paper, dissertations not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
G - Geography	Studies conducted in one or more SADC member states: South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, etc.	Studies were conducted in non-SADC African countries like West Africa, North Africa, or outside of Africa.
L - Language	Articles published in English.	Articles not published in English
T - Timeframe	Articles published from January 2018 to the present	Articles published before January 1, 2018.

2.1. Study Selection and Data Extraction

The selection of articles for this review involved a three-phased screening process to retrieve relevant articles. All duplicates were initially removed from the initial pool of studies using Covidence, a digital tool for systematic reviews. The titles and abstracts of the remaining studies were then screened to align with predefined inclusion criteria. Articles with full text were transferred to the next phase for data extraction. The included articles were then downloaded into EndNote 2025, a referencing tool to enhance the review process. Each article was completely read, and essential data was extracted into Microsoft Excel 365 software to manage the data from the studies included. The data were independently extracted from each study through the data extraction format prepared in Microsoft Excel 365. The extracted information was added to the relevant category of the question raised. In addition, information such as the author’s name, publication year, research methods, key findings, and specific insights related to the research questions were identified accordingly. ATLAS.Ti was used to code and analyze the findings in each article. Tables and Sankey diagrams were used to categorize each theme of the question to achieve the objective of the research. This approach enabled the review to provide comprehensive insight into the research questions by synthesizing and analyzing the literature systematically.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Search Result

After screening during the initial search of the online databases identified a total of 783 publications from various databases, including Scopus (n = 238), Web of Science (n = 76), Google Scholar (n = 209), ProQuest (n = 215), citation search (n=24) and search result from other online sources (n=21) consisting of grey literature (n=15), six studies were identified through snowballing of interested articles. We identified duplicates (n =379), ineligible text (n=53), we screened (n=351) after going through the abstracts and titles. Among these, (n=295) articles were excluded because they did not meet the established inclusion criteria for the already set research question. A total of (n=56) articles were sorted for retrieval, (n=37) were assessed for eligibility, quality check removed 6, out of which 31 articles and grey literature met the inclusion criteria for the review, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.1. PRISMA DIAGRAM Source: (Page et al., 2021)..

Figure 3.1. PRISMA DIAGRAM Source: (Page et al., 2021)..

Figure 3. 2 shows the frequency of research from 2018 to 2025; the highest number of papers was published in 2024, and the least in 2019, which implies that there is a growing interest in the field of food safety regulation within SADC state. Most of the research focuses on the compliance of South Africa's food safety regulations and small food businesses.

Figure 3.2. Frequency of Research between 2018 and 2025.

Figure 3.2. Frequency of Research between 2018 and 2025.

3.2. What Food Safety Regulatory Framework Exists for SFB Within the SADC States?

The term framework, food safety regulations were found in Kasapila, 2023 where existing food laws were represented in the form of a table for the sixteen (16) SADC states as contained in Appendix 2. Figure 3. 3 shows the countries and the respective food laws available there. It was found that all countries had a Public Health Law, except for Comoros; South Africa, and seven other countries had a Food Control or Standard Law. The analysis of the extracted data shows that 41% of the articles indicated that the laws were fragmented, as illustrated in Figure 3. 4 study mentioned that food safety regulations were an integrated framework, and the other 39% were uncategorized.

Figure 3.3. Countries and their respective food laws.

Figure 3.3. Countries and their respective food laws.

Figure 3.4. Existing Framework type.

Figure 3.4. Existing Framework type.

Ten different national health-related food laws, acts, and regulations were identified, with year enacted ranging from 1937 to 2022, the latest being the Food Act, 2022, Act no 12 of 2022 in Mauritius. According to (Ayalew et al., 2023) it concluded that Africa must prioritize establishing the Africa Food Safety Agency AFSA, developing and funding national risk-based strategies, implementing the AU food safety framework, strengthening surveillance, and conducting national burden studies. In the same vein, (Gordon et al., 2020) also mentioned that A centralized food control system is mandatory to ensure safe food within SFB, the study advocates for an autonomous national food safety agency to be hosted by the Ministry of Health, and gives power to the multisectoral boards in each country (Kimanya, 2024). The extensive work by Kasapila (2023) indicated that out of the sixteen SADC states, only South Africa, shown in Figure 3. 5, has all the necessary food laws and regulations in accordance with the global standards of Adaku et al., (2024), followed by Malawi, Mauritius, Tanzania, and Zambia, while Comoros has no available food-related laws, not to mention laws for SFBs.

Figure 3.5. Number of food-related laws by country.

Figure 3.5. Number of food-related laws by country.

The Food and Nutrition Security Strategy, 2015 – 2025, Food and Agriculture Organization (2014) looks good on paper, but at the time of this review, the objectives highlighted have not been achieved based on evidence.

Government initiatives to reduce the incidence of FBD outbreaks have been put into place, and various strategies to implement food safety regulation, especially for the region, have been hampered by different countries within the SADC failing to cooperate, a lack of funding, technical expertise, and uncoordinated efforts (Arias-Granada et al., 2021). The R638 of South Africa (Department of Health (DoH), 2018) and Public Health Act (CAP 15-17 No 11/2018) are the most recent documents that address food safety, which is quite old and does not take into consideration the advent of technology to facilitate food product traceability and safety issues.

3.3. What Is the Compliance Level

The food safety compliance has two dimensions to it the vendor compliance and regulatory compliance to standards, which are mentioned in the reviewed articles.

3.3.1. Vendor Compliance:

A study indicated that street food vendors often exhibit poor hygiene practices, inadequate storage, and handling methods. The infrastructure and sanitary systems are generally inadequate, which raises significant concerns regarding food safety (Letuka et al., 2021). In a survey of street food vendors in Maseru, Lesotho, it was found that; 60% of vendors were female, safety knowledge scored an average of 49%, 95% had a positive attitude towards food safety, none of the vendors used gloves, while 64% wore aprons, 98% prepared meals in advance, and 84% checked expiry dates, 62% protected their meals from pests, and 60% had access to potable water, 10% of consumers reported illness after consuming street food, this was represented in Figure 3. 6 showing that vendor practices compliance issue was highly reported, while infrastructure inadequacy to meet SFB realities was reported in a lower proportion.

Figure 3.6. Compliance with existing food safety regulations.

Figure 3.6. Compliance with existing food safety regulations.

There was a distinct gap between what vendors know about food safety, their beliefs, and their actual practices. Frequent practical training and tailored health education are recommended to improve compliance and reduce food safety risks Desye et al., (2023). In a cross-sectional study of 2,989 vendors, it was indicated that secondary education significantly increases food safety practices among vendors, with those having higher education showing six times higher odds of better practices (Desye et al., 2023).

3.3.2. Regulatory Compliance:

The regulatory environment was found to be grossly fragmented, with different responsibilities divided among various ministries. This has led to inconsistent enforcement of food safety regulations. Many countries lack comprehensive food safety laws, and existing regulations are often outdated (Chilenga et al., 2024; Dama et al., 2024; Gordon et al., 2020; Mphaga et al., 2024). There was a noticeable non-synergized role between the vendors' association and the regulators (Cook et al., 2024). The regulators were found to be weak in terms of technical capacity (Dama et al., 2024). The report of Sithole, 2023b suggested that South Africa falls short of EHP by 28% meaning that 1 EHP serves over 30,000 inhabitants, as against the United Nations standard of 1 to every 10,000 inhabitants. The study on the responsiveness of EHP to foodborne outbreaks showed that most SADC member states could not perform in-country testing and only relied on awareness and recall of food products (Gadaga & Mutukumira, 2020).

3.4. Emergence of Best Practices for Improving Food Safety Regulation in SADC.

A rapid evidence assessment to improve food safety culture using video observation to evaluate the effectiveness of newly developed hand washing pictograms on employees’ hand washing behaviour, which included the use of signage with handwashing pictograms with explanations in English in high traffic areas concluded that while knowledge training can lead to improvements in handwashing practices and some behaviors among food handlers, it is often insufficient on its own to sustain long-term changes in food safety practices. Interventions, like signage, provision of thermometers, and incentives, are necessary to enhance compliance with food safety behaviors, but are inadequate. Thereby, suggesting that training should be complemented with strategies aimed at improving management styles and staff oversight to achieve desired outcomes in food safety(McCallion et al., 2025).

Kasapila, (2023), in a desk review of all publicly available legal text and food standards in SADC states that the laws are sometimes unavailable or fragmented and calls for the creation of Food Acts where it is absent, that integrate risk assessment along the food value chain. It also recommends moving HACCP from voluntary to legal grounds and implementing more regulations in the informal food sector.

Another study identified multilevel governance with no policy that synergizes SFBs' association and regulator responsibilities; it recognizes that street food is a social part of Sub-Saharan Africa SSA urban centres, but its potential is affected by food safety problems, inadequate infrastructure, gender inequalities, and uncoordinated regulation. It therefore proposed an investment in market infrastructure, stronger nutrition-focused programs, and expanded access to finance to improve food safety metrics (Cook et al., 2024). To describe the study appropriately, a bar chart representation was generated in Figure 3. 7 which indicates that only Rugji et al., (2025) discussed the use of artificial intelligence AI to ensure compliance with food safety regulations within the SFBs.

A qualitative and multistage study by (Dama et al., 2024; Oladipo-Adekeye & Tabit, 2021), indicated low technology adoption in enforcement and traceability in the event of an outbreak, an under-regulated informal food sector, and recommended research and technology-led actions towards enhancing safer food in South Africa. Collaborative research should be conducted to simplify the regulation of SFBs. Data-driven enforcement and continuous surveillance with modern traceability, practical training, public communication, and reliable infrastructure will enhance sustainable informal food systems (Agunyai & Ojakorotu, 2024). The study of Rugji et al., (2025) calls out the need for digital infrastructure, secure data sharing, and training in the workforce.

Figure 3.7. Best practice for food safety regulation.

Figure 3.7. Best practice for food safety regulation.

3.5. Limitations to Addressing Food Safety Regulation Among the SFBs?

Factors such as poor financing on the part of governments and low technology adoption were briefly mentioned as limitations in the articles reviewed, while inadequate infrastructure, informal sector neglect, and overlapping governance were identified as prominent limitations to address food safety regulations, as indicated in Figure 3. 8.

Figure 3.8. Limitations to addressing food safety regulations.

Figure 3.8. Limitations to addressing food safety regulations.

4. Conclusion and Recommendation:

SADC member states face a fragmented and underdeveloped regulatory environment characterized by the low capability of both regulators and operators of the SFBs. This weak enforcement mechanism, due to a lack of sufficient scientific expertise, will impact risk assessment and regulatory compliance. The study noted a non-exploration of local dynamics and their effect on regulatory acceptance and compliance. Emerging technologies such as blockchain, Internet of Things (IoT), and Artificial Intelligence (AI) offer potential tools to enhance transparency, traceability, and regulatory compliance across food safety systems, particularly among SFBs with complex intricacies, yet their adoption remains low in SADC, partly due to political, financial, and infrastructural limitations. Capacity building emerges as a critical push for advancing harmonization efforts in SADC, with international collaboration, regional centres of expertise, and public-private partnerships identified as key mechanisms to bridge expertise and resource gaps. However, the effectiveness of such initiatives is constrained by uneven institutional coordination and infrastructural deficits.

SADC has a very youthful population with a mean age of 15 years. SFBs could help create jobs for this population, which can be supported by a strong Food Act that considers the uniqueness of the SFBs in serving affordable, safe, and nutritious food, and helps them scale to operate at an international trade level. We therefore recommend building the capacity of both regulators and operators, considering local dynamics such as political, social, and economic realities of the SADC community. A study on the investigation of multidimensional barriers to adopting technologies in SADC food safety governance and developing context-specific technology transfer models is equally important.

By fostering collaboration among stakeholders and utilizing technology for real-time monitoring and traceability, SADC states can enhance food safety compliance and public health protection. It is worth noting to revise the environmental health curriculum should be revised to integrate a data-driven course in preparation for new processes involved in ensuring food safety from farm to fork. A study that designs and implements impact assessments of capacity-building initiatives, focusing on scientific expertise development, enforcement efficiency, and stakeholder engagement in SADC.

5. Limitations of the Study

Nine of the SADC states are Anglophone, Angola and Mozambique are Lusophone (Portuguese), while DRC, Madagascar, Seychelles, and Comoros are francophone; the food policies were not written in the same language and translated by Kasapila (2023), making the study dependent on the researcher. Most of the studies have not taken into cognizance the hazard posed by pests and the incorrect use of pesticides on food safety. Some of the policies are very old, e.g., the Eswatini Fresh Fish Related Law, which has not considered the realities of the day.

The table of data extracted is in Appendix 1 while Appendix 2 shows the National food health-related food laws.