Ugandan Perspective - WUR

i

Name of Student: Marion Namusisi

Registration Number: 760115595070

Specialization: Food Law

Supervisor: Prof.dr.mr. BMJ (Bernd) van der Meulen

Thesis Report submitted to the Law and Governance Group, in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the award of the MSc. Food Safety degree, Wageningen

University, The Netherlands

March, 2014

Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation― the

Ugandan Perspective

i

Contents

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. IV

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. V

LIST OF TEXT BOXES ......................................................................................................................................... V

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. VI

PREFACE .......................................................................................................................................................... IX

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................................... XI

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.1 Food fraud .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Uganda country profile ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 RATIONALE ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 10

1.5 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................. 10

1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................................................ 12

1.7 LAYOUT AND JUSTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................ 13

1.7.1 Arrangement of chapters ..................................................................................................................... 13

1.7.2 Formatting ............................................................................................................................................ 14

CHAPTER 2: DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 16

2.1 RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY ...................................................................................................................................... 16

2.2 RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................................................................................................................. 17

2.3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 20

2.4 RESEARCH PLAN ................................................................................................................................................ 21

2.5 SAMPLING AND RESEARCH PARTICIPANT’S PROFILES ................................................................................................. 21

2.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE, MANAGEMENT AND PROTOCOL ................................................................................. 22

2.7 LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.8 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 23

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 24

3.1 UNDERSTANDING FOOD FRAUD ........................................................................................................................... 24

3.2 THE FOOD FRAUD NICHE ..................................................................................................................................... 29

3.3 EVOLUTION OF FOOD FRAUD DETECTION, DETERRENCE AND REGULATION ..................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 4: FOOD FRAUD IN UGANDA ........................................................................................................... 38

4.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FOOD FRAUD IN UGANDA ................................................................................................... 38

4.1.1 Compounding factors (drivers) ............................................................................................................. 49

4.2 THE FOOD FRAUD LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF UGANDA ........................................................................ 50

4.2.1 Policies .................................................................................................................................................. 50

4.2.2 Acts of parliament ................................................................................................................................ 52

4.2.3 Regulations ........................................................................................................................................... 61

4.2.4 Bills ....................................................................................................................................................... 63

4.2.5 Standards and codes of practice ........................................................................................................... 65

4.3 THE UGANDA FOOD FRAUD INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................... 72

iii

4.3.1 National government ........................................................................................................................... 73

4.3.1.1 The Cabinet............................................................................................................. .....................73

4.3.1.2 Legislature.................................................................................................................. ...................75

4.3.1.3 Judiciary (courts)................................................................................... ....................................75

4.3.2 Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC) ............................................................................................. 76

4.3.3 Regulatory authorities .......................................................................................................................... 77

4.3.3.1 Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS)........................................................................... ....77

4.3.3.2 The Dairy Development Authority (DDA).................................................................................... ...85

4.3.3.3 The National Drug Authority (NDA).................................................................................... ..........86

4.3.4 Enforcement agencies .......................................................................................................................... 86

4.3.4.1 Uganda Police Forces (UPF)........................................................................................................86

4.3.4.2 Uganda Prison Services (UPS)......................................................................................................87

4.3.5 Media .................................................................................................................................................... 87

4.3.6 Private sector ........................................................................................................................................ 88

4.3.6.1 Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)................................................................................................... 88

4.3.6.2 Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA)................................................................................89

4.3.6.3 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)...................................................................................89

4.4 WAY FORWARD ON EFFECTIVE FOOD FRAUD INTERVENTION IN UGANDA ...................................................................... 92

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 94

5.1 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 94

5.2 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................103

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................106

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 109

LITERATURE .........................................................................................................................................................109

LEGAL REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................112

EU legislation ...............................................................................................................................................112

Uganda legislation- Policies .........................................................................................................................112

Acts of Parliament .......................................................................................................................................113

Regulations ..................................................................................................................................................114

Bills ..............................................................................................................................................................115

MEDIA ................................................................................................................................................................115

WEBSITES............................................................................................................................................................117

ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................................................... 118

ANNEX 1: RESEARCH PLAN......................................................................................................................................118

ANNEX 2: PARTICIPANTS’ PROFILES ..........................................................................................................................118

ANNEX 3: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES ....................................................................................................................120

ANNEX 4: FOOD FRAUD INSTITUTIONS- PICTORIAL .......................................................................................................127

iv

List of figures

Figure 1.1: Uganda’s top imports in 2011. Source: Extracted from FAO website .................. 7

Figure 1.2: Uganda’s top exports in 2011. Source: Extracted from FAO website ................... 8

Figure 2.1: Research philosophy..........................................................................................................17

Figure 2.2: Research design..........................................................................................................................19

Figure 2.3: Research framework...............................................................................................................20

Figure 3.1: Popular fish and their frauds (from "Bait and Switch," Oceana). .................... ....31

Figure 3.2: Pure extra virgin olive oil may actually be adulterated with peanut or

soybean oil................................................................................................. ...................................................32

Figure 3.3: Counterfeit honey may be adulterated with high fructose corn syrup or beet

sugar........................................................................................................................ ....................................................32

Figure 1.1: Common deceptive juice labels...........................................................................................41

Figure 4.2: That sparkling salt may actually contain 50% stones...............................................42

Figure 4.3: That eye-catching voluminous bread may actually be containing unknown

quantities of Potassium bromide.............................................................................................. ...............42

Figure 4.4: Conspicuously attractive spices may be contaminated with Sudan-3-red and

other unknown ingredients.......................................................................................................................42

Figure 4.5: “Pure honey”. Think twice before you pick one of them. It may be

contaminated with molasses................................................................................................... .....................42

Figure 4.6: Cooking oil may be adulterated with transformer oil.............................................43

Figure 4.7: Unregulated, mobile street vendors believed to be the major perpetuators of

food fraud.............................................................................................................................. ...............................45

Figure 4.8: Basic model of the Ugandan food fraud legal framework........................................70

Figure 4.9: The UNBS Logo..........................................................................................................................79

Figure 4.10: The UNBS Standards mark.................................................................................................79

Figure 4.11: ISO systems certification marks.......................................................................................79

Figure 4.12: The UNBS Quality mark......................................................................................................79

Figure 4.13: Ugandan institutional framework on food fraud.....................................................90

v

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Types of fraudulent practices in Uganda and stages at which they happen

along the supply chain ................................................................................................................................ 47

Table 4.2: Common adulterants used in food products (both domestic and imported) in

Uganda .............................................................................................................................................................. 48

Table 4.3: Summary analysis of the food fraud legal and regulatory framework................67

Table 4.4: Actions taken against food fraudsters during the months of April, May, July

and August 2013 ....................................................................................................................................... ... 81

List of text boxes

Text box 1.1: Objectives.................................................................................................................................12

Text box 1.2: Research questions..............................................................................................................13

Law text box 4.1: Section 21 UNBS Act 1983 on product conformance to compulsory

standard specifications.... .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .66

vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Art Article

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CID Crime Investigation Department of Uganda police force

COC Certificate of Conformity

CP Currency point

CONSENT Consumer Education Trust of Uganda

CSOs Civil Society Organizations of Uganda

DDA Dairy Development Authority of Uganda

EAC East African Community

EC European Commission

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FBOs Food Business Operator(s)

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GMA Groceries Manufacturers Association of the United States of America

i.e. That is to say

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

ISO International Standardization Organization

MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of Uganda

MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs of Uganda

MICT Ministry of Information and Communication Technology of Uganda

MoE Ministry of Education of Uganda

vii

MoH Ministry of Health of Uganda

MTIC Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives of Uganda

MTTI Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry of Uganda

N/A Not applicable

NDA National Drug Authority of Uganda

NIP National Industrial Policy of Uganda

NSQP National Standards and Quality Policy of Uganda

NTP National Trade Policy of Uganda

PCA Penal Code Act of Uganda

PVoC Pre-export Verification of Conformity to standards

Q mark Quality mark of UNBS

QA Quality Assurance

S mark Standards mark of the UNBS

SGS Societe Generale des Surveillance

SMCA Standardization, Metrology, Conformity assessment and Accreditation

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises

TBT Technical Barriers to Trade of the World Trade Organization

TV Television

UBC Uganda broadcasting corporation

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UCC Uganda Communication Commission

UCPA Uganda Consumers Protection Association

UG. Shs. Uganda Shillings


viii

UIRI Uganda Industrial Research Institute

UK United Kingdom

ULRC Uganda Law Reform Commission

UMA Uganda Manufacturers Association

UNBS Uganda National Bureau of Standards

UPF Uganda Police force

UPS Uganda Prison Services

URA Uganda Revenue Authority

URSB Uganda Registration Services Bureau

US Uganda Standard

USA United States of America

USD United States Dollar

$ United States Dollar

W & M Weights and Measures

WUR Wageningen University and Research center

WTO World Trade Organization


ix

Preface

This research was conducted at the Law and Governance Group of Wageningen

University, The Netherlands in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of

the degree of MSc. Food Safety.

The research is about food fraud manifestation, deterrence and regulation with a

particular focus on Uganda. The research recognizes that, food fraud is a growing global-

wide trend with its grip being more felt in developing countries, and that, dealing with

the problem requires vast knowledge about it, possibly due to its complexity. Hence, the

global facet of food fraud is also discussed in chapter 3, to provide benchmark

perspectives that could possibly be applied to Uganda. The problem affects different

segments of society, including consumers, food businesses and government (literally

everybody). The trend is particularly being blamed on the global-wide nature of the food

supply chain.

This topic was particularly chosen in response to numerous media reports on this

subject which possibly suggests that, this could be a serious issue in Uganda. The aim of

this study is fourfold:

To advance an in-depth insight into the food fraud phenomenon

To unearth food fraud manifestation, deterrence and regulation in Uganda

To provide guidance for the various stakeholders on how to best deal with the

problem in Uganda

To provide a milestone for further research on this subject

This document is laid out in 5 interesting chapters: chapter 1 gives a general background

to food fraud and Uganda, chapter 2 is about the methodology of research, chapter 3

discusses the global phenomenon of food fraud and its attempted definition, chapter 4

dwells on the Ugandan perspective, including actual food fraud manifestation, trends,

drivers, the legal and institutional framework dealing with it. Conclusions and

recommendations form chapter 5.

A deliberate effort has been made to make the text of this document fully

understandable to the reader. First, it is written in English, a globally recognized

language and it is presented with the highest clarity and simplicity possible. Illustrations

x

such as pictures and diagrams have featured on most pages; quotes from different

sources have been outlined in italicized form; chapter-wise summaries have been made;

the table of contents, list of figures, tables, abbreviations, and text boxes are all in place.

References, as much as possible, provide hyperlinks to the sources, except in certain

cases where for confidentiality reasons they are unavailable. Further explanations of

some important words or phrases have been made in the footnotes.

The 6-months journey of this research certainly wouldn’t have been possible without the

invaluable contribution of the following individuals and institutions:

First, the scholarship awarded to me by the Dutch government and Nuffic made it

possible for me to pursue this prestigious program.

The Wageningen University Law and Governance Group promptly gave an opportunity

to undertake this research albeit not having a legal background.

Mr. Manyindo Ben, the chief executive director of UNBS readily availed his staff from the

various departments, who gladly responded to my interviews and provided much of the

information required for the conclusion of this research. Although not individually

named, I thank them very much. Mr. Watasa Samuel of UCPA and Mr. Ssali Godfrey of

UMA equally contributed.

My supervisor, Professor Bernd van der Meulen’s dedicated effort generated generous

pieces of advice, comments and criticisms that greatly guided every step of this research.

My little sons, Ocut Joshua and Achilla Emanuel Chris, contributed more than they can

ever realize; the thought of them always gave me good reason and fortitude to

ploddingly approach every challenge encountered.

I forever remain indebted to them all!

xi

Abstract

Introduction: This research addresses the topic of food fraud in Uganda. Literature

indicates that, food fraud is a complex global-wide phenomenon that has existed since

antiquity. Food fraud involves the intentional deception of food consumers by the sellers

for economic gain. The main motive is profiteering by food business operators through

consumer deception. Manufacturers and government are indirect victims. The effects

range from health complications, death, and economic loss to violation of ethical norms.

In Uganda, food fraud articles continue to dominate media headlines, the reason why

this research was chosen.

Objective: The main objective of this research was to assess the manifestation,

deterrence and regulation of food fraud in Uganda and give guidance on how it can be

effectively dealt with by the relevant stakeholders. The research is intended to provide

an in-depth picture of the food fraud scenario in Uganda so as to incentivize relevant

stakeholders into prioritizing interventions against the problem. The research also sets a

milestone for further research in this area.

Methodology: This is a qualitative research based on two approaches; a desk study,

consisting of comprehensive literature review and an empirical study with relevant

stakeholders in Uganda. Literature review takes into account the global perspective of

food fraud, including its definition, intended to obtain benchmark perspectives

applicable to Uganda. Literature sources used include: scientific papers, journals, text

books, organization reports, magazines, brochures, legal sources, to list but a few. These

were mostly internet-based although a few such as organization reports were physically

obtained from organization resource centers. Empirical data were obtained through

face-to-face, Skype and telephone interviews and email contacts with various

stakeholders. A total of 21 organizations were involved.

Findings and conclusion: Food fraud is a big reality in Uganda; counterfeiting,

tempering, deceptive packaging and labeling, adulteration, production and sale of

substandard food products and use of false weights and measures are the major

incidents dominating scenes. The problem manifests along the entire food chain, right

from production to consumption and it is more prevalent in popular and cheap food and

drink brands. Interventions being implemented by various stakeholders include: judicial

xii

and administrative sanctions, official controls, training and sensitization, and

administrative decisions such as licensing, certification and permission. However, these

interventions appear to be ineffective. Stakeholders revealed various challenges being

faced in this hurdle, including poor governance characterized by weak laws, lack of

cooperation among stakeholders, inadequate technological and resource capacity as well

as lack of awareness among consumers and FBOs. Major driving forces identified

include: high rate of population increase, high poverty and unemployment levels, rural-

urban migration, low risk of detection and increased demand for cheap food. An in-

depth analysis of the institutional and legal frameworks also revealed that, the

institutional framework is vague and fragmented and the legal framework has many

flaws. While government must take lead in food fraud intervention, it remains every

stakeholder’s responsibility. There is need to; strengthen public-private partnerships

with clearly defined roles, increase the risk of detection through increased and widened

official controls, strengthen sanctions through appropriate legislation and reorganize

the institutional framework. Food businesses need to adopt strict supply chain

management strategies while consumers must be vigilant and diligent in addition to

assertively demanding their right to quality and authentic food products during

purchase.

Recommendations: Research findings suggest that, there is need to tighten law against

food fraud. The need to re-organize the institutional framework is crucial to increase the

risk of detection. In order to increase awareness, food fraud studies should be

incorporated into all levels of academia. A quantitative research on the health and

economic impact of food fraud in Uganda is vital to further incentivize government into

prioritizing interventions against this problem.

Key words: Food fraud, processed food, manifestation, deterrence, regulation, Uganda

1 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)

Food fraud manifestation, deterrence and regulation- The Ugandan

perspective

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter contains the general background to the study, including food fraud issues and

the Ugandan country profile. The problem statement, rationale, layout, and significance of

the study are also discussed. Finally, the objectives and research questions are outlined.

1.1 Background

1.1.1 Food fraud

As usual, after that hectic Monday afternoon, it was time to shed off the exhaustion with a

cold evening drink. And so they headed off to their usual leisure spot for their favorite drink-

the vodka. It was a group of five young men in my village. Although it was initially an evening

well spent, the next day was to attest to the real extent of their enjoyment. And so by mid-day

Tuesday, the effects of the drink begun to unfold; drowsiness, blurred vision, abdominal

cramps, general body weakness and unconsciousness and by dusk, two men had succumbed to

an initially unknown illness and the other three hospitalized in critical condition―quite

unusual and beyond signs of hangover! However, further investigations confirmed methanol

poisoning, a toxic organic liquid added to vodka to enhance its potency. Although it was the

same vodka brand they had always confidently enjoyed, the ingredients under the brand

name were this time unusual and novel―much to their ignorance. Apparently, the young men

were betrayed by their favorite brand of drink, at their usual drinking spot! But most

importantly, the village lost four energetic men.1 Such can be the devastating cruelty of food

fraud.

1 This is the writer’s experience


Ideally, nobody likes to be cheated in any way. In no single human relation; marriage,

friendship, or trade, would this reality attract a kind remark. In fact, fraud or stealing has

been one of the leading causes of dissolution of some of these relations in most cultural,

religious and societal settings. In the sharia law, theft for profit is punishable by

amputation of the right hand and is meant to provide social deterrence (Souryal, et al.,

1994). Several other legal provisions (as shall be reviewed later) forbid fraud. Everybody

deserves and has a right to the right measure of what they bargain and pay for.

Unfortunately, some people have inadvertently and inevitably not been lucky enough to

escape the impository grip of one of the commonest but obscure kind of fraud

economically motivated food fraud. Food is a fundamental human need. The core motive as

to why one human with equally the same need, would bluntly dare to trade to another, an

illegitimate or a potentially harmful food product- with a possible execution of a life,

remains an incredible myth.

Realistically, food fraud has existed as long as man has prepared, consumed, and traded in

food (Fisher2; Barnes, 1996; Spink and Moyer, 2011). Food fraud is an economic crime

involving the intentional substitution, addition, tempering, counterfeiting, diversion,

simulation, and misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, packaging, or the deceitful and

misleading information about a food for economic gain (Spink and Moyer, 2011). To date,

food fraud has been described as a big business and its looming proliferation cannot be

overlooked (Shears, 2010). Food fraud is a well calculated and intentional crime targeting

unsuspecting consumers. The most striking reality about food fraud (economic

adulteration) is that, fraudsters often use completely novel ingredients and sophisticated

techniques that can’t be detected by the consumers and are intended to be bypassed by

conventional analytical laboratory techniques (Shears, 2010;Spink and Moyer, 2011). The

fraudulent ingredients used always have functional attachments to them and are not

2 See http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=judith-l-fisher-tea-and-food-adulteration-1834-75

Chapter 1 Introduction

http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=judith-l-fisher-tea-and-food-adulteration-1834-75


intended to harm, rather to increase economic gain, for example, the use of calcium

sulphate and saw dust to enhance bread weight (Shears, 2010).

The effects of food fraud are far reaching. Indeed its health and safety effects on the

consumer have long been studied and recognized (Barnes, 1996; Spink and Moyer, 2011;

Spink, 2007).First, many food safety hazards have been linked to this practice e.g. addition

of alum and chalk to whiten bread, mixing sheep dung and chicory with coffee, to enhance

its colour (Shears, 2010; Heinonen and Wilson, 2012). Agbaraji et al., (2012) outlined a

number of illnesses associated with consumption of fake or counterfeited foods and drugs,

including diabetes, kidney stones, heart failure, cancer, microbiological infections such as

typhoid fever etc. Economic effects of the vice have been felt by both food industries and

government. Popular foods brands are the main targets, for example, bakery products,

dairy products, honey, bottled water, beers, wines and spirits (Moore, 2001; Spink et al,

2010; Barnes, 1996; GMA, 2010). Sometimes, the practice involves the manipulation of

genuine trademarked products as in the case of counterfeiting (Barnes, 1996) and use of

inferior ingredients as in the case of economic adulteration(Agbaraji et al., 2012) resulting

into low quality and substandard products that are sold cheaply. This not only dilutes

brand value, but also reduces the profitability and market share of genuine products,

forcing the producers out of business (Barnes, 1996; GMA, 2010). The choking effect of

product counterfeiting on the Ugandan industries has been recognized and appreciated3.

World-wide company costs resulting from product counterfeiting alone are estimated at $

630 billion annually (see footnote 3), while the global cost of fraud involving major

consumer products safety incidents ranged from $418-11,400 between 2004 and 2009

(GMA, 2010). Governments continue to lose huge amounts of revenues, partly in form of

fraudsters escaping financial obligations such as taxation process, certification, registration

and product approval fees, as well as costs of fighting fraud.

3 See http://corporateforeignpolicy.com/africa/counterfeits-killing-ugandan-industries


http://corporateforeignpolicy.com/africa/counterfeits-killing-ugandan-industries


Considering its grave effects, food fraud (counterfeiting) has been compared to such capital

offenses as murder and drug trafficking (see footnote 3). Indeed trading in counterfeit food

is described as “trading in human lives” (see footnote 3). A vivid example is that of the

melamine in powdered infant milk formula incident of 2008 that nearly shook the entire

globe, leaving a number of innocent infants dead and a multitude of others with permanent

complications. In America alone, the death toll was at 6 children while 900 developed

kidney problems (Au, 2012).

Although its true scope of occurrence still remains a mere speculation and indeed near to

impossible to establish, the shear fact that consumers are being cheated remains

conspicuous (Shears, 2010; Heinonen and Wilson, 2012).The recently escalating trend has

been partly blamed on trade globalization and agricultural industrialization, as opposed to

the ancient times when consumers produced their own food or obtained food from trusted

sources as close as the nearest neighbour(Moore, 2001; Spink et al, 2010). This widened

gap has inevitably resulted into information asymmetry between the producers and

consumers, with the former party taking advantage in concealing product quality and

safety information to the ignorance of the latter (Moore, 2001). In fact, in some instances,

the consumer can only get to know of the food safety and quality characteristics after

getting ill from consuming it and sometimes after death as evidenced during the melamine

incident of 2008. It is asserted that, opportunity for profit, low risk of detection and lenient

punitive measures are among other factors contributing to the rampant up-shoot of the

crime (GMA, 2010).

Although, Food fraud is a global issue, the effects are more felt in low-income, developing

countries as a result of poor and weak legal infrastructure to effectively fight the crime.

This makes these countries a major target for fraudsters (see footnote 3).

Food fraud occurs along the entire food chain and therefore calls for collective

participation of all stakeholders (Producers, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, suppliers,

distributers, government and trade associations) in its effective fight (GMA, 2010).

Effective prevention of food fraud requires a more sustainable preventive approach as

opposed to the reactive detection and intervention approach (Spink and Moyer, 2011).



Such measures may include regulations requiring that manufacturers include their

personal initials and names on the products (Moore, 2001).

1.1.2 Uganda country profile

Uganda has got a rich profile. For the purposes of this research, only relevant outlines are

provided. Information on such areas as politics, interior geography or culture is not

provided here.

A small country located in the sub-Saharan Africa, Uganda is one of the low income-ranked

($ 1,035 or less gross national income per capita)4 developing economies with the highest

population of 32.9 million in mid-2011 (UBOS, 2011)5. The population growth rate is

3.3%6. 14.8% of the population was hosted in the urban in 2011 (UBOS, 2011; see footnote

5) and the rate of urbanization was estimated at 5.7% in 2010 (see footnote 6).

The national GDP was estimated at $21.2 million in 2012 with an annual growth rate of

2.8%.7 The contribution of agriculture, industry and services to the national GDP stood at

24.2%, 26.5% and 49.3% respectively in 2012.8

Uganda’s majority populations are poor, with those below the poverty line estimated at

24.5% in 2009 (see footnote 8). The poverty trend is largely attributed to the huge

unemployment prevalence especially among the youth (15-35 years) who form the largest

percentage of the total population (UBOS, 2012)9. The current youth unemployment rate is

estimated at 83%10 and majority of which are the rural poor. The biggest percentage of the

employed fraternity is concentrated in the agricultural sector (82%) as compared with the

4http://www.iawp.org/joiniawp/countrylist.htm (16/10/2013)

5http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Popn_T2_2011.pdf data based on Uganda

national population census 2002 final results 6http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/demographics_profile.html

7http://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uganda (18/03/2014)

8http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/economy_profile.html (18/03/2014)

9http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Popn_T4_2011.pdf (16/10/2013)

10http://www.nbs.ug/details.php?option=acat&a=356(18/03/2014)

Introduction

Chapter 1

http://www.iawp.org/joiniawp/countrylist.htm

http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Popn_T2_2011.pdf

http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/demographics_profile.html

http://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uganda

http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/economy_profile.html


http://www.nbs.ug/details.php?option=acat&a=356


industry sector contributing only 5% (see footnote 8). The low employment in industry

could possibly point towards lack of qualified expertise or an otherwise constrained sector.

Poor governance manifested in form of inadequate policies and systems to guide the

process of industrialization, lack of financial resources and technological capacities are

among the key identified constraints curtailing sustainable industrialization in Uganda

(EAC, 2012). These constraints notwithstanding, Industrialization still remains the

government’s main vision towards economic and social empowerment. Uganda’s industrial

production growth rate was estimated at 3% in 2012(see footnote 8), with agro-processing

based sub-sectors topping the list. Major manufacturing industries in this category include;

dairy products, vegetable oils, fruits and vegetables, beverages, beer, sugar, grain milling,

and cotton (EAC, 2012 Pg.20). Further statistics reveal that, the manufacturing index for

processed foods increased from 143 in 2011 to 157 in 2012, while that of drinks and

tobacco rose from 250 in 2011 to 266 in 2012 (UBOS, 2013 Pg.31). Although Uganda’s

manufacturing industry contribution to the national GDP was estimated at only 6.6% in

2011, it remains her key goal to achieve a 25% contribution by 2015. These statistical

revelations undoubtedly place agro-processing at an attractive advantage over counterpart

industries, with the EAC experts’ attractiveness ranking standing at the highest rank of 8.20

on a 10-point scale (EAC, 2012). Further evidence indicates that, food, beverages and

tobacco processing were the most dominant manufacturing industries, contributing to a

hooping 52% of the total employment and 47% of the country’s total exports in 2010 (EAC,

2012 Pg.26).

Uganda is involved in all year-round trade, her major imports being; palm oil, wheat,

refined sugar, barley beer, fatty acids, centrifugal raw sugar, cigarettes and pastry (FAO,

2011)11. The imports have varied origins including but not limited to India, UK, USA,

Germany, China, The Netherlands, Thailand, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, Italy, Kenya, Canada

and France. Her major exports are; green coffee, cotton, tea, sugar, unmanufactured

11http://faostat.fao.org/desktopdefault.aspx?pageid=342&lang=en&country=226 (16/10/2013)

Introduction

Chapter 1

http://faostat.fao.org/desktopdefault.aspx?pageid=342&lang=en&country=226


tobacco, cocoa beans, palm oil, refined sugar and barley beer. Figures 1.1 and 1.2

summarise Uganda’s trade undertakings in 2011.

Although the majority of Ugandans are involved in subsistence agriculture, most

households, especially those in the urban still depend on market-purchased food products

and drinks for their daily dietary needs. The percentage share of household expenditures

on food, drink and tobacco ranked highest (50%) in the financial year 2010/11 (UBOS,

2013 Pg.26)12.

Uganda has a rich record of crimes. Top crimes include theft, obtaining by false pretense,

economic crimes, corruption, and traffic-related offenses. In 2010 through 2012 alone,

Uganda registered 31,568 economic crime cases, with an increasing trend (UBOS, 2013

Pg.19). These of course include food fraud cases, although actual figures are not available.

Figure 1.1: Uganda’s top imports in 2011. Source: Extracted from FAO website13

12http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Facts%20and%20Figures%202013.pdf

(17/10/2013) 13

See http://faostat.fao.org/desktopdefault.aspx?pageid=342&lang=en&country=226 (16/10/2013)

Introduction

Chapter 1

http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Facts%20and%20Figures%202013.pdf



Figure 1.2: Uganda’s top exports in 2011. Source: Extracted from FAO website14

1.2 Problem statement

Uganda’s economy continues to stagger with only a distant and blurry dream of a

developed world economy. However, the Ugandan economy profile (section 1.1.2)

indicates that, the food manufacturing industry is a major potential contributor towards

the redemption of this trend. While this is true, a delicate balance must be struck between

genuinely satisfying the food demands of the fast increasing population and boosting the

economy. Industry must therefore diligently perform its work of placing authentic and

quality food on the market. Moreover, manufacturers must strive to protect their brand

names so as to gain favourable market competition. While this may sound an obvious goal

that every manufacturer must embrace, the reality may be quite betraying. Consumers

14 See http://faostat.fao.org/desktopdefault.aspx?pageid=342&lang=en&country=226 (16/10/2013)

Introduction

Chapter 1



continue to vainly cry about fake food products on the market.15 Media pages continue to

flood with publications by various stakeholders about the same fake food products.16But

what exactly are fake food products, who is responsible, what is the motive and what can

be done about it? It all remains elusive! Albeit an ancient problem with varied effects, food

fraud may not be well understood by the relevant stakeholders in Uganda: its

manifestation, prevalence, scope, effects, trends and deterrence may not be known.

Moreover, not much research exists on this subject. Generally, it appears to be an area of

little priority, for example, from experience (as an undergraduate student of Food Science

and Technology of Makerere University, 1996-2000), food fraud is not even part of the

academic curriculum; at least not in the early 2000s. Nonetheless, Ugandan consumers

deserve authentic and quality food, and industrialization must be fostered in order to

advance Uganda’s economy towards maturity, but not until the obstacle is dealt with and

the working ground is leveled. First, there is need to concretely understand what this so-

called “fake” food is and then devise ways to best deal with it. This study is dedicated

towards achieving this goal and advancing further areas of research into this problem.

1.3 Rationale

This study was chosen in response to the widespread media reports on fraudulent

practices in the Ugandan food market. Albeit food being a fundamental human

requirement, consumers continue to conspicuously be cheated in all aspects of their daily

food purchases; expired food products, misleading labels, tempered products, substandard

food products, adulterated food products, smuggling and counterfeits, are some of the

incidents that continue to dominate media headlines (see footnotes 15 and 16). Genuine

products and producers have been suffocated at the advantage of fraudulent ones, placing a

15 http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Commodities/-/688610/979710/-/i22id7/-/index.html,

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/741118, http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/640624-unbs-warns-on-fake-bottled-water.html 16

See some related newspaper articles http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629914-unbs-warns-of-fake-goods-on-market.html, http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/639380-is-that-low-fat-food-label-genuine.html, http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/643580-manufacturers-want-unbs-to-act-on-fake-products.html, http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/13/694280 (all accessed on 13/03/2014)

Introduction

Chapter 1

http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Commodities/-/688610/979710/-/i22id7/-/index.html

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/741118

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/640624-unbs-warns-on-fake-bottled-water.html


http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629914-unbs-warns-of-fake-goods-on-market.html


http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/639380-is-that-low-fat-food-label-genuine.html

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/643580-manufacturers-want-unbs-to-act-on-fake-products.html

http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/13/694280


suppressive burden on industrialization, Uganda’s potential significant employer.

Government has continued to lose substantial amounts of revenue in foregone taxes, and

trying to put in place interventions to fight food fraud. All these issues curtail the country’s

progress towards economic and social empowerment. This research is therefore aimed at

creating more awareness on the general aspects of food fraud with a view of guiding

stakeholders in formulating more robust strategies for effective and sustainable addressal

of this problem.

1.4 Significance of the study

The findings of this research are expected to benefit food business operators, government,

regulatory authorities, researchers, academicians and consumers in the following ways;

1) By providing an in-depth insight into the general aspects of food fraud, the study

sets precedence for awareness and further research into other aspects of the

problem

2) The guidance on the legal and regulatory frameworks will help relevant government

bodies, authorities and legislature to formulate relevant and stringent policies and

legislation that will adequately address food fraud.

3) The guidance on the institutional framework will help government to put in place

relevant institutions, well equipped with relevant modern technology and

competent expertise necessary to fight food fraud.

The above outcomes will ultimately lead to improved governance, a healthier economy,

improved livelihoods and protection of consumer interests. This research is intended for

publication in order to render it accessible to the relevant stakeholders. Copies will also be

availed to a few stakeholders.

1.5 Scope and Objectives of the research

This section lays down the virtual boundaries and puts into focus the study. The depth,

length, and width dimensions of the study are defined in order to keep into perspective

without either going over or under board. The following key words therefore form the

Introduction

Chapter 1


basis of this research; food fraud, processed food products, Uganda, manifestation,

deterrence and regulation.

This study contends to provide an in-depth insight into food fraud occurrence in Uganda

with a focus on both domestic and imported processed food products and drinks, although

some elements of fresh/unprocessed foods are mentioned for purposes of emphasis and

clarity. In order to give a broad background to the study, the global perspective of food

fraud is analyzed. All possible forms of food fraud and the deterrence and regulation of

which are analyzed. The study specifically gives insights into understanding the Ugandan

perspective of food fraud; at what point along the food supply chain food fraud originates,

taking into account all possible participants (manufacturers, whole sellers, supermarkets,

shops, suppliers, stores and warehouses, transporters, distributors street markets and

vendors); the major drivers of food fraud; the institutional and legal and regulatory

frameworks dealing with food fraud. The study mainly takes on a qualitative nature, basing

its findings, conclusions and recommendations on an extensive literature review,

interviews with relevant authorities and institutional database search, guided by the

underpinned objectives (see text box 1.1).

Owing to its qualitative nature, the study excludes the extent of occurrence (figures and

numbers) of food fraud. For confidentiality reasons, the specific brands, factories and

manufacturers’ names are not part of this document.

Introduction

Chapter 1


Text box 1.1: Objectives

1.6 Research questions

Research questions are a useful tool in guiding any research methodology towards a

desired outcome. Well formulated questions can determine the course of research

procedure, in either a qualitative, quantitative or both directions as well as determine the

quality of findings, argumentation and conclusions. In essence, a good quality research will

largely depend on well formulated research questions. A lot of thoughtful effort and a

critical analysis of the research topic is therefore of paramount importance in mapping a

question-guided way towards a pre-determined end point. Text box 1.2 outlines the

research questions guiding this research.

Main objective

To assess and reveal the manifestation, deterrence and regulation of food fraud in Uganda

and give guidance on how it can effectively be dealt with by the relevant stakeholders.

Specific objectives

1. To provide an in-depth understanding of the general aspects of food fraud

2. To understand the legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks currently dealing

with food fraud in Uganda

3. To obtain stakeholders’ views and benchmark strategies of how best food fraud can

be dealt with in Uganda

4. To give guidance on the legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks as well as the

kind of expertise necessary to effectively combat food fraud



Text box 1.2: Research questions

1.7 Layout and justification

1.7.1 Arrangement of chapters

This research document is made up of 5 chapters. The first chapter gives the general

introduction to the study: background to the topic; problem statement; rationale and

importance of research; objectives and scope as well as research questions are covered in

this chapter. The chapter basically attempts to streamline the topic and puts into

perspective the research. The general methodology is laid down in chapter 2. Specific

Main research question

In what ways is food fraud manifested in Uganda, how is it being dealt with and how can it

be effectively dealt with by relevant authorities?

Specific research questions

1. Food Fraud

i) How can food fraud be defined?

ii) What are the general prevalence, trends and forms of food fraud in Uganda?

iii) At what stage of the food supply chain is food fraud occurring most?

iv) What are the major drivers of food fraud in Uganda?

2. How is food fraud regulated in Uganda?

i) What are the policies, laws, regulations and standards governing food fraud in

Uganda?

ii) What are the roles of the main stakeholders involved in combating food fraud

and how are they dealing with the problem?

3. Challenges and way forward on effective food fraud deterrence in Uganda

i) What are the challenges being faced by the relevant stakeholders in fighting food

fraud in Uganda?

ii) How can food fraud be effectively dealt with in Uganda taking into account the

stakeholders and researcher’s views and lessons learned from elsewhere?

Introduction Chapter 1


aspects covered include; the researcher’s basic beliefs and concepts of procedure, herein

referred to as the researcher’s philosophy; the interrelationship between the different

aspects and chapters of the study and how these lead to a desired outcome, herein referred

to as the research framework; the research design strategy; data collection procedures,

protocols and management; research participants profiles; assumptions and limitations of

the research and data analysis strategies are all part of this chapter. Chapter 3 takes on the

aspect of literature review, making use of all possible sources available and accessible.

General aspects of food fraud such as the definition, niche, trends, regulation, detection,

drivers and perpetrators of food fraud are delved into, taking into account the global

perspective. Chapter 4 concerns food fraud in Uganda, putting particular emphasis on the

findings of empirical data collection and analysis. Within this chapter, the Ugandan legal,

regulatory and institutional frameworks are unveiled. The manifestation, trends,

prevalence, drivers of food fraud and stages at which food fraud originates are all made

conspicuous. Chapter 5 concerns the general discussion of all the aspects covered in

chapters 1-4. Conclusions and recommendations form the final and most delicate part of

this chapter and the entire study; delicate in that, the substantive outcome of the study is

made apparent and the overall objective finally achieved.

It is important to not confuse the arrangement of these chapters with that of the research

questions because the two are not directly related, i.e. the arrangement of chapters is not

directly hinged on to the research questions. The actual relationship showing how specific

research questions are addressed within specific chapters is outlined in the research

framework.

1.7.2 Formatting

The role of formatting in generating quality research documents cannot be under

estimated. In our research contract (between me and my supervisor), it was agreed that,

this research document impliedly adopts the formatting laid out in one of the most

prominent European Food Law text books (Van der Meulen and Van der Velde, 2008). This

agreement was not a mere funny game, but signaled a positive connotation towards the

formatting strategy in this particular book. Whereas some formatting such as line spacing,

Introduction

Chapter 1



margins etc. are obviously understood, others may require motivation and justification for

featuring in the document.

In this document, footnotes are used to list non-scientific sources such as web links that

cannot be directly quoted within the document, and to elaborate on key words and

concepts whose elaboration may not necessarily be required in the main document.

Italicized texts are either important excerpts from written sources, quotations from

interview respondents or the writer’s own experiences, used to emphasize particular

findings regarded with salience, for example, definitions. Other texts falling in this category

are scientific names and acronyms such as et al. Text boxes are another category of

formatting that is used in this document to highlight key texts such as legal extracts,

summaries, specific objectives and research questions. Figures and pictures are used as

illustrations or exhibits of the research realities encountered.

Introduction

Chapter 1



Chapter 2: Data collection and methodology

This chapter contains the general outline and a theoretical analysis of the research

procedure. The research design and methods; philosophy; plan; sampling strategy;

conceptual framework; limitations and assumptions as well as data analysis are all situated

in this chapter.

2.1 Research philosophy

In addition to providing a perfect standard for evaluating and authenticating research

quality, a research philosophy guides research procedure, and enables the researcher to

put forth a defence for choosing a particular methodology, especially when confronted by

the examiners and supervisors17. This is because a philosophy exposes the researcher’s

mind to various possibilities, enriching their skills and capabilities towards a strong

confidence in their methodologies of choice. In concise terms, a research philosophy

addresses the “why”, “where”, “how” and “when” questions of a research (Holden and

Lynch, 2004). A research philosophy basically relates to the development of knowledge and

the nature thereof18.

Two major sources of research philosophies have been identified: The positivist and

naturalist19 researchers, representing quantitative and qualitative methodologies

respectively. Realistically, every researcher has their beliefs and ideologies of what they

consider constitute a successful research.

By virtue of its pre-determined nature (descriptive qualitative), this study is inclined to the

naturalist paradigm. It is based on the idea and belief that, the food fraud phenomenon

cannot be directly assessed with standardised instruments (given that it occurs

17http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43179_2.pdf (23/10/2013)

18http://www.slideshare.net/thusharabandaranayake/understanding-research-philosophies (23/10/2013)

19 “Positivists are researchers who use quantitative tools that emphasize measuring and counting and are

objectivists by nature, while naturalists are those who use qualitative tools of observation, questioning and description and are subjectivists in nature”

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43179_2.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/thusharabandaranayake/understanding-research-philosophies


intermittently), but only perceived through several observers’ knowledge, experiences and

expectations, giving a more natural and unbiased perspective to the problem. Individual

contributions of various participants are recognized and treated with equal importance.

Ultimately, the study conclusions are not based on generalized findings, rather on the

unique perspectives of various respondents. In a nut shell, my research philosophy is

summarised in Figure 2.1 as: research questions determine the methodology, which in turn

generates various perspectives on food fraud.

Figure 2.1: Research philosophy

2.2 Research design

This research takes on a descriptive qualitative nature, sourcing its information from both

a desk study and empirical evidence approaches. It basically gives evidence of, but not how

much food fraud is occurring in Uganda.

The desk study part of the research involves an in-depth search of existing secondary and

tertiary sources of information and largely form the literature review part of this

document. Empirical data on the other hand originate from two main primary sources;

interviews and personal observations and experiences.

Secondary data sources include but not limited to internet-based sources: media reports,

food journals, documentaries, articles, press releases, video and audio messages; scientific

journals, articles and papers; magazines; images/ pictures; text books; organization

reports, publications and general information; legal and policy documents; statistical data;

fliers and brochures. Non-internet-based secondary data sources are organization resource

centers or libraries such as the UNBS and WUR libraries from where information was

Research questions

Methodology

•Open-ended interview questions

•Respondents from various backgrouds

•various information sources

Research outcome

•Observers' knowledge

•Expectations

•Experiences

Data collection and methodology Chapter 2


physically obtained. The main tertiary data sources used are on-line dictionaries and

encyclopedias. Four major search engines were employed in the search of these data

sources: general google, google scholar, organization websites and physically visiting the

libraries.

Primary data sources include all those sources from whom first-hand information guided

by the interview questions were obtained. These include: photography; visual

observations, personal experiences; face-to-face interviews, Skype interviews, email

contacts and phone call enquiries. The general representation of the research design is

given in Figure 2.2.

The interview questionnaires used consisted of open ended questions, with no pre-

determined answers. This was intended to avoid bias and generate as much subjective

views from respondents as possible. Due to varying mandates across different

organizations and different departments within organizations, not exactly the same

questions were asked for individual organizations and departments. For this reason, the

research findings and conclusions are not generalized; rather, they are directly hinged on

to the unique individual organizations/departments views.

Data collection and methodology

Chapter 2


Qualitative research

Desk study Empirical study

Secondary data

sources

Tertiary data

sources

Primary data

sources

General google,

google scholar,

Organization

websites and

libraries

General

Google Personal

observations Interviews

Media reports, food

journals,

documentaries, press

releases, videos and

audio messages;

scientific journals,

articles, papers;

magazines;

pictures/images; text

books; organization

reports, publications

and general

information; legal and

policy documents,

statistical data; fliers

and brochures

On-line

dictionaries,

encyclopaedias

Photography,

visual

observations,

personal

experiences

Face-to-face

interviews, Skype,

emails, phone calls

Overall research strategy

Research branches

Classification of data sources

Search engines

Data sources

Figure 2.2: Research design


Chapter 2


2.3 Research framework

The following research framework (Figure 2.3) shows the interrelationship between the

different parts of this research, right from the problem statement, through methodology

and results, to the final outcome of the study. It recognizes the fact that, there exists a

problem which requires a systematic approach to be addressed by this research. The

framework summarizes the structure of how and where the research objectives and

questions are addressed with in the different chapters in order to arrive at the main

solution of the stated research problem. It contends that, the findings in this document

constitute a road map to the ultimate solution to the research problem.

Research problem (Chapter 1)

Literature review – (Chapter 3, 4, 5)

Data collection

and analysis

(Chapter 2)

General over view of food fraud (Chapter 3)

General overview of food fraud in Uganda (Chapter 4)

Food fraud regulation in Uganda (Chapter 4)

Food fraud

institutional

framework of

Uganda (Chapter 4)

Suggestions for effective control of food fraud in Uganda (Chapter 4)

Discussion Conclusion recommendations (Chapter 5)

Road map to Solution to research problem

Q 1(i)

Q 1(ii-iv)

Q 2(i)

Q 3

Q 2(ii))

Q 1, 2, 3

Q 3, Overall research question, specific and overall objective

Overall research document

Q 1(ii-iv), 2, 3

Figure 2.3: Research framework


Chapter 2


2.4 Research plan

The success of this research largely lies in a carefully planned and systematic schedule that

permitted timely commencement and conclusion. The research was done within a period of

six months and included several phases and activities as outlined in Annex 1. The planning

program basically consisted of carefully identifying activities, responsible persons, critical

tools and resources needed and setting a time frame within which the activities had to be

completed.

2.5 Sampling and research participant’s profiles

The major participants in this research are; consumer and industry advocacy

organizations, government, non-government and private organizations involved in food

fraud regulation in Uganda. These are represented by interview respondents, resource

centers and official websites. Research participants concisely include but not limited to:

Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives; Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and

Fisheries; Ministry of Health; Ministry of Internal Affairs; Ministry of Information and

Communication Technology; Uganda National Bureau of Standards; Dairy Development

Authority; National Drug Authority; Uganda Police Forces; Uganda Prisons Services;

Magistrates’ court; Uganda Law Reform Commission; Uganda Manufacturers’ Association;

Consumer Education Trust; Uganda Consumers Protection Association; media (New vision,

Monitor, and National Television); SGS; Intertek and Bureau Veritas. Within these

organizations, only departments relevant to food fraud regulation were contacted for

interviews, although administration departments (CEOs) were also contacted in certain

instances for purposes of observing protocol and acquiring official permission to access

other departments. General information regarding the organizations such as organization

structures, mandates, goals, objectives, publications, legal and policy documents,

performance reports and official programs were largely obtained from official websites and

resource centers. Annex 2 gives an overview of all planed participants, regardless of

whether interviews were or not successfully conducted.


Chapter 2


2.6 Data collection procedure, management and protocol

The data collection procedure initially consisted of drafting relevant interview questions

for each department or organization, followed by a formal contact with the relevant contact

person or chief executive officer. Upon securing official permission, the interview date and

time were set. Where face-to-face interviews were not possible or required follow up

information, emails, Skype or telephone contacts were opted for. Data from all sources

were collected concurrently. No special sequential order was followed in engaging the

respondents; the exercise was ad hocly performed depending on the respondents official

duty schedules. Where interviews were totally impossible, official websites and libraries

were the sole data sources. The interview questionnaires were personally administered

and managed. A total of 21 organizations were involved as outlined in section 2.5.

All data collected were securely recorded in a notebook, photocopied, or down loaded and

saved on a flash disk for future reference, review and analysis. Some photographs were

also taken to provide more evidence of the realities encountered. An overview of interview

questions used for the different departments and organizations is presented in Annex 3.

2.7 limitations and Assumptions

Limitations are part and parcel of any undertaking, this research inclusive. In my view,

limitations are unavoidable circumstances curtailing the smooth progress of an

undertaking. For this particular research, other than financial constraints, all other

limitations were mainly due to the research design. The fact that the design targeted high

profile public authorities, and national and international private organizations as the main

data sources, my interview respondents therefore consisted of highly positioned officers

with quite busy schedules and varying obligations that deemed some of them unavailable

for my interview schedules. Although the research was initially designed to undertake

interviews with all organization representatives, this was partially achieved as some of

them were internationally located (e.g. SGS, Intertek and Bureau Veritas representatives).

For those with whom interviews were scheduled, a few did not respond albeit with

constant reminders, because of conflicting official duties they had to fulfill. For the same

reason, even some schedules that were honoured, limited time was apportioned, which in


Chapter 2


some instances was inadequate for an exhaustive interaction. Hence, Skype, email and/or

telephone contacts were made for follow up purposes. Intellectual property rights issues

further presented complications, in that, some information were deemed confidential and

hence in no way available to the public, while still some information were given with

restrictions. In some organizations/offices, respondents had been either freshly recruited

or reshuffled from other departments and therefore not in position to provide some

relevant information pertaining to the incumbent office. To supplement the interview data,

official organization websites and information resource centers were opted for. Because of

the varying mandates across different organizations and different departments within

organizations, not exactly the same questions were asked for individual organizations and

departments, with only a few cross cutting questions. Albeit all these constraints, all

planned data sources were successfully accessed, irrespective of the channel. Sufficient

data were obtained to adequately address the research questions. All data were regarded

and treated with equal importance and authenticity.

2.8 Data analysis

All interview-generated data were analyzed in line with inductive qualitative data analysis

approaches advanced by Thomas, (2003); Taylor-Powell & Renner, (2003). The question-

by-question and case-by-case approaches were particularly adopted (Taylor-Powell &

Renner, 2003 p2). In the former approach, questions were analyzed across different

organizations and departments to generate findings on themes cutting across different

organizations and/or departments. In the latter approach, questions (not analyzed in the

former approach) pertaining to individual organizations/departments were analyzed to

generate findings about themes relevant to particular organizations/departments. Only

questions capable of answering research questions were analyzed. Secondary information

from websites, resource centers and personal observations were used to corroborate

findings from interview data in order to arrive at the final interpretations. Due to the

moderate quantity of data, analysis was done manually, with no involvement of computer

analytical ware.


Chapter 2


Chapter 3: Literature review

This chapter contains the general background to the food fraud phenomenon, including its

definition, niche, general occurrence, detection, regulation and deterrence, taking into

account the global perspective. Research question 1(i) is addressed.

3.1 Understanding Food fraud (Q1 (i))

Food fraud has been widely studied and defined by different writers, researchers,

authorities and organizations.

The Groceries Manufacturers Association of the United States of America (GMA, 2010) has

defined food fraud as;

“the deliberate placement of food on the market for financial gain, with the intention of

deceiving consumers”

Spink and Moyer, (2011) in their definition tried to glue together pieces of different forms

of fraud to give a broader perspective;

“food fraud is a collective word for the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition,

tempering or misrepresentation of food, food ingredients, or food packaging or false or

misleading statements made about a product for economic gain”.

According to the Food Standards Agency of the United Kingdom, “food fraud is committed

when food is deliberately placed on the market with the intention of deceiving the

consumer”20.

Within the food fraud context, food is herewith defined as, “any substance, whether

processed, semi-processed or raw, which is intended for human consumption, and includes

drinks, confectionary and any substance which has been used in the manufacture, preparation

20 http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodfraud/ (3/2/2014)

http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodfraud/


or treatment of food but does not include cosmetics or tobacco or substances used only as

drugs”21.

From the above contributions, three elements out-stand: 1) deliberate act 2) economic gain

3) consumer deception. However, a more obscure but equally important element is the fact

that, food fraud is an unlawful act involving legal violation. Basing on these facts, I reckon

that, food fraud is therefore, the deliberate display for sale of legally non-compliant food

products with intent to deceive buyers for the purposes of economic gain to the sellers.

Perpetrators of food fraud are the fraudsters and usually these are not defined; they can be

any body involved in a food business (Spink and Moyer, 2013).

Deliberate act

Food fraud is a well calculated and organized act, done with the full consent and will of the

perpetrators (Spink and Moyer, 2011; Shears, 2010). For example, in Uganda, it was

discovered that, imported food products from India are given a shelf life of 2 years whereas

the same products intended for the local (Indian) market are given a shelf life of 6

months22. The fraudsters are completely crafty and skillfully intelligent to even use

ingredients (in case of adulteration) intended to be bypassed by conventional detection

techniques. The hang man’s noose lies in the risk of being caught; as long as the fraudulent

act is not detected by relevant stakeholders, the fraudster will always be incentivized to

thrive in the business (GMA, 2010).

21This definition is extracted from the Uganda general standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods (Clause 2.5

US 7:2000) and it is an internationally accepted definition, since it is adopted from the Codex Standard of 1981for the labelling of pre-packaged foods. This definition is chosen because the study deals with this particular country (Uganda). 22

See Daily Monitor newspaper article, “East Africa loses huge sums of money in counterfeit products”http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Prosper/EA-loses-huge-sums-of-money-in-counterfeit-products/-/688616/1558452/-/mejott/-/index.html (7/2/2014)

Literature review Chapter 3

http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Prosper/EA-loses-huge-sums-of-money-in-counterfeit-products/-/688616/1558452/-/mejott/-/index.html



Economic gain

The main intention of food fraud is to make quick profits, irrespective of the channel

through which this is achieved (Spink and Moyer, 2011; Shears, 2010). Most fraudsters

want to avoid taxation, reduce production and transaction costs or gain a high turnover

rate. Although, some products end up being harmful to the consumer’s life and health, this

is never the intention of the fraudulent acts (Shears, 2010); indeed the fraudsters are never

aware of the health consequences of their acts to the extent that, they themselves can fall

victim of the same. However, it is important to realize that, most adulterants used in food

have a functional attachment to them (Shears, 2010). For example, addition of water to

milk to increase quantity, mixing of honey with cane molasses to enhance colour, all

intended to increase profits.

Consumer23 deception

Of all victims of food fraud, consumers are the worst and directly affected group. First,

because they are the main targets and represent the last unit in the supply chain, implying

that, all the consequences of fraud are finally absorbed by them. Secondly, they lack the

capacity and competence to detect some of these fraudulent practices. Everybody not only

wants to eat, but also to spend as less as possible. Fraudulent products are sold cheaply and

sometimes consumers will be lured into choosing counterfeit products over genuine ones

as long as there is a price advantage. The trick is that, consumers are presented with

various products of the same brand but different prices and they are convinced by the

sellers that, all the products serve the same purpose and are equally good.24Moreover,

catchy descriptions such as, “pure”, “100% natural”, “fresh”, on product labels often send

consumers scampering to pay for such products. Unfortunately, there exists a huge

information asymmetry between the sellers and the buyers (Moore, 2001); the former

23 Although consumer deception is emphasized in this document, both consumers and customers (buyers) are

actually targets, except that, the former are direct victims. For this reason, “consumer” is used to represent both target groups unless otherwise stated. 24

This is the writer’s experience

Literature review

Chapter 3


know everything about their products while the latter may know nothing at all and as a

result, they have to entirely believe and trust everything revealed to them about the

product by the sellers, right from the label to the verbal descriptions. Sometimes, the

consumers may never suspect any foul play until their health is compromised. Consumer

deception is illegal; Art.7 (1-4) Regulation 1169/201125 provides for fair food information

practices towards the consumer or buyer. Clear and genuine food information facilitates

consumers’ choice to buy products of their preference.

Legal violation

Making and selling fraudulent food products to a large extent involves a high degree of non-

compliance to food laws and requirements. Consequently, fraudulent food products often

fall short of specific standards and legal requirements, for example, under weights and

expired products. According to Section 21 (2) UNBS Act 198326, it is illegal to deal in any

way in a commodity for which a compulsory standard specification has been declared

unless the commodity meets the requirements and bears a distinctive mark. In extreme

cases, fraudulent products when consumed may harm the consumer’s health and life as in

the case of food products contaminated with substantially high levels of pathogens. Art. 14

Regulation 178/200227 forbids the deliberate sale of unsafe food. The fact that fraudsters

deliberately make and sell substandard and potentially harmful products substantiates the

act as unlawful.

25 This is the Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25

th October 2011 on

the provision of food information to consumers. European Union O.J. L 304, 22 November 2011 Pg. 27 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:304:0018:0063:EN:PDF (7/2/2014) 26

This is the Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act of 14th

October 1983 Chapter 327 providing for the establishment of the Bureau, the standardization of commodities and for matters incidental and ancillary thereto. http://www.opm.go.ug/assets/media/resources/404/UGANDA%20NATIONAL%20BUREAU%20OF%20STANDARDS%20ACT.pdf (6/2/2014) 27

This is the Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the council of 28th

January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. European Union O. J. L 31, 1

st February 2002 Pg.10

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:031:0001:0024:EN:PDF (7/2/2014)

Literature review

Chapter 3

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:304:0018:0063:EN:PDF


http://www.opm.go.ug/assets/media/resources/404/UGANDA%20NATIONAL%20BUREAU%20OF%20STANDARDS%20ACT.pdf




Two main categories of food fraud have been identified by the Food Safety Agency of the

United Kingdom;

1) The sale of food which is unfit for consumption and is potentially harmful to human

health. For example, recycling of animal products into the food chain and sale of

expired products.

2) Deliberate misdescription of food. For example, substitution of an expensive

product with a cheaper one as in the case of sale of any other rice brand as basmati

rice; false labelling of ingredients and false declaration of ingredient origin.

Spink and Moyer, (2011 & 2013) outlined the following types of food fraud: tempering;

adulteration; overrun; theft; diversion; simulation and counterfeiting.

The diversity of the nature and scope of food fraud sheds light on the complexity associated

with this practice. Food fraud is not static- it is continuously evolving because of evolving

opportunities, to which the fraudsters are able to adapt very well. For example, a specific

fraud incident may be unprecedented and may never occur again. There are simply an

infinite number of fraudsters and types of fraud (Spink and Moyer, 2013). The former are

constantly innovating new strategies to avoid the risk of being caught. Moreover,

fraudsters regularly attend food fraud intervention events organized by regulatory

authorities as an adaptation strategy, for example, conferences, seminars and trainings. As

a result, fraudulent practices, especially adulteration is performed using novel and

unexpected ingredients designed to be bypassed by traditional detection methods applied

by food manufacturers and regulatory authorities (Lipp and Moore, 2013). Such was the

case with the melamine incident of 2008- nobody expected an industrial chemical as either

a potential food contaminant or adulterant in the food supply chain. But there it was,

sending many regulatory authorities across the globe formulating melamine detection

strategies including acquiring relevant detection technologies and equipment to guard

against its further occurrence. Unfortunately, this may never happen again, since the

fraudsters are aware of the high risk of detection. Reacting to every fraud incident

ultimately creates an incident-reaction vicious cycle, with resultant accumulation of

“useless” technology and wastage of resources. There is therefore no need to detect every

Literature review

Chapter 3


single food fraud incident but rather focus on reducing vulnerabilities caused by such

incidents (Spink and Moyer, 2013).

3.2 The food fraud niche

Food fraud is a growing global trend (EP, 2013; Spink, et al., 2010). Its existence can be

traced as far back as man has prepared, consumed and traded in food (Shears, 2010). Vivid

examples were cited as early as the 13th century in Germany and France. To date, many

countries are still formulating laws against food fraud.

The evidence of existence of food fraud can be safely traced from the promulgation of

numerous food control legislation by various countries across the globe as investigated by

Moore, (2001) and Shears, (2010). Most of these legislation were primarily enacted in

response to fraudulent and unlawful production, handling and presentation of food on the

market, for example, adulteration and mislabelling. Some of these legislation include: laws

on adulteration of wine in ancient Rome and Athens; The UK Food Adulteration Act of

1860; The UK Adulteration of Food and Drug Act of 1872; the UK Sale of Food and Drug Act

of 1875, prohibiting the mixing of injurious substances and selling to the prejudice of the

purchaser a food not of the nature and quality demanded; the Virginia law of 1745 on the

size of flour barrels; the 1785 Massachusetts Food adulteration legislation; the USA Pure

Food and Drug Act of 1906, prohibiting misbranding of food; the USA Federal Food Drug

and Cosmetics Act of 1938, prohibiting all forms of misrepresentation of food products; the

Belgian law of 1856 prohibiting food tempering; the 1867 Belgian criminal code, providing

for sanctioning of fraud; the Bangladesh Pure Food Ordinance of 1958 prohibiting food

adulteration; the 1991 Chinese decree announcing standard labelling requirements; the

Indian Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954, prohibiting the adulteration and

misbranding of food; the Japanese Standardization and Proper Representation of Quality

for Agriculture and Forestry products, providing for standardization and labelling of food

products; the Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance of 1960, providing for food adulteration and

profiteering; the Russian Federation law of 2000 on the Quality and Safety of Food

Products providing for proper labelling of food products (Moore, 2001; Shears, 2010).

Literature review

Chapter 3


Food fraud can happen at any point along the food supply chain- right from production to

consumption (GMA, 2010; Spink, 2012). Every participant along the chain is a potential

fraudster. According to Spink, (2012) fraud at the ingredient level may occur inform of

fraudulent additives, labels, packages, certification marks, certificate of analysis and

country of origin, being supplied to the manufacturer. In the supply and distribution chain,

the following can take place; repackaging, unauthorized refilling, dilution, reselling

damaged, rejected or expired products, refreshing expiry dates, diversion, and mixing of

counterfeits. Manufacturers on the other hand can perform any of these acts. Fraud

especially adulteration has been mainly traced to products that easily form homogeneous

mixtures with adulterants, for example, olive oil, milk, honey, apple and orange juices,

grains, coffee, spices, spirits and wine(EP, 2013; Spink and Moyer, 2013; Lipp and Moore,

2013; Shears, 2010). More generally, fraud occurs in popular and expensive products

where the value of fraud is high, for example, sea foods, beef, Basmati rice, wine, spirits and

organic products.

Some of the ancient (18th century) adulterants used in the UK include (Shears, 2010) ;

Chalk and alum to whiten bread; use of mashed potatoes, Calcium sulphate, pipe clay and

saw dust to enhance bread weight; rye flour and powdered beans used to make bread

instead of wheat flour; poisonous substance, strychnine used to enhance bitter taste of

beer. By the beginning of the 19th century, the following fraudulent practices were

observed; mixing ware house sweepings with ground pepper; mixing red lead with

cayenne pepper to enhance the pepper colour; boiling of used tea pickles with copper

vessels; boiling exhausted tea leaves and coffee in sheep’s dung and colouring the product

with ferric ferrocyanide, tannins, logwood or carbon black; mixing coffee beans with other

non-coffee beans, sand, chicory, gravel and burnt sugar; using poisonous colourings and

packages in sweets and jellies; addition of water and sheep’s brain to milk; mixing beer

with water, alum, green vitriol and salt; colouring red sauces with iron compounds. In the

United States of America (USA), more old fraudulent practices include; adulteration of olive

oil with cottonseed, canola, corn or soybean oil and labelling it as pure virgin olive oil;

counterfeiting baby food; use of substandard ingredients; re-packaging and re-labelling of

expired and rejected food (Barnes, 1996).

Literature review

Chapter 3


Today, in the European Union, the following types of food fraud have been exposed by

public authorities (EP, 2013): recycling ingredients with cheaper alternatives; false

labelling of meat species in animal meat products such as the horse meat scandals which

have dominated news headlines; incorrect weight labelling; presentation and sale of

conventional food as organic; unfair application of animal origin or welfare quality logos;

labelling aquaculture fish as wild; sale of expired food and counterfeiting. The USA food

scandals are presently dominated by deceptive labelling of popular sea foods, adulteration

of honey with corn syrup and beet sugar28, maple syrup with water and sugar, vanilla with

coumarin29, olive oil with soybean and peanut oil30 and mixing pomegranate juice with

other juices like apple31 (see Figures 3.1-3.3).

Figure 3.1: Popular fish and their frauds (from "Bait and Switch," Oceana). Correct

answers: 1. Fish on the left is Nile perch. 2. Right is mako shark. 3. Right is rockfish. 4. Left is

farmed Atlantic salmon. Source: National Geographic32

28Beet sugar is difficult to detect

29Coumarin is a proven carcinogen and banned by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA

30Peanut oil may be an allergen to some people

31 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130712-food-fraud-science-economic-adulteration-

seafood-honey-juice/ (14/02/2014) 32

See http://english.sina.com/world/p/2013/0220/563594.html (6/2/2014)

Literature review

Chapter 3

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130712-food-fraud-science-economic-adulteration-seafood-honey-juice/


http://english.sina.com/world/p/2013/0220/563594.html


Generally, food fraud thrives when there exists a low risk of detection; where there is high

demand for particular food product characteristics, for example, brown bread; where the

potential profit of the crime is high; when deterrence is not stringent and when a brand

name is very strong (Barnes, 1996; GMA, 2010; Shears, 2010; EP, 2013). Other factors

attributed to the proliferation of food fraud include the complex cross-border nature of the

food supply chain which exposes the food products to different anonymous handlers before

final consumption (EP, 2013; Spink et al., 2010; Moore, 2001). Although not a static

situation, the prevailing economic situation of a country can influence the occurrence of

fraud; economic crisis can actually contribute to this problem (EP, 2013).

Although food fraud is a global issue, its effects are more concentrated in developing

countries where the legal and institutional infrastructures are very poor and weak to

effectively combat the problem33. Generally, developing countries lack food laws; the few

existing ones may either be confusing or obsolete (Vapnek and Spreij, 2005). Poor

coordination in the regulatory systems has also been reported (Riviere and Buckley, 2012).

Fragmentation, a practice where different regulatory agencies are assigned same

33 http://corporateforeignpolicy.com/africa/counterfeits-killing-ugandan-industries (10/2/2014)

Figure 3.2: Pure extra virgin olive oil

may actually be adulterated with

peanut or soybean oil. Source: Au Fait

http://aufait.hubpages.com/hub/Cou

nterfeit-Food-Growing-Problem-

Unknowingly-Eating-Fake-Food#

Figure 3.3: Counterfeit honey may be

adulterated with high fructose corn syrup or

beet sugar. Source: Au Fait

http://aufait.hubpages.com/hub/Counte

rfeit-Food-Growing-Problem-Unknowingly-

Eating-Fake-Food#

Literature review

Chapter 3



responsibilities is a common practice. Moreover, most agencies lack adequate staffing, in

addition to limited capacity to retain them due to poor payments. Corruption is yet a big

challenge facing the regulatory systems in developing countries. Food inspectors have

especially been implicated in the practice of receiving bribes from fraudsters, especially

when the bribe is accompanied by harmful threats (Muchmore, 2010 Pg. 403, 413).

3.3 Evolution of food fraud manifestation, detection, deterrence and regulation

around the world

Ancient attempts at fighting food fraud were dominated by promulgation of relevant laws.

For example, in ancient Rome and Athens, laws were made to prevent the adulteration of

wines with flavours and colours (Shears, 2010). Sometimes, legal interventions were as

simple and quick as making proclamations regarding a particular fraudulent act, for

example during the 13th century, King John of England made a proclamation with regard to

adulteration of bread, which was a rampant act then (Moore, 2001; Shears, 2010); white

bread was a popular product and this was achieved by using chalk and alum as whitening

ingredients. Public humiliation such as naming and shaming of convicted fraudsters

dominated the sanctioning regimes in the early 19th century in UK (Shears, 2010). The

fraudsters’ full names and address were exposed for public viewing. This considerably

damaged consumer confidence in the implicated products and the companies involved.

Standing in the pillory was specifically applied to fraudulent bakers while standing in the

tumbrel or dung cart to fraudulent brewers (Moore, 2001). In extreme cases, convicts were

charged hefty fines to the tune of £400 (Shears, 2010). Today, food fraud penalties have

generally shifted from more primitive public humiliation to fines, seizure and

imprisonment (Moore, 2001). For example, in Peru, violation of the labelling provisions

outlined in the constitution attracts fines, confiscation and auctioning of the food product

followed by temporary closure of premises for 60 days.

In the UK, in the early 19th century, detection and monitoring of adulteration was simply

achieved using microscopes and chemical analytical methods such as those based on

chromatography and spectroscopy performed by duly appointed public analysts (Barnes,

1996; Moore, 2001; Shears, 2010). Today, simpler techniques such as the use of dipsticks to

Literature review

Chapter 3


detect adulteration of spirits are being employed in the UK. Sexing techniques have been

developed to detect animal sex in case of false declaration of an animal’s sex on meat labels.

Gas sensors are being used to detect rice varieties basing on their aromatic differences.

Molecular techniques based on DNA detection are being used to detect fraud in mixed

products such as meat and rice. Agbaraji, et al., (2012) recommended the use of electronic

anti-counterfeiting techniques such as serialization34 to ensure product authenticity.

Generally, food fraud detection is very difficult, requiring state-of-the-art detection

techniques (Shears, 2010). Moreover, Spink and Moyer, (2013) revealed that, it is not

necessary to detect every single food fraud incident as there are nearly an infinite number

of fraudulent acts and ingredients. Proactive food fraud prevention requires a shift from

reactive detection and intervention strategy (Spink and Moyer, 2011).

Fighting food fraud requires adequate knowledge about the practice. Indeed, the EP (2013)

recommends the formulation of a clear and harmonized definition of food fraud as the first

prerequisite to better tackle this problem. Spink and Moyer, (2011 & 2013) outlined that,

food fraud is a crime of opportunity and therefore reducing this opportunity requires a

deep understanding of the public health risks posed by this practice in order to tackle the

food fraud risks; direct, indirect and technical risks. Three main elements of the food fraud

opportunity have been identified; the victim, fraudster and guardians35 and hurdle36 gaps.

Reducing the food fraud opportunity can be achieved by increasing the risk of detection

and the cost of committing the offense by tightening sanctions (EP, 2013). Although sound

regulations and laws are the foundation of law enforcement and criminal justice, food fraud

enforcement remains a big challenge because of its complexity and constantly evolving

nature, and the fact that it is an emerging risk (Spink and Moyer, 2011). For example, a

34 The process of affixing a unique identification number on every product item. The serial numbers could be

stored in Radio Frequency Identification tags, barcodes or affixed on the package directly. 35

These include entities that control and/or monitor the product. These may include public authorities, customs, individual companies, NGOs or trade associations 36

These include systems put in place to reduce the fraud opportunity, including prevention and deterrence strategies.

Literature review

Chapter 3


single fraudulent act can involve violation of different regulations, requiring the

intervention of different regulatory and enforcement authorities. Moreover, food fraud

regulation has inherent gaps and the fraudsters are constantly looking to exploit these

gaps. Tackling intervention gaps therefore constitutes a major step towards successful food

fraud deterrence and prevention (EC, 2012). This to a large extent involves promotion of

awareness creation about the practice and improving information flow, with particular

emphasis on expert training, institutionalization of specialised crime units e.g. food fraud

task forces, better monitoring and data collection as well as use of internet coordinated

surveillance systems. In the UK and USA food fraud databases have been established to

help provide information to authorities doing food fraud investigations or prosecution

(Shears, 2010; Lipp and Moore, 2013). In the US, a global food fraud website is available

through which the database can be updated with new fraud entries by relevant

stakeholders e.g. regulatory authorities (Lipp and Moore, 2013) .In the UK, a food fraud and

illegal meat task forces are already in place together with a food fraud email address

(Shears, 2010). In 2007, the UK food fraud task force recommended the upgrading of the

UK FSA food fraud database into a more comprehensive food fraud intelligence unit and the

acquisition of a free-phone fraud line to facilitate information sharing among public

authorities across the EU. At the local authority level, appointment of Lead Food Fraud

Officers was recommended (Shears, 2010). Within the UK FSA, there is a food authenticity

branch responsible for authenticity programs. Effective food fraud deterrence certainly

requires a multidisciplinary research approach involving disciplines such as criminology,

food safety, packaging, public health, consumer behaviour etc. (Spink and Moyer, 2011).

Food business operators have also long adopted their own food fraud prevention

strategies. Barnes, (1996) reported one UK food retailer using a combination of stringent

supply chain management strategies including establishment of strong partnership

measures between the retailer and suppliers e.g. conducting regular supplier audits,

supplier vetting and ensuring third-party accreditation of the supplier’s laboratory.

Literature review

Chapter 3


Every participant in the food chain has a role to play in preventing fraud (GMA, 2010). To

this end, such strategies as, strong public-private partnerships, collaboration within

industry to facilitate information exchange; use of shared audit programs; improved safety

and quality programs such as improved detection and tracking of incidents to understand

product vulnerabilities, have been recommended. The EP (2013) recommends institutional

and legal review including placing a legal obligation upon FBOs to immediately report to

public authorities all food fraud incidences within the chain in order to reduce public

health risks. Elevation of sanctions to double the value of food fraud economic gains as well

as de-registration of repetitive offenders have also been emphasised (EP, 2013).

Literature review

Chapter 3

Summary findings and preliminary conclusions

Food fraud is an ancient global-wide problem involving legal violation by food

business operators to deceive consumers for purposes of economic gain. It includes

the deliberate sale of substandard and potentially harmful products to consumers,

misrepresentation, and diversion of food products.

Although food fraud deterrence is based on law, it appears that, there is no single

country with solid food fraud legislation. Deterrence is based on fragments of

legislation addressing particular fraudulent practices e.g. adulteration, mislabelling

etc.

Food fraud happens along the entire food chain, which therefore calls for all chain

participants’ responsibility to effectively combat it.

Some of the factors contributing to the proliferation of food fraud include: the profit

potential of the act, low risk of detection, consumer demand for a particular

product, lenient sanctions, brand strength, economic crisis of a country and

complexity of the food chain.

Although food fraud incidents have not changed over time, the penalties have

generally changed from more primitive regimes such as public humiliation to

judicial and administrative sanctions.


No standard technique or method exists for food fraud detection; detection depends

on the type of fraud and ingredient used.

Effective deterrence of food fraud requires 1) a harmonized definition of the problem

2) increased risk of detection 3) integration of fraud into food regulation institutional

and legal frameworks with particular emphasis on improving information transfer,

data collection and monitoring, installation of food fraud specialized crime units,

strengthening public-private partnership, setting food fraud legal obligations and

strengthening fraud sanctions 4) a multi-disciplinary research in order to gain a

clear understanding of the crime triangle; the victim, fraudster and the guardian and

hurdle gaps.

Literature review

Chapter 3


Chapter 4: Food fraud in Uganda

This chapter contains food fraud information of Uganda: Its manifestation, prevalence,

trends, the legal and regulatory framework, the institutional framework and ways in which

it can be more effectively dealt with. In essence, the chapter addresses research questions 1

(ii-iv), 2 and 3.

4.1 General overview of food fraud in Uganda (Q 1 (ii-iv))

“Food fraud” is not a popular vocabulary in Uganda. In fact, it was quite a challenge having

to explain on demand, this term to almost every respondent I was engaged with.

Fraudulent food products are popularly addressed under the code name “substandard” or

“fake” and are dealt with as thus. However, further probing into the core of the meaning of

these two words revealed that, they are a major component of food fraud but do not

represent food fraud in totality. Although respondents were actually abreast of the

different types of food fraud, the technical nomenclature for all these fraud types was

lacking. This research therefore suggests the adoption of the collective words “food fraud”

to encompass all types of fraudulent practices in the food chain. Food fraud (substandard

food) is a big reality, topping the list of all consumables in Uganda (UNBS, 2013). The main

idea behind substandard fraudulent products is the failure to meet specific standard

requirements so as to satisfy consumer interests and prevent unfair trade practices.

Asked what were the most serious food fraud practices in Uganda, respondents

unanimously allied to the sale of substandard products; adulteration37; counterfeiting38;

false weights and measures; tempering39; deceptive labelling and packaging as the main

37The fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the

apparent value of the product or reducing its cost of production (Spink and Moyer, 2011). 38

Unauthorized representation of a registered trademark on goods similar to goods for which the trademark is registered, with an aim of deceiving consumers into believing that they are actually buying the original product (GMA, 2010). It involves the total replication of all aspects of the fraudulent product and packaging to look exactly like the genuine product, for example, same packaging, labelling, colour, trade mark etc. 39

Manipulating a genuine product and label to suit consumer interests, for example, changing expiry dates.


forms. These are commonly witnessed in high selling, popular, closely resembling and

unbranded pre-packaged food products sold across the country. Juices (imitation and

fruit), packaged water, bakery products, gins, dairy products, flours, cooking oil and

breakfast cereals, were identified as the most affected products. In essence, all processed

food products are potential victims of fraud. Although fraudulent products are wide spread

across the country, the urban fraternity stands a high risk of buying and consuming them,

as they greatly depend on processed food (20% of the diet) unlike the rural population who

mostly depend on fresh, own-produced food (0.5% of the diet is processed food) (WHO40).

In a bid to reduce costs and make lump sums of profits, manufacturers41 intentionally skip

some legally stipulated standard operations and procedures during production, packaging,

labelling and distribution of food products. Consequently, substandard products heavily fall

short of authenticity as to guarantee fairness towards the consumer or the buyer. For

example, some products have often been found to contain high levels of germs, including

fecal micro-organisms, due to the unhygienic conditions in which they are produced and

packaged (UNBS, 2004 & 2008).These products are presented to unsuspecting consumers

as genuine, high quality and safe products, sometimes even bearing certification marks.

Counterfeiting largely involves the unauthorized use of the UNBS logo and certification

marks (Q, S and ISO) on illegitimate products, obtained by either scanning labels from used

authentic product containers or downloading from the UNBS website. Fresh packages used

for packaging counterfeit food products are stolen from unsuspecting factory management

by some unscrupulous staff and sold to counterfeiters. Products bearing any UNBS

certification mark are very popular and attract a lot of consumer loyalty in hope of getting

authentic products.

40http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F

%2Fwww.afro.who.int%2Fpt%2Fdownloads%2Fdoc_download%2F2920-uganda-country-profile-food-safety-and-nutrition.html&ei=t7kqU5q_Fcqs0QWnt4DoAg&usg=AFQjCNHG47he3Oky5OHu2loy1-Qp_X29CA (20/03/2014) 41

Anybody involved in the transformation of one food product into another form

Food fraud in Uganda Chapter 4

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afro.who.int%2Fpt%2Fdownloads%2Fdoc_download%2F2920-uganda-country-profile-food-safety-and-nutrition.html&ei=t7kqU5q_Fcqs0QWnt4DoAg&usg=AFQjCNHG47he3Oky5OHu2loy1-Qp_X29CA




Products falling short of weights and measures requirements are usually achieved by using

faulty and manipulated equipment, which actually look authentic and original in the eyes of

the consumer. For example, during the initial surveillance exercise (Operation Q42) done by

the UNBS surveillance team in and around Kampala business premises, in 2003, 23

underweight weights were discovered in a butcher, among which were those with

excavated bottoms. A 2kg weight was found to actually weigh 1.4kg (UNBS, 2004).

Sometimes consumers have fallen victims of trade measurements largely because of their

apathetic attitude during purchase, much to the advantage of the sellers. Most consumers

are not kin on the measurement process, sometimes even making delivery orders right to

their door steps. The latter transaction arrangement will most likely create temptation and

a ripe opportunity for the seller to deliver a product short of the buyer’s specifications. Of

course, in such circumstances, the buyer will neither realize nor complain about taking

home a fraudulent product since the product was measured in his/her “presence”.

Tempering mainly occurs in form of updating product expiry dates on expired products.

This is achieved by concealing the actual expiry date with a sticker bearing a future date or

scraping off the actual and stamping on a product container a new date. Tempering will

always be done as long as the product is still on the shelf and the changes in the quality

parameters will not be recognized by the buyer. This is so for products packaged in opaque

containers. From personal experience, it is not uncommon to buy literally rotten products

such as cakes bearing future expiry dates. During the operation Q exercise, several stamps

used in changing expiry dates were recovered in a number of supermarkets and shops

(UNBS, 2004). Although the Ugandan standard on labelling of pre-packaged foods vividly

requires permanent, clear and indelible labelling of all mandatory information, many

products have been observed to violate this provision. Three main styles of product

labelling have been observed; use of removable stickers, stamping directly on the product

package, moreover using easily delible ink, and stamping on the label wrapper together

42 Herein the entire document referred to as the operation Q exercise


Food fraud in Uganda

Chapter 4


with other information, especially for bottled and tinned products. All these facilitate

change of dates. Another form of tempering identified by DDA on powdered milk products

is that of manipulating container seals and re-sealing using super glue.

Deceptive labelling and packaging manifests in form of big containers to signify high

quantity; overstatement of useful ingredients; exaggerated expiry dates; false and

deceptive drawings; enticing descriptions such as “fresh”, “100% natural”; false addresses;

use of illegal languages43; illegible fonts; delible ink; exclusion of some information such as

name of manufacturer and use of deceptive and confusing brand names. This is common

with imitation drinks and fruit juices. It is not unusual to find an imitation drink basically

containing contaminated water and

colours, labelled with large pictures of

succulent fruits and a wealth of vitamins

and minerals (UNBS, 2008).

Adulteration is mainly manifested in form

of substitution of genuine products with

inferior ingredients or addition of

excessive quantities of an already existing

component of a food product, all intended

to increase the economic value or reduce the cost of production of the original products.

The adulterants used normally mimic and easily mix with the genuine products to form

homogeneous and difficult to detect mixtures. Most of the adulterants are supposedly

intended to perform specific functions, e.g. water to increase quantity of liquid milk. Some

of the products commonly implicated in adulteration include: alcoholic drinks, cooking oil,

powdered and liquid milk, bottled water, ghee, bread, spices, cereal flours, salt and honey

43 Foreign and indigenous languages not legally authorized in Ugandan food labelling. According to the Uganda

general standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods (Clause 8.2.1 US 7: 2002), the authorized language is English

Figure 4.1: Common deceptive juice labels. Source: Vagabondjourney.com http://www.vagabondjourney.com/beware-of-fake-juice-when-traveling/



Chapter 4

http://www.vagabondjourney.com/beware-of-fake-juice-when-traveling/

http://www.vagabondjourney.com/beware-of-fake-juice-when-traveling/


(Figures 4.2-4.6). A full list of adulterants and the foods in which they are used is given in

Table 4.2

Figure 4.2: That sparkling table salt

may actually contain 50% stones.

Source: New vision

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/6

44089-what-s-in-the-salt-you-

use.html

Figure 4.3: That eye-catching voluminous

bread may actually be containing

unknown quantities of Potassium

bromide. Source: New vision

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/62

9917-standards-body-links-food-

poisoning-to-poor-hygiene.html

Figure 4.4: Conspicuously attractive

spices may be contaminated with Sudan-

3-red and other unknown ingredients.

Source: Google images

http://2.imimg.com/data2/UE/YI/MY

-3681997/turmeric-powder-

250x250.jpg

Figure 4.5: “Pure honey”. Think twice

before you pick one of them. It may be

contaminated with molasses. Source:

Google images

https://ugandahoney.files.wordpress.com/

2009/05/koa-honey1.jpg?w=400&h=300


Chapter 4


Chapter 4

Chapter 4 Food fraud in Uganda

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=9ymvESkJMVpBaM&tbnid=WJYpp_fJfpb5bM:&ved=0CAYQjRw&url=http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/644089-what-s-in-the-salt-you-use.html&ei=C-MqU9nGMYvK0AWwsoCgDA&bvm=bv.62922401,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNEO7vibJ8pSbpiSFtgpP4hyBjDj6g&ust=1395405747105650

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=mUy3h2fA2RCRGM&tbnid=CE5IxNdUXMPKHM:&ved=0CAYQjRw&url=http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629917-standards-body-links-food-poisoning-to-poor-hygiene.html&ei=0vEqU6uNBOSo0QXh94CwCQ&bvm=bv.62922401,d.d2k&psig=AFQjCNEvUXDGlEtRFbhxxSEPdmzcTz1lag&ust=1395406056775727

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/644089-what-s-in-the-salt-you-use.html



http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629917-standards-body-links-food-poisoning-to-poor-hygiene.html



http://2.imimg.com/data2/UE/YI/MY-3681997/turmeric-powder-250x250.jpg



https://ugandahoney.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/koa-honey1.jpg?w=400&h=300

https://ugandahoney.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/koa-honey1.jpg?w=400&h=300


Unfortunately, most consumers lack the ability to identify fraudulent food products on the

market. Consumers have gone ahead to totally trust some product brands to the extent

that, they will always buy the same products, only discovering their quality and safety

status after suffering adverse effects, as recounts one consumer,

“The biggest problem is that we, the consumers, go to the same shopping centers, buy the

same products and with time, we get so used to them; have faith in them and even trust them

as genuine. Unfortunately, the only time we realize that we have bought a fake product is

when it negatively affects us after use”44

Even when they discover these products, little can be done to redeem their lost money and

compromised health status. In a baseline assessment of the extent of substandard goods in

the country, conducted early 2013, majority consumers (99%) revealed that, they do not

complain or report about substandard products because from experience, no justice will be

got, hence it is a waste of time. 83% did not know where to report (UNBS, 2013). Moreover,

the sellers are not willing to take responsibility, since in most cases they never even issue

44 http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/719494/-/b5b6pcz/-/index.html (19/12/2013)

Figure 4.6: Cooking oil may be

adulterated with transformer oil. Source:

The Citizen newspaper

http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/image/view

/-/1912436/lowRes/541654/-

/64ub3nz/-/oil.jpg


Chapter 4

http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/719494/-/b5b6pcz/-/index.html

http://www.thecitizen.co.tz/image/view/-/1912436/lowRes/541654/-/64ub3nz/-/oil.jpg




purchase receipts, which would act as underpinning evidence of purchase. Unfortunately,

some consumers are duped into buying fraudulent food products because they are

enticingly cheap, easily accessible and they think there are no alternatives. Under such

circumstances, consumers are usually presented with various same-brand products

(including genuine and fraudulent) but different prices and they are deceived by the sellers

that, the products are equally good. Of course consumers end up paying for the cheaper

products, unaware of their “real” content. This apparently shows how Ugandan consumers

continue to desperately buy and feed on fraudulent food products.

In answering the question, “where is food fraud occurring and who are the perpetuators?”

most responses pointed towards “it depends on the supply chain stage”. UCPA and UMA

were in alliance that, counterfeiting is mainly practiced by manufacturers, as other

fraudulent practices were likely to be found anywhere along the supply chain. UNBS on the

other hand generally contended with the involvement of all food business operators, right

from manufacturers to Vendors. However, all organizations were in agreement over

unregulated SMEs as the biggest thriving dealers in fraudulent food products. The little

disparity in perception could be attributed to the direct involvement of UNBS in the

regulation of food fraud, which places them in a more knowledgeable position. Most small

scale producers operate from home, in hiding, sometimes even working at night under

poor hygienic conditions, using substandard packaging and deceitful labels, all in a rush to

get to the market. Some have been caught selling elusive products under false addresses

and telephone contacts (UNBS, 2008). Under Section 102 of the Uganda Public Health Act,

193545, it is illegal to prepare or store food intended for sale in the same premise used for

sleeping. The most striking reality is that, most SMEs (vendors) don’t have permanent

locations of operation such that, they are constantly in contact with fresh buyers, a practice

they have exploited to successfully get rid of their fraudulent products without being

45 Read more about this Act in section 4.2


Chapter 4


tracked by those who later realize

that they have bought illegitimate

products. This is an account of one

such victim;

“Recently, I bought sugar that I later

found had a glucose-like white

component and I could not trace the

vendor that had sold it to me.”46

Tempering mainly takes place in

supermarkets, stores, groceries,

shops, lock-ups and go-downs. In

general, the poor traceability system within the food chain makes it difficult to trace the

origin of fraudulent products.

Concerning the source of fraudulent products, both UNBS and UCPA revealed that, most

fraudulent products were of domestic origin. Imports were mainly associated with expired

and adulterated products and deceptive labelling (Use of illegal languages, misleading

pictures, false declarations). These have been observed in products such as breakfast

cereals, confectionaries, cooking oil, juices, edible salt, margarine and spices, believed to

mainly originate from Asian countries like China, Pakistan, Taiwan, India, Indonesia and

Thailand and from African countries like Egypt and Nigeria. Specific examples of fraudulent

practices include re-packaging and re-labelling crude oil as refined; using fruit pictures on

imitation drinks; use of confusing and misleading descriptions such as, “Nectar”, “only

fruit”, “no sugar added” and addition of Sudan-3-red to curry powder. These products are

mainly replicates of very popular brands and are believed to be supplied to the country

through foreign as well as local traders who connive with the manufacturers. However,

46 http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/741118 (20/03/2014)

Figure 4.7: Unregulated, mobile street vendors believed to be among the major dealers in fraudulent food products. Source: taken from one of Kampala’s suburbs during empirical data collection period (30/09/2013).


Chapter 4



these results contrast with those obtained by UNBS during a baseline assessment of the

extent of substandard goods in the country, in which 52.8% of the consumers believed that,

most substandard products are internationally sourced (UNBS, 2013). The contrast could

possibly be due to the fact that, the assessment covered general products whereas this

study is focused on fraudulent food products.

On evaluating the general food fraud trends for the last 5 years, different views were

gathered from different respondents. UCPA recognized a general increase, notably because

of increasing urban demand, increase in population, inadequate legislation and consumer

ignorance and illiteracy. Whereas the UNBS testing department settled for an increasing

trend, especially in substandard products, the surveillance and legal metrology

departments believed they were doing sufficient official controls to decrease the trends,

especially for under weights, coupled with consumers’ shopping shift towards

supermarkets, where pre-packaged products are believed to be more genuine. UMA

contended with the difficulty in establishing the food fraud trends due to the intermittent

nature of the practice and the fact that, most times it goes undetected. These findings point

to the reality of the general uncertainty surrounding the food fraud scenario in Uganda,

which calls for comprehensive research and data collection in this area. Tables 4.1 and 4.2

show the main fraudulent practices observed in Uganda.


Chapter 4


Table 4.1: Types of fraudulent practices in Uganda and stages at which they

happen along the supply chain

Type of fraud Example/ sub-category Stage where it

occurs

Adulteration Addition of water to liquid milk Factory

Distribution

Counterfeiting Re-packaging and re-labelling

Unauthorized use of certification marks

Unauthorized use of brand names

Factory

Distribution

Tempering Updating expiry dates Sale

Storage

False

advertisement

Declaration of false nutrition

information during product

advertisement

Sale

Promotion

Deceptive

packaging and

labelling

Big packages,

False declaration of ingredients,

addresses, country of origin

Use of illegal languages

Exaggerated expiry dates

Misleading brand names and

descriptions

Factory

Distribution

Faking Packaging of saw dust in the name of

tealeaves

Factory

Distribution

Sale of

substandard

products

Expired products

Underweight products

Contaminated products

Factory

Sale

Use of false

weights and

measures

Unverified weighing machines and

underweight weights

Measuring sugar in cups instead of

weighing scales

Sale

Source: Based on interview responses


Chapter 4


Table 4.2: Common adulterants used in food products (both domestic and

imported) in Uganda

Adulterant Food in which used Reason

Formalin Fresh/cooled milk preservative

Excess methanol vodka and gins Enhance potency

water Cooking oil/liquid

milk/pure fruit

juices/honey

Increase quantity

Sand and soil Dried cereals/flours/edible

salt

Enhance weight

Ripe banana ghee Increase quantity and enhance

colour

Maize flour Powdered milk Increase quantity

Transformer oil Cooking oil Increase quantity

Potassium bromide bread Enhance volume

Sudan-3-red Spices, especially curry

powder (imports)

Enhance colour

vim Cereal flours Enhance colour and quantity

Melamine (based on

international alerts)

Powdered milk (imports) Enhance protein content

sugar honey Enhance sweetness

Sugar Molasses honey Enhance colour and sweetness

Unknown47 grasshoppers Immobilize the insects during

capture

Source: Based on interview responses

47 This adulterant although not yet known and still under investigation, was reported to have caused severe illness

to people in Northern Uganda (Arua) after consuming the contaminated insects. See also http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Arua-residents-fall-sick-after-eating-grasshoppers/-/688334/1854876/-/fe8drjz/-/index.html (20/03/2014)


Chapter 4

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Arua-residents-fall-sick-after-eating-grasshoppers/-/688334/1854876/-/fe8drjz/-/index.html

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Arua-residents-fall-sick-after-eating-grasshoppers/-/688334/1854876/-/fe8drjz/-/index.html


4.1.1 Compounding factors (drivers) (Q1 (iv))

While Uganda strives to divest itself of food fraud and related consequences, it is of

paramount importance to establish the key drivers of this practice, in order to facilitate

design of effective intervention strategies. As already suggested by Spink, 2013, effective

fraud intervention requires tackling it from the roots, comprising of the fraudster, victim

and intervention systems. In addition to the challenges outlined in section 4.4, there are

several other factors contributing to the proliferation of this practice in Uganda, as outlined

below;

High population growth rate, as every individual is desperate to survive and make a

living

High unemployment rate, especially among the youth

Growing demand for cheap goods by the consumers as a result of economic crises

Growing rate of rural-urban migration, which makes fraud more popular in urban

places.

High poverty levels


Chapter 4


Food fraud is a big reality in Uganda, although it is not well understood especially

by consumers. Fraudulent food products are indirectly known and addressed as

substandard or fake

Commonest fraudulent practices observed include; counterfeiting, adulteration,

deceptive packaging and labelling, tempering, deceptive advertisement, and

manufacture and sale of substandard products

Food fraud takes place along the entire food supply chain, especially within the

small and medium industry organizations

Food fraud affects almost all pre-packaged food products, both domestically

produced and imported. Fraud during trade transactions in the presence of both

the seller and buyer is due to the apathetic attitude of the latter party.


4.2 The food fraud Legal and regulatory framework of Uganda (Q 2(i))

Law is an essential component of any society. For any legal system to achieve its intended

functionality, it must be clear, in order to facilitate its proper application.48 The following

piece gives an analysis into the clarity of Uganda’s food fraud legal framework with regard

to implementing bodies, type of fraudulent practices, obligations and rights, general

classification of offenses, sanctions and litigation procedures. Five types of legislation are

analyzed: policies, Acts of parliament, regulations, bills and standards.

4.2.1 Policies

Although there are many pieces of policies relating to food fraud, three major ones have

been advanced, all formulated and implemented by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and

Cooperatives (MTIC) in collaboration with other stakeholder ministries and agencies such

as Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), Ministry of Education

(MoE), academia and private sector.

48 http://thelawlibrary.net/latest/characteristics-of-a-good-legal-system.html (23/12/2013)

Although fraudulent food products are wide spread across the country, the urban

population is more at risk of exposure as compared with the rural population,

since the former cluster almost entirely depends on processed food. The practice is

also more concentrated in the urban areas.

The food fraud trend is not well understood, partly due to its intermittent

occurrence by nature and also the little research and statistics done on the subject

Key food fraud drivers identified include; high population growth rate, high

unemployment and poverty levels, increased demand for cheap food, increased

rate of rural-urban migration as well as presence of gaps in intervention systems.


Chapter 4

http://thelawlibrary.net/latest/characteristics-of-a-good-legal-system.html


National Industrial Policy (NIP) (2008)

This policy is mainly aimed at promoting industrial growth and competitiveness, through

inter alia addressing causes of market failure. Fraud, especially counterfeiting has been

identified as a key barrier to industrial development.49 The contribution of this policy

towards food fraud intervention lies largely in its policy actions geared towards:

institutional development and support to major food fraud regulating bodies such as UNBS;

harmonization and update of laws and regulations supporting investment; promotion of

compliance with relevant standards by industrial firms and adoption of quality

management systems as well as promotion of consumer awareness on quality products

(MTTI, 2008).

National Trade Policy (NTP) (2007)

The main objective of this policy is to promote private sector competitiveness with the

ultimate goal of reducing poverty, enhancing social welfare and creating employment. This

is expected to be achieved through eliminating barriers to trade and providing an enabling

environment in which private sector will build capacity to produce quality goods and

services. Poverty and unemployment are the root causes of food fraud; their reduction

therefore forms an upper hand strategy in dealing with this vice. With the main policy

intervention against food fraud geared towards ensuring that domestic market products

and services meet relevant standards, government is set to undertake formulation and

implementation of sectorial policies such as competition and consumer protection and

implementation of the existing National Standards and Quality Policy (MTTI, 2007).

49http://corporateforeignpolicy.com/africa/counterfeits-killing-ugandan-industries (23/12/2013)


Chapter 4



National Standards and Quality Policy (NSQP) (2012)

This policy identifies key weaknesses that impliedly incriminate poor legal and regulatory

infrastructure on (SMCA50) and low public awareness on standards, as the key promoters

of non-compliance, leading to increased proliferation of substandard goods and services on

the market. The policy therefore aims at strengthening public awareness and product

compliance to relevant standards in order to safeguard environment and human health,

safety and life. Since food fraud intervention is directly hinged on to enforcement of

standards, the policy is expected to indirectly deal with the food fraud problem (MTIC,

2012).

4.2.2 Acts of parliament

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 199551

The constitution is the supreme national legislation of Uganda. It establishes, lays down

procedures for establishment and mandates the main institutions involved in the fight

against food fraud, including parliament, the cabinet, judiciary, police forces and prisons

services. It also establishes the official national language, English, which is required for use

on all product labels.

The Penal Code Act, 1950 (PCA)52

Provided by criminal law, PCA lays down the general sanctions and classification of the

different categories of offenses. It classifies product adulteration, false declaration of

information, counterfeiting, manufacture and sale of goods with counterfeit trademarks as

50 Standardization, Metrology, Conformity assessment and Accreditation

51 See Articles 6, 77, 111, 126, 129, 211 and 215 of the Uganda constitution

http://www.parliament.go.ug/new/images/stories/constitution/Constitution_of_Uganda_1995.pdf (30/12/2013) 52

See sections 22, 172, 307, 309 319, 378 and 380 Penal Code Act


Chapter 4

http://www.parliament.go.ug/new/images/stories/constitution/Constitution_of_Uganda_1995.pdf


misdemeanour53 cases, punishable by not more than 2 years imprisonment. In addition,

goods carrying counterfeit trademarks may be forfeited to government. Cheating and

Conspiracy to defraud although uncategorized are punishable by 3 years imprisonment.

Smuggling, the only fraudulent offence categorized as a felony is punishable by 3-14 years

imprisonment and a monetary fine of not more than 5 million UG. Shs. (2000 USD54). This

Act particularly prohibits deleterious product adulteration. However, it doesn’t clearly

state the administering body.

The Food and Drug Act, 1959 (FDA)55

This Act provides for the general protection of the purchaser against adulterated food. It

prohibits the sale, advertisement and possession for sale any adulterated food, including

food unfit for human consumption, unless the seller proves against fraudulent intentions

and conspicuously labels the food product as to inform the buyer of the product status and

content. Persons convicted for this offence are liable to monetary fines not exceeding 2000

UG. Shs. (0.8 USD56) or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months or both

sentences. In addition, suspected food products shall be seized and destroyed depending

on their health consequences and court’s decision. Apparently, fraud offenses under this

Act are considered as misdemeanour by virtue of the penalties they attract. NDA, DDA,

UNBS, MAAIF, MoH, Police, magistrates’ court and prison services, are the main bodies at

the fore front of enforcing this law.

53 Any offense which is not a felony (offenses punishable without proof of previous conviction, with death or with

imprisonment of more than 3 years). 54

In all cases, the conversion of Uganda shillings to United States Dollar is based on 2500: 1 ratio, the current exchange rate. 55

See sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 15 and 16 FDA, 1959 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/278 (30/12/2013) 56

This appears a very small figure compared to the average cost of a basic food product such as a loaf of bread, which currently stands at 3500 UG. Shs. (1.4 USD). Unfortunately, Uganda has no legislation on minimum wage, hence, it could not be established whether this is comparable to the income of an average salaried worker. However, the shear fact that, fraudsters are paying flimsy fines compared to the huge profits they make out of dealing in fraudulent food products should not be overlooked. For example, a person may be caught and fined 0.8 USD after selling 100 loaves of fraudulent bread and making 140 USD (not even 1% of the total profits).


Chapter 4

http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/278


The Dairy Industry Act, 200057

Section 2 of this legislation establishes the Dairy Development Authority (DDA), the key

agency regulating adulteration and safety of dairy products. It provides for administrative

requirements such as registration of all dairy product dealers in line with set requirements.

Contravention of these requirements constitutes offenses. Persons convicted under this Act

are liable to fines not in excess of 25 currency points58 or not more than 6 months

imprisonment or both fines and imprisonment. In addition, registration may be cancelled.

The DDA administers this regulation in partnership with other government ministries,

departments, parastatals and private sector.

Legislation relating to alcohol59

The Enguli60 (manufacture and licensing) Act of 1966 and the Liquor61 Act of 1960 are the

main legislation dealing with alcohol business. The legislations forbid any unauthorized

dealings in alcohol, including consumption. They duly protect the young population against

adverse effects of alcohol by forbidding consumption by people below the age of 18 years.

Sale is also limited to permitted hours as stipulated in the shop hours Act. Unauthorized

dealers in enguli are on conviction liable to a fine not exceeding 3000 UG. Shs (1.8 USD)

or/and not more than 6 months imprisonment, in addition to forfeiture of the enguli and

the apparatus used in its manufacture. Unauthorized manufacture and sale of liquor on the

other hand attracts a fine not exceeding 10000 UG Shs. (4 USD) or/and not more than 12

months imprisonment. The power to enforce this Act is vested in the licensing authorities,

police, court and prisons.

57 See Sections 2, 20, 21 and 26 of the Dairy industry Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/85

(30/12/2013) 58

A currency point equals 20000 UG Shs. (8USD) 59

See Sections 1, 2, 7, 8, and 16 of Enguli Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/86 Section 1, 2, 15 and 19 of the Liquor Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/93 (30/12/2013) 60

“any spirits manufactured in Uganda but does not include refined spirits or any other spirits produced locally by the exclusive licensee.” 61

Any spirits (including refined spirits), wines, ale, beer, porter, cider, perry, hop beer, or any drink containing more than 2% by weight of absolute alcohol, but doesn’t include enguli or native liquor


Chapter 4


http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/86%20Section%201



The Shop Hours Act, 196362

This Act lays down authorized business transaction time for all shops. The opening time for

food stuff and drink shops is particularly limited to between half-past seven in the morning

and nine o’clock in the evening daily, throughout the week. This is aimed at discouraging

fraudulent practices done during late night. However, with Uganda’s poor electricity

infrastructure, this is far from achievable since by seven o’clock in the evening, it is

normally dark and the customer is unable to objectively read product labels, view

measurement procedures or even count money. This is particularly true for rural areas,

small and makeshift shops. A shop attendant convicted in contravention of this provision is

liable to a fine not exceeding 1000 UG. Shs. (0.4 USD), unless he/she so proves that, the

customers under service were already in the shop by closing time or the product is

urgently required for a sick person. However, the law exempts restaurants, hotels and

canteens from these obligations, hence heightening chances for sale of substandard food to

unsuspecting consumers. Police and court enforce this law.

The Weights and Measures Act, 196563

This legislation lays down requirements for lawful weights and measures, weighing and

measuring equipment and units of measurement used in trade. It provides for

measurements made both in the presence of the buyer and seller and pre-packaged goods,

to ensure both parties are not cheated. Section 29 of this Act forbids the sale or possession

for sale any underweight pre-packaged goods. Penalties for contravention of any provision

under this Act include fines not exceeding 5000 UG. Shs. (≤ 2 USD) or/and imprisonment

for a period not exceeding 6 months, in addition to forfeiture of implicated equipment. For

offences concerning fraudulent food products, it shall be a defense for the suspect to prove

that, the act was beyond his/her control. Administration of this legislation is undertaken by

the public authorities in collaboration with police, magistrates’ courts and prison services.

62 See Sections 2, 4 and 5 of this Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/99 (30/12/2013)

63 See Sections 13, 14, 15, 20, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 38 and 44 of this

Acthttp://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/103 (16/01/2014)


Chapter 4




The Evidence Act, 1909

Sufficient evidence is a crucial requirement of any litigation procedure upon which sound

judgment can be based regarding any suspected offence. In prosecuting fraud suspects,

evidence of commission of offence is required. Likewise, evidence of defense against

commission of an offence is crucial. This legislation lays down procedures for acquiring

such evidence. In proving particular facts, the burden of proof of the fact lies with the

person who wishes court to believe this fact (Section 10364). This implies that, when fraud

suspects are produced in court, it is the duty of the prosecutor to prove commission of the

fraudulent act. Although it is not clear who administers this legislation, it appears that,

regulatory authorities, police and courts enforce this law.

The Magistrates’ Court Act, 197165

Section 3 of this legislation establishes the magistrates’ court, which is vested with powers

to try all civil cases. It lays down trial procedures in cases of minor offences66, which

constitute most food fraud offenses. Such cases, including infringement of the Weights and

Measures Act, are triable in the magistrate’s court, under the jurisdiction of the chief or

grade 1 magistrate. The law also permits the search of arrested persons’ premises by police

officers for any material evidence in relation to the offence under investigation. However,

under Section 75 of this Act, convicts who are sentenced to imprisonment are entitled to

apply for bail on bond with or without sureties. This Act is administered by the judiciary in

collaboration with police and prisons services.

64 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/6 (16/01/2014)

65 See Sections 69, 142, and 208 of this Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/16 (3/01/2014)

66 Offences punishable by imprisonment for a period not more than 6 months or/and fine not exceeding 1000 UG.

Shs. (0.4 USD)


Chapter 4




The Police Act, 199467

This Act establishes the police force and its mandate. Police is the key body enforcing food

fraud related issues in collaboration with regulatory bodies. Section 31 of this Act

empowers police to institute criminal proceedings against any person charged with an

offence, including of course food fraud offences. In addition, a police officer can, under

warrant, search premises of arrested persons for any evidence of exhibits relating to the

offence under investigation. The authorization of police to inspect licenses without warrant

ensures that, unauthorized food dealers are arrested even in the absence of regulatory

personnel.

The Prisons Act, 195868

Section 3 of this Act establishes the prisons services, whose main role in food fraud

intervention is to take custody of arrested suspects and convicted offenders as well as

detain remand prisoners under investigation.

The Sale of Goods Act, 193269

Being the only legislation in Uganda provided by contract law, it provides for both the

obligations and rights of parties involved in a trade transaction. It puts an obligation on the

seller to deliver products of the right specifications to the buyer. On the other hand, the

buyer has a right to sufficiently examine products for conformity to the specifications of the

contract before actually making any payments to the seller. Goods not conforming to

specifications may be rejected. In addition, when the seller breaches a warranty on goods,

the buyer has a right to demand for a reduction in price of the product or demand for

damages or take the product free of charge, but may not reject the product. This implies

that, food buyers must be vigilant and decisive to ensure that they don’t pay for fraudulent

67 See Sections 2, 4, 10, 27, 31 and 39 of the police Act http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl-

nat.nsf/0/32bd94473f5720a7c12573830052a27f/$FILE/THE%20POLICE%20ACT.pdf (3/01/2014) 68

See Sections 3, 30 and 31 of this Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/304 (3/01/2014) 69

See Sections 30, 34, 35 and 52 of this Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/82 (3/01/2014)


Chapter 4

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl-nat.nsf/0/32bd94473f5720a7c12573830052a27f/$FILE/THE%20POLICE%20ACT.pdf





products, since these can’t be returned to the seller once they are bought. However, the

actual procedure of dispute settlement under the stated circumstances is not clear, for

example, where and in whose presence the dispute may be resolved. It is also not clear who

administers this law.

The Public Health Act, 193570

This legislation lays down general provisions for promotion of public health. With regard to

food fraud, it particularly prevents production and trade of substandard food products, by

providing for hygiene and sanitary requirements to be met by all food business premises.

For example, it prohibits the storage of food stuffs in residential houses. This is particularly

important in dealing with small scale food processors that operate from their houses. It is

the duty of the local authorities in liaison with medical officers and chief inspectors,

pursuant to the Factories Act 1953, to ensure that, the provisions of this Act are fulfilled by

the relevant food business operators (FBOs). This may be achieved in part by inspection

and examination of premises and personnel for any non-compliance. In addition, this

legislation mandates the minister to enact regulations against dealing in substandard

animal products, illegal food trade, and hawking. Infringement of requirements under this

Act constitutes an offense. General penalties for convicted persons include fines not

exceeding 2000 UG. Shs. (0.8 USD), in addition to 60 UG. Shs. (0.024 USD) per day where an

injunction is imposed. This legislation is administered by the MoH in collaboration with

MAAIF, local authorities and court.

Legislation relating to Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)

The Trademarks71 Act 201072 is the main IPR legislation relating to food fraud. It provides

for protection of both private and public registered trademarks through granting of

70 See Sections 4, 5, 56, 57(y), 69, 101, 102, 104, 114, 133 and 136 of this Act

http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/281 (16/01/2014) 71 “a sign or mark or combination of signs or marks capable of being represented graphically and capable of

distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of another undertaking”


Chapter 4



exclusive rights of use to the owners. Private trademarks are registered with respect to

particular goods. The legislation prohibits registration of deceptive and confusing

trademarks and provides no protection for unregistered trademarks. The law makes it an

offence for anyone to violate registered trademarks in any of the following ways; forge or

counterfeit, falsely represent, apply without the consent of the owner, possess devices for

procuring, sell, export and/or import goods with counterfeit trademarks. Penalties for

person convicted for counterfeiting, importation, exportation and sale of goods with

infringing trademarks include fines not exceeding 48 currency points73 or not more than 2

years imprisonment or both penalties. On the other hand, false representation, use of

trademarks without owner’s consent and possession of devices for procuring counterfeit

trademarks, are punishable by fines not exceeding 100 currency points or not more than 5

years imprisonment or both penalties. In addition, property involved in the offenses may

be forfeited. Although not explicitly classified, this legislation can be seen to presents two

sets of offenses: misdemeanours and felonies respectively. It is of course the duty of the

complainant to provide sufficient evidence of infringement upon institution of litigation in

court. The Victim may claim damages from the offender whether or not the latter has been

successfully prosecuted. However, this law doesn’t explicitly state the type of court

mandated to preside over these offenses. It doesn’t also clearly state the administering

body, although it appears to be under the jurisdiction of the Uganda Registration Services

Bureau (URSB) in collaboration with the Judiciary and the prison services.

The Factories Act, 195374

This legislation concerns public factories. It requires that all relevant factories initially

undergo registration before operationalization, and lays down the general hygiene and

72 See Sections 1, 8, 13, 23(1)(5), 25, 34, 71, 73, 75-79, 81(1)(a)(4) of this Acthttp://www.aatf-

africa.org/userfiles/UgandaTMAct.pdf (17/01/2014) 73

A currency point is equivalent to 20000 UG. Shs. (8 USD) 74

See Sections 2, 6, 10-15, 55, 66-69, 75 and 81 of this Act http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/220 (06/01/2014)


Chapter 4

http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/UgandaTMAct.pdf

http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/UgandaTMAct.pdf



sanitation requirements they should fulfill. It mandates authorized inspectors to carry out

regular scheduled inspections and sampling on factory premises and all materials and

equipment, for compliance to requirements. The inspectors may in addition institute legal

proceedings against non-compliant factory owners. Contravention of requirements and

forgery of legal documents such as registration certificates constitute offences under this

Act. Penalties for offenses include fines not exceeding 3000 UG Shs. (1.2 USD) or

imprisonment for a period not more than 3 months or not more than 3 years, depending on

the type of offense. Prosecution of all offenses is entirely done in the magistrates’ court

under the jurisdiction of either the chief or grade I magistrate. Essentially, this legislation

achieves food fraud intervention by preventing the production of substandard food

products. The law is administered by the labour commission in collaboration with police,

court and prison services.

The Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) Act, 198375

Section 2 of this Act establishes UNBS, the main body mandated to formulate, promote and

enforce national standards. Pursuant to this legislation, UNBS has promulgated 188

compulsory food and feed standards which guide food fraud intervention (UNBS, 2013).

Section 21 (1)&(2) of the UNBS Act prohibits any form of dealings in any commodity for

which a compulsory standard specification has been declared unless the product conforms

to the compulsory standard specifications and bears a distinctive mark. Of course, the use

of the distinctive mark must be legally permitted and approved by UNBS. Certified products

bearing a distinctive mark are subject to continuous random sampling and testing to

ensure continuous conformance to requirements. Contravention of requirements under

this legislation constitutes an offence as laid down in Section 26. Penalties, on conviction

include fines not exceeding 30000 UG. Shs. (12USD) or imprisonment for a period not

exceeding 24 months or both such fines and imprisonment. In addition, part or all of the

75 See Sections 2, 16, 18, 21, 22 and 26-27 of this Act

http://www.opm.go.ug/assets/media/resources/404/UGANDA%20NATIONAL%20BUREAU%20OF%20STANDARDS%20ACT.pdf (17/01/2014)


Chapter 4




commodity and implements implicated in the offence may be forfeited and disposed of as

per court’s order. This legislation is administered by UNBS in collaboration with police,

court and prisons.

4.2.3 Regulations

The Dairy (marketing and processing of milk and milk products) Regulations, 2003

This regulation lays down procedures and conditions for engaging in any dairy business. It

is a general requirement for any such business to undergo registration by the DDA before

starting operation. This enables the authority to closely monitor the activities of these

businesses and possibly detect any illegal practices. Dairy products destined for export are

subjected to inspection and analysis for conformity to standards before permission for

shipment. However, the law doesn’t provide for such inspection and analysis procedures

for products transported and consumed within the country, although they are granted a

transport permit. Furthermore, it doesn’t explicitly state penalties for non-compliant

dealers.76 This regulation is administered by the Uganda Dairy Development Authority.

The UNBS (certification) Regulations, 199577

This regulation provides for voluntary certification of products in line with both national

and international voluntary standards. It lays down procedures and conditions for

acquisition and application of the UNBS quality (Q) mark and various systems certification

marks. It is a prerequisite for anybody intending to use any of these marks to acquire a

permit and approval of the UNBS council. The marks are applied on products specified at

the time of application for the permit. Permitted use of these marks is accompanied by

regular surveillance audits to ensure continuous compliance to the relevant standards

(Section 11 and 26 UNBS Regulation, 1995). Breach of compliance with any of the

76http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/26 (17/01/2014)

77 See Sections 3, 4, 10, 11-13, 17, 28 and 30 of this regulation. For confidentiality reasons, this regulation is

unavailable on line (this was agreed upon between me and the information provider)


Chapter 4

http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/26


provisions herein results in cancellation or withdrawal or suspension of the permit, unless

the permit holder provides a written explanation of the non-compliance. Illegal use of the

marks constitutes an offense and is punishable on conviction by penalties stipulated under

sections 26-29 of the UNBS Act. UNBS administers this legislation in collaboration with

police, court and prison services.

The UNBS (imports inspection and clearance) Regulations, 200278

This legislation is mainly intended to prohibit importation of substandard and fraudulent

products into the country. It provides for assessment of conformity to relevant standards of

all imported goods before release into the country. Under Article 6 of this legislation, it is a

requirement for all product importers to acquire an import clearance certificate before

release, sale, distribution, use or transfer to the market of all goods. Exceptions to this

provision are goods bearing certification marks of EAC member countries and those from

other countries already bearing the UNBS standards certification mark. Contravention of

requirements under this legislation constitutes a convictable offence. Penalties include

fines not in excess of 3000 UG Shs. (1.2 USD) or/and imprisonment for a period not

exceeding 3 months. Non- conforming products are intercepted at the point of entry and

either re-exported or appropriately disposed of at the importer’s expense. UNBS

administers this regulation in collaboration with police, court and prison services.

The weights and measures (sale and labelling of goods) Rules, 200779

This legislation provides for protection of the consumer against fraudulent presentation of

goods. Particular emphasis is placed on tempering, deceptive packaging and labelling, false

declaration of product information and use of illegitimate instruments of measurement. It

stipulates the legally accepted units of measurement for different kinds of products in

addition to specifying the standard quantities for presentation of pre-packaged goods. Pre-

78 See Articles 6-8, 10-12 of this regulation. For confidentiality reasons, this regulation is not available on line

79 Refer to sections 5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and schedules 1-8, 14 of this rule. Unfortunately, this

legislation is not available online.


Chapter 4


Chapter 4


packaged goods shall be individually and conspicuously labelled with the name and

address of the manufacturer (and importer for imported products); common name of

product; weight or measure and expiry date of product. Whereas the rule stipulates that,

the label should be securely attached to the product container, it doesn’t clearly say how

this can be achieved and it gives no information on ingredient labelling. Infringement of

requirements under this rule constitutes an offence. Penalties for convicted persons

include fines not exceeding 2000 UG. Shs. (0.8 USD) or not more than 3 months

imprisonment or both penalties. When goods are found to violate quantity specifications,

the owner is under obligation to destroy or re-pack the products before re-selling them.

Although it is not explicitly stated who is administering this rule, it appears to be under the

control of UNBS in collaboration with police, court and prisons.

4.2.4 Bills

The UNBS Anti-counterfeiting Bill, 201080

This bill is particularly meant to prohibit trade and release into channels of commerce

counterfeit goods81 with respect to copyrights and trademarks infringement. Under Section

16 (1) and (6)(b), it is an offense for anyone to knowingly possess, manufacture, expose,

batter, donate, exhibit, distribute, import, export or in any other manner dispose of

counterfeit goods for trade, unless he/she provides the source of the suspected goods.

80 See Sections 2, 6,7,10, 11,12,16,17 and 23 of this bill

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcl.american.edu%2Fpijip%2Fdownload.cfm%3Fdownloadfile%3D916DA7FE-B94E-491D-A737C1279E31C2DE%26typename%3DdmFile%26fieldname%3Dfilename&ei=3k7ZUvChK8bP0QXahICQBA&usg=AFQjCNH_IcGkprhxIgtzp0b8ADhn5rx5jg (17/01/2014) 81 “in relation to any goods alleged to infringe any copyright, any goods which are copies made without the consent

of the rights holder or person duly authorized by the right holder in the country of production and which are made directly or indirectly from an article where the making of that copy would have constituted an infringement of a copyright or a related right under the law of the country of importation”. “in relation to any goods alleged to infringe any trademark, any goods, including packaging, bearing without authorization a trademark which is identical to the trademark validly registered in respect of those goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from that trademark, and which thereby infringes the rights of the owner of the trademark in question under the law of the country of importation (Section 2)”


Chapter 4

http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcl.american.edu%2Fpijip%2Fdownload.cfm%3Fdownloadfile%3D916DA7FE-B94E-491D-A737C1279E31C2DE%26typename%3DdmFile%26fieldname%3Dfilename&ei=3k7ZUvChK8bP0QXahICQBA&usg=AFQjCNH_IcGkprhxIgtzp0b8ADhn5rx5jg





Penalties for persons convicted under this law-to-be include fines ranging between 5-30

times the value of the market price of the genuine goods or imprisonment for a period

ranging between 5-20 years or both such fines and imprisonment. In addition, implicated

counterfeit goods and equipment may be forfeited to government and the business

premises closed. The gravity of the penalties of course depends on the kind of business one

is involved in. It is the duty of the IPR holder to detect and provide sufficient evidence to

the UNBS council, of any offence against his/her rights. Although this bill intends to harshly

punish counterfeit product dealers, it remains a huge challenge for the IPR holders to

detect and identify the culprits. By nature of penalties laid out, offenses under this bill can

be seen to constitute felonies, which conflicts the penal code classification of the same

offenses. In addition, it is not clear which court may preside over these offences.

Furthermore, the bill doesn’t provide for special compensation to the victims of

infringement, other than the 10% share of the fines paid by the culprit. Administration of

this bill is a function of UNBS in collaboration with Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and

other enforcement agencies.

Consumer Protection Bill 200482

This bill is meant to protect consumers against various fraudulent practices by sellers and

to establish a small claims court. It specifically makes it an offence for anyone to supply

consumer goods which don’t meet the general safety requirements laid down in the bill;

puts an obligation on sellers to supply true information about a commodity to the buyer;

prohibits false and deceptive advertisement and presentation as to the true facts about a

commodity; prohibits door-to-door sale and misleading price indications; and gives the

buyer the right to take action against the seller in case of breach of a guarantee. Settlement

of disputes arising from these provisions is due to take place in small claims courts

presided over by competent officers. Remedies/penalties may include cancellation or

revision of a contract and payment of damages and fines by the offender. In addition, court

82 See Clauses 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14-15, 18, 25, 29, 33 and the schedule of this bill (ULRC, 2004)


Chapter 4


Chapter 4


may order destruction and withdrawal from the market of implicated goods and services

within a specified period of time. Contravention of safety requirements under this bill

attracts, on conviction, fines of not more than 5000 currency points83 or imprisonment for

a period not exceeding 6 months or both fines and imprisonment, unless the suspect

proves to be a retailer, not aware of the safety status of the goods. Unfortunately, the bill is

silent about manufacturers. Administrative powers of this bill are also not clear, although it

is destined to be under small claims court in collaboration with prison services.

4.2.5 Standards and codes of practice

Food fraud regulation is guided by both voluntary and compulsory national food standards.

The former category mainly consists of systems international standards and codes of

practice, which manufacturers may implement voluntarily. The latter category consists of

both locally developed and international and regional standards expressly adopted as

Uganda standards. All standards relating to food products are compulsory. Essentially,

every food product has unique minimum standard specifications to which it must comply

before being placed on the market (vertical standards). Complying products are granted a

certificate of compliance and fitted with a distinctive mark. Products falling short of

minimum requirements are regarded substandard and therefore not expected on the

market. Substandard products in most cases portray acts of fraud e.g. they may be

underweight, adulterated or contaminated with substantially high microbial loads. All

certified products are subject to continuous inspection to ensure adherence to relevant

standards. Enforcement of compulsory standards is achieved through the UNBS Act 1983

under Section 21 (1) & (2) (See Law text box 4.1). Pursuant to this provision, persons

convicted of dealing in substandard products are liable to fines not exceeding 20000 UG.

Shs. (8 USD) or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or both penalties. In

addition, implicated products may be confiscated as stipulated under Section 27 (2) & (4)

83 A currency point is equal to 20000 UG Shs. (8 USD)


Chapter 4


Chapter 4


Chapter 4


of the same Act. Due to their multiplicity, vertical food standards are not analyzed here,

instead the Uganda general standard on labelling of pre-packaged foods is discussed as a

model.

US 7: 2002 General standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods

This standard lays down technical requirements for labelling and presentation of all pre-

packaged food and food products meant for sale. Clause 3 provides against deceptive and

confusing labelling. The following information must appear on the product label in

accordance to clause 4 and 5;

Name of product

Ingredient list

Net contents and drain weight

Name and address of food business operator

Country of origin

Lot number

Expiry dates and storage conditions

Instructions for use

Irradiated state of food

Quantity of certain ingredients


Chapter 4

Section 21 UNBS Act 1983

(1) No person shall import, distribute, manufacture, sell or have in his or her possession

or control for sale or distribution any commodity for which a compulsory standard

specification has been declared unless the commodity conforms to the compulsory

standard specification.

(2) No person shall import, distribute, sell or have in his or her possession or control for sale or distribution any commodity for which a compulsory standard specification has been declared unless the commodity bears the distinctive mark.

Law text box 4.1: Section 21 UNBS Act 1983 on Product conformance to compulsory standard specifications


Chapter 4


Chapter 4


Labelling of the above mandatory information shall be done in such a way that, it is

inseparable from the container, clear, prominent, indelible and in a language (English)

readily readable by the consumer/buyer.84 Certified products may in addition carry the

UNBS certification mark(s). Table 4.3 gives a summary analysis while Figure 4.8 shows the

basic model of the Ugandan food fraud legal and regulatory framework.

Table 4.3: Summary analysis of the food fraud legal and regulatory framework

Legislation/Standard

Fraudulent practice addressed

offenses Penalty/remedy

Classification of offenses

Implementing body

A) Acts

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995

N/A N/A N/A N/A Parliament, Judiciary, Police, MAAIF, MoH, MTTC, MIA

The Food and Drug Act 1959, Chapter 278

Adulteration Advertisement and dealing in adulterated food and food unfit for human consumption

Fine ≤ 2000 UG. Shs. (≤ 0.8 USD) or ≤ 3 months imprisonment or both plus seizure of products

Unclassified

MoH, NDA, UNBS, DDA, MAAIF, police, courts, prisons

The Penal Code Act 1950, Chapter 120 (criminal law)

Counterfeiting, adulteration, cheating, conspiracy to defraud, smuggling

Sale of adulterated and counterfeit food, False declaration of information

≤2 years imprisonment

Misdemeanours

Not specified

Cheating, conspiracy to defraud

3 years imprisonment unclassified

Smuggling 3-14 years imprisonment plus fine ≤ 5 million UG. Shs. (≤ 2000 USD)

Felony

The Dairy Industry Act 2000, Chapter 85

Evasion of financial and administrative obligations

Unauthorized operation of business

Fines ≤ 25 CP or ≤ 6 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified DDA

84 See clause 8. For confidentiality reasons, this standard is un available on line


Chapter 4


The Enguli (manufacture and licensing ) Act1966, Chapter 86



Fine ≤ 3000 UG. Shs. (≤ 1.2 USD) or ≤ 6 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified Courts, Police, prisons, licensing authorities

The Liquor Act, 1960, Chapter 93



Fine ≤ 10000 UG. Shs. (4 USD) or ≤ 12 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified Police, prisons, courts, licensing authorities

The Shop hours Act 1963, Chapter 99

Unclear Business outside stipulated time

Fine ≤ 1000 UG Shs. (≤ 0.4 USD)

unclassified Police, courts

Weights and Measures Act, 1965, Chapter 103

Deceptive labelling, deceptive weights and measures

Dealing in under-weight pre-packaged goods, use of false measurement units

Fine ≤ 5000 UG. Shs. (≤ 2 USD) or ≤ 6 months imprisonment plus forfeiture of equipment

unclassified UNBS, police, courts, prisons

The Evidence Act 1909, Chapter 6

All N/A N/A N/A Not specified

The Magistrates court Act 1971, Chapter 16

All N/A N/A Infringement of weights and measures requirements classified as misdemeanour

Judiciary, police, prisons

The Police Act 1994, Chapter 303

All N/A N/A N/A Police

The Prisons Act 1958, Chapter 304

All N/A N/A N/A Prisons

The Sale of Goods Act 1932, Chapter 82 (contract law)

All Sale of products short of customer specifications

Payment of damages to the customer, sale of products at a reduced price

Unclassified Not specified

The Public Health Act 1935, Chapter 281

Skipping standard operating procedures

Production and sale of substandard food products

Fine ≤ 2000 UG. Shs. (≤ 0.8 USD) or ≤ 12 months imprisonment or both penalties

Unclassified MoH, MAAIF, Local authorities, court, prisons

The Trademarks Act 2010, Chapter 217

Counterfeiting Counterfeiting, dealing in products with infringing trademarks

Fine ≤ 48 CP or ≤ 2 years imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified Not specified

The Factories Act 1953, Chapter 220 (for government factories)

Skipping standard operating procedures

Production and sale of substandard food products, forgery

Fines ≤ 3000 UG. Shs. (≤1.2 USD )or ≤ 3 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified Labour Commission, police, courts, prisons


Chapter 4


of legal documents e.g. licenses

The Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act 1983, Chapter 327

Production of substandard food products

Dealing in substandard food products

Fines ≤ 30000 UG. Shs. (≤ 12 USD) or ≤ 24 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified UNBS, police, prisons, courts

B) Regulations

Dairy (marketing and processing of milk and milk products) Regulations, 2003 No. 26

Adulteration, Evasion of financial and administrative obligations

Dealing in adulterated dairy products, unauthorized dealing in dairy products

Not explicitly stated unclassified DDA

The UNBS (certification) Regulations, 1995

Skipping standard operating procedures, counterfeiting

Production and sale of substandard products, illegal use of UNBS certification marks

Fines ≤ 20000 UG. Shs. (≤ 8 USD) or ≤ 18 months or both penalties plus withdrawal of permit to use certification marks

unclassified UNBS, police, court, prison

The UNBS (import inspection and clearance) Regulations, 2002

All except counterfeiting

Importation of goods without a clearance certificate,

Fines ≤ 3000 UG. Shs. (≤1.2 USD) or ≤ 3 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified UNBS, police, prisons, courts

The weights and Measures (sale and labelling of goods) Rules, 2007

Tempering, deceptive packaging and labeling, false declaration of product information, false weights and measurements

Infringement of requirements with regard to packaging, labeling, weights, measures and units of measurement

Fines ≤2000 UG. Shs. (≤ 0.8 USD) or ≤ 3 months imprisonment or both penalties

unclassified Not specified

C) Bills

The Anti-counterfeiting bill, 2010

counterfeiting Dealing in counterfeit goods

Fines 5-30 times the value of the market price of genuine goods or 5-20 years imprisonment or both penalties plus forfeiture of counterfeit foods and closure of premises

Unclassified UNBS, URA, police, prisons, courts

The Consumer protection bill, 2004

Deceptive advertisement, labelling, packaging, misleading price indications, sale

Sale of infringing food with regard to labelling, packaging, pricing and safety requirements.

Fines ≤ 5000 CP or imprisonment for ≤ 6 months or both penalties, Payment of damages, cancellation of contract,

Unclassified Small claims court, prison


Chapter 4


of unsafe food, Providing misleading information during advertisement

destruction or withdrawal of fraudulent food from the market

D) Standards General Standard for labelling of pre-packaged foods (US 7: 2002)

False and misleading labelling

N/A N/A N/A UNBS

Other vertical food standards e.g. bread, sugar, fruit juices, spices etc.

Production of substandard food products

N/A N/A N/A UNBS

Figure 4.8: Basic model of the Ugandan food fraud legal framework

Policies

Acts of

Parliament

Technical

standards

Regulations

Food fraud

intervention

Legislation relating

to food fraud


Chapter 4



Uganda has no single solid legislation on food fraud, but rather a multitude of

fragmented fraud-related policies, Acts, regulations and standards, providing for

administrative, technical and legal requirements.

Apart from the Sale of goods, Penal code, Weights and Measures, Food and Drug

and Trademarks Acts which directly address fraud, other legislations address food

fraud from an indirect perspective. The Dairy industry, Factories, Public health and

UNBS Acts and import clearance and certification regulations mainly address fraud

from the perspective of substandard products, with a major focus on human health

and life.

Some legislation have overlapping provisions yet with varying sanctions against

similar fraudulent practices, for example, the Penal code and the Food and Drug

Acts both provide against food adulteration but provide different penalties. It is

not clear how court chooses between these legislations during litigation.

All legislations (except the Trademarks and the Sale of goods Acts) are inclined to

providing obligations at the subordination of rights. As a result, although Section

126 (2) of the Ugandan constitution provides for adequate compensation of

victims of wrong, most legislation (except the trademarks and the sale of goods

Acts) only provide for penal actions against fraudsters, with no remedies to the

victim. Sometimes, when buyers are cheated, it is never their priority to see the

offender imprisoned or pay fines in court, but rather to receive remedies for

damages (ULRC, 2004). This notwithstanding, the penalties are very weak: fines

and imprisonment sentences are not clearly stated for majority legislations; only

the upper and not the lower limit are provided in all cases. Stating that, a penalty

shall not exceed a certain limit prima facie implies that, everything below the

stated limit is applicable.


Chapter 4


4.3 The Ugandan food fraud institutional framework (Q 2(ii))

In this section, analysis of all stakeholder institutions dealing with food fraud in Uganda is

made. Analysis is made with regard to institutional mandates, tasks, type of intervention

and expertise constituent.

Pursuant to the Penal code classification of offenses, all fraudulent offenses (except

false representation of trademarks, use of trademarks without owner’s consent and

possession of devices for procuring counterfeit trademarks, which constitute

felonies) can be seen to constitute misdemeanours. However, forgery of certificates

and false representation of information therein (Factories Act) and conspiracy to

defraud (Penal Code Act) don’t belong to any of the two (felonies or

misdemeanours) classifications.

Although the Magistrates’ court Act mandates the magistrates court to adjucate all

civil cases, actual litigation procedures are not clear for all laws, for example,

whether the offended person should report a case directly to court, police or the

authorities. Besides, it is not clear how fraudulent offenses stipulated under the

Penal Code Act are distributed, as this is criminal law. Initiation of civil litigation

requires parties in a case to clearly know their rights and obligations, which calls

for adequate sensitization of the public about all relevant laws. Unfortunately, no

single legislation analyzed here provides for how this can be achieved.

Although most legislations are clear about administrative and implementation

powers, the following don’t explicitly state such powers; the Weights and Measures

(sale and labelling of goods) rules, 2007; the Trademarks Act, 2010; Sale of goods

Act, 1932; Evidence Act, 1909 and the Penal code Act, 1950.

Uganda has two food fraud bills; the Anti-counterfeiting bill, 2010 and the

Consumer protection bill, 2004. However, these need thorough scrutiny and

revision before they can be enacted into active laws.


Chapter 4


4.3.1 National government

4.3.1.1 The Cabinet

The cabinet is the key policy formulating and implementing body. The Ugandan cabinet is

made up of cabinet and state ministers officially appointed by the president under section

111 of the constitution of the republic of Uganda. Ministers are responsible for ministries.

There are five major ministries related to food fraud regulation in Uganda: Ministry of

Trade Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC); Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and

Fisheries (MAAIF); Ministry of Health (MoH); Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA) and

Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT). The major roles of these

ministries are four fold; making policy recommendations; formulation and implementation

of policy documents; implementation of laws and standards and provision of technical as

well as financial support to affiliate agencies directly involved in food fraud regulation.

Ministry of Trade Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC)

The main function of MTIC in the fight against food fraud lies in the establishment and

support to Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), the main affiliate body directly

responsible for food fraud regulation and standardization in Uganda. Through this agency,

the ministry undertakes the implementation of the UNBS Act of 1983. MTIC has also

formulated three key fraud-related policies (see section 4.3) and supports and oversees

their implementation (MTTI, 2007 & 2008; MTIC, 2012).

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)

MAAIF runs two directorates namely; Crop resources and Animal resources and one

department namely; the Fisheries. It has one affiliate agency directly involved in food fraud

regulation, i.e. the Dairy Development Authority, which is mainly responsible for the


Chapter 4


regulation of milk adulteration85. Pursuant to sections 15, 18, 24 and 25 of the Food and

Drug Act of 1959, MAAIF has authorized officers who undertake the inspection of food

processing establishments and food transport vessels for possible fraudulent practices,

including tracing for meat and dairy products from diseased animals86. Persons found in

practice of fraud are forwarded for prosecution as of Section 3 of the Act and may have

their license cancelled on conviction by court as of section 28 of the same Act.

Ministry of Health (MoH)

MoH plays a major role in responding to food fraud victims who experience health

complications. MoH has affiliate health facilities spanning from small village health centers

through district hospitals, regional referral hospitals to the national referral hospital. In

2012, when more than 100 people were affected by methanol poisoning in alcoholic

products, some were able to survive because they received medical attention87. MoH has 7

departments, however, it is not clear which of these and what kind of expertise specifically

deals with food fraud cases88. The ministry also employs health inspectors who routinely

undertake inspection of food preparation and eating establishments both at the national

and lower government levels. NDA, another affiliate body of MoH, recently established a

Food desk which is destined to undertake the regulation of food as reviewed in section

4.3.3.3.

Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT)

MICT houses the main communication channels through which food fraud related

information is communicated between the public and relevant authorities. These include

both print and electronic media. Through its department of broadcasting infrastructure,

85http://www.agriculture.go.ug/index-page-sectors-id-82.htm (5/12/2013)

86 Food and drug Act 1959 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/278 (5/12/2013)

87 http://digitaljournal.com/article/291234 (5/12/2013)

88 This could not be established because interviews with ministry officials were unsuccessful


Chapter 4

http://www.agriculture.go.ug/index-page-sectors-id-82.htm


http://digitaljournal.com/article/291234


MICT oversees the performance of broadcasting service providers89 to ensure efficient and

effective public communication.

Ministry of Internal Affairs (MoIA)

Within its mandate of keeping peace, law and order and ensuring safe custody, humane

treatment and rehabilitation of offenders, MoIA oversees and supports the work of police

and prisons, its key affiliate bodies90. Police works with technical staff of various regulatory

bodies in apprehending and prosecuting fraudsters, while prisons services take custody of

convicts and remandees.

4.3.1.2 Legislature

The parliament is the main legislative body of Uganda, instituted and mandated to make

laws under section 77(1) and 79(1) of the Ugandan constitution of 1995.91 Pursuant to

these constitutional provisions, parliament has promulgated several legislations which

guide food fraud regulation and deterrence in Uganda as already reviewed in section 4.2.

Parliament is currently in the process of passing into law the anti-counterfeiting and

consumer protection bills, expected to be some of the most important food fraud

legislations. The legislative role of parliament is guided by ministers through their policy

recommendations, regulatory authorities who sometimes undertake the drafting of bills

and the Law Reform Commission which gives advice and recommendations for law

amendments.

4.3.1.3 Judiciary (courts)

The judiciary is the key body administering justice to food fraud suspects and victims in

accordance to Section 126(2) of the 1995 Ugandan constitution (see section 4.2). Such

89http://www.ict.go.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:department-of-broadcasting-

infrastructure-&catid=49:departments&Itemid=85 (5/12/2013) 90

http://www.ugandapoliceppp.com/AboutUganda/MinistryandUPF.aspx (5/12/2013) 91

The constitution of the republic of Uganda, 1995 http://www.parliament.go.ug/new/images/stories/constitution/Constitution_of_Uganda_1995.pdf (5/12/2013)


Chapter 4

http://www.ict.go.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:department-of-broadcasting-infrastructure-&catid=49:departments&Itemid=85

http://www.ict.go.ug/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:department-of-broadcasting-infrastructure-&catid=49:departments&Itemid=85

http://www.ugandapoliceppp.com/AboutUganda/MinistryandUPF.aspx



cases are presided over by the magistrates’ court, under the jurisdiction of the chief, grade

I, II and III magistrates, who are obligated to conduct proceedings within 48 hours of the

culprit being apprehended92. Culprits are on conviction either given custodial sentences or

fined, depending on the type of fraudulent offense committed and legislation applied.

However, due to the multiplicity of laws relating to food fraud regulation, it is not explicitly

clear which discretionary criteria are applied in choosing laws for adjudicating related

cases.

4.3.2 Uganda Law Reform Commission (ULRC)

ULRC is a constitutional body institutionalized pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Ugandan

constitution of 1995, to undertake the continuous study and review of legislation with a

view of recommending them for improvement, modernization and reform. This role is

achieved through its law reform and law revision93 departments that work

collaboratively94. Since its institutionalization in 2000, ULRC has made several legal reform

recommendations including the recommendation to enact a consolidated consumer

protection Act, by merging provisions from various selected trade-related legislation

(ULRC, 2004). This initiative was undertaken after realization through research, that,

Uganda lacked functional consumer protection laws to administer adequate redress to

victimized consumers. The recommendation, now a bill, when successfully passed is

expected to address issues of consumer rights’ violation, including giving appropriate

redress to food fraud victims. This is because the bill expressly prohibits unfair and

deceptive trade practices, sets safety, quality and reliability standards which when violated

by the seller would attract hefty penalties (ULRC, 2004).

92 Section 208 Magistrates court Act, 1971 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/16 (6/12/2013)

93 Law revision refers to the process of updating the law without changing its substance.

94 Uganda law reform commission http://www.ulrc.go.ug/?page_id=62(6/12/2013)


Chapter 4


http://www.ulrc.go.ug/?page_id=62


4.3.3 Regulatory authorities

The main body dealing with food fraud regulation and deterrence is Uganda National

Bureau of Standards (UNBS). Others include National Drug Authority (NDA) and Dairy

Development Authority (DDA).

4.3.3.1 Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS)

UNBS is a statutory organization affiliated to the Ministry of Trade, Industry and

Cooperatives (MTIC), and established by an Act of parliament of 1983. Its mandate is to

formulate, promote and enforce national standards with the aim of protecting public health

and safety and promotion of fair trade.

In accordance with this mandate, UNBS has put in place a number of measures to curb the

proliferation of fraudulent food products on the market. These measures are achieved

through 7 main departments namely standardization; product testing; quality assurance;

import inspection and clearance; legal metrology; training and legal and two divisions

namely; surveillance and certification as reviewed hereunder.

Standardization department

Food fraud regulation is achieved through voluntary and compulsory national

standards.9596 Standardization is undertaken by technical committees comprising of

members from interested stakeholders such as manufacturers, consumers, traders,

importers, etc.97The technical committees on food and agricultural products and metrology

are responsible for formulating standards that pertain to food fraud. Standardization is

95 “Standards are documents that contain technical and other requirements that products and services have to

comply with, for example, design, material, performance, manufacturing and testing requirements, including packaging and labeling” http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/standards/what-are-standards (12/12/2013) 96

Compulsory standards are those whose minimum requirements must be met or conformed to by business operators. They cover products which havedirect adverse effects on consumer health and safety, for example food, electrical, chemical, building and cosmetic products (UNBS, 2009). 97

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/standards/how-do-we-develop-standards (12/12/2013)


Chapter 4

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/standards/what-are-standards

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/standards/how-do-we-develop-standards


done in accordance to international standards such as the Codex and ISO, and sometimes

these are adopted in their entirety, since Uganda lacks the capacity to undertake systematic

standardization procedures (US 7: 2000). The standards mainly provide microbiological,

chemical and physical quality criteria; specifications on ingredients; water sources;

premises and personnel hygiene; production process and equipment; packaging and

labelling and testing of the final product to ensure safe and non-fraudulent products (UNBS,

2009). Interested parties access the standards of their choice from the UNBS offices.

Sometimes the standardization process is initiated by interested food manufacturers who

wish to make and introduce a new product.

Quality Assurance department (QA)

QA is the main department enforcing mandatory national standards and ensuring

compliance to voluntary standards. This is achieved through its two divisions: certification

and surveillance.

Certification is about confirming certain characteristics of a product as stipulated in the

applicable standard, usually achieved through external review, assessment or audits.98

UNBS undertakes food product certification in accordance to both voluntary and

mandatory standards. Voluntary standards certification is done in accordance to

certification regulations of 1995 while compulsory standards certification is done in

accordance to the UNBS Act of 1983. Both schemes initially involve auditing and approval

of the applicants’ production premises as well as product sampling and testing before a

certificate of compliance and a permit to use the distinctive marks are granted. Products

meeting both voluntary and mandatory specifications are granted a Q mark, to signify

excellence. The S mark is granted to products meeting compulsory standards specifications

to imply product safety (UNBS, 2009). In addition, UNBS is involved in process certification

against international ISO standards and products certified in accordance to these standards

are awarded an appropriate distinctive mark. The distinctive marks which normally carry a

98 http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/certification/what-is-certification (12/12/2013)


Chapter 4

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/certification/what-is-certification


reference to the number or name of the standards against which the product has been

certified, are usually imprinted together with the UNBS logo, on the product packaging.

Products bearing these distinctive marks are popularly known as certified products. They

attract a lot of consumer loyalty compared with their uncertified counterparts because they

guarantee quality, safety and reliability of the products. Certified products and companies

are enlisted with in the bureau’s record system for easy monitoring.99 UNBS certification

marks are available online. Although they are meant for authorized users, this exposes

them to unauthorized users who may use them on counterfeit and fake products. Figures

4.9, 4.10, 4.11and 4.12 show the UNBS distinctive marks commonly applied on products.

99 The company and product list is not provided here for confidentiality reasons

Figure 4.9: The UNBS Logo

Source:

http://www.ecoprofiles.org/ad

min/images/dirLogos/UNBS-

logo.png

Figure 4.10: The UNBS Standards

mark. Source: UNBS web site

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.ph

p/s-mark

Figure 4.12: The UNBS Quality

mark. Source: UNBS web site

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.p

hp/q-mark

Figure 4.11: ISO systems certification

marks. Source:

http://alhasana.net/projects/unbs/im

ages/marks.png


Chapter 4

http://www.ecoprofiles.org/admin/images/dirLogos/UNBS-logo.png



http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/s-mark

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/s-mark

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/q-mark

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/q-mark

http://alhasana.net/projects/unbs/images/marks.png

http://alhasana.net/projects/unbs/images/marks.png


Enforcement of product standards is achieved through the market surveillance division

which continuously operates across the country. However, the division only undertakes the

enforcement of compulsory standards in accordance to the 1983 Act (UNBS, 2012). Section

21 (1) (2) of the UNBS Act, 1983 prohibits any one from the importation, distribution,

manufacture, sale, or possession or control for sale or distribution of any commodity for

which a compulsory standard has been declared unless the commodity conforms to the

compulsory standard specifications and bears a distinctive (S) mark.

The market surveillance division was launched way back in 2003 under the code name

operation Q, as a result of a huge public outcry concerning expired, fake, underweight,

substandard, adulterated and counterfeit products (UNBS, 2004 & 2008). The sole aim of

the surveillance initiative was therefore to rid the market of these products and

appropriately deal with business operators engaged in such products. The division

achieves this role through its two sections of industrial and market surveillance (UNBS,

2008).

Industrial surveillance section mainly deals with the inspection, registration and provision

of technical advisory services to small and large scale local manufacturing industries to

ensure that they produce and market products that conform to relevant standards. The

market surveillance section on the other hand focuses on the monitoring of both local and

imported food products that are already placed on the market, through the following

activities (UNBS, 2008);

Regular and random spot monitoring of commercial, industrial, storage and other

premises where food products are utilized

Response to consumer complaints

Consumer and trader education

Sampling and forwarding samples for analysis

Demanding necessary information related to any product from concerned parties.

In its implementation activities, the surveillance division through duly appointed

inspectors closely collaborates with other stakeholder agencies such as the police, court,

media, consumers and industry to form teams. This is largely achieved through a strong


Chapter 4


communication network, linked by the UNBS hot line and toll free telephone lines100 that

are made available to the public for purposes of volunteering any information pertaining to

fraudulent and substandard products. Depending on the type and nature of fraudulent

offence and supply stage at which the offense is committed, culprits are usually traced and

subjected to various penalties and actions to remedy the practices they are engaged in, as

shown in Table 4.4. In addition to these actions, UNBS carries out forced recalls and

withdrawals, arrests and prosecution of culprits, as well as banning of unapproved

practices. Companies that excellently conform to standards are rewarded as an incentive to

adhere to the habit. However, it is not clear whether victims of fraudulent practices are

compensated for damages incurred in purchasing and consuming fraudulent food products.

Table 4.4: Actions taken against food fraudsters during the months of April, May, July

and August 2013

Premise Fraudulent practices Actions taken

Factories

Skipping standard operating

procedures such as cleaning,

pre-package verification, and

equipment calibration

No evidence of product

testing

Deceptive labelling with

wrong physical address and

no batch numbers

Production against UNBS

closure orders

Suspension of production

Seizure of products

Destruction at producers’ cost

Advise to correct non-

conformances

Warning

Exposure on live TV broadcasts

100 The telephone numbers are not provided here for confidentiality reasons.


Chapter 4


Ware

houses

Re-packing in deceptive

packages

No evidence of import

clearance (smuggling)

Seizure of affected products

Super

markets,

Shops

and

groceries

Expired products Seizure of affected products

Closure of premises

Destruction of products on spot

Warning

Advise to continuously check

products

Written apologies

Exposure on live TV broadcasts

Source: Based on UNBS surveillance reports for the months indicated

Imports Inspection and Clearance department

Effective June 2013, UNBS operates a mandatory Pre-export Verification of Conformity

(PVoC) scheme on all imported products covered under compulsory national standards.

This is done in accordance to sections 21 (1) and 26 (1) of the UNBS Act of 1983 and Article

5 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)101. The scheme requires that

products are assessed from their country of origin before being exported to Uganda in

order to minimize the risk of unsafe, substandard and shoddy food products getting into

the country. Conforming products are awarded a certificate of conformity (COC) which

must be produced by the importer for verification at the point of entry before the products

are released into the country. PVoC is carried out by three international NGOs (SGS,

Intertek and Bureau Veritas), appointed and contracted by government of Uganda, to

101 http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/pvoc (13/12/2013)


Chapter 4

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/pvoc


perform conformity assessments102 on behalf of UNBS. Exceptions to PVoC are food

products bearing distinctive marks from individual East African Community member states

(EAC) and those from other countries that already bear the UNBS standards certification

(S) mark. However, possession of COC is no guarantee for release of products. Products

suspected not to comply with standards are re-assessed by UNBS inspectors and given a

certificate of inspection (if found compliant) at the point of entry before they are actually

released into the country (Art. 9 UNBS Regulation 2002)103. Non-conforming products are

either re-exported or disposed of at the expense of the importer, while persons that go

ahead to deal in illicit food products are arrested and prosecuted and the products seized

and disposed of according to Articles 11 and 12 UNBS Regulations, 2002. Unfortunately,

due to under staffing, UNBS is unable to operate all border points of entry; the likely reason

exotic fraudulent food products find their way into the country (UNBS, 2008). Inspectors

only concentrate on high volume entry points.

Product Testing department

This department undertakes the testing104 and analysis of inspection, voluntary,

surveillance, complaint and in-house105 samples in line with relevant standards. This is

mainly achieved through the chemistry and microbiology laboratories manned by

competent food microbiologists and chemists. Testing exposes adulterated, contaminated

and substandard food products, hence facilitating targeted actions and measures against

infringing food products before reaching the consumers. In order to confirm the results and

quality of sampling, UNBS sometimes partners with other laboratory facilities such as

Uganda Industrial Research institute (UIRI) and government chemists, to carry out

102 Conformity assessment involves the inspection, sampling, testing, analysis and issuance of certificate of

compliance to goods complying with relevant standards. 103

This is the UNBS (imports Inspection and clearance) regulation of 2002 104

Testing is the technical measurement or examination from which a competent person can draw a conclusion as to whether or not a product or service meets the standards requirements http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/testing/what-is-testing (13/12/2013) 105

In-house samples are those analyzed for the purposes of standards development process within the organization


Chapter 4

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/testing/what-is-testing


confirmatory tests. However, UNBS laboratories have limited capacity to detect some

complex chemical adulterants.

Metrology department

Metrology106department mainly enforces the weights and Measures (W & M) Act, 1965 and

the Sale and Labelling of goods rules, 2007 to ensure that products fulfill requirements of

trade measurements and product labelling. Section 25 of the W & M Act prohibits any one

from the use for trade or possession for trade any false or unjust weighing or measuring

equipment. Pursuant to this provision, control is achieved through the legal metrology

section, which is mainly concerned with regular verification and approval of weights,

measures and labels before they are applied in trade. Verified equipment is fitted with a

distinctive mark to signify conformity to standards. Industrial metrology on the other hand,

undertakes voluntary calibration of industrial measurement equipment such as weighing

scales, thermometers, viscometers, to achieve standard processing procedures and robust

measurements of food ingredients and finished products. Regular monitoring of food

business premises is done to ensure that illicit equipment is not used in trade.

Legal department

The legal department through the legal counsel is mainly concerned with giving legal

advice and contribution towards drafting relevant regulations. For example, cognizant that

most trade laws have gone obsolete, the counsel duly proposed the amendment of the

UNBS Act, 1983 which also seeks a special mandate over the W & M Act (UNBS, 2009).

Although, this amendment is aimed at enhancing punitive and deterrent measures against

offenders, nothing is suggested about the victims of fraud. Food fraud not only involves

cheating, but may also lead to serious health consequences, hence necessitating

106 Metrology is the science of measurement http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/metrology-1/what-is-metrology

(13/12/2013)


Chapter 4

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php/metrology-1/what-is-metrology


compensatory damages, at least for the sake of the afflicted health status. This therefore

represents a major area of consideration in drafting this bill.

4.3.3.2 The Dairy Development Authority (DDA)

DDA is a statutory body affiliated to the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and

Fisheries, established by the Dairy Industry Act, 2000 with the mandate to sustainably

develop and regulate the dairy industry. DDA is mainly involved in the regulation of milk

adulteration pursuant to Section 16 of the Food and Drug Act, 1959107. This is achieved

through its regulatory services department which undertakes the following activities in

line with consumers, government and milk and milk products dealers108 across the country

to ensure that non fraudulent milk and milk products are placed on the market.

Administrative decisions such as registration, licensing and permission of dairy

activities.

Quality assurance activities such as regular monitoring of dairy outlets/premises109,

sampling and testing of dairy products and premises.

Advising government on milk standards and coordinating their enforcement in

collaboration with UNBS

Educating business operators and consumers on milk hygiene and quality

standards

Continuous review of guidelines/standards to match current times

In essence, before any one starts any milk business, he/she must first acquire one or more

of the following legal documents, depending on the kind of business; a certificate of

registration, a license, a transportation permit or pre-shipment inspection certificate, in

107 “No person shall add any water or colouring matter or any other liquid or substance, or any dried or condensed

milk or liquid reconstituted from that dried or condensed milk, to milk intended for sale for human consumption” http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/278 (16/12/2013) 108

Milk/milk product dealers include; transporters, coolers and freezers, processors, importers, large scale sellers and roadside sellers. 109

Premises inspected include; factories, coolers, freezers, and tanks,


Chapter 4



accordance to the Dairy legislations110 111. These are granted after products have

demonstrated compliance with relevant standards. Inspection and sampling is done by

authorized inspectors and the milk samples are normally analyzed for composition,

microbial and chemical quality. Milk/milk products found falling short of required

standards are impounded, equipment and utensils seized and culprits arrested by police

and prosecuted (DDA, 2010).

4.3.3.3 The National Drug Authority (NDA)

NDA is an affiliate body of the Ministry of Health, established in 1994, mainly to regulate

drugs. Its mandate to regulate food issues was recently assumed through the establishment

of the food desk, whose main role in food fraud regulation is not yet well known112.

4.3.4 Enforcement agencies

Three main enforcement agencies are recognized in the fight against food fraud in Uganda;

Police forces, courts and prisons services, as overviewed here below.

4.3.4.1 Uganda Police Forces (UPF)

Established under Section 2 of the police Act, 1994, UPF is mandated to protect life and

property, prevent and detect crime, keep law and order and maintain overall security in

Uganda. Food fraud investigation is achieved through the economic crimes department,

housed under the Crime Investigation Directorate (CID). Section 31 of the police Act

empowers a police officer to institute criminal proceedings before a magistrate and search,

under warrant any person charged with an offense. Moreover, the police officer is also

empowered to seize and detain any property as exhibits in relation to the offence under

investigation, and prevent the property from being mishandled in a way as to conceal any

110 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/85 (16/12/2013)

111 http://www.ulii.org/files/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/26/the_dairy_2003_si_26_pdf_77445.pdf

(16/12/2013) 112

This could not be established because interviews with relevant officials were unsuccessful and the NDA website has no such information


Chapter 4


http://www.ulii.org/files/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/26/the_dairy_2003_si_26_pdf_77445.pdf


evidence of offence (Section 29 Police Act, 1994).Pursuant to these provisions, police

officers normally team up with regulatory officers during their routine monitoring trips in

which the former undertake arrests of suspected culprits under the advice of the technical

team. Additionally, the two teams can interchangeably alert each other through their

telephone hot lines, when they encounter food fraud suspects. Suspects are produced in

court within 48 hours of arrest. During the operation Q exercise carried out on business

premises (factories, supermarkets, shops, groceries, stores, butcheries and go-downs) in

and around Kampala, a total of 12 arrests were made and a good number of them

successfully prosecuted (UNBS, 2004).

4.3.4.2 Uganda Prison Services (UPS)

Established under Section 3 of the prisons Act, 1958, UPS is mandated to provide

reasonable, safe, secure and humane custody and rehabilitation of offenders. Food fraud

convicts, remandees and those under arrest but pending initial court appearance are all

kept in prison cells under the custody of a prisons officer- in-charge.113 Convicts are

subjected to various disciplinary actions during their sentence.

4.3.5 Media

Media form the awareness and communication plat form on food fraud issues. Uganda

hosts a number of print and electronic media channels through which journalists closely

collaborate with regulatory and enforcement authorities in dissemination of food fraud

information to the public. Press releases, news articles and broadcasts and food journal are

some of the routes through which this is achieved. Communication includes exposure of

culprits and their associated practices, warnings to the public on types of fraudulent

practices, affected products and how to detect and avoid them on the market. This strategy

would be among the best in dealing with food fraud, since it directly damages consumer

113See Sections 29,39 and 31 of the prisons Act, 1958 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/304

(18/12/2013)


Chapter 4



confidence. However, most consumers lack the competence to detect some complex

fraudulent practices such as adulteration and counterfeits, in which case they entirely have

to rely on alerts from regulatory authorities. Another constraint to this strategy is that,

most of these communication channels are not accessible to the rural poor as most can’t

afford the relevant gadgets (radios, TV sets, computers and newspapers).

4.3.6 Private sector

4.3.6.1 Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)

Although there may be many CSOs, two main ones outstand in the fight against food fraud

i.e. Uganda Consumers Protection Association (UCPA) and Consumer Education Trust

(CONSENT). The two are affiliates of Consumers International114 and their main aim is to

promote and defend consumer rights. This is majorly achieved through intense advocacy

for consumer rights and interests in trade, through consumer education; promotion of

ethical practices among businesses; response to consumer complaints and engagement of

policy-makers to make pro-people policies. One of the most strategic ways in which this is

being achieved by UCPA is the accumulation of consumer complaints to warrant

appropriate policy and legal measures. Whereas consumer organizations place

considerable effort at the realization of appropriate consumer protection, they feel highly

frustrated by the lack of commitment by government in its legislative role towards this

area, possibly because this may not feature as a national priority area. For example, UCPA

actively participated in the drafting and forwarding to the MTTI the 2004 draft consumer

protection bill, which to date sits still on the ministry’s shelves.115 UCPA and CONSENT

closely liaise with public authorities in dealing with consumer food fraud complaints.

However, during a Skype interview with the executive director of UCPA, it was revealed

that, sometimes, consumers are reluctant to report their complaints for lack of justice or

any form of follow-up by relevant authorities.

114 This is a global consumers forum headquartered in London UK http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-

we-are/about-us/ 115

See “consumer justice now’” at http://ugucpa.blogspot.nl/ (18/12/2013)


Chapter 4

http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/about-us/

http://www.consumersinternational.org/who-we-are/about-us/

http://ugucpa.blogspot.nl/


4.3.6.2 Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA)

As the name prima-facie suggests, UMA is an organization made up of representatives from

small, medium and large scale manufacturers from both private and public sectors. Its role

is mainly that of advocacy for manufacturers’ interests and advice to government on

relevant industry policies. UMA organizes and conducts annual national and international

trade fairs during which legitimate manufacturers are publicized and promoted.

Consumers also have the opportunity to interact with manufacturers and get acquainted

with genuine products. In dealing with food fraud, UMA closely collaborates with relevant

regulatory and enforcement bodies such as UNBS, police and media for appropriate action.

4.3.6.3 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs)

Intertek, Society Generale De Surveillance (SGS) and Bureau Veritas are the main

international NGOs contracted by the Ugandan government to provide 3rd-party conformity

assessment services of products covered under the PVoC scheme, on behalf of UNBS. This

was done in cognisance that, UNBS lacks adequate capacity to effectively and efficiently

inspect products entering the country. Third-party assessment by internationally

recognized expertise, using state-of-the-art technology therefore guarantees product

authenticity and conformity to relevant standards. This also eliminates the possibility of

corruption tendencies by some importers and border inspectors wishing to release illicit

products into the country under the influence of bribery benefits. Conformity assessment is

achieved through one or a combination of the following approaches116;

Physical inspection of products and premises

Sampling, testing and analysis in accredited laboratories

Audit of manufacturing processes

116 http://www.sgs.com/en/pages/Public-Sector/Product-Conformity-Assessment-Uganda-Information-

Request?wt.mc_id=gPUS18001a&WT.seg_1=pvoc%20uganda&WT.srch=1&gclid=CN-z8sj7ursCFQ1c3godgAYAkw (19/12/2013)


Chapter 4


Chapter 4

http://www.sgs.com/en/pages/Public-Sector/Product-Conformity-Assessment-Uganda-Information-Request?wt.mc_id=gPUS18001a&WT.seg_1=pvoc%20uganda&WT.srch=1&gclid=CN-z8sj7ursCFQ1c3godgAYAkw

http://www.sgs.com/en/pages/Public-Sector/Product-Conformity-Assessment-Uganda-Information-Request?wt.mc_id=gPUS18001a&WT.seg_1=pvoc%20uganda&WT.srch=1&gclid=CN-z8sj7ursCFQ1c3godgAYAkw


Documentary assessment of conformity to relevant technical standards and

regulations.

Conforming products are granted a COC which is normally presented to the border

inspectors by the importer for verification before permitting the products entry into the

country. Non-conforming products are denied a COC and therefore not permitted for

exportation. Figure 4.13 summarises the food fraud institutional framework of Uganda.

Figure 4.13: Ugandan institutional framework on food fraud

DDA

UIRI

UNBS

Police CID

Prisons

SGS

SGS

SGS

Intertek

CONSENT

UCPA

Industry

NGOs

CSOs

NDA food

desk

Hospitals

UMA

Print media

Electronic

media

Bureau

Veritas

Judiciary Parliament ULRC

Cabinet

MoH

MAAIF

MTIC

MIA

MICT

Private sector

Magistrate’

s court


Chapter 4



Uganda has a diverse food fraud institutional framework, involving both the public

and private sectors.

Intervention is mainly achieved through 3 constitutional bodies; parliament,

judiciary and the law reform commission, 5 ministries; MoH, MAAIF, MTIC, MIA

and MICT, 3 private sector bodies; civil society organizations, industry and non-

governmental organizations, 3 law enforcement agencies; police, prisons and

courts and the media.

There are very many food fraud regulatory bodies with overlapping roles, i.e.

UNBS, DDA, MAAIF and NDA.

UNBS is the main regulatory body directly dealing with food fraud in collaboration

with other stakeholders, for example private sector, media, police, court, prison

and various ministries. This is achieved through its 7 distinct departments

including standardization, legal, metrology, testing, training, quality assurance and

imports inspection and clearance. However, UNBS has no legal mandate on

counterfeits.

Food fraud is indirectly regulated through the food safety and fair trade

frameworks. This is mainly achieved through enforcement of legal, administrative

and technical requirements.

The main fraudulent practices being dealt with include; substandard food,

adulteration, tempering, deceptive packaging and labelling.

Measures being employed against food fraud include; official controls both at the

border and within the domestic chain; implementation of pre-export verification of

conformity to mandatory standards (PVoC); research; collaboration amongst

stakeholders; public education and awareness creation; certification;

administrative decisions such as licensing, registration and permission

Actions being taken against food fraud include; public exposure through media;

prosecution; seizure and destruction of fraudulent food and equipment; warnings;

advice; closure of premises; re-exportation, cancellation of legal documents and

suspension of business


Chapter 4


4.4 Way forward on effective food fraud intervention in Uganda (Q 3(I & ii))

Different views on food fraud deterrence and prevention have been forwarded. Spink, 2013

contends that, the strategic solution to food fraud lies in tackling its roots, which largely

involves focusing attention on the fraudsters, victims and gaps in intervention. It requires

a preventive rather than a reactive detection and intervention approach, encompassing the

entire food chain (Barnes, 1996; Spink and Moyer, 2011). In the same vein, Cendrowski, et

al., 2007 recommend the improvement of organizational procedures to eliminate the root

causes of fraud, taking into account both short-term (procedural) and long-term (cultural)

initiatives. The opportunity of fraud could be well reduced by increasing the risk of

detection, increasing the cost of fraud technology and that of developing quality levels that

attract consumers (Spink and Moyer, 2011; GMA, 2010). The adoption of a global public –

private partnership strategy, with clearly defined stakeholder roles has been emphasized

by many (EP, 2013; GMA, 2010; Spink, 2013117). Within this strategy, The European

Parliament suggests adoption of corporate responsibility measures through enabling legal

and regulatory frameworks (EP, 2013). Overall, effective food fraud deterrence requires a

research-led interdisciplinary approach, covering criminology, food safety, food law,

packaging, consumer behaviour, public health, supply chain management, to mention but a

few (Spink and Moyer, 2011). Spink’s and Cendrowski’s views on tackling root causes of

fraud tally well with those of the participants of this research. All respondents allied to the

idea of tackling the main challenges to food fraud intervention as the key measure to its

effective fight. The challenges identified include;

Poor legal and regulatory framework, in terms of weak penalties, lack of redress for

fraud victims and too many regulatory bodies with overlapping roles

Low consumer and industry awareness on food fraud

Inadequate capacity in terms of funding, expertise, facilities and equipment

117http://foodfraud.msu.edu/2013/05/08/food-fraud-prevention-not-exciting-or-urgent-but-critical/


Chapter 4

http://foodfraud.msu.edu/2013/05/08/food-fraud-prevention-not-exciting-or-urgent-but-critical/


Lack of cooperation among relevant stakeholders, for example traders and

importers

The following interventions were suggested;

Enactment of stringent legislation and standards so as to deter fraud and

compensate victims

Increased awareness on food fraud among stakeholders

Capacity building to intensify enforcement, risk detection and prevention

Adoption of effective traceability systems to trace fraudsters, for example

registration of all food products, and food business operators

From the above contributions, I suggest the following measures against food fraud;

Research into the chemistry of the crime, i.e. the fraudster, victim, drivers, trends

and gaps in intervention. This helps to give insight into the crime and facilitates the

adoption of effective intervention strategies.

Addressing gaps in intervention system, for example building strong and effective

legal and regulatory frameworks; building institutional capacity in risk detection

and deterrence; adoption of corporate responsibility measures, including

traceability; building strong intelligence networks across the supply chain; building

strong public-private partnerships, with clearly defined stakeholder roles; and

ensuring rapid response to incidences.

Addressing the food fraud drivers from both the fraudster and victim perspectives.

For example, running public awareness campaigns; promotion of youth education

and employment; promotion of population control strategies; institution of poverty

reduction programs and regulation of rural-urban migration.


Effective food fraud intervention requires two main approaches: addressing

food fraud drivers and gaps in intervention measures. These should be

guided by substantial research on the subject.


Chapter 4


Chapter 5: Discussion, conclusion and recommendations

In this chapter, discussion and conclusions are made per research question. The main

research question and objective are finally addressed.

5.1 Discussion

Question 1(i): How can food fraud be defined?

Food fraud is an ancient and global-wide issue (Shears, 2010; Spink, et al., 2010). Different

writers have presented different definitions of this subject, but what is common to them all

is the fact that, food fraud involves the deliberate deception of consumers/customers in the

food market for economic gain to the sellers. The perpetrators are the fraudsters and the

main motive is economic gain. Unfortunately, the fraudster and his/her actions are neither

defined nor predictable; it can be anybody involved in a food business and he/she may

strike unexpectedly. Information asymmetry, where sellers know everything about their

products while consumers may not know anything, is one common element of food fraud.

Specific fraudulent practices include; counterfeiting, adulteration, tempering, faking,

deceptive packaging and labeling, use of false weights and measures, false advertisement,

production and sale of substandard food products, smuggling, diversion and simulation

(Spink and Moyer, 2011). Apparently, the food fraud concept represents one of the most

complex and diverse subjects in food studies. Food fraud will always happen and thrive

under opportunistic circumstances such as; low risk of detection, high demand for

particular food characteristics, a high profit potential, presence of gaps in intervention

system e.g. weak penalties and when the brand name is strong and popular (Barnes, 1996;

GMA, 2010; Shears, 2010).

Question 1(ii): What are the general prevalence, trends and forms of food fraud in

Uganda?

Food fraud is a huge reality in Uganda. Although the words ‘fakes’ and ‘substandard’ food

products have popularly been applied to address illegitimate products on the market, the

real problem is actually bigger than that. Product counterfeiting, adulteration, tempering,

faking, deceptive labelling and packaging, Use of false weights and measures and


production and sale of substandard food products have dominated the illegitimate food

incidents. The practices are more prevalent in high selling, popular and relatively cheaper

pre-packaged food and drink brands both domestically produced and imported. Almost all

processed food products and drinks are affected, including bakery products such as bread,

dairy products, honey, salt, cooking oil, bottled water, juices, imitation drinks, cereal flours,

confectionary, spices, alcoholic drinks such as vodka to mention but a few. Adulteration is

particularly observed in products that easily form homogeneous mixtures with the

adulterants and therefore difficult to detect. The use of false weights and measures has

been observed, especially where trade transactions take place in the presence of both trade

parties (seller and buyer). The main concept behind food fraud is that, the consumer has

specific products and/or product characteristic preferences that must be met by the seller.

Therefore, bait characteristics such as low prices, popular brand names, fancy descriptions,

attractive labels and packages have been used to trap unsuspecting consumers. Certified

products are particularly popular among the elites and people will do anything to have

them in the hope of finding legitimate products. Unfortunately, these are sometimes

counterfeits. Most consumers lack the capacity and ability to detect most of the fraudulent

practices and the products involved, although sometimes it’s a matter of negligence. In

some instances however, consumers will be lured into purchasing suspicious products just

because they are cheap. The fraudsters have greatly evolved in information concealment

and deception to the extent that, consumers will go ahead to trust them completely, only to

realize their fate after experiencing adverse health effects following the consumption of

illegitimate food products. Consequently, consumer wellbeing is greatly threatened.

However, the food fraud trend of Uganda is unclear possibly due to the little priority

accorded to this subject. Little and scanty statistics is available on this subject, moreover,

this is not kept in any specific food fraud database. For example, only a few

organizations/departments were able to avail these data as requested in the

questionnaires. The organization websites were also short of this information.

Discussion, conclusion and recommendations

Chapter 5


Question 1(iii): At what stage of the Ugandan food supply chain is food fraud

occurring most?

Food fraud is a very complex reality in that, every food business operator is a potential

fraudster. Consequently, in Uganda, the problem is wide spread across the entire food

chain, right from production to consumption. Precisely speaking, most fraudulent practices,

including adulteration, counterfeiting, faking, deceptive packaging and labeling and sale of

substandard products are happening at production and distribution levels. Tempering is

common at the sale and storage levels, while use of false weights and measures is common

at sale stage. Specific establishments or premises harbouring these practices include;

factories, warehouses, supermarkets, groceries, retail shops, lock-ups, street markets

vendors, and go-downs. The incentive to the fraudster lies in the low risk of being caught.

Street vendors have particularly been identified as one of the FBO categories that have

successfully thrived in the business due to the fact that, they are unregulated and difficult

to apprehend as they never have permanent locations of operation. Moreover, some

fraudulent practices such as adulteration may not even be detected by conventional

techniques employed by competent stakeholders (Lipp and Moore, 2013). Food is a

fundamental human right any way, but where and how one sources food may as well

determine whether or not he/she falls victim of food fraud; processed and second-party

acquired food may as well represent an obvious ticket to food fraud victimization.

Question 1(iv): What are the major drivers of food fraud in Uganda?

Food fraud gains even more complexity in the presence of drivers. In Uganda, the following

drivers have resulted into rampant incidents presently;

High population growth rate, as every individual is desperate to survive and make a

living

High unemployment rate, especially among the youth fraternity

Growing demand for cheap goods by the consumers as a result of economic crises

Growing rate of rural-urban migration, which makes fraud more popular in urban

places.


Chapter 5


High poverty levels

Question 2(i): What are the policies, laws, regulations and standards governing food

fraud in Uganda?

Uganda has no solid food fraud policy or legislation in place. Food fraud regulation and

deterrence is based on numerous fragments of fraud-related policies, Acts, regulations and

standards. 3 policies, 17 Acts of parliament, 4 regulations, 2 bills and numerous

compulsory vertical food standards were identified. These include: the National Industrial

Policy of 2008; the National Trade Policy of 2007; The National Standards and Quality

Policy of 2012; the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda of 1995; the Penal Code Act of

1950; the Food and Drug Act of 1959; the Dairy Industry Act of 2000; the Enguli Act of

1966; the Liquor Act of 1960; the Shop hours Act of 1963; the Weights and Measures Act of

1965; the Evidence Act of 1909; the Magistrates’ Court Act 1971; the Police Act of 1994; the

Prisons Act of 1958; the Sale of Goods Act of 1932; the Public Health Act of 1935; the

Trademarks Act of 2010; the Factories Act of 1953; the UNBS Act of 1983; the Dairy

(marketing and processing of milk and milk products) Regulations of 2003; the UNBS

(certification) Regulations of 1995; the UNBS (imports inspection and clearance)

Regulations of 2002; The weights and Measures (sale and labelling of goods) Rules of 2007;

the UNBS Anti-counterfeiting Bill of 2010; the Consumer Protection Bill of 2004; the

General Standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods and other vertical standards.

An in-depth analysis of these legislation revealed that, Uganda’s food fraud legal framework

is generally weak and irregular. Moreover, most legislation are archaic, inexplicit and

confusing and may therefore be ineffective; sanctions are very weak, administrative

powers are not explicitly stated, some legislation have overlapping provisions, offences in

some legislation are not clearly classified, litigation procedures are not explicit, there are

no provisions to compensate fraud victims and to sensitize the public about their legal

rights and obligations.

The business transaction time (7:30am-9:00Pm) provided by the Shop hours Act may

particularly be unrealistic since by 9Pm most shoppers are just retiring from their hectic


Chapter 5


schedules, and may therefore be too tired to make careful and decisive shopping. Moreover,

by 7Pm it is already dark and there may be no electricity to enable buyers make kin

observations of trade measurements, let alone being able to properly count money. From

my personal observation and experience, sometimes shops remain open for business far

beyond the legally stipulated time (Sometimes till 11Pm), yet no arrests so far have been

reported in connection with this illegal behaviour. This leaves one wondering whether this

law is actually being enforced.

Penalties are not only ridiculously low but also not explicitly stated. In the majority

legislation, only the maximum limit of the penalty is stated. For example, the penalties for

adulteration in the Food and Drug Act constitute a fine not exceeding 2000 UG. Shs. (0.8

USD) and/or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months. This gives an impression

that, any figure below the stated limit is applicable, although the discretion to decide the

ultimate sentence is reserved by the judge. Hence, this does not only incentivize offenders

to repetitively commit offences but attracts even more offenders. Fines have greatly

depreciated due to the devaluation of the Ugandan Shilling over time as most of these

legislation are very ancient. To deal with this problem, a fixed fines regime may therefore

need to be considered by choosing between various options advanced by Vapnek and

Spreij (2005). 1) Enacting separate penalties legislation with a multiplier factor for all fines

in the existing food (fraud) legislation, for example, multiplying all fines by a factor of 100

or 500. 2) The separate legislation can list a range of penalties and court accorded

discretionary powers to choose appropriate penalties during litigation. 3) Fines can be

defined in terms of a certain proportion of a neutral economic parameter such as the

monthly salary of a given grade of a civil servant, depending on the type and gravity of

offense. For example, adulteration can be set at 5% and counterfeiting at 10% of the

monthly salary of a chosen grade of a civil servant. The Currency points strategy used in the

Dairy Industry Act, 2000 and that in the Anti-counterfeiting bill, stipulating fines in terms

of the market value of genuine products are also commendable. The bottom line is that, the

penalties should be both proportionate to the offence and high enough to achieve

deterrence (Vapnek and Spreij, 2005). Sometimes however, it’s not the first priority for

fraud victims to witness the sanctioning of fraudsters but rather to receive compensatory


Chapter 5


damages or cash refund (ULRC, 2004). Remedial provisions must therefore be incorporated

into fraud legislation to facilitate victim redress. For example, it should be made a legal

obligation for all FBOs to issue purchase receipts to buyers to facilitate the compensation

process. The consumer protection bill once enacted will hopefully reconcile this issue.

Question 2(ii): What are the roles of the main stakeholders involved in combating

food fraud and how are they dealing with it?

The food fraud institutional framework of Uganda is rather broad, consisting of regulatory

authorities (UNBS, NDA and DDA), ministries (MoH, MAAIF, MTIC, MIA and MICT), the Law

Reform Commission, enforcement bodies (police force and prison services), judiciary

(Magistrates’ court), legislature, NGOs (SGS, Intertek and Bureau Veritas), CSOs (CONSENT

and UCPA), industry (UMA), and media (e.g. the Daily Monitor and New Vision). Uganda’s

food fraud deterrence regime consists of a blend of actions, including; administrative and

judicial sanctions such as imprisonment, fining, public exposure, warnings, business

closure, forfeiture of legal documents, seizure and destruction of fraudulent food products

and equipment, re-exportation, advises and written apologies. A wealth of measures are

also being implemented including; standardization, inspection, PVoC, licensing,

surveillance, testing, certification, public education, and research. The major question here

is, are these interventions effective? Well, UNBS has already expressed potential defeat due

to overwhelming incidents especially in counterfeits118. The media is increasingly flooding

with desperate public outcries over fake food products119. Further still, various

118 http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/634532-we-can-t-control-fake-goods-says-unbs.html (26/02/2014)

119 http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Minister-warns-of-increased-fraudsters-in-trade-industry/-

/688334/1426974/-/ua5s9z/-/index.html, http://ugandaradionetwork.com/a/story.php?s=35540&PHPSESSID=b01965d893032d6375bcf5e1ea86bc06 , http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/640624-unbs-warns-on-fake-bottled-water.html, http://digitaljournal.com/article/291234, http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/680695, http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/459/671257, http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/739098, http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/719494/-/b5b6pcz/-/index.html, http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/Education/-/688336/702462/-/10d4722/-/index.html, http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/672804, http://www.newvision.co.ug/mobile/Detail.aspx?NewsID=644089&CatID=434,


Chapter 5

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/634532-we-can-t-control-fake-goods-says-unbs.html

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Minister-warns-of-increased-fraudsters-in-trade-industry/-/688334/1426974/-/ua5s9z/-/index.html


http://ugandaradionetwork.com/a/story.php?s=35540&PHPSESSID=b01965d893032d6375bcf5e1ea86bc06


http://digitaljournal.com/article/291234





http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/Education/-/688336/702462/-/10d4722/-/index.html


http://www.newvision.co.ug/mobile/Detail.aspx?NewsID=644089&CatID=434


stakeholders are playing blame games amongst themselves for potential failure to

adequately control food fraud, for example, in the following excerpts, two officials from

separate organizations (UMA and the Parliamentary Committee on Trade and Industry

respectively), were blaming UNBS for failure to control food fraud on the market;

“UNBS has failed to put in place measures to check the expiry dates of items on the market,

the wrong branding and net weight measurements.”120

“The public has been hit by an ‘epidemic’ of fake food. Recently it was revealed that many

dealers in food fry it with transformer oil. How does this happen with a standards body in

place?”121

These revelations seem to point to a potential inadequacy in the intervention system and

therefore the perceived failure to deal with the problem. No wonder, this study revealed a

number of challenges being faced by the various stakeholders dealing with food fraud.

First, poor governance, characterized by weak and ineffective laws topped the list. Lack of

cooperation among some stakeholders, low consumer and industry awareness and

inadequate resource and technological capacity were also cited.

Realistically, the Ugandan food fraud institutional framework is generally vague and

fragmented; there appears to be too many regulatory authorities dealing with this problem.

Although UNBS is the main body directly dealing with food fraud regulation, this mandate

is partly shared with DDA, NDA, MAAIF and MoH. Moreover, UNBS is overwhelmingly

mandated in addition to being highly incapacitated and under resourced. The current

staffing capacity stands at 240 out of the required 463 and out of 35 entry border points,

only 17 are in the control of UNBS (UNBS, 2012). Furthermore, the few available

laboratories have limited scope due to inadequate space, equipment and staff. These

http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Prosper/EA-loses-huge-sums-of-money-in-counterfeit-products/-/688616/1558452/-/mejott/-/index.html All last viewed on 3/3/2014 120

http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/643580-manufacturers-want-unbs-to-act-on-fake-products.html (18/03/2014) 121

http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1386502/-/aw34uyz/-/index.html (18/03/2014)


Chapter 5




http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1386502/-/aw34uyz/-/index.html


Overlapping and overwhelming responsibilities may represent potential hurdle gaps that

may come along with duplication of resources and inefficiency in the control system

(Vapnek and Spreij, 2005 Pg. 156).

Question 3(i): What are the challenges being faced by the relevant stakeholders in

fighting food fraud in Uganda?

Stakeholders involved in this research forwarded the following as the most serious

challenges being faced;

Poor legal and regulatory system, in terms of weak penalties, lack of redress for

fraud victims, lack of anti-counterfeiting law and too many regulatory bodies with

overlapping roles

Low consumer and industry awareness on food fraud

Inadequate capacity in terms of funding, expertise, facilities and equipment

Lack of cooperation among relevant stakeholders, for example traders and

importers

These challenges represent gaps in the hurdle system talked of by Spink, 2013, which need

to be urgently addressed in order to deal with the current fraud situation.

Question 3(ii): How can food fraud be effectively dealt with in Uganda taking into

account the stakeholders and researcher’s views and lessons learned from

elsewhere?

The stakeholders’ views on how to effectively deal with food fraud lies in tackling the

identified challenges, pretty much to my support. The following interventions were

suggested;

Enactment of stringent legislation and standards so as to deter fraud and

compensate victims

Increased awareness on food fraud among stakeholders

Capacity building to intensify enforcement, risk detection and prevention


Chapter 5


Adoption of effective traceability systems to trace fraudsters, for example

registration of all food products, and food business operators

Whereas Uganda needs to ploddingly deal with food fraud, cost effective and sustainable

strategies need to be sought and exploited. Some of these may include institutional reform

involving a clear delineation of mandates, powers and responsibilities amongst the various

regulatory authorities and ministries, underpinned by relevant legislation. For example,

UNBS can focus on standardization and enforcement while quality assurance is taken on by

other organizations or agencies. Alternatively, other agencies can be divested of food fraud

regulatory roles in favour of UNBS and the latter’s resource capacity beefed up to match the

roles and responsibilities. Since DDA focuses on dairy regulation, this role may as well be

given up by other agencies. A clear definition of roles and responsibilities will not only

increase efficiency but will also create a sense of responsibility and accountability among

regulatory authorities. Installation of food fraud specialized crime units such as food fraud

task forces need to be prioritized and related expertise such as fraud risk analysts and

crisis managers sought. Food fraud capacity building may necessitate institutionalization of

relevant offices at the lower government level, for example, district, sub-county and

municipal levels. Import inspectors may need to be permanently deployed at various

border points to ensure constant surveillance of these points for potential illegal

importation of fraudulent food products. Information flow needs to be strengthened within

the food regulation circles, nationally, regionally and internationally and between

authorities and the public. This may necessitate establishment of internet based

surveillance channels such as food fraud data bases, websites, email addresses and social

media networks such as Face book and twitter. This strategy has already been successfully

adopted by the USA and UK public authorities (Shears, 2010; Lipp and Moore, 2013). Food

fraud research appears to be given little attention in Uganda. Successful food fraud

intervention will certainly require sufficient knowledge of this phenomenon. A clear

understanding of the food fraud triangle; the victim, fraudster and guardian and hurdle

gaps is required to reduce the opportunity (Spink and Moyer, 2011 & 2013). A

multidisciplinary research into the problem per se will provide a broad insight into its

dynamics and facilitate adoption of robust intervention strategies (Spink and Moyer, 2011).


Chapter 5


This therefore calls for the involvement of academia to incorporate food fraud studies into

the curricula right from high school to the highest institution of learning to provide the

necessary initial awareness.

While government must take the lead in food fraud deterrence, it remains every

stakeholder’s responsibility. Food business operators need to foster strict supply chain

management schemes including implementing strict traceability and intelligence programs

as well as intellectual property protection. A tight grip should be applied on suppliers in

demanding for high standards through enforcing strict contractual partnerships. Such

activities as supplier vetting, certification and audits should be diligently implemented.

Consumers must fearlessly demand for their right to authentic and quality food in addition

to exercise of due diligence during purchase. For example, they must pay attention during

trade measurements, demand for purchase receipts and explanations about different

aspects of the product, reject and report suspicious products to relevant authorities.

Remedies should be sought where products have proved unsatisfactory or deleterious.

Reducing consumption of second-party acquired processed food products should also be

firmly considered by all consumers.

5.2 Conclusion

While consumers must carefully budget for their daily dietary requirements, fraudsters are

always planning hard on the next move to make the most but undue profits. Food fraud is a

complex global-wide reality involving the intentional deception of consumers by the sellers

for economic gain. The opportunity is particularly high when there is low risk of detection,

a high profit potential, high demand for product/ product characteristics, when the brand

name is strong and sanctions are lenient.

Although the words ‘fake’ and ‘substandard’ are popularly used to describe illegitimate

food products, food fraud is a big reality in Uganda; sale of substandard products,

counterfeiting, adulteration, faking, deceptive packaging and labelling, tempering and use

of false weights and measures are some of the major forms dominating scenes. Consumer

ignorance, incompetence, illiteracy and negligence are particularly being exploited because

of the huge information asymmetry existing between sellers and buyers. Although all


Chapter 5


Chapter 5


processed food products are potential candidates of fraud, the practice is more common in

popular brands and relatively cheaper products. Unfortunately, the food fraud trend is

unclear due to little statistics available on this subject.

The entire food chain is affected but unfortunately, the fraudster and his actions are quite

obscure and unpredictable. Specific places to look out for fraudulent practices or products

include; factories, supermarkets; retail shops, warehouses, go-downs, lock-ups, street

markets, and vendors.

The driving forces of food fraud in Uganda include; high population and unemployment

rates, high poverty levels, increased demand for cheap food and high rate of rural-urban

migration.

There is no solid food fraud legislation in place. Regulation is indirectly achieved through

the food safety and fair trade frameworks underpinned by numerous fraud-related

legislation. However, most of these are archaic and weak and therefore ineffective. Hence

there is need to strengthen them in order to achieve effective food fraud deterrence.

Uganda’s food fraud institutional framework is rather diverse, vague and fragmented,

consisting of various stakeholders including: UNBS, DDA, NDA, MAAIF, MoH, MTIC, MoIA,

MCIT, ULRC, Parliament, Judiciary (magistrate’s court), prisons services, police forces,

media, UMA, CONSENT, UCPA, SGS, Bureau Veritas, and Intertek. Interventions being

implemented consist of measures such as official controls by public authorities, public

education, administrative decisions, stakeholder collaboration, research, administrative

and judicial sanctions. It however appears that, these interventions are ineffective due to

various challenges outlined by different stakeholders involved in this research, including

weak laws, lack of fraud awareness among consumers and industry, poor stakeholder

cooperation, a vague institutional framework characterised by too many regulatory

authorities with overlapping roles and inadequate technological and resource capacity.

On the one hand, successful food fraud deterrence will certainly require addressing the

long-term cultural root causes (drivers) and on the other, a dedicated effort in tackling


Chapter 5


behavioural causes. However, starting with the latter will provide a quicker solution for

urgent food fraud intervention.

Although government must take lead in food fraud deterrence, it remains every

stakeholder’s responsibility. On the side of government, there is need to strengthen public-

private partnerships with clearly defined stakeholder roles and responsibilities. There is

need to review the food fraud institutional and legal frameworks in order to reduce the

fraud opportunity and increase the risk of detection and deterrence. Penalties particularly

need to be strengthened and consumer redress prioritised. Shopping time may also need to

be limited to day-light hours only. There is need to build the technological and resource

capacity of main regulatory bodies and implementation should be extended to the lower

government level. Awareness campaigns should be intensified in various local languages.

Regulatory authorities should continuously record and maintain up-to-date food fraud

statistics in order to keep abreast of the trends. Surveillance should be strengthened

through more robust internet based communication channels including a comprehensive

central database for collection and storage of all food fraud information. Border controls

should be enhanced through permanent deployment of inspectors at different border

points and specialised food fraud crime units such as task forces established. On the side of

academia, there is need to integrate food fraud studies into the academic curriculum in

order to create initial awareness. On the side of FBOs, there is need to adopt strict supply

chain management strategies in addition to demanding for high standards from suppliers.

Consumers should firmly demand for their rights and exercise due diligence during

purchase. Researchers should embark on multi-disciplinary research into the core of this

subject.

Overall conclusion

This research has endeavoured to provide an in-depth insight into the food fraud scenario

of Uganda, including its manifestation, regulation and deterrence. Results show that, food

fraud is indeed a big reality in Uganda; consumers are being evidently cheated in all aspects

of their food purchase. There are various relevant stakeholders implementing various

interventions which appear to be adequate but unfortunately not very effective due to


Chapter 5


various challenges outlined. More effective food fraud intervention will certainly be

achieved through the active involvement of every stakeholder including government, FBOs,

academia, researchers and consumers, but most importantly and urgently is the need to

strengthen penalties for fraud offenses, enact anti-counterfeiting and consumer protection

laws, reorganize the institutional framework to increase the risk of detection and intensify

public awareness.

5.3 Recommendations

Like any other, this research identified some potential areas of amendment intended to

achieve more effective food fraud deterrence in Uganda. I therefore suggest the following

recommendations;

In line with this research

First and foremost, Uganda should adopt a harmonized and collective name ‘food

fraud’ for all illegitimate foods and food products. Using ‘fake’ or ‘substandard’ is

only an understatement of an otherwise broader problem.

From the study122 findings, it can be seen that, the existing legal framework is weak,

and therefore undeterrent. There is need to strengthen it. Amending all existing

legislation is not the remedy since this can be extremely costly and time consuming.

Apparently, there is an agent need to strengthen penalties which could certainly be

achieved by enacting a separate fines (penalties) legislation to support the existing

legal framework. The definition of fines can take any of the forms discussed above

i.e. using a multiplier factor, listing penalties and mandating court to choose among

options, using a neutral economic parameter such as the monthly salary of a given

grade of a civil servant, using the market value of genuine products or stating the

penalty in terms of currency points.

122The words ‘research’ and ‘study’ have been interchangeably used in this document to mean the same thing


Chapter 5


There is need to draft the suggested model penalties legislation and evaluate the

cost effectiveness of enacting this legislations vis-à-vis amending the existing

framework.

There is urgent need to enact an Anti-counterfeiting and Consumer protection laws

in order to secure legal control over counterfeits and provide redress for fraud

victims.

The Ugandan food fraud institutional framework being overlapping and heavily

incapacitated, there is need for reforms in order to achieve more efficiency in fraud

deterrence. This will certainly be achieved through a clear delineation of mandates,

roles, responsibilities and scope of jurisdiction amongst the various authorities and

ministries underpinned by relevant legislation. A distinction can be made between

regulation of sectors within the food chain. For example, MAAIF can focus of

primary agricultural production, MoH and NDA focus on food preparation

establishments like restaurants and hotels, municipal authorities focus on groceries

and open markets, UNBS focus on manufacturing, distribution and marketing,

excluding milk (this could better be left under the jurisdiction of DDA since they

have specialized expertise) and customs focus on import inspection. Coordination

among the various agencies could be achieved by establishment of specialized food

fraud task forces and installation of robust communication channels i.e. a central

food fraud database, website, email addresses and telephones to facilitate

information exchange. The task forces could be drawn from existing inspectors. The

team should basically consist of competent public risk analysts, crisis managers,

researchers and a coordinator (also the contact person responsible for management

of the communication channels). Local food inspectors/food fraud officers should

also be deployed at the lower government segments such as district and sub-county,

within the production department of the local government. To increase the risk of

detection, different authorities may have to identify from the public and deploy

specific intelligence personnel in specific strategic locations. These may be

remunerated from a support staff fund which also needs to be established by the

chosen legislation.


Chapter 5


Since there is need to clearly understand food fraud, the effort should begin all the

way from the classroom. There is therefore need to integrate food fraud studies into

the academic curriculum right from high school to the highest academia level.

Relevant stakeholders should intensify public awareness creation through different

mass communication channels using various local languages e.g. local radio and TV

broadcasts, as well as conduct regular sensitization meetings.

The above strategies will definitely have financial ramifications; government should

therefore consider increasing financial budgetary allocations to major regulatory

authorities such as UNBS in order to boost the financial capacity necessary to

achieve accelerated and sustainable effectiveness in food fraud control.

For further research

This study has already laid a foundation for food fraud research by providing major

insights about the problem. Further research should therefore proceed to delve into

other aspects of this subject. Closely related to this research, it is important to

conduct an empirical study of fraud on different food products to provide more

concrete evidence that could warrant expedition of food fraud interventions such as

promulgation of relevant legislation.

It appears that, little priority has been accorded to food fraud deterrence and

regulation presently. To help government appreciate the magnitude of this problem

and therefore give it due priority, there is need to conduct a quantitative research

on the impact of this problem, with a particular focus on public health, government

revenue and industrialization.


Chapter 5


References

Literature

Agbaraji, E. C., Ochulor, D. O., & Ezeh, G. N. (2012). Food and drug counterfeiting in the developing nations; the implications and way-out. Food and drug, 3(2).

Anonymous. Research philosophy and qualitative interviews http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43179_2.pdf

Au, F. (2012). Counterfeit Food is a Growing Problem all over the World: Are You and Your Children Unknowingly Eating Fake Food? http://aufait.hubpages.com/hub/Counterfeit-Food-Growing-Problem-Unknowingly-Eating-Fake-Food

Barnes, P. J. (1996). Adulteration and fraud threaten safety. Nutrition & Food Science, 96(4), 23-26.http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=866476&show=abstract

Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer “accomplices” in product counterfeiting: a demand side investigation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 27-36.

Cendrowski, H., Petro, L. W., Martin, J. P., & Wadecki, A. A. (2007). The handbook of fraud deterrence. Wiley. com. p13

East African Community (2012). East Africa Community Industrialization strategy 2012-2032. Structural transformation of the manufacturing sector through high value addition and product diversification based on comparative and competitive advantages of the region.

European Commission (2012). Food fraud: EU conference confronts the growing problem of food crime. Newsletter on food safety, health and consumer policy from the European Commission’s Health and Consumers DG. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/may/tradoc_149420.05.10%20sanco%20news%20EN.pdf

European Parliament (2013). Draft report on the food crisis, fraud in the food chain and the control thereof (2013/2091(INI)) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-519.759+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

Fisher, Judith L. “Tea and Food Adulteration, 1834-75.”BRANCH: Britain, Representation and Nineteenth-Century History. Ed. Dino Franco Felluga. Extension of Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net. Web. http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=judith-l-fisher-tea-and-food-adulteration-1834-75

GMA, (2010). Consumer product fraud: Deterrence and detection

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43179_2.pdf

http://aufait.hubpages.com/hub/Counterfeit-Food-Growing-Problem-Unknowingly-Eating-Fake-Food

http://aufait.hubpages.com/hub/Counterfeit-Food-Growing-Problem-Unknowingly-Eating-Fake-Food

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=866476&show=abstract

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/may/tradoc_149420.05.10%20sanco%20news%20EN.pdf

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/may/tradoc_149420.05.10%20sanco%20news%20EN.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-519.759+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-519.759+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN




Heinonen, J. A., & Wilson, J. M. (2012). Product counterfeiting at the state level: An empirical examination of Michigan-related incidents. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 36(4), 273-290.

Holden, M. T., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: understanding research philosophy. The marketing review, 4(4), 397-409.http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qTXhe87o3OAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=food+fraud+deterrence&ots=cWM1txbD4L&sig=Sssi1Majfp_SPPv9yCBbNcL2jng#v=onepage&q=food%20fraud%20deterrence&f=false

Lipp Marcus and Moore Jeffrey (2013). Understanding food fraud: new information on how this practice is affecting the global food supply, Volume 16 Issue 3

Moore, M. (2001). Food Labelling Regulation: A Historical and Comparative Survey.

Muchmore, A. I. 2010. Private regulation and foreign conduct. San Diego Law Review 47(2). http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=fac_works

Peter J. Barnes, (1996) "Adulteration and fraud threaten safety", Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 96 Iss: 4, pp.23 – 26

Riviere, J. E., & Buckley, G. J. (Eds.). (2012). Ensuring safe foods and medical products through stronger regulatory systems abroad. National Academies Press. http://www.elsevierbi.com/~/media/Supporting%20Documents/The%20Tan%20Sheet/20/47/121119_IOMreport_globalfooddrugregs.pdf

Shears, P. (2010). Food fraud–a current issue but an old problem. British Food Journal, 112(2), 198-213.

Souryal, S. S., Potts, D. W., & Alobied, A. I. (1994). The penalty of hand amputation for theft in Islamic justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(3), 249-265. http://ac.els-cdn.com/0047235294900213/1-s2.0-0047235294900213-main.pdf?_tid=ab648c34-9fe1-11e3-9606-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1393527914_a3a66ad1e8638a35c7db5557f38efd03

Spink J, Helferich OK, Griggs JE. 2010. Combating the impact of product counterfeiting.

Spink, J. (2007). Global counterfeit food and beverage packaging: Impacts on food safety. In Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO), Annual Conference. Available from: http://www. afdo. org/afdo/Conferences/upload/070619-Food-1600.

Spink, J. (2012). Defining food fraud and the chemistry of the crime. Improving Import Food Safety, 195-216.

Spink, J. and Moyer, D. C. (2011), Defining the Public Health Threat of Food Fraud. Journal of Food Science, 76: R157–R163. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02417.x

References

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qTXhe87o3OAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=food+fraud+deterrence&ots=cWM1txbD4L&sig=Sssi1Majfp_SPPv9yCBbNcL2jng#v=onepage&q=food%20fraud%20deterrence&f=false



http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=fac_works

http://www.elsevierbi.com/~/media/Supporting%20Documents/The%20Tan%20Sheet/20/47/121119_IOMreport_globalfooddrugregs.pdf

http://www.elsevierbi.com/~/media/Supporting%20Documents/The%20Tan%20Sheet/20/47/121119_IOMreport_globalfooddrugregs.pdf

http://ac.els-cdn.com/0047235294900213/1-s2.0-0047235294900213-main.pdf?_tid=ab648c34-9fe1-11e3-9606-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1393527914_a3a66ad1e8638a35c7db5557f38efd03




Spink, J., & Moyer, D. C. (2013). Understanding and combating food fraud. Food Technology, 67(1) p. 30-35.

Taylor-Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. University of Wisconsin--Extension, Cooperative Extension. p1-11

Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. School of Population Health, University of Auckland. p1-12

Thushara Bandaranayake. Understanding research philosophies and approaches http://www.slideshare.net/thusharabandaranayake/understanding-research-philosophies

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2013). Uganda in figures http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Facts%20and%20Figures%202013.pdf

Uganda Law Reform Commission (2004). A study report on selected trade laws-Consumer protection law

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2013). Schedule of compulsory Uganda standards http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unbs.go.ug%2Findex.php%2Fresources%2Fdownloads%2Fcategory%2F1-general-downloads%3Fdownload%3D42%3Acompulsory-uganda-standards-july-2013&ei=MQhMU6_pI-jZ0QWFkIC4Ag&usg=AFQjCNF8_OBZiPEbWaUbc5PPEyOxkiIJbA&bvm=bv.64542518,d.bGQ

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2004). Quality chronicles. A bi-annual magazine, Vol. 2 Issue 2 P 6-15

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2008). Quality chronicles. A bi-annual magazine, Vol. 6 No. 1 P 6-28, No. 2 P 2-28

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2009). Quality chronicles. A bi-annual magazine, Vol. 7 No. 1 P 17-34, No. 2 P 12-46

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2012). 5-year strategic plan (2012-2017) P 13-16http://www.unbs.go.ug/resources/UNBS%205yr%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2012). Quality chronicles. A quarterly magazine: UNBS to acquire radiation detecting equipment, Vol. 10 No. 1 P 28-37

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2012). Quality chronicles. A quarterly magazine: UNBS awards to encourage competitiveness, Vol. 9 No.3 P 30-35

References





http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unbs.go.ug%2Findex.php%2Fresources%2Fdownloads%2Fcategory%2F1-general-downloads%3Fdownload%3D42%3Acompulsory-uganda-standards-july-2013&ei=MQhMU6_pI-jZ0QWFkIC4Ag&usg=AFQjCNF8_OBZiPEbWaUbc5PPEyOxkiIJbA&bvm=bv.64542518,d.bGQ





http://www.unbs.go.ug/resources/UNBS%205yr%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf


Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2013). Baseline assessment of the extent of substandard goods in Uganda. 2ne draft report.

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2013). Quality chronicles. A quarterly magazine: Spearheading the fight against substandard products, Vol. 10, No. 3 P10-41

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2013). Surveillance reports for April, May, July and August

Uganda Standard 7:2002. General standard for the labelling of pre-packaged foods

Van der Meulen, B. M. J. and Van der Velde, M. (2008). European food law handbook. Wageningen academic publishers

Vapnek, J., & Spreij, M. (2005). Perspectives and Guidelines on Food Legislation: With a New Model Food Law (Vol. 87). Food & Agriculture Org. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/ls87-e.pdf (10/2/2014)

Legal references

EU legislation

Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the council of 28th January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. European Union O. J. L 31, 1st February 2002 Pg.10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:031:0001:0024:EN:PDF

Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. European Union O.J. L 304, 22 November 2011 Pg. 27 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:304:0018:0063:EN:PDF

Uganda legislation- Policies

Uganda National Trade Policy of 2007: Trading Out of Poverty, Into Wealth and Prosperity

Uganda National Industrial Policy of January 2008 laying down a framework for Uganda’s Transformation, Competitiveness and Prosperity

Uganda National Standards and Quality Policy of 2012 providing for quality, safety and competitiveness of goods and services

References

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/ls87-e.pdf






Acts of Parliament

The...

Constitution of the republic of Uganda of 8th October 1995 laying down National Objectives and Directive Principles of StatePolicyhttp://www.parliament.go.ug/new/images/stories/constitution/Constitution_of_Uganda_1995.pdf

Dairy Industry Act of Uganda of 1st June 2000, Chapter 85 providing for the structure and functions of the Dairy Development Authority; to provide for the promotion and control of the production, processing and marketing of milk and dairy products and generally to facilitate the development of the dairy industry and for other connected matters. http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/85

Enguli (Manufacture and Licensing) Act of Uganda of 20th January 1966, Chapter 86 laying down provisions for regulating the manufacture, licensing and sale of enguli and for other purposes connected therewith http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/86

Evidence Act of Uganda of 1st August 1909, Chapter 6 laying down procedures relating to evidence http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/6

Factories Act of Uganda of 31st March 1953, Chapter 220 making provision for the health, safety and welfare of persons employed in factories and other places. http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/220

Food and Drug Act of Uganda of 18th June 1959, Chapter 278 making provision for the prevention of adulteration of food and drugs and for matters incidental thereto and connected http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/278

Liquor Act of Uganda of 1st October 1960, Chapter 93 making provision for regulating the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor, and to provide for matters incidental thereto andconnected therewith http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/93

Magistrates Courts Act of Uganda of 22nd January 1971, Chapter 16 amending and consolidating the law relating to the establishment, constitution and jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates courts and to make provision for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/16

Penal Code Act of Uganda of 15th June 1950, Chapter 120 establishing a code of criminal law http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/120

Police Act of Uganda of 14th October 1994, Chapter 303 providing for the structure, organisation and functions of the police force, a police disciplinary code of conduct, a Police Welfare Fund, a police tender board and for other matters connected with or incidental to

References












the foregoing. http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl-nat.nsf/0/32bd94473f5720a7c12573830052a27f/$FILE/THE%20POLICE%20ACT.pdf

Prisons Act of Uganda of 1st July 1958, Chapter 304 consolidate the law relating to prisons, and to provide for the organization, powers and duties of prison officers, and for matters incidental thereto http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/304

Public Health Act of Uganda of 15 October 1935, Chapter 281consolidating the law regarding the preservation of public http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/281

Sale of Goods Act of Uganda of 1st January 1932, Chapter 82 relating to the sale of goods http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/82 Shop Hours Act of Uganda of 7th October 1963, Chapter 99 making provision for and in connection with the regulation of shop hours http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/99

Trade marks (amendment) Act of Uganda of 21st September 2010 amending the Trade Marks Act of 1999 http://www.ipindia.nic.in/tmr_new/tmr_act_rules/TM_Amendment_Act_2010.pdf

Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act of 14th October 1983, Chapter 327 providing for the establishment of a National Bureau of Standards, the standardisation of commodities and for matters incidental and ancillary thereto. http://www.opm.go.ug/assets/media/resources/404/UGANDA%20NATIONAL%20BUREAU%20OF%20STANDARDS%20ACT.pdf

Weights and Measures Act of Uganda of 1st July 1965, Chapter 103 amending and consolidating the law relating to the use of weights and measures and for matters incidental thereto and connected therewith http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/consolidated-act/103

Regulations

The...

Dairy (marketing and processing of milk and milk products) Regulations of Uganda of 31st December 2003 http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/26

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) Regulation of 8th September 1995, Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 5

Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Imports Inspection and Clearance) Regulations of 11th November 2002, Statutory Instruments Supplement No. 39

References








http://www.ipindia.nic.in/tmr_new/tmr_act_rules/TM_Amendment_Act_2010.pdf




http://www.ulii.org/ug/legislation/statutory-instrument/2003/26


Weights and Measures (Sale and Labelling of Goods) Rules of Uganda of 10th August 2007, Statutory Instrument Supplement No. 21

Bills

Anti-counterfeiting bill of Uganda of 2010 to prohibit trade in counterfeit goods that infringe upon protected intellectual property rights; to require intellectual property rights to cover only copyright and trademarks; to prohibit release of counterfeit goods into the channels of commerce; to create offences relating to trade in counterfeit goods; to empower the Commissioner General to seize and detain suspected counterfeit goods; to empower inspectors appointed by the National Bureau of Standards to seize and detain suspected counterfeit goods and to provide for incidental matters. http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wcl.american.edu%2Fpijip%2Fdownload.cfm%3Fdownloadfile%3D916DA7FE-B94E-491D-A737C1279E31C2DE%26typename%3DdmFile%26fieldname%3Dfilename&ei=3k7ZUvChK8bP0QXahICQBA&usg=AFQjCNH_IcGkprhxIgtzp0b8ADhn5rx5jg

Consumer Protection Bill of Uganda of 2004. In, “Uganda Law Reform Commission (2004). A study report on selected trade laws-Consumer protection law”

Media

New vision, 26th February 2009. 3 arrested making fake juice in Gulu http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/672804

New vision, 12th February 2009. Standards body tightens laws. http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/459/671257

Daily Monitor, 4th April 2009. Fake goods worth Shs55m seized daily http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/Education/-/688336/702462/-/10d4722/-/index.html

New vision, 8th May 2009. Fake goods invade Ugandan markets http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/13/680695

New vision, 11th September 2009. Dairy body warns on fake milk products http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/13/694280

Daily Monitor 24th September 2009. Who is poisoning us with these counterfeit products? http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/719494/-/b5b6pcz/-/index.html

Digital Journal, 27th April 2010. Home-made brew laced with methanol kills 89 in Uganda http://digitaljournal.com/article/291234#ixzz2xA2STUUu

References








http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/Education/-/688336/702462/-/10d4722/-/index.html


http://www.newvision.co.ug/PA/8/13/694280



http://digitaljournal.com/article/291234#ixzz2xA2STUUu


Daily Monitor, 18th August 2010. Consumer protection campaign launched http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Commodities/-/688610/979710/-/i22id7/-/index.html

New vision, 23rd November 2010. DDA fights mobile milk vendors http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/739098

New vision, 14th December 2010. Ugandans are also involved in counterfeit goods http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/741118

New vision, 27th March 2012. UNBS warns on fake goods on the market http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629914-unbs-warns-of-fake-goods-on-market.html

New vision, 27th March 2012. Standards body links food poisoning to poor hygiene http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629917-standards-body-links-food-poisoning-to-poor-hygiene.html

Daily Monitor, 15th April 2012. Standards body asks government to fast-track food laws http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1386502/-/aw34uyz/-/index.html

Daily Monitor, 14th June 2012. Minister warns of increased fraudsters in trade industry http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Minister-warns-of-increased-fraudsters-in-trade-industry/-/688334/1426974/-/ua5s9z/-/index.html

New vision, 26th August 2012. We can’t control fake goods, says UNBS http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/634532-we-can-t-control-fake-goods-says-unbs.html

Daily Monitor, 23rd October, 2012. East Africa loses huge sums of money in counterfeit products http://www.monitor.co.ug/Business/Prosper/EA-loses-huge-sums-of-money-in-counterfeit-products/-/688616/1558452/-/mejott/-/index.html

New vision, 30th January 2013. Is that “low fat” label genuine? http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/639380-is-that-low-fat-food-label-genuine.html

Sina English news, 21 February 2013. Seafood fraud scandal emerges again in Europe, U.S. http://english.sina.com/world/p/2013/0220/563594.html

New vision, 13th March 2013.UNBS warns on fake bottled water http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/640624-unbs-warns-on-fake-bottled-water.html

New vision, 5th June 2013. Manufacturers want UNBS to act on fake products http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/643580-manufacturers-want-unbs-to-act-on-fake-products.html

References








http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1386502/-/aw34uyz/-/index.html



http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/634532-we-can-t-control-fake-goods-says-unbs.html



http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/639380-is-that-low-fat-food-label-genuine.html

http://english.sina.com/world/p/2013/0220/563594.html





New vision, 18th June 2013. What is in the salt you use? http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/644089-what-s-in-the-salt-you-use.html

National geographic daily news, 12 July 2013. Food Fraud: Labels on What We Eat Often Mislead http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130712-food-fraud-science-economic-adulteration-seafood-honey-juice/

Nile Broadcasting Station Limited, 20th September 2013. Uganda’s population high growth rate worrying http://www.nbs.ug/details.php?option=acat&a=356#.UzCcayjDDIV

Websites

Corporate Foreign Policy, July 2009. Counterfeits Killing Ugandan Industries http://corporateforeignpolicy.com/africa/counterfeits-killing-ugandan-industries

Countryeconomy.com (2012). Uganda Gross Domestic Product http://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uganda Food and Agriculture Organization (2011) http://faostat.fao.org/desktopdefault.aspx?pageid=342&lang=en&country=226

Index Mundi (2013). Uganda demographics profile http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/demographics_profile.html

Index Mundi (2013). Uganda economy profile http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/economy_profile.html

New food magazine: The growing global epidemic of food fraud http://www.newfoodmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-Whitepaper.pdf

The Law Library: Characteristics of a good legal system http://thelawlibrary.net/latest/characteristics-of-a-good-legal-system.html

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2011). Summary of demographic indicatorshttp://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Popn_T2_2011.pdf

Uganda Bureau of Statistics: Population by selected age group and yearshttp://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/Popn_T4_2011.pdf

United Kingdom Food Safety Agency. Food fraud http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodfraud/#.UzCx8SjDDIU

World Bank (2013). List of economieshttp://www.iawp.org/joiniawp/countrylist.htm

References




http://www.nbs.ug/details.php?option=acat&a=356#.UzCcayjDDIV


http://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uganda


http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/demographics_profile.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/uganda/economy_profile.html

http://www.newfoodmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/NSF-Whitepaper.pdf

http://thelawlibrary.net/latest/characteristics-of-a-good-legal-system.html





http://www.food.gov.uk/enforcement/enforcework/foodfraud/#.UzCx8SjDDIU

http://www.iawp.org/joiniawp/countrylist.htm


Annexes

Annex 1: Research plan Period/Date Research phase/activity Responsible person Critical tools and

resources

20th- 30th July 2013 Topic identification and Searching background information

Student, supervisor WUR Library and on-line databases

1st-15th August 2013

Proposal writing and conducting literature review

Student, supervisor WUR Library, on-line databases, research books and articles

16th- 20th, August 2013 Proposal submission and approval Student, supervisor Software (Word) and printer

17th- 22nd August 2013 Travel planning, identification of interview respondents, drafting questionnaires

Student, respondents emails, phone calls, finances

23rd August 2013 Arrival in Uganda Student Finances 25th August- 3rd, October 2013

Schedule interview meetings with all relevant authorities, conduct Interviews, visit resource libraries and websites, storage of data, updating supervisor on research progress

Student, organization representatives, supervisor

Questionnaires, Skype, phone calls, emails, on-line data bases, observations, note books, a flash, camera, pens, photocopier

5th October 2013 Arrive at WUR Student Finances 6th-7th October 2013 Send appreciation messages to all

respondents Student, respondents Emails, phone calls,

Skype 8th October- 8th, December 2013

Continue data collection at WUR, data analysis and writing draft report

Student, supervisor Online databases, software (Word and Excel)

9th, December 2013 Submit initial draft Student, supervisor Software (word), email 10th December 2013- 10th January 2014

Editing and review Student, supervisor Software

11th, January 2014 Submit second draft Student, supervisor Software, email 15th January-15th, February 2014

Editing and review Student, supervisor Software, email

16th, February 2014 Submit 3rd draft Student, supervisor Software, email 20th-26th, February 2014 Make final adjustments Student, supervisor Software, email

30th, February 2014 Presentation and defense Student, supervisor, examiners Software, email

Annex 2: Participants’ profiles organization/Department Name and address of contact person Kind of information

needed Access mode Response

Status

Uganda National bureau of standards (UNBS) Administration department http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php

Dr. Ben Manyindo, Executive director Tel: +256414505995 Email: [email protected]

General overview of the organization

Face to face interview, website

successful

UNBS Quality assurance department

Mr. Imalingat Martin Department Manager Tel: +256414534357 Email ; [email protected]

General information/data on surveillance and certification, other enforcement activities

Face to face interaction, website, visiting resource center

Successful

UNBS Import inspection department

Mr. Othieno Andrew Department manager Tel: +256414505995 Email: [email protected]

Data on imports, laws/ regulations, PVoC program

Face to face interview, website, visiting resource center

Successful

UNBS Product testing department

Deusdedit Mubangizi Department manager Tel: 414222367; email: [email protected]

Mandate, Data on lab tests related to food fraud

Face to face interview, website, visiting resource center

Successful

UNBS Standards department

Mr. Eboku David Department manager

Information on food standards certified against

website, information

Successful

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php

http://www.unbs.go.ug/index.php

mailto:[email protected]





Tel: +256414505995 Email: [email protected]

resource center

UNBS Legal metrology Department

Mr. Musimami John Paul Department manager Tel: +256312279484 Email: [email protected]

Data on weighing equipments on the market and in factories, regulations

Face to face interview, website, information resource center

Successful

UNBS surveillance division Eng. Vincent O. Ochwo Head division Tel: +256414222367 Email: [email protected]

Data on fraudulent practices in factories and on the market

Face to face interview, website, visiting information resource center

Successful

UNBS Certification division Mr. Byansi Bashir Head of division Email: [email protected]

Information/data on certified food products and authorized factories

Face to face interview, website, physically visiting resource center

Successful

UNBS pre-export verification of conformity (PVoC) Program

Ms. Linda Kobere, Desk officer, Tel: +256414505995 Email: [email protected]

General information/data on the PVoC program

Face to face interview, website, visiting information resource center

Successful

UNBS information and documentation office (resource center)

Mr. Musuga Maurice, Information officer Email: [email protected]

General information on UNBS, standards, food safety and quality management systems, regulations

Physically visiting the resource center to study materials

successful

Uganda manufacturers’ association (UMA) policy department http://uma.or.ug/

Mr. Ssali Godfrey Policy analyst and advocacy officer Tel: +256-702-940 910; email: [email protected]

General information/data on fraud activities, number of food industries, regulations/laws


Successful

Uganda consumer protection association (UCPA), Administration www.consumersinternational.org

Mr. Watasa Sam Executive director Email: [email protected]

General mandate on consumer protection, regulations/laws

Skype interview, website

Successful

National drug authority (NDA)food desk http://www.nda.or.ug/

Ms. Wanyenye Irene Desk coordinator Phone: 0712478333

General information/data on food regulation and fraud activities


Contact made but no response, web search Successful

Dairy development authority (DDA),Quality assurance department http://www.dda.or.ug/

Ms. Baguma Agnes Department head Phone: +256772448776

General information/data on dairy regulation and fraud activities


Contact made but no response web search Successful

Uganda Police, Economic crime department (CID)

Officer in charge General data on fraudulent cases

Face to face interview, website search

Contact made, but no response,web search Successful

Police, prosecution department

prosecutor Data on prosecutions related to fraudulent activities

Face to face interview

Unsuccessful

Uganda prison services http://www.prisons.go.ug/

- Data on food fraud remandees and convicts

Website Successful

Ministry of trade, industry and cooperatives (MTTC) http://www.mtti.go.ug

- General information on food industry, policy formulation, laws and regulations

Website search Successful

Ministry of agriculture, animal industry and fisheries(MAAIF) http://www.agriculture.go.ug/

- General information on agriculture industry, policy formulation, laws and regulations


Ministry of health (MoH), disease control and Quality assurance departments http://health.go.ug/mohweb/

- General information/data on illnesses originating from fraudulent food consumption, policies, regulations


Ministry of internal affairs, general (MoIA) http://www.mia.go.ug/

- General information on police forces and prison services


Ministry of Information General information on Website search successful

Annexes







http://uma.or.ug/


http://www.consumersinternational.org/

http://www.consumersinternational.org/


http://www.nda.or.ug/

http://www.dda.or.ug/

http://www.prisons.go.ug/

http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emtti%2Ego%2Eug&urlhash=TnGW&trk=Ministry+of+Tourism%2C+Trade+and+Industry%2C+Uganda_website

http://www.agriculture.go.ug/

http://www.agriculture.go.ug/

http://health.go.ug/mohweb/

http://health.go.ug/mohweb/

http://www.mia.go.ug/


and communication technology (MICT) http://www.ict.go.ug/

media channels and mandate

Media (newspapers) New vision and Daily monitor; National television; Uganda broadcasting corporation TV and Radio http://www.newvision.co.ug/ http://www.monitor.co.ug/ http://ntvuganda.co.ug/ http://ubc.ug/

- General information on fraudulent activities


SGS Uganda limited –UNBS service provider http://www.sgs.ug/

- General information on mandate on implementation of the PVoC program


Intertek Uganda - UNBS service provider www.intertek.com



Bureau Veritas- UNBS service provider www.bureauoutcome.com



Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) http://www.ucc.co.ug/

- Website search Successful

Uganda Small scale industries association (USSIA)

- General information Website search, Face-to-face interviews

Successful

Annex 3: Interview questionnaires

Annex 3(a): Information obtained from UCPA

Date..........................................................................................................................

Name/Department of respondent.............................................................................

The information required concerns the occurrence of cheating practices (counterfeiting, addition of harmful ingredients to food, dilution

of food products, changing expiry date on products, misleading food labels, misleading advertisements, substandard foods, false

declaration of ingredients and weights, use of false weighing scales) in Uganda and how UCPA is dealing with it to protect the consumers.

1) What is the mandate of UCPA?

2) Are consumers aware of this organization and its mandate? (give approximate percentage of those aware)

3) Do you think the above fraudulent activities are happening in the Ugandan food industry?

4) If yes, are consumers aware of the above fraudulent activities and the foods involved? (give approximate percentage of those

aware)

5) Which of these practices are mostly occurring in the Ugandan food market/industry?

i. counterfeiting,

ii. addition of harmful/unauthorized ingredients to food,

iii. dilution of food products,

iv. changing expiry dates on products,

v. misleading food labels,

vi. misleading advertisements,

vii. substandard foods,

viii. false declaration of ingredients and weights,

6) At what stage and places of the food supply chain are these practices occurring most?

7) Which of the above practices is mostly associated with imported food products?

8) Which of these food products from domestic industries are mostly affected by these practices?

i. cereal /bakery products (bread, biscuits, cakes)

Annexes

http://www.ict.go.ug/

http://www.newvision.co.ug/

http://www.newvision.co.ug/

http://www.monitor.co.ug/

http://ntvuganda.co.ug/

http://ubc.ug/

http://www.sgs.ug/

http://www.intertek.com/

http://www.bureauveritas.com/

http://www.ucc.co.ug/


ii. dairy products (fresh cooled milk, powdered milk, ghee, cheese, butter, processed liquid milk)

iii. beverages (mineral water, juices)

iv. spices (curry powder)

v. tea/coffee (instant coffee)

vi. flours

vii. cooking oil

9) Which imported food products are mostly affected by these fraudulent practices and where are they imported from?

10) In which establishments are fraudulent food products mostly sold (supermarkets, general merchandise shops, open markets,

street vendors)?

11) Are there consumer complaints regarding the above practices? How many recorded complaints for each practice above in the

last five years (2009-2013)? What is the frequency of complaints?

12) How are the complaints normally dealt with (response to consumer complaints)?

13) Which of the above food products (domestic or imported) receive most complaints?

14) What measures (long and short term) are being taken by UCPA to protect consumers against these fraudulent practices?

15) Who are your partners in the fight against the above fraudulent practices?

16) What are the laws and regulations governing consumer protection against fraud in Uganda?

17) What was the effect of the melamine scandal of 2008 on the consumers and industry and how was it dealt with?

18) What is the prevalence of food fraud compared to fraud involving other consumer products?

19) What is the prevalence of food fraud compared to other food -related issues such as food safety, health, and biotechnology?

20) What is your judgment of the trend of each of the above food fraud practices in Uganda for the last five years (2009-

2013)?(increasing, decreasing, no change)

21) Do you think government is doing its best to fight the above unfair practices in Uganda?

22) What are the challenges encountered in the fight against these fraudulent practices? 23) How can food fraud be best dealt with in Uganda?

Annex 3(b): Data obtained from the legal metrology department- UNBS

Date..................................................................................................

Name/Adress.....................................................................................


of food products, changing expiry dates on products, misleading food labels, misleading advertisements, substandard foods, false

declaration of weights, use of false weighing scales) in the Ugandan domestic and imported food products (cereals, cereal /bakery

products, dairy products, beverages, spices, tea/coffee, flours) and how UNBS is dealing with it to protect the consumers and industry.

1) What is the mandate of the legal metrology department?

2) What are the laws and regulations applicable to the legal metrology department?

3) Which measurements of trade are regulated by this organization/department?

4) Which of the following food products are most affected by false declaration of measurements in the Ugandan food industry?

(indicate which measurement)

i. Grains (maize, rice )

ii. cereal /bakery products (bread, cakes, biscuits)

iii. dairy products(powdered milk, liquid processed milk, yoghurt, ghee, ice cream)

iv. beverages (juices, mineral water)

v. spices (curry powder)

vi. tea/coffee,

vii. flours (wheat, maize, millet)

viii. cooking oil

5) How are the fraudulent food products and the culprits usually identified? (Consumer complaints, traceability system,

surveillance, police alert,……)

6) If by consumer complaints, how often do you receive consumer complaints? (often, rarely)

7) If by surveillance, please, provide the surveillance schedule of the department.

8) If by traceability system, what are the requirements of the traceability system?

9) What actions are always taken against non-conforming food products and the owners?

10) What measures are being taken to prevent/deter false declaration of measurements in the food industry?

Annexes


11) Have there been any prosecutions/convictions in connection with food fraud?

12) If yes, please provide data(type of food product, penalty, number) on prosecution/conviction in connection with the following

fraudulent practices in the food industry for the last 5 years

i. Counterfeiting

ii. Adulteration

iii. Misleading labelling

iv. Changing expiry dates

v. Substandard foods

vi. Use of false measurements?

13) At what stage of the supply chain is false declaration of measurements occurring most (production, distribution, marketing)

14) Please, comment on the trend of occurrence of false declaration of measurements in the Ugandan food industry for the last 5

years (increasing, decreasing, no change)

15) If increasing, what are the drivers behind the increase?

16) Please, compare the occurrence of food fraud with fraud involving other consumer goods e.g. cosmetics, cement

17) What are the challenges being faced in the fight against food fraud in the Ugandan food industry?

18) How best can food fraud be dealt with in Uganda?

Annex 3(c): Information obtained from the legal department-UNBS

Date............................................................................................................

Name/Address of respondent.....................................................................



declaration of ingredients and weights, use of false weighing scales) in the Ugandan domestic and imported food products (cereals, cereal

/bakery products, dairy products, beverages, spices, tea/coffee, flours) and how UNBS is dealing with it to protect the consumers and

industry.

1) What is the mandate of the legal department?

2) What are the laws and regulations being implemented in the regulation of food safety in Uganda?

3) What are the laws and regulations being implemented in the regulation of the following fraudulent practices in the Ugandan

food industry?

I. Counterfeiting

II. Adulteration

III. Misleading labelling

IV. Changing expiry dates

V. Substandard foods

VI. Use of false weights and measures

4) Which legal actions are usually taken against food fraudsters within these frameworks?

5) Please, provide data of prosecutions/convictions in connection with the above fraudulent practices for the last 5 years

6) What are the challenges being faced by this organization/department in fighting food fraud?

7) What are the legal plans of UNBS in the fight against food fraud? 8) How can food fraud be adequately dealt with in Uganda?

Annex 3(d): obtained from the police-CID/economic crime department

Date...............................................................................................

Name/department of respondent..................................................



Annexes




1) What is the mandate of the CID/prosecution department?

2) Have there been any arrests/prosecutions in line with the following fraudulent practices?

i. Counterfeiting

ii. Adulteration

iii. Misleading labelling

iv. Changing expiry dates

v. Substandard foods

vi. Use of false measurements?

3) If yes, provide data (type of food product, fraudulent practice, numbers) on prosecutions for the last 5 years

4) Under which legal provision was the prosecution in connection with counterfeiting done?

5) How often do you get suspects on grounds of food fraud? (frequently, rarely)?

6) How many suspects did you get on grounds of food fraud last month? (August)

7) How do you coordinate the prosecution of food fraud suspects with relevant authorities?

8) Please, rate the trend of occurrence of food fraud in the last five years (increasing, decreasing, no change)

9) Please, compare the occurrence of food fraud with fraud involving other consumer goods e.g. cosmetics, cement

10) What are the challenges in the fight against food fraud in Uganda?


Annex 3(e): Data obtained from DDA

Date...................................................................................................

Name/address of respondent...........................................................

The information required concerns the occurrence of cheating practices (counterfeiting, addition of harmful ingredients, dilution,

changing expiry dates, misleading labels, misleading advertisements, substandard, false declaration of ingredients and weights) in the

Ugandan domestic dairy industry and imported dairy products. Data covering a period of five years, i.e. 2009-2013 may be provided for

the following dairy products; fresh cooled milk, processed liquid milk, powdered milk, yoghurt, ice cream, cheese, ghee and butter.

1) What is the mandate of DDA?

2) Please, provide an overview (names, location, registration/license status) of milk producers, processors, collecting and cooling

centers and transporters in Uganda

3) Are there fraudulent activities happening in the dairy industry?

4) If yes, which of the following fraudulent activities are mostly occurring in the dairy industry in the last 5 years?

i. Counterfeiting,

ii. addition of harmful/unauthorized ingredients,

iii. dilution,

iv. changing expiry dates,

v. misleading labels,

vi. misleading advertisements,

vii. substandard products,

viii. false declaration of ingredients and weights

5) Which harmful/unauthorized ingredients are being used in both domestic and imported milk products?

6) Where is Uganda importing her dairy products from?

7) At what stage of the supply chain are these fraudulent activities occurring most in the Ugandan dairy industry?

8) What actions are usually taken against fraudulent milk products and the owners? Please provide statistics for the last 5 years

9) What measures are being taken to prevent fraud in the dairy industry (imports and domestic)?

10) Have you ever received consumer complaints about any of the above fraudulent activities?

11) If yes, how often do you receive complaints? And which fraudulent activity is mostly complained about?

Annexes


12) What is normally the response towards consumer complaints?

13) Do you have a traceability system to identify the origin of fraudulent activities in the dairy products?

14) What parameters are always tested for during routine milk inspection?

15) What is the commonest non-conformity encountered during routine inspection?

16) What are the laws, regulations and standards used in the dairy regulation?

17) Who are the partners in the dairy regulation?

18) What is your rating of the occurrence of the above fraudulent activities in the last 5 years? (increasing, decreasing, no change)

i. Counterfeiting,

ii. addition of harmful/unauthorized ingredients,

iii. dilution, changing expiry dates,

iv. misleading labels,

v. misleading advertisements,

vi. substandard products,

vii. false declaration of ingredients and weights

19) What are the challenges in the fight against food fraud in the dairy industry?

20) How best can food fraud be tackled in Uganda?

Annex 3(f): Information obtained from UMA

Date..............................................................................................

Name/address of respondent..........................................................

The information required concerns the occurrence of cheating practices(counterfeiting, addition of harmful ingredients to food, dilution


declaration of ingredients and weights, use of false weighing scales) in the Ugandan domestic and imported food products (cereals, cereal

/bakery products, dairy products, beverages, spices, tea/coffee, flours) and how UMA is dealing with it to protect the consumers and

industry.

1) What is the mandate of UMA?

2) Please, provide an overview (name, address and products produced)of the main food industries in Uganda

3) Which of the following fraudulent activities are mostly occurring in the food industry in the last 5 years?

ix. Counterfeiting,

x. addition of harmful/unauthorized ingredients,

xi. dilution, changing expiry dates,

xii. misleading labels,

xiii. misleading advertisements,

xiv. substandard products,

xv. false declaration of ingredients and weights

4) Which fraudulent activities are occurring with each of the following food products?

I. Dried cereals (maize, rice, sorghum, millet)

II. cereal /bakery products (bread, biscuits, cakes, )

III. dairy products (powdered milk, fresh milk, pasteurized milk, butter, yoghurt, ghee, cheese)

IV. beverages (juices, mineral water, sugar),

V. spices,

VI. tea/coffee,

VII. flours (maize, wheat, millet, sorghum)

VIII. cooking oil

5) How often do you get complaints from industry/consumers about the above practices? (often, rarely, never)

I. Counterfeiting,

II. addition of harmful/unauthorized ingredients,

III. dilution,

IV. changing expiry dates,

V. misleading labels,

Annexes


VI. misleading advertisements,

VII. substandard products,

VIII. false declaration of ingredients and weights

6) What actions are always taken whenever complaints are raised?

7) What measures has UMA put in place to fight/prevent the above fraudulent practices?

8) At what stage of the supply chain do the above practices take place most? (manufacturing, whole sale, retail, distribution)

9) Do industries have a traceability system to trace the origin of the above fraudulent practices?

10) What is your rating of food fraud occurrence trends for the last 5 years? (increasing, reducing, no change)

11) How do you compare food fraud occurrence with fraud involving other consumer goods such as cement, electricals, soaps,

cosmetics?

12) How do you compare food fraud occurrence with other food issues such as safety, health, biotechnology?

13) What are the laws and regulations protecting the food industry against these fraudulent practices?

14) What are the challenges being faced by this organization/department in the fight against food fraud?

15) What are the long term plans of UMA in the fight against food fraud? 16) In your view, how best can food fraud be dealt with?

Annex 3(g): Data obtained from UNBS (certification, surveillance and import inspection departments)

Date..........................................................................................................

Name/address of respondent..................................................................





1) Prevalence and trends of food fraud incidents (counterfeiting, adulteration, mislabelling, tempering, over declaration of

weights, simulation, use of false weighing scales) in the Ugandan food industry and imported foods in the last five years

2) Commonest third country sources (country, food and quantities) of fraudulent food products (imports)

3) At what stage of the food chain are these fraudulent activities occurring most?

4) What actions are being taken against fraudulent foods/fraudsters?

5) What measures are being taken by UNBS to prevent, deter fraud in both the domestic food industry and imported food

products?

6) What are the Laws, regulations, standards being used in the regulation of food fraud and the implementing bodies

7) Who are the partners/stakeholders and their roles in the fight against food fraud in Uganda?

8) Number of prosecutions and convictions per food category and fraudulent activity

9) Total number of food establishments in Uganda, categorized into registered and unregistered

10) Number of certified food products/systems, and standards certified against

11) What are the actions taken against unregistered food establishments and uncertified food products

12) List of companies and food products with registered intellectual property rights such as trademarks, patents and industrial

designs

13) UNBS factory inspection/audit schedule and findings in line with above listed fraudulent activities

14) UNBS market surveillance schedule and findings in relation to above listed fraudulent activities

15) What are the challenges in the fight against food fraud in Uganda?

16) What are the requirements for company registration and certification?

17) What are the exact fraudulent practices affecting the following food products?

viii. cereal /bakery products (bread, biscuits, cakes)

ix. dairy products (fresh cooled milk, powdered milk, ghee, cheese, butter, processed liquid milk)

x. beverages (mineral water, juices)

xi. spices (curry powder)

xii. tea/coffee (instant coffee)

xiii. flours

xiv. cooking oil

18) What is the prevalence of food fraud compared with fraud involving other products such as cosmetics, cement and fuel?

(higher, lower, same)

Annexes


19) What is the prevalence of food fraud compared with other food issues such as safety, health and biotechnology? (higher, lower,

same)

20) Please, give your rating of food fraud trends in the last 5 years (increasing, decreasing, constant)

21) What are the reasons behind the observed trend?

22) Who are the partners in the fight against food fraud in Uganda?


Annex 3 (h): Data obtained from UNBS testing department Date..............................................................................................

Name/address of respondent..........................................................

The information required concerns the occurrence of cheating activities (counterfeiting, addition of harmful ingredients to food, dilution of food products, changing expiry date on products, misleading food labels, misleading advertisements, substandard foods, false declaration of ingredients and weights, use of false weighing scales) in the Uganda domestic and imported food products (cereals, cereal /bakery products, dairy products, beverages, spices, tea/coffee, flours) and how UNBS is dealing with it to protect the consumers and industry.

1) What is the mandate of the testing department? 2) Which parameters do you normally test for in the following food products?

i. Dried cereals (maize, rice, sorghum, millet) ii. cereal /bakery products (bread, biscuits, cakes, )

iii. dairy products (powdered milk, fresh milk, pasteurized milk, butter, yoghurt, ghee, cheese) iv. beverages (juices, mineral water, sugar), v. spices,

vi. tea/coffee, vii. flours (maize, wheat, millet, sorghum)

viii. cooking oil

3) What is the capacity of your laboratory? 4) Under what circumstances do you do sampling and testing? 5) Have you ever encountered non-conforming samples? 6) If yes, what were the non-conformances for each of the above food products? (domestic, imports)?

i. Dried cereals (maize, rice, sorghum, millet) ii. cereal /bakery products (bread, biscuits, cakes, )

iii. dairy products (powdered milk, fresh milk, pasteurized milk, butter, yoghurt, ghee, cheese) iv. beverages (juices, mineral water, sugar), v. spices,

vi. tea/coffee, vii. flours (maize, wheat, millet, sorghum)

viii. cooking oil 7) For imports, where were the non-conforming samples imported from? 8) How often do you encounter non-conforming samples? (give figures for the last 5 years) 9) Have you ever encountered harmful /unauthorized ingredients in the samples for each of the above products? 10) If yes, which ingredients were these for domestic and imported food products above? 11) What actions are normally taken against non-conforming food products and the producers/sellers? (give figures of penalties

for the last 5 years) 12) How was the melamine scandal of 2008 detected and handled? 13) What are main sources of fraudulent food products? (supermarkets, general merchandize shops, street vendors, street

markets) 14) At what stage of the supply chain are fraudulent practices occurring most? 15) Who are the partners of product testing and their roles? 16) What is your rating of food fraud occurrence trends for the last 5 years? (increasing, reducing, no change) 17) How do you compare food fraud occurrence with fraud involving other consumer goods such as cement, electrical, soaps,

cosmetics)? 18) How do you compare food fraud occurrence with other food issues such as safety, health, biotechnology? 19) What are the challenges being faced by this organization/department? 20) What are the plans of UNBS in the fight against food fraud?

Annexes


Annex 4: Food fraud institutions- pictorial

1

2 3

4 5

Annexes


6 7 8

9

10 11

13 12

Note: Pictures 1 and 4 were taken (by me) during empirical data collection (26/09/2013), the rest are google

pictures