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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
1.1.2 Uganda country profile ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 8
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
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
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
4.3.5 Media .................................................................................................................................................... 87
LITERATURE .........................................................................................................................................................109
EU legislation ...............................................................................................................................................112
Acts of Parliament .......................................................................................................................................113
MEDIA ................................................................................................................................................................115
ANNEX 1: RESEARCH PLAN......................................................................................................................................118
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
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
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
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)
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”
25 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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)
26 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
27 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
33 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
34 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
35 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
36 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
37 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
38 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
39 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
forms. These are commonly witnessed in high selling, popular, closely resembling and
unbranded pre-packaged food products sold across the country. Juices (imitation and
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).
46 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
47 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
48 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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)
53 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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).
54 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
58 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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”
62 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
63 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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)”
64 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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)
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
65 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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)
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
66 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Food fraud in Uganda
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
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
67 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
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
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
69 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
70 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
71 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
Summary findings and preliminary conclusions
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.
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
72 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
73 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Food fraud in Uganda
Chapter 4
74 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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,
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)
77 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
83 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
85 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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,
100 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
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
Discussion, conclusion and recommendations
Chapter 5
105 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Discussion, conclusion and recommendations
Chapter 5
106 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Discussion, conclusion and recommendations
Chapter 5
107 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
Discussion, conclusion and recommendations
Chapter 5
108 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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.
Discussion, conclusion and recommendations
Chapter 5
109 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
110 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
111 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
112 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
113 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
114 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
115 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
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
116 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
117 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
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
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
120 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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
Website search Successful
SGS Uganda limited –UNBS service provider http://www.sgs.ug/
- General information on mandate on implementation of the PVoC program
Website search Successful
Intertek Uganda - UNBS service provider www.intertek.com
- General information on mandate on implementation of the PVoC program
Website search Successful
Bureau Veritas- UNBS service provider www.bureauoutcome.com
- General information on mandate on implementation of the PVoC program
18) What is the prevalence of food fraud compared with fraud involving other products such as cosmetics, cement and fuel?
(higher, lower, same)
Annexes
126 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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?
23) How best can food fraud be dealt with 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
127 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
Annex 4: Food fraud institutions- pictorial
1
2 3
4 5
Annexes
128 Food Fraud Manifestation, Deterrence and Regulation- The Ugandan perspective (March, 2014)
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