Importance of food safety and quality standards at various levels … · 2013-12-22 · Africa. The questionnaire was based on questions related to food safety, standards and certifications

1

FACULTY OF BIOSCIENCE ENGINEERING

INTERUNIVERSITY PROGRAMME (IUPFOOD) MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FOOD TECHNOLOGY

Major Food Science and Technology

Academic year 2012-2013

Importance of food safety and quality standards at

various levels in the tomato supply chain of South

Africa

Chirag Swami

Promoters: Prof. Mieke Uyttendaele and Prof. Lise Korsten

Tutors: Dr. ir. Sigrid van Boxstael and Mrs Willeke de Bruin

Master's dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the degree of Master of Science in Food Technology

2

Preface

This report is my master thesis for the conclusion of my master program in Food Technology at

the Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University. This research was conducted with the

collaboration between University of Pretoria, South Africa and Ghent University, Belgium and

was carried out within the framework of Veg-i-Trade project.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my promoter Prof. Dr. Ir. Mieke Uyttendaele and

supervisor Dr. ir. Sigrid Van Boxstael at Ghent University along with my co-promoter Prof. Lise

Korsten and co-supervisor Willeke de Bruin from University of Pretoria for giving me this

opportunity to carry out the research in their department and for their guidance and continuous

support. Without them, I could not have dealt with such a challenging project and could not

have had such an amazing experience in South Africa.

I am happy that Dr. Ir. Sigrid Van Boxstael supervised my master thesis. She gave me not only a

lot of detailed instructions on my topic but also many useful practical tips on scientific

communication and how to implement a research project. All our meetings were fruitful and

productive. In addition my co-promoter, Prof Lise Korsten also gave me some really constructive

comments on the thesis along with Prof. Bala Pillay from the University of KwaZulu-Natal who

helped me with the data collection in Durban. I also shared many happy times with other

members of the staff during my stay in South Africa. Also, I would like to thank the participants

in my survey, who have willingly shared their precious time during the process of interviewing.

I would also like to acknowledge the financial, academic and technical support of Ghent

University and University of Pretoria, its staff and particularly the award of the Master Credit

Allowance scholarship from VLIR-UOS that provided the necessary financial support for this

research. It was due to their support that I could collect my data so quickly and complete this

thesis in time.

Finally, I thank my parents for supporting me throughout all my studies at University and my

loved ones, who have supported me throughout entire process, both by keeping me

harmonious and helping me putting pieces together. I will be grateful forever for your love.

3

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Tomato as a major commodity in the global fresh produce chain: .............................................. 9

1.2 Tomato Production and Trade in South Africa: ........................................................................... 11

1.2.1 Production: .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.2 Trade: ................................................................................................................................... 14

1.2.3 Tomato Supply Chain:.......................................................................................................... 16

1.3 Importance of Food safety for Tomato: ...................................................................................... 19

1.3.1 Food Safety Hazards associated with Tomatoes: ................................................................ 19

1.4 Food Safety Standards for Fresh Produce ................................................................................... 23

1.4.1 Codex Alimentarius standards: ........................................................................................... 23

1.4.2 Legislation by EU ................................................................................................................. 24

1.4.3 Legislation by South-Africa .................................................................................................. 26

1.4.4 Private food safety and quality standards: .......................................................................... 27

1.4.5 Relative content of QA schemes in the UK fresh produce industry: ................................... 31

1.5 Tariff, quotas and the price entry system ................................................................................... 32

1.6 Impact of food standards on trade.............................................................................................. 33

1.6.1 Standards as Non-Tariff Barriers to trade ........................................................................... 33

1.6.2 Standards as a “Catalyst” for trade: .................................................................................... 34

2 Materials and Method: ........................................................................................................................ 35

2.1 Field survey for South-African stakeholders of the tomato supply chain ................................... 35

2.1.1 Data Collection: ................................................................................................................... 36

2.2 On line survey: ............................................................................................................................. 38

2.3 FAOSTAT Database ...................................................................................................................... 41

3 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 42

3.1 Role of Stakeholders in the tomato supply chain: ...................................................................... 42

3.1.1 Farmers: ............................................................................................................................... 42

3.1.2 Wholesalers: ........................................................................................................................ 45

3.1.3 Retailers: .............................................................................................................................. 45

3.1.4 Street Vendors: .................................................................................................................... 47

3.2 Importance of standards in the South-African fresh produce supply chain: .............................. 47

3.2.1 Field survey: standards used by different South African tomato farmers- ......................... 47

3.2.2 On-line survey: Standards required for fresh produce ....................................................... 48

4

3.3 On-line survey: Involvement of farmers in the standard setting process ................................... 49

3.4 Stringency and/or implementation effort of Standards: ............................................................ 50

3.4.1 Field survey: stringency of standards .................................................................................. 50

3.4.2 On-line survey: Implementation effort of standards ......................................................... 51

3.5 Standards as non-tariff barriers to trade markets ...................................................................... 52

3.5.1 On-line survey on the opinion: Standards act as a non-tariff barriers to trade .................. 52

3.5.2 Field survey: Impact of the standards on market access by small scale farmers ................ 53

3.5.3 On-line survey: Impact of the standards on market access by small and medium scale

farmers 53

3.6 Costs/revenue linked to implementation of standards: ............................................................. 54

3.6.1 Field survey: Burden of costs for certification ..................................................................... 54

3.6.2 On-line survey: Burden of cost for implementation and certification of standards ........... 55

3.6.3 Link between revenue and certification for private Standards: ......................................... 56

3.7 Use of standards to gain competitive advantage (on-line survey).............................................. 57

3.8 Indirect beneficial consequences of standards ........................................................................... 58

3.8.1 Field survey: Spillover of knowledge and safer production practices ................................ 58

3.8.2 On-line survey: Beneficial indirect impacts of standards .................................................... 58

3.9 Field survey: Factors on farmer and country level contributing to increase capacity to

implement food standards ...................................................................................................................... 60

3.9.1 Farmer Level ........................................................................................................................ 60

3.9.2 Country Level ....................................................................................................................... 61

3.10 On-line survey: Factors on farmer and country level contributing to increase capacity to

implement food standards ...................................................................................................................... 62

3.10.1 Farmer Level ........................................................................................................................ 62

3.10.2 Country level........................................................................................................................ 64

4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 65

4.1 Role of different stakeholders and the importance of standards ............................................... 65

4.2 Pros and cons of food safety and quality standards ................................................................... 68

5 Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 73

6 References: .......................................................................................................................................... 75

5

List of Abbreviations

BEE- Black Economic Empowerment

BRC- British Retail Consortium

CAC- Codex Alimentarius Commission

DAFF- Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

EFSA- European Food Safety Authority

EU- European Union

FAO- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAOSTAT- FAO statistical database

FCD- Food stuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants

FFV- Fresh Fruit and Vegetables

GAP- Good Agricultural Practice

HACCP- Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points

IFS- International Food Standard

ISO- International Standard Organization

MRL- Maximum Residue Limit

NFPM- National Fresh Produce market

SPS- Sanitary and Phytosanitary

WHO- World Health Organization

WTO- World Trade Organization

6

Objective

This master thesis is carried out within the framework of the Veg-i-Trade project. This project

studies the impact of globalization and climate change on the food safety of fresh produce.

Besides this, it is the aim to study also particular aspects of food sovereignty.

Based on a field study in South Africa, the first objective of the Master thesis was to identify and

study the role of different stake holders in the South African tomato supply chain and to identify

the food safety and quality standards complied with at various levels in the chain. The second

objective of the study was to identify the constraints faced by farmers to access higher value

markets and to understand the importance and pros & cons of food safety and quality standards

in the South African tomato chain.

Four target groups were identified namely Farmers, Wholesalers, Retailers and Street Vendors

and a survey was conducted in Gauteng, Western Cape and KwaZulu Natal province of South

Africa. The questionnaire was based on questions related to food safety, standards and

certifications.

The study was also supported with the help of an on-line survey. This survey was created in the

frame of research on Veg-i-Trade and completed by more than 100 persons (11 South African).

Respondents comprised of farmers association, government representatives, Non-government

organizations, retail and processing companies.

7

Abstract

The agricultural sector plays an important role in the South African economy and tomato is the

second most important vegetable in the South African agricultural economy after potatoes. It’s

grown almost all over the country. Fresh tomatoes are popular around the world and also

consumed widely in homes and food services in South Africa. Thus it’s a challenge for the fresh

produce chain and regulators to protect the commodity against the risk of contamination.

Increase in consumer concerns about food safety and the strengthening of regulation on food

safety at national and international level has resulted in development of legal and also many

private food standards such as GLOBALG.A.P.

Thus this master thesis seeks to understand the importance of standards complied with at

various levels in the tomato supply chain in South Africa. For this purpose a field survey was

conducted in 3 provinces of South Africa. Four major stakeholder groups involved in the tomato

supply chain were identified. With this study I have tried to present the importance of standards

and certification for farmers to access higher value market. I also tried to understand the

constraints faced by the farmers to get food safety standards implemented and consequently

get certified.

The study was also supported via an on-line survey. Although tomatoes are very limited

exported, South-Africa is a major exporter of fruits. Via an on-line questionnaire, the opinions of

several stakeholders of the fresh produce chain were asked on their perception on the role of

fresh produce standards in this process.

In South-Africa, two commercial tomato farmers, two emerging tomato farmer, ten

wholesalers, two retailers and five street vendors were interviewed using a questionnaire on

their experiences and opinions on fresh produce food safety standards.

The outcome of these survey showed that different types of standards are used at different

levels. The commercial farmers followed the GLOBAL.GA.P approach among which one was

certified for GLOBAL.GAP. The two emerging farmers were not certified but they used own

approach together with help from other farmers in the area to grow the tomatoes which was

not written/documented. In the national fresh produce markets (NFPM) which is an important

channel for fresh produce in South Africa, the trade is based mainly on marketing standards

(Classified or Unclassified). On the informal market the safety and quality of produce is highly

compromised.

Private standards are perceived by all respondents to be the most difficult to comply with. Two

major constraints are the complexity and high demands of these standards and the unfair

burden of cost of implementation on the farmer.

Respondents believe that strong requirements of standards are the reason behind exclusion of

farmers from high value markets but they also agree that the standards can act as a catalyst to

upgrade their farming practices to a higher level. There is also a general agreement to the fact

8

that standards act as a non-tariff barrier to trade, however, the indirect benefits of

implementation of standards (spill-over of knowledge, increased farmer safety, less

environmental pollution) are well recognized.

9

1 Introduction

1.1 Tomato as a major commodity in the global fresh produce chain:

Tomato belongs to the genus Lycopersicon of the Solanaceae family. It originated from regions around Mexico and Peru in South America. Spanish explorers introduced tomato in Spain and it was later spread to Italy, Morocco and Turkey in the 16th century. It was termed “Moor’s apple” in Italy and “Love apple” in France (Jenkins, J.A, 1948). Tomato is now the most popular and widely grown vegetable in the world. There are over 2000 varieties of tomatoes ranging from small cherry tomatoes to beefsteak tomatoes of 10 cm diameter (L. Korsten, 2007). Tomato is a fast growing crop with a growing period of 90 to 150 days. Optimum day temperature for growth is 18 to 25 °C and night temperatures between 10 and 20 °C. Larger difference between optimal day and night temperature adversely affects the yield. It is sensitive to frost. Dry climates are usually preferred for tomato production. Tomato has a relatively short shelf life and thus proper post-harvest handling and cold chain management is essential for maintaining the quality. It is rich in vitamin C and antioxidants and is an essential part of the diet in many countries. It is consumed as either fresh fruit, sun-dried, pickled or canned (DAFF South Africa, 2006).

In 2010, there was a production of 909 million tonnes of vegetables in the world. The

production quantities of major vegetables in the world are listed in Table 1 which shows clearly

that tomato is one of the most produced vegetable in the world.

Table 1- World vegetable production (FAOSTAT, 2010)

Vegetable Production (million tonnes)[%]* Tomatoes 151.6 (16.7)

Onions, dry 78.5 (8.6)

Cabbages and other brassicas 66.3 (7.3)

Cucumbers and gherkins 62.4 (6.9)

Eggplants (aubergines) 43.8 (4.8)

Carrots and turnips 33.7 (3.7)

Chillies and peppers, green 29.4 (3.2)

Lettuce and chicory 24.2 (2.6)

Pumpkins, squash and gourds 22.9 (2.5)

Garlic 22.5 (2.4)

Spinach 20.1 (2.2)

Beans, green 19.8 (2.2)

Cauliflowers and broccoli 19.7 (2.1)

Peas, green 15.8 (1.7)

Maize, green 9 (1)

Asparagus 7.8 (0.9)

Mushrooms and truffles 7.3 (0.8)

10

Okra 6.9 (0.7)

Onions (inc. shallots), green 3.9 (0.4)

Leeks, other alliaceous veg 2 (0.2)

String beans 1.9 (0.2)

Artichokes 1.4 (0.1)

Other Vegetables 257 (28.3)

Total 907.9 (100)

*Percentage of total

The world production of tomatoes in 2010 was 151 million tonnes which is almost 17% of the

total production of vegetables in the world (FAO 2010). The leading producers (Table 2) being

China (47 million tonnes), United States of America (12 million tonnes), India (12.433 million

tonnes) and Turkey (10 million tonnes). The major exporters of tomatoes (Table 3) in 2010 were

Mexico (1.5 million tonnes), The Netherlands (0.9 million tonnes), Spain (0.7 million tonnes) and

Turkey (0.5 million tonnes). Major countries importing tomatoes in 2010 were United States of

America (1.5 million tonnes), Russian federation (0.6 million tonnes), Germany (0.6 million

tonnes) and France (0.5 million tonnes) (See Table 4).

Table 2- World Tomato Production (FAOSTAT 2010)

Country Volume (Million tonnes) [%] * Value (billion $) [%]*

China 47.1 [31] 17.4 [31.4]

United States of America

12.8[8.5] 4.7[8.5]

India 12.4[8.2] 4.6[8.3]

Egypt 8.5[5.6] 3.1[5.6]

Turkey 10.0[6.6] 3.1[5.6]

Italy 6.0[3.9] 2.2[3.9]

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

5.2[3.4] 1.9[3.4]

Spain 4.3[2.8] 1.5[2.7]

Brazil 4.1[2.7] 1.5[2.7]

Mexico 2.9[1.9] 1.1[1.9]

South Africa 0.5[0.3] ? [?]

Others 37.5[24.7] 1.4[2.5]

World total 151.6[100] 55.4[100]

*Percentage of total

11

Millions of people around the world – many of them small-scale farmers in developing countries

– depend on the production, processing and sale of fresh produce for their livelihoods, income

and food security. Expanding production of fresh fruit and vegetables offers opportunities to

create employment raise households’ incomes and generate foreign exchange earnings through

exports (FAO, 2003). In 2010 countries like Mexico, Netherlands and Spain were amongst the

countries with highest number of exported volumes for tomatoes. A complete list of major

tomato exporting nations in 2010 is given in Annex 1. It is also worth mentioning that countries

like United States of America, Russian Federation and Germany were amongst the highest

importers of tomatoes around the world in 2010 (See Annex 2 for complete list of top 10

importers).

Expansion of global trade and recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses associated with fresh

produce have increased consumer awareness about food safety risks, resulting in the

establishment of various stringent safety and quality requirements. As a result, farmers,

processors, distributors and other food chain actors in developing countries are facing huge

challenges to meet these demands (Food Quality and Standards Service Food and Nutrition

Division, FAO 2011).

1.2 Tomato Production and Trade in South Africa:

1.2.1 Production:

South Africa is divided into nine provinces- Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal,

Limpopo, Mpumalanga, Northern Cape, North West and Western Cape. Tomatoes are grown

almost all over South Africa in all the provinces. Tomato production is limited during winter

months and is usually produced in frost free areas by the use of tunnels. Tunnel production has

been an increasingly used method for tomato production in South Africa. Major production

comes from the Limpopo province with production area of about 3590 hectares which is almost

50% of the total area planted for tomatoes in the country. Other major provinces include

Mpumalanga province and Eastern Cape Province with a cultivation area of 770 ha and 450 ha

respectively, along with some areas of Western Cape and Kwazulu-Natal (Andre Louw et al.,

2005)

12

Figure 1- Provinces of South Africa (http://maps-africa.blogspot.be/)

The process for tomato production and distribution includes open field or greenhouse

production, harvesting, field packaging and repackaging and other distribution operations. In

the European Union there are two main systems for tomato production. In the “Dutch system”,

used mainly in the North European countries, tomatoes are cultivated in green houses on

substrate (generally rockwool) and a central hot water heating system is used for irrigation. In

this system the watering and environmental conditions are controlled by a computerized

system. Alternatively in the “Mediterranean system” production can be in either green houses

or field cultivation. There is no control of temperature or other atmospheric conditions and

cultivation can be in soil or soil-free environments under plastic or mesh (Tello, 2000). In South

Africa both open field and greenhouse production methods are used by small emerging farmers.

“The Dutch system” is mostly adopted by bigger commercial farmers. Greenhouse system can

be used with soil or soil-less (hydroponics) cultivation (EFSA, Parma, Italy, 2013).

The agricultural sector plays an important role in the South African economy with tomato being

the second most important agricultural commodity after potato. In 2010, the total cultivated

area for tomatoes in South Africa was 7900 hectares with a total production of 0.5 million

tonnes of tomatoes. There has been an overall increase in production by around 37% between

year 2000 and 2010. Tomato production has been increased slightly during last 10 years. Year

2010 has shown highest production volume in past decade as depicted in Figure 2.

13

In 2010 the production of tomatoes in South Africa (0.5 million tonnes) was almost the double

of that in Belgium (0.2 million tonnes). It’s also interesting to see that the total area harvested

for tomatoes in 2010 in South Africa and Belgium was 7900 Ha and 481 Ha respectively. Since

2000 and until 2010, the percentage increase in the tomato production for South Africa and

Belgium has been 37.5% and 5.3% respectively. The total percentage increase in world

production of tomatoes during this period was 37.87%. A graphical representation of the

comparison between Belgium and South Africa’s tomato production from 1998 to 2012 is given

in Figure 2 (FAOSTAT 2010).

Figure 2- Tomato production in South Africa and Belgium (FAOSTAT, 2013)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Mill

ion

to

nn

es

Belgium South Africa

14

1.2.2 Trade:

South Africa is not a major exporter of tomatoes. Only 20 407 tonnes of tomatoes were

exported in the year 2010 which is around 4% of the total production of tomatoes in South

Africa. South Africa ranks 41 in the list of major tomato exporting countries and represents

0.28% of the world tomato exports. Therefore most of the tomatoes produced are destined for

domestic markets and only a small percentage of tomatoes are exported to other countries.

Tomato volumes exported show peaks in the year 2004, 2007 and 2010 (See Fig. 3). Most of the

tomatoes are exported to the South African Development Community (SADC) countries with

Mozambique being the largest market followed by Zimbabwe and Angola. As shown in Table 3

most of the export of tomatoes (almost 99% in 2011) was made to the African countries.

Table 3 Export destinations for tomatoes (%value of total exports from South Africa) 2001-2011

Country Tomato

2001 2011

EU (Ex-UK) 2.39 0

UK 9.04 0

AEC* 0 0.96

Africa 88.3 98.76

Middle East 0 0.9

Other 0.27 0.28

Source: Calculated from ITC trade database, 2012 *AEC- Asean Economic Community- Hong Kong, China, Malaysia, Russia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines,

Vietnam, Brunei, Japan, Thailand, Rep. of Korea

The Provinces registering highest volumes of tomato export are Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and

Western Cape. Although not the highest producer of tomatoes, the high export volumes from

these provinces can be attributed to the fact that majority of registered exporters are based in

Gauteng and also the cities of Cape Town and Durban serve as exit points for tomato export due

to their harbors (DAFF, 2010)

15

Figure 3- Tomato export in South Africa (FAOSTAT 2001-2010)

The figures about tomatoes import (Figure 4) show that South Africa is self-sufficient in tomato

production and hence very low quantities of tomatoes are imported. In past decade the highest

import was registered in 2009 as 159 tonnes.

Figure 4- Tomato import in South Africa (FAOSTAT 2001-2010)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ton

ne

s

Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

ton

ne

s

Year

16

1.2.3 Tomato Supply Chain:

The tomato supply chain in South Africa consists of the farmers, wholesalers, retailers,

processors, street vendors and consumers.

Farmers: Tomato is a popular crop amongst the farmers in South Africa. At present three main

types of farmers exist in South Africa: commercial farmers, emerging farmers and subsistence

farmers). There are approximately 695 in both commercial and emerging sector. The

commercial sector contributes to 95% of the total produce while emerging sector contributes

only 5% (DAFF, 2011). A commercial farmer is defined as an enterprise that is legally bound to

register for a value added tax (VAT) because the turnover for a period of twelve months equals

or exceeds R300,000 (Louwe ,A. 2006). Subsistence farmers are those with little or no formal

market participation. The category “emerging” farmers can be defined as those farmers who

may be striving to move from subsistence farming to a more commercial model; those who

have benefited from land reform processes and want to establish an agricultural enterprise on

the land that has been allocated to them; those who have made use of Black Economic

Empowerment (BEE) funding to acquire a stake in a farm and are trying to achieve profitability.

The emerging farmer sector is neither established commercial farming nor subsistence in nature

and is the focus of many of the government’s efforts to achieve transformation within the

sector as a whole (Agriseta, 2010). A ‘Smallholder farmers’ range from those whose main

source of livelihood is non-farm activities to those whose livelihood is derived mainly from

farming and include both poor and non-poor farmers (C. Machethe, 2012).

Wholesaler: The national fresh produce markets (NFPM) are an important and most preferred

channel for sale of tomato in South Africa. NFPM prices are used as benchmark in all other sales

within the country. There are 4 major national fresh produce markets in South Africa.

Johannesburg fresh produce market is the biggest followed by Tshwane market, Cape Town

market and Durban market. The market share of Johannesburg fresh produce market in 2010

was 45% followed by Tshwane at 18%, Cape Town at 11% and Durban market at 8% of the total

tomato sales through this channel (See Fig 5). During 2004/2005 57% of the tomatoes produced

in SA were sold in the fresh produce markets (Louwe, A., 2006). Tomatoes are usually sold in

bulk quantity and larger packaging of minimum 10Kg (DAFF, 2011).

Retailer: In South Africa the retailers exist in both formal and informal sectors. The formal

sector includes supermarkets and registered retail outlets while the informal sector covers tuck

shops (sphaza) and hawkers. Sale is usually at predetermined prices and tomatoes are sold in

smaller packages. The continued expansion of retailers in South Africa is led by growth through

franchise format stores and forecourt stores. It has also been observed that the encroachment

of supermarkets into areas traditionally occupied by the informal markets is displacing these

informal markets and the traditional vegetable shops or so-called greengrocers historically

found in suburban South-Africa. There are many players in the food retail industry in South

17

Africa ranging from highly sophisticated retail chain supermarkets such as Pick n Pay, Shoprite-

Checkers, Spar, Woolworths, etc; wholesale outlets such as Makro, Metro, Trade Center, Cash &

Carry; independent stores such as Biforce Group, Bargain Group, Shield Wholesalers etc and

convenience chain stores including forecourts (gas stations with convenience type stores)

(Andre Louw etal, 2007).

Wholesale-Retailer: These types of businesses are called so because they operate between the

wholesaler and larger retailers. Their clients include final consumer as well as smaller retail

shops and food outlets (caterers and restaurants). Fruit and Veg city and Evergreens are

examples of such businesses in South Africa.

Processors: The processors are another important channel in the South-African tomato supply

chain. The tomato processing industry in South Africa is processing about 150,000 tonnes of raw

tomatoes (Ca 30% of the produced volume of tomatoes in South-Africa), a small amount in

relation to the world processing market. It comprises freezing, dehydration, canning and juice

production. The industry is characterized by one big player, Tiger Brands, which represents

about 75% of the processed tomatoes in South Africa.

Street Vendors or the Informal market: These include the hawkers selling fresh produce at the

pavements and street corners. The procurement strategy for this sector includes buying directly

from the farmer or at the national fresh produce markets. For the urban informal market the

fresh produce markets have been the preferred procurement avenues.

Figure 5- Tomato market share at major FPMs in South Africa (DAFF 2010)

Tshwane 18%

Johannesburg 45%

Cape Town 11%

Durban 8%

Others 18%

18

There are various channels through which the tomatoes can be sold. A farmer can sell directly to

the consumer through informal markets or farm gate market. Farmers can also sell their

produce at the National Fresh Produce markets (NFPM) through market agents or have direct

contract with Retailers and Processing companies. The NFPMs can sell directly to consumers,

processing companies or retailers. The retailers can further sell it to the consumers through

retail outlets. Street vendors are another interesting part of the chain. They buy tomatoes from

farmers or from the NFPMs and sell them to consumers at the informal markets like road side

stalls, bus ranks etc. (DAFF South Africa, 2010). A simplified tomato supply chain in the South

African domestic market is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6- A simplified tomato supply chain

19

1.3 Importance of Food safety for Tomato:

The tomato supply chain is unique because the product may be sold directly or indirectly to the

buyer. So there is no single distribution chain. Tomatoes are generally subjected to repackaging

for size and/or for quality reasons. This can make the distribution chain very complex resulting

in the tomatoes being handled by multiples entities before being offered for sale to the

consumer. Subsequently, in order to avoid food safety and quality problems, it is important to

comply with Quality and Safety standards.

1.3.1 Food Safety Hazards associated with Tomatoes:

There are basically three types of potential food safety hazards in case of tomatoes- Physical,

Chemical and Microbiological.

1.3.1.1 Physical hazards:

Physical hazards are those components that might be included in the packaging material and

that might cause a health risk if swallowed while eating the tomato. Typical examples of

physical hazards include:

Glass and stones picked up in the field during harvest.

Wood or plastic splinters from packing cases

Jewelry, hair clips, and other personal items belonging to workers

Dirt, animal feces, grease or lubricating oils, human hairs, insects and plant debris

Any of the above can be exposed to tomatoes while in the field and will usually be removed

during sorting, grading and packing. However, it may occur that some of these physical objects

are packed together with the tomatoes in a box or bag and may be unnoticed consumed by the

consumer causing health problems. These risks are usually low with tomatoes because the

vegetable is bigger than the objects unlike berries or grapes where a bunch might be bitten into.

Nevertheless these risks should be considered during harvesting and packing (Korsten, 2007).

1.3.1.2 Chemical hazards:

Chemical contaminants in raw vegetables may be naturally occurring or may be added during agricultural production, post-harvest handling or other operations. Some naturally occurring chemical hazards include:

Allergens (e.g. weeds)

Mycotoxins (e.g. aflatoxin)

Mushroom toxins

Phytohaemagglutinin

20

Alkaloids Agricultural chemicals include:

Pesticides

Fertilizers

Antibiotics

Disinfectants All growers must be aware of maximum residue limits (MRLs) of the specific pesticide used for the target market. MRLs are the regulatory mechanism used for controlling the levels of pesticide residues in food and are regularly updated according to new adapted legislation. Testing for MRL is a prerequisite prior to export and is a minimum requirement for most food safety management systems or GAP (L. Korsten, 2007).

In the international market, pesticide residues are a subject of concern for the trade of fresh tomatoes. This can for example be illustrated via some notifications about pesticide residues in tomatoes- in the communication portal Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF). Some notifications on tomatoes resulting from border inspections during the period 01/01/05 and 01/01/13 are given in Table 4:

Table 4 Pesticide residue alerts on tomatoes in EU- RASFF portal (2005-2012)

Date Reference Reported by Subject 21-03-12 2012.ARH BULGARIA procymidone (0.138 mg/kg - ppm) in

chilled tomatoes from Turkey

16-11-12 2012.1597 NETHERLANDS ethephon (1.8 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from the Netherlands

06-07-12 2012.0937 FRANCE procymidone (0.04 mg/kg - ppm) and oxamyl (0.057 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from Morocco

11-05-11 2011.BAY BULGARIA oxamyl (0.08 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from Turkey

28-02-11 2011.ALV BULGARIA procymidone (0.119 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from Jordan

04-05-11 2011.0574 HUNGARY procymidone (0.09; 0.03 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from Spain

23-02-10 2010.0223 AUSTRIA oxamyl (0.380 mg/kg - ppm) in fresh tomatoes from Turkey, via Germany

01-12-08 2008.1548 CZECH REPUBLIC fenhexamid (2.05 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from the Netherlands

26-11-07 2007.CRT BELGIUM ethephon (2.69 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from Belgium

11-04-06 2006.AXY DENMARK chlorothalonil (7.5 mg/kg - ppm) in tomatoes from Spain

21

1.3.1.3 Microbiological hazards:

Food borne microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses and parasites (also referred to as biological

hazards) which cause human disease can be found on raw produce. Some fungi are able to

produce toxins and are also included in this group of hazards. Sometimes they are part of the

fruit or vegetable micro flora as incidental contaminants from the soil, dust and surroundings. In

other instances they get introduced onto the food chain through poor production and handling

practices such as the application of untreated manure, the use of contaminated irrigation water

or unsanitary handling practices (Korsten, 2007).

1.3.1.4 Tomatoes as a source of outbreaks:

Fresh produce commodities are generally harvested by hand into bags and buckets and

transferred to larger containers for transport or storage. However some other fruits like berries

and some vegetables are packed on the field. The advantage in the latter case is that there is

reduced product handling and also the time between harvesting and cooling is reduced. But the

disadvantage is that controlling the quality is more difficult than in the case of a packaging-

house. Thus it is critical to have careful supervision during transport or at the storage facilities to

avoid physical injuries of the fresh produce which might favor microbial growth (EFSA, 2013).

Fresh tomatoes are popular and consumed in home and food service around the word. Thus it’s

a challenge for the fresh produce industry and regulators to protect the commodity against the

risk of contamination. Fresh tomatoes are intended to be consumed fresh therefore there is no

“kill-step” for the elimination of foodborne pathogens in case the tomatoes become

contaminated (Maitland et al., 2011).

Conducting trace back investigations in the event of an outbreak is a challenge for the public

health officials. This is due to the fact that it is difficult to isolate the raw product because in

most cases the raw product is either consumed, discarded or has reached the end of its shelf-

life (Lynch et al., 2009). Thus it becomes difficult to determine where the concerned food

product was produced. This is why in many foodborne outbreak investigations identification of

the food vehicles (items of fresh produce) is delayed (Lynch et al., 2009).

A list of outbreaks of foodborne diseases associated with tomatoes is given in Table 5. It

concerns mostly outbreaks with Salmonella species but outbreaks with Shigella and Hepatitis A

were also reported. For Salmonella potential contamination sources of the plants and fruits in

agricultural fields include insufficiently composted manure, irrigation and run-off water, and

excrements of wild animals. Dispersal of Salmonella cells onto tomato plants from point sources

by rain splash has been documented, and is dependent on factors including rain intensity and

duration. After reaching the plant, Salmonella may be internalized through roots, leaflets,

stems, and flowers and move towards the fruit where multiplication of the pathogen can occur.

Evidence of Salmonella internalization survival and growth in tomato plants and fruits, as well

22

as its occurrence in agricultural fields and persistence in soil and plant roots (Arthurson et al.,

2011) has been documented (Cevallos-Cevallos et al., 2012; Gu et al., 2011).

Table 5 Outbreaks of foodborne disease associated with tomatoes, from 1990–2009

Year Location Pathogen* Cases Food vehicle Reference 1990 US (multistate) Salmonella Javiana 176 Tomato Hedberg et

al.,1999

1993 US (multistate) Salmonella

Montevideo

100 Tomato Hedberg et al.,1999

1994 US (AK) Hepatitis A 92 Diced tomato FDA, 2009

2001 US (NY) Shigella flexneri 886 Tomato Reller et al. ,

2006

2002 US (CT) Salmonella

Newport

7 Grape tomato CDC, 2011

2004 US (multistate) Salmonella.

Braenderup

137 Roma tomato CDC, 2011

2004 US (multistate) Salmonella.

Anatum; Javiana;

Muenchen;

Thompson;

Typhimurium



Newport

52 Tomato CDC, 2011


Braenderup


2006 US (ME) Salmonella

Typhimurium

8 Tomato CDC, 2011

2006 US (PA) Salmonella Berta 16 Tomato CDC, 2011


Newport

65 Tomato CDC, 2011

2009 US (MI) Salmonella

Saintpaul

21 Tomato CDC, 2011

*Pathogens abbreviated and associated with outbreaks include various serotypes of Salmonella (S.)

23

1.4 Food Safety Standards for Fresh Produce

There has been increased concern over recent years about food quality and safety worldwide.

Consumers are demanding high standards from food produced domestically as well as the

imported food. Standards can relate to where and how the product was produced (according to

good agricultural practices) but can also deal with maximum allowed levels of physical,

microbiological and chemical hazards in the fresh produce.

1.4.1 Codex Alimentarius standards:

Since 1962 the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has been responsible for implementing

the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The Commission's primary objectives are the

protection of the health of consumers, the assurance of fair practices in food trade and the

coordination of all food standards work. Formulation of food standards covering all the principal

foods, whether processed, semi-processed or raw in the form that they reach the consumer is

the main role and basis of all Codex Alimentarius Commission’s work. The World Trade

Organization (WTO) Agreement in 1995 on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary

Measures (SPS) recognizes the standards and guidelines established by the Codex Alimentarius

Commission as reference in international food trade. Fruit and vegetable exports may be

rejected or banned for failing to meet food safety and/or quality standards (FAO corporate

document repository) (Food Quality and Standards Service Food and Nutrition Division FAO,

1999).

Table 6- Some international Codex standards applicable to tomato production (FAO,….)

Codex Standard

No Date Name of the standard

CAC/RCP 44 1995 Recommended International Code of Practice for the Packaging and Transport of Tropical Fresh Fruit and Vegetables

CAC/RCP 53 2003 Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

CODEX 13 1981 Standard for Canned Tomatoes CODEX 57 1981 Standard for Processed Tomato Concentrates

CODEX Codex database on pesticide residues

STAN 193 1995 Codex general standard for contaminants and toxins in food and feed

24

1.4.2 Legislation by EU

Apart from CAC, there also exists legislation by individual countries such as South African

Legislation (see 1.4.3.) or by regions such as the EU. The EU imports yearly about 11.6 and 1.7

million tons of fruits and vegetables respectively. During a 2011 workshop on food safety of

fresh produce held in the frame of the EU FP-7 project Veg-i-Trade, experts from the EU fresh

produce supply chain were asked to rank fresh produce food safety issues and contextual

factors that impact on food safety according to importance from their stakeholder point of view.

Bacterial pathogens, food borne viruses and pesticide residues were indicated as the most

important issues, while globalization was identified as the most important contextual factor

(Van Boxstael et al., 2013).

In EU fresh produce that is produced in EU, imported or exported needs to comply with several

safety and quality standards. The basis for EU food safety public standards is laid down in the

General Food Law or Regulation (EC) 178/2002 (M. Uyttendaele et al, 2012). Several milestones

of the EU Food Law are listed in Table 7

Table 7- Milestones of EU food law applying to food products such as fresh produce, herbs and nuts (Uyttendaele et al, 2012)

Year Content Regulation (EC)

2002 General Food Law 178/2002

2004 Hygiene package 852/2004

2004 Official controls 882/2004

2005 Microbial hazards 2073/2005

2005 Pesticide residues 396/2005

2006 Contaminants 1881/2006

2008 Marketing Standard 1221/2008

2009 Increased control for high risk products at

borders 669/2009

25

Fruits and vegetables and many other products entering the EU borders are checked and

controlled by EU Member States in Border Inspection Posts. In practice, overall about 2% of the

imports of non-animal origin is controlled. However, some products of non-animal origin that

are perceived to have a higher food safety risk are checked at increased frequencies. The

European Commission updates every three to six months a list containing these high risk

targeted products, their origin and the hazard to be analyzed (Annex 1 of Regulation

(EC)669/2009). The list is based upon several types of information, e.g. notifications from the EU

RASFF alert system, reports from the European Commission’s inspection service Food and

Veterinary Office (FVO), scientific assessments from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

and exchange of information between EU Member States. Several examples of these products

with reinforced checks (version 2 February 2013) are presented in Table 8, e.g. 10% of the

consignments with watermelons imported from Brazil needs to be analyzed for Salmonella and

10% of the tomato consignments imported from Turkey needs to be analyzed for pesticides

residues.

Table 8 Examples from imported fresh produce with reinforced checks at Border inspection posts (Regulation (EC) 669/2009).

Food Country of

origin Hazard

Frequency of

checks (%)

Watermelon Brazil Salmonella 10

Coriander, Basil Thailand Salmonella 10

Nuts South Africa Aflatoxins 10

Strawberries China Norovirus, Hepatitis

A 5

Pomelos China Pesticide residues 20

Oranges, pomegranates,

strawberries Egypt Pesticide residues 10

EU regulation provides also marketing standards for several fruits and vegetables

(unprocessed). The regulation provides general marketing standards (GMS) and specific

marketing standards (SMS) for export of FFV. GMS compliance is equivalent to the Codex

Alimentarius standards. There are stipulations as to minimum quality requirements related to

basic hygiene, maturing requirements, Tolerance levels of consignments, presentation of

product, origin of produce and labeling including class labeling (CBI, 2012). A number of export

products (most fresh fruits- including apples, peaches, nectarines, pears and table grapes) come

26

under specific marketing standards. SMS include product-specific requirements of minimum

quality; class labeling (‘Extra’ class, Class I, Class II), sizing, uniformity, tolerances etc. (CA 2007).

Adherence to the SMS requirements provides a Certificate of Conformity (CoC) in for these

products to enter the EU.

1.4.3 Legislation by South-Africa

The legislation and enforcement of safety and quality of fresh produce was recently reviewed by

L. Korsten. She states that operators in South Africa work in a complex food safety environment.

Several legislations who find their foundations in the Constitution of the Republic of South

Africa with respect to fresh produce are defined:

Agricultural Product Standards Act, 1990 (Act no. 119 of 1990) defines regulations relating to

the quality, grading, packing and marking of tomatoes intended for sale in the Republic of South

Africa. Classes for tomatoes:

(1) Tomatoes shall be sold as either classified tomatoes or unclassified tomatoes.

(2) There are four classes of classified tomatoes namely Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 and Lowest

Class.

Furthermore the Food stuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972 (FCD Act) seeks to

control the sale, manufacture and importation of foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants. The

act is supplemented by a comprehensive set of regulations published by DOH, aimed at setting

the minimum standards and requirements all foodstuffs should comply with. These regulations

govern aspects of food safety which relate to the product itself (including contaminants,

maximum residue limits and microbiological standards), as well as requirements relating to the

premises on which the food product is sold (hygiene related matters on food premises).

The FCD Act seeks to regulate the allowable levels of contaminants on food stuffs through the

following regulations:

1. Regulations relating to maximum levels of metals in foodstuffs (R500/2004 as amended

by R545/2008)

2. Regulations governing tolerance for fungus-produced toxins in foodstuffs (R1145/2004

as amended by R751/2009)

3. Regulations relating to maximum levels of melamine in foodstuffs (R1145/2009)

4. Mineral hydrocarbons in foodstuffs (R230/1977)

5. Regulations relating to the Food, drugs and Disinfectants Act, 1929 (Act 13 of 1929)

(R574 and R575/1930)

27

6. Regulations governing certain solvents in foodstuffs (R315/2006 as read with

R911/2001)

7. Regulations governing radio activity in foodstuffs (R1931/1990)

Maximum residue limits for pesticides on foodstuffs are governed by the FCD Act through

Regulation 246/1994 (as amended by Regulation1047/2006; R548/2010 and R46/2012).

The Perishable Product Control and Export Board (PPCEB) in South Africa is a para-statal

organisation responsible for overseeing quality and adherence to standards in the export sector.

It tests produce either at the port or in the packhouse for produce shipped in containers.

Despite the above provisions, there is in practice a serious lack of quality inspections and

enforcement of food quality and safety standards, including on fresh produce wholesale

markets (Bramley and Korsten, 2013).

1.4.4 Private food safety and quality standards:

In parallel, many private sector companies have developed voluntary standards and codes of

practice (CoP) that have been passed upstream to the supply chain to primary producer

suppliers in developing countries. These private sector standards have increased in number in

recent years and moved from being a niche phenomenon to becoming, in some cases, a de

facto necessity to obtain market access. The number of private voluntary standards developed

by private operators has been estimated at 400 in Europe alone and is still increasing. They

range from those developed by individual firms to national schemes to collective international

schemes (WTO, 2007). Some of these standards apply to the pre-farmgate stage of the supply

chain, which are often called standards of “Good Agricultural Practice” (GAP). Many

governments have developed national GAP programmes in order to improve GAPs, promote

food safety standards and enable market access for small-scale farmers (Santacoloma and

Casey, 2011).

The Global G.A.P. standard is a partnership between agricultural producers and retailers to

establish a set of widely accepted certification standards and procedures for good agricultural

practices (GAP). Its scope currently covers fresh fruit and vegetables, propagation material,

integrated farm assurance (livestock, dairy, pigs, poultry, combinable crops and grains), flowers

and ornamentals, tea, coffee and aquaculture. A good example of individual company standard

is TESCO’s Nature Choice. Tesco’s Nature Choice is a British multinational grocery and general

merchandise retailer headquartered in Cheshunt, United Kingdom. It is the third-largest retailer

in the world measured by revenues (after Walmart and Carrefour).

In addition a series of international quality standards has been established i.e. the International

Standard Organization (ISO) standards. The bases of the ISO standards are a quality

28

management system that integrate all activities and establish handling procedures to ensure

product compliance. The best known ISO standard is the ISO 9000 series for quality. Recently

an ISO 22000 has been launched as a new Food Safety Management system targeting the whole

supply chain including GAP, pre requisites and HACCP. Besides the above mentioned standards

certain social and environmental standards have evolved because the consumers go beyond

basic quality and safety standards and retailers are increasingly seeking to be differentiated in

the market.

1.4.4.1 GlobalG.A.P.

Global G.A.P. (formerly named Eurep G.A.P.) is a voluntary standard setting requirements for

environment-friendly, socially responsible, safe and high-quality products in primary agriculture

based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and HACCP principles. EurepGAP changed its name

to GlobalGAP in September 2007, reflecting its expanding international role.

Global G.A.P has over 140 certification bodies and around 112,600 producers under

certification, which is spread across 100 plus countries in five continents. GLOBALG.A.P. auditors

assess all certification bodies (CBs) at head office and a sample of their producers directly,

whether they operate in accordance with the General Regulations and Control Points and

Compliance Criteria. Since 2008 GLOBALG.A.P has conducted more than 1,000 assessments

(Global GAP Annual Report, 2012).

In order to acquire GlobalGAP certification, the grower or group of growers must apply to a

recognised certifying body for a certification audit. The certifying bodies carry out the initial

certification and annual verification audits of farms wishing to become producer members of

GlobalGAP. For fresh produce, farmers need to comply with several modules, All Farm base,

Crops base and Fruits and vegetables base. A total of 234 control points is divided into 95 Major

Musts, 117 Minor Musts and 22 Recommendations. These controls points include specific

requirements in relation to site management, varieties and rootstocks, soil management,

fertilizer usage, irrigation, crop protection as well as waste and pollution management.

Stipulations with regard to worker health and welfare as well as wildlife conservation are also

covered. The successful grower is issued with a certificate valid for one year. If a grower cannot

fulfill a “major must”, its certificate will be temporarily suspended. When less than 95% of the

“minor musts” is fulfilled, the certificate will also be temporary suspended. The suspension

period has a maximum of 6 months. After this period, and without fulfillment of the

requirements, the certificate will be terminated (Grace Chia-Hui Lee, 2010).

Spain, Italy and Greece are amongst the top countries with most number of Global GAP certified

producers. South Africa has a total of 1,882 Global GAP certified producers. A list of top 10

countries with most number of Global GAP certified producers is given in Table 9.

29

Table 9 - Top 10 countries with most number of certified producers (Global GAP Certification Statistics, 2011)

Country Certified Producers Spain 25,923

Italy 15,892

Greece 12,414

Germany 8,997

Netherlands 5,288

France 3,737

Belgium 3,330

India 3,092

Turkey 3,009

Chile 2,595 2,595

Others 28,299

TOTAL 112,576

South Africa 1,882

If we look at this from the global point of view, almost 74% of the total Global GAP certified

producers in the world come from Europe. Other continents like Oceania, Africa, Americas and

Asia constitute the remaining 26%. Figure 7 shows a doughnut chart illustrating the continent

wise distribution of certified producers.

Figure 7 Share of certified producers per continent (Global GAP Annual Report, 2011)

2% 4%

11%

9%

74%

Oceania

Africa

Americas

Asia

Europe

30

With a huge demand of Global GAP certifications in the food industry there has been a

tremendous increase in the number of certified producers all over the world. With only

approximately 18000 certified producers in 2004, the number has increased to 112600 certified

producers in 2011 which is clearly shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8- Increase in the number of certified producers between 2004 and 2011(Global GAP Annual Report, 2011)

Apples, Potatoes and Oranges are the top 3 crops which have the highest number of certified producers in the world. Tomato producers stand 4th in the list (See Figure 9) with approximately 9000 producers taking up the Global GAP certification around the world until 2011.

Figure 9- Number of Global GAP Certified Producers per Product (Global GAP Annual Report, 2011)

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Ye

ar

Certified Producers

Certified Producers

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Apples

Potatoes

Oranges

Tomatoes

Cherries

Grapes

Pears

Bananas

Mandarins

Peaches

Certified Producers Per Product

31

1.4.4.2 BRC

The British Retail Consortium is the lead trade association representing the whole range of

retailers, from the large multiples and department stores through to independents, selling a

wide selection of products through center of town, out of town, rural and virtual stores. In 1998

the British Retail Consortium (BRC) developed and introduced the BRC Technical Standard and

Protocol for Companies Supplying Retailer Branded Food Products (the BRC Food Technical

Standard). Although originally developed primarily for the supply of retailer branded products,

in recent years the BRC Food Technical Standard has been widely used across a number of other

sectors of the food industry such as food service and ingredients manufacture. There has also

been substantive evidence of the use of the BRC Food Technical Standard outside the UK, as it

became the framework upon which many companies have based their supplier assessment

programmes. BRC has developed four standards : the standard for food safety, standard for

consumer products, standard for packaging and packaging material and standard for storage

and distribution (BRC Global Standard, 2005).

1.4.4.3 Tesco’s Nature Choice

Tesco’s Nature’s Choice is a private individual company standard under which various fruits and

vegetables can be certified. According to Tesco’s website, this program has been designed

especially for suppliers of Tesco for fruit and vegetables. Control Union Certifications is

authorized to carry out inspections for this programme. The standard is technically similar to the

GLOBALGAP Fruits and Vegetables standard, but is more stringent on several points (Tesco,

2013). The standard is a prerequisite for suppliers who want to deliver to one of the Tesco retail

stores globally (Tesco is the third largest retail based on revenue and has stores in 14 countries

of Asia, Europe and North-America).

1.4.5 Relative content of QA schemes in the UK fresh produce industry:

Some of the standards being followed or requested in the UK industry along with their coverage

are listed in Table 10. Quality Assurance Schemes address more parts than just microbial food

safety. Minimizing the effect of agriculture on the environment and correct pesticide use have

also been the important points of focus in last few years. Other areas routinely covered are

product quality, organic integrity, non‐GM production, traceability and packing operations.

Standards set out by Codex Alimentarius Commission, developed by the FAO/WHO Food

Standards Programme, are used as the international baseline standard for comparison. These

standards were considered under the following headings: Site history; Water for primary

production; Manure inputs; Worker hygiene; Wildlife / farm animal access; Harvest equipment

hygiene; Handling, storage and transport; and Post‐harvest treatment and Training

(M.Monagham et al, 2009)

32

Table 10 - Relative content of QA schemes (including standards and guidance notes) addressing key areas that manage hazards and risks in the primary production of crops that are likely to be consumed without cooking (M.Monagham et al, 2009)

Potential risk CAC GLOBAL-G.A.P TNC (Tesco) F2F (Marks &

Spencer)

Site history 3.1

Water for primary production

3.2.1.1 * *

Manure inputs 3.2.1.2 *

Worker hygiene 3.2.3

Wildlife/farm animal access

3.1

Harvest equipment hygiene

3.2.4

Handling, storage and transport

3.3

Post-harvest treatment 5.2.2

Training 10.0

Covered comprehensively Covered * Guidance on acceptable levels of microbial indicator species provided.

1.5 Tariff, quotas and the price entry system

Tariffs are used by countries to either earn government revenues from products being imported

or to increase the price of imports in order to protect the domestic industry. Quota system is

usually used to prevent excessive imports from countries which have some kind of competitive

advantage or in other words the countries which can produce the commodity at lower cost.

Tariff and Quota system is combined applied which allows the imports to enter the country upto

a specified quantity at a specified price. In case the quota is exceeded the imports from that

region will attract higher tariff or no trade at all.

The entry price system works on the multiple tariff approach. The tariff would change according

to the (off) season of the produce or its price in the domestic market .When imported produce

enters the market at too low price (thus being too competitive) it is subjected to higher tariff.

The tariffs are usually lower during the off seasons (DAFF, 2011).

33

1.6 Impact of food standards on trade

1.6.1 Standards as Non-Tariff Barriers to trade

While tariff and Quota systems can be important barriers to trade, the non-tariff barriers can

also prevent countries like South Africa from entering the bigger developed markets. These non-

tariff barriers include the different types of standards including sanitary and phytosanitary

standards (SPS), labeling and packaging, organic produce certifications, food health and safety

issues and other standards and grades.

Industrialized countries have put in place legislation to ensure an acceptable level of safety for

food imports. However, the proliferation and increased stringency of food safety and

agricultural health standards is a source of concern among many developing countries. These

standards are sometimes perceived as a ‘barrier’ to the continued success of their exports of

high-value agro-food products (including fish, horticultural, and other products), either because

these countries lack the technical and administrative capacities needed for compliance or

because these standards can be applied in a discriminatory or protectionist manner (Jaffee and

Henson, 2004). For many higher-value foods, including fruits and vegetables, fish, beef, poultry

and herbs and spices, the challenges of international competitiveness have moved well beyond

price and basic quality parameters to greater emphasis on food safety and agricultural health

concerns. Across this range of products there is increasing attention to the risks associated, for

example, with microbial pathogens, residues from pesticides, veterinary medicines or other

agricultural inputs and environmental or naturally-occurring toxins. In turn, there is greater

scrutiny of the production or processing techniques employed along these supply chains (Buzby

and Unnevehr 2003).

There are various reasons why food safety and agricultural health standards, commonly known

as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures within the context of the World Trade

Organization (WTO), differ between countries (Unnevehr 2003 and Henson 2004). Firstly, there

are significant differences in tastes, diets, income levels and perceptions that influence the

tolerance of populations toward these risks. Differences in climate and available technology

(e.g. refrigeration, irradiation, etc.) affect the occurrence of different food safety and

agricultural health hazards. Some food safety risks tend to be greater in developing countries

due to weaker physical infrastructure (for e.g. standards of sanitation and access to potable

water) and the higher prevalence of certain infectious diseases. Further, tropical or sub-tropical

climatic conditions may be more conducive to the spread of certain pests and diseases that pose

risks to human, animal and/or plant health.

34

1.6.2 Standards as a “Catalyst” for trade:

Another approach is the ‘standards as catalyst’ perspective, which emphasizes on the

opportunities generated by standards and on the fact that developing countries can utilize these

opportunities for their competitive advantage. From this perspective the merging of public and

private standards is viewed as a necessary bridge between increasingly demanding consumer

requirements and the participation of international suppliers in the chain. Many of these

standards don’t differ much and have a common language within the supply chain. Compliance

with these standards promotes confidence for consumers in the food and agro products in

terms of quality as well as the safety. Thus from this perspective, compliance with food safety

and agricultural health standards can serve as a power tool for the modernization of developing

countries export supply chains (Jaffee and Henson, 2004).

One particular GAP standard that has become well-known at an international level is the

GLOBALG.A.P standard (see 1.3.3.1). This is a private sector standard for Good Agricultural

Practices which was developed in 1997 by a group of European food retailers and producers.

Some supermarket chains, especially Europe, require that their suppliers (primary producers)

from both Europe and non-European origins are certified to this standard. Meeting these

GLOBALG.A.P standards is difficult for many farmers and developing countries. This is because

of the strict regulations and the cost of compliance for the suppliers. FAO consultations in Africa

showed that over the past few years exporters of horticultural products have been experiencing

increased difficulty in complying with European Union market requirements. This has had a

great impact on the businesses of the export companies and on the livelihoods of the

smallholder farmers who work with these companies and currently dominate production in the

region (FAO, 2008; FAO, UNCTAD and Kephis, 2007). However, a study by Henson and

colleagues (2011) on the impact of certification of GLOBALG.A.P. on the revenue of fresh

produce exporters from 10 different Sub sahara countries showed that firms that have

achieved certification have appreciable higher export revenues, suggesting an appreciable

return on the required investments. The bottle-neck is to overcome first the technical challenge

and recurring and non-recurring costs. Assistance in this process is of crucial importance

(Henson, 2011).

35

2 Materials and Method:

2.1 Field survey for South-African stakeholders of the tomato supply chain

A direct data type survey during August and September 2013 was conducted in 4 major cities

(Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town) of 3 provinces (Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and

Western Cape) in South Africa. The direct-data type of survey is a reliable source of first-hand

information because the researcher directly interacts with the participants. Four target groups

of respondents were identified for this survey: Farmers, Wholesalers, Retailers and Street

Vendors. The method of written questionnaire survey is used in this research. Four different

questionnaires were developed for the survey, with some questions overlapping (See Annex 18,

19, 20 and 21).

The questionnaires consisted of open-ended, closed-ended, Yes/No and five point linkert scale

questions related to production (6), trade (11) and standards and certification (9) in the tomato

supply chain. However, the number of questions in the questionnaire varied in accordance with

the stakeholder and a totally different set of questions were used for the street vendors. In the

production part farmers were asked to specify the types of vegetables they grow, volume of

production and production practices which they use for tomatoes. In questions related to trade,

the farmers were asked about their target market for trade and the markets they would like to

access. Finally the questions were based on the standards implemented and the constraints to

get them implemented. Similar questionnaires were also prepared for retailers, wholesalers and

street vendors with questions relevant to their function in the supply chain. The questionnaires

for farmers, wholesalers, retailers and street vendors are presented in Annex 18 to Annex 21.

The questions were formulated based on objectives and research questions of this research. The

questionnaire survey respondents were given ample time to answer the questions. The category

of questions along with the corresponding respondents is listed in Table 11 Categories of

questions for the farmers, wholesalers, retailers and street vendors.

36

Table 11 Categories of questions for the farmers, wholesalers, retailers and street vendors

Respondent Farmer Wholesaler Retailer

Street vendors

Question

Production Yes No No No

Levels of trade Yes No No No

Stringency of standards Yes Yes No No

Impact of standards on

farmers Yes Yes Yes No

Cost of Implementation Yes Yes Yes No

Spill-over of knowledge Yes Yes Yes

Factor contributing to implementation of standards

Yes Yes Yes No

General questions on trade and problems

No No No Yes

2.1.1 Data Collection:

The survey was conducted in South-Africa between 10 August and 19 September 2012. The

primary data were derived from the answers that the respondents gave in the questionnaire.

The study employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The quantitative approach

focused on obtaining numerical findings was used with the survey method. The qualitative part

on the other hand, was focused on the importance of standards and certification, perceived

barriers and constraints and opportunities. This study employed the combined approach so as

to overcome the limitations of both approaches. The site of the survey was 4 major cities in

South Africa: Johannesburg, Pretoria, Durban and Cape Town. The respondents were selected

from four different categories: Farmers, Wholesalers, Retailers and Street Vendors. In total 21

respondents were interviewed: 4 farmers, 10 wholesalers, 4 retailers and 5 street vendors. The

respondents were selected based on the contacts of University of Pretoria. A schematic diagram

of the persons who were surveyed is shown in Figure 10.

Farmers: Commercial (n=2) and Emerging farmers (n=2) were interviewed in Gauteng and

KwaZulu-Natal province. These farmers were involved in tomato production along with other

fruits and vegetables.

Wholesalers: market Agents (n=10) from four major National Fresh Produce Markets

(Johannesburg, Tshwane, Cape Town and Durban) were selected in all 3 provinces (Rationale

selection).

37

Retailers: Representatives from Woolworths (n=2), one of the famous retailers in South Africa,

were also selected (Rationale selection).

Street Vendors: Street vendors (n=5) at Marabastad bus rank in Gauteng province also

contributed to the study.

An overview and timeline of the data collection is presented in Table 12.

The main concern while conducting this survey research was the limited number of

respondents. Due to limited resources and time, only a small portion of the farmers and

retailers were able to participate in the field survey. A total of 21 respondents were interviewed

by this method. The sample size may not accurately represent all the farmers in South Africa,

although the respondents were both small-scale as well as commercial farmers but will give

qualitative indications.

Figure 10- Survey structure

Fresh Produce Markets

Gauteng Johannesburg

Market 2 Market Agents

KwaZulu-Natal

Durban Market

2 Market Agents

Western Cape

Cape Town Market

3 Market Agents

Gauteng Tshwane Market

3 Market Agents

Farmers

KwaZulu-Natal

Durban Area 2 Commercial farmers

Gauteng Johannesburg

area 2 Emerging

farmers

Retailers

Gauteng Woolworths

Centurion 1 Food

Technologist

Western Cape

Woolworths Cape Town

1 Technical Manager

Informal market

(Street vendors) Gauteng

Bus rank,

Marabastad 5 Mamas

38

Table 12- Overview and time line of data collection

Type of Organization/Respondent

Location Name/Company Date of

Interview

Emerging Farmer Johannesburg,

Gauteng

Jake Smith 11th September

Elaine Kroutz 17TH September

Commercial farmer Durban, KwaZulu-

Natal

Stuart 28th August

Ken Walton

National Fresh Produce Market

Johannesburg Market, Gauteng

Jaco (WENPRO) 24th August

Hendri de Korte

Durban Market, KwaZulu-Natal

Jarryd Zubbe 29th August

Wim Jacobs

Cape Town Market, Western Cape

Imraan Daniels

6th September Bosman Bonthuys

Dean

Tshwane Market, Gauteng

Werner

7th September Johan Blom

Tanya Frayne

Retailer Pretoria, Gauteng Woolworth’s 23rd August

Cape Town, Western Cape

Woolworth’s 4th September

Street Vendor Pretoria, Gauteng

Jack Tseland

17TH September

Agri Mthunzi

Rachel Mabine

Augustina Mukwena

Frida Montlha

2.2 On line survey:

Data was also collected through a web survey conducted by using the web program- Survey Monkey. This survey was created in the frame of research on Veg-i-Trade and completed by more than 100 persons. Respondents comprised of farmers association, government representatives, non-government organizations, retail and processing companies and many others participated in the survey. There were 11 representatives from South-Africa linking to farmers associations (2), a packing operation (1), trade company associations (2), research institutes (4) and government (2). A summary of the South African respondents is presented in Table 13 These persons collaborate directly or indirectly with South-African farmers producing fresh produce except one (working with farmers producing cereals). All the respondents indicated to work with farmers exporting at least 40% or more, except one researcher who works with local farmers who did not give this information.

39

In the questions a five point linkert scale was used to measure opinions. Respondents could indicate whether they totally disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and totally agree. An average score was calculated accounting for scores of respectively 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Table 13- Characterization of the respondents from South-Africa to the web survey

Type of

organization Company Respondent Professional

function Prooduct Export countries Share of

farmers exporting

FA1

Farmer association

Two-a-day

S Ceryman Quality Manager

Fruits UK, Europe, Afrika

.....>80%

FA2

Farmer association

SATI Phil Manager Fruits. Europe .....>80%

P1 Packing operation

CFE Margaret Reincke

Managers Fruits EU, UK, Africa, FE, ME

.....>80%

T1

Trade company

association

Tru Cape NA Fruits South-Africa, Malaysia

.....>80%

T2 Trade company

association

Fresh Produce

Exporters Forum

Anton Kruger

Fruits, Nuts

NA .....>80%

U1

Research institute/uni

versity

University of

Pretoria

Lise Korsten Researcher Fruits European Union ...40%-60%..

U1

Research institute

/university

University of

Pretoria

Danie Jordaen

Researcher / Consultant

Vegetables , nuts, cereals,

Europe (Africa, Far East, Middle East is growing)

...40%-60%..

U2 Research institute

/university

University of

Pretoria

Willeke De Bruin

Researcher Vegetables, ,.

None, it stays

within in South

African borders

<10%.....

U2 Research institute

/university

CSIR Eugenia Barrosso

Researcher Cereals and rice.

Mozambique, Zimbabwe

N/A

G1 Government

DAFF Madiba Motlana

Willy

Chief Food

Safety and

Quality

Assurance

Officer

Vegetables and Fruits

All over the world 60-80%

G2 Government PPECB Shubesco Heilbron

Programme Manager : food safety

Vegetables, fruits

and nuts

EU, UK, USA, Russia

80%

40

The above mentioned 11 respondents were arranged in 6 groups- UN1 (2xU1); UN2 (2xU2); P1; T (T1&T2); FA (FA1&FA2); Gov (G1&G2) based on their organization and role. The survey contained two parts: a first part focusing on the concerns and opportunities related to standards as perceived or expressed by the farmers which the respondents work with while a second part dealing with their opinion on more generic questions on food safety & quality standards and legislation in the global fresh produce supply chain (e.g. level of food safety, basis of setting and harmonization of standards and legislation and relation private standards versus legislation. The following types of standards were considered: GR1: Public global standards This group of global standards comprises those of the Codex Alimentarius. For fresh produce, examples of the standards under focus are the general principles of food hygiene (CAC/RCP 11969, Rev. 42003), the code of hygienic practice for fresh fruits and vegetables (CAC/RCP 532003) and the code of practice for packaging and transport of fresh fruit and vegetables (CAC/RCP 441995) ; the Codex general standard for contaminants and toxins in food and feed (STAN1931995) and the Codex MRL database on pesticide residues. GR2: Public EU legislation EU legislation for fresh produce comprises horizontal requirements and vertical requirements. For fresh produce, examples of the legislation under focus are : general food law (Regulation (EC) 178/2002), hygiene of foodstuffs (Regulation (EC) 852/2004), microbiological criteria (Regulation (EC) 2073/2005), pesticide residues (Regulation (EC) 396/2005), contaminants in foodstuffs (Regulation (EC) 1881/2006), marketing standards (Regulation (EC)1221/2008)… GR3: Public national legislation applying in the country (countries) where the farmers you work with produce. This group comprises the national legislation applying in the country (countries) where the farmers you work with produce. GR4: Public national legislation applying in the country (countries) to which the farmers you work with export/want to export. This group of standards comprises the fresh produce legislation applying in the countries to which the farmers you work with export/want to export. Please note that for some respondents the group EU legislation and this group may be identical. GR5: Private collective standards Retailers and other companies organized into larger groups and defined collective standards to which farmers from who they procure need to comply. Examples are Global GAP, ISO 22000, Red Tractor, BRC, Q&S standard, IFS, IKKB. GR6: Private individual company standards (e.g. large food retailers, large food companies) Several retail companies and processing companies have defined their own standards to which farmers from who they procure need to comply. Examples are Walmart, Carrefour, Albert Hein, Dole, Chiquita and Mc. Donalds. The questions that are relevant to the frame of this thesis have been used from this survey.

41

2.3 FAOSTAT Database

The FAOSTAT database (FAO, 2011) was consulted to collect information about the production

and trade of fresh produce in particular the tomatoes and other fresh fruits and vegetables at

the world, regional and country levels. Information was collected about the production area,

production volume, export volume, export value, import volume and import value. FAOSTAT or

FAO statistical database provides data relating to food and agriculture for some 200 countries. It

is publicly available on-line database currently containing over 3 million time-series records

covering international statistics in the following areas: production, trade, food balance sheets,

producer prices, forestry trade flow, land use and irrigation, forest and fishery products,

fertilizers and pesticides, agricultural machinery, food aid shipments, food exports (FAO, 2011).

Data obtained from the table was transformed into tables and charts to explain trends in the

production and trade of tomatoes and other fresh produce commodities in South Africa and

world level.

42

3 Results

3.1 Role of Stakeholders in the tomato supply chain:

3.1.1 Farmers:

Two types of tomato farmers were interviewed during the survey- emerging farmers (F1 and F2)

and commercial farmers (F3 and F4). The area of land cultivated by these farmers for tomatoes

and other crops and the number of permanent workers at the farm is listed in Table 14. On the

farms of the commercial farmers 10 to 50 persons worked while on the farms from the

emerging farmers 2 to 4 persons worked.

Table 14 Area of cultivated land and number of permanent workers on the farmers

Farmer Land cultivated for tomatoes

(ha)

Variety of tomatoes

Land cultivated for other crops

(ha)

Type of other crops

No. of permanent

workers

Emer

gin

g

F1 4 Tres Canto 6 pumpkins, gems, baby marrows

2

F2 1 Red Khachi, Money maker

2.5 brinjals, baby marrows,spinach

and onions

4

Co

mm

erc

ial

F3 2 Bona, Cinea, Lavanza, Loronzo, Logure

170 Macadamia and sugarcane

50

F4 2 Rijk Zwaan, ,logure, alboran

- Spinach,lettuce 10

Figure 11 Tomato greenhouse of a commercial farmer (KwaZulu Natal, Farmer 3)

43

Out of 2 emerging farmers (1 male and 1 female), none of them was certified for a food safety

and quality standard and relied only on the marketing standards of the end product or

sometimes just the visual quality for their trade. In case of the commercial farmers which are on

larger scale, both said to comply with GlobalGAP but only one (F4) was certified. Both the

commercial farmers produced tomatoes in a greenhouse while the others used a combination

of greenhouse and open field.

Although the emerging farmers said not to follow the commercial standards GLOBALGAP or any other commercial standard they received training for several aspects that make part of this standard. This is shown Table 15.

All the farmers participate in the black economic empowerment program. The farmers were trained by Department of Agriculture, Farmers day workshops, Agricultural College, etc.

Table 15 Different types of trainings on good agricultural practices followed by the farmers

F1 F2 F3 F4

Training seeds, seedlings and planting material yes yes No yes

Training environmental hygiene yes yes No yes

Training soil health yes yes yes yes

Training manure treatment yes No No No

Training water quality and management yes No No yes

Training pest control yes yes yes yes

Training fertilizer use yes yes yes yes

Training pesticide use and storage yes yes yes yes

Training facility hygiene yes yes yes yes

Training personal hygiene yes yes yes yes

Training storage on farm transport yes No yes No

Training waste management No No yes No

All the farmers for example have toilets and hygiene washing facility, test the water and use

certified seeds. Furthermore although they all get their water tested but most of them do not

test the fresh produce except farmer F4 who is Global GAP certified. However, for the emerging

farmers, it is not known whether they do a systematic follow-up of these aspects. This is

illustrated in Table 16.

44

Table 16 Type of testing for water and fresh produce

Farmer Pesticide Microbial/Chemical

testing for water Microbial/Chemical testing for produce

Em

ergi

ng

F1 Yes

Yes No

F2

Yes (Sybricite for Pumpkins, Malasol

for cabbage,Bulldog for tomatoes)

Yes No

Co

mm

erc

ial

F3 Yes (mospiccan,

agzimee, nemasis, stenard)

Yes No

F4 Yes (Melti) Yes Yes (multi-residue test)

The standards complied for trade were only the visual marketing standards in case of the non-

certified farmers. The target market for both categories of farmers was the South African

domestic market. They were not involved in any kind of export to the African regional market or

other international markets. The domestic trade customers for the four farmers are listed in

Table 17.

Table 17- Customers for farmers within the domestic market

Emerging Commercial

Farmer F1 F2 F3 F4

Wholesale Yes Yes Yes Yes

Retail Yes N/A1 N/A N/A

Processing No Yes Yes Yes

Informal Yes Yes Yes Yes NA : Not available

When also asked whether they want to have access to other countries in the regional market, 3

out of 4 respondents replied with a yes and saw higher volumes and premium prices as the

opportunities. High standards of produce required for export was seen as a barrier. Although

some of the farmers also said that “they cannot keep up with their local demand and that’s why

have never tried for export”.

45

3.1.2 Wholesalers:

A total of 10 wholesalers, known as market agents, were interviewed from Gauteng (5),

KwaZulu-Natal (2) and Western Cape (3) province. Four major national fresh produce markets

were considered for this survey, Johannesburg market and Tshwane market in Gauteng, Durban

market in KwaZulu-Natal and Cape Town market in Western Cape. All the market agents

interviewed were trading directly with famers, wholesalers, processing companies and retailers.

During the 2004/2005 season an estimated of 18 per cent of deciduous fruit, 8 per cent of

citrus fruit, 39 per cent of subtropical, 66 per cent of tropical, 48 per cent of potatoes, 57 per

cent of tomatoes and 54 per cent of all other commercially produced vegetables were

distributed through FPMs to a number of end markets (Andre Louw etal, 2007). Together, the

four largest fresh produce markets represent more than 74% of turnover and volume of fresh

produce traded on wholesale markets in South Africa. The six most important vegetables sold

on the markets include potatoes, tomatoes, cabbage, onions, pumpkins, carrots. These products

account for 84% of the fresh produce on these markets (Bramley and Korsten, 2013).

3.1.3 Retailers:

Two representatives were interviewed, each from a Woolworth’s retail store in Gauteng and a

Woolworth’s retail store in Western Cape. Woolworths does not buy their tomatoes from the

fresh produce markets. They work on contracts with farmers for their tomatoes, which is not

the case with every retailer in South Arica. During production and packaging, farmers need to

work according to the Woolworth’s standard via the program “Farming for the future”.

Woolworth’s “farming for the future” program is a holistic approach to farming, which helps

farmers grow quality produce while protecting the environment, preserving natural resources

and reducing dependence on chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The gist of the

farming for the future is that 'conventional farming methods are increasingly not sustainable'

and that 'new methods improve soil and water quality and encourage biodiversity'.

Table 18 shows a comparison between the qualities and price of tomatoes available in the

informal market and the retail stores in Pretoria. Tomatoes were purchased randomly from

street vendors and from Pick n Pay and Woolworths retail stores.

46

Table 18 Comparison of tomatoes available in the retail and informal market

Market Price Quantity Quality/Remarks

Informal Market 1 R 10 0.970 kg OK

Informal Market 2 R 10 1.270 kg Bad

Woolworths R 11.99 1.07 kg Good

Pick N Pay R 9.99 1.02 kg Good

Figure 12 clearly displays the difference in visual quality of tomatoes purchased from the street

vendors compared to Pick N Pay and Woolworths. Those from the informal market contain

bruises and heterogeneous sizes compared to those from the retail stores. It is also worth

mentioning that no big difference in the price of these tomatoes was seen.

Figure 12 A picture displaying quality of tomatoes purchased from informal and retail market in Pretoria (Top left-Informal market 1; Top right-informal market 2; Bottom left-Pick N Pay; Bottom right-Woolworths)

47

3.1.4 Street Vendors:

Five street vendors were interviewed at an informal market in Gauteng province. These street

vendors are located at a Bus rank in Marabastad area and buy their tomatoes form the nearby

Tshwane fresh produce market. They have an average sale between 2 and 3 crates per day. Less

attention is paid to packaging and storage of tomatoes. They face frequent problems from

police and other problems of storage space and transportation.

Street vendors in South Africa usually buy their produce from either from the Fresh Produce

Markets or directly from the farmers.

3.2 Importance of standards in the South-African fresh produce supply chain:

3.2.1 Field survey: standards used by different South African tomato farmers-

Standards complied by emerging and commercial farmers as were recorded during the field

survey in retail, processing, wholesale and informal markets in shown in Table 19.

Table 19- Standards used by farmers for trade in domestic market

Emerging farmers Commercial farmers

F1 F2 F3 F4

Marketing standards of

S.A

Marketing standards of

S.A

Marketing standards of S.A and GlobalGAP

(not audited)

GlobalGAP

The marketing standards mentioned above are the regulations relating to the quality, grading,

packing and marking of tomatoes intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa. These

marketing standards in the supply chain divide tomatoes in to 4 classes namely class 1, class 2,

class 3 and lowest class. These classes have been specified according to the regulations and

quality specifications issued by the department of agriculture. The extent to which these classes

of tomatoes may vary form the prescribed sub regulation is also specified.

However the regulation states that tomatoes can be sold as classified or unclassified, but they

should be fit for human consumption and should not contain chemical residues that exceed the

prescribed MRL. The regulation also covers aspects of sampling, packaging, marking and

methods of inspection for too green tomatoes and size variation.

Global GAP is a pre farm-gate standard while these marketing standards act on the post farm

gate level. Other private individual company standards like Woolworths act both on pre and

post farm-gate level.

48

At the wholesale level it’s mainly the South African marketing standards (classified/unclassified)

that are used for trading. Most retailers in South Africa procure from their contract farmers

directly. However tomatoes from the NFPMs are sometimes purchased by some of these

retailers (except for e.g. Woolworths) to top-up their supplies. No standards are complied with

by the street vendors at the informal market level. Although most urban street vendors buying

their produce from the NFPMs sell classified tomatoes. The rural street vendors would purchase

directly from the farm-gate and their produce may or may not be classified. The use of various

standards at the wholesale, retail and informal market level is also mentioned in Table 20.

Table 20 Standards at wholesale retail and informal market level.

Wholesaler (NFPMs) Retailer Street Vendor

Sourcing Classified/Unclassified and Private collective

standards

Mostly own standards, sometimes

from NFPMs

Classified/ Unclassified

Transport, Handling and Storage

No standards Own standards No standards

3.2.2 On-line survey: Standards required for fresh produce

The respondents were asked to list the most important private standards required for fresh produce. For Global GAP 10 out of 11 said that the farmers they are working with use the Global GAP. For the rest it was Tesco’s Nature Choice and BRC. Thus it shows that for high value markets it is private standards like Global GAP, BRC and TESCO which are considered most important for trade and allow the farmers better market access. All such private standards and other standards used are listed in Table 21 below:

Table 21 Online survey: Please indicate the most important private standard

GLOBALGAP BRC Tesco Walmart Carrefour Mark Chiquita Dole Woolworths

10 5 5 2 1 1 1

2

Other standards/Comments

SANS 22000 SANS 10330 SANS 0490 Pick 'n Pay GAP standard Pick 'n Pay Produce Handling Standard IFS

Tesco is no longer nature’s choice, but now called nurtures choice.

Farming for the Future (Woolworths retail group's standard), IFS

Woolworths, Checkers, Pick and Pay

49

3.3 On-line survey: Involvement of farmers in the standard setting process

It was asked to experts whether farmers are sufficiently involved in the standard setting process

of fresh produce food safety and quality standards for six groups of standards: Codex

Alimentarius (GR.1), EU legislation (GR.2), South-African food legislation (GR. 3), export

legislation (GR. 4), collective standards (GR.5), and private individual company standards (GR. 6).

The results are presented in Figure 13 and Table 22 (more detailed in Annex 3). In general the

experts agree that farmers are insufficiently involved in the standard setting process of all the

standards with average scores on the opinion (sufficiently involved) being 2 or lower. However

for the standards for South-African legislation some experts believed that there is some

involvement resulting in a slightly higher score (2.7) for this group of standards.

Figure 13 Online survey on the opinion: “Farmers are sufficiently involved Involvement of farmers in the standard setting process of fresh produces food safety and quality standards”. (5=totally agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = totally disagree).

50

Table 22 Results online survey on the opinion ’Farmers are sufficiently involved in the standard setting process of fresh produces food safety and quality standards.’ (5=totally agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = totally disagree)

Respondent All UN1 UN2 P1 T FA GOV Std.

Deviation* Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

GR1 1.4 1 1 1 2 1.5 2 0.5

GR2 1.6 1 1 1 3 1.5 2 0.5

GR3 2.7 2 2 3 4 3 2 0.9

GR4 1.7 1 1.5 2 2 1.5 2 0.5

GR5 2.0 3 2 2 1.5 1.5 2 0.9

GR6 1.8 1 2 2 1 3 1.5 1.0 *Standard Deviation between all 11 respondents

3.4 Stringency and/or implementation effort of Standards:

3.4.1 Field survey: stringency of standards

The farmers and Wholesalers were asked to rate the stringency of various standards complied

with in the domestic tomato supply chain as well as for exports on a scale of 1 to 5. The

following standards were considered: South African Food Legislation, Private companies’

standards, Whole sale market standards, African Regional market standards, Global GAP and EU

legislation. The results clearly showed that Global GAP with an overall score of 3.5 and the EU

standards with an overall score of 3.8 were perceived as the strictest to comply with. The results

are shown in Figure 16 illustrating the scores of different standards (detail in Annex 4).

Figure 14-Field survey: Stringency of standards (1=least stringent and 5=most stringent).

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Average all

Average farmers

Average wholesale

51

3.4.2 On-line survey: Implementation effort of standards

The efforts (in terms of monetary and human resources) required from farmers to implement

food safety & quality standards and legislation may vary according to the type of fresh produce

standard or legislation. These efforts are for example linked to respecting the hygiene

requirements, maximum residue levels, maximum level of contaminants or meeting quality

specifications.

The respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 their opinion on the intensity of

efforts/resources required for implementing the fresh produce food safety & quality standards

and legislation for the farmers you work with professionally. The results are presented in Figure

15 and Table 23:

Figure 15 Implementation efforts required to implement standards

The box plot in Figure 15 shows that majority of respondents see very high to high

implementation efforts for private and export standards but need of relatively lesser efforts for

the South African national legislation.

52

Table 23 Online survey: Implementation efforts required to implement standards (5=very high efforts, 4=high efforts, 3=neutral, 2=little efforts, 1 = very little efforts).

Standard

All UN1 UN2 P1 T FA GOV Std.

Deviation*

Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

GR1 3.3 2.5 4 3 5 3 2.5 1.2

GR2 3.7 2.5 4 3 5 4 3.5 1.2

GR3 3.3 2.5 4 3 4.5 3.5 2.5 1.1

GR4 3.9 2.5 4 4 4.5 5 3.5 1.1

GR5 4.3 3.5 4 4 5 5 4.5 0.9

GR6 4.5 4.5 4 4 5 4.5 5 0.5 *Standard Deviation between all 11 respondents

Thus private standards are perceived to show the most effort with scores above 4, whereas the South

African national legislation (3.3) is perceived to be least demanding to comply with. It was also asked to

the respondents to list most common type of demands by the food safety & quality standards and

legislation that require major implementation efforts. The comments on these implementation efforts

are listed below:

“Private MRL standards; Client ethical standards; welfare standards”

“Tesco Fruit Safety System”

“Germany MRL levels Tesco Administration”

“Proliferation of audits and their compounded costs are a concern (too many audits where

standards might be similar, but audit requirements are deemed to be duplicated). Fruit SA is

attempting to Create one platform called SIZA which is hoped to alleviate this issue in future”

“Private standards of retailers which are higher than official requirements (BRC, Natures choice,

…) without a premium being paid to SA exporters for complying”

“The whole package (equipment, operating procedures, infrastructure, management) which

relates to private standards”

3.5 Standards as non-tariff barriers to trade markets

3.5.1 On-line survey on the opinion: Standards act as a non-tariff barriers to trade

Fresh produce food safety & quality standards and legislation may act as non-tariff barriers to trade and

thus affect trade and interfere with access to markets. The respondents were asked to indicate on a

scale of 1 to 5 the degree by which their trade and access to markets is affected by the fresh produce

food safety & quality standards and legislation.

53

Table 24 On-line survey on the opinion: Standards act as a non-tariff barrier to trade (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)

Standard


Deviation*


GR2 4.3 4.5 5 4 5 3 4.5 1.2

GR4 4.4 4.5 4 4 5 4.5 4.5 0.5

GR5 4.3 5 5 3 5 4 4 0.8

GR6 4.3 4 4.5 4 5 3.5 5 0.8 *Standard Deviation between all 11 respondents

EU legislation, legislation of the countries to which the farmers export, collective standards and private

individual standards are all considered as barriers to trade with average scores varying between 4.3 (EU

legislation) and 4.4 (collective standards).

3.5.2 Field survey: Impact of the standards on market access by small scale farmers

During the field survey, the farmers, retailers and wholesalers were asked if they think that due

to the complexity and high demands of food standards, small farmers are increasingly being

excluded from the high markets. The result showed that 100% of the farmers and retailers and

90% of the wholesalers believed that the complex standards are really acting as a barrier for

the farmers to access higher value markets.

Table 25 Result field Survey: Impact of standards on market access by small and medium farmers

Respondent % Yes

Farmer 100 Retailer 100

Wholesaler 90 Average All 93.3

3.5.3 On-line survey: Impact of the standards on market access by small and medium

scale farmers

The eleven experts from the fresh produce chain were asked if they think that due to the

complexity and high demands of food safety & quality standards and legislation small and

medium farmers are increasingly being excluded from financial high value (export) markets.

54

The respondents were asked to mark their response on a scale of 1 to 5 with totally disagree (1),

disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), totally agree (5)

Table 26 Result On-line survey on the opinion: due to the complexity and high demands of food safety & quality standards and legislation small and medium farmers are increasingly being excluded from financial high value (export) markets (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree).

Standard


Deviation*


GR1 4.1 4.5 5 3 4.5 4 3.5 0.7

GR2 4.2 4.5 5 3 4.5 4 4 0.6

GR3 3.3 2.5 4 3 3.5 2.5 4 1.0

GR4 4.2 4 4.5 4 4.5 4 4 0.4

GR5 4.4 4 5 4 4.5 4 5 0.7

GR6 4.4 3.5 4.5 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.9

*Standard Deviation between all 11 respondents

Most of the experts tend to agree that the complexity of standards locks out fresh produce

farmers from high value market. Related to the national standards experts have a neutral

attitude. There is a slightly higher agreement for the private standards but no difference

between collective and private individual standards.

3.6 Costs/revenue linked to implementation of standards:

3.6.1 Field survey: Burden of costs for certification

It was asked to the respondents if they think that the burden of costs for implementation of

standards is fairly shared between farmers, middle-men, traders or retail. The results indicated

that 100% of the retailer and farmers and 70% of the wholesalers believe that the cost is not

shared evenly; in fact it is mostly the farmers who carry all the cost for implementation whether

for adjusting production/processing facilities, personnel or assessment.

55

Table 27 Result Field Survey on the opinion: Burden of cost for implementation and certification of standards IS fairly shared between farmers, middle men and traders or retail

Respondent % Yes No. answered

Farmer 0 4 Retailer 0 1

Wholesaler 30 10 Average All 20

3.6.2 On-line survey: Burden of cost for implementation and certification of standards

The burden of costs of Implementation and Certification of food safety & quality standards and

legislation are not equally shared among farmers, the middlemen, traders or retail involved in

the food supply chain and is largely taken by the farmers. During the online survey, the

respondents were asked to rate this opinion on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly

agree) for Implementation as well as Certification. The results are presented in Figure 16 and

Table 27.

Figure 16 Result Online Survey on the opinion: Burden of cost for implementation and certification of standards is fairly shared between farmers, middle men and traders or retail (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)

56

Table 28 Results On-line survey on the opinion: Burden of cost for implementation and certification of standards is NOT fairly shared between farmers, middle men and traders or retail (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)


Deviation*


For Implementation

4.5 5 4 5 4.5 4 4.5 0.7

For Certification 4.7 5 4 5 4.5 4.5 5 0.6


Results gave us high mean scores of 4.5 and 4.7 for implementation and certification

respectively, indicating that according to experts the burden of cost is not equally shared by

farmers and other stakeholders and the respondents are aware of the fact that burden of cost is

mainly carried by the farmers.

3.6.3 Link between revenue and certification for private Standards:

3.6.3.1 Field survey: Link between revenue and certification for private standards

The respondents in the field survey were asked if they thought that certification to private

standards allow them to obtain higher revenue. They could answer with a yes or no and the

results show that the increased revenue that comes with certification to standards is more

realized by the retailers (100%) and wholesalers (80%), compared to farmers and thus overall 75

% of respondents agree on this opinion (See

Table 29):

Table 29 Result field survey on the opinion: Certification for private standards allow farmers to obtain higher revenue

Respondent % Yes No. answered

Farmer 50 4 Retailer 100 2

Wholesaler 80 10 Average All 75 16

57

3.6.3.2 On-line survey: Link between revenue and certification for private standards

In the online survey the respondents were asked if the certification for private food safety &

quality standards allows Farmers to obtain higher revenue. The results (See Table 30) clearly

show that the respondents somewhat agree with the fact that the certification to both Private

collective standards (like Global GAP, ISO 22000, BRC, IFS, and IKKB) and Private individual

company standards (like Walmart, Carrefour, Albert Hein, Dole, Chiquita, and Mc. Donalds)

allow them to obtain higher revenue.

Table 30 Result On-line survey on the opinion: Certification for private standards allow farmers to obtain higher revenue (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)

Standard

All UN1 UN2 P1 T FA GOV Std. Deviation*


GR5 3.9 4.5 4 3 3.5 4 4.5 0.9

GR6 3.8 4 4 3 3.5 4 4.5 1.0


3.7 Use of standards to gain competitive advantage (on-line survey)

Food safety demands in fresh produce private food safety & quality standards are used by companies

within a marketing strategy to gain Competitive Advantage. All the respondent groups in the online

survey were asked to rate this opinion for both Private collective as well as Private individual company

standards on a scale of 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

The results (See Table 31) shows that both private collective as well as private individual company

standards are perceived as a tool used by companies to gain competitive advantage. It is also seen that

the Private individual standards were given a higher mean score compared to the private collective

standards suggesting their increased use as a marketing strategy.

Table 31 Result On-line survey on the opinion: Food safety demands in fresh produce private food safety & quality standards are used by companies within a marketing strategy to gain competitive advantage (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)

Standard


Deviation*


GR5 4.0 5 4 3 3 4 4 0.9

58

GR6 4.3 4.5 4 5 3.5 4.5 4 0.9


3.8 Indirect beneficial consequences of standards

3.8.1 Field survey: Spillover of knowledge and safer production practices

The respondents were asked if they think that the knowledge that farmers gain in order to get

food standards implemented for certified crops contributes to food safety and quality of non-

certified crops that the farmers produce. To this 100% of the farmers and retailers and 90% of

the wholesalers agreed (See Table 32).

Table 32 Field survey: Spillover of knowledge- Contribution to non-certified crops

Respondent % Yes



The respondents in the field survey were also asked if they think that the specifications in

certain fresh produce food standards and legislation on food production practices result in safer

production practices for the farmers themselves (e.g. use of toxic pesticides, better protection

of farmers when using pesticides).

The results showed that 100% of the retailers, 75 % of the farmers and 90% of the wholesalers

believe that the standards specification do help them in safer production practices.

Table 33 Field survey: Spillover of knowledge- Contribution to safer production practices

Respondent % Yes



3.8.2 On-line survey: Beneficial indirect impacts of standards

The respondents of the online survey were asked to rate the following 4 opinions on the indirect

impact of standards: 1.The knowledge that farmers gain after implementation of food safety &

59

quality standards and certification for certain crops contributes to food safety and quality of

other noncertified crops (spillover of knowledge); 2. The demand for compliance with food

safety & quality standards and legislation for high value markets acts as a catalyst for upgrading

farmer's systems for "better application of good agricultural practices"; The specifications in

certain fresh produce food safety & quality standards and legislation on food production

practices result in- 3. Safer production practices for the farmers themselves (e.g. use of less

toxic pesticides, better protection of farmers when using pesticides); 4. Reduced environmental

contamination (land and water resources) by chemicals (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers). The

respondents could answer whether they totally disagree, disagree, neutral, agree or totally

agree on a scale of 1 to 5.

Table 34 Result On-line survey on Opinions: Spillover of knowledge, Standards as catalyst to trade, Safer production practices and Reduced environmental contamination as a consequence of certification to standards (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, 1 = strongly disagree)


Deviation* Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean

Spillover of knowledge

3.8 4.5 3.5 2 3.5 4.5 5 1.0

Catalyst 4.3 4.5 3 4 4 5 5 0.8

Safer production practices

4.0 4.5 4 3 4 4 4.5 0.7

Reduced environment

contamination 3.9 4.5 4.5 3 4 3 4.5 0.9


For the question on ‘spillover of knowledge’ the respondents answered in average 3.8 but there

is a large variation in opinion. The respondents belonging to the farmer association and

universities working with exporting farmers (40-60%) agree but some of the others do not. They

do not see the necessity of compliance with the standards as a food safety requirement but

with demands by a type of market, as T1 (wholesaler 1) commented “Compliance means cost.

Though producers become aware of the rules for one market, I see no evidence of them

necessarily applying the same costly rules to markets that don't demand them”. For the question

on ‘standards as a catalyst’ almost all respondents agree that standards can act as catalyst for

upgrading of the agricultural practices to a higher level. However the respondents questioned

the sustainability and timings with demands or no demand of standards in the South African

domestic market.

T1 commented: “The concern with farmers is whether what they are being geared for is

sustainable. There are clear arguments that South Africa table grape farms are better off due to

standards having been imposed on them. The timing and cost of these standards (and changes

60

thereto) may not always overlap with the businesses readiness to meet them. When this

happens, sustainability (producer attrition) becomes a question”.

UN1 writes: “Agreed but there should be a strong match between the farmer's practices and

that which the market requires. In South Africa, a significant section of the market does not

require such standards, especially EU based standards. And as a result there is no reward to

farmers in the local market to offer something which is way beyond the requirements”.

Safer production practices and reduced environmental contamination due to the specifications

mentioned in food standards and legislation were clearly seen as a benefit.

3.9 Field survey: Factors on farmer and country level contributing to increase

capacity to implement food standards

3.9.1 Farmer Level

Several factors contribute to farmers being capable to implement food standards. Therefore we

asked our respondents to rate the factors below according to their importance on FARMER

LEVEL using a scale ranging from 1 (Not important) to 5(Very important).

Factor 1: Access to understandable guidelines for elaboration of a farmer's system for

application of good agricultural practices.

Factor 2: Knowledge transfer related to good agricultural practices.

Factor 3: Technical support (e.g. seeds, pesticides application etc.) via contract producing or

other strengthened relationships between farms-buyers.

Factor 4: Scale of farm (economies of scale).

Factor 5: Access and investment in technology such as water treatment, cold storage, packaging

and new agricultural production systems.

Factor 6: Financial support (e.g. credits, incentives for compliance, subsidies etc).

Factor 7: Support on various aspects via membership of farmer

The results clearly showed that all the above mentioned factors were perceived as important

(with overall average score between 4 and 5) except Factor 4. Factor 4 (scale of farming) was

perceived as the least important of the seven factors, in particular by the retailers, and was

given an overall score of 3. The individual scores of each category of respondents for all the

factors are graphically represented in Figure 17.

61

Figure 17 Field survey: Factors contributing to farmers being capable to implement food standards (Farmer level)

3.9.2 Country Level

Other factors contributing to farmers being capable to implement food standards at the Country

level were asked to be rated by our respondents on a scale of 1 (Not important) to 5(Very

important). These were:

Factor 1: Existence of farmer associations and trade associations supporting farmers and

traders.

Factor 2: Existence of technical laboratories for performing microbiological/technical analysis.

Factor 3: Investment in South Africa's institutes on food safety and agricultural practices.

Factor 4: Investment in infrastructure (e.g. roads, common storage rooms, water treatment,

etc.).

Factor 5: Presence of competent authorities and its well-functioning related to food safety

monitoring, inspection and regulation, trade certification

The results clearly show that all the above mentioned factors are considered quite important

with an overall score between 4 and 5 for all the categories of respondents. The individual

scores of each category are graphically represented in Figure 18.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7

Average All

Average Retailer

Average Farmer

Average Wholesale

62

Figure 18 –Field survey: Factors contributing to farmers being capable to implement food standards (Country level)

3.10 On-line survey: Factors on farmer and country level contributing to increase

capacity to implement food standards

3.10.1 Farmer Level

Respondents were asked to tick the THREE most important factors ON FARMER LEVEL that can

increase the capacity of the farmers they work with to implement food safety & quality

standards and legislation.

Factor 1: Access to understandable guidelines for elaboration of a farmer's system for

application of good agricultural practices

Factor 2: Knowledge transfer (e.g. father to son, training,..) related to good agricultural

practices

Factor 3: Scale of the farm (economies of scale)

Factor 4: Access and investment in technology such as water treatment, cold storage, packaging

and new agricultural production systems

Factor 5: Financial support (e.g. via credits, incentives for compliance, subsides,...)

Factor 6: Support on various aspects via membership of farmer associations

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Average All

Average Retailer

Average Farmer

Average Wholesale

63

Factor 7: Support on various aspects via membership of farmer cooperation

Factor 8: Production via contract-farming (containing technical support on e.g. seeds, pesticide

application,...)

Factor 9: Ability and time to fill in the administrative papers demanded by food standards

The scores are presented in the form of counts in Table 35.

Table 35 On-line survey: Factors on Farmer level

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8 Factor 9

Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count Count

All 6 3 8 6 3 4 0 0 3

UN1 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0

UN2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1

P1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

T 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

FA 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

GOV 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Via the on-line survey, scale of the farm was indicated as the most important factor to increase

capacity for better implementation to standards. This result is different from what was obtained

during the field-survey. The difference can be attributed to the fact that the respondents in the

online survey were all working with farmers involved in export with all of them certified and

working already on a larger scale.

Access to understandable guidelines and access and investment in technology such as water

treatment, cold storage, packaging and new agricultural production systems along with other

listed factors were found to be very important.

Number eight fresh produce exporting company (P1) did not complete this question.

64

3.10.2 Country level

Respondents were asked to tick TWO most important factors on COUNTRY LEVEL that can increase the capacity of the farmers you work with to implement food safety & quality standards and legislation.

Factor 1: Existence of farmer associations and trade associations supporting farmers and traders

Factor 2: Existence of farmer corporations

Factor 3: Existence of technical laboratories for performing microbiological/technical analysis

Factor 4: Investment in countries own research institutes on food safety and agricultural

practices

Factor 5: Investment in infrastructure (e.g. roads, common storage rooms, water treatment,...)

Factor 6: Presence of competent authorities and its well-functioning related to food safety

monitoring, inspection and regulation, trade certification,...

The scores are presented in the form of counts in Table 36

Table 36 On-line survey: Factors on Country Level

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Count Count Count Count Count Count

All 6 3 0 2 4 7

UN1 1 0 0 0 1 2

UN2 2 1 0 1 0 0

P1 1 0 0 0 0 1

T 0 0 0 0 2 2

FA 1 1 0 1 1 0

GOV 1 1 0 0 0 2

65

4 Discussion

The implementation and certification of food safety and quality standards has a double function

they serve to assure the safety & quality of the fresh produce but have also a very important

function as a license to trade, to generate trust among the involved stakeholders in the supply

chain.

In this master thesis it was explored via a field survey in South-Africa which type of standards

are used by different stakeholders from the South African tomato supply chain and also what is

the role of the different stakeholders. Via an-online survey the opinions from experts from the

fresh produce export supply chain were captured.

4.1 Role of different stakeholders and the importance of standards

In South Africa, it was estimated that approximately 245000 people were involved in fruit

production and 349 000 farmers were involved in vegetable production (Statistics South Africa,

2002). A classification of these farmers throughout the country showed that of all the farmers,

commercial farmers (e.g. ZZ2) make up 1 percent, progressive farmers 8 percent, small-scale

farmers make up 28 percent and resource-poor farmers make up over 60 percent. The

“emerging farming sector” is composed of the progressive farmers who farm at least 10 ha of

land and the small-scale farmers (36 percent) whose holdings are approximately 1–5 ha

(Olorunda, 2006). The progressive farmers are a small proportion of peasant farmers who

responded much more fully to economic opportunities and needs. Often, but not necessarily,

“mission" or "school" Africans, they sought to become independent small-scale commercial

farmers. Holdings from the emerging FFV sector constitute around only 5 percent of the total

horticultural farms in South Africa (Santacoloma and Casey, 2011). The Census of Commercial

Agriculture 2008 reflects a 31% decline in the number of farmers since 1993, resulting in the

industry being left with fewer than 40 000 farms (Goldblatt, 2012).

South Africa’s national food market, like much in South Africa, is characterized by dualism with a

very well developed, highly sophisticated food marketing system on the one hand and a well-

organized informal food marketing system on the other hand. The highly sophisticated food

marketing system is dominated by a small number of retail groups who distribute food through

a variety of supermarket formats located in the major cities and towns of South Africa.

Conversely, the informal food marketing system distributes food through general dealers, cafes,

spaza shops, street vendors, hawkers and tuck shops and street corner stalls in areas like

townships and former homelands where supermarket retail outlets are absent or have been

until now (Andre Louw et al, 2007). The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

(DAFF) is responsible for the agricultural sector. The department works with various

organizations to promote the interests of the sector.

66

A simplified domestic tomato supply chain in South Africa consists of the farmers (producer),

wholesalers (NFPM), retailers and processing companies and the informal market (street

vendors). The use of food safety and quality standards in the domestic tomato supply chain of

South Africa is very limited as most of the trade is based on the marketing standards or visual

quality. However some retailers like Woolworths have developed their own standards and

follow direct procurement from the farmers. Many other retailers like Pick n Pay or Fruit & Veg

city would however still procure from the NFPMs.

According to report from DAFF, there are approximately 695 tomato producers in both

commercial and emerging sector. The commercial sector contributes 95% of the total produce

while the emerging sector contributes only 5% (DAFF, 2011). Many of the commercial farmers in

South Africa are certified and are also generally involved in exports. However South Africa is not

a major exporter of tomatoes and is self-sufficient in terms of its tomatoes. These commercial

farmers usually would show more concern towards the safety and quality of their produce and

in most cases get their produce tested. The emerging farmers on the other hand are usually not

certified for food safety and quality standards. All four farmers interviewed in our field survey

had received at least some kind of training on good agricultural practices in farming. These

trainings were received through department of agriculture, seminars or Farmers’ day

workshops, and covered various aspects like post-harvest practices, fertilizer application, pest

control, use of safety gear for spraying, etc.

The National Fresh Produce Markets are one of the main intermediaries between farmers and

the formal and informal retail sector. These markets are wholesale markets that operate in the

main cities of South Africa. As also mentioned above, the retailers have increasingly been

bypassing the Fresh Produce Markets to deal directly with farmers through the regional and

national distribution centers that they have been progressively setting up, although Fresh

Produce Markets are used from time to time as a top-up mechanism.

Both large and small scale farmers deliver to fresh produce markets. Large scale commercial

farmers still supply the bulk of produce sold on fresh produce markets. This means that

tomatoes are sold that are not produced according to a specific standard next to produce that is

certified. For example tomatoes that were produced by ZZ2 are certified to GLOBALG.A.P

standard are sold but also tomatoes that were not certified.

None of the visited fresh produce markets have been certified for any food safety assurance

systems such a Hazard Analysis of critical Control Point (HACCP) or BRC. However, in response to

the lack of public enforcement, some of the larger markets including the Tshwane and

Johannesburg Fresh Produce Markets have implemented in-house hygiene programmes. The

Johannesburg market has for example implemented a food safety programme which is

managed and controlled by qualified quality inspectors. It has also invested in an on-site

67

laboratory for the analysis of chemical residues in the fresh produce (Personal communication L.

Korsten, 2013).

There are many players in the food retail industry in South Africa ranging from highly

sophisticated retail chain supermarkets such as Pick n Pay, Shoprite-Checkers, Spar,

Woolworths, etc; wholesale outlets such as Makro, Metro, Trade Center, Cash & Carry;

independent stores such as Biforce Group, Bargain Group, Shield Wholesalers etc and

convenience chain stores including forecourts (gas stations with convenience type stores)

(www.euromonitor.com).

Corporate stores that are wholly owned by the retailer group are compelled to procure solely

from the retailer’s regional distribution centres. The phenomenon where corporate stores only

procure fresh produce through their distribution centres that in turn only procure from a few

select suppliers is a well-established procurement practice that has been in use for over a

decade in South Africa. The trends in the evolution of procurement systems towards large

central procuring systems receiving fresh produce from a limited number of preferred suppliers

are creating barriers for smaller scale producers that do not have grower’s programme

contracts with retailers (Andre Louw etal, 2007). Retailers will occasionally purchase produce on

the wholesale markets in order to top-up their supplies. The preference of retailers for direct

marketing with the producers is driven by considerations of traceability, food quality and safety

in view of changing consumer preferences and perceptions but also growing liability concerns in

a tightening food regulatory environment (C. Bramley and L. Korsten, 2013).

In contrast to the well-developed retail chain supermarkets a very large and growing informal

market, especially for fresh fruit and vegetables, also exists in South Africa in parallel with the

sophisticated retail channels mentioned earlier. This informal market is generally prevalent in

areas where supermarket retail outlets are absent or have been absent. These areas include

many rural regions (especially former homeland areas), townships, taxi ranks, train stations and

street corners. The informal market also includes traditional independent stores such as general

dealers, cafes, spaza shops, street vendors, hawkers and tuck shops at one end to primitive little

street corner stalls at the other end of the retail sector (Andre Louw et al, 2007). The informal

market covered in our survey was at a bus rank in Gauteng province. It is worth mentioning that

the urban informal market is doing its procurement more and more from the NFPMs while the

farm gate procurement is common in the rural areas. The safety and quality of tomatoes is

highly compromised at road side shops and bus rank informal markets.

It is clear from the results of our on-line survey that the Global GAP standard is the most

common standard among the certified South African farmers followed by Tesco’s Nature

Choice, BRC and other standards for the domestic market retailers like Woolworths and Pick n

Pay. It was also observed that there is almost no involvement of the South African farmers in

http://www.euromonitor.com/

68

the setting up of food standards at any level except for slight involvement at national legislation

level according to few respondents.

4.2 Pros and cons of food safety and quality standards

One of the important aspects about getting certified for a standard for any farmer is its

stringency and demands. During our field survey it was observed that Global GAP and the EU

legislation were perceived as the strictest to comply with. However for the online survey which

included respondents working with farmers involved in export, it is seen that the Private

individual company standards (Mc Donald’s, Carrefour, Walmart) are considered as the most

demanding in terms of monetary and human resources followed by private collective standards

(Global GAP, BRC) and the legislation of the country of export including the EU legislation. On

the other hand the South African national food legislation was rated quite low in both the

surveys.

Private standards are frequently categorized as going beyond the requirements of public

standards, as reported by Henson and Nothern, 1998. First, private standards are usually seen

as more stringent than public standards. Secondly, private standards’ coverage is extended

vertically and horizontally, where vertical coverage means extending the span of control up and

down the chain (farm to fork), while horizontal coverage includes additional elements, such as

environmental and social impacts. Third, private standards are much more specific and

prescriptive about how to achieve the outcomes defined by the standards. On the other hand,

public standards, such as the EU legislation, stipulate legal requirements, but do not specify how

to meet those legal standards (Grace Chia-Hui Lee, 2010).

The food supply chain is driving each food business operator (from farmers to retailers) to

practice due diligence and to ensure that the safety and quality of fresh produce production is

not compromised. Developing countries are becoming more and more incorporated into the

global food market, due to the increase of consumer demand in Western countries for a year-

round supply of exotic products and global sourcing from food retailers. This means food

industries from developing countries must adapt to the stringent safety and quality standards to

gain access into these markets (Jacques and Peter, 2008). The role of standards in acting as a

barrier to trade was admitted unanimously by all 11 respondents of the online survey. The

legislation of the export market as well as the private collective and individual standards were

perceived to be sometimes acting as a non-tariff barrier to trade and thus limiting the market

access for the farmers.

Another major impact of these standards on the farmers to which respondents in both the

surveys agree is that it has been increasingly resulting in the exclusion of smaller and medium

scale farmers from financial high value (export) markets. This is due to the complexity and high

demands of these standards which are difficult to meet for a small scale farmer. However the

opinion was more or less neutral for legislation at the national level. This is clear from the fact

69

that most respondents admit that the burden of cost for the implementation of food safety &

quality standards and legislation are not equally shared among farmers, the middlemen, traders

or retail involved in the food supply chain. In fact it’s the farmer in most cases who carries all

the cost.

In some cases the necessary investments are not properly targeted, for example laboratory

equipment and cold storage facilities, which are only economically viable for large scale

operations or require collective action. Likewise, hiring of certain skilled personnel is typically

less problematic for medium or large firms than smaller ones. More generally, smaller firms can

be ‘overwhelmed’ by the many changes needed to comply with new food safety requirements,

for example, even though the actual cash investments that are required may not be substantial

(Jaffee and Henson, 2004).

The trends in the evolution of procurement systems that are dominated by large central

procuring systems procuring fresh produce from a limited number of preferred suppliers and

the complexity and high demands of the standards are creating barriers for smaller scale

producers that don’t have grower’s programme contracts with retailers. The general findings

are that in order for smaller scale farmers to supply supermarkets or wholesalers they need a

certain size of production, high quality products, certain size and type of product and

consistency in quality and supply, requirements which they find difficult to consistently meet

(Andre Louw, 2008).

In case of the international agro-food trade from developing countries, there can be significant

costs of compliance whenever changes are made in international standards or those of their

trading partners. Additional costs may also be incurred in response to new or more stringent

food safety or other requirements of private buyers. These costs can come in various forms,

including fixed investments in adjusting production/processing facilities and practices, recurrent

personnel and management costs to implement food and other control systems and the public

and private sector costs of conformity assessment. Typically there are a variety of technological

and administrative ways in which to achieve compliance with a certain standard. For this and

other reasons the level and relative significance of compliance costs can vary enormously from

industry-to-industry and between different countries. Important variables include the prevailing

structure and conditions of the supply chain, range and extent of administrative and scientific

capacities, level of effective intra-industry and public-private cooperation, strength of existing

technical service industries, and so on.

The analysis of the investment items at farm level across four countries (Malaysia, South Africa,

Kenya and Chile) indicated that the highest initial costs were for fixed structures. The fixed

structure was the pesticide and fertilizer storage in the case of Malaysia and South Africa,

accounting for 67 and 69 percent of all investment costs respectively (Santacoloma and Casey,

70

FAO 2011). For example, a generic cost structure for Global GAP implementation and

compliance is shown Table 37.

Table 37 Generic cost structure for GLOBALGAP implementation and compliance (Santacoloma and

Casey, FAO 2011)

1. Implementation costs

a) Infrastructure: investments on farm, in physical and technological infrastructure. These

include: safe storage for crop protection products, waste chemical disposal, toilet and hand-

washing facilities, personal protective equipment/clothing and knapsack sprayer. Post-harvest

handling facilities/infrastructure, i.e. grading, sorting and packing sheds, and cool storage for

produce are also required.

2. Maintenance costs

b) Capacity building: capacity building and training on food safety and hygiene, pesticide

handling, personal safety. Training provided for three categories of personnel, i.e. managers,

technicians and workers.

c) Operational or management:

• Organizational management: farmer organization, legal and administrative issues,

internal/self-auditing;

• Farm resources management, e.g. tracking of water used for irrigation. This also includes

recordkeeping and traceability documentation, which entails cost of stationery, salaries to

clerks, paper work, communication, research and administration.

d) Analysis: this includes risk analysis, QMS development, MRLs, plant, soil, irrigation water

laboratory tests, microbiological tests. (at local/external laboratories).

3. Transaction costs

e) Certification: certification and verification (farm visits and inspection, pre-audit visit,

certification and inspection fees, scheme registration and re-registration fees).

71

It is generally believed by all the respondents that certification for private standards allow

farmers to obtain higher revenue. On an average all respondents in the field survey agree but

the farmers had a mixed response. It can be due to the fact that only 1 out of the 4 farmers

interviewed had been ever certified for a food standard. The link between certification and

higher revenue was better understood by the traders. Results from the online survey more or

less show agreement to the fact that the certification for private company and private individual

food standards is directly related to higher revenue both for the farmers as well as traders.

However the agreement is not strong between all the respondents. Thus the certification to

standards is seen as a kind of access for farmers to higher value markets.

The respondents also had a general agreement on the opinion that private standards are used

as a marketing strategy by private companies to gain competitive advantage in the market.

Despite all that, the indirect benefits that these standards bring along with them cannot be

neglected. The enhancement of food safety capacity can also have more dynamic and wide-

ranging impacts on private sector suppliers. For example, the implementation of a HACCP

system and gaining third-party certification can send positive signals to both existing and

potential customers. Firms can use these signals as a mechanism to reposition themselves in the

marketplace and/or access new markets. Also demand for compliance with food safety &

quality standards and legislation for high value markets is believed to act as a catalyst for

upgrading farmer's systems for "better application of good agricultural practices. It was also

commonly believed by all respondents that the knowledge that farmers gain in order to get

food standards implemented for certified crops contributes to food safety and quality of non-

certified crops that the farmers produce and the specifications in these standards on food

production practices result in safer production practices for them.

A press release from FAO and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme in 2004 states

that governments will need to strengthen the protection available to agricultural workers in

order to contain - or better yet reduce - the number of pesticide poisonings that farmers suffer.

An estimated one to five million cases of pesticide poisoning occurs every year, resulting in

several thousand fatalities among agricultural workers. Most of these poisonings occur in the

developing world where safe health standards can be inadequate or non-existent. Although

these countries use only 25% of global pesticide production, they account for a staggering 99%

of the related deaths. The vast majority of these poisoning cases involve farmers and farm

workers. This is not surprising since farm workers have the greatest direct contact with these

chemicals, applying them on crops and working in fields or orchards where pesticides are used.

The families of farmers, and particularly children and infants, are also extremely vulnerable

(FAO and UNEP, 2004).

Other indirect benefits of the implementation of food safety and quality standards can be

related to the reduced environmental contamination (land and water resources) by chemicals

(e.g. pesticides, fertilizers)

72

Many factors at farmer level contribute to the farmer being able to implement food safety

standards. Respondents from both online and field survey are of the opinion that almost all

these factors like access to understandable guidelines, knowledge transfer, technical support,

access and investment in technology, financial support and support on various aspects via

membership of farmers are very important factors on farmer level. However the two differ in

their opinion on the importance of economies of scale in the implementation of standards. The

respondents from field survey do not perceive scale of farm as an important factor whereas

experts from online survey rate it as the most important factor for implementation of standards

by a farmer. This difference in opinion can be attributed to the lack of exposure to standards

and certification of the respondents in field survey compared to greater involvement of experts

from online survey with certified farmers.

Similarly at country level there are various factors that directly or indirectly contribute to the

farmer being capable to implement food safety & quality standards and legislation. These

factors include the existence of farmer associations and trade associations and the existence of

technical labs for performing microbiological/technical analysis. Investment in infrastructure

(e.g. roads, storage, water treatment, etc.) and institutes on food safety and agricultural

practices are also believed to beneficial in encouraging more and more farmers to get certified .

Presence of competent authorities and its well-functioning related to food safety monitoring,

inspection and regulation, trade certification is rated as the most important factor by the

experts from online survey.

73

5 Conclusion and Recommendations

South Africa is quite self-sufficient in terms of its tomato production and is not a big exporter of

this commodity. Tomato which is the second most important vegetable in the country, next to

potato is grown almost all over South Africa. The survey has included a variety of stakeholders

and people involved in the tomato supply chain. Traceability and safety standards have, over

the years, become very important in the fresh produce supply chain. It can be said that at the

small scale tomato farmer level there is a perception that the needed actions for getting food

safety and quality standards implemented are not justified and represent an unnecessary cost

burden on producers. The commercial farmers on the other hand are increasingly getting

certified and are major contributors to the total tomato production. Thus scale of farm is an

important factor as it is also in many cases an indicator of financial capacity of the farmer in

order to take up the burden of cost of getting certified. It is clear that at present the tomato

trade in South Africa is mostly based on the national marketing standards (legislation) which

lack quality inspections and enforcement. In fact both classified and unclassified tomatoes get

sold in the market through different channels. In recent years a lot of private individual

company/retails standards have evolved. These retailers collaborate with farmers and follow

direct procurement approach. The private standards are considered stringent compared to the

national legislation and are largely seen as a marketing strategy.

It should be stressed that our analysis has limitations, which are due mostly to the small number

of respondents used in the field survey. However the results were supported by making use of

the on-line survey. Therefore future research with larger number of respondents may thus give

an even more clear idea about the importance of food safety and quality standards in the

tomato supply chain along with the differences at provincial levels if any. Based on the results

and findings, following recommendations and suggestions are considered important:

In order to involve more and more farmers into getting food safety and quality standards

implemented there needs to be an increased financial support via credits, incentives for

compliance or subsides from the government.

Awareness and capacity building programs along with focus on training in good

agricultural practices can play a major role in motivation of the farmers in regard. This

step can also help the farmers to increase their efficiency and yield and thus attract

more private companies and/or exporters.

Another major contribution can be made by private companies by increasingly involving

farmers into contract farming and sharing some part of the cost for implementation of

these standards rather than just the technical support. This participation with processing

companies or supermarket channels can result in better market assurance and increase

in farmers’ willingness to upgrade their technology.

Finally the presence of competent authorities and its well-functioning related to food

safety monitoring, inspection and regulation is also extremely important.

74

Thus certification to standards can provide better market access opportunities in the tomato

supply chain of South Africa as food safety is no longer only a public health issue, it is also a

market development issue.

75

6 References:

Agriseta (2010) Sector analysis agriculture available at http://www.agriseta.co.za/ AgriSETA. 2010. AgriSETA 2008/2009 Annual report, Pretoria

Aksoy, A., and Beghin,J. eds. (2005). Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries. Trade and Development Series. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Amsterdam Cape Town Group, 2002. The South African Fruit and Vegetable Supply Chain. Management Consulting Report, Cape Town, South Africa

BRC Global Standard- Food, 2005.

Bureau, J., Gozlan, E. and Marette, S. (1999). Food safety and Quality Issues: Trade Considerations. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Buurma, J.M. and others (2001) “Developing Countries and Products Affected by Setting New Maximum Residue Limits of Pesticides in the EU. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague.

Caswell, J. (2003). “Trends in Food Safety Standards and Regulation: Implications for Developing Countries.” In Food Safety in Food Security and Food Trade, edited by L. Unnevehr. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Chan, M. and King, B. (2000) Review of the Implications of Changes in EU Pesticides Legislation on the Production and Export of Fruits and Vegetables from Developing Country Suppliers. Natural Resources and Ethical Trade Programme. London.

Chia, G. and Lee, H. (2012). Private standards and their impacts on developing countries. Report

from a stage at the European Commission DG Trade Unit G2

Chikazunga, D., Louw, A., Ndanga,L. and Biénab, E. (2005). Smallholder farmers’ participation in

restructuring food markets: The tomato subsector in South Africa

Department of Agriculture (2003) Regulations relating to the quality, grading, packing and marking of tomatoes intended for sale in the Republic of South Africa. Agricultural Products standards act, 1990 (ACT No. 119 of 1990). Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa, Directorate Marketing. (2011). A

profile of the South African tomato market value chain,

Dolan, C., and Humphrey, J. (2000). “Governance and Trade in Fresh Vegetables: The Impact of U.K. Supermarkets on the African Horticulture Industry.” Journal of Development Studies 37 (2).

http://www.agriseta.co.za/

76

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (2013). Scientific Opinion on the risk posed by pathogens

in food of non-animal origin. Parma, Italy (EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3025).

FAO (2007). Technical Guidelines on the Cost-Effective Application of Hygienic Practices for the

Tomato Produce Chain-FAO; edited by L. Korsten, 2007

FAO and UNEP. (2004). Farm workers need to be better protected against pesticides- FAO and

UNEP call for stronger safety measures: Geneva/Rome

Food and Agriculture Organisation. (2003). Rise of Supermarkets across Africa threatens small farmers. Opportunities and challenges in a changing market.

Fulponi, L. (2006). Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food

retailers in OECD countries

Global G.A.P. (2012). Annual Report 2011. http://www.globalgap.org

Goldblatt, A. (2012). AGRICULTURE: FACTS & TRENDS South Africa-WWF.

Henson, S. and Northen, J. (1998). Economic determinants of food safety controls in supply of

retailer own-branded products in United Kingdom. Agribusiness 14 (1998): 113–26.

Henson, S., Masakure, O., Cranfield, J.(2011) Do Fresh Produce Exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa

Benefit from GlobalGAP Certification? World Development 2011; 39: 375-386.

Jaffee , S. and Henson, S. (2004). Standards and Agro-Food Exports from Developing Countries:

Rebalancing the Debate

Jenkins, J.A. The origin of the cultivated tomato (1948); Economic Botany, 2, 379-392. Julien, D.M. (2010). “Supplier safety assessment in the food supply chain.” In Delivering Performance in the Food Supply Chains.

Korsten, L. and Bramley, C. (2013). Food safety governance on fresh produce wholesale markets

in South Africa: An institutional and regulatory review.

Liebenberg, F. and Pardey, P.G. (2010). South Africa Agricultural Production and Productivity Patterns. The Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide.

Louw, A. (2008). Improved small scale farmer access to fresh produce agri-food markets in South

Africa. University of Pretoria

Louw, A., Chikazunga, D., Jordaan and Biénabe, E. (2012). Restructuring food markets in South

Africa: Dynamics within the context of the tomato subsector. University of Pretoria

Machethe, C. (2012) Rural Development Context: The role of the farm sector and who is a

farmer, University of Pretoria

http://www.globalgap.org/

77

Monaghan, J.M., Thomas, D., Goodburn, K. and Hutchison, M.L. (2009). A review of the

published literature describing foodborne illness outbreaks associated with ready to eat fresh

produce and an overview of current UK fresh produce farming practices

National Department of Agriculture. 2006. Abstract of Agricultural Statistics. Directorate: Agricultural Statistics of the National Department of Agriculture, Pretoria, South Africa.

Olorunda, O.A. 2007. Institutional strengthening and investments needed to meet EurepGAP requirements for fresh fruit and vegetables: Case study from South Africa.

Otsuki, T., Wilson, J. and Sewadeh, M. (2001) “Saving Two in a Billion: Quantifying the Trade Effect of European Food Safety Standards on African Exports,” Food Policy, 26, 5 (October): 495-514.

Prevost, D., and Matthee, M. (2002). “The SPS Agreement as a Bottleneck in Agricultural Trade between the European Union and Developing Countries: How to Solve the Conflict,” Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29 (1): 43–59

Reller, M.E., Nelson, J.M., Molbak, K., Ackman, D.M., Schoonmaker-Bopp, D.J., Root, T.P. and

Mintz, E.D. (2006). A large, multiple-restaurant outbreak of infection with Shigella flexneri

serotype 2a traced to tomatoes. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2006; 42: 163-169.

Santacoloma, P. and Casey, S. (2011). Investment and capacity building for GAP standards,

Rome

Soon, J.M. and Baines, R.N. (2013). Public and Private Food Safety Standards: Facilitating or Frustrating Fresh Produce Growers?

Statistics South Africa-Report on the survey of large- and small-scale agriculture., Pretoria, 2002.

Tello, J.C. (2000). Tomato Production in Spain without Methyl Bromide

Tesco Nature's Choice (2013). Tesco’s Nature Choice Standard.

http://certification.controlunion.com/program.aspx?Program_ID=30

Trienekens, J. and Zuurbier, P. (2008) Quality and safety standards in the food

industry,Developments and challenges- Food Safety and Quality 113 (2008): 107–22.

Unnevehr, L.J. (2000). Food safety issues and fresh food product exports from LDCs

Uyttendaele, M., Jacxsens, L. and Van Boxstael, S. (2012). Issues surrounding European trade (import/export) in a global perspective. Valadez, A.M., Schneider, K. R. and Danyluk., M.D. (2012). Outbreaks of Foodborne Diseases

Associated with Tomatoes

78

Van Boxstael, S., Habib, I., Jacxsens, L., De Vocht, M., Baert, L., Van De Perre, E., Rajkovic, A., Lopez-Galvez, F., Sampers, I., Spanoghe, P., De Meulenaer, B.; Uyttendaele, M. (2013). Food safety issues in fresh produce: bacterial pathogens, viruses and pesticide residues indicated as major concerns by stakeholders in the fresh produce chain. Food Control, 32, 190-197.

Weatherspoon, D.D. and Reardon, T. (2003). The Rise of Supermarkets in Africa: Implications for Agrifood Systems and the Rural Poor. Development Policy Review, 21 (3), 1-16.

Willems, S., Roth, E. and van Roekel, J. “Changing European Public and Private Food Safety and Quality Requirements: Challenges for Developing Country Fresh Produce and Fish Exporters”. The World Bank, Rural Development Department. Washington, D.C.

Wilson, N. (2003) “A Review of Empirical Studies of the Trade and Economic Effects of Food Safety Regulations,” in New Approaches to Food Safety Economics, edited by A. Velthuis and others. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Documents

Importance of food safety and quality standards at various levels … · 2013-12-22 · Africa. The questionnaire was based on questions related to food safety, standards and certifications