Issue Date: May 23, 2018

Public Webinar for Q&A: June 5, 2018 at 1:00pm, Washington, DC time

Deadline for Written Questions: June 13, 2018 at 4:00pm, Washington, DC time

Closing Date for Submission of Concept Notes: June 22, 2018

Closing Time for Submission of Concept Notes: 2:00 PM Washington, DC time

Subject: Notice of Funding Opportunity (NFO) Number: 7200AA18RFA00024

Program Title: Feed the Future Innovation Lab For Food Safety (FSIL) Notice of Funding Opportunity The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking applications for a cooperative agreement from qualified U.S. colleges and universities to fund a program entitled Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety (FSIL) (“Food Safety Innovation Lab or FSIL”). Eligibility for this award is restricted to U.S. colleges and universities as defined under Section 296(d) of Title XII of the FAA. See section C.I of this NFO for eligibility requirements.

Subject to the availability of funds an award will be made to that responsible applicant(s) whose application(s) best meets the objectives of this funding opportunity and the selection criteria contained herein. The estimated life-of-project budget for the new Food Safety Innovation Lab is up to $30 million for five years: November 2018 to November 2023. It is estimated that approximately to $2.0 million will be obligated to the Leader Award every year, for a total of up to $10.0 million in core funding from the Bureau for Food Security (BFS). USAID missions, Regional Bureaus, and other Offices may provide funding in a total amount of up to $10 million for buy-ins to the Leader Award and up to an additional $10 million for Associate Awards over the 5-year life-of-project. While one award is anticipated as a result of this notice of funding opportunity (NFO), USAID reserves the right to fund any or none of the applications submitted.

For the purposes of this NFO the term "Grant" is synonymous with "Cooperative Agreement"; "Grantee" is synonymous with "Recipient"; and "Grant Officer" is synonymous with "Agreement Officer". Eligible organizations interested in submitting an application are encouraged to read this funding opportunity thoroughly to understand the type of program sought, application submission requirements and evaluation process.

Competition under this RFA will be conducted in two phases:

● Phase I: Concept Note ● Phase II: Full Application

Each applicant shall initially provide USAID with a Concept Note (Phase I). The Concept Note shall be competitively evaluated against pre-determined evaluation criteria. The most highly technically qualified Concept Notes will be invited to submit a Phase II Full Application under this RFA. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in a timely manner and provided written feedback. Successful Concept Note applicants will be invited to present their concept note to USAID via Webinar on July 2, 2018.

Prospective applicants shall submit Concept Notes in writing via email ONLY to FoodSafety@usaid.gov no later than the time and date specified above. DO NOT SUBMIT CONCEPT NOTES VIA GRANTS.GOV, THEY WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS NFO ...............................................................................5 SECTION A – PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................7

A.I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................7 A.I.a. Authority .............................................................................................................................................7 A.I.b. Administration of Award Resulting from this NFO ...........................................................................7

A.II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .........................................................................................................10 A.II.a. Congressional Legislation ................................................................................................................10 A.II.b. The Global Food Security Act, Global Food Security Research Strategy, and the Feed the Future Initiative 10 A.II.c. Feed the Future Innovation Labs: Leveraging Science to Benefit U.S. and Developing Country Stakeholders .....................................................................................................................................................11 A.II.d. The Landscape of Global Food Safety Research-for-Development Programming ..........................12

A.III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................13 A.III.a. Program Overview ............................................................................................................................13 A.III.b. Research Portfolio Development, Selection, and Management .......................................................14 A.III.c. Food Safety Innovation Lab: Institutional Capability, Accountability, and Staffing Plan ...............21 A.III.d. Personnel ..........................................................................................................................................23 Key personnel ...................................................................................................................................................24 A.III.e. Maximizing Development Impact through Incorporation of Cross-Cutting Issues ..........................25 A.III.f. Geographic Focus Areas and Quick-Start Activities ........................................................................27

SECTION B – FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION .......................................................................................30 B.I. NUMBER OF AWARDS, FUNDING, AND PERFORMANCE PERIODS ..........................................30 B.II. START DATE AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR FEDERAL AWARDS ..............................30 B.III. SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................................30

B.III.a. Leader Award ...................................................................................................................................30 B.III.b. Associate Awards .............................................................................................................................31

B.IV. TITLE TO PROPERTY ...........................................................................................................................31 B.V. AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE ..................................................................................................31 B.VI. PURPOSE OF THE AWARD ..................................................................................................................31

SECTION C – ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION ..................................................................................................32 C.I. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS .......................................................................................................................32 C.II. COST SHARING (MATCHING) ............................................................................................................33

C.II.a. Leader Award ...................................................................................................................................33 C.II.b. Associate Awards .............................................................................................................................33

C.III. OTHER .....................................................................................................................................................33

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 2 of 129

C.IV. RISK ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................................................................33 SECTION D – APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION ............................................................35

D.I. DEFINITIONS – AS USED HEREIN .....................................................................................................35 D.II. AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT ...........................................................................................................35 D.III. AMENDMENTS TO NFO .......................................................................................................................36 D.IV. CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION ...............................................................36

D.IV.a. Preparation of Applications ..............................................................................................................36 D.IV.b. RFA Structure ...................................................................................................................................36 D.IV.c. Phase I - Concept Note .....................................................................................................................36 D.IV.d. Changes to the Application...............................................................................................................38 D.IV.e. Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data .......................................................................................38 D.IV.f. Responsiveness to NFO and False Statements .................................................................................39

D.V. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES ....................................................................................39 D.VI. TECHNICAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS...................................................................................40

D.VI.a. Technical Application Format ..........................................................................................................40 D.VI.b. General Instructions ..........................................................................................................................41

D.VII. COST/BUDGET APPLICATION .......................................................................................................42 D.VII.a. Cost/Budget Application Format ......................................................................................................42 D.VII.b. Budget...............................................................................................................................................43

D.VIII. APPLICATION DEADLINE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................52 D.IX. APPLICATION EXPIRATION DATE ...................................................................................................53 D.X. USAID OBLIGATION ............................................................................................................................53 D.XI. AUTHORITY TO COMMIT USAID ......................................................................................................53

SECTION E – APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION...................................................................................54 E.I. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA .............................................................................................54

E.I.a. Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................54 E.II. SELECTION PROCESS ..........................................................................................................................56

E.II.a. Technical Evaluation ........................................................................................................................56 E.II.b. Cost/Budget Evaluation ....................................................................................................................56

SECTION F – FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION ........................................................58 F.I. NOTICE OF AWARD .............................................................................................................................58 F.II. ADMINISTRATIVE & NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS .......................................................58

F.II.a. Payment and Financial Reporting .....................................................................................................58 F.III. PLANNING, MONITORING, REPORTING, AND EVALUATING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE .58

F.III.a. Leader Award ...................................................................................................................................59 SECTION G – FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACTS .....................................................................65

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 3 of 129

SECTION H – OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................................66 H.I. PRE-AWARD AUDITS/SURVEYS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................66 H.II. INTERVIEWS/DISCUSSIONS/ORAL PRESENTATIONS IN WASHINGTON .................................66 H.III. INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THIS NFO AND 2 CFR 700, 2 CFR 200, ADS 303 ........................66 H.IV. FAILURE TO CONFORM ......................................................................................................................66

ANNEX I – Gender Analysis ...................................................................................................................................73 I.1 Gender and Global Food Safety ..........................................................................................................................73 I.2 Why Gender Matters in Food Safety...................................................................................................................73 I.3 Roles and Responsibilities Across Food Value Chains ......................................................................................74

I.3.1 Foodborne Pathways Along Value Chains ...................................................................................................75 I.3.2 Production / Harvesting ................................................................................................................................75 I.3.3 Processing ....................................................................................................................................................77

I.4 Preservation, storage and transportation .............................................................................................................77 I.4.1 Markets/selling .............................................................................................................................................78

I.5 Consumption Practices and Food Taboos ...........................................................................................................79 I.6 Mechanisms for improved food safety ................................................................................................................80 I.7 Common gender constraints that also affect food safety ....................................................................................82 I.8 Priority areas of future research ..........................................................................................................................85 I.9 Resources ............................................................................................................................................................87 I.10 Bibliography for gender analysis ......................................................................................................................89 ANNEX II - White paper .........................................................................................................................................92 SECTION I – Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................93 SECTION J – Acronyms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................94 SECTION K – 1. What makes food safety an important issue for development? ....................................................95

K.I. 1.1. What are foodborne diseases? ...........................................................................................................95 K.II. 1.2. Why does foodborne disease matter to developing countries? ..........................................................95 K.III. 1.3. Broader implications of food safety for development outcomes .......................................................97

SECTION L – 2. Food safety challenges in developing countries .........................................................................100 L.I. 2.1. Health burden of foodborne disease ................................................................................................100 L.II. 2.2. Main causes of foodborne disease ...................................................................................................101 L.III. 2.3. Major foods implicated ....................................................................................................................102 L.IV. 2.4. Problems along the value chain: inputs, production, processing, retail, household ........................103 L.V. 2.5. Trends, regional patterns, hot spots .................................................................................................105 L.VI. 3.1. Overview .........................................................................................................................................105 L.VII. 3.2. Food safety initiatives ......................................................................................................................105

SECTION M – 4. Feed the Future Innovation Labs feedback: Comments from a food safety perspective ........109

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 4 of 129

SECTION N – Feedback from Innovation Lab directors ....................................................................................113 SECTION O – References ..................................................................................................................................120 Annex III: Synthesis of the E-consultation comments ...........................................................................................125

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 5 of 129

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS NFO ADS Automated Directives System of USAID policies A4NH Agriculture for Nutrition and Health FSIL Food Safety Innovation Lab FSL Fish Innovation Lab AO Agreement Officer AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative AWARD African Women in Agricultural Research and Development BEO Bureau Environmental Officer BFS Bureau for Food Security BIFAD Board for International Food and Agricultural Development BS/MP Branding Strategy and Marking Plan CAADP Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGIAR A global research partnership for a food-secure future; formerly the Consultative

Group for International Agricultural Research CLA Collaboration, Learning and Adapting CORAF/WECARD West and Central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development CRSP Collaborative Research Support Program DALY Disability Adjusted Life Years DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DMP Data Management Plan DUNS Data Universal Numbering System EA Environmental Assessment ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ER Environmental Review FAA Foreign Assistance Act FBD Foodborne Diseases FPL Food Processing Innovation Lab FSIC Food Security Innovation Center FSN Food Safety Network FSP Food Security Policy Innovation Lab GFSA Global Food Security Act GFSS Global Food Security Strategy HICD Human and Institutional Capacity Development Hort IL Horticulture Innovation Lab IEE Initial Environmental Examination IR Intermediate Result LOE Level of Effort LSIL Livestock Systems Innovation Lab LWA Leader with Associates ME Management Entity MSI Minority Serving Institution NIL Nutrition Innovation Lab NFO Notice of Funding Opportunity NGO Non-Governmental Organization NICRA Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement PACA Partnership on Aflatoxin Control in Africa PI Principal Investigator

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 6 of 129

PHLIL Post-Harvest Loss Reduction Innovation Lab PMP Performance Management Plan RFA Request for Applications SAM System for Award Management SF Standard Form SPRING Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USC United States Code USG United States Government ZOI Zone of Influence WB World Bank WHO World Health Organization

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 7 of 129

SECTION A – PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

A.I. INTRODUCTION A.I.a. Authority

Pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), the United States Government (USG), as represented by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Bureau for Food Security (BFS), is seeking to support or stimulate the activities described below, and requests applications from eligible U.S. Title XII universities (see Section 296(d) of Title XII of the FAA) to manage and implement the Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety (Food Safety Innovation Lab).

A.I.b. Administration of Award Resulting from this NFO

The Prime Award and subsequent sub-awards resulting from this NFO will be administered in accordance with the following:

● 2 CFR 200 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS

● 2 CFR 700 (USAID’s implementation of 2 CFR 200) ● Chapter 303 of USAID’s Automated Directives System, Grants and Cooperative Agreements to Non-

Governmental Organizations ● ADS 303maa USAID Mandatory and Required-as-Applicable Standard Provisions for U.S. Non-

Governmental Organizations ● USAID’s Development Policy, ADS Chapter 200 of USAID’s Automated Directives System. The current

Agency Policy Framework weaves together the current USG development policies and international commitments with Agency priorities in a manner that is meaningful and applicable internally. The following are the seven operational principles outlined in the current policy framework that guide Agency operations and programming:

(1) Promote gender equality and female empowerment; (2) Apply science, technology, and innovation strategically; (3) Apply selectivity and focus; (4) Measure and evaluate impact; (5) Build in sustainability from the start; (6) Apply integrated approaches to development; and (7) Leverage “solution-holders” and partners strategically.

● Mandatory Reference for ADS 200: Promoting Nondiscrimination and Inclusive Development in USAID-funded Programs

A. USAID seeks to improve the lives of all citizens around the world by becoming more inclusive in our development efforts and by ensuring that all persons have access to and reap the benefits of our programming. In so doing, USAID recognizes that every person is instrumental in the transformation of their own societies, with the end result that each and every citizen is recognized and equally valued. The inclusion, protection, and empowerment of all persons is critical because drawing on the full contributions of the entire population leads to more effective, comprehensive, and sustainable development results. Everyone who works with USAID – staff and implementing partners alike -- is expected to uphold principles of inclusion and equitable access to USAID-funded programming. As such, USAID programs as documented in CDCSs, projects and activities should work to remove discriminatory barriers to access in order to ensure that a person’s identity does not inhibit their ability to engage in USAID-funded programs.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 8 of 129

B. Nondiscrimination is the basic foundation of USAID’s inclusive development approach; as such, all USAID programs should ensure nondiscriminatory access for all potential beneficiaries. Nondiscrimination is a critical foundation for protecting and promoting the human rights of all persons, both in their communities and their workplaces. In addition, nondiscrimination ensures equitable access to USAID programs. Without effective nondiscrimination practices, USAID’s principles of inclusion and equal access will be unable to empower and effectively reach women and girls, marginalized ethnic and religious populations, indigenous peoples, internally displaced persons, persons with disabilities, youth and elderly, LGBTI individuals, and other socially marginalized individuals or peoples unique to the country or regional context.

C. In designing and administering USAID programs, pursuant to existing USAID policy, Bureaus/Missions and Operating Units not discriminate against any beneficiary or potential beneficiary, such as, but not limited to, by withholding, adversely impacting, or denying equitable access to benefits or services on the basis of any non-merit factor. A non-merit factor includes race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and pregnancy), national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, genetic information, marital status, parental status, political affiliation, or veteran’s status. Nothing in this requirement is intended to limit the ability of a program to target assistance to certain populations as defined in the project design.

● Mandatory Reference for ADS 200: Policy/Guidance on the Implementation of USAID's Child Safeguarding Standards

● Child Safeguarding refers to all activities intended to prevent and respond to abuse, exploitation, or neglect by USAID personnel, contractors, and recipients or as a result of USAID-supported programming. USAID commits to deterring all activities that would facilitate or condone child abuse, exploitation, or neglect by USAID personnel, as well as by contractors, sub-contractors, recipients, and sub-recipients as a result of USAID-supported programming. Through the adoption of these Child Safeguarding Standards, USAID pledges to adhere to the standards stated throughout this ADS mandatory reference.

● USAID Child Safeguarding Standards Children living in countries receiving USAID development and humanitarian assistance face a range of challenges, including extreme poverty, conflict, natural disasters, and disease. These challenges can increase the risk of child abuse, exploitation, or neglect. Poor child protection safeguards within programs intending to address these challenges may place vulnerable children at further risk. Research and anecdotal evidence indicates that persons with a history and proclivity to abusing children will often seek positions of power and authority to gain access to vulnerable individuals. They may particularly seek employment within countries, like many of those served by USAID programs, with social welfare, protection, and judicial systems too weak or underdeveloped to protect children and other vulnerable populations against child abuse, exploitation, or neglect. In addition, contractors or recipients that design and/or implement projects or programs without considering conditions that might contribute to child abuse, exploitation, or neglect, may inadvertently put children at risk. For example, organizing activities that are inadequately supervised or singling out children affected by HIV in a way that contributes to stigma and discrimination may compromise USAID’s ability to deliver effective aid.

● The USAID Child Safeguarding Standards are designed to complement the USAID Counter Trafficking in Persons Code of Conduct (C-TIP), by expanding the range of actions prohibited by USAID under the C-TIP Code of Conduct, to include abuse, exploitation, or neglect of children. However, trafficking is considered an egregious form of child abuse and exploitation and can involve neglect as well. The C-TIP provisions in USAID Counter Trafficking in Persons Code of Conduct, which prohibit the acquisition of a child through the use of force, fraud, or coercion or otherwise for the purpose of exploiting a child for profit through forced labor or prostitution, remain in effect. Likewise, the USAID code of conduct for protection of beneficiaries, including children, of assistance from sexual exploitation and abuse in

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 9 of 129

humanitarian relief operations, applicable to International Disaster Assistance (IDA)-funded programs, remains in effect in accordance with ADS 251, International Disaster Assistance.

USAID pledges to:

1. Prohibit all USAID personnel from engaging in child abuse, exploitation, or neglect and require USAID personnel to:

a. Comply with host country and local child welfare and protection legislation and international standards, whichever gives greater protection, and with U.S. law as applicable.

b. Maintain an environment that prevents child abuse, exploitation, or neglect, including, but not limited to, limiting unsupervised interactions with children; prohibiting exposure to pornography; and complying with applicable laws, regulations, or customs regarding the photographing, filming, or other image-generating activities of children.

2. Promote child-safe screening procedures when hiring USAID personnel, particularly personnel whose work brings them into direct contact with children.

3. Require USAID personnel to report suspected allegations of child abuse, exploitation, or neglect perpetrated by USAID personnel and ensure that USAID investigates and responds to allegations of child abuse, or exploitation, or neglect by USAID personnel. USAID treats allegations of USAID personnel engaging in child abuse, exploitation, or neglect as suspected cases of employee misconduct or waste, fraud, and abuse in USAID programs. Allegations of child abuse, exploitation, or neglect must be reported to the Office of the Inspector General, Office of Investigations (OIG/I). The Inspector General Act and other pertinent laws provide protections of persons making hotline complaints. USAID personnel have the option of submitting complaints via telephone, U.S. mail, internet, or electronic mail. The OIG takes steps to protect the investigative information it receives, but cannot guarantee the confidentiality or security of information while it is transmitted over external telecommunications or information technology networks or through outside mail systems. - For telephone reporting, call 1-800-230-6539 or 202-712-1023. - Complaints may be sent to ig.hotline@usaid.gov. - Complaints may be completed online at Webform Submission (http://www.usaid.gov/oig/hotline/hotline complaint frm.html). - Complaints may be submitted in completed PDF form (http://www.usaid.gov/oig/hotline/eleccomplaintform.pdf). - Complaints may be faxed to 202-216-3801. - Complaints may be mailed to: U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Inspector General P.O. Box 657 Washington, DC 20044-0657. USAID applies appropriate sanctions for violations of the USAID Child Safeguarding Standards in accordance with ADS 485, Disciplinary Action - Foreign Service and ADS 487, Disciplinary and Adverse Actions Based upon Misconduct - Civil Service and other applicable human resources policies on employee misconduct. USAID personnel covered under these provisions (Sections 1 through 3) include Foreign Service Officers (FSOs); Civil Service employees, including those on term or temporary appointments, detailees; Foreign Service National direct-hire employees; Personal Service Contractors (PSCs) (including USPSCs, Cooperating Country National PSCs (CCNPSCs) and Third Country National PSCs (TCNPSCs); and other employees.

4. Require that all USAID contactors, sub-contractors, recipients, and sub-recipients abide by the child safeguarding principles in the terms of their award to prevent and respond to child abuse, exploitation, or neglect. USAID personnel who suspect violations of the child safeguarding principles by USAID awardees should follow the reporting procedures in number 3 above, with a copy to the cognizant Contracting/Agreement Officer (CO/AO) for the award.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 10 of 129

A.II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

A.II.a. Congressional Legislation

The U.S. Congress granted USAID the authority to direct and fund programs of international agriculture research under the Foreign Assistance Act. Now referred to as Title XII Legislation (FAA Sect. 296a), USAID is directed to provide support for the benefit of both developing countries and the United States to mobilize the capacities of U.S. universities and public and private partners of universities for: 1) Global research on problems affecting food, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries; and 2) Improved human capacity and institutional resource development for the global application of agriculture and related environmental sciences.

Demonstrating the continued importance of American leadership in international food security efforts, including agriculture research and development, the U.S. Congress and the president passed into law the Global Food Security Act (GFSA)1 with strong bipartisan support in 2016. Under the GFSA, the U.S. Congress calls for a comprehensive strategic approach and authorizes assistance to “promote global food security, resilience, and nutrition, consistent with national food security investment plans, which is reinforced through programs, activities, and initiatives that— … (8) continue to strengthen partnerships between United States-based universities, including land-grant colleges, and universities and institutions in target countries and communities that build agricultural capacity.” Under the Strategy of the Act, U.S. assistance should “… (13) leverage resources and expertise through partnerships with the private sector, farm organizations, cooperatives, civil society, faith-based organizations, and agricultural research and academic institutions; (14) strengthen and expand collaboration between United States universities, including public, private, and land-grant universities, with higher education institutions in target countries to increase their effectiveness and relevance to promote agricultural development and innovation through the creation of human capital, innovation, and cutting edge science in the agricultural sector…”

In order to address this mandate, the USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) manages a portfolio of research activities collectively known as the Feed the Future Innovation Labs. These Innovation Labs support the GFSS to reduce global hunger, increase global food security, and increase nutritional security. The Food Safety Innovation Lab will be part of this portfolio of Feed the Future Innovation Labs.

A.II.b. The Global Food Security Act, Global Food Security Research Strategy, and the Feed the Future Initiative

Started in 2010, the Feed the Future Initiative2 works to sustainably reduce global poverty and hunger, recognizing the need to increase global agricultural production significantly by the year 2050 to provide sufficient nutritious food for the world’s growing population. The Global Food Security Act (GFSA) builds on what we've learned through Feed the Future and reflects changes in the global context since its launch. The signature, top-line goal of the GFSA is to sustainably reduce global hunger, malnutrition and poverty. On September 30, 2016, USAID submitted to Congress a new whole-of-government strategy for global food security, the Global Food Security Strategy (GFSS)3, on behalf of the 11 USG agencies responsible for carrying out the GFSA. The GFSS sets out how to achieve this goal through the primary objectives of inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth, strengthened resilience among people and systems, and a well-nourished population. Technical guidance as to how the U.S. Government approaches global food security in its development activities can be found on-line at http://feedthefuture.gov/lp/guidance-and-tools-global-food-security-programs.

1 Pub. L. 114-195, July 20, 2016, 130 Stat. 675 (https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ195/PLAW-114publ195.pdf); 22 U.S.C., Chapter 100 (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter100&edition=prelim) 2 http://www.feedthefuture.gov/ 3https://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/USG_Global_Food_Security_Strategy_FY2017-21_0.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 11 of 129

To meet the challenge of producing more and nutritious food with fewer natural resources while also adapting to increasingly erratic weather patterns and market price swings, the international community will need to fully harness the benefits of agricultural science and technology. The U.S. Governments Global Food Security Research Strategy4 directs research investments to toward three major themes:

● Technologies and practices that advance the productivity frontier to drive income growth, improve diets and promote natural resource conservation;

● Technologies and practices that reduce, manage and mitigate risk to support resilient, prosperous, well-nourished individuals, households and communities; and

● Improved knowledge of how to achieve human outcomes: generating evidence on how to sustainably and equitably improve economic opportunity, nutrition and resilience

To achieve the goals of this research strategy, centrally-funded research programs link global, regional, and national research partners to identify and adapt promising methodologies and technologies for local farming systems, and to intensify and diversify major production systems where the poor and undernourished are concentrated. Agricultural transformation requires approaching improvements through a systems approach that integrates advances in soil fertility, agronomy, genetics, animal science, water management, market access, policies, and nutrition. Nutrient dense foods such as animal source foods, vegetables and fruits provide important protein and other macronutrients, including fats and micronutrients can create multiple benefits towards food security goals, but also carry a higher risk of contamination with biological and chemical contaminants that could cause severe health (acute or chronic) problems and have negative impacts on nutrition specially for the most vulnerable groups (children under 5, pregnant and lactating women and elderly). Investments in food safety across the value chains can contribute to gains in incomes and nutrition of small-scale producers and low-income consumer households through consumption of safe and nutritious foods. Moreover; assurances of food safety are also a prerequisite for market access and commercial success in today’s global food system. African governments, for example, the African Union (through CAADP and the Malabo Declaration) and the United Nations (through the Sustainable Development Goals) have all recognized the central role that market-driven agriculture and value added agri-businesses must play in Africa’s development and in the struggle to achieve food security for all its people. To address these issues, transforming and improving agricultural production systems while is a priority for Feed the Future in the GFSS.

A.II.c. Feed the Future Innovation Labs: Leveraging Science to Benefit U.S. and Developing Country Stakeholders

Feed the Future Innovation Labs5, are led by U.S. Title XII Universities and are intended to be collaborative research programs between U.S. universities and host-country universities or national research institutions. The Innovation Labs are an integral component of USAID’s implementation of the Global Food Security Research Strategy through their leadership and implementation of research and capacity building.

Feed the Future Innovation Labs are designed to bring benefits to both US and developing country stakeholders. Through the establishment of strong relationships with national agricultural research institutions and other public and private partners overseas, U.S. researchers gain access to international knowledge and expertise, raised awareness of the global investment landscape, and appreciate the challenges and technologies used in those countries. Improved strategies for inclusion of food safety in production systems have broad implications for producers in both the U.S. and abroad. The Food Safety Innovation Lab will be responsible for informing both U.S. and developing country stakeholders of new technologies and benefits arising from food safety research.

4 https://agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/usg_global_food_security_research_strategy_0.pdf 5 List of current Feed the Future Innovation Labs can be found at https://feedthefuture.gov/lp/feed-future-innovation-labs.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 12 of 129

A.II.d. The Landscape of Global Food Safety Research-for-Development Programming

The Food Safety Innovation Lab will design, lead and implement a program of food safety research and capacity building aimed at addressing the opportunities and challenges, and will additionally serve as a resource to Missions and their partners confronting on the role of food safety in inclusive economic growth, nutrition sensitive agriculture and a nutrition-sensitive approach, gender-sensitive and youth inclusive development, and resilience. The Food Safety Innovation Lab is broadly expected to help implement and communicate impact pathways from food safety research to development outcomes through partnerships with USAID Mission-supported value chain programs, national partners, private companies and associations, community-based organizations and other donors and their programs. The Food Safety Innovation Lab will be complementary to other existing research investment under Feed the Future such as the Post-harvest Loss Reduction Innovation Lab (PHLIL), Food Processing Innovation Lab (FPL), Nutrition Innovation Lab (NIL), the Horticulture Innovation Lab (HortIL), the New Fish Innovation Lab (FIL), Livestock Systems Innovation Lab (LSIL) to mention few, and other food safety related investments such as the Food Safety Network (FSN).

USAID seeks the expertise of the food safety, food processing and agricultural research community to identify: what challenges are the most pressing to overcome, what opportunities hold the best promise to advance the goals of the GFSA, and how those challenges and opportunities must be addressed in the context of the Areas of Inquiry described under section A.III.b.2.a in and the Cross-Cutting Themes under section A.III.e. The Applicant is encouraged to raise and justify other technical issues that may not be mentioned in this NFO but are related and must be considered for inclusion in the Food Safety Innovation Lab. The following program description must not be interpreted as prescriptive. As the Feed the Future Innovation Labs are mandated to benefit both partner countries and the U.S., the Food Safety Innovation Lab program must consider food safety research priorities among U.S. stakeholders and propose how U.S. stakeholder perspectives and priorities are reflected in the program.

The Areas of Inquiry, for this Food Safety Innovation Lab NFO are drawn from three primary sources:

● A global, “Online e-consultation” was held June 20-21, 2017, to identify critical key constraints and

research priorities in food safety and overarching food safety needs, concerns and gaps that will maximize the economic and nutritional benefits for small-scale farmers that derive from agriculture production by:

o Engaging the global food safety research community in identifying priorities for USAID’s research program;

o Highlighting the importance of food safety in development programming in agriculture and food security and to Feed the Future in general;

o Determining the linkages (if any) between the diverse set of stakeholders in food safety, agriculture production system and nutrition communities, and;

o Reaching out to the broader development community on the role of food safety in agricultural systems.

● A survey of all existing Feed the Future Innovation lab food safety related activities to identify coverage of food safety in the USAID funded Innovation Labs through review of material and interviews with the Lab leaders (Grace, 20176)

● New U.S. government and USAID priorities in Nutritious and safe food production, food security and nutrition (see GFSA and GFSS).

Applicants may wish to consider these sources (Annex II and III) during the development of their applications in response to this NFO. These sources provide an intellectual basis for the technical program description of the Food Safety Innovation Lab NFO, as well as important opportunities for partnership, leveraging, and coordination

6 Grace 2017, https://agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/white_paper_food_safetyftf-22march2017_final_for_econsultation.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 13 of 129

during design and implementation of the awarded program. In addition, applicants should consult with USAID-Multi-sectoral nutrition strategy

In order to overcome the many challenges to improving food safety throughout food systems and value chains, the Food Safety Innovation Lab is expected to consider the ‘farm to fork’ or ‘boat to throat’ approach that tackles food safety as part of a system a whole, directing research projects to utilize outputs of concurrent or previous research. Given the research-for-development orientation of this program, a collaborative and facilitative systems approach must be applied across projects to improve the relevance of program outputs. The Food Safety Innovation Lab will capitalize on previous and existing investments in research and discovery to through outreach and farmer training programs and accelerate development outcomes with regional and global collaborators. The new lab must consider ways to leverage research activities across the program, complement other donor-funded projects where possible, collaborate and build partnerships with local and international private sector, support and consult with regional and national food safety initiatives (such as PACA) where possible, and support youth and women led enterprise development that advance food safety. .

A.III. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

A.III.a. Program Overview This NFO is designed to identify and launch a new Feed the Future Innovation Lab focused on food safety research and capacity development at the smallholder and food systems levels.

(1) Award Structure The Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Safety will be a five-year Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement, awarded to a U.S. university to develop a global portfolio of food safety research-for-development activities. As described in Section B.I, the award’s Total Estimated Amount (TEA) allows a maximum award ceiling of up to $30,000,000, structured as follows:

● A $10,000,000 Leader Award will support the successful US university applicant to act as the Management Entity (ME) of the Food Safety Innovation Lab. In this capacity, the Awardee’s primary responsibility will be to develop, select, and manage a portfolio of food safety research and capacity-development activities. The Leader Award is intended to support Management Entity costs associated with managing and implementing the portfolio of Food Safety Innovation Lab activities, with a majority of leader award funds to be allocated to sub-awarded (or sub-recipient) research and capacity development activities. These sub-awards must include a mix of competitively procured activities and commissioned (i.e. non-competed) activities; Some funds must also be reserved by the ME to facilitate trainings, workshops, conferences, and meetings for the purpose of professional development of students and researchers associated with the Innovation Lab, but such funds must primarily be accounted for within the individual budgets of the sub-awards.

● $20,000,000 of potential additional funding may be awarded noncompetitively by USAID field missions or other offices, to support additional activities that fall within the technical scope of the award. This may include:

● A maximum $10,000,000 in potential Associate Awards ● A maximum $10,000,000 in potential buy-ins

(2) Program Objectives As the Management Entity of the Food Safety Innovation Lab, the overarching responsibilities will be to:

● Ensure the scientific quality of the research portfolio

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 14 of 129

● Ensure the relevance of the research and program activities for U.S. and partner country stakeholders, and

● Ensure accountability for program implementation, including financial oversight.

The portfolio of research and capacity-development activities must fulfill the following two objectives: 1. Generate and make available for transfer improved knowledge, technologies, and practices that

improve & enhance food safety systems in Feed the Future countries to: a. Improve food security and nutrition for the poor, b. Sustainably enhance the resilience of smallholder farming households, and c. Create and sustain inclusive economic growth.

2. Build partner-country capacity to independently generate and transfer food safety-related knowledge, technologies, and practices to beneficiaries after the conclusion of USAID-funded activities.

In order to fulfill these two objectives, the Management Entity must provide global technical leadership that shapes USAID's food safety research agenda, while also ensuring effective, efficient management and implementation of all activities within the Food Safety Innovation Lab portfolio. The successful applicant must therefore provide both a Management Approach that effectively and efficiently ensures that all activities meet USAID requirements for international research collaborations as well as a compelling Technical Approach to guide procurement of a portfolio of research and capacity-development activities that will achieve these two strategic objectives. A.III.b. Research Portfolio Development, Selection, and Management

“Research for development” is neither an abstract quest for fundamental knowledge and improvement of scientific theories, nor is it the straightforward delivery of goods and services associated with development work. Rather, research for development is a unique enterprise requiring the rigor, discipline, awareness of local context, and building of relationships associated with global development. Research for development generates knowledge, innovations, and technologies, but it does not stop there. Effective research for development puts information and innovations in the hands of stakeholders, where impacts may be achieved. Indeed, the agricultural research supported by USAID is designed using “impact pathways,” which map out the connections between research outputs and development outcomes. This thoughtful design is not only critical for success; it is also mandated by Congress. In Section 103 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), as amended, Congress recognizes the value of agriculture, rural development, and nutrition assistance…to alleviate starvation, hunger, and malnutrition; to expand significantly the provision of basic services to rural poor people to enhance their capacity for self-help; and to help create productive farm and off-farm employment in rural areas to provide a more viable economic base and enhance opportunities for improved incomes, living standards, and contributions by rural poor people to the economic and social development of their countries. Congress further recognizes that agricultural research is necessary to achieve foreign assistance goals and requires that such research carried out under the Act…shall (1) take account of the special needs of small farmers in the determination of research priorities, (2) include research on the interrelationships among technology, institutions, and economic, social, environmental, and cultural factors affecting small-farm agriculture, and (3) make extensive use of field testing to adapt basic research to local conditions [Sec. 103A.(3)]. Congress further provides that special emphasis shall be placed on disseminating research results to the farms on which they can be put to use, and especially on institutional and other arrangements needed to assure that small farmers have effective access to both new and existing improved technology. The Management Entity must provide a compelling, technically outstanding strategic vision through (or a Technical Approach) to guide its procurement and management of a portfolio of food safety and capacity development activities (not required in the Concept Note). Effective integration of food safety within agricultural

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 15 of 129

and food systems and value chains create opportunities to advance all three strategic objectives described under the U.S. Global Food Security Strategy: inclusive and sustainable agriculture-led economic growth, strengthened resilience among people and systems, and a well-nourished population. For example, improved food safety practices that support correct handling and processing of staple and perishable foods at the household, farm and market level are essential to maximizing profits for farmers while also ensuring affordability and safety for consumer. Research and associated capacity building in each of these areas can therefore contribute to transforming food systems globally through the application of improved technologies, practices, and knowledge. to achieve the development objectives of the GFSS. Despite these potential benefits, the adoption of food safety practices within agricultural and food systems can be limited by lack of awareness of their benefits; increased food prices, food scares related to increased awareness; age and gender dynamics of households; lack of input availability; labor requirements; price instability; and a host of other constraints. Research and capacity building to help address these challenges can improve the sustainable adoption of improved food safety-based technologies to sustainably improve food safety systems. Within these broad parameters, the Management Entity will outline in the proposed Technical Approach identify the researchable challenges and opportunities with the greatest potential to achieve the two strategic objectives of the Food Safety Innovation Lab (as set forth in A.III.a.2), and which will be addressed in the context of the proposed Technical Approach. The successful applicant’s Technical Approach will select and prioritize focal geographies and food safety research themes that address key researchable challenges and opportunities in developing country food safety systems and that maximize the program’s potential to drive long-term food security impacts (i.e. improved nutrition, resilience, and agriculture-led economic growth). It is in this context that the Development, selection, and management of a high-quality portfolio of sub awards and/or subcontracts is the basic function of the Management Entity of an Innovation Lab. The successful applicant will implement a Management Approach that allows the Management Entity to successfully execute all of the management functions in an efficient and streamlined fashion. The Management Approach will address the following three areas:

(1) Development of the Research Portfolio: Impact Pathways, Theory of Change, and Results Framework

Impacts denote change from one condition, status, or behavior to another as a consequence of using research results; they must not be confused with research program outputs. While broad scale-up of technologies and knowledge is not within the sphere of direct responsibilities the Food Safety Innovation Lab, the program is responsible for building the horizontal linkages across appropriate end-users, particularly in target countries, to enable a hand-off of relevant technologies and knowledge to those best positioned for its use to achieve Feed the Future goals and to track progress of such adoption throughout the life of the project. The Management Entity must ensure that there are quantifiable and verifiable indicators of each activity’s impact on USAID’s goals and strategic objectives. The theory of change for the program must specify how the monitoring plan and indicators will measure progress, and how gender and youth considerations are incorporated and measured throughout the impact pathways. Impact pathways must also consider knowledge sharing and transfer of research outputs to relevant end-users including local institutions to contribute to Feed the Future goals. Such end users may be farmers, government researchers, government decision-makers, development professionals, and the private sector. After selection of the portfolio of activities, the ME must develop a strategy to document technology adoption and program impact. All research activities must be structured to answer at least the following questions before, during, and after the development and dissemination of research outputs:

(2) Selection of the Research Portfolio

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 16 of 129

A key premise of all the Feed the Future Innovation Labs is collaborative research through partnerships. In order to accomplish the goals of the Innovation Lab, the Management Entity (ME), in direct partnership with USAID, must craft and organize a five-year coherent program of high-quality research activities, focusing on areas where the Feed the Future Innovation Lab approach has a comparative advantage. The ME defines the research agenda and objectives in a five-year research plan designed in collaboration with USAID. The ME then issues its own RFA for collaborative sub-agreements with U.S., international and local research and educational institutions and other kinds of public and private partners that define, authorize, and fund the work to be done under the Food Safety Innovation Lab. The ME is responsible for overall program implementation, financial and administrative management, assurance of quality of results by its partners, and reporting of results.

a. Research Areas of Inquiry

The successful applicant’s Technical Approach will identify Research Areas of Inquiry that will guide the Management Entity’s development, selection, and management of a focused portfolio of research activities that achieve the two strategic objectives of the Food Safety Innovation Lab (Section A.III.b. and A.III.c.). It is the ME’s responsibility to ensure that the research program aligns to the relevant themes within the GFSS or any new food security initiatives during the program’s period of performance. Ultimately, the portfolio of activities is expected to include both competitively awarded and commissioned research activities, including 3-7 “Quick-Start” activities to be initiated within 60 days of the award start date (please see Section A.III.f (2) for more details). To guide portfolio development, the selected Research Areas of Inquiry will lay out a coherent framework of themes and research approaches based on the key findings and recommendations from the documents in Annex II and III, which include the white paper and the e-consultation summary. The USG strategies such as the Global Food Security Strategy, and the USAID Multisectoral Nutrition Strategy7 highlights key areas across food safety and nutrition that include reduction of biological and chemical contamination, raise consumer demand for safe food, expand food industry investment in food safety, continue targeted capacity building, and increase access to safe water and sanitation. The successful applicant’s Research Areas of Inquiry will substantially address the three technical themes outlined below, which illustrate USAID’s research interests in the area of food safety, with emphasis on area’s 1 and 2. The successful applicant could propose well-justified additional or alternative areas of inquiry aligned with the intent of this NFO, or propose an alternative organization or framing of these concepts and approaches as appropriate to advance a creative, high-impact Technical Approach. Examples of research questions are intended to be illustrative, not prescriptive. The Food Safety Innovation Lab and its partners will be expected to support analysis aimed at furthering the assessment and understanding of current and future food safety sectors opportunities and challenges. The Management Entity for the Food Safety Innovation Lab will maintain a capacity to enlist the services of experts in a diverse range of organizations to assist researchers and policy makers to understand the dimensions of the evolving opportunities and challenges facing food safety systems with special focus on markets. Research should address gender gaps and identify how food safety regulation could be improved while mitigating unintended consequences on women, plus incorporate youth perspectives, any key drivers for private sector uptake of research outputs, and emerging and future challenges to improve food safety. The Food Safety Innovation Lab should leverage current and past USAID investment (e.g. PHLIL, FPL, IPM, NIL & FSP), A4NH and PACA as well as other donors, leverage existing USG resources (e.g. USDA), the private sector (e.g., companies and industry associations), and other donors (e.g., BMGF, DFID) to help build the evidence base and contribute where gaps exist.

7 The USAID Multi-Sectoral Nutrition Strategy addresses pathways to optimal nutrition. https://www.usaid.gov/nutrition-strategy

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 17 of 129

(a) Area of Inquiry 1: Improving Human Outcomes: Improved knowledge and practices related to how

food safety systems achieve improved nutrition. Research Strategy Theme: Research under this theme includes topics such as identifying effective pathways from agriculture to improved nutrition market opportunities, equitable access to productive assets and the enabling environment for agricultural production that contribute to better nutrition outcomes. Nutrition is integral to achieving and sustaining food security, as reflected in the Global Food Security Act (GFSA) of 2016 and USAID Multisectoral Nutrition Strategy. Nutrition programming approaches are complex and varied, as multiple factors affect human nutrition. Thus there is no single prescriptive approach to programming for nutrition as approaches must be tailored to reflect the local context. Food safety is an important step towards achieving safe and nutritious foods for consumption to achieve optimal nutrition in our target populations. Food safety, including hygienic food preparation, storage, processing, and environmentally appropriate production, reduces harmful pathogens and other toxic substances that impact health and nutrition. Consumption of mycotoxins, including aflatoxins, poisons made by fungi that grow on crops), is associated with child stunting and can cause poor immune function or even death. Food contamination caused by inadequate food handling and/or contaminated water transmitting microorganisms (e.g., Salmonella, E. coli bacteria) causes significant morbidity and mortality around the world. Frequent diarrheal illness is a major cause of acute malnutrition and contributes to chronic under-nutrition. As populations grow and rely on food produced and processed by others, it is essential to strengthen food safety management systems with strong regulations and laboratory and enforcement capacity to help ensure a safe and nutritious food supply (see Intermediate Result 2 in the USAID Multisectoral Nutrition Strategy). The Food Safety Innovation Lab should contribute to research in nutrition with a focus on the consumption of safe and affordable food as a means of reducing undernutrition, especially among pregnant and lactating women, children under five years of age, and nutrition deficiencies for populations as a whole in the developing country context. Research could consider nutritional and health impacts on the household specifically children and women as a results of consuming unsafe food and how that impacts productivity for youth and adults to encourage behavior change and adoption of best practices in food handling from farm to fork to ensure safer food consumption. Practices and technologies, which address multiple potential risks at prioritized control points up and down the food system, generally provide higher returns on investment than individual pathogen or toxin specific approaches. Illustrative Activities: • Risk mitigation in staple foods – including, the tradeoffs in improved nutrition with increased risk of foodborne

diseases (i.e. contribute to strengthening the evidence base and raising awareness and knowledge by conducting socio-economic studies to identify best ways to: 1) raise awareness among smallholder farmers 2) identify drivers to information and knowledge uptake on the appropriate use and handling of pesticides and 3) safe timing of food harvest after pesticide application to mitigate food safety risks associated with their use.)

• Risk mitigation in fruits and vegetables including the tradeoffs in improved nutrition with increased risk of foodborne diseases (i.e. research on practices and technologies that contribute to reducing, detecting and mitigating food safety in fruits and vegetables (F&V) the household and informal market levels at all stages from production to consumption.)

• Risk mitigation in animal sourced foods including the tradeoffs in improved nutrition with increased risk of foodborne diseases (i.e. research addresses the foodborne risks related to animal source food (ASF) and should consider the risk profiles of different food groups (i.e. dairy, meat, and eggs), different animal

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 18 of 129

species, and production systems. • Promote sustainable food production, processing and storage systems, and behaviors that prevent any biological

or chemical contamination (i.e. mycotoxins) in foods and animal feeds • Monitor and ensure safe levels of pesticides and other chemicals used in agriculture • Strengthen food supply chain infrastructure and capacity to ensure high-quality, safe food with regard to

storage, cold chain, logistics, and food waste • Implement Good Agricultural Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices to reduce risks associated with fresh

fruits and vegetables and animal source foods

(i) Area of Inquiry 2: Reduce and mitigate risk: technologies, knowledge, and practices that reduce, manage, and mitigate increased food safety risks, strengthening and building a resilient food safety system

Research Strategy Theme: This theme emphasizes research and development of scalable technologies that mitigate food security risks, especially through improved agriculture and environmental health. It includes research topics such as economic and livelihood diversification, increasing tolerance of crops and livestock to biotic and abiotic stresses, maintaining healthy production environments and improving food safety. Food safety risks come in multiple forms and could enter the food chain through various pathways. Unsafe food contains hazardous agents, or contaminants, that can make people sick—either immediately or by increasing their risk of chronic disease. Such contaminants can enter food at many different points in the food production process and can occur naturally or as the result of poor or inadequate production practices. Hazardous agents of concerns that are receiving attention from policymakers include microbial pathogens, zoonotic diseases, parasites, mycotoxins, antibiotic drug residues, and pesticide residues. The Food Safety Innovation Lab should conduct policy analysis in conjunction with and building on the social research component, especially with respect to proposed policy levers to address foodborne disease priorities. These levers may include proposed or actual legislation, administrative actions and directives, judicial interpretations of legislation, public-private partnership, and other policy options for reducing foodborne diseases. Focusing on the policy formation process, this research component provides benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analysis of relevant policy proposals. Especially important will be the disaggregation of benefits and cost by gender, age, and income category. Illustrative Activities: • Risk mitigation in staple foods including the tradeoffs in improved nutrition with increased risk of foodborne

diseases (similar to above in AoI 1) • Risk mitigation in fruits and vegetables including the tradeoffs in improved nutrition with increased risk of

foodborne diseases (similar to above in AoI 1) • Risk mitigation in animal sourced foods including the tradeoffs in improved nutrition with increased risk of

foodborne diseases (similar to above in AoI 1) • Human health-emerging risks and rapid diagnosis (develop fast and easy technologies and innovations that will

provide rapid diagnostics and identifications of hazards and foodborne diseases) • Development of a food safety risk assessment tool (easily adaptable in a developing country context) • Risk mitigation among commercial and non-commercial food handlers and processors in formal and informal

markets • Development and testing of simple interventions that improve food safety systems (e.g. training, simple

technologies, infrastructure, standards/policy, risk analysis, lab testing, rapid diagnostic instruments, food control management systems and cooling systems)

• Promote improved policy and enabling environments for food safety that address both informal and formal markets to generate knowledge on factors that affect accessibility and affordability of safe and nutritious

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 19 of 129

food for the poor and identifying ways to mitigate any unintended consequences. • Filling the gap in data surveillance systems (contribute to data on foodborne diseases at country and/or regional

level, which would allow evidence-based prioritization of foodborne disease interventions) •

(ii) Area of Inquiry 3: Advancing the Productivity Frontier: food safety at the firm, farm and household levels: pro-poor technologies and practices that improve food safety and healthy diet

Research Strategy Theme: This theme emphasizes the research and development of scalable technologies and practices that enhance opportunities for prosperity, nutrition, and resilience in agriculture, with the overarching objective to enhance food security. (It includes topics such as increasing achieved yields of crops and animals; improving nutritional quality of food and feed; post-harvest loss reduction; sustainable intensification of land and aquatic systems; policy research to support agricultural productivity; and targeted value-chain research to generate innovations that improve efficiency, enable value addition or create employment opportunities.) To increase sustainable production and reduce risks, especially for small-scale producers, a systems approach to food safety is needed that includes consideration of all types of diet, especially nutritionally dense, perishable crops; identifies and tests approaches to increased productivity and profitability while reducing risks to small scale producers; improves quality and safety of diet; reduces pre- and post-harvest losses and loss of nutritional value, identifies socially acceptable technologies and practices that improve food safety and enhance adoption; identifies rapid diagnostics; improves food handling and preparation at household and informal market levels; and mitigates food safety risks throughout production systems. Illustrative Activities:

● Improve food safety through improved technology and knowledge at farm and household level (identify how to contribute to increased consumer awareness and knowledge sharing that is effective while avoiding food safety scares)

● Pre-harvest and Post-harvest food safety (identify points of entry and opportunities along the value chain that is critical for the prevention of foodborne diseases.

● Social and economic benefits of improving food safety at households, and in formal and informal markets ● Cost benefit analysis of food safety technologies and interventions ● Socio-cultural and political economy analyses of the opportunities for and impediments to improving

food safety ● Behavioral studies that examine the motivations for individual food-safety behaviors and opportunities to

improve these behaviors ● Institutional studies to adapt institutional innovations such as mutual accountability processes to engage

multi-stakeholder commitment and action to reduce FBD ● Quantification of top-line economic benefits from reducing FBD, such as accelerated agricultural and

economic growth from lower disease burden and greater market opportunities; increased resilience because reduced FBD in turn reduces descent into poverty; and improved nutritional outcomes especially among women and children.

(3) Management of the Research Portfolio

A clear and compelling plan to adapt and apply generic best practices of performance monitoring for impact-oriented research in the context of the proposed technical approach is required to provide evidence of the program’s successes. Furthermore, an approach to achieving development impacts must also address opportunities for the program to implement or support food safety technology-scaling activities, if funding become available through Associate Awards or buy-ins. Performance management requires access to useful and timely information on a broad range of factors throughout the life of a program. Without planning how and when this information will be obtained, it will be difficult or impossible, once activities start, to put systems in place to

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 20 of 129

ensure adequate information flow to enable ongoing decision-making and to meet performance reporting requirements (see Section F.III.a (4)). The ME must take adequate steps to plan and institutionalize a process for collecting performance information as part of everyday work. This performance information consists of the indicators that will measure progress toward intermediate and final results and includes baseline data and periodic and final performance targets. Reporting to the Feed the Future monitoring Systems using appropriate indicators is required. USAID maintains a commitment to fair and open competitive procurement processes, out of conviction that this approach generates the highest-quality research and development outcomes. As a result, a majority of the funds allocated for research activities must be used for sub awards issued through competitive solicitations issued by the Management Entity. To support a vigorously competitive solicitation process, the successful applicant will develop and publicize Requests for Application that elicit high-quality applications from an appropriate range and number of institutions in the U.S. (including minority-serving institutions [MSIs]), in the selected focal geographies and from appropriate international institutions.

The ME will engage an appropriate range of expertise to mount an intellectually rigorous peer review process for a given solicitation. This process must produce a portfolio of sub awards that, collectively, meet the primary and cross-cutting technical objectives of the proposed research and HICD strategies.

The financial office of the successful applicant must have the demonstrated capacity to issue and manage international sub-grants and/or sub-contracts using financial mechanisms appropriate to the proposed range of sub awardees. Sub awardees must include universities and research organizations from the US and proposed partner countries, international research organizations, and additional partners from the private or public sectors, as appropriate in the context of the solicitation.

The ME will adaptively manage the portfolio of sub-awards and/or -contracts to ensure optimal implementation of all activities. The ME will institute procedures that provide sub awardees with appropriate technical guidance and feedback, to ensure that planned research and HICD benchmarks are met, to assure compliance and accountability, and address unexpected challenges and opportunities. The ME will also ensure that sub awardees are accountable for progress along their impact pathway.

A “Collaboration, Learning and Adapting” (CLA) approach8 is a primary precept for USAID work. The ME’s explicit incorporation of CLA is expected to strengthen the technical knowledge base for new strategies and programs, as well as continuously align programs with dynamic contexts, encourage adaptability and accountability, support early recognition and application of new trends and findings to strategically influence outcomes within and beyond the food safety sector. The ME must plan to develop approaches, such as partnerships and platforms, to share “lessons learned” both internally (among target and partner countries and among the program participants) and externally, such as with stakeholders, including the public and private sectors and civil society. The ME must provide approaches to ensure that structures and opportunities are in place to facilitate cross-project learning within the program portfolio. The ME must also ensure that knowledge and understanding gained from the cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, resilience, and nutrition are incorporated into the rest of the portfolio as part of a virtuous cycle in addition to being shared with external Feed the Future stakeholders as relevant.

Recognizing that throughout the life of the program there may be instances where directed or commissioned research and associated activities best meet program goals, the ME must directly commission research without a competitive process. To reduce delays between project award and initial program outputs, one set of commissioned research ”Quick Start” activities (Initial Activities) are to be proposed with the submission of the application to this NFO in accordance to Section A.III.f.(2) and will be evaluated according to Section E.I as an 8 https://usaidlearninglab.org/faq/collaborating-learning-and-adapting-cla

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 21 of 129

integral part of the overall application according to the quality of the research concepts, applicability to overarching research goals, and the diversity represented among the concept notes. These Initial Activities must be ready to commence within 60 days of project award, and USAID will determine and approve the final selection and scope of these immediate research activities and reserves the right to approve all, some, or none of the proposed activities or to approve with modifications. Throughout the lifetime of the award, the ME may choose to propose that some activities be awarded directly, without competition, when there is compelling justification to do so after review and recommendation by appropriate program advisory body/ies and final approval by the Agreement Officer (AO). The combined cost of all approved “Quick-Start” activities must not exceed $500,000, and the combined cost of all remaining commissioned activities (excluding buy-ins and Associate Awards) must not exceed $725,000 over the life of the program.

The ME must submit a preliminary Activity MEL Plan for this application (see Section F.III.a(4)), and the winning applicant must submit a comprehensive Activity MEL Plan within 60 days after award. See the How-To Note on Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning (MEL) Plan for more information9. The comprehensive Activity MEL Plan will serve as a tool to plan and manage the process of monitoring, evaluating, and reporting progress toward achieving the desired results. Appropriate gender-sensitive and youth-inclusive methodologies (including sex and age disaggregation) must be used. The preliminary Activity MEL Plan must be an outline of the full Activity MEL Plan and must include a plan and schedule to establish the following:

● Performance indicators that will measure progress toward achieving the desired results and account for gender and youth dimensions, as relevant. The Activity MEL Plan must use appropriate Feed the Future indicators. Mandatory indicators, required to use when relevant, are defined under the Standard Program Structure (SPS) indicator categories in the most recent version of the Feed the Future Handbook of Indicator Definition10 (Only Implementing Mechanism Indicators are required to be applied if applicable). Indicators can include quantitative data (i.e. individuals receiving training) and qualitative information (i.e. description of technology adoption and reported barriers). Indicator definitions and required disaggregation categories can change from year to year. At times, Feed the Future may designate additional mandatory indicators or drop mandatory designations. When research activities include issues around aspects of sustainable intensification, the “Sustainable Intensification Framework”11 must be used to guide indicator selection12. Custom indicators specific to the proposed theory of change should also be included

Α Baseline for the indicators.

See the How-To Note on Activity Monitoring, Evaluation, & Learning (MEL) Plan for more information29.

(Note: All of the aforementioned items will be refined after award and again after selection of the portfolio of activities.)

A.III.c. Food Safety Innovation Lab: Institutional Capability, Accountability, and Staffing Plan

The objective of the NFO is to procure a Management Entity (ME) to manage the Food Safety Innovation Lab. The goal of the Food Safety Innovation Lab is to reduce global hunger, malnutrition and poverty through science, technology & innovation. The Food Safety Innovation Lab will focus on advancing the productivity frontier,

9 https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/cleared_-_how-to_note_-_activity_mel_plan_sep2017.pdf 10 https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/feed-future-handbook-indicator-definitions 11http://www.k-state.edu/siil/documents/docs_siframework/Guide%20for%20SI%20Assessment%20Framework%20-%2010.24.17.pdf 12 http://www.k-state.edu/siil/documents/docs_siframework/Sustainable%20Intensification%20Assessment%20Methods%20Manual%20-%2010.24.17c.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 22 of 129

reducing and mitigating risk, and improving human outcomes through nutrition, equity and economic opportunity for the poor.

The ME must ensure that a clear knowledge management plan is in place that links explicitly with the objectives of the award and which supports achieving and sustaining those objectives. It must include, at minimum;

1. At least one implementer’s technical brief for each area of inquiry (no more than 4 pages maximum), and;

2. Provision of annual key messages and conclusions from work completed to date to all internal program participants and to BFS Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning staff.

The ME must engage and leverage existing knowledge-sharing platforms and resources to further their reach and impact. For insights on and some examples of knowledge management under Feed the Future programs, please visit Agrilinks13 and the USAID Learning Lab14.

USAID is committed to making U.S. Government funded data accessible, discoverable and usable by our partners and is proactively releasing Agency-funded data to the public as a member of the Open Government Partnership15. USAID’s policy of sharing data in machine readable formats for public benefit is in adherence with the Office of Management and Budget’s Open Data Policy16. The ME is responsible for developing a Data Management Plan for the Food Safety Innovation Lab in accordance with USAID Development Data ADS Chapter 57917 and storing and maintaining data in such a way as to deliver the data to the USAID Development Data Library18. The Food Safety Innovation Lab will be implemented under a Leader with Associates (LWA) mechanism, as described in the cover letter, Section A.I.a and Section B.I Funding from the USAID Bureau for Food Security (BFS) will be obligated under the Leader Award to support the core program focused along the food safety systems research and development. As a leader award, the Food Safety Innovation Lab may accept additional funds up to the Total Estimated Amount in order to conduct additional activities related to its core research mission on behalf of USAID missions or Washington offices. The potential $20,000,000 of buy-ins and Associate Awards permit missions or other USAID offices to address country-specific needs and respond to dynamically changing programmatic requirements by tapping into a competitively awarded program that offers global expertise that can be put into place quickly and efficiently. Buy-ins are the preferred mechanism when they fund smaller activities ($1,000,000 or less) that are already part of the approved Leader Award technical program. Associate Awards are frequently used to scale up technological innovations proven to be successful by the Innovation Labs and where the innovations still reside under the purview of the Innovation Lab or its affiliated local partners. Therefore, the applicant must be prepared to identify and seek out partners to address a broad width of research questions regarding food safety systems. Associate awards require their own financial and activity reporting. These additional activities are not guaranteed. Buy-ins to the LWA are a particularly valuable tool for Missions to access a global research program such as the Food Safety Innovation Lab. They permit Missions to address their country-specific needs and respond to

13 http://agrilinks.org/ 14 http://usaidlearninglab.org/ 15 http://www.opengovpartnership.org/ 16 https://project-open-data.cio.gov/ 17 http://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/500/579 18 https://www.usaid.gov/data

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 23 of 129

dynamically changing programmatic requirements by tapping into a competitively awarded program that offers global expertise that can be put into place quickly and efficiently. Finally, buy-ins are the preferred mechanism when they fund activities that are already part of the approved Leader Award technical program and the operating unit (Mission or Office) contributing the funds does not want to directly manage the buy-in. In addition to buy-ins, the ability for Missions, Bureaus and Offices to issue Associate Awards is also important for the Food Safety Innovation Lab. For example, other Innovation Labs have found that as they begin project implementation in a specific country or region, Missions often identify previously unforeseen research and/or capacity development needs that they would like to support and that fall within the technical scope of the Innovation Lab. And, due to the country- or region-specific nature of the activity, the Mission often wants to maintain direct management of the activity. Associate Awards are frequently used to scale up technological innovations proven to be successful by the Innovation Labs and where the innovations still reside under the purview of the Innovation Lab. The LWA mechanism allows the Mission to do this efficiently and effectively while taking advantage of a competitively awarded program of global expertise working in their country or region. To ensure successful implementation of core technical and management functions, applicants must clearly define the roles and responsibilities of proposed staff and external advisory bodies. USAID discourages exclusivity agreements between the Applicant and any candidates that will be proposed for Key Personnel or Other Personnel. The proposed technical team must demonstrate strong technical capacity in gendered agricultural research, youth inclusion, and HICD either within the key personnel or through technical specialists

A.III.d. Personnel

To ensure successful implementation of core technical and management functions, applicants should clearly define the roles and responsibilities of proposed staff and external advisory bodies. USAID discourages exclusivity agreements between the applicant and any candidates that may be proposed for Key Personnel or Other Personnel

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 24 of 129

Key personnel

a. Food Safety Innovation Lab Director

The Food Safety Innovation Lab Director will have overall responsibility for the management and implementation of the Lab, and will serve as USAID’s principal point of contact for all issues regarding the project. The Director will publicly represent the project to the US government, the public, the global research community, and other diverse stakeholders, as well as be ultimately responsible for activity coordination, planning, work-plan development, program reporting, and overall program monitoring and evaluation. The Director will ensure that cross-cutting themes are properly addressed throughout the entire Food Safety Innovation Lab portfolio. The Director will ensure coordination, communication and cross-learning between both internal and external partners and stakeholders of the project. The Director will be the primary point of contact for development of Associate Awards and will be responsible for integrating Associate Awards into the overall Innovation Lab Program. The Director is envisioned as a full-time position, with minimum qualifications to include an advanced university degree (i.e. doctoral degree/PhD) in a subject relevant to food safety research-for-development as described by this NFO, relevant technical expertise, and demonstrated competency in international agricultural development program management. Experience in managing research partnerships between international, national, and local partners, and at least ten years of experience is required. Experience integrating gender, social sciences, environmental, and nutritional considerations into research programs is highly desirable.

b. Associate or Deputy Director

The Associate or Deputy Director will support the Director and serve as program leader when called upon. The Associate or Deputy Director must hold an advanced university degree (i.e. Master degree or higher) in a subject relevant to food safety, international agriculture development, relevant technical expertise, and program management competency. Experience in managing research partnerships between international, national, and local partners, and at least five years of experience is highly preferred. Experience integrating gender, social sciences, environmental, and nutritional considerations into research programs is highly desirable.

c. Other Personnel

Suggestion of any additional management positions, position descriptions, and accompanying level of effort, rests with the Management Entity and will depend on the nature of the proposed program. Proposed personnel must be sufficient to effectively and efficiently execute all technical and management functions. Various roles that need to be filled within a successful Management Entity include:

● Effective management of all financial tasks, including timely and accurate financial statements and reports according to USAID guidelines and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

● Creations of materials to increase awareness and to promote productivity including maintaining a positive image of the Lab to all parties, including research and development communities, users of generated technologies, and the general public.

● Driving development results planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting in line with USAID requirements.

● In-country coordination to ensure that decisions and analyses are consistent with on-the-ground realities; that activities are aligned with USAID country and region priorities and geographies; and that critical partners are engaged from the beginning of the project.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 25 of 129

d. Technical Specialists

Depending on the nature of the Food Safety Innovation Lab research program, identified Technical Specialists may be selected to perform such functions as conducting scoping studies to inform an NFO (e.g. gender and food safety) or monitor programming, according to a plan of action directed by the Innovation Lab Director. The Innovation Lab program must determine the level of effort needed for these positions. These specialists might include the following: food safety in various production system (e.g animal source food, fish, Fruits and vegetables, HACCAP/FSMA, international food safety standards,, human nutrition, knowledge management, social science, community development organizer, gender, youth, HICD, policy, and market development. Specialists may be cross-cutting in several technical fields. Technical Specialists may be local host country or regional hires with length of assignment determined by need.

A.III.e. Maximizing Development Impact through Incorporation of Cross-Cutting Issues

The Applicant must ensure that key cross-cutting issues are addressed, both across the program portfolio and within component activities; these cross-cutting issues include youth and gender inclusiveness; human and institutional capacity development. For research investments to contribute to achieving development gains in nutrition, resilience, or agriculture-led economic growth in Feed the Future countries, research programs must play an important role in ensuring that research outputs are ultimately handed off to partners who effectively promote their widespread, sustained adoption and use by beneficiaries in a manner that enhances food security. The process by which research outputs undergo progressive dissemination, adoption and impact across expanding geographies and populations is referred to as scaling. Scaling can occur via a variety of different delivery pathways, ranging from commercialization by the private sector to dissemination by public-sector or civil-society partners (or a combination thereof).

Although scaling of technologies, knowledge, or practices generally occurs after the research phase has concluded, and may be outside the immediate manageable interests of research partners, research programs must not defer consideration of downstream adoption pathways or beneficiary demand until the final moment of transfer to a scaling partner. Therefore, USAID requires that research partners actively address issues of downstream handoff and eventual scaling of outputs throughout all stages of research activity design, selection, and implementation, as an essential element of a research program’s technical and management approach.

Best practices to maximize the scaling potential and development impact of research outputs include:19 ● Consider local needs, preferences and market demand throughout activity design and implementation, to

ensure the resulting research outputs will ultimately achieve scale. ● Explore and identify potential scaling pathways early in activity design and implementation. ● Foster research partnerships with potential scaling partners in order to promote co-innovation, inform

development of appropriate and user-oriented technologies, and facilitate downstream adoption of new knowledge and practices.

● Use participatory research methodologies that engage intended end-users and potential scaling partners, especially the private sector, in co-design and testing of innovations.

● Solicit and respond to ongoing, iterative feedback from end-users, stakeholders and scaling partners to inform research activities.

● Maintain research partner engagement after handoff to scaling partners, with the aim of providing technical support, building capacity of local scaling partners, and maximizing development impacts.

In response to these expectations for development-oriented research programming, the strategic objectives of the

19 U.S. Government’s Global Food Security Research Strategy (2017)

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 26 of 129

Food Safety Innovation Lab require that the program not only generate improved knowledge, technologies, and practices, but also must make those research outputs “available for uptake” by partners who will take them to scale (Section A.III.b). The Management Entity of the Food Safety Innovation Lab will develop a coherent technical approach to ensure that essential cross-cutting issues are both addressed at the program level and incorporated within individual component activities as appropriate.

1) Gender Equality and Youth Inclusion in Food Safety

USAID policy requires that gender equality be addressed as appropriate in all USAID-funded activities, and programming contribute to the 2012 Gender and Female Empowerment Policy20 objectives and the GFSS Cross-cutting Intermediate Result of advancing gender equity and female empowerment21. The Applicant is highly encouraged to demonstrate familiarity with the Gender Analysis and associated recommendations provided as Annex 1.

The Management Entity is expected to outline key research processes or questions to support gender integration in descriptions of each proposed Area of Inquiry. Through gender analysis22 research activities must demonstrate a clear understanding of men's and women's distinctive roles in food safety (from food production, processing, marketing, and consumption) or, where this information is unavailable, address knowledge gaps to ensure that outputs and outcomes of research conducted under the Innovation Lab are beneficial to women and men, boys and girls. The 2012 Youth in Development Policy23 also mandates the inclusion of youth (ages 10 – 29) across USAID’s portfolio while the GFSS has committed itself to mainstreaming youth in agriculture, food security and nutrition whenever and wherever possible using a Positive Youth Development framework (see www.youthpower.org). The Food Safety Innovation Lab must be a gender-sensitive and youth-sensitive program that will develop knowledge, recommendations, tools, and strategies that recognize and account for the needs and multi-dimensional roles of youth and both women and men in small-scale production and marketing systems. Gender analysis and integration as well as youth analysis and inclusion must be implemented as a cross-cutting effort within all activities. A Gender Analysis conducted by the USAID Bureau of Food Security for this NFO is included in Annex 1. Applicants must review this document for gender issues of specific interest to USAID food safety programming.

2) Human and Institutional Capacity Development

Under the GFSS, USAID’s approach to improving human, organizational and system performance is rooted in local capacity development, a “process of unleashing, strengthening, and maintaining the ability of people, organizations, and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully.”24 USAID strongly emphasizes the importance of capacity development to improve food security outcomes and impacts by increasing local

20 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/GenderEqualityPolicy_0.pdf 21 https://feedthefuture.gov/resource/global-food-security-strategy-technical-guidance-advancing-gender-equality-and-female 22 Gender analysis is a tool for examining the differences between the roles that women and men play in communities and societies, the different levels of power they hold, their differing needs, constraints and opportunities, and the impacts of these differences on their lives. Gender analysis identifies root causes of existing gender inequalities and/or obstacles to female empowerment. 23 https://www.usaid.gov/policy/youth 24 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – Development Assistance Committee. (2006). The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good Practice, Paris, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/capacitybuilding/pdf/DAC_paper_final.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 27 of 129

ownership, sustainability, and partnership of local organizations, donors, the public sector, and other stakeholders.

In the context of research activities, HICD must build local capacities at three interconnected levels: individuals, organizations, and the enabling environment. Thus, an integrated Agricultural Innovations Systems HICD approach must establish a strong and empowered cadre of researchers and practitioners with advanced competencies and professional skills, as well as strengthen the organizations and institutional networks in which these individuals are embedded. While capacity development of each level (individuals, organizations, and the enabling environment) has to be addressed in its own right, it also must be done through multiple but complementary pathways for change. A purposeful intervention enhances the capacities of individuals and organizations to interact, innovate, and learn in addition to creating an enabling environment. The applicant must focus on creating enabling conditions for research in host countries. Potential beneficiaries include host country scientists, universities, national agricultural research institutions, NGOs, private sector actors and/or other relevant beneficiaries within the local food safety innovation system. The Management Entity of the Food Safety Innovation Lab will ensure that HICD is a fundamental design consideration; both across the overarching technical program and within individual program activities as appropriate. To the extent possible, HICD efforts must be integrated into research activities, but well-justified, standalone capacity-development activities also may be appropriate. The successful applicant’s approach to HICD as a cross-cutting issue will identify the anticipated beneficiaries of HICD efforts under the Food Safety Innovation Lab, provide a rationale and process for how beneficiaries are selected, describe what types of capacity-development efforts and approaches will be applied, and explain how these efforts will contribute to sustainable achievement of the program’s Strategic Objectives.

The following documents can provide additional insights on USAID’s overarching approach to transforming innovations and reforms into sustained development: USAID Local Systems Framework25, the USAID Technical Note on the 5Rs Framework26, and the USAID ADS 201 Additional Help Document, Local Capacity Development: Suggested Approaches27. Technical guidance for capacity development in the framework of the GFSS can be found at Global Food Security Strategy Technical Guidance for Capacity Development28 Nothing in this section must be interpreted as restrictive to HICD of research institutions. An important facet of a system of organizational development includes the incorporation of the private sector to enable technologies to be implemented at scale during and after the life of the Food Safety Innovation Lab.

A.III.f. Geographic Focus Areas and Quick-Start Activities

Research outputs of this activity must be primarily focused on achieving global and

regional impacts, rather than focusing more narrowly on national or sub-national areas. However, as a key component of its Technical Approach, the successful applicant will select focus countries in which to conduct research and capacity-development activities funded under the leader award.

1) Minimally, at least one country must be selected in priority regions

The Food Safety Innovation Lab Management Entity will, in consultation with the AOR, advisory committee, researchers, and USAID missions, determine in which countries to focus research work. While some

25 https://www.usaid.gov/policy/local-systems-framework 26 https://usaidlearninglab.org/library/5rs-framework-program-cycle 27 https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/ads_additional_help_lcd_1.13.2017.pdf 28 https://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/GFSS_TechnicalGuidance_Capacity%20Development.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 28 of 129

investigations may merit from regional or global approaches, it is expected that the majority of research and on-the-ground activities will be carried out within Feed the Future focus and aligned countries and that benefits of the research outputs will accrue, as appropriate, to beneficiaries within specified “zones of influence” identified by the USAID country Missions. This does not imply that all research must take place directly within the zones of influence.

It is expected that the Food Safety Innovation Lab will select a small number of countries, or focus efforts with regional research bodies, so as to maximize the research impact by minimizing overhead of operating in too many countries while maintaining as much of a broad regional or global focus as appropriate to the area of inquiry. At a minimum, the program must select countries from different world regions. It is not expected that the Food Safety Innovation Lab will engage in all three Areas of Inquiry (Section A.III.b.2.a) within each selected region or country. In each selected country, a research program must be conducted that targets key bottlenecks or constraints along the value chain from point of production or capture to market as specified by the Areas of Inquiry in A.III.b.2.a, and the Cross-Cutting Issues in A.III.e. All activities in each country must be coordinated and integrated within the Food Safety Innovation Lab as well as with outside research activities, where appropriate, to enable the greatest potential impact from the research portfolio. Additional information on Feed the Future Mission strategies and programs can be accessed from http://feedthefuture.gov/countries and Mission websites (http://www.usaid.gov/where-we-work). Information on USAID resilience programming can be found at https://www.usaid.gov/resilience. Initiatives such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ (FAO) Food Safety and Quality Program, Joint FAO/WHO expert committee on Food additives (JECFA), Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA), The World Bank Food Safety Capacity Building in Africa (GFSP), WHO Foodborne Diseases Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG), provide policy and technical support to a groundswell of food safety enterprises. Research outputs of this activity must be primarily focused on achieving global and regional impacts, rather than focusing more narrowly on national or subnational areas. However, as a key component of its Technical Approach, the successful applicant will select focus countries in which to conduct research and capacity-development activities funded under the leader award. In addition to identifying focus countries for core Food Safety Innovation Lab activities funded under the leader award, the successful applicant must be able to expand activities into other countries in which USAID invests agriculture and nutrition resources, in response to additional buy-in or Associate Award funding opportunities that may arise.

2) Initial Activity Concept Proposals: “Quick Starts”

The applicant must submit at the time of the application up to seven “Quick-start” research activity concept proposals that can commence within 60 days of the start of the terms of performance. Each concept proposal must describe a potential research activity that fits within the scope of the Areas of Inquiry as described in Section A.III.b.2.a These “Quick-Start” activities must include a diverse and representative mix of institutions, AOIs, countries, and global outputs and must address the cross-cutting issues.

Within the main body of the application, each of these initial activities must be summarized and include an estimated length of time and cost. In an annex to the technical application that will not count against the page limit, each of these activities must be discussed in more detail, including but not limited to:

1. The PI and institution(s) to conduct the work; 2. Research/project objective(s); 3. Relation to the overall mission of the Food Safety Innovation Lab; 4. Rationale for including this activity as an initial activity;

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 29 of 129

5. How the research outputs will be expected to improve the outputs or homogenize the inputs of the competitively awarded research activities;

6. How the activity will address the cross-cutting issues: 7. Work plan; and 8. Detailed budget.

The annex must include all of the information that would be expected of entries to the competitive research award process; however, it is not the intent of USAID to overly burden the applicants during the proposal phase, and as such, the details of each proposed initial activity do not need to be fully complete at this stage, but can instead be considered a concept note limited to one page single-spaced. Activity selection and finalization will occur after the selection of the winning application through the first 60 days of the start of the terms of performance.

The combined cost of these seven proposed activities can be greater than $500,000, but during the final selection of these activities, no more than $500,000 will be allocated. It is not guaranteed that any or all of these activities will be given final approval. Activities not selected can be resubmitted during the open competition phase of research activity selection. PIs of these initial activities will not be restricted from submitting new proposals during the open competition phase. The Applicant must describe how it will avoid conflicts of interest between the initial activities and the openly competed activities.

The quality of the research concepts and applicability to overarching research goals will be scored with the overall application as outlined in Section E.I. USAID reserves the right to review and approve the initial activities.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 30 of 129

SECTION B – FEDERAL AWARD INFORMATION

B.I. NUMBER OF AWARDS, FUNDING, AND PERFORMANCE PERIODS

Subject to funding availability, USAID intends to provide up to $10 million in total USAID funding over a five (5) year period. The ceiling for this program is up to $30 million. It is estimated that up to $2 million will be obligated to the Leader Award in the first year as core funding from BFS, and up to $2 million per year thereafter, for a total up to $10 million in core funding from BFS. For the purposes of this NFO, applicants must prepare a budget reflecting the ceiling of $10 million. Actual funding amounts are subject to availability of funds. USAID intends to award one cooperative agreement Leader with Associates (LWA) Award mechanism pursuant to this notice of funding opportunity. Approximately one Cooperative Agreement will be awarded at present, but USAID has set aside $15 million dollars as a pool for potential Associate Awards and $15 million for buy-ins. Associate Awards and buy-ins will be made during the life of the project based on demand from USAID Missions and other USAID Bureaus or Offices to the holder of the Leader Award. The competition under this NFO covers both the Leader Award and all subsequent Associate Awards and buy-ins. USAID reserves the right to fund any one or none of the applications submitted. B.II. START DATE AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR FEDERAL AWARDS The period of performance anticipated herein is five (5) years. The estimated state date will be on or about November 2018. The end of the performance period is anticipated to be on or about November 2023. B.III. SUBSTANTIAL INVOLVEMENT USAID intends to award a cooperative agreement for the Leader Award. A cooperative agreement is distinguished from a grant by virtue of USAID having substantial involvement (beyond that which is permitted under a grant) in the implementation of the program. B.III.a. Leader Award

USAID will be substantially involved in the implementation of the core program of this NFO under the Leader Award described in Section B.III.a. The intended purpose of the Agreement Officer’s Representative (AOR) involvement during the implementation of the program is to assist the recipient in achieving the supported objectives. It is expected that the Agreement Officer will delegate the following approvals to the AOR, except for changes to the Program Description or the approved budget, which will only be approved by the Agreement Officer. Substantial involvement will include: 1. Approval of Specified Key Personnel (i.e. Director and Associate/Deputy Director) 2. Approval of the Recipient’s overall Activity MEL Plan, including impact pathway and theory of change

documentation, and performance evaluation 3. Approval of the Recipient’s Data Management Plan and Environmental Mitigation & Monitoring Plan 4. Approval of Annual Implementation Plans, work plans, budgets, and semi-annual and annual reports. The

work-plan must include a travel matrix of proposed international trips 5. Concurrence on the substantive provisions of sub-award NFOs 6. Collaborative involvement in selection of members for any advisory body or bodies for oversight, such as

oversight of the program’s research and capacity development portfolio, and membership on such body/bodies

7. Concurrence on the recipients of sub-awards

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 31 of 129

8. Concurrence on the substantive provisions of sub-awards and contracts for research and capacity development activities

9. Review and approval of Program Descriptions and Budgets for proposed Associate Awards and Buy-Ins B.III.b. Associate Awards

An Associate Award may be a grant or a cooperative agreement. If an Associate Award will be a cooperative agreement, specific substantial involvement provisions will be identified for that Associate Award. B.IV. TITLE TO PROPERTY Property title under the resultant agreement must vest with the recipient in accordance with the Requirements of 2 CFR 200.310-316 and 2 CFR 700. B.V. AUTHORIZED GEOGRAPHIC CODE For the award resulting from this solicitation, the authorized geographic code for the source of USAID financed commodities (other than “restricted commodities,” as discussed below), and for the nationality of suppliers of USAID-financed commodities (other than restricted commodities) and services (other than ocean and air transportation, construction, and engineering services, as discussed below), is Geographic Code 937. Geographic Codes are described in 22 CFR 228.03 and the Internal Mandatory References to Chapter 310 of USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS 310) entitled “List of Developing Countries”, “List of Advanced Developing Countries”, and “List of Prohibited Source Countries”. B.VI. PURPOSE OF THE AWARD The principal purpose of the relationship with the Recipient and under the subject program is to transfer funds to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation of the Food Safety Innovation Lab which is authorized by Federal statute. The successful Recipient will be responsible for ensuring the achievement of the program objectives and the efficient and effective administration of the award through the application of sound management practices. The Recipient will assume responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. The Recipient using its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques must be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the resulting award.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 32 of 129

SECTION C – ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION C.I. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS The eligibility requirements below apply only to the principal Applicant. This program is authorized under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Applications must only be submitted by eligible U.S. colleges and universities as defined under Section 296(d) of Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended: “... those colleges or universities in each State, territory, or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, now receiving, or which must hereafter receive, benefits under the Act of July 2, 1862 (known as the First Morrill Act) or the Act of August 30, 1890 (known as the Second Morrill Act), which are commonly known as ‘land-grant’ universities; institutions now designated or which must hereafter be designated as sea-grant colleges under the Act of October 5, 1966 (known as the National Sea Grant College and Program Act), which are commonly known as sea-grant colleges; Native American land-grant colleges as authorized under the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note); and other United States colleges and universities which— (1) have demonstrable capacity in teaching, research, and extension (including outreach) activities in the agricultural sciences; and (2) can contribute effectively to the attainment of the objectives of this title.” The Title XII university-led Feed the Future Innovation Lab programs involve multiple partners, principal of which are U.S. universities, working in collaboration with scientists in developing country universities, national and international research centers, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to jointly pursue scientific investigations to overcome critical agricultural constraints facing today’s global food systems. All types of U.S. and non-U.S. entities are eligible as collaborating partners (i.e. sub- recipients or contractors at various tiers), provided that they are not excluded from U.S. Government (USG) acquisition and assistance awards (this may be verified through the Government System). In preparing the application, it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that no individuals or organizations proposed for participation in the program are excluded by the USG. After award, it is the Recipient’s responsibility to ensure that no transactions are conducted with excluded parties. USAID strongly encourages applicants to include qualified Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) including, but not limited to, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Predominantly Black Institutions, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and Asian American Native Alaskan and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions. Collaborating partners may be contractors or sub-recipients, and applicants must be aware of the distinction between procurement contracts (acquisition) and sub-awards (assistance). Contracts are subject to 2 CFR 200.318-326 and the USAID standard provision entitled "USAID Eligibility Rules for Goods and Services". Sub-awards are subject to 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 700 and the USAID standard provision entitled "Applicability of 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 700." The recipient’s and sub-recipients’ contractors and subcontractors at all tiers must also meet USAID’s supplier nationality requirements. Please note that it is USAID policy that no profit (i.e. any amount in excess of allowable direct and indirect costs) is payable under the prime award or under any sub award (i.e. sub-grants and sub-cooperative agreements, but excluding procurement contracts). However, profit is payable by the prime recipient or a sub-recipient to a contractor/vendor if the recipient or sub-recipient is procuring goods or services in furtherance of the program being supported by the award or sub-award. Please refer to the following for additional information: (http://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/300/303sai). USAID welcomes applications from organizations which have not previously received financial assistance from

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 33 of 129

USAID. Applicants must have established financial management, monitoring and evaluation processes, internal control systems, and policies and procedures that comply with established U.S.G. standards, laws, and regulations. The successful applicant(s) will be subject to a responsibility determination assessment (Pre-award Survey) by the Agreement Officer (AO). The Recipient must be a responsible entity. The AO may determine a pre-award survey is required to conduct an examination that will determine whether the prospective recipient has the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills – or ability to obtain them – in order to achieve the objectives of the program and comply with the terms and conditions of the award. C.II. COST SHARING (MATCHING) C.II.a. Leader Award

There is no mandatory level of cost-sharing (matching) for this program but USAID nevertheless encourages cost sharing to the maximum practicable extent. Cost-sharing or matching means that portion of project or program costs not borne by the U.S. Government. Cost sharing includes cash and in- kind contributions, and for U.S. organizations is subject to 2 CFR 200.306 and the USAID standard provision for U.S. NGOs entitled “Cost- Sharing (Matching)”, which, inter alia, requires that cost sharing, be verifiable from the Recipient’s records. Cost sharing or matching is normally associated with contributions from the same prime and sub-recipient sources that also receive USAID funds under an award, but can include contributions from third parties. Failure to meet a cost sharing requirement can result in the Recipient having to make refunds to USAID or a reduction in future funding. C.II.b. Associate Awards

Cost sharing requirements, if any, will be established for each Associate Award by the USAID mission or office that finances the Associate Award. C.III. OTHER There is a limit of one application per eligible institution. USAID does not require and does not encourage exclusivity contracts between proposed key personnel and the applying institution. As such, the proposed key personnel may be listed on more than one application. C.IV. RISK ASSESSMENT In order for an award to be made, the USAID AO must evaluate the risks posed by applicants as outlined in 2 CFR 200.205 and ADS 303.3.9. This means that the applicant must possess, or must have the ability to obtain, the necessary management and technical competence to conduct the proposed program, and must agree to practice mutually agreed-upon methods of accountability for funds and other assets provided or funded by USAID. In evaluating the risks posed by applicants, the Federal Awarding Agency uses a risk-based approach and must consider: 1. Financial stability; 2. Quality of management systems and ability to meet the management standards prescribed in this part; 3. History of performance. The applicant's record in managing Federal awards, if it is a prior recipient of Federal

awards, including timeliness of compliance with applicable reporting requirements, conformance to the terms and conditions of previous Federal awards, and if applicable, the extent to which any previously awarded

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 34 of 129

amounts will be expended prior to future awards; 4. Reports and findings from audits performed under Subpart F—Audit Requirements of this part or the reports

and findings of any other available audits; 5. The applicant's ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other requirements imposed on non-

Federal entities; and 6. That applicant is otherwise qualified to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (i.e.

Nondiscrimination, Lobbying, Debarment/Suspension, Terrorist Financing, etc.). In the absence of a positive risk assessment, an award can ordinarily not be made. Awards to potential new partners may be significantly delayed if USAID must undertake necessary pre- award reviews of these organizations to make an adequate risk assessment. These organizations must take this into account and plan their implementation dates and activities accordingly.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 35 of 129

SECTION D – APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION D.I. DEFINITIONS – AS USED HEREIN “Discussions” are negotiations that occur that may, at the Agreement Officer’s discretion; result in the applicant being allowed to revise its application. “In writing,” “writing,” or “written” means any worded or numbered expression that can be read, reproduced, and later communicated, and includes electronically transmitted and stored information. “Application modification” is a change made to an application before the NFO’s closing date and time, or made in response to an NFO amendment, or made to correct a mistake at any time before award. "Revised application/addendum" is a change to an application made after the NFO's closing date, at the request of or as allowed by the Agreement Officer as the result of negotiations. “Time,” if stated as a number of days, is calculated using calendar days, unless otherwise specified, and will include Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, if the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then the period will include the next working day. D.II. AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT

Tseyone Demissie Contract Specialist, USAID/M/OAA/BFS Rm. 562-L, SA-44 301 4th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 Email: tsdemissie@usaid.gov

Questions and Answers: All questions regarding this NFO must be submitted in writing to Tseyone Demissie at the e-mail address above. Questions regarding this NFO must be submitted via e-mail no later than June 13 2018, at 4:00 PM Washington, DC time to provide sufficient time to address the questions and incorporate the questions and answers as an amendment to this NFO. Any information given to a prospective Applicant concerning this NFO will be furnished promptly to all other prospective Applicants as an amendment to this NFO, if that information is necessary in submitting applications or if the lack of it would be prejudicial to any other prospective Applicant. Webinar An open and public internet-based question and answer session will be hosted by USAID on June 5, 2018 from 1:00-2:30pm, Washington, DC time. To join the webinar, visit the following link and select "Enter as a Guest": https://ac.usaid.gov/ftf_il_foodsafety/. Participants' names and organizations will be kept anonymous. An edited transcript of the questions and answers, as well as a link to the webinar recording, will be posted in an amendment to this NFO. In order to maintain the integrity of the competitive process, USAID staff, to include mission staff, will be unable to advise or provide information to potential applicants that would be used in preparation of the

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 36 of 129

application. Therefore, applicants are advised not to contact USAID missions or any other USAID staff members regarding this NFO. Information on mission strategies and programs can be accessed from http://feedthefuture.gov/countries and mission websites (http://www.usaid.gov/where-we-work). D.III. AMENDMENTS TO NFO If this NFO is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. The AO will do their best to alert Applicants that have already submitted applications that an amendment to the NFO has been published; however, it is ultimately the responsibility of the applicants to be aware of published amendments to the NFO through the Grants.gov platform. D.IV. CONTENT AND FORM OF APPLICATION SUBMISSION D.IV.a. Preparation of Applications

Applicants are expected to review, understand, and comply with all aspects of the NFO. Each Applicant must furnish the information required by this NFO. Applications must be submitted in two separate parts: (a) Technical Application, and (b) Cost/Budget Application. Applicants must retain for their records one (1) copy of the application and all enclosures which accompany it . Unless otherwise indicated, applications must cover only the Leader Award. Separate applications will be submitted for Associate Awards when and if they arise. D.IV.b. RFA Structure

The competition conducted under this RFA will be completed in two phases:

● Phase I: Concept Note ● Phase II: Full Application

Each applicant shall initially provide USAID with a Concept Note (Phase I). The Concept Note shall be competitively evaluated against the pre-determined evaluation criteria. The most highly technically qualified Concept Notes will be invited to submit Phase II Full Application under this RFA. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in a timely manner and provided written feedback. Phase II application instructions are provided in Annex A for informational purposes only. Only applicants who are requested to submit Phase II applications should respond with a full application. D.IV.c. Phase I - Concept Note

Required Contents and Organization of Concept Note Applicants shall submit initial Concept Notes covering, in summary form, the same general information as will be required in the full Applications. General

1. All information shall be presented in the English language.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 37 of 129

2. The Application shall use the Letter Format 8 ½” x 11” (There are two exceptions to the aforementioned instruction: 1) budgets may be in a slightly smaller font (10 point) with smaller margins, and 2) tables may use smaller fonts and margins, however, must be easily readable, no smaller than font of 9 point).

3. Times New Roman 12-point font using fixed pitch spacing per inch 4. 1” margins on standard, letter-sized paper (8½” x 11”). 5. Applications submitted in response to this RFA must be received by email in MS Word or PDF format. 6. Closing Date and Time. The email submission of concept papers in response to this RFA shall be due no

later than June 22, 2018 at 2:00 P.M EDT (14:00). The time stamp on the email received shall serve as the official time of receipt. USAID bears no responsibility for transmission errors or delays.

7. Subject to the area of interest your application address, the electronic files must be labeled as follows: “[Organization Name] (Food Safety NFO)”

8. Submissions must be made to foodsafety@usaid.gov Please note that for RFA Phase 1, applicants only need to provide the following information The Concept Papers shall include:

1. Cover Page (1 Page): a. Prime Organization Name b. Prime DUNS Number c. Prime Tax Identification Number (TIN) d. Prime Contact Name (authorized negotiator) e. Prime Contact Email address f. Prime Contact telephone and fax number g. Prime Complete business mailing address h. Prime Active Sam.gov Registry (Y/N) i. Estimated amount of leveraged resources, in-kind and cash for Prime organization and any sub-

Awardees.

2. Concept Note Body (5 Pages): For additional guidance on content, review the criteria that will be used to evaluate the Concept Papers described in Section E.1 Application Review Information. a. Program and Strategy

1) This section will describe the applicant’s proposed Program and Strategy to implement successful high quality food safety research program. The application must address the overall strategy, proposed approach and planning processes, development goals and objectives

2) List key members of proposed team structure (within the Management Entity); type(s) of function each team member will serve. Describe how private sector providers and agriculture related firms will be included and how public extension services may be engaged. Describe how results and outcomes can be efficiently and sustainably scaled

3) Describe the rationales and theory of change 4) Describe the prime plan to engage and build upon current and previous USAID investment in

food safety 5) Describe the prime plan to engage with other donors and their funded programs on food safety

b. Staffing, Cost Share and Resource Leveraging

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 38 of 129

(1) A brief narrative and Key Personnel description shall be provided to give an overall understanding of the Awardee’s staffing structure and to demonstrate adequate technical and business experience. No CV’s necessary at this point.

(2) A brief description (complemented by Attachment 2) of plans for cost share, leveraging others’ in-kind and cash resources.

3. Attachment 2 (3 Pages) a. Overall budget breakdown across proposed Awardee and sub-Awardees that shows the following (no narrative is required for the Concept Note).

Cost Category Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Direct Costs Personnel Fringe Benefits Travel Equipment Supplies Contractual Total Direct Costs Overhead Rate Indirect Rate Other Direct Costs Total USAID Funds Requested Leverage Cost Share Total Project Budget

b. Table or brief sentences describing proposed leverage, by estimated amount and source.

D.IV.d. Changes to the Application Any erasures or other changes to the application must be initiated by the person signing the application. Applications signed by an agent on behalf of the Applicant must be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing office. After the closing date (deadline) of the application period, applicants must submit revised applications/addenda only if requested or allowed by the Agreement Officer. Applications must be withdrawn by written, electronic notice (email) received at any time before award. Withdrawals are effective upon receipt of notice by the Agreement Officer. D.IV.e. Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data

Applicants who include data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the U.S. Government except for evaluation purpose, must mark the title page with the following legend:

“This application includes data that must not be disclosed outside the U.S. Government and must not be duplicated, used, or disclosed – in whole or in part – for any purpose other than to evaluate this application. If,

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 39 of 129

however, a grant is awarded to this Applicant as a result of – or in connection with – the submission of this data, the U.S. Government will have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting award. This restriction does not limit the U.S. Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert sheet numbers or other identification of sheets].”

Applicants must also mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend: “Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this application.”

Applicants are advised that it is anticipated that the successful technical application, application modification, and/or revised application/addendum will become the Program Description of the grants(s) or cooperative agreement(s) awarded as a result of this NFO. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act of 1981, the public is entitled to request information from Agency award files. As a general rule, information will be disclosed except: ⋅ Information submitted in response to this NFO, prior to award of the grant or cooperative agreement, or

modifications or revisions thereto; ⋅ Information properly classified or administratively controlled by USAID; and ⋅ Information specifically exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Upon award of the grant(s) or cooperative agreement(s) resulting from this NFO, USAID will disclose, use, or duplicate any information submitted in response to this NFO to the extent provided in the award and as described in Section F.I of this NFO and as required by the Freedom of Information Act. D.IV.f. Responsiveness to NFO and False Statements

The applicant must follow the instructions contained herein and supply all information as required. Failure to furnish all information requested, or to submit an application directly responsive to the terms, conditions, specifications, and provisions of this NFO may disqualify an application. Applicants must set forth full, accurate and complete information as required by this NFO. The penalty for making false statements to the Government is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001. D.V. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all necessary documentation is complete and received on time. Applications must be submitted electronically to Tseyone Demissie (FoodSafety@usaid.gov). Applications must not be submitted through grants.gov. USAID cannot accept e-mails over 25MB in size. If the Application attachments are in excess of that size, then the Applicant must submit over multiple e-mails. For an application sent by multiple e-mails, please indicate in the subject line of the e-mail whether the e-mail relates to the 1) technical application, or 2) cost application,. For example, if your cost application is being sent in two e-mails, the first e-mail must have the subject line which says: “organization name”, Cost Application, Part 1 of 2”. USAID’s preference is that the technical application and the cost application be submitted as single e-mail attachments, i.e. that you consolidate the various parts of a technical application into a single document before sending them. If this is not possible, please provide instructions on how to collate the attachments. USAID will not be responsible for errors in compiling electronic applications if instructions are not provided or are unclear. All applications received by the submission deadline will be reviewed for responsiveness to the NFO and the application format. No addition or modifications will be accepted after the submission date. After you have sent your applications electronically, immediately check your own e-mail to confirm that the

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 40 of 129

attachments you intended to send were indeed sent. If you discover an error in your transmission, please send the material again and note in the subject line of the e-mail that it is a “corrected” submission. Do not send the same e-mail more than once unless there has been a change, and if so, please note that it is a “corrected” e-mail. D.VI. TECHNICAL APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS D.VI.a. Technical Application Format

The technical application must be in English and any monetary figures listed in U.S. Dollars. It must be typed on standard 8-1/2" x 11" paper with one-inch top/bottom and left/right margins, single spaced, with each page numbered consecutively. The technical application must be in 2010 or earlier versions of Microsoft Word, and must use Times New Roman font in 10-point or larger size. Scanned PDF documents must be used for information requiring signatures and copies of documents. The technical application must not exceed 30 pages, excluding table of contents, attachments, annexes, and appendices. Unless otherwise indicated, a page in the technical application that contains a table, chart, graph, etc. will be counted as a page within the page limitation. Information that exceeds the page limitations will not be furnished to the USAID technical evaluation committee. All material and information necessary to support the application must be submitted within or annexed to the application. Hyperlinks and references to websites will not be considered part of the submission. Applicants must only reference information on the internet that is of general background knowledge, publicly available, and considered a reliable source of research information; USAID does not guarantee that reviewers on the Technical Evaluation Committee will review such information. All information that the Applicant thinks is necessary for a reviewer to accurately understand the proposal must be submitted with the application and submitted through the appropriate process as directed in Section D.VII. In addition, the technical application must be divided into sections corresponding to, and following the order of, the evaluation criteria set forth in Section E.I of this NFO and as described below. Each section of the technical application must be clearly identified, using the title of the appropriate technical evaluation criterion and divided by sub-criteria. This requirement is not intended to prohibit or discourage applicants from submitting technical data in addition to what is required herein and by the evaluation criteria. With reference to Section D.VI above, the technical application must be directed at the core program to be conducted under the Leader Award, except as may otherwise be specified. The technical application must include the following sections: 1) A Cover Page that must include the following:

a. Program title; b. Request for Applications reference number; c. Name of organization(s) applying for the agreement; d. Any partnerships; and e. Contact person, telephone number, fax number, address, and typed name(s) and title(s) of person(s) who

prepared the application and are authorized to negotiate and sign on the applicant’s behalf, and corresponding signatures.

2) A Table of Contents that follows the technical application format outlined herein. 3) Technical Application Sections as required by the technical application format. Applicants are advised that lack of completeness or superficiality of the application may constitute grounds for excluding it from consideration.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 41 of 129

D.VI.b. General Instructions It is anticipated that the successful application (as may be revised) will become the Program Description for the award resulting from this NFO. Thus, applications submitted in response to this NFO must, in addition to being responsive hereto, be written in the active voice and in results-oriented terms in order to address what is proposed to be done, why it is proposed to be done, how it is proposed to be done, who will do it, where it will be done, when it will be done, and the anticipated results and impact. The Program Description set forth in Section A.III. of this NFO describes a range of issues that must be addressed in technical applications which includes both the applicant’s Management Approach and Technical Approach to the Food Safety Innovation Lab. It is not meant to describe how those issues must be addressed because USAID seeks the expertise of the Applicant, who must describe in their technical applications how they propose to address such issues. In addition, the Program Description in SECTION A – of this NFO should not be interpreted as restrictive. Applicants are encouraged to raise and justify other technical issues that may not appear in the Program Description but are, nevertheless, related. As Feed the Future Innovation Labs are mandated to benefit both host countries and U.S. agriculture, applicants are also urged to specifically link potential benefits to U.S. agriculture with any proposed research activities and Areas of Inquiry. The technical application must have a definitive strategy and plan, and must set forth in detail the applicant's approach, methodology, procedures, and techniques for the design, management, implementation, and monitoring of the proposed program. The application must also demonstrate the applicant’s capabilities and expertise to successfully implement, manage, and monitor the proposed program. The application must define the technical resources, capabilities, and expertise of the applicant's organization and other institution(s) involved, and of the professional personnel proposed. The information presenting the capabilities of the implementing organization(s) and of the individuals to be assigned must spell-out clearly the pertinent work experience and accomplishments in developing and conducting activities of the type being proposed, as well as the specialized skills, professional competence, academic training, and relevant achievements of the personnel. It is important that the technical application furnish verifiable, objective supporting evidence of successful program management, implementation, and monitoring. The technical application must be specific, detailed, and include appropriate benchmarks or milestones. It must be noted that since the majority of research activities will not be selected until after the Management Entity is selected, the focus of this NFO and the majority of the selection criteria, are thus duly placed on the proposed Management Entity and Management Approach itself. Through this NFO, USAID seeks to identify the Management Entity best capable to perform the management and oversight of the eventual research portfolio while being able to provide substantial input and guidance to such research. Include, in an annex that will not count against the page limitation, a draft solicitation pertaining to one of the geographic or technical foci described in Section A.III. as best illustrates the organization and focus of the proposed program, which includes a one-page introduction, describes the overall solicitation and pre-award process envisioned by the ME, and illustrates how the ME would organize the area of inquiry and cross-cutting themes to ensure the research portfolio within each proposed country is effectively coordinated and integrated across Areas of Inquiry, cross cutting issues and regional activities. It must also indicate how the ME will inform prospective sub-awardees (i.e. transparency and openness) about the requirements for training, capacity-building, host-country involvement, and development impact and to promote mission and developing country decision-maker engagement in project planning. The draft solicitation(s) must include cost formats and evaluation criteria, including how the research applicant will work with the ME to meet the requirement of providing benefit to U.S. agriculture.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 42 of 129

D.VII. COST/BUDGET APPLICATION The Cost/Budget Application is to be submitted under a separate cover from the Technical Application. The Cost/Budget Application is to be submitted as a separate electronic file through the same submission process as the Technical Application. The Applicant is requested to submit a budget broken down by program years with an accompanying detailed budget narrative. The Cost/Budget Application will be evaluated in accordance with Section E.II.b of this NFO. The following applies only to the Leader Award, and excludes any and all Associate Awards and any other donor funding. D.VII.a. Cost/Budget Application Format

The Cost/Budget Application must be in English and monetary figures in U.S. Dollars. Spreadsheets must be submitted in 2010 or earlier versions of Microsoft Excel. The budget narrative must be submitted in 2010 or earlier version of Microsoft Word or in PDF. Narrative documents must be typed on standard 8-1/2" x 11" paper with one-inch top/bottom and left/right margins, single spaced, with each page numbered consecutively, and must use Times New Roman font in 10-point or larger size. Scanned PDF documents must be used for information requiring signatures and copies of documents. All applications must include the sections and content below and must provide in detail the total costs for implementation of the program as further detailed below. There is no page limit on the Cost Application. However, unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete and effective application in response to this NFO are not desired. The Applicant must sign and submit the cost application standard form number SF-424 and SF-424A. Standard Forms can be accessed electronically at www.grants.gov. If the Applicant has established a consortium or another legal relationship among its partners, the Cost/Budget application must include a copy of the legal relationship between the parties. The agreement must include a full discussion of the relationship between the Applicant and Sub-Applicant(s) including identification of the Applicant with whom USAID will work with for purposes of Agreement Administration, identity of the Applicant which will have accounting responsibility, how Agreement effort will be allocated and the express agreement of the principals thereto to be held jointly and severely liable for the acts or omissions of the other. The following sections describe the documentation that the Applicant must submit to USAID prior to award. While there is no page limit for this portion, Applicants are encouraged to be as concise as possible, but still provide the necessary details to address the following: 1) The budget must have an accompanying detailed budget narrative and justification that provides in detail the

total program amount for implementation of the program your organization is proposing. The budget narrative must provide information regarding the basis of estimate for each line item, including reference to sources used to substantiate the cost estimate (i.e. organization's policy, payroll document, and vendor quotes, etc.).

2) A budget for each program year with an accompanying detailed budget narrative which provides in detail the total costs for implementation of the program. The budget must be submitted using Standard Form 424 which can be downloaded from the following web site at: http://apply07.grants.gov/apply/FormLinks?family=15.

3) A breakdown of all costs associated with the program according to the costs of, if applicable; headquarters, regional and/or country offices.

4) Applicants who intend to utilize contractors or sub-awardees must indicate the extent intended and a complete cost breakdown. Extensive contracts/agreement financial plans must follow the same cost format as submitted by the primary Applicant. A breakdown of all costs according to each partner organization, contract or sub-

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 43 of 129

awardee involved in the program must be provided. Pursuant to 2 CFR 200 Contract means a legal instrument by which the Applicant purchases property or services needed to carry out the project or program under a resulting award. The term does not include a legal instrument when the substance of the transaction meets the definition of a Federal award or sub-award (see § 200.92 Sub award), even if the Applicant considers it a contract. The Applicant must describe the work to be performed, the risk borne by the contractor, the contractor's investment, the amount of subcontracting proposed by the contractor, and the quality of its record of past performance for similar work. For-profit contract organizations that work under the award and do not meet the above definition of a sub-awardee are eligible for profit/fee. The Cost/Budget Application must contain the budget categories as shown on the SF-424A. D.VII.b. Budget

Standard Form 424A must be supplemented by the following additional cost breakdowns and details, as described below. These supplemental budgets must be delineated by year (and five-year total), with each year (and five-year total) further delineated by USAID funding, other funding (cost-sharing), and total, as illustrated in the summary budget format set forth below. It is recognized that it may be difficult for the applicant to project actual needs and costs. Accordingly, estimates, based on assumptions, are acceptable. However, the applicant must indicate the basis of the estimate, and/or the assumptions on which the estimate is based. The budgets must include whatever supporting schedules and narrative budget explanations as may be necessary to adequately support and/or explain proposed costs. This information is required in order to permit USAID to determine whether estimated costs are fair and reasonable, necessary, allowable, allocable, and realistic, which, in turn, is prerequisite for making an award. Please note that 2 CFR provides a great deal of flexibility to the Recipient to make budget adjustments during the award period without the need to obtain prior approval from the USAID Agreement Officer.

(1) Illustrative Leader Award Summary Budget An illustrative summary budget for the Leader Award must be included using the following table as a guide. USAID is particularly interested in the applicants’ notional thinking in terms of funds for the ME and areas of inquiry in each geography. An initial Management Entity budget of up to $3 million per year is proposed as a starting point, but applicants are free to propose and justify different amounts. Areas of Inquiry and the HICD component are given amounts representative of the level of effort that USAID suggests for each area, but applicants are free to propose different amounts. USAID suggests the following ranges for the amounts allocated to the Areas of Inquiry and HICD: Area of Inquiry Funding range (as a percent of research budget) Productivity: Advancing the productivity frontier 25-10% Risk: Reduce and mitigate risk 35-40% Outcomes: Improving human outcomes 35-40% HICD 5-10% Other cross-cutting issues may be allotted specific budget allocations for stand-alone activities or may be integrated into the other areas of inquiry. An indication of the budget allocated to cross-cutting issues must be described in the budget narrative.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 44 of 129

llustrative Leader Award Summary Budget

Activity

Year 1 ($Million) Year 2 ($Million) Year 3 ($Million) Year 4 ($Million) Year 5 ($Million) Total ($Million)

USAID

Others

Total

USAID

Others

Total

USAID

Others

Total

USAID

Others

Total

USAID

Others

Total

USAID

Others

Total

Management Entity (ME)

~0.80

~0.80

~0.80

~0.80 ~0.80 ~6.00

Area of Inquiry 1 ~0.43

~0.53

~0.53

~0.53 ~0.53 ~3.32

Area of Inquiry 2 ~0.27

~0.40

~0.40

~0.40 ~0.40 ~3.08

Area of Inquiry 3 ~0.13

~0.2.

~0.2.

~0.2. ~0.2. ~1.65

HICD (for any standalone activity not integrated above, if needed)

~0.03

~0.07

~0.07

~0.07 ~0.07 ~0.45

Initial Activities ~0.33 ~0.50

Sub-Total – BFS ~2.00

~2.00

~2.00

~2.00 ~2.00 10.00

Buy-Ins

Associate Awards

Total Leader Award ~2.0 ~2.0 ~2.0 ~2.0 ~2.00 10.00

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 45 of 129

0 0 0 0 A reduced research budget amount is indicated for Year 1, because it will take some time for competitive sub awards to be in place and research activities to commence. Applicants must enter appropriate amounts in the blank cells, and must adjust the approximate amounts (~) if adequately explained and justified. The “Others” columns refer to anticipated cost-sharing (if any).

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 46 of 129

(2) Detailed Management Entity (ME) Budget Standard Form 424A must be supplemented by additional cost breakdowns/details, which provide a summary ME line item budget, and complete cost breakdowns in sufficient detail to permit cost analysis. The detailed ME budget must set forth the basis for all costs, including those which are proposed to be funded by USAID under the award resulting from this NFO, those to be funded by non-USG cash or in-kind cost-sharing contributions, and those to be funded by any other USG contributions under arrangements other than the award resulting from this NFO (also see Section C.II). The budget must contain a separate column for each source of funds/contributions. It must include whatever supporting schedules and narrative budget explanations as may be necessary to adequately support and/or explain proposed costs. The detailed ME budget breakdown must follow the budget format described below, including the major budget line items, set forth below, and must be broken down by year. The application must include a subtotal for each ME budget line item. Each page must indicate the applicable year and the applicant's name clearly marked at the top of each page.

a) Direct Salaries and Wages The application must include a detailed indication of level of effort, including the position titles, names of proposed individuals to fill each position (if known), number of units (days, months, Full Time Equivalents [FTEs]) for each position, proposed unit rate(s) for each position, and the total direct salaries and wages. Anticipated salary increases during the term of the award must be included, but the percentage of increase and the anticipated date(s) of increase must be specified. The level of effort and position titles must be consistent with the technical application.

b) Fringe Benefits Fringe benefits, if not included in direct salaries and wages or indirect costs, must be shown as a percentage of salaries, and must indicate the individuals to whom the fringe benefit rate(s) apply, the salary of each individual, the total fringe benefit costs for each individual, and the total fringe benefits. Unless the Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) (see Section k)b(2)(d))) specifies the fringe benefit rate(s), the proposed rate(s) must be supported by a detailed breakdown comprised of all items of fringe benefits (i.e. unemployment insurance, retirement, workers' compensation, health and life insurance, FICA, etc.) and the costs of each, expressed in dollars and as a percentage of salaries.

c) Indirect Costs (Overhead) Estimated indirect costs must be in accordance with the USAID standard provisions entitled "Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates - Predetermined," "Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates - Provisional (Nonprofits)," or "Negotiated Indirect Cost Rates - Provisional (For-Profits)," as applicable. The budget must be structured in such a way as to permit easy identification and application of home office/on campus and off-site/off-campus rates, if applicable, the base to which the rate(s) is (are) applied, and the applicant's fiscal year (i.e. October 1 through September 30). To substantiate the rate(s) and the base(s) of application, the applicant must submit a copy of its current NICRA, signed by the cognizant U.S. Government audit agency. The applicant must also provide the name and address of the cognizant U.S. Government audit agency, and the name and telephone number of the cognizant auditor, if

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 47 of 129

other than USAID. If the applicant does not have a cognizant U.S. Government audit agency and/or NICRA, the applicant must submit sufficient information to allow USAID to determine the reasonableness of the rates without a full-scale pre-award survey/audit, i.e. audited balance sheets and profit and loss statements for the last two complete years and the current year to date (or such lesser period of time if the applicant is a newly formed organization). The profit and loss statements must include the total costs of goods and services sold, including a listing of the various indirect administrative costs, and be supplemented by information on the applicant's customary indirect cost allocation method, together with supporting computations of the basis for the indirect cost rates proposed (i.e. a breakdown of labor bases and overhead pools, the method of determining the rate, annual financial statements, etc.). In the alternate, if the applicant has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, applicant may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs as per 2 CFR 200.414(f). If the prospective applicant chooses the de minimis rate, the AO must incorporate the 10% indirect cost rate in the award budget and the recipient must follow the requirements in 2 CFR 200.414(f). Unless the subject is addressed in the NICRA, the applicant must describe when the home office/on- campus rate vs. the off-site/off-campus rate is applied. If the applicant proposes to charge less than its full indirect cost rate to the award, or proposes not to charge indirect costs, the applicant will still incur indirect costs at the full rate. In such circumstances, the difference between the rate to be charged to the award and the applicant's full indirect cost rate must be reflected as a cost sharing (matching) contribution.

d) Consultants The budget must specify the position title(s), name(s) of proposed individual(s) to fill the position(s), if known, number of units (days, months, FTEs) for each position, proposed unit rate(s) for each position, and the total consultant costs. The level of effort and position titles must be consistent with the annex to the technical application.

e) Travel, Transportation, and Per Diem Estimated travel and transportation costs must be in accordance with the USAID standard provisions entitled “Fly America Act”, "Travel and International Air Transportation" and "Ocean Shipment of Goods." The budget must specify, for each traveler, the itinerary (in terms of locations, and, if possible, dates), the estimated airfares in Economy class of travel, any transportation (i.e. excess baggage, unaccompanied baggage, household effects, privately-owned vehicle) costs (to include the weights, mode of transportation [air, vessel], and unit prices), and the subtotal of all travel and transportation costs. Economy Plus/Preferred Economy is Premium class travel. Estimated lodging and subsistence costs must be in accordance with the applicant's established policies and practices which are consistently applied (however, the U.S. Government's per diem rates must be used as the test of reasonableness if the applicant does not have established policies and practices), and must specify, for each traveler and for each trip, the location(s), the number of days in each location, the daily rate for each location, and the total lodging and subsistence costs. The lodging and subsistence costs must be consistent with the travel itinerary and the level of effort. For miscellaneous travel expenses such as ground transportation/taxis, airport taxes/transfers, or in- country travel, the basis for the estimate must be indicated, rather than a lump-sum amount. For example, ground transportation/taxis might be $100, based on 2 round-trips @ $50; airport taxes/transfers might be $40, based on 2

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 48 of 129

round-trips @ $20; and in-country travel might be $500, based on 20 days @ $25. The budget must distinguish between domestic (U.S.) and international travel. The budget must include the total travel, transportation, and per diem costs.

f) Overseas Allowances Overseas allowances (excluding per diem and shipping/storage allowances, which must be budgeted under "Travel, Transportation, and Per Diem," above) must be in accordance with the applicant's established policies and practices, which are consistently applied. The Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas) must be used as a test of reasonableness for overseas allowances if the applicant does not have established policies and practices.

g) Nonexpendable Equipment The detailed budget breakdown for purchases of nonexpendable equipment and other capital expenditures must include the types and quantities of equipment to be purchased, the unit prices, and the total costs.

h) Training Training costs must include a complete budget breakdown of all training-related costs, i.e. number of participants, pre-departure medical exams, health and accident coverage, passports/visas, travel and per diem or maintenance costs, registration or tuition fees, books/training materials, etc.

i) Other Direct Costs Other direct costs include costs such as branding and marking, communications and postage, passports/visas, medical exams/inoculations (for international travel), insurance (extra insurance such as medical evacuation for international travel), expendable supplies and materials (as distinct from nonexpendable equipment), report preparation/reproduction, etc. Again, the basis for each estimate must be indicated. For example, communications costs might be $600, based on 12 months at $50. Report reproduction might be $40, based on 4 reports of 100 pages each @ $0.10 per page. Expendable supplies and materials must indicate the types of supplies, the quantity of each, the unit price for each, and total costs.

j) Sub-Awards and Contracts If any Management Entity functions, as described in Section A.III of this NFO, will be performed by sub-recipients or contractors, the detailed Management Entity line item budget must include a lump-sum for each such sub-award and contract, and identify the purpose of the sub-award/contract and the sub-recipient or contractor, if known. This will be followed by a detailed line item budget breakdown for each such sub-award/contract, which provides the same information for each line item as described above. The cost/management application must indicate whether the instrument will be a contract or sub-award, as the terms are defined in 2 CFR 200, Subpart A. Contracts are subject to 2 CFR 200.317-326, 2 CFR 700.12, and the USAID standard provision entitled "USAID Eligibility Rules for Goods and Services” (see Section C.IV of this NFO). Sub-awards are subject to 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 700, and the USAID standard provision entitled "Applicability of 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR Part 700."

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 49 of 129

(3) Research Activities (Including Management Entity’s Indirect Costs Allocable Thereto) The budget must include a lump-sum amount for research activities, delineated by the approximate average cost of each research activity within each of the areas of inquiry described in Section D.IVb(2) of this NFO. The lump-sum will include the ME’s indirect costs allocable thereto, and must be the difference between the total five-year ME budget and the total USAID funding, as described in Section B.I above. Different applicants must apply their indirect costs to different allocation bases. Since the research activities will generally be competitively selected after award, the costs and the organization implementing the research activities (including the implementing institution’s indirect costs, if any) – and, hence, the amount of the ME’s indirect costs allocable thereto – cannot be known at the time the application is submitted. Therefore, indirect costs allocable to research activities do not need to be delineated separately. However, the applicant’s allocation base (see Section D.VII.b) will be considered when evaluating cost-effectiveness (see Section E.II.b). The research activity budgets must additionally indicate budget allocation, to the different countries and regions proposed by the Applicant, to give USAID some indication of level of effort anticipated in each country/region.

k) Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement The Applicant must submit a Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) if the organization has such an agreement with an agency or department of the U.S. Government. If no NICRA has been previously determined, the Applicant must submit the following: Reviewed Financial Statements Report: a report issued by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) documenting the review of the financial statements that was performed in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services; that management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework and for designing, implementing and maintaining internal control relevant to the preparation. The account must also state the he or she is not aware of any material modifications that must be made to the financial statements; or Audited Financial Statements Report: An auditor issues a report documenting the audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), the financial statements are the responsibility of management, provides an opinion that the financial statements present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the company and the results of operations are in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework (or issues a qualified opinion if the financial statements are not in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework).

(4) Cost Sharing For this NFO, cost sharing is not required for the applicant to be eligible; however, cost sharing is suggested (that is, voluntary). If the applicant chooses to provide cost sharing, the Applicant must estimate the amount of cost-sharing resources to be mobilized over the life of the agreement, specify the sources of such resources, and include the basis of calculation in the budget narrative. Applicants must also provide a breakdown of the cost share (financial and in-kind contributions) of all organizations involved in implementing the resulting Cooperative Agreement.

(5) Evidence of Positive Risk Assessment Applicants must submit sufficient evidence for the USAID Agreement Officer to make a positive risk assessment, as described in Section C of this NFO. After award, the recipient (as the Management Entity) is responsible for ensuring the positive risk assessment of collaborating partners/sub recipients/contractors. This evidence of

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 50 of 129

responsibility will be used to ensure that the Applicant a. Has adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain such resources as required during the performance of

the award; b. Has the ability to comply with the award conditions, taking into account all existing and currently prospective

commitments of the Applicant; c. Has a satisfactory record of performance. Past relevant unsatisfactory performance is ordinarily sufficient to

justify a finding of non-responsibility, unless there is clear evidence of subsequent satisfactory performance; d. Has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics; and e. Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive a Cooperative Agreement under applicable laws and regulations

(i.e. Equal Employment Opportunity).

(1) Past Performance Past performance is the degree to which the applicant completed related work successfully, satisfied its customers/partners/sponsors under past agreements, and complied with relevant laws, regulations, and terms and conditions of its past awards. The applicant’s technical accomplishments in international research in the area of food safety systems to improve agricultural products and food systems, ability to effectively and efficiently manage fund transfers to developed and developing country partners, and its ability to form strong partnerships with a range of research institutions, organizations, and private sector entities in both the U.S. and host countries will become crucial elements in the evaluation process. Past performance will be evaluated based on relevant research with food safety in agricultural and/or food systems that are ongoing or were completed during the past five years, demonstrated technical accomplishments in international research on food safety systems in a development context, demonstrated integration of gender-responsive approaches, analysis, evaluation and reporting. Applicant's use of strong partnerships, including funds management issues, with a range of research institutions/organizations, both in the U.S. and in host countries, for conducting research and promoting adoption of research results will be reviewed. As part of this review, USAID may contact some/all of the applicant’s past or current customers and partners to determine if the applicant: (a) was capable, efficient, and effective in implementing the activity; (b) conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract/agreement/grant; (c) was reasonable and responsive to, and collaborative with, the client, sponsor, or partner during project implementation; and (d) was committed to customer satisfaction. Documents supporting past performance must be provided in an annex to the technical application that will not count against the page limit. This annex must include a description of past or current work undertaken by the applicant that is relevant to the ME role in the proposed program. The applicant and proposed partners for the ME must provide the past performance work descriptions and references for up to 10 programs currently underway or completed within the past five years. The applicant must use the past performance references to demonstrate capacity for creativity and leadership, to deliver high-impact results, and to effectively partner with other organizations. The information for each program must not exceed one page, and must include: (a) the name of the client/donor; (b) the project/activity name; (c) a brief project/activity description and the results achieved; (d) the period of performance; (e) the place of performance; (f) the award amount; and (g) the name and telephone number (and e-mail address if known) of at least two contacts at the client/donor for which the service was performed/program was conducted and for relevant partners involved in the activity (if these people are no longer at the original organization, please provide their current contact information). It is recommended that the applicant alert the contacts that their names have been submitted and that they are authorized to provide past performance information when requested.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 51 of 129

If problems were encountered on any of the listed awards, a short explanation and the description of the corrective action taken must be provided. General information on past performance must not be provided, but any quality awards or certificates that indicate exceptional capacity to implement the proposed project must be described. USAID may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified in the application. USAID will determine the relevance of similar past performance information. Past performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination (see Section C.I) and the selection decision (see Section E.I).

(2) Waivers from or Approvals under USAID Procurement Requirements If the applicant foresees the need for waivers from, or approvals required under, USAID’s source and supplier nationality requirements, the application must describe which goods and services need approval/waivers, and provide an explanation and justification for the same.

(3) Voluntary Survey on Faith–Based and Community Organizations The applicant is encouraged, but is not required, to submit USAID’s Voluntary Survey on Faith-Based and Community Organizations.

(4) Demonstration of Eligibility Applicants that are not “land-grant universities”, “sea-grant colleges” or “Native American land-grant colleges” under the statutory definition of Title XII “universities” must submit with their application an additional statement relating to their eligibility under the statutory definition of Title XII institutions in Section C.I of this NFO. This statement must contain references to other parts of the technical and/or cost/management application and to references readily available on the Internet, and must not exceed two pages in length.

(5) Business Section The business section of the Cost/Budget Application must include:

1. Required assurances, certifications and representations: ADS 303mav Mandatory Reference: Certifications, Assurances, Other Statements of the Recipient and Solicitation Standard Provisions29 required Certifications and sign and date in the signature space provided. The signed and dated printout must then be submitted with the application as an annex to the cost application. Original signed hardcopy of the certifications will be requested from the successful applicant prior to the agreement award.

2. Certificate of Compliance: Please submit a copy of your Certificate of Compliance if your organization's systems have been certified by USAID/Washington's Office of Acquisition and Assistance (M/OAA).

3. (6) Potential Request for Additional Documentation

Upon consideration of award or during the negotiations leading to an award, Applicants may be required to submit additional documentation deemed necessary for the Agreement Officer to make an affirmative determination of responsibility. Applicants must not submit the information below with their applications. The information in this section is provided so that Applicants may become familiar with additional documentation that may be requested by the Agreement Officer:

29 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/303mav.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 52 of 129

The information submitted must substantiate: 1) Bylaws, constitution, and articles of incorporation, if applicable 2) Whether the organizational travel, procurement, financial management, accounting manual and personnel

policies and procedures, especially regarding salary, promotion, leave, differentials, etc., submitted under this section have been reviewed and approved by any agency of the Federal Government, and if so, provide the name, address, and phone number of the cognizant reviewing official. The Applicant must provide copies of the same.

(7) Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management

USAID may not award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. Each Applicant is required to: 1) Have a DUNS number obtained at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number is required for

registration in the System for Award Management (SAM). 2) Be registered in SAM at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ before submitting its application. SAM is

streamlining processes, eliminating the need to enter the same data multiple times, and consolidating hosting to make the process of doing business with the government more efficient;

3) Provide its DUNS number in the application; and 4) Continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an

active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that all necessary documentation is complete and received on time.

(8) Funding Restrictions

a) Profit and Allowable Expenses USAID policy is not to award profit under assistance instruments. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.400(g) and 2 CFR 700.13, no funds under the award resulting from this NFO will be paid as profit to any recipient or sub recipient. Profit is any amount in excess of allowable direct and indirect costs. This does not preclude payment of profit to the recipient’s or sub-recipients’ vendors (contractors) under procurement contracts and subcontracts for the acquisition of goods and services, which are subject to 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 700, as well as the USAID standard provision entitled “USAID Eligibility Rules for Goods and Services.” Also see http://www.usaid.gov/ads/policy/300/303sai. However, all reasonable, allocable and allowable expenses, both direct and indirect, which are related to the agreement program and are in accordance with applicable cost principle under 2 CFR 200 Subpart E of the Uniform Administrative Requirements must be paid under the anticipated award.

b) Pre-Award Costs USAID will not reimburse any applicant for pre-award costs unless specifically authorized by the Agreement Officer, who may, at his/her sole discretion, authorize the selected applicant, at its own risk, to begin program implementation and the incurrence of costs prior to a signed award as of a specified date, with no commitment to reimburse costs in the event that the award was not subsequently signed. D.VIII. APPLICATION DEADLINE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT The relevant deadlines for questions and applications are as stated on the NFO cover page (pg. 1). If the due date

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 53 of 129

falls on a Saturday, Sunday, Federal holiday or date on which the Federal Government in the District of Columbia is otherwise closed, the reporting package is due the next business day. If an emergency or unanticipated event interrupts normal Government processes so that applications cannot be received at the office designated for receipt of applications by the exact time specified in cover letter of this NFO, and urgent Government requirements preclude amendment of the NFO, the time specified for receipt of applications will be deemed to be extended to the same time of day specified in the cover letter of this NFO on the first work day on which normal Government processes resume. All applications must be received by the Agreement Officer in the Agency Point of Contact’s email inbox with a timestamp of no later than the date and time listed on the cover page of this NFO. Late applications will neither be reviewed nor considered unless, at the AO’s discretion due to situations that may warrant consideration, the AO agrees to accept an application past the deadline. D.IX. APPLICATION EXPIRATION DATE Applications, application modifications, and revised applications/addenda in response to this NFO will be valid for 120 days D.X. USAID OBLIGATION USAID is not obligated to make an award or pay for any costs incurred by the applicant in preparation and submission of an application in response hereto. D.XI. AUTHORITY TO COMMIT USAID The Agreement Officer is the only individual who may legally commit USAID to the expenditure of public funds. No costs allocable to the proposed award will be reimbursed by USAID before receipt of either a fully executed grant or cooperative agreement, or a specific written authorization from the Agreement Officer.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 54 of 129

SECTION E – APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION E.I. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA The technical evaluation criteria have been tailored to the requirements of this particular NFO. Applicants must note that these criteria serve to: (a) identify the significant matters which applicants must address in their applications; and (b) set the standard against which all applications will be evaluated. To facilitate the review of the applications, applicants must organize their narrative sections of the application in the same order as the selection criteria. For purposes of weighting, the below factors are in descending order of importance with Management Approach being significantly more important than the other factors. Within the Management Approach factor, the subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Within the Technical Approach factor, the “Research Areas of Inquiry” subfactor is the most important. The other subfactors within Technical Approach are equally important to one another. Evaluation for this NFO will be done for each phase. Phase I (Concept Note) and Phase II (Full Applications) each will have distinct evaluation criteria as described below. E.I.a. Evaluation Criteria

Phase I: Concept Note: The Concept Notes will be evaluated in accordance with the Technical Evaluation Criteria set forth below. If a Concept Note is recommended for RFA Phase II following the technical review, a Full Application and Cost Application will be requested and cost negotiations will be conducted based on a detailed budget (to be requested upon notification of successful applicant status). Applicants should note that the technical evaluation criteria serve to: (a) identify the significant issues which applicants should address in their applications; and (b) set the standard against which all applications will be evaluated. To facilitate the review of applications, applicants should organize the narrative sections of their applications in the same order as the evaluation criteria and as outlined below. While Application (and Concept Note) narrative should focus on evaluation criteria set for specific sections, the evaluation may draw from other sections of the Application (and Concept Note) where material is relevant to a specific evaluation criterion. Awards will be recommended based on the ranking of applications according to the technical evaluation criteria and the quality of the response to these criteria. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate all Concept Notes. The Government will evaluate responsive concept notes on a best value basis, with technical merit more important than cost, utilizing the following four sets of factors, equally weighted. Program and Strategy

● The extent to which the goals and objectives are in line with the GFSS and GSS research strategy ● Degree to which the strategy, proposed approach, planning reflect a deep understanding of current food

safety challenges, research and evidence gaps in Low-Middle Income Countries (LMIC) ● Degree to which the proposed team reflects a strong and experienced mix of global leadership in food

safety ● How the ME will have a robust and balanced plan to engage the private and public (where possible)

entities that reflects a mix that will contribute to efficiency, reach, impact, and sustainability. ● How the ME will engage, collaborate and synchronize with other USAID funded projects, missions and

other donors on food safety

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 55 of 129

Results Planning, Feedback Process, Sustainability and Scalability ● Extent to which the concept note describes clear and persuasive plan for the sustainability and scalability

of the proposed research results based on reasonable assumptions and noted experience ● Extent to which the concept note describes a clear and inclusive plan for engaging the wider scientific

community in the sub-award process ● Extent to which the concept note describes a clear and rigorous plan for engaging Minority Serving

Institutions (MSI) in the sub-award process Implementation and Management Capacity and Past Performance

● Degree to which the concept note adequately describes the applicant’s capacity and proposed implementation and management plan for carrying out the proposed research with an efficient management structure within the proposed team and with any proposed strategic partners.

● Extent to which the concept note describes strong plan to integrate cross-cutting themes in their research activities (e.g. gender and youth)

● Extent to which the concept paper highlights key risks and how they will be mitigated Staffing and Resources Leveraging

● Extent to which the concept note describes Key Personnel and staffing plans that provides strong team that demonstrates an understanding of the program and provides adequate technical and business experience and gender balance

● Degree to which the concept note describes adequate plan for leveraging both public and private resources from government, proposed team members or other entities

Phase II: Full Application 1. Management Approach Quality, realism, and completeness of the applicant’s management plan to include:

(a) Approach to ensure scientific quality of program portfolio. The development, selection and management of the research portfolio will be assessed as part of this approach. (b) Approach to ensure relevance of program portfolio. Linkages with other research institutions will be assessed as part of this approach. (c) Approach to ensure program accountability, including financial oversight. (d) Monitoring and Evaluating Performance, Assessing Impact, and Reporting. Soundness of the applicants approach to monitoring and evaluating performance, including a clear understanding of the Feed the Future Monitoring System; and (e) Knowledge-Sharing, Learning, and Data Management Plan. Soundness and robustness of the applicants knowledge sharing and learning plans and evidence of a clear understanding of USAID data management policies.

2. Technical Approach the coherent vision and identification of researchable challenges facing food safety systems to meet GFSS goals. This approach must include:

(1) Background and Context. Applicant’s demonstrated understanding of (a) how food safety contribute to sustainable agricultural and food systems in Feed the Future target countries, (b) the role that research investments in such systems have in supporting global, regional and national food security improvements, (c) how food safety contribute to the three objectives of the Global Food Security Strategy: economic growth, resilience and human nutrition. (2) Geographic Focus. Soundness of applicant’s analysis of, and justification for, the geographic focus areas proposed. (3) Research Areas of Inquiry. Quality of the applicant’s overall vision and approach for implementing a global research program that includes a portfolio of high-quality, innovative research activities in the areas of inquiry described in the proposal (5) of this NFO that contribute to GFSS goals and are designed

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 56 of 129

to achieve long-term development impact among host country beneficiaries, and the quality of the applicant’s plan to develop an integrated research program in the biophysical and social sciences that can contribute technologies and knowledge in food safety in agricultural and food systems in focal countries. (4) Cross Cutting Themes. Quality of the applicant’s proposed approach to integrating gender and youth analyses and research, nutrition ,resilience, and human and institutional capacity development into the above Areas of Inquiry; (5) Initial Activity Proposals. Quality of the applicant’s proposed initial activities in regards to their ability to generate timely research outputs and anticipated usefulness of the outputs in the research of the competitively awarded research grants.

3. Staffing Plan. Realism and effectiveness of the applicant’s staffing plan, and the qualifications and capabilities of proposed key personnel. E.II. SELECTION PROCESS E.II.a. Technical Evaluation

Applications will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section E.I. After evaluation of the applications, either: (1) award will be made without discussions/negotiations; or (2) if deemed necessary or desirable by USAID, written and/or verbal discussions/negotiations will be conducted with applicants that submit the most highly rated applications. USAID hopes to evaluate applications and award a grant(s) or cooperative agreement(s) without discussions with applicants (except clarifications, which are limited exchanges between USAID and applicants, such as the relevance of an applicant's past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the applicant has not previously had a chance to respond). Therefore, the applicant's initial application must contain the applicant's best terms. If discussions are conducted with applicants, they will be conducted with all applicants that submitted the most highly rated applications. However, the Agreement Officer may limit the number of such applications to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated applications. Exchanges with applicants after receipt of an application do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by USAID. After the conclusion of any such discussions, applicants with whom discussions were conducted will, unless otherwise advised, be required to submit a revised application or addendum to the initial application, which will be re-evaluated against the criteria set forth below. It is expected that award will ordinarily be made after the first round of any such discussions and revised applications/addenda; however, USAID reserves the right to conduct subsequent rounds of discussions and revised applications/addenda, and to further limit the number of applicants with which such subsequent discussions would be conducted and from which a subsequent round of revised applications/addenda would be requested. USAID intends to award a cooperative agreement(s) resulting from this NFO to the responsible applicant whose application, application modification(s), and/or revised application(s)/addendum(s) represents the greatest value to USAID based on the evaluation of applications in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth above. The Agreement Officer will make the final decision as to which institution(s), if any, will be awarded a cooperative agreement based on the determination of the Technical Evaluation Committee, the cost/management evaluation, and whether the applying institutions are eligible to receive the award. E.II.b. Cost/Budget Evaluation

While Cost is less important than technical and is not weighted, the cost applications of the apparently successful

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 57 of 129

technical applications will be evaluated for cost effectiveness including the level of proposed cost share. Other considerations are the completeness of the application, adequacy of budget detail and consistency with elements of the technical application. In addition, the organization must demonstrate adequate financial management capability, to be measured for a responsibility determination. The application with the lowest estimated cost may not be selected if award to a higher priced technical application offers a greater overall benefit for the program. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. However, estimated cost is an important factor and the estimated cost to the Government increases in importance as competing applications approach equivalence and may become the deciding factor when technical applications are approximately equivalent in merit. Cost estimates will be analyzed as part of the application evaluation process. Proposed costs may be adjusted, for purposes of evaluation, based on results of the cost analysis and its assessment of reasonableness, completeness, and credibility. USAID has not established a suggested cost share for this Award. Leveraged non-USAID resources from private and public firms and institutions (such as equipment, training, level of effort and any in-kind contributions) may be considered part of cost share. Cost sharing may also be demonstrated either through direct funding, beneficiary contributions, in-kind assistance, or a combination thereof. USAID will make the final determination and assess whether or not the Applicant’s cost share contributions (i.e. categories or items) meet the standards set in 2 CFR 200. Under no circumstances can funding or in-kind contributions traced back to U.S. Government resources be considered cost share. If two otherwise equivalent applications are being considered, the institution that proposes the best financial benefit to the U.S. Government through cost sharing may be granted the Award.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 58 of 129

SECTION F – FEDERAL AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION F.I. NOTICE OF AWARD The Leader Award is anticipated to be made by November 2018. Award of the agreement contemplated by this NFO cannot be made until funds have been appropriated, allocated and committed through internal USAID procedures. While USAID anticipates that these procedures will be successfully completed, potential applicants are hereby notified of these requirements and conditions for the award. The Agreement Officer is the only individual who may legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds. No costs chargeable to the proposed Agreement may be incurred before receipt of either a fully executed Agreement or a specific, written authorization from the Agreement Officer. Although an earlier notification may be provided to applicants regarding their recommended selection for an award, only an award signed by the USAID Agreement Officer will constitute the USAID commitment of the selection of the applicant. USAID may, at its sole discretion, provide the award to the successful applicant’s designated point or contact in hardcopy originals, by fax, or electronically. The signed award will authorize the selected applicant to begin implementation of the activities described in their technical applications or revised technical applications/addenda, and will obligate funds for payment to the recipient of the award for costs incurred in such implementation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as indicated in Section D.XI of this NFO, the Agreement Officer may authorize the selected applicant(s), at its sole risk, to begin implementation and the incurrence of costs prior to a signed award as of a specified date, with no commitment to reimburse costs in the event that the award was not subsequently signed. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified of their non-selection after the award has been made. Within 10 working days after an applicant receives notice that USAID will not fund its application, the unsuccessful applicant may send a written request for additional information to the Agreement Officer. This information may be provided at the discretion of the Agreement Officer orally or in writing. To the maximum extent practicable, the Agreement Officer will respond to the request within 30 days or inform the applicant that more time is necessary. If a response is granted, it will be limited to the Agency’s interest in supporting the applicant’s program as described in the application without comparison of one applicant to another. Only additional information that would be useful to the applicant in future application preparation must be provided. F.II. ADMINISTRATIVE & NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS F.II.a. Payment and Financial Reporting

Financial reporting requirements will depend on the method of payment. In accordance with 2 CFR 700, advance payments will be provided if the recipient meets the standards for financial management systems in 2 CFR 700. Recipients will comply with the financial reporting requirements set forth in 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 700. If advance payments are provided, reporting periods are calendar quarters or parts thereof. Quarterly financial reports are due not later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. The final financial report is due not later than 90 days after the estimated completion date of the award. If payment is on a reimbursement basis, financial reports must be submitted monthly, but not less frequently than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter. The final financial report is due not later than 90 days after the estimated completion date of the award. The Recipient must also comply with the USAID standard provision entitled “Reporting Host Government Taxes.” For more information, please see ADS 303. F.III. PLANNING, MONITORING, REPORTING, AND EVALUATING PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 59 of 129

F.III.a. Leader Award

(1) Financial Reporting The Recipient must submit to the AOR an estimate of quarterly accruals at least 2 weeks prior to the end of each financial quarter. The Recipient must submit a completed Standard Form SF-42530 to the AOR no later than 30 days after the end of each financial quarter.

(2) Annual Work-Plans The Recipient will be required to submit annual work-plans, covering the period October 1 through September 30 (or parts thereof), delineated by the reporting periods described in Section F.III.a(2) below, which describes all activities planned for the year, including activities planned under Associate Awards to the extent known at the time; the site(s) where they will be conducted, benchmarks/milestones and annual performance targets; the outputs/outcomes which the Recipient expects to achieve; and the input/support planned to be provided by the Recipient, during the work-plan period. Included must be an explanation of how those inputs are expected to achieve the outputs/outcomes and benchmarks/milestones. The Recipient must describe and use appropriate gender-sensitive methodologies and must maintain gender integration and balance in all activities, targeting women and girls when it is necessary to achieve that balance. A gender analysis for the overall program of work must be undertaken in the first year. The work plans must include geographic data collection, geographic analysis, and data submission methods as a separate section. The first-year work-plan will include the environmental documentation that must be required by the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation (see Section F.III.a(10)). An EMMP (Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan), PERSUAP (Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan), or other document which is approved by USAID as a requirement of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation will be integrated into subsequent-year annual work-plans, making any necessary adjustments to activity implementation in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment. The annual work-plan for the first year will be submitted no later than 60 days after the effective date of the award. Annual work-plans for subsequent years must be submitted no later than 60 days prior to the start of that year. As indicated in Section B.III of this NFO annual work-plans and significant revisions thereto are subject to USAID approval. A first year Data Management Plan is also required at the time of the submission of the first year work plan. The work-plans will describe activities to be conducted at a greater level of detail than the Program Description of the award, but must be cross-referenced with the applicable sections in the Program Description. All work-plan activities must be within the scope and objectives of the award. Work-plans must not change such scope and objectives or any other terms and conditions of the award in any way; such changes must only be approved by the Agreement Officer, in advance and in writing. Thereafter, if there are inconsistencies between the work-plan and the Program Description or other terms and conditions of the award, the latter will take precedence over the work plan. Additional information on the annual work-plans, Activity MEL Plan, and periodic reports will be provided to the ME after award. Applicants are suggested to review the document “Guidance to New Research Projects on Planning and Reporting Deliverables”.

30 https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/post-award-reporting-forms.html#sortby=1

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 60 of 129

(3) Activity MEL Plan

The Recipient will be required to submit an Activity MEL Plan, as described in Section A.III.b(2)(b) of this NFO, within 60 days after the award is made. The Activity MEL Plan, which describes the program over the life of the project, will be submitted at the same time as the first-year work-plan discussed in the previous paragraph. As indicated in Section A.III.b(3) the Activity MEL Plan and significant revisions thereto are subject to USAID approval.

(4) Performance Reports The Recipient must electronically submit all performance reports to the AOR in USAID/Washington. All country-level and global research activities implemented under the Leader Award must be included in the performance reports. The AOR will send a draft template of the performance reports near the end of each designated reporting period, but in general, the performance reports will consist of the following:

a) Semi-Annual Reports Semi-annual reports covering the period October 1 through March 31, or the equivalent time period as per the award date, must be submitted not later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. The reports are to include the following sections: Research Progress Summary, Human and Institutional Capacity Development, Innovation Transfer and Scaling Partnership, and Future Work. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.328, the semi-annual reports must be concise and also present the following information:

▪ A comparison of actual accomplishments with the goals and objectives established for the period, the findings of the investigator, or both. Whenever appropriate, and when the output of programs or projects can be readily quantified, such quantitative data must be related to cost data for computation of unit costs.

▪ Progress made toward established benchmarks and result indicators of development impact, as discussed in the program description of this NFO and detailed in the Recipient’s Activity MEL Plan.

▪ Progress made on each discrete research activity. ▪ Reasons why established goals were not met, if appropriate. ▪ Other pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis and explanation of cost overruns or

high unit costs. ▪ In addition, qualitative descriptions of success stories and achievements to illustrate impacts of the

program must be included when possible. At the conclusion of each research activity, at least one success story and achievements must be submitted for that activity. Efforts must be made to continue following the results of the achievements each reporting period until the end of the Innovation Lab.

▪ Summary information on capacity training investments to include, but not limited to, number of Ph.D. candidates and M.Sc. candidates, candidates’ countries of origin, and institutional affiliations during training (U.S. host institution and host country partner institution(s) involved in student training).

▪ A list of all peer reviewed journal articles published during the reporting period.

b) Annual Reports Annual Reports covering the period October 1 through September 30, or the equivalent time period as per the award date, must be submitted not later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. The reports are to include the following sections: Title Page, Management Entity Information, Technical and/or Advisory Committee Information, Map or List of Countries Where Working, List of Program Partners, Acronyms, Glossary, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, Program Activities and Highlights, Key Accomplishments,

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 61 of 129

Research Program Overview and Structure, Research Project Reports, Associate Award Research Project Reports, Human and Institutional Capacity Development, Innovation Transfer and Scaling Partnerships, updates on EMMP and Open Data Management Plan progress, Governance and Management Entity Activities, Other Topics, Issues, Future Directions, and required Appendices.

c) Final Performance Report The final performance report will replace the last semi-annual report, and must include the information described in Section F.III.a(4)(a) above. The final performance report must include an executive summary of the Recipient’s accomplishments overall and by country program in achieving results and impact; conclusions about lessons learned; future challenges and opportunities; an overall description of the Recipient’s activities and attainment of results by country or region; an assessment of progress made toward accomplishing the development impact objectives and expected results; significance of these activities; important research findings; and comments and recommendations. The final report must incorporate the findings and results that were included in previous annual reports, and is due no later than 90 days after the completion, expiration, or termination of the award. The AOR may provide additional or alternative instructions as to the format and content requested of the Final Report.

d) Notifications The Recipient will be required to immediately notify the AOR and the Agreement Officer of developments that have a significant impact on the award-supported activities. Also, notification must be given in the case of problems, delays, or adverse conditions which materially impair the ability to meet the objectives of the award. This notification must include a statement of the action taken or contemplated, and any assistance needed to resolve the situation.

e) Evaluation The Food Safety Innovation Lab will be subject to a performance evaluation during the fourth year of the program, per USAID’s evaluation policy. USAID will arrange for and support the cost of the external evaluation outside of the award resulting from this NFO. The ME and individual sub-award activities must support the evaluation efforts by coordinating access to project researchers and facilities, arranging (but not paying for) local transportation and hotels for external evaluators (if needed), continued salary support of researchers and staff during the evaluation, and travel and per diem costs of activity researchers and staff during the evaluation. If any sub-award activity to be evaluated has already closed, the ME must arrange logistics associated with a site visit, and as agreed by the evaluation team, the ME must support the participation of the Primary Investigator and any appropriate collaborators to participate in the evaluation, such as covering the cost of transportation. Similarly, if any staff member from the ME is a part of the evaluation team, the ME must support the travel and Per Diem costs from the ME budget. The evaluation will assess the following: (1) the research program performance, (2) the capacity building efforts, and (3) overall management. The performance evaluation will evaluate the implementation of the global research program, including incorporation of the core program components; the quality and progress of the research; the achievement of development targets; the degree to which the research activities achieve integration and are relevant to development in the host countries and more broadly; and overall progress on agreed-upon measurable research, training, outreach/dissemination, knowledge and technology hand-off, and institutional strengthening results of the program. It will also evaluate the administrative and management effectiveness of the Management Entity (ME), including the relationship between the ME and sub-recipients/partners; the relationship and communication with USAID Washington and missions; and the outreach and intellectual leadership activities undertaken by the ME.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 62 of 129

The performance evaluation is distinct from, but will complement, any impact assessment activities undertaken by USAID that examine the program’s impact (see Sections A.III.a(2) and A.III.b(2)(a) of this NFO). The performance evaluation is generally conducted during the fourth year of the five-year award.

f) Submission of Reports The Recipient must submit the Semi-Annual, Annual, and Final Reports and all other requested and required periodic reporting documents to the AOR. Additionally, Semi-Annual, Annual, and Final Reports, once approved by the AOR, must be submitted to the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC) at http://dec.usaid.gov. Occasionally, a report will contain sensitive information such as data not yet ready for release to the general public or otherwise embargoed information. In such an event, the AOR will work with the Recipient to either 1) approve an interim, edited version that can be submitted to the DEC until the full report can be released publically or 2) approve a delay of a reasonable amount of time for submission to the DEC. Evaluations, whether conducted by the Recipient, USAID, or other entity contracted to perform the evaluation, must also be submitted to the DEC.

g) Branding Strategy and Marking Plan (BS/MP) The applicant is required to comply (and ensure compliance by partners) with USAID’s branding and marking requirements set forth in 2 CFR 700.16 with Feed the Future specific guidance located at feedthefuture.gov. These regulations and provisions include the requirement for the apparently successful applicant to submit a Branding Strategy and Marking Plan for pre-award review, negotiation, and approval by the Agreement Officer. Under these regulations and provisions, the BS/MP does not need to be submitted until the applicant is notified by the Agreement Officer that it is the apparently successful applicant, and is requested to submit the BS/MP by a time specified by the Agreement Officer. Thus, the initial cost/management application is not required to include a BS/MP. Nevertheless, applicants are encouraged, but are not required, to submit their BS/MP with their initial cost/management applications. Applicants who choose not to include their BS/MP with their initial cost/management application will not be penalized during the evaluation process, but must be aware that, if the applicant is the apparently successful applicant, the applicant will be required to submit an acceptable BS/MP as a prerequisite for any resulting award. This would delay any such award, pending receipt, review, and, if necessary, negotiation of the applicant’s BS/MP, with failure to submit or negotiate a BS/MP within the time specified by the Agreement Officer making the apparently successful applicant ineligible for award. Moreover, because USAID’s branding and marking requirements have cost implications, such costs must be included in the detailed budget (see Section D.VII.b ((2)(i))), even if the applicant does not submit its BS/MP with the initial cost/management application. Failure to submit or negotiate a Branding Strategy within the time specified by the Agreement Officer will make the Apparently Successful Applicant ineligible for award. The proposed Branding Strategy and Marking Plan (BS/MP) will not be evaluated competitively. The Agreement Officer will review for adequacy the proposed BS/MP, and will negotiate, approve, and include the BS/MP in the award.

h) Environmental Compliance Section 117 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, requires that the impact of USAID’s activities on the environment be considered and that USAID include environmental sustainability as a central consideration in

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 63 of 129

designing and carrying-out its development programs. This mandate is codified in 22 CFR 216 and in USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) Parts 201.5.10g and 204, which, in part, require that the potential environmental impacts of USAID-financed activities are identified prior to a final decision to proceed and that appropriate environmental safeguards are adopted for all activities. The environmental compliance obligations of the Recipient of the award resulting from this NFO under these regulations and procedures are specified in the following paragraphs.

a. In addition, the Recipient must comply with host country environmental regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by USAID. In case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the latter will govern.

b. No activity funded under the award resulting from this NFO must be implemented unless an environmental threshold determination, as defined by 22 CFR 216, has been reached for that activity, as documented in a Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), or Environmental Assessment (EA) duly signed by the Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO). (Such documents are hereinafter described as “approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation.”)

c. To this end, the technical application and any environmental analysis therein will be reviewed by USAID for the purpose of conducting an IEE of the proposed program. Depending on the results of the IEE, USAID may: 1) Approve a Request for Categorical Exclusion. 2) Determine that a Negative Determination with Conditions applies to one or more of the proposed

activities. This indicates that if these activities are implemented subject to the specified conditions, they are expected to have no significant adverse effect on the environment. Such conditions must be stipulated in the award, and the Recipient will be responsible for implementing all IEE conditions pertaining to activities to be funded under the award. Because the exact nature and location of many activities will only be fully known after sub-awardees are selected, which will take place after award, the initial IEE may require further environmental review and an IEE amendment to be completed post-award, before sub-award activities may proceed.

3) Determine that a Positive Determination applies to one or more of the proposed activities. This indicates that these activities have the potential for significant adverse effects on the environment. In such cases, the Recipient must be required to prepare and submit an EA addressing the environmental concerns raised by such activities. No activity identified under a Positive Determination can proceed until Scoping (as described in 22 CFR 216.3[a][4]) and an EA (as described in 22 CFR 216.6) are completed and approved by USAID. (Note: The completed Scoping Statement is normally submitted by the Mission Environmental Office [MEO] to the BEO when the project originates in a mission. The Statement must be circulated outside the Agency by the BEO with a request for written comments within 30 days and approved by the BEO subsequently. Approval of the Scoping Statement must be provided by the BEO before the EA can be initiated.) Accordingly, the technical and cost/management applications would need to reflect IEE or EA preparation costs and approaches.

d. As part of its annual work-plans, the Recipient, in collaboration with the AOR and MEO/BEO, will review all ongoing and planned activities under the award to determine if they are within the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation. If the Recipient plans any new activities outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation, it must prepare an amendment to the documentation for USAID review and approval. No such new activities will be undertaken prior to receiving written USAID approval of environmental documentation amendments. Any activities found to be outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation will be halted until an amendment to the documentation is submitted and written approval is received.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 64 of 129

e. Unless the approved Regulation 216 documentation contains a complete Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) or a Project Mitigation and Monitoring (M&M) Plan, the applicant or Recipient will need to prepare and submit an EMMP or M&M Plan for USAID approval. The EMMP or Project M&M Plan will describe how the Recipient will, in specific terms, implement all IEE and/or EA conditions that apply to proposed project activities within the scope of the award. The EMMP or M&M Plan must include monitoring the implementation of the conditions and their effectiveness. Unless included in the successful technical application or revisions/addenda thereto, the completed EMMP or M&M Plan will be integrated into the initial work-plan. The approved EMMP or M&M Plan will be integrated into subsequent annual work-plans, making any necessary adjustments to activity implementation in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment.

f. The Recipient will be required to use an Environmental Review Form (ERF) or Environmental Review (ER) checklist using impact assessment tools to screen sub-award and contract proposals to ensure the funded proposals will result in no adverse environmental impact, to develop mitigation measures, as necessary, and to specify monitoring and reporting. Use of the ERF or ER checklist is required when the nature of the proposals to be funded is not well enough known to make an informed decision about their potential environmental impacts; yet, due to the type and extent of activities to be funded, any adverse impacts are expected to be easily mitigated. Implementation of these activities cannot proceed until the ERF or ER checklist is completed and approved by USAID. The Recipient is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures specified by the ERF or ER checklist process are implemented. The Recipient will also be responsible for periodic reporting to the AOR, as specified in the award.

g. The costs of environmental compliance will be reimbursable under the award resulting from this NFO provided that they are otherwise in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award.

i) Associate Awards under LWAs

Reporting requirements and evaluation plans for Associate Awards will be specified in such awards. The Recipient will be required to provide an electronic copy of all reports produced under Associate Awards to the AOR for the Leader Award.

j) PROGRAM INCOME Any program income generated under the award will be added to USAID funding (and any cost sharing that will be provided) and used for program purposes. Program income will be subject to 2 CFR 200.307.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 65 of 129

SECTION G – FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACTS All questions and applications submissions regarding this NFO must reference “7200AA18RFA00024” in subject line when directed to:

Tseyone Demissie Contract/Agreement Officer, M/OAA/BFS Rm. 562-L, SA-44 301 4th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 Email: tsdemissie@usaid.gov

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 66 of 129

SECTION H – OTHER INFORMATION USAID reserves the right to fund any or none of the applications submitted. H.I. PRE-AWARD AUDITS/SURVEYS AND DISCUSSIONS USAID reserves the right to perform a pre-award audit/survey which may include, but is not limited to:

1) Interviews with individuals to establish their ability to perform award duties under project conditions;

2) A review of the applicant's financial condition, business and personnel policies and procedures, etc.; and 3) site visits to the applicant's institution.

However, it must be understood that USAID undertakes no obligation to perform any of the foregoing elements. Accordingly, applicants must submit their best and most complete application initially. H.II. INTERVIEWS/DISCUSSIONS/ORAL PRESENTATIONS IN WASHINGTON While it is not anticipated, USAID nevertheless reserves the right to request the applicant and the applicant's key personnel to travel to Washington, DC for interviews, discussions, and/or oral presentations. USAID will not pay any travel costs associated therewith. H.III. INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THIS NFO AND 2 CFR 700, 2 CFR 200, ADS 303 In case of any disagreements or discrepancies between the terms and conditions of this NFO and 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 700, or ADS 303, the latter will prevail unless any such conflicting terms and conditions of this NFO are expressly and specifically stated to be an approved deviation from and 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 700, or ADS 303. H.IV. FAILURE TO CONFORM The USAID evaluation committee will consider any failure to conform to these instructions and rules, and any attempt to evade these specifications and rules on the basis of technicalities, as indications of the kind of behavior that it will expect from the applicant during award performance/implementation. The committee will take this into account when making its evaluation. If an applicant does not understand these instructions, it must follow the instructions in Section D.V above.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 67 of 129

ANNEX A - Full Application Instructions and Evaluation Criteria

Only upon invitation by USAID shall an Applicant submit a full application to the Agreement Officer. A. APPLICATION INSTRUCTION The Full Application shall include (to facilitate the review of applications, applicants should organize the narrative sections of their applications in the same order as listed below): A.1 Technical Submission (Word Format)

1. Cover Page (1 Page): a. Prime Organization Name b. Prime DUNS Number. c. Prime Tax Identification Number (TIN). d. Prime Contact Name (authorized negotiator) e. Prime Contact Email address f. Prime Contact telephone and fax number g. Prime Complete business mailing address h. Prime Active Sam.gov Registry (Y/N) i. Estimated amount of leveraged resources, in-kind and cash for Prime organization and any sub-

Awardees.

2. Executive Summary (2 pages maximum): a. Provide a concise summary of the applicant’s program description, program methodology and

expected results and impacts.

3. Program and Strategy Description (8 pages maximum): a. This section will describe the applicant’s proposed Program and Strategy to implement successful

high quality food safety research program. The application must address the overall strategy, proposed approach and planning processes, development goals and objectives

b. List key members of proposed team structure (within the Management Entity); type(s) of function each team member will serve. Describe how private sector providers and agriculture related firms will be included and how public extension services may be engaged. Describe how results and outcomes can be efficiently and sustainably scaled

c. Describe the rationales and theory of change d. Describe the prime plan to engage and build upon current and previous USAID investment in

food safety e. Describe the prime plan to engage with other donors and their funded programs on food safety.

4. Management Approach (8 pages maximum)

Provide a coherent and concise description of the proposed management's approach with a focus on the following areas: (a) Approach to ensure scientific quality of program portfolio. The development, selection and

management of the research portfolio will be assessed as part of this approach. (b) Approach to ensure relevance of program portfolio. Linkages with other research institutions will

be assessed as part of this approach. (c) Approach to ensure program accountability, including financial oversight.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 68 of 129

(d) Monitoring and Evaluating Performance, Assessing Impact, and Reporting. Soundness of the applicants approach to monitoring and evaluating performance, including a clear understanding of the Feed the Future Monitoring System; and

(e) Knowledge-Sharing, Learning, and Data Management Plan. Soundness and robustness of the applicants knowledge sharing and learning plans and evidence of a clear understanding of USAID data management policies.

5. Technical Approach (5 pages maximum):

(a) Background and Context. Applicant’s demonstrated understanding of (a) how food safety contribute to sustainable agricultural and food systems in Feed the Future target countries, (b) the role that research investments in such systems have in supporting global, regional and national food security improvements, (c) how food safety contribute to the three objectives of the Global Food Security Strategy: economic growth, resilience and human nutrition.

(b) Geographic Focus. Soundness of applicant’s analysis of, and justification for, the geographic focus areas proposed.

(c) Research Areas of Inquiry. Quality of the applicant’s overall vision and approach for implementing a global research program that includes a portfolio of high-quality, innovative research activities in the areas of inquiry described in the proposal (5) of this NFO that contribute to GFSS goals and are designed to achieve long-term development impact among host country beneficiaries, and the quality of the applicant’s plan to develop an integrated research program in the biophysical and social sciences that can contribute technologies and knowledge in food safety in agricultural and food systems in focal countries.

(d) Cross Cutting Themes. Quality of the applicant’s proposed approach to integrating gender and youth analyses and research, nutrition ,resilience, and human and institutional capacity development into the above Areas of Inquiry;

(e) Initial Activity Proposals. Quality of the applicant’s proposed initial activities in regards to their ability to generate timely research outputs and anticipated usefulness of the outputs in the research of the competitively awarded research grants.

6. Staffing and Resource Leveraging (3 pages maximum)

a. A brief narrative and Key Personnel description shall be provided to give an overall understanding of the Awardee’s staffing structure and to demonstrate adequate technical and business experience. This section will include but not be limited to: i) Proposed staffing configuration (director, associate director …etc) ii) Description of the strengths of the proposed Key Personnel and the suitability of his/her education

and work experience for proposed positions. iii) Full CV (3 page maximum) for the proposed Project Director and, optionally, any other senior

members of the proposed team to be placed in an annex. iv) At least three past performance references (to be listed in an attachment to application) for the

Key Personnel position, including individuals knowledgeable about the individual’s work performance and qualifications over the past ten years. At least two references should be for work performance over the past two years. References should include names, current and functional email addresses and valid current phone numbers for individuals able to serve as references.

v) An explanation of the time allocation for any staff that is less than full time. b. A brief description (complemented by Attachment 2) of plans for leveraging others’ in-kind and cash

resources, including resources used by governments in agriculture extension services.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 69 of 129

7. Branding & Marking Plan a. Each Awardee shall be required to develop and submit a Branding and Marking Plan as an annex to

their application. Section F.III.g provides guidance for the Branding and Marking requirement.

10. Environmental Compliance a. Each Awardee will be required to provide a brief description of their plan to comply with

Environmental Compliance requirement per Section 117 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, requires that the impact of USAID’s activities on the environment be considered and that USAID include environmental sustainability as a central consideration in designing and carrying-out its development programs.

A.2 Cost Submission Note: Most negotiations stall due to insufficient and/or unverifiable cost and pricing data. Each Awardee should provide as detailed cost breakdown and cost narrative as practicable. Each Awardee should provide as much other than certified cost and pricing data necessary for the Agreement Officer to find costs realistic and reasonable. Lack of details in this section will lead to longer procurement time.

1. SF-424A 2. Cost Application:

a. There is no page limit for the cost application. However, Applicants are encouraged to be as concise as possible and still provide the necessary details.

b. The Cost Application shall be completely separate from the Technical Application. c. The Cost Application Detailed Budget shall be formatted in Microsoft Excel 2010. Budgets shall

display all formulas (to illustrate method of calculation) with unlocked cells. d. The Cost Application Budget Narrative shall be formatted in Microsoft Word 2010. e. The Cost Application shall cover estimated budget for each of the three program years.

3. Budget Narrative and Detailed Budget Format:

The contents of the Budget Narrative and Detailed Budget documents shall mirror and reflect one another. The Budget Narrative shall have appropriate headings that match those of the Detailed Budget. For example, the Budget Narrative shall explain how salaries and wages were determined and give the appropriate rational under the Salaries and Wages heading. And the Detailed Budget shall display the estimated costs for salaries and wages under the Salaries and Wages budget line item. The Budget Narrative shall explain in great detail how costs were derived and the methodologies used to derive and estimate costs. The Detailed Budget shall display the estimated costs proposed for each budget line item.

Budget Narrative Contents To support proposed costs for your project, all applicants must provide a detailed Budget Narrative for all costs that explain how the costs were derived and the methodologies used. The Budget Narrative must provide: a. The breakdown of all costs associated with the program. b. The breakdown of all costs according to each partner organization involved in the program. c. The costs associated with external, expatriate technical assistance and those associated with local in-

country technical assistance. d. The breakdown of any financial and in-kind contributions of all organizations involved in

implementing this program. e. Potential contributions of non-USAID or private commercial donors to this program (cost share) in

accordance with 22 CFR 226.23 and/or OMB Circular A-110. f. Procurement plan for commodities, goods and services (if applicable).

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 70 of 129

Detailed Budget Contents

The Detailed Budget should be broken out by the projects implementation period (e.g. If the project implementation period is for three years, the applicant would propose a Detailed Budget which explains the project costs for a total of three years).

The Detailed Budget Excel Worksheet should contain the following budget categories at a minimum:

1. Salary and Wages: Direct salaries and wages should be proposed in accordance with the

Applicant’s personnel policies; USAID requires that salary daily rates are calculated 260 working days per year. The Budget Narrative should explain how daily rates are calculated.

2. Fringe Benefits: If the Applicant has a fringe benefit rate that has been approved by a U.S. Federal

Agency, such rate should be used and evidence of its approval shall be provided. If a fringe benefit rate has not been so approved, the Application should propose a rate and explain how the rate was determined. If the latter is used, the narrative should include a detailed breakdown comprised of all items of fringe benefits (e.g. unemployment insurance, workers compensation, health and life insurance, retirement, FICA, etc.) and the costs of each, expressed in dollars and as a percentage of salaries.

3. Travel and Transportation: The budget should indicate the number of trips, domestic, regional, and

international, and the estimated costs. Specify the origin and destination for proposed trips, duration of travel, and number of individuals traveling. Per Diem shall be based on the Applicant’s normal travel policies.

4. Equipment: The budget should provide the estimated types of equipment to be used on this project. Be

sure to include all costs associated with equipment such as safety gear (e.g. helmets), fuel, tax/tag, and insurance premiums as applicable under an appropriate budget category. The equipment model number, cost per unit and quantity shall be provided.

5. Supplies: The budget shall specify the supply items related to this activity (e.g. specimen collection,

sample transport, administrative).

6. Contractual: The budget shall identify any goods and services being procured through a contract mechanism.

7. Other Direct Costs: The budget shall identify the following but is not limited to: communications, report

preparation costs, passports, visas, medical exams and inoculations, insurance (other than insurance included in the Applicant’s fringe benefits). The narrative shall support and provide a breakdown for all other direct costs.

8. Indirect Costs: The Applicant shall support the proposed indirect cost rate with a letter from a cognizant

U.S. Federal audit agency, a Negotiated Indirect Cost Agreement (NICRA), or with sufficient information for USAID to determine the reasonableness of the rates (For example, a breakdown of labor bases and overhead pools, the method of determining the rate, etc.). If an applicant does not have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement it must be able to provide the previous three years of audited financial statements to the Agreement Officer. (This will be requested separately).

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 71 of 129

2. Certifications and Representations All apparently successful applicants must provide Certifications, Assurances, and Representations that can be found at http://inside.usaid.gov/ADS/300/303mav.pdf. Once an apparently successful applicant is invited for a full application, the AO will send a word version for convenience. B. PHASE II - EVALUATION CRITERIA Applicants should note that the technical evaluation criteria serve to: (a) identify the significant issues which applicants should address in their applications; and (b) set the standard against which all applications will be evaluated. To facilitate the review of applications, applicants should organize the narrative sections of their applications in the same order as the evaluation criteria. Awards will be recommended based on the ranking of applications according to the technical evaluation criteria and the quality of the response to these criteria. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate all Full Applications. The Government will evaluate responsive Full Applications on a best value basis, with technical merit more important than cost, on the following factors, equally weighted. 1. Management Approach Quality, realism, and completeness of the applicant’s management plan to include:

(a) Approach to ensure scientific quality of program portfolio. The development, selection and management of the research portfolio will be assessed as part of this approach. (b) Approach to ensure relevance of program portfolio. Linkages with other research institutions will be assessed as part of this approach. (c) Approach to ensure program accountability, including financial oversight. (d) Monitoring and Evaluating Performance, Assessing Impact, and Reporting. Soundness of the applicants approach to monitoring and evaluating performance, including a clear understanding of the Feed the Future Monitoring System; and (e) Knowledge-Sharing, Learning, and Data Management Plan. Soundness and robustness of the applicants knowledge sharing and learning plans and evidence of a clear understanding of USAID data management policies.

2. Technical Approach the coherent vision and identification of researchable challenges facing food safety systems to meet GFSS goals. This approach must include:

(1) Background and Context. Applicant’s demonstrated understanding of (a) how food safety contribute to sustainable agricultural and food systems in Feed the Future target countries, (b) the role that research investments in such systems have in supporting global, regional and national food security improvements, (c) how food safety contribute to the three objectives of the Global Food Security Strategy: economic growth, resilience and human nutrition. (2) Geographic Focus. Soundness of applicant’s analysis of, and justification for, the geographic focus areas proposed. (3) Research Areas of Inquiry. Quality of the applicant’s overall vision and approach for implementing a global research program that includes a portfolio of high-quality, innovative research activities in the areas of inquiry described in the proposal (5) of this NFO that contribute to GFSS goals and are designed to achieve long-term development impact among host country beneficiaries, and the quality of the applicant’s plan to develop an integrated research program in the biophysical and social sciences that can contribute technologies and knowledge in food safety in agricultural and food systems in focal countries. (4) Cross Cutting Themes. Quality of the applicant’s proposed approach to integrating gender and youth analyses and research, nutrition ,resilience, and human and institutional capacity development into the above Areas of Inquiry;

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 72 of 129

(5) Initial Activity Proposals. Quality of the applicant’s proposed initial activities in regards to their ability to generate timely research outputs and anticipated usefulness of the outputs in the research of the competitively awarded research grants.

3. Staffing Plan. Realism and effectiveness of the applicant’s staffing plan, and the qualifications and

capabilities of proposed key personnel.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 73 of 129

ANNEX I – Gender Analysis I.1 GENDER AND GLOBAL FOOD SAFETY Food safety is an important public health concern globally and particularly in developing countries where food standards, principally within local/informal market systems, are more lax, resources are fewer, potential contaminants are abundant and human and financial capital ability are less. In 2015 the World Health Organization (WHO) released the first important assessment of the world’s global health burden31 from 31 hazards of food borne diseases (FBD) highlighting its devastating health burden similar to malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis32. The report highlighted that those most vulnerable (98%) were within developing countries and that children under the age of five accounted for 40% of those who suffer from food borne diseases and account for one third of food borne disease deaths.33 It further underlined that of the 1.5 billion cases of diarrhoea worldwide, close to 70% were due to biologically contaminated food34 and that mycotoxins and food-borne parasites were more prevalent in developing countries than in developed ones35. Risks for FBDs have increased and continue to increase globally due to the increasing size of the world’s population, rising consumer demand for greater food diversity, and the globalization of food value chains and their intensified complexity, involving more actors at different nodes. Food is a significant pathogen transmitter, particularly in foods such as meat, milk, fish, eggs and fresh fruits and vegetables. In developing countries these foods are primarily produced by smallholder farmers and sold in local, informal/wet markets. These foods, which have the potential to provide significant nutrition, can also be the most dangerous in terms of FBD potential36. The structure of the food sector in developing countries compounds food safety risks because food systems are diverse, disjointed, and include numerous participants, most of whom are small-scale actors who produce, process, sell and operate informally. In developing countries, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) standards (considered food safety best practices) are generally only applied for export markets and to a smaller degree in larger or more formalized agro-industries37. FBD affect vulnerable people (infants, children under five, pregnant women, those who are sick, elderly and poorer populations) more severely than other groups because they are already compromised in areas such as more vulnerable immune systems and fewer resources to resolve illness - resulting in graver effects. FBDs also play a role beyond health and affect economies and society as a whole – effecting food exports, tourism, livelihoods, and overall economic potential. To date, technical guidance on gender inclusion in food safety standards along each node of food value chains remains limited and relatively unexplored. I.2 WHY GENDER MATTERS IN FOOD SAFETY Women and men’s roles in food production, processing, food preparation and selling and different consumption patterns vary across value chains, cultures and geographies and affect their exposure to various foodborne disease risks over time. While some of these dissimilarities are biological –women are more susceptible to autoimmune diseases; pregnancy has its own set of health concerns for both mother and child (foetal abnormalities, abortion,

31 World Health Organization, WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Food Borne Diseases, 2015. 32 Grace, D., White Paper, Food safety in developing countries: research gaps and opportunities, ILRI V. 22 March 2017 33 Ibid 34 World Health Organization, WHO, Estimates of the Global Burden of Food Borne Diseases, 2015. 35 Ibid 36 https://safefoodfairfood.ilri.org/food-safety-in-informal-markets/ (accessed January 15, 2018) 37 Sueli Cusato, Paula Tavolaro, and Carlos Augusto Fernandes de Oliveira Implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points System in the Food Industry: Impact on Safety and the Environment, pp. 21-26, no date

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 74 of 129

stillbirths and chemical transmission through breast milk38) – others have to do with the division of labor across value chains, access to resources, knowledge and education, and power relations, among others – all of which vary by culture and geography. Research suggests that those socially determined gender roles have more weight in determining overall health risks than biological variances between males and females39. These gendered differences along value chains highlight the importance of understanding these gendered nuances and in taking an integrated, tractability approach of food safety using a ‘farm to fork’ or ‘stable to table’ or ‘boat to throat’ to better recognize all actors, roles and those relationships affecting food safety. Acknowledging and understanding these differences will better enable food safety improvements that not only improve value chain competitiveness for small holder farmers/producers/processors, reduce risks and improve health outcomes, but better safeguard that food safety information and improvements benefit women, men, girls and boys and do not negatively impact the poor. Currently, limited information, studies, and research exists on how gendered participation (including production, processing, selling and consumption) across value chains affects food safety, health risks, vulnerability and resilience and how these vary by gender, culture and geography. Research in food safety along key value chains (animal, fish, fruits and vegetables) has focused less on gendered differences and more on overall health risks – aggregating risks, rather than separating them at different nodes and evaluating which roles are male, female, or performed jointly. With the exception of the study “Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains,” Dr. Delia Grace and teams, research has tended to focus on singular country studies on a particular food or food system, rather than evaluate across multi-geographical areas or across value chains. In addition, research is even less available for gendered differences across horticulture value chains in developing countries, where most studies have focused on developed countries without a gendered focus. I.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACROSS FOOD VALUE CHAINS In developing countries, women and men undertake varied and diverse roles in safeguarding food security for their households and communities. These are based on socio-cultural norms and in some cases the preferences men and women have for different value chain participation. The FAO estimates that women make-up 43% of developing countries agriculture labor force40. In spite of women’s significant contribution, they often produce less, are constrained by norms that restrict their mobility and have less access to education, training, extension services, agricultural inputs, productive lands/resources and higher-value markets. While some common patterns are found, there are also role and responsibility differences across geographies and cultures. Rural women constitute almost two-thirds of the world’s 925 million poor livestock keepers and are active in production, processing and selling41. Men are generally more involved in large animal care, fishing, hunting, and slaughter, while women dominate in poultry, dairy products, processing, and preparation of foods for household consumption and street food selling – although there are exceptions to these patterns, particularly in the area of cow and dairy value chains. In a study of 20 different fish and livestock value chains across Africa and Asia it was found that in most value chain activities, women and men either played a dominant role at certain stages or in most value chains men or women were entirely excluded. In only a few value chains (poultry and livestock) did men and women participate on a more equal footing in processing and marketing, activities that were commonly shared by both genders, while the fish and diary value chains were more separated42. This study 38 Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap. FAO 2010-2011. 39 Grace D, Roesel K, Kang'ethe E, Bassirou B and Theis S, (2015), Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal Livestock and fish value chains, No 1489, IFPRI discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute. 40 FAO, State of the World Food: Women in Agriculture 2011; http://dialogues.cgiar.org/blog/how-much-food-do-women-produce/[accessed January 16, 2018] 41 Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Poverty and gender aspects of food safety and informal markets in sub-Saharan Africa. ILRI Research Brief 21. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI 42Grace D, Roesel K, Kang'ethe E, Bassirou B and Theis S, (2015), Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains, No 1489,

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 75 of 129

also highlighted that across these 20 value chains the caretaking of animals was commonly done by both children and/or hired workers, heightening their exposure to potential animal disease and fecal matter. In West Africa, women lead in processing and marketing milk, whereas men tend to feed and milk cows, while in Kenya, women are more often dairy managers43. Fewer women are butchers in Africa, while in Vietnam the opposite is true44. More women than men are involved in poultry slaughter, whereas men overall have greater roles in slaughtering larger animals. Artisanal coastal fishing in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire is jointly managed - where men fish, and women smoke and sell the caught fish45. In Mali, milking cows was done either by male Fulani herders or male children family members. The male head of the family rarely did the milking nor were women allowed to milk cows46. I.3.1 Foodborne Pathways Along Value Chains From planting to harvesting to processing to consumption - opportunities for bacteria, viruses, and parasites to contaminate food are plenty and depending on the role and activity that men and women play, their risk and exposure to FBDs is affected. At the farm level - soil, manure, water, animals, equipment, seed, feed and individuals may spread harmful organisms through poor agricultural practices. Particularly in developing countries where domestic food chains (and in some cases food chains for export) involve many different players at varying stages, opportunity for contamination is significant. Milk production, for example, may be aggregated from various smallholder farmers, collected at a cooperative, then processed in a different place, stored in a different facility and then transported by different vehicles to various locations of local wet markets and/or supermarkets, or served in a home (in some cases unpasteurized and consumed raw). The same is true of many legumes, which are stored in different home-based locations, collected at aggregation points and then distributed and sold to traders, wholesalers or retail outfits who might also again aggregate products. All of these pathways exacerbate opportunities for food borne illness and disease. The varied roles and responsibilities along different food value chains expose women and men to different health risks that vary across contexts and their life cycle. Food safety risk management is incremental and accumulative along each and every food value chain – from ‘farm to fork.’ Paying attention to local norms in the division of labor is critical for targeting food safety assessments and interventions. And while exposure to risk is more closely associated with the gender that is primarily involved, the other gender and his/her secondary involvement can also carry risks for pathogen contamination. Even where women play supporting or secondary roles and may or may not have decision-making authority over livestock, fish, dairy or other productive resources – their roles, knowledge and behavior in these activities (as well as their consumption patterns) impacts food health, their health and the health of those in their family. I.3.2 PRODUCTION / HARVESTING Contamination pathways in production include contamination from soil, water, fertilizer and soil amendments, agricultural chemicals, fodder and roughage, animal feed, agricultural workers, plants, improper storage infrastructure in cold storage, livestock and aquatic animals. In addition the mishandling and use of growth hormones and veterinary drugs can also negatively affect overall health and food safety,47 as can contaminated IFPRI discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute. 43 Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Poverty and gender aspects of food safety and informal markets in sub-Saharan Africa. ILRI Research Brief 21. Nairobi, Kenya: ILR 44 Grace D, et ai. (2015), Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains, No 1489, IFPRI discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute. 45 https://aghealth.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/iwd2015-why-do-we-need-a-gender-perspective-in-research-to-improve-food-safety-in-informal-markets/ 46 Grace D, Roesel K, Kang'ethe E, Bassirou B and Theis S, (2015), Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains, No 1489, IFPRI discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute. 47 http://www.searo.who.int/entity/world_health_day/2015/whd-what-you-should-know/en/

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 76 of 129

water used in food cleaning and processing, areas where women commonly dominate. Good agricultural practices at harvest include personal hygiene of farm workers such as hand washing after using a sanitation facility, sanitation facility location away from harvest area, and hand washing after use of pesticides or other chemical inputs – all of which pose problems in rural areas for both men and women where access to water and safe, clean water are often not available. Because both women and men have substantial roles in production and harvesting of various crops, animals and their products, it is important that both women and men understand and know how to identify food borne contamination at every stage including choosing quality seeds to grow, when chicken eggs can be collected, sold or consumed, how to identify ill health in animals, etc., as well as understand the associated health risks of eating potentially contaminated food, even when contamination is not obvious or immediate. Production categories involve catching fish, hunting game, and caring for livestock, including feeding, milking as well as choosing seeds, planting and caring for crops. In the same study that looked across the 20 value chains, men were found to dominate in dairy, beef, commercial poultry, fish, and game production and women in household poultry production. A couple studies highlight gender differences in production activities important for food safety. In pork production in rural and urban Vietnam and goat production in rural South Africa women and men were equally involved in all production activities48. In only two of the 20 value chains evaluated, milk in Kenya and poultry in Mozambique, did women lead in production and were involved throughout the chain, from production to selling products. With the exception of marketing milk in Mozambique, men were almost entirely omitted from this value chain. In Cote d’Ivoire, males dominated in all stages of dairy production; in poultry slaughtering men dominated in Mozambique and South Africa49. In horticulture production and harvesting and food safety, there is less information from developing countries and even less cross-sectorial information and no gendered-specific information was uncovered. In part this has to do with the fact that fruits and vegetables in developing countries are commonly eaten fresh, purchased on a daily basis, and FBD’s associated with horticulture are less immediately noticed and more accumulative – occurring most often from pesticides and other agrochemicals and fecal contamination from animals and humans. FBD also occurs from use of contaminated water, poor sanitation standards, inadequate storage and instances where fruits or vegetables are prepared improperly e.g. use of rancid cooking oil for frying plantains or other snack or street foods. Crops such as groundnuts, maize, cassava, millet, and sorghum are susceptible to aflatoxin contamination --– which is also often ignored or poorly understood because health effects are not seen immediately. One study called “safe vegetables” in Cambodia and Vietnam promoted healthy and chemical free inputs without microbiological hazards by building trust along the value chain from input providers, farmers, collectors, food distribution and value-added processing facilities, and marketers who sell directly to consumers. By showing where and how contamination could occur helped value chain actors acknowledge their role and responsibility within the value chain and mechanisms for reducing FBDs. The project included tangible innovations in food safety issues and concerns in areas such as new seed varieties (and seed preservation), compost, integrated pest management techniques, low-cost safe and uncontaminated water distribution systems, proper postharvest handling, packing centers, cold storage and distribution systems. It also included soft technologies such as participatory food safety training (farmer communes, local governments, individual farmers, and national communication companies) research programs (regional universities) and other key stakeholders (government and

48 Grace D, Roesel K, Kang'ethe E, Bassirou B and Theis S, (2015), Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains, No 1489, IFPRI discussion papers, International Food Policy Research Institute 49 Ibid.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 77 of 129

private sector) with follow-up mentoring50. The study’s goal was to empower small farmers (59% of whom were women) with integrated experiential education and training for sustainable vegetable production that limits postharvest losses, increases food safety, increases market access and, importantly, increases income. By understanding the roles, responsibilities and limitations and opportunities at each stage of the value chain for improving food safety and the snowball effect of poor management in food safety at each and every node – value chain actors saw the value in a more transparent and comprehensive value chain approach to control and market improved, safe food products. I.3.3 PROCESSING Contamination pathways include infected food handlers, harmful substances used in processing or storage, processing conditions, packaging, and pests. In the developing world, women dominate in informal small-scale food processing, most of which is done at home for both household consumption and sale in local markets. Such processing can present a number of health risks and burdens including contamination from poor hygiene, use of dirty water, improper storage, cross contamination and insufficient heating or cooking. In many cases, lack of access to adequate water, sanitation and fuel may prove to be the principal cause of food-borne illnesses. If the only water available is contaminated or if fuel is hard to obtain or insufficient amounts are available to cook food or boil water illness and malnutrition can result. Families’ education about proper processing, cooking, hygiene and access to clean water and sanitation are critical for safe household and informal, small-scale food processing. In more formal or modern processing operations, such as dairy cooperatives or larger animal processing, men are more commonly involved and dominate managerial or ownership roles while women are often laborers –running machines or packaging. In these more formal operations while women and men had similar knowledge and attitudes about food safety, women were found to have better food safety practices than men51. This suggests that women’s greater concern or care to better food safety standards could be used as an opportunity to target women as food safety champions or leaders at different stages of food value chains. I.4 PRESERVATION, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION Contamination occurs from inappropriate storage, cross-contamination, insufficient heating/cooking. Both pre- and post- harvest52 losses across countries and across value chains appear to be significant due to absent of or unsuitable processing and storing methods. It is estimated that a third or more of fish, for example, is commonly lost during processing and trading (the nodes women dominate across both aquaculture and fisheries sectors) due to inadequate or lack of cold storage, poor handling practices and lack of reliable transportation. Most farmers either have poor storage facilities that are subject to pest infestations or lack any storage and dry crops in the fields, or leave animal products stored improperly – further making them susceptible to food borne disease, pests or mold infestations. Drying and storage is problematic for all legume production in Africa and Central America – both on the field and after harvest. Groundnut drying is commonly done on the ground and stored in jute, polyethylene bags53 or in recycled bags that often have previously stored other crops such as rice, sorghum, beans, or cocoa54 – increasing the potential for mycotoxins (e.g. aflatoxin) contamination. Improved preservation, storage, and transportation could potentially affect the availability and quality of food

50 http://horticulture.ucdavis.edu/main/projects/cambodia-safe-vegetables.html [accessed January 10, 2018] 51 Grace, D., Olowoye, J., Dipeolu, M., Odebode, S. and Randolph T.F. 2012. The influence of gender and group membership on food safety: The case of meat sellers in Bodija market, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44 (Suppl 1): S53–S59. 52 Including slaughtering, catch and butchering. 53https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267047637_Purdue_Improved_Crop_Storage_PICS_bags_for_safe_storage_of_groundnuts 54 http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/128261/filename/128472.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 78 of 129

products (fresh or processed) in local markets and at the household level, potentially improving access to and consumption of food that is free of harm. The Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags, for example, help farmers store legume sand cereal crops for more a year or more after harvest without using harmful chemicals and free of pests. Simple cold storage facilities (cold boxes or larger shared freezers) could have significant impacts on households’ ability to reduce spoilage and raise their nutrition and income levels. Application of cold storage technologies or practices can potentially increase women’s earnings and lower workloads, two aspects of women’s empowerment emphasized by Feed the Future and measured in the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI). Because women tend to produce at a small scale and then sell individually to local traders and/or in local markets, if and when they have surplus, improving aggregation and proper storage of food and food products could benefit women (and men) in the long-term. Forming marketing groups could help farmers and producers not only aggregate products to reach scale but also help them access more expensive storage that reduces or eliminates food borne diseases that alone, they might not be able to access. Research activities could include linkages with women’s farmer groups, organizations and associations to facilitate the organization of female farmers and aggregation and storage of food. Another area that may warrant further investigation is traditional food storing methods, which have been little researched. In Ethiopia, for example, a traditional method of fermenting milk reduced staphylococcal poisoning by 90%55. I.4.1 MARKETS/SELLING Contamination pathways include infected food handlers, fomites, peri-domestic pests. The informal food sector (informal markets, street food, home processing) is the main sources of food for most rural poor - offering options for accessible, affordable and foods that meet local preferences and in quantities that make sense for their budgets and needs. Women dominate in the informal food sector as sellers and preparers of food. In most African countries, the largest number of street food processors and vendors are women, while most customers are male. The income that women gain from selling food and food products is linked to food security, dietary diversity and their children’s health56. Food safety within the informal food sector raises significant public health concern due to lack of regulation, proper storage, poor hygiene, preparation (cooking or heating times), contaminated water and improper handling. The informal food sector is also the main source of the most nutritious and sometimes riskiest foods (e.g. eggs, green leafy vegetables, diary, animal products and fish) as well as foods from local breeds or more traditional products57. In most developing countries the most frequently prepared and sold street foods are animal-sourced foods, increasing the risk of FBDs and health issues from lack of sanitation. There have also been cases of food adulteration, and food fraud is common in developing countries, especially for high-value foods. This may have significant health impacts if the adulterant is harmful (e.g. addition of melamine to milk or contaminated water) or if adulteration lowers the nutritional quality of food (e.g. addition of water to milk58). Formal/regulated markets. As value chains and markets become more formalized and regulated there are important trade-offs between food safety and availability. Costs for more regulated items may deter poorer households from buying safer and nutritious foods, and stricter markets may place regulations on sellers who are not able to upgrade and meet standards. Because women are often responsible for acquiring food for home 55 http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/milk-fermentation-in-ethiopia-where-tradition-and-safety-meet/ [accessed January 13, 2018] 56 http://www.fao.org/gender/gender-home/gender-programme/gender-food/en/ [accessed January 12, 2018] 57 Grace, D., White Paper, Food safety in developing countries: research gaps and opportunities, ILRI V. 22 March 2017 58 Ibid.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 79 of 129

consumption, they are important to involve in generating demand for safer food options and need to be able to afford them. As domestic markets become stricter further research is warranted on how this will affect women who dominate selling fresh and prepared foods in local markets. Women commonly confront gender-specific challenges that exacerbate their ability to successfully participate and generate financial means from agricultural activities. This includes responsibilities at home affecting their available time and mobility, access to productive resources, low levels of access to credit, training, information and extension services, lower education levels and higher rates of illiteracy than males, and overall smaller operations.59 Women are usually in less profitable markets, often have lower paying positions within agricultural processing sectors even though they may constitute the majority of workers. Women are also more likely to be involved in part-time, seasonal or casual/insecure informal work. These and other challenges may affect their ability to meet food safety standards and their assessment of whether meeting them is worthwhile. It is unclear what happens to foods that don’t meet food safety standards in more regulated markets and if these foods enter local markets and are consumed by local populations. Export/import markets. As commercialization, formalization and efforts to improve food safety occur there may be unintended consequences of displacing producers and reducing the availability or access to nutritious foods for those who can’t afford them and in some places affecting producers’ competitiveness. In Kenya, for example, pasteurized milk costs double the price of raw milk, putting it out of the reach of many poor families60. In some places trade agreements have helped to make regulated imports cheaper than domestically produced food further displacing smallholder producers. As food safety regulations become tighter and as more food value chains are commercialize, there is concern that poorer farmers, and particularly women, may be excluded due to their inability to comply and further negatively aggravate existing inequalities, their livelihoods, household food security and health of themselves and families. A study in Kenya and Uganda found that smallholder farmers participation in fruit and vegetable value chains for exports fell 60 and 40 percent respectively when they were unable meet certain standards due to lack of human and financial capital61. Not only do higher standards risk excluding small-scale producers, who find it more difficult to attain quality levels, they may concentrate contaminated food among the poor or the less informed. In addition, formalizing food safety standards in such a way that enhances the product’s commercialization can reduce household consumption of the food if the product becomes more attractive to sell than to consume. In such cases, diets may suffer if the income earned is not spent on nutrition enhancing foods, due to absence of markets for nutritional foods or the preferences and knowledge of the person with control over the income. A study of banana farmers in Kenya found that male control over banana output and revenues, a crop that prior to commercialization was primarily under the control of women, negatively affected household calorie consumption and dietary diversity. Increases in the resources controlled by women can have greater development impacts than similar increases for men, as women are more likely to apply increased allocations towards children’s education, health, and nutrition.62 I.5 CONSUMPTION PRACTICES AND FOOD TABOOS Because women are commonly households’ nutrition managers, guiding the sector in improved, equitable and sustainable practices that acknowledge and address gender issues could play an important role in improvement in reducing food safety and global food security, particularly in chronic food insecure regions. Improving women’s 59 http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/AAS-2014-42.pdf[accessed November 17, 2017] 60 Grace, D., White Paper, March 2017 61 Ibid. 62 https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/212516/2/Muriithi-Smallholder%20Horticultural%20Commercialization-739.pdf [accessed January 4, 2018]

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 80 of 129

HOMEMADE BABY FOODS IN TANZANIA Over 1.3 million children in Tanzania suffer from diarrhea, leading to stunting and sometimes death. A study of baby food contamination in close to 300 households in rural Tanzania found that 96% of the sampled baby foods had indicators of harmful bacteria, often associated with fecal contamination. The study focused on food safety behaviors and knowledge among mothers or caregivers of 6-24 month old children who were responsible for making homemade baby foods. Findings revealed that education and good hygiene practices were indicators of potential contamination and that the education levels and information that women and men had affected the overall food safety within their households. The study further highlighted the importance of good hygiene particularly with diaper handling (primarily done by women), which is problematic in areas that don’t have access to water or clean water sources. Sourced from Gender and Food Safety Research to Improve Quality of Baby Foods in Tanzania, January 17, 2017, Ohio State University.

empowerment and decision-making power may have positive effects on improving the nutrition and food security status of their children, themselves and their households. Investigating and better understanding women’s knowledge and preferences related to food selection, preparation and intake is critical for household level food safety. Understanding what, how, and why food is consumed from a gender and anthropological perspective is important to understand women’s, men’s, girls’, and boys’ exposure to FBD and who can be entry points for reducing risk. In a study in Nigeria and Somalia, researchers found that women more regularly ate low-value offal (a risk factor in diarrhea) whereas men ate higher-value muscle meat63. Across Africa, men ate more frequently in restaurants than women, which increased not only their access to meat but amplified their exposure to FBD. In China, Vietnam and Korea, a comparable pattern was found with fish consumption where men frequented restaurants more than women and had higher rates of fish-borne fluke64. In Ethiopia, raw meat is commonly consumed; raw eggs are eaten in Uganda as a cure for certain diseases; in West Africa pastoralists commonly drink raw, unpasteurized milk and in some places ‘heated’ milk was considered to lack nutritional value so was not consumed; in Southeast Asia raw fish is commonly consumed and blood is eaten raw or insufficiently cooked65. Food consumed is also affected by unsafe drinking water, poor sanitation, lack of proper storage or lack of proper nutritional knowledge.

I.6 MECHANISMS FOR IMPROVED FOOD SAFETY Both women and men need access to information, improved technologies and practices that reduce FDB vulnerability and food spoilage, are easy to apply, are affordable, and are applicable by food, product and stage along each value chain, are needed. Women also need tools, technologies and practices that reduce, rather than increase their time burden because of their heavy household obligations. In developing new technologies or practices it is important to note who is actually adopting what is being promoted. It is also important to consider how technologies could potentially displace workers in sorting, collecting or other processing roles (where women dominate) as technologies are upgraded and regulations and standards become stricter. In development of new tools, technologies and improved practices in safe food handling, women and men should be involved both as clients and providers of innovation because of their different roles along value chains and women in particular because of their key role as household food decision-makers and preparers. Technological solutions

63 FSNAU 2010; Grace et al. 2012 64 Han et al. 2013 65 Nasinyama et al. 2010; Carrique-Mas and Bryant 2013; Roesel and Grace 2014; Seleshe et al. 2014

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 81 of 129

Technological solutions in animal (including fish and aquaculture) value chains include improving animal health management, reducing disease vulnerability, risk management communication tools and improving application of simple cooling/heating preservation as well as slaughtering methods that help reduce food spoilage. Most small-scale producers do not have access to even basic cold storage facilities – resulting in food product loses, or in the case of fish often the dumping of poor quality fish at lower prices. Even where men are involved in home-based fish processing, in general women lose far more fish than men and have overall lower gross margins 2.6 percent compared with 5.5 percent66 for men. Research suggests this is the result of poorer access to information, services, technology, training and absence of storage or reliable transportation and women’s overall shortage of available time to process fish immediately because of their household obligations.67 In dairy production, upgraded facilities include chilling plants for milk and dairy products as well as improved information on the risks associated with drinking raw, unpasteurized milk that are inclusive of both genders. Farmers need information (and access to investments and improved technologies) that allow them to access and use affordable and improved feeding practices, improve their access to improved breeds that produce more milk for example, information on best practices in cattle management and mechanisms for enhancing the quality of milk. Women in general have less access to both human and financial resources to make these improvements. In products such as groundnuts, maize, sorghum and other legumes, improved drying and storage practices and equipment and technologies at the household, community, and larger levels that meet the needs of female farmers, accounting for factors such as smaller harvest size, lower cost, whether shelled or unshelled, and need for frequent opening and closing is key. Shared storage facilities could be developed where both women and men share spaces or separately by women’s crops/ products or men’s crops/products. It would be important to consider whether men and women will want to store together or separately and this will most likely vary by country, community and household, and food item. Product Aggregation/Certification and Traceability Aggregation of products, coupled by safety checks along each value chain node could improve farmer’s ability to meet food safety standards and sell at scale, which would help farmers sell to processors, traders or larger wholesale markets to receive improved prices, and reduce individual risk. This could be particularly important for female producers, processors and sellers as they commonly produce at smaller scales. However if this requires investments that are unattainable they may lose or lack motivation to alter practices and behaviors. Women are also less likely to have access to information, financial services, markets, and relevant inputs and less time and mobility to attend trainings or follow required protocols. Research and training that identified cost-effective and affordable means for producers and farmers to improve food safety standards and benefit from the additional time and resources needed would be important for improved uptake and health outcomes. To increase product value and marketing opportunities, and increase food system impact – creating centers of excellence or value-added centers could help small scale farmers/producers improve their access to and use of food processing equipment to create value added products – freezing, drying, food preservation, fermented products, and value-added foods. Consumers in many developed countries are increasingly demanding certification of food products to assure food quality and stamp production origin. From a food safety viewpoint, there has been poor evidence that certified products are actually safer or provide additional revenue for producers or that certification “stamps” benefit smallholder producers, particularly women who generally have less access to information, training, services or means for such certification and in some cases certification could actually block them from access to wider and more profitable markets.

66 FAO. 2016. Aquaculture Big Numbers, by Michael Phillips, et al, Paper No. 601. Rome, Italy 67 https://www.worldfishcenter.org/pages/improving-fisher-livelihoods-gender-relations-rural-zambia/

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 82 of 129

Food on Wheels Project in Kerala India 2500 women entrepreneurs were trained in preparing and selling quality food using best practices in food safety and trained them on business skills in the food industry, resulting in fewer food borne incidences and improved business profits.

Gender Park, a state owned government initiative under India’s Department of Social Justice.

Several case studies from Asia highlight the risks and challenges of small-scale farmers being able to comply with international standards, rules and policies. As demand increased for certain declined wild caught fish, in some places small producers in developing countries were displaced. Two examples are catfish in Vietnam and shrimp in Thailand were small-scale producers could not compete in technology, quality or quantity required - making them uncompetitive and vulnerable to increasing commercialization and aggregation of larger value chain stakeholders. Another example is that of sustained efforts by Vietnamese public and private sector players to market ‘safe vegetable’ production and distribution systems that never actually took off due to strict regulations that small scale farmers and processors could not comply with68. Group Membership/ Shared interest and community participation One study in the Bodika market in Ibadan, Nigeria found that group membership and gender had a positive influence on meat quality because it provided information, reduced risk and provided services that individuals did not have access to without membership e.g. transportation, extension services, information, credit, etc. Women were found to have significantly better food safety practice than men, though there was no significant difference in their knowledge of and attitude towards food safety. The study also identified butchers’ associations as food safety intervention entry points. In a study in in Vietnam and Cambodia researchers found that increasing shared interest, participation and trust along all vegetable value chain actors resulted in better health and nutrition along the value chain and within households.69 This had to do with better understanding through information, stakeholder and participatory community meetings – that provided information of how each action contributed to safe or unsafe foods and the importance of best practices in hygiene, safe water and food preparation, among others70. Training Training along value chains that is inclusive of both genders and at the nodes in which they each participate has potential to improve food safety from ‘farm to fork’, particularly when there are incentives to attend trainings and alter practices or behaviour. There is indication, principally from the dairy sector and street vendors of ready-to-eat foods, that training informal sector retailers can improve food safety. I.7 COMMON GENDER CONSTRAINTS THAT ALSO AFFECT FOOD SAFETY Many of the issues and constraints encountered along value chains from production to marketing that affect food safety are common to both men and women including inadequate access to resources (land, information, tools, technology etc.), credit facilities, transportation, poor roads and infrastructure, low-level processing and marketing facilities, and poor storage, amongst others. Information/knowledge/education Women often further confront additional gender-specific challenges that exacerbate their ability to assure their

68 Nguyen-Viet et al. 2017 69 http://horticulture.ucdavis.edu/main/30hare.html [accessed January 15, 2018] 70 Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Poverty and gender aspects of food safety and informal markets in sub-Saharan Africa. ILRI Research Brief 21.

Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 83 of 129

food is safe to eat and that their household nutrition needs are secured. This includes responsibilities at home affecting their available time and mobility, their lower levels of access to food safety training, information and extension services, amongst others.71 These constraints place barriers in reaching markets while food is still fresh or in use of best practices in food preparation and storage, for example. In some places women need to ask the permission of their husband to leave home and in some places, not allowed outside the home – this could affect their ability to interact with others more skilled in food safety practices, including farmers or marketing groups or extension agents and basically keeps women isolated. These and other challenges exist in the path of promoting food security and safety and in gender equitable adaptation and development along food value chains. Women have limited access to agricultural training, extension services, agricultural credit and membership in farmer groups is significantly less compared to men. Overall women have less access to updated information on food safety, food markets, new technologies or best practices72. In many places extension services may be gender biased – typically defining the ‘farmer’ of the household as the owner of the land or catering to male heads of households, further reducing women’s access to services, trainings and inputs. As household food managers, women’s limited information on best practices for food safety could have ramifications on their household and children’s exposure and vulnerability to FBD in short and longer-term health outcomes. Women do have, however, significant local knowledge on more traditional methods of production, harvesting, and processing – but not necessarily related to food safety or best practices in nutrition. These are often related to cultural practices or food taboos that may or may not be correlated with best practices in food safety. Because of women’s key role as decision-makers of household food preparation and consumption, it is possible that their role could be used as a leverage point for better understanding local needs, preferences, challenges and find pathways for developing gendered appropriate food storage and processing that aid in household nutrition needs and improve food safety practices, help control food borne diseases and improve linkages to markets, associations or groups, and work within women’s time constraints. Across the developing world, women's levels of education and literacy are commonly lower than those of men. The reasons for women's lower levels of education are complex and deeply rooted in cultural and socioeconomic realities. From an early age, girls' contributions to household tasks and subsistence agriculture activities may prevent their parents from sending them to school. In poorer families, where money for school fees is scarce, boys' education will invariably be given priority over that of girls. Since women's earning potential is generally lower than men's, and because the benefits of a girl's education accrue to another family after marriage, devoting resources to girls' education is not viewed as a profitable investment. Girls are also disadvantaged in educational opportunities due to factors such as higher levels of malnutrition, pregnancies at a young age and institutional biases within educational systems.73 This lack of focus on girls and women’s exposure to learning and education affects food safety, particularly because women (and often with the help of young girls) are the primary food preparers within rural households as well as primarily responsible for fetching water. Without information, knowledge or access to others with such knowledge on improved food safety, rural households will continue to practice less than ideal food preparation, storage, and processing means. Women and men often have different means of obtaining information. When introducing new food safety standards, best management in production, harvesting or processing to deter food borne diseases, or improved cold storage technologies researchers need to consider how, where and by whom information will be disseminated. Women often get their information from radio, word of mouth and have responded well to videos

71 http://pubs.iclarm.net/resource_centre/AAS-2014-42.pdf [accessed January 15, 2018] 72 http://www.fao.org/3/a-y3969e.pdf [accessed January 15, 2018] 73 Malena, C. (1994) Gender Issues in Integrated Pest Management in African Agriculture. NRI Socio-economic Series 5. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 84 of 129

that are accessible via cell phones,74 whereas men often get information from extension agents, written pamphlets, markets or agro-suppliers. Understanding which messages and what avenues are most effective in reaching women and men for increasing access to and use of foods that have better food safety standards, coupled with increasing male support for these measures and behaviors is key to assuring best practices in food safety messages and in turn altering behavior. Membership in formal organizations such as farmers associations, aquaculture/butchers/meat processor/marketing groups or cooperatives are common means for information sharing yet are more prevalent among men than women but poor men may also be excluded. Such groups can be important avenues for agriculture and food safety extension training, information, and supply services bringing needed support in new knowledge, technological adaptation in food management and care, access to cold storage and processing techniques, as well as safety in selling and care. When extension services are oriented mainly towards men (due to location, timing, male only trainers, etc.), women may lose out, while also affecting household food safety and overall economic gains. A study in Nigeria concluded that gender and group membership were influential in meat quality and overall reported gastrointestinal illness75. The study further suggested that butcher associations could be important entry points for food safety interventions. Other stakeholders and organizations that might be included in such interventions are associations that represent female farmers and/or processors, business associations, women’s groups, representatives of the private sector that have a corporate social responsibility (CSR) representative assuring gender is represented, female extension workers, etc. Time and Mobility Women’s higher workloads around the world that disproportionately include unpaid and undervalued productive work may impede women from using best practices for food safety – including using proper hygiene or storage or in preparation including boiling water or cooking meat or fish appropriately. Women are often time-poor compared to men because of their conflicting responsibilities at home and in agricultural production. Women's time is further constrained by the nature of their tasks. While there is certain flexibility in the timing of male activities, such as clearing land, digging and chopping, slaughtering or managing larger animal care, women's tasks such as cooking meals, childcare and fetching water are necessary on a daily basis. As a result, women may have limited control over their schedules and are often tied to an inflexible home routine. Technological innovations, education or improved agriculture management practices must take into account women’s daily and seasonal schedules. Women further confront mobility issues. They have less time; increased vulnerability to security risks; limited access to markets, training and extension services; and the responsibility for children, schooling, cooking, taking care of the house, and if head of household, earning cash income for household. Provided that women’s mobility is less, research demonstration sites, trainings and informational gatherings should be located at more accessible sites for women – near their homes, community centers, or schools. Providing childcare during training events can also be effective across sectors to increase women’s participation. Women are less likely to have transportation means or cash for transporting products to distant markets or processors. Men on the other hand are more likely to own bicycles and have greater access to cash for transportation. When thinking about ways to improve farmer’s access to markets and connecting along the value chain, it would be important to consider transportation mechanisms that could help women reduce their overall

74 Legume Innovation Lab, Michigan State University. http://legumelab.msu.edu [ sourced November 15, 217] 75 Grace, D., Olowoye, J., Dipeolu, M., Odebode, S. and Randolph T.F. 2012. The influence of gender and group membership on food safety: The case of meat sellers in Bodija market, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44 (Suppl 1): S53–S59.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 85 of 129

risk and increase improved access, such as shared transportation or pooling resources to buy a vehicle for women farmers. Financial constraints Even in situations where women would like to upgrade their production, harvesting, processing or selling techniques to improve food safety and hygiene, they may not have the capital or resources to do so. While access to finance, credit and growing their businesses is a problem for many male and female smallholder famers, women face even greater barriers due to lack of land and other collateral, higher rates of illiteracy, lower access to information and limited decision-making authority within households. These financial constraints further hinder rural women from adopting technologies or practices that improve food safety and hygiene, further limiting their ability to enter more lucrative food value chains. Contaminated water WHO and UNICEF estimate that in 2017 there are 2.1 billion rural households without access to adequate safe water supply and that 4.5 billion lack “safely managed sanitation facilities76.” Water access is one of the top time and effort consuming activities carried out by women as well as the most significant constraints to household hygiene and food safety. Women also may not follow best protocol when preparing food and use non-boiled or contaminated water in food preparation – further instigating the risk of immediate food borne diseases or longer-term affects of stunting and chronic diarrhea. Children and infants are particularly vulnerable to diarrhea and illnesses from contaminated water when introduced to foods as they are weaned from breast milk and unsafe water and poor sanitation is considered a key cause of childhood mortality. Strategies to reduce this include simple washing stations, education and motivation for food preparers (dominated by women and girls) and emphasis of the benefits of breastfeeding77. Household dynamics within agricultural households Power relations in terms of roles and responsibilities in production, use of technology, resource management, access to markets, and income control, are often gendered within households, communities, and associations and across cultures and countries. Just because a woman may grow/raise an agricultural product, doesn’t mean that she necessarily controls the income derived from sales. This is important for whether and how technologies, practices, and other research output gets applied and used and who benefits from it. Collecting and analyzing data that looks across households and countries could shed light on better understanding what gender transformative changes might be made to improve shared responsibilities and decision-making for food safety and nutrition, agriculture production and income generated from it. By understanding that these dynamics and connections that exist or don’t exist, researchers and technology innovators are in a better position to develop innovations that increase women’s returns to agriculture, improved food safety standards as well as food security and household nutrition. I.8 PRIORITY AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH

1. There has been little research on the intersection between gender and food safety and a lack of data on the full extent and cost of foodborne diseases by gender. Food safety is commonly mentioned within the realm of food security, but insufficient gendered information on the risks and opportunities to lessen exposure and increase opportunities for improved health outcomes exist. There is a need for broader and

76 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17964313 [accessed January 19, 2018] 77 Ibid. [accessed January 19, 2018]

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 86 of 129

more sophisticated incorporation of gender in food safety research including data on specific information within value chains and across geographies. Additional research areas and questions include:

a. Research and innovation is encouraged to pay particular attention to how information is

delivered, small/home storage and processing and what is needed to change behavior patterns for producers, processors, men and women and children within food systems.

b. Are there particular characteristics of technology/practices the Lab should aim for to be more relevant/usable for women/men? Are there technologies/practices that could yield useful progress on women’s empowerment and/or gender equality?

c. How could an improved gendered understanding of both drivers and barriers translate into the uptake of food safety practices and technologies?

d. How does the application of safety practices along food value chains affect gendered differences in health (of themselves and children in households), economic welfare, and women’s economic livelihoods?

2. Gendered differences in risk exposure and mitigation. Attention to the influence of gender on risk

exposure and risk management along the value chain appears to be important for improving food safety and managing health risks in informal markets. It could be beneficial to create a gendered map of risks, opportunities and entry points, along all food value chains and particularly in animal-sourced, dairy, and horticulture value chains.

3. How might food safety standards and gender interact to influence the supply and demand of safe

food? Additional research is needed to highlight if and how gender are linked to use of good practices in food safety standards and certification and to men’s, women’s, girls’ and boys’ consumption of safer foods. Food safety standards and certification can potentially and differentially exclude women and poor people from supplying and consuming safer food due to poor information access; unaffordable storage, processing or management practices; and higher prices for safer foods. How do application of food safety practices/regulations/certification affect women’s/men’s (and their businesses) ability to participate in and profit from food markets as suppliers? What are affordable/accessible and impactful food safety technologies/practices for individuals and MSMEs? What factors need to be in place for the promotion of food safety standards to positively affect local availability and affordability of safe foods? How might research and innovation identify pathways to build more inclusive and affordable systems?

4. Monitoring and Evaluation. Current monitoring and evaluation is not adequate to track changes in

foodborne disease. In many places identification of a food borne illness is by reporting of sickness rather than monitoring or reporting practices and standards. How could research improve external and participatory monitoring and evaluation systems, tools and resources along all food value chains and particularly in animal-sourced, dairy, and horticulture value chains?

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 87 of 129

I.9 RESOURCES Broad Food Safety Resources Type of Information Website FOOD SAFETY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: AN OVERVIEW A learning resource for DFID Livelihoods Advisers

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/68720/EoD_Learning_Resource_Food%20Safety_Oct2015.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

Online Courses in Food Safety

http://secure.onlinelearningconsortium.org/effective_practices/open-content-and-courses-food-safety-resources-developing-countries

Food Safety Knowledge Network

http://foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org/.

Broad Gender Resources Type of Information Website Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index

https://feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/weai_brochure_2012.pdf

Intervention Guide for the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)

Practitioners’ Guide to Selecting and Designing WEAI Interventions, March 2016

https://agrigenderjournal.com/2016/06/27/gender-integration-in-research-so-where-do-we-start/

Gates Foundation Creating Gender- Responsive Agricultural Development Programs, An Orientation Document, Gates Foundation, February 2012; Gates Foundation Gender Checklist http://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/Gender_Checklist.pdf

USAID ● Gender Development Office + Gender Advisors (BFS, Regional)

● Advance Project Design Workshop– Gender Facilitator’s Guide, USAID

● USAID ADS 205: Integrating Gender Equality & Female Empowerment into USAID’s Program Cycle

● USAID Project Design Workshop: Resources for Engendering Project Design in Agriculture

USAID Gender 101 Agrilinks http://agrilinks.org (many places) FAO FAO State of Food & Agriculture 2010-2011 World Bank- Briefing Sheet: Gender and Poverty Reduction

http://www.oired.vt.edu/wgd/Briefing GenderAndPovertyReduction.pdf

Value Chains Type of Information Website Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities in

http://www.culturalpractice.com/resources/promoting-gender-equitable-opportunities-in-agricultural-value-chains-a-handbook/

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 88 of 129

Agricultural Value Chains: A Handbook

Gender Assessment of Dairy Value Chain in Kenya

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320489389

ACDI/VOCA http://www.acdivoca.org/site/ID/ourwork_valuechainspublications Gates Foundation: Improving opportunities for women in small-holder based supply chains GATE Foundation Checklist

https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/documents/gender-value-chain-exec-summary.pdf https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/images/Gender_Checklist.pdf

FAO: Gender and agricultural value chains A review of current knowledge and practice and their policy implications

http://www.fao.org/3/a-am310e.pdf

World Fish Gender Checklist

http://www.worldfishcenter.org/our-research/research-focal-areas/gender-and-equity/tools-sec4

Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities in Agricultural Value Chains: A Handbook

http://www.culturalpractice.com/resources/promoting-gender-equitable-opportunities-in-agricultural-value-chains-a-handbook/

Asian Development Bank: Gender Checklist: Agriculture

http://www.adb.org/publications/gender-checklist-agriculture

World Bank Gender & Agriculture Sourcebook

http://www.genderinag.org/content/gender-agriculture-sourcebook

International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI (many resources)

IFPRI.org

Procurement Resources Type of Information Website Tips for Integrating Gender into USAID Agriculture Sector Solicitations

http://agrilinks.org/glee-2013

ADS 201 – Planning

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/201.pdf

ADS 205 – Gender in the Program Cycle

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/205.pdf

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 89 of 129

I.10 BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR GENDER ANALYSIS Alders, R.G., Bagnol, B., Grace, D., Young, M. and Ogali, I. 2013. Taking gender biases into account to increase

efficiencies in animal and human health surveillance. Paper presented at the Prince Mahidol Award Conference on “A World United Against Infectious Diseases: Cross-Sectoral Solutions”, Bangkok, Thailand, 28 January-2 February 2013.http://hdl.handle.net/10568/33891

Carter NA, Dewey CE; Grace D; Ouma EA; Humphries S, 2017, Men and women farmers' perceptions of

adopting improved diets for pigs in Uganda: decision-making, income-allocation, and intra-household strategies that mitigate relative disadvantage, Agric & Food Security (2017) 6:18 DOI 10.1186/s40066-017-0095-7

Cooper, T.L., Kirino, Y., Alonso, S., Lindahl, J. and Grace, D. 2016. Towards better-informed consent: Research

with livestock-keepers and informal traders in East Africa. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 128: 135–141. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/73663

Dione, M.M., Ochago, R., Ouma, E.A., Lule, P. and Birungi, R. 2016. The gender dimensions of a pig disease:

African swine fever in Uganda. IN: Pyburn, R. and Eerdewijk, A. van. 2016. A different kettle of fish? Gender integration in livestock and fish research. Volendam: LM Publishershttp://hdl.handle.net/10568/78644

Dominguez-Salas, P., Alarcón, P., Häsler, B., Dohoo, I.R., Colverson, K., Kimani-Murage, E.W., Alonso, S.,

Ferguson, E., Fèvre, E.M., Rushton, J. and Grace, D. 2016. Nutritional characterization of low-income households of Nairobi: Socioeconomic, livestock and gender considerations and predictors of malnutrition from a cross-sectional survey. BMC Nutrition 2: 47. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/76488

Dzingirai, V., Bett, B., Bukachi, S., Lawson, E., Mangwanya, L., Scoones, I., Waldman, L., Wilkinson, A., Leach,

M. and Winnebah, T. 2016. Zoonotic diseases: who gets sick, and why? Explorations from Africa. Critical Public Health. doi:10.1080/09581596.2016.1187260 http://hdl.handle.net/10568/75540

Grace, D. 2011. Assessment of risks to human health associated with meat from different value chains in Nigeria: Using the example of the beef value chain. Nigeria Integrated Animal and Human Health Management Project Draft Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Grace, D. 2014. Measuring the size and scope of the cooperative economy. New York: UN DESA. Grace, D. 2015. Food safety in low and middle-income countries. International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health 12(9): 10490–10507. Grace D, Dipeolu M, Olawoye J, Ojo E, Odebode S, Agbaje M, Akindana G and Randolph T. 2012. Evaluating a

group-based intervention to improve the safety of meat in Bodija Market, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44(S1): 61-66. doi 10.1007/s11250-012-0208-z. Available online 07 August 2012

GRACE, D., OLOWOYE, J., DIPEOLU, M., ODEBODE, S. AND RANDOLPH T.F. 2012. THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER AND GROUP membership on food safety: The case of meat sellers in Bodija market, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44 (Suppl 1): S53–S59.

Grace D., Randolph T., Olawoye J., Dipelou M., Kang’ethe E. (2008). Participatory risk assessment: a new approach for safer food in vulnerable African communities. Development in Practice, Volume 18, Issue 4 & 611 – 618.

Grace, D., Roesel, K., Kang'ethe, E., Bonfoh, B. and Theis, S. 2015. Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1489. Washington, DC: IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute)

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 90 of 129

Grace, D., Roesel, K. and Lore, T. 2014. Poverty and gender aspects of food safety and informal markets in sub-Saharan Africa. ILRI Research Brief 21. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI

Grace, D., Unnevehr, L. 2013. The role of risk assessment in guiding aflatoxin policy. In: Laurian Unnevehr and Delia Grace (Ed.), 2020 Focus “Aflatoxins: finding solutions for improved food safety” (Focus 20, Brief 19). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Grace, D., White Paper, Food safety in developing countries: research gaps and opportunities, ILRI V. 22 March 2017.

Holt, H.R., Inthavong, P., Boualam, K., Blaszak, K., Keokamphe, C., Somoulay, V., Phongmany, A., Durr, P.A., Graham, K., Allen, J., Donnelly, B., Blacksell, S.D., Unger, F., Grace, D., Alonso, S. and Gilbert, J. 2016. Endemicity of zoonotic diseases in pigs and humans in lowland and upland Lao PDR: Identification of socio-cultural risk factors. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 10(4): e0003913. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/72967

ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2010. Demand for pork by Vietnamese consumers: Implications for pro-poor livestock policy and development agenda in Vietnam. Project brief 1. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. (Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10568/2465)

Jabbar, M.A., Baker, D. and Fadiga, M.L. (eds). (2010). Demand for livestock products in developing countries with a focus on quality and safety attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa. ILRI Research Report 24. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Jumba, H., Teufel, N., Kiara, H. and Baltenweck, I. 2016. The use of the Infection and Treatment Method vaccine in controlling East Coast Fever in Kenya: Does gender matter for adoption and impact? ILRI Research Brief 71. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/78655

Kiama, T.N., Lindahl, J.F., Sirma, A.J., Senerwa, D.M., Waithanji, E.M., Ochungo, P.A., Poole, E.J., Kang'ethe, E.K. and Grace, D. 2016. Farmer perception of moulds and mycotoxins within the Kenya dairy value chain: A gendered analysis. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 16(3): 11106–11125. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/76495.

Kimani VN, Mitoko G, McDermott B, Grace D, Ambia J, Kiragu MW, Njehu AN, Sinja J, Monda JG and

Kang'ethe EK. 2012. Social and gender determinants of risk of cryptosporidiosis, an emerging zoonosis, in Dagoretti, Nairobi, Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44(S1): 17-23. doi 10.1007/s11250-012-0203-4. Available online 05August 2012.

Krishna, A. 2007. For reducing poverty faster: Target reasons before people. World Development 35(11): 1947–1960. Kristjanson, P., A Waters-Bayer, N Johnson, A Tipilda, J Njuki, I Baltenweck, D Grace, S MacMillan, Livestock

and Women’s Livelihoods: A Review of the Recent Evidence, 2014 In: Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap. Eds A Quisumbing et al., Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

Kumar, A. and Parappurathu, S. and Jee, S. 2013. Do dairy co-operatives enhance milk production, productivity and quality? Evidences from the Indo-Gangetic Plain of India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(3): 457–468.

Kumi, J., Mitchell, N.J., Asare, G.A., Dotse, E., Kwaa, F., Phillips, T.D. and Ankrah, N.-A. 2014. Aflatoxins and fumonisins contamination of home-made food (Weanimix) from cereal-legume blends for children. Ghana Medical Journal 48(3): 121–126.

Leroy, J.L. 2013. Child stunting and aflatoxins. In: Unnevehr, L. and Grace, D. (eds), Aflatoxins: Finding solutions for improved food safety. 2020 Vision Focus 20(4). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 91 of 129

Lynch, M.F., Tauxe, R.V. and Hedberg, C.W. 2009. The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology & Infection 137(3): 307–315. doi:10.1017/S0950268808001969.

Nguyen-Viet, H., Tuyet-Hanh, T.T., Unger, F., Dang-Xuan S. and Grace, D. 2017. Food safety in Vietnam: where we are at and what we can learn from international experiences. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 6: 39.

Oboge, H. 2016. Socio-economics and perceptions of Q-fever infection in a pastoralist system of Kajiado County. MSc thesis. Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/77266 [ILRI supervisor: Silvia Alonso]

Roesel, K. and Grace, D. 2014. Food safety and informal markets: Animal products in sub-Saharan Africa. London, UK: Routledge.

Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa, P., Williams, P.M., Neef, A., Riwthong, S., Sangchan, W. and Grovermann, C. 2012. Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand. Agriculture and Human Values 29(4): 519–529.

Sueli Cusato, Paula Tavolaro, and Carlos Augusto Fernandes de Oliveira Implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points System in the Food Industry: Impact on Safety and the Environment, pp. 21-26, no date.

Unnevehr, L. and Ronchi, L. 2014. Food safety and developing markets: Research findings and research gaps. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1376. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Waithanji, E., Muindi, P. and Mtimet, N. 2014. Gender matters: Willingness to pay for the contagious bovine pleuropneumonia vaccine in northern Kenya. Poster prepared for the ILRI 40 Years Event, Nairobi, 1 October 2014. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. http://hdl.handle.net/10568/56824

Waithanji, E. and Grace, D. 2014. Tools and concepts for mainstreaming gender in aflatoxin research at the International Livestock Research Institute. ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.: http://hdl.handle.net/10568/35611

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 92 of 129

ANNEX II - White paper This paper was developed by Dr. Delia Grace/ILRI with support from USAID/BFS/office of Agriculture Research and Policy

Food safety in developing countries: research gaps and opportunities Contents Acknowledgements 93 Acronyms and abbreviations 94 1. What makes food safety an important issue for development? 95

1.1. What are foodborne diseases? 95 1.2. Why does foodborne disease matter to developing countries? 89 1.3. Broader implications of food safety for development outcomes 92

2. Food safety challenges in developing countries 95 2.1. Health burden of foodborne disease 95 2.2. Main causes of foodborne disease 96 2.3. Major foods implicated 97 2.4. Problems along the value chain: inputs, production, processing, retail, household 99 2.5. Trends, regional patterns, hot spots 101

3. Managing food safety challenges in developing countries 102 3.1. Overview 102 3.2. Food safety initiatives 102

4. Feed the Future Innovation Labs feedback: Comments from a food safety perspective 106 References Error! Bookmark not defined. Tables Table 1: Examples of recent hazard surveys of marketed food in developing countries 95 Table 2: Hazards encountered along the ‘farm to fork’ pathway 100 Table 3: Feed the Future Innovation Labs 111 Figures Figure 1: Foodborne disease burden by cause and region. 96 Figure 2: Attribution of foodborne disease to different types of food. 103

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 93 of 129

Acknowledgements This paper was funded through a consultancy with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Food Security to support Feed the Future. Co-funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is also acknowledged. The author would like to thank Ahmed Kablan, John Bowman, John McDermott and Johanna Lindahl for their helpful reviews. The information and insights from Innovation Labs are gratefully acknowledged.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 94 of 129

Acronyms and abbreviations

ASF Animal-source food DALY Disability Adjusted Life Year EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FBD Foodborne disease(s) FSNAU Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit GAP Good Agricultural Practice GMP Good Manufacturing Practice HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points HIC High-income countries HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IHME Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation IL Innovation Lab ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IOM Institute of Medicine IPM Integrated Pest Management IS International standards LMIC Low- and middle-income countries LSIL Livestock Systems Innovation Lab ppb parts per billion USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States dollars WHO World Health Organization

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 95 of 129

1. WHAT MAKES FOOD SAFETY AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR DEVELOPMENT? 1.1. What are foodborne diseases? Foodborne diseases (FBD) are illnesses caused by contaminated, or naturally harmful, food or beverages. A food safety hazard is anything in food that can harm consumers’ health. There are three major types of hazards:

● Biological hazards are living organisms (including viruses, bacteria, protozoa, moulds and parasites), which have the ability to infect people or produce toxins injurious to health.

● Chemical hazards can be artificial chemicals produced by industry or natural chemicals (for example, those produced by heating food or toxic metals), which are injurious to health.

o Mycotoxins (chemical compounds produced by moulds) and phycotoxins (chemical compounds produced by algae and accumulated in sea foods) are considered biological hazards by some and chemical hazards by others.

● Physical hazards include stones and fragments of metal or glass as well as sub-microscopic nanomaterials and radionuclides.

The health impacts of FBD can be measured in different ways, including annual cases of sickness and death. There is also a standard metric for measuring disease burden: the Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY). One DALY is the equivalent of one lost year of healthy life. Measuring health impact in DALYs helps comparisons between dissimilar diseases and aids in prioritization. 1.2. Why does foodborne disease matter to developing countries? Historically, FBD has not been considered a development priority. Assessing FBD in developing countries is not easy because many infectious diseases never receive a definitive diagnosis, that is, one which identifies the pathogen responsible. Even if a diagnosis is given, it may be difficult to know if the source was food, water, other people, animals or the environment. Moreover, there is a perception that FBD is a minor inconvenience and that it is largely unavoidable. There is also a perception that FBD is a minor inconvenience and that it is largely unavoidable. However, research and practice shows that food safety exerts a considerable health burden, yet is amenable to solutions. Several developed countries have developed methods that allow assessment of the health burden FBD. These studies found that FBD was common (affecting around one in 3 to one in 6 people a year) and resulted in a high burden of disease (Gkogka et al., 2011; Kirk et al., 2014; Mangen et al., 2015; Scallan et al., 2011; Tam et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2013). Moreover, the well-known gastrointestinal symptoms of FBD (vomiting and diarrhea) were responsible for only about half the total health burden. An equally high, but less visible burden came from rare but serious effects such as septicemia, paralysis, stillbirth, and meningitis. Moreover, FBD have other implications for development: direct effects include economic losses, trade impacts, market access and more complicated effects on nutrition and equity. The impacts are summarized in the next paragraphs. Known health burden: Only recently has systematic and comprehensive evidence on the health burden of FBD in developing countries started to become available. The landmark first assessment of the global burden of FBD, conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO), considering 31 hazards for which there was enough information to allow global burden estimates, was published in 2015 (Havelaar et al. 2015). This shows that FBD has a health burden comparable to malaria, HIV/AIDS or tuberculosis. Most (98%) falls on developing countries and 40% on children less than five years of age. The global burden of FBD caused by the 31 known hazards considered in 2010 was 33 million DALYs: children under five years bore 40% of this burden.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 96 of 129

The WHO analysis was based on modelling and expert attribution of the role of food in disease. In developed countries there are also studies based more on clinical data, and these generally suggest higher levels than estimates in the WHO report. There have been few studies on foodborne diarrhoea in developing countries, with most coming from Southeast Asia and relying on the opinion of victims to determine if disease is foodborne: these also suggest higher levels of FBD (Bureau of Epidemiology 2004; Hoi et al. 2009).

Key research gaps: ● Data on FBD at country level which would allow evidence-based prioritization of FBD. ● Diagnostic and reporting systems that would allow more accurate assessments of FBD,

including FBD in the community. ● Ways to raise awareness of the importance of FBD through more effective risk

communication. Unknown health burden: The WHO study reported global burden for only 31 hazards, which were relatively well characterized globally. Many hazards considered among the top causes of FBD (for example, Staphylococcus aureus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus) were not included. Moreover, there are several hazards for which there is much concern, and evidence suggestive of an associated health burden, but so far insufficient data to be certain of the health effects or their magnitude. For example, aflatoxins may contribute to stunting and certain pesticides may contribute to cancers in ways that are not fully understood.

Key research gaps: ● Evidence on health burden caused by hazards known to be important but not included in the

WHO study. ● Evidence on hazards of high concern whose effects are not fully know ● Methods to assess the costs and benefits of addressing or failing to address these ‘known

unknown’ hazards in advance of definitive evidence about their impact Economic costs: These can be divided into: (a) the harm caused by the disease (e.g. lost productivity from illness); (b) the cost of response (treatment, food recalls) and (c) the cost of prevention (food safety governance; risk-reducing practices). Alternatively, costs may be allocated to different actors (consumers, healthcare, agro-food industry and government) (McLinden et al. 2014). Zoonotic diseases often exert additional burdens on the livestock sector. Economic studies use different methodologies, but the cost of FBD is high: for example, it is estimated to cost the United States of America from 15–80 billion United States dollars (USD) a year (Scharff 2012; Hoffmann et al. 2015). There are few studies from developing countries: one study from Nigeria estimated that costs were around USD 2 million a year (Grace 2011). In developing countries, high healthcare costs are often one of the most important reasons for households’ descents into poverty (Krishna 2007).

Key research gaps: ● Food safety works in developing countries often cite the lack of information on the cost of

FBD a major reason for lack of engagement by national policymakers. Country-level data on the cost of FBD is important and should ideally be integrated with assessments of health burden.

● Standardized methods for assessing economic costs of FBD in developing countries would be helpful as use of different methods leads to wide variation in estimates.

Market access and trade: International trade studies have found evidence that the fixed costs of meeting international trade standards tend to favour established exporters and lead to a greater reduction in developing-country exports relative to those in developed countries (Unnevehr and Ronchi 2014). FBD can also lead to rejections and even lost markets; for example, in 2005, malachite green was found in Chinese eels, resulting in export losses of at least USD 860 million (Ellis and Turner 2008). There is also concern that poor producers and value chain actors will be displaced from rapidly growing export and domestic markets, because of inability to meet standards. This has already occurred in export markets where smaller farmers tend to drop out, as they lack the human and financial capital needed to participate in highly demanding markets. For example, in the 2000s

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 97 of 129

both Kenya and Uganda saw major declines (60% and 40%, respectively) in small-scale farmers participating in export of fruit and vegetables to Europe under Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalGAP) (Graffham et al. 2007). The implications of trade liberalization on food safety are both positive and negative. Increased food trade may introduce new safety hazards, revive previously controlled risks, and widely spread contaminated food (Hawkes et al., 2015). The increased complexity of the food supply makes the source of food safety risks more difficult to trace (Ercsey-Ravasz et al. 2012). Yet for low-income countries, most imported food can be reliably considered of higher sanitary quality than food in the domestic markets (Hawkes et al. 2015).

Key research gaps: ● Food safety and trade have been relatively well researched. More effort is needed on ways to

maintain and improve developing countries’ and small-scale farmers’ access to opportunities offered by international trade and the livestock revolution.

● Value chain development has been a major intervention but projects have often not integrated food safety.

Shocks caused by food scares: FBD outbreaks often receive huge media attention and cause large declines in purchase of associated food (although this tends to return to pre-scare levels weeks or months later). For example, when pig diseases were initially reported by the media in Vietnam, the majority of consumers stopped eating pork, shifted to chicken, or went to outlets that were perceived to be safer (ILRI 2010). Food safety scares and the government responses to them (such as occurred during the avian influenza outbreak, the Rift Valley fever outbreak and melamine contamination incidents) have been shown to adversely affect the livelihoods of small farmers (2 billion in developing countries) and pastoralists (50–200 million) (ILRI 2007; Kavle et al. 2015).

Key research gaps: ● Food scares are under-researched. Timely evidence is needed on the actual extent and impact

of FBD outbreaks and research is needed into effective risk communication to mitigate adverse impacts of food scares.

Amenability to solutions: Chapter 3 summarizes evidence on managing FBD in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). While FBD remains a concern in high-income countries (HIC), and progress in tackling FBD appears to be less good compared to other infectious diseases (Grace 2015), there have been dramatic declines in FBD over the last two centuries (Cutler et al. 2006) and HIC are responsible for just 2% of the global burden of FBD (Havelaar et al. 2015). FBD is hence a solvable problem. Moreover, while some of the interventions that reduce FBD have high initial and recurrent costs (e.g. investment in infrastructure), other interventions are relatively low cost (e.g. treatment of water at point of use).

Key research gaps: ● There is little information on the costs and cost-effectiveness of different options for reducing

FBD. This information, which has been developed for other diseases such as malaria, would be a useful guide for policymakers and investors.

● There are few randomised controlled trials on food safety interventions, yet these provide the highest standard of evidence.

1.3. Broader implications of food safety for development outcomes From the above summary, it can be seen that FBD has potentially important effects on poverty and equity; FBD also has implications for development issues, especially nutrition and gender. FBD and nutrition: Stunting, or extreme shortness (very low height-for-age), is the result of a combination of long-term (chronic) poor dietary intake in terms of quality as well as quantity of food and repeated infectious disease episodes. Both wasting (extreme thinness, or low weight-for-age) and stunting are associated with

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 98 of 129

increased mortality as well as poor health and longer-term development outcomes. FBD and hazards may contribute to both wasting and stunting through additional pathways, for example: ● Diarrhoea is associated with malnutrition but a causal link is hard to demonstrate; a 9-country study found

that 25% of stunting could be attributed to experiencing more than four episodes of diarrhoea before the age of 24 months (Checkley et al. 2008). Studies find a strong peak in diarrhoea after the introduction of supplementary foods, and find that weaning foods often have high levels of microbial contamination and adulteration (Kumi et al. 2014).

● Aflatoxins may directly contribute to stunting, and there are demonstrated associations between higher toxin levels and poorer growth in several contexts, although a causal relation, while plausible, is as yet unproven (Leroy 2013).

● Ingestion of animal fecal material through food or from the environment may contribute to environmental enteric dysfunction78 (George et al. 2015)

Box 1. Why nutritionists need to consider food safety: a thought experiment

Many nutritionists favor food-based approaches to improving nutrition. Animal-source food (ASF) and fresh produce are among the most highly nutritious foods. However, these foods are responsible for most FBD, so if their consumption increased (doubled or tripled) without accompanying action to improve safety then the burden of FBD would be likely to increase too. Currently, FBD accounts for at least 33 million DALYs79 and causes 420,000 deaths annually (Havelaar et al. 2015) while malnutrition accounts for 85 million DALYs and is the direct cause of 300,000 deaths (IHME 2012). Thus, promoting ASF and produce for nutrition reasons without addressing food safety would result in net worsening of health.

At the same time, there are potential trade-offs between food safety and availability. In most developing countries, informal traditional markets are the major source of the risky, fresh foods that are also among the most nutritious foods (e.g. eggs, green leafy vegetables and fish) (Grace 2015). Measures intended to improve the safety of food may have the unintended consequence of reducing its availability or the access of people to nutritious food. For example, in Kenya, pasteurized milk costs double the price of raw milk, putting it out of the reach of many poor families.

Key research gaps: ● There is a lack of understanding of which FBD agents are most important in terms of

nutrition. ● There is a lack of metrics for understanding trade-offs between food safety and nutrition. ● More evidence is needed on contamination of supplementary foods, the nature and origin of

the pathogens involved and the fractional contribution to health outcomes arising from contamination outside and inside the household.

● Links between livestock keeping, gut microbiomes, diarrhoeal disease and health and nutrition outcomes are complex but poorly understood.

FBD and gender: There has been little research on the intersection between gender and food safety, but FBD can have important implications for women’s resilience and vulnerability. ● Firstly, food safety has direct implications for women’s health. Pregnant and lactating women are especially

vulnerable to FBD because of their modulated immune system. In addition, some FBD cause foetal abnormalities, abortion and stillbirths and some chemical hazards can be transmitted to the newborn through breast milk.

78 An incompletely defined syndrome of inflammation, reduced absorption and barrier function of the small intestine. 79 Health burdens are often measured in Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) to facilitate comparison and prioritisation (one DALY can be seen as one lost year of healthy life).

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 99 of 129

● Secondly, culture affects the relative consumption of risky foods by men and women. In Nigeria and Somalia, women consumed more low-value offal and men more high-value muscle meat (FSNAU 2010; Grace et al. 2012). Offal consumption has been found to be a risk factor for diarrhoea (Stafford et al. 2008; Grace et al. 2012). In Africa, men have more access to meat because they predominate in bars that serve meat and alcohol (Roesel and Grace 2014). Food eaten in these places has increased risk of FBD. A similar pattern is seen with fish-borne disease in China, Vietnam and Korea. Men have more frequent eating opportunities at restaurants than women and have a significantly higher rate of fish-borne fluke (Han et al. 2013).

● Thirdly, food safety has implications for women’s livelihoods. Women have an important (even dominant) role in many traditional food value chains but as chains modernize, partly driven by food safety concerns, women may be excluded (Grace et al. 2015).

● Lastly, women are risk managers in the realms of food consumption, preparation, processing, selling and, to a lesser extent, production. However, they are often disadvantaged by less access to support and services such as education and extension. Because of these links, gender analysis is important in assessing and designing interventions to improve food environments by enhancing food safety. Key research gap:

● Most research has focused on descriptive analyses of different roles of men and women. More research is needed into designing interventions that are gender-sensitive.

● Leveraging women’s higher concern over food safety, possibly better food handling behaviour as well as their role as primary risk managers in households and important risk managers along the value chain, and into opportunities for women.

Other food issues may or may not have health implications.

● Food adulteration and food fraud is common in developing countries, especially for high-value foods. It may have health impacts if the adulterant is harmful (e.g. addition of melamine to milk) or if adulteration lowers the nutritional quality of food (e.g. addition of water to milk).

● Food spoilage is caused by microbes but these are mostly different from the microbes causing FBD. However, good hygienic practices can reduce both types of microbes.

● Antimicrobial residues very rarely cause adverse reactions in people consuming ASF. A more important human health impact is if the use of antimicrobials in agriculture leads or contributes to resistance in pathogens, which infect people.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 100 of 129

2. FOOD SAFETY CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 2.1. Health burden of foodborne disease There is substantial information on the presence of hazards in foods in developing countries. In general, all studies that look for hazards find them, and often a large proportion or even majority of the marketed food is above safety standards (Table 1). Table 1: Examples of recent hazard surveys of marketed food in developing countries

Country Commodity Hazard Proportion of unsafe food Reference Ethiopia Vegetables Heavy metals Average lead concentration >

limits Eliku and Leta (2016)

Ghana Vegetables Faecal bacteria 100% > limits Abass et al. (2016) Chile Leafy

vegetables Pesticides 27% > limits Elgueta et al. (2017)

Ethiopia Milk Aflatoxins 92% > EU standards Gizachew et al. (2016)

Côte d’Ivoire

Milk Specific microbes

30% > IS Kouamé-Sina et al. (2012)

India Milk Coliforms 100% > India standards India Pork Enterobacteriac

eae 89% > IS Fahrion et al. (2014)

Nigeria Beef Total aerobic count

98% > IS Grace et al. (2012)

Kenya Maize Aflatoxins 51% > Kenyan limit (20 ppb) in outbreak year; 16% in normal year

Daniel et al. (2011)

Ghana Weaning food Aflatoxins 83% > Ghana limit (20 ppb) Kumi et al. (2014) EU: European Union; IS: International standards; ppb: parts per billion However, there is much less empirical information on the burden of FBD. There are five main sources of evidence for this:got 1. Official reports: These tend to significantly under-estimate the burden of FBD; in many countries there is no

requirement to report FBD. Even if there is a requirement, the reporting system may not be adequate, resulting in massive under-reporting. For example, in Gansu in China, there were an estimated 30 million cases of acute gastrointestinal disease but only 400 cases reported to the official system (Sang et al. 2014), and in Malaysia, estimates suggest less than 0.1% of cases are officially reported (Gurpreet et al. 2011).

2. Community surveys of self-reported illness and cause: Only a few surveys have been carried out in developing countries. The studies that exist find acute gastrointestinal disease is common (around one in two people a year or 50% of people report being affected, with much higher rates in some vulnerable populations) and around one-third of cases (12–55%) have been attributed to food (Bureau of Epidemiology 2004; Ho et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2013; Sang et al. 2014). However, self-reporting can be a reasonably good way to estimate occurrence of illness, but people are not good at attributing the source.

3. Surveys of FBD using symptoms or diagnostic tests: Some FBD can be diagnosed through characteristic symptoms in conjunction with diagnostic tests. These include many diseases caused by macro-parasites such as fish fluke or epilepsy caused by pig tapeworm. Reviews of hospital and community surveys often suggest relatively high levels of FBD (Torgerson et al. 2006; Bruno et al. 2013).

4. Risk assessments: This is a method for predicting the level of FBD based on the level of hazards in food consumed, the quantity consumed and the susceptibility of the population. There are a limited number of

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 101 of 129

microbial and chemical risk assessments from developing countries and many are not quantitative but most indicate a high level of FBD, for example, around 13% of people suffer from pork-borne salmonellosis each year in Vietnam (Dang-Xuan et al. 2016) and around 1% of children are exposed to zoonotic Cryptosporidium in Nairobi (Grace et al. 2012).

5. Health burden assessments: Some FBD have been included in Global Burden of Disease Assessments produced by WHO and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. These indicate high burdens for the included diseases. The recent WHO report on the global burden of FBD is the most definitive burden study. It found that 31 FBD agents (biological and chemical hazards) accounted for around 420,000 deaths in developing countries, imposing a burden of around 33 million DALYs each year. Moreover, this estimate is likely to be conservative. Key research gap:

● There is very little comprehensive, empirical evidence on FBD health burden in developing countries as most is derived from single studies or extrapolations; this country-specific information is needed to motivate engagement and investment by national stakeholders.

2.2. Main causes of foodborne disease The WHO report considered FBD caused by biological and chemical hazards (Havelaar et al. 2015). They found: ● Microbial pathogens are responsible for the great majority (79%) of the FBD burden (Figure 1). The most

important pathogens are Salmonella spp., toxigenic Escherichia coli, Norovirus and Campylobacter, in that order.

● Foodborne macro-parasites are important causes of disease. The most important are the tapeworms responsible for cysticercosis, fish-associated fluke (common in Southeast Asia) and roundworms, which are sometimes foodborne and are widespread in poor countries.

● Chemicals are responsible for 3% of the overall assessed FBD burden. Aflatoxins, which are fungal toxins that contaminate mainly staple crops and dairy products in tropical and sub-tropical developing countries, are also associated with stunting in children, but the relation has not been established as causal (Leroy 2013). Other assessed chemicals were dioxins and cyanide in cassava.

Figure 1: Foodborne disease burden by cause and region.

Other known, but less important, causes of foodborne or food-associated disease are listed below: ● Allergens are proteins that can produce adverse immune responses in sensitive people; they can lead to acute,

severe reactions or even symptoms similar to malnutrition and food allergies and underweight are associated

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 102 of 129

(Boye 2012). They appear to be much less common developing countries than in rich countries (Boye 2012). Milk, eggs, aquatic products, groundnuts, and meat are often a source for food allergens (Lee et al. 2013; Kung et al. 2014). Food allergies peak in the first two years of life, then diminish as tolerance develops (Grey and Levin 2014).

● Food intolerances are non-immunological adverse reactions to food as the result of pharmacological effects, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity or enzyme/transport defects. Lactose intolerance is common in developing countries, but rare before 4–5 years of age (Vandenplas 2015).

● Anti-nutrients (e.g. phytates and tannins) are naturally occurring substances that diminish or inhibit the utilization of nutrients. They are ubiquitous in plant-derived foods but may also be present in ASF (e.g. avidin in raw egg white). Key research gaps:

• Although causes of FBD are relatively well understood for rich countries, this is not the case for developing countries. Identification of the main causes is needed for rational investment in mitigation.

• It is often more difficult to assess the health impacts of chemicals, which, combined with the high level of consumer and policymaker concern, warrants more research in this area.

• There is also a marked discrepancy between the causes of FBD which food safety experts think are most important and those which consumers and often policymakers think are most important. Research into risk communication is warranted.

• Food allergies are one of the most important food safety issues in rich countries. It is thought they are less common in poor countries but possibly increasing. More research is needed in this area, especially as consumption of ASF increases.

2.3. Major foods implicated There is very little information on the foods most responsible for FBD in developing countries. In developed countries, most FBD results from consuming ASF (i.e. livestock products and food derived from aquatic animals) and contaminated produce (i.e. fresh fruits and vegetables). In developing countries, less ASF and produce are consumed, but the fresh food consumed is often contaminated. The data on reported FBD by food source from developing countries show a similar pattern to developed countries (Figure 2). Meat consumption is a strong predictor of FBD mortality. In a cross-country study, for every additional metric ton of meat consumed per 100 people, FBD mortality increased by 6% (Hanson et al. 2012). Figure 2: Attribution of foodborne disease to different types of food – studies from different countries.

Source: Grace (2015) adapted

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 103 of 129

Food consumption is determined by culture, religion, values and beliefs. These often affect consumption of the most risky foods which are often also the most nutritious and most societally valued. For example, in Ethiopia, raw meat is consumed; in Kampala, people were found to consume raw eggs in the belief it would cure illness; pastoralists in West Africa believed raw milk could not cause illness; and widespread consumption of raw, undercooked blood and raw fish in Southeast Asia leads to several zoonoses (Nasinyama et al. 2010; Carrique-Mas and Bryant 2013; Roesel and Grace 2014; Seleshe et al. 2014). In HIC, the proportion of outbreaks attributed to fresh produce has been increasing in recent years (Lynch et al. 2009). Although there is less information from developing countries, similar trends are to be expected as drivers are similar, including: greater consumption of fresh produce; intensification increasing some risk factors; lengthening and increasing complexity of value chains; globalization; greater recognition of diseases linked to fresh produce; emergence of new diseases; increasing tendency to eat fresh produce without cooking; and the limited effect of washing in removing pathogens (Burnett and Beuchat 2001). Use of raw manure, sewage and contaminated water for irrigation and washing, and excessive use of pesticides are especially problematic in developing countries. On the other hand, major chemical hazards which are well managed in HIC are still problematic in developing countries, making a direct extrapolation from HIC difficult. For example, most aflatoxin exposure results from consumption of maize, groundnuts and sorghum. In HIC, the burden from aflatoxins is negligible but in many developing countries it is a priority public health problem, and if the relation with stunting is proven, then the impact will be even higher. Similarly, in developing countries, there is no credible, comprehensive, quantified evidence on the impact of agricultural chemicals in food on human health (Käferstein 1997; Prüss-Ustün et al. 2011), but there is solid evidence that some health impacts occur, and suspicion that these could be substantial.

Research gap: ● Although causes of FBD are relatively well understood for rich countries, this is not the case

for developing countries. There is also a marked discrepancy between the causes which food safety experts think are most important and the causes which consumers and often policymakers think are most important. Understanding the attribution of FBD is key to a rational approach to risk management.

2.4. Problems along the value chain: inputs, production, processing, retail, household It is essential that food safety be addressed from production to consumption. This comprehensive and integrated approach is known as ‘farm to fork’ or ‘stable to table’ or ‘boat to throat’; it implies the responsibility of providing safe food to the consumer is shared by all stakeholders along the chain. Ideally, the food is traceable, meaning that food items in the consumer kitchen can be traced all the way back to farm of origin. Different hazards can be introduced at different points of the ‘farm to fork’ value chain and monitoring and control should take place at multiple points (Table 2). Some hazards can best or only be controlled at the pre-harvest stage, for example, antimicrobial residues in ASF. For other hazards, actions may be needed at multiple stages. In HIC, progress over the past decades in reducing the risk of FBD has largely resulted from improving post-slaughter or post-harvest practices (IOM 2012). However, in developing countries where there has been less success in improving food safety, it makes sense to tackle as many points as possible and rigorously evaluate where interventions are most effective.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 104 of 129

Table 2: Hazards encountered along the ‘farm to fork’ pathway Stage of pathway Source of contamination Hazards Production Soil Sewage effluents; animal manure; soil-associated microbial

pathogens (Listeria spp., Clostridium spp.); heavy metals; industrial chemicals

Fresh water Microbial contaminants; parasite eggs; heavy metals; industrial chemicals

Salt water Marine toxins Bacteria: Vibrio spp.

Fertilizer and soil amendments Pellet manure and fish emulsion can contain biological hazards; inorganic fertilizers may contain hazardous chemicals; biosolids may contain heavy metals

Agricultural chemicals Pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, rodenticides; antimicrobials; illegal growth promoters; disinfectants; fertilizers

Fodder and roughage Dioxins; mycotoxins; microbial pathogens (Listeria, Neospora, Clostridium botulinum, Salmonella)

Animal feeds Microbes; mycotoxins; metals; processing aids; anti-nutrients; veterinary drugs; persistent organic pollutants; plant toxicants (alkaloids)

Agricultural workers Faeces-associated pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., E. coli O157:H7 and others) Pathogenic parasites (Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora) Pathogenic viruses (hepatitis, enterovirus)

Plant Natural toxins: lectins; cyanogenic glycosides; oxalates; trypsin inhibitors

Livestock Microbes: Salmonella, Campylobacter, toxigenic E. coli and others Parasites: pork tapeworm; beef tapeworm; Trichinella Commensals Drugs: antimicrobials; hormones

Aquatic animals Pathogens: Vibrio spp. Commensals: Clostridium Parasites: trematodes, nematodes Contaminants: Erysipelothrix, Listeria Spoilage: histamine

Harvest Plant harvesting Physical hazards: stones, wood splinters Machine lubricants and cleaning materials

Slaughter Contamination of meat with gut contents is common; animal skin is another source of contamination; workers; water source; cleaning chemicals

Aquatic capture Infected workers Processing Infected food handler Infected workers Adulteration with harmful

substances Unauthorized dyes; melamine; formaldehyde (as preservative)

Processing conditions Acrylamide Packaging Packaging migrants; unfavourable conditions leading to

microbial growth Peri-domestic pests Flies, rodents, birds Retail Infected handlers Infected workers

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 105 of 129

Fomites Equipment, surfaces, clothes Peri-domestic pests Flies, rodents, birds Home Inappropriate storage Temperature, non-food grade containers Cross-contamination From fresh food, water, handlers, fomites Insufficient heating

2.5. Trends, regional patterns, hot spots There is no accurate reporting of FBD in developing countries and it is therefore difficult to monitor trends. However, in regions with good reporting such as North America and Europe, there has been no overall marked decline in FBD (although there have been successes in some places in control of specific pathogens) (Grace 2015). It is argued that the investments in food safety over the last 20 years have had limited impact, not because the strategies are ineffective, but because of other factors such as globalization, changes in eating habits and changes in farming practice increasing risk. Given the strong association between agricultural intensification and increase in FBD, it is likely that there will be sharp rises in FBD especially in those areas and countries where intensification is most rapid and least governed. The recent WHO study revealed that Africa has the highest burden of FBD per capita but Asia has the highest overall burden (Havelaar et al. 2015).

Key research gaps: ● The WHO study was a major advance in understanding the burden of FBD. Further research

is needed to estimate the burden at country level and for specific food commodities. ● The burden from chemicals needs further elucidation, as does the burden of probably

important microbes not included in the WHO study. 3. MANAGING FOOD SAFETY CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 3.1. Overview The limited literature on domestic food safety regulation in developing countries shows that we do not yet have good models for standards and approaches that can work at scale to assure food safety where risks are pervasive, costs of compliance are high and enforcement capacity is weak (Grace and Unnevehr 2013). Given the very different farming systems and regulatory environments, the approaches used successfully in Europe cannot be directly applied to developing countries. A number of food safety interventions have been tried and evaluated with little evidence for benefit or sustainability. Nonetheless, other initiatives show promise, and a smaller number have been able to demonstrate sustained and scalable benefits. There are four major lines of defence against FBD:

● Improving the safety of inputs; ● Improving the chemical and microbiological safety of raw foodstuffs; ● Using food processing technologies that mitigate risk (pasteurization and irradiation) and prevent

contamination; ● Behaviour change aimed at food handlers, including home-based food handlers.

3.2. Food safety initiatives In developing countries, there have been several attempts to improve food safety. In some cases, the primary goal is to improve food safety (e.g. upgrading abattoirs) while in others, food safety is one of many goals and sometimes not the most important (e.g. integrated pest management [IPM] or organic farming). Where food safety is one of many objectives, it is often assumed to result from other activities rather than actively planned and implemented, and as a result there is little evidence on food safety outcomes.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 106 of 129

There is a consensus that food safety is best managed by a ‘farm to fork’ or ‘boat to throat’ approach that tackles food safety along the value chain. There should also be multiple barriers (or redundancy) in the system so that if one barrier to contamination fails there are other opportunities to block contamination or decontaminate. Farm level ● Producer organizations: Organizing farmers in groups can improve bargaining power, reduce costs and make

services, such as marketing, accessible; however, they have intrinsic challenges (including free-rider, horizon, portfolio, control and influence cost problems [Ortmann and King 2007]). Globally, about 10% of cooperatives are food related and 13% of Asians and 3% of Africans are reported to be members of cooperatives (Grace 2014). There is some evidence that cooperatives improve food safety practices (Kumar et al. 2013) and market access, but little evidence that food safety outcomes are improved. More flexible arrangements, such as self-help groups or dairy hubs, may also be effective and have potential for addressing food safety.

● Farmer field schools: Around 12 million farmers in over 90 countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America have been trained in Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) with an emphasis on IPM. A recent evaluation suggested that farmers in schemes benefited but there was little diffusion or sustainability beyond the project. While yields and profits appear to have increased, there is little evidence of health benefits, partly because these were often not monitored or evaluated (Waddington and White 2014).

● Contract farming or outgrower schemes: These operate under an agreement for the farmer to produce a product in a given manner and the buyer to purchase it. Contract farming can facilitate access to inputs and innovation and reduce risk but often excludes the poorest farmers and there are concerns over power differentials leading to farmer exploitation (FAO 2006; Smalley 2013). Quality control is always part of the contract, but it may be more or less strict; several case studies show smallholders have achieved quality standards but there is little information on health outcomes (Minten et al. 2009).

● GAP: Smallholders can successfully meet export GAP standards if there are efforts made to include them (Unnevehr and Ronchi 2014). However, domestic GAP seems less successful both in terms of adoption and evidence of improved safety (Schreinemachers et al. 2012). Common challenges are that rules are complex and fees high and there is often little incentive for participation.

● Community-based certification: A range of quality assurance schemes have been developed, often involving a brand. These do not require government monitoring and are typically simpler and cheaper than GAP. There are local successes but insufficient evidence on scalability or effectiveness in improving food safety.

Along the value chain ● Technical innovations: A variety of innovations have been developed including simple cooling devices, food

containers for storage and transport, and water disinfection. Some are locally successful, for example, transport of live fish in oxygenated tanks in Egypt and widespread use of trays for eggs (personal observation). However, many have not been widely adopted.

● Upgrading infrastructure: This has been a common approach with major objectives being upgraded slaughterhouses, chilling plants for milk and upgraded wet markets. There has been little evaluation of the long-term effects of this upgrading but the few studies done typically show poor success; this is attributed to the complexity of managing and the added expense and inconvenience, making them unpopular with users.

● Vertical integration: Large firms manage all stages in the value chain to enhance traceability and quality assurance. This model is increasingly popular especially in Southeast Asia. It is challenged by the increased cost and there is little compelling evidence that the products are safer.

● Traceability and certification: This is complicated by the large numbers of farmers, low trust of consumers, premiums associated with branded food and low availability. The case of Vietnam is typical: after more than 10 years of major efforts and investments by state authorities and market actors, the ‘safe vegetable’ production and distribution system has not yet been able to take a significant share of the vegetable market and gain widespread consumer trust (Nguyen-Viet et al. 2017). One survey found that around 10% of market

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 107 of 129

vegetable retailers participate in the ‘safe vegetable’ scheme and that farmers of ‘safe vegetable production cooperatives’ in Hanoi market just 10% of their harvest through the safe vegetable channel (Hoi et al. 2009). Moreover, there is weak evidence that certified products are actually safer than traditionally produced and marketed vegetables.

● Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP): Although most developing countries have adopted HACCP approaches to food safety, which are considered best practice, they have only been able to implement these for exported food and (to a limited extent) in some larger, formal sector agro-industries. This is not surprising given the failure of most small and medium companies in HIC such as the United Kingdom to implement these approaches (Taylor 2008).

Retail ● Export market: While smallholder farmers generally have challenges in participating in high-value export

chains, and food safety standards are one of the barriers (Narrod et al. 2009; Unnevehr and Ronchi 2014), given intentional support, some smallholders have been able to successfully participate.

● Modern retail: There is a trend for modern retail to increase and, especially in Southeast Asia, it has been favoured by governments as a way of improving food safety. Evaluations have been mixed: where there is demand, outlets have been successful but their share of the market remains low and there is limited evidence to suggest food is safer. They are challenged: by high costs; consumer preference for fresh, un-chilled food; and, resistance from retailers (Wertheim-Heck et al. 2015). In some contexts, products from formal retail are safer than those from the informal sector, but perhaps surprisingly, this is not always the case (Roesel and Grace 2014).

● High-end, niche sellers: Many developing countries have retailers which sell food at a premium with strong emphasis on safety; these may sell food as ‘organic’ and emphasize traceability. While these appear to be growing, they reach only a small segment of the better-off consumers. There is evidence that food safety practices are often better in these market segments but there is little evidence on food safety or health outcomes, although there is probably a tendency for more higher-end, more expensive products to be safer (Hoffmann and Moser 2017).

● Training informal sector retailers: There is evidence, mainly from the dairy sector and street vendors of ready- to-eat foods, that training informal sector retailers can improve food safety. It is important that there is an incentive to attend training and motivate behaviour change after the training and it has proven difficult to establish long-term monitoring. Short-term studies show food safety improves but there is limited evidence on longer-term effects.

● Training food handlers: The only meta-analysis of interventions to train food handlers found trained handlers had around 30% improvement in knowledge over controls (n = 9 studies) and 70% improvement in practices, but this was based on self-reported practices, which are prone to exaggeration; moreover, only three studies were from developing countries (Soon et al. 2012).

Consumer ● Education and information: There are few examples of evaluations of food safety interventions in developing

countries. Experience in HIC suggests that while most home cooks know about safe home food handling procedures, compliance is generally low and has not been significantly improved by campaigns (Shapiro et al. 2011). Moreover, consumers expect food to be safe. In HIC, the most successful initiatives for food safety have been those which addressed FBD further upstream; however, in developing countries there are few examples of food safety control in value chains, so addressing food safety in consumer households should be investigated.

● Willingness to pay: Studies in developing countries found that consumers report they are willing to pay a premium for safer food (Jabbar et al. 2010). However, there are few studies on actual behaviour. Moreover,

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 108 of 129

there are ethical issues in selling food as ‘safe’ including the risk of channelling least safe food to the poorest (Grace 2015).

Governance ● Enforcement of regulation versus co-regulation: An up-to-date and rational food safety system underpins

delivery of food safety but regulatory enforcement must not be over-relied on. Developed countries have found that command-and-control approaches relying on inspection and punishment are less effective and affordable than empowering stakeholders to self-regulate, motivated by appropriate incentives (Garcia-Martinez et al. 2007). With this approach, emphasis moves from testing end-product safety to ensuring processes remain within safe limits. The concept of co-regulation emphasizes coordination between public and private agents in the regulatory process (Eijlander 2005).

● Risk analysis: There is international consensus that food safety risks are best managed through risk analysis. This is even more important in LMIC as risk assessment allows targeting of scarce resources to priority problems (Unnevehr and Hoffmann 2015). Unfortunately, capacity for risk assessment in LMIC is limited, but without effective, evidence-based risk assessment, policy may be driven instead by consumer perceptions, special interests and political pressure.

● Single authority: A single unified structure or an integrated system is likely to be more effective, but is not sufficient to improve food safety. When restructuring is not possible because of historical or political reasons, a national food control strategy can identify roles of the different government divisions involved in food safety (FAO/WHO 2003). Research gap: We do not yet have good models for standards and approaches that can work at scale to assure food safety. However, there have been many initiatives to improve food safety and much could be learned by a systematic assessment of these. Some of the more promising areas for research may be:

● Appropriate, cheap, robust technologies ● Kiosk side diagnostics suitable for consumers and market actors ● Research on incentives for behaviour change ● Better addressing food safety in popular and/or growing agricultural development mechanisms

such as contract farming and innovation platforms ● Investigating the policy/regulation implementation gap ● Developing approaches to risk analysis suitable for developing countries ● Appropriate governance for developing countries

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 109 of 129

4. FEED THE FUTURE INNOVATION LABS FEEDBACK: COMMENTS FROM A FOOD SAFETY PERSPECTIVE Helpful feedback was received from 12 out of 24 Innovation Labs (ILs) and three out of the six ILs for which we considered food safety was likely most important. The information is set out in Annex 3. In general, ILs perceived food safety to be essential or very important. However, only for a minority of ILs did food safety appear to be a major research thrust. Key insights from ILs included: Important food safety questions to be addressed:

● Are small and medium enterprises a danger for food safety? ● How to adapt good practices to small-scale actors? ● How best to adapt food safety policy and regulation to developing countries? ● How is the food supply system shifting in response to food safety? ● How can consumer demand influence food supply and food safety? ● How to ensure safe consumer drinking water in irrigated areas? ● What is the role and means of improving food safety at household level? ● How to improve use of veterinary drugs and management of animal waste? ● Need for less expensive, more reliable laboratory testing.

Significant work being carried out by ILs:

● Food safety and penetration of processed food ● Consumer demand for food safety ● Post-harvest storage technologies ● Identification and development of IPM for high-value fruit and vegetable crops ● Cohort and cross-sectional studies on aflatoxin and nutritional outcomes ● Food safety in abattoirs, pastoralist communities and smallholder milk, and feed safety ● Phased risk communications plan tailored for different mycotoxin stakeholder groups

Comparing the current concerns and activities, some recommendations for the ILs can be made.

● Prioritization: When considering the known burden of FBD, problems caused by microbes and parasites are orders of magnitude greater than those caused by chemicals or pesticides, yet most of the ILs do not show a systematic or comprehensive approach to prioritization. It is true that it is harder to estimate the disease burden of chemicals and toxins and the unknown or potential burden could be high. This would justify a precautionary approach to reducing chemical and toxin burdens. At the same time, the most rational response is to invest in tackling known burdens and finding more out about unknown burdens, and using this information to inform appropriate investments, while also investing in reducing potential risks in advance of conclusive evidence if concern is sufficiently high.

o Suggestion: It may be helpful for ILs to better understand FBD burden and prioritization.

● Managing multiple objectives: Food safety is often one of many considerations. This is seen in areas such

as food processing, integrated pest management, food security policy and production of high-risk commodities such as produce and ASF. However, literature and experience suggests that when food safety is one of many issues, it is often managed poorly and not measured (e.g. experience of Farmer Field Schools). There is sometimes an assumption that if practices are improved then food would automatically be safer, but research by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and others has shown the relation is weak: practices can be better yet food less safe. If ILs consider food safety to be important, they must clearly set out food safety outputs and outcomes, invest to achieve them and measure success in terms of reduced risk of disease or reduced exposure.

o Suggestion: Where food safety is considered important it should be tracked as a distinct

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 110 of 129

output/outcome.

● The best is the enemy of the good: Many food safety initiatives seek to apply ‘best’ rather than ‘good enough’ practices. In developing (or low-income) countries, for example, HACCP is a gold standard for managing food safety in food businesses. However, even in Europe, while HACCP is widespread in large food operations, its use is limited within small companies (Taylor 2008). In developing countries, uptake is lower still. Under these circumstances, modified HACCP such as the Salford model (Taylor 2008) may be more appropriate for LMIC. Likewise, while a gradual shift to larger scale formal retail is underway, there is considerable evidence that ‘premature industrialization’ or efforts to move developing country agriculture to ‘modern systems’ can result in paradoxical worsening of food safety as well as hampering other objectives such as increasing the accessibility of highly nutritious food. The same may be the case when a country adopts very strict regulations for hazards, which would be very good if they were enforced, but the high prevalence may cause the regulators to avoid enforcements, since the consequences would be too high.

o Suggestion: Caution is needed in assuming that traditional agriculture and supply chains

are a food safety problem and that modernization is the only way to solve it. More success may be attained by working with the traditional sector to gradually improve.

Under-researched areas

● Most known burden is due to microbial pathogens in fresh foods sold in wet markets yet this is a minor part of IL research.

● Food safety is a whole diet problem; considering only aflatoxins ingested from peanuts is less informative than considering all dietary sources (maize, sorghum, milk), and considering multiple mycotoxins may be more useful than just measuring aflatoxins. Only the nutrition IL takes a dietary approach to food safety hazards.

● Most work is hazard-based rather than risk-based; hazard studies look at the presence of harmful substances in foods but risk takes this forward to understand the impact on human health. Hazards may be low but risks high and vice versa. The more important consideration from the perspective of public health is risk not hazard, so focusing on risks will lead to greater health impacts than focusing on hazard. However, the presence of hazards may be a major issue from the perspective of consumer acceptance and market access.

● Gender is an important issue in food safety because of different biological vulnerabilities, highly gendered roles in agri-food chains and women’s key roles as food retailers, processors and their predominant role in preparing food in households. This aspect was not mentioned.

● Food safety is an emerging issue in agricultural research and it is important to improve our basic understanding of prevalence and impacts. At the same time, food safety is an evolved science in HIC and there should be many opportunities to research into food safety solutions. The current portfolio is biased towards food safety assessment and understanding rather than food safety management.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 111 of 129

Table 3: Feed the Future Innovation Labs Led by universities in the United States of America, Feed the Future Innovation Labs are central to advancing novel solutions that support our goals to reduce global hunger, poverty and undernutrition.

Innovation Lab Lead Food safety*

Issues

Aquaculture and fisheries OSU High Parasites; bacteria; antimicrobials; chemicals Hillary Egna egnah@onid.orst.edu Assets and market access UCD High Food safety an important barrier for access Michael R

Carter mrcarter@ucdavis.edu

Horticulture UCD High Pesticides, bacteria, parasites Elizabeth Mitcham

horticulture@ucdavis.edu

Food processing and post-harvest Purdue High Biological and chemical hazards Betty Bugusu bbugusu@purdue.edu Livestock systems UF High Bacteria; parasites; antimicrobials; chemicals;

aflatoxins Gbola Adesogan

adesogan@ufl.edu

Peanut production and mycotoxin control

UG High Mycotoxins Dave Hoisington

davehois@uga.edu

Climate-resilient millet UCD Moderate Aflatoxins Eduardo Blumwald

eblumwald@ucdavis.edu

Climate-resilient sorghum UG Moderate Aflatoxins Andrew H Paterson

paterson@uga.edu

Food security policy MSU Moderate Food security requires food safety Mywish Maredia

maredia@msu.edu

Grain legumes MSU Moderate Nutrition objective; aflatoxins Irvin Widders widders@msu.edu Integrated Pest Management VT Moderate Pesticides, chemicals Muni

Muniappan rmuni@vt.edu

Nutrition Tufts Moderate Multiple relations food safety and nutrition Patrick Webb patrick.webb@tufts.edu

Reduction of post-harvest loss KSU Moderate Spoilage related to contamination Jagger Harvey jjharvey@ksu.edu Rift Valley fever control in agriculture

UT Moderate Rift Valley fever transmitted by butchering George Bettinger

gebettinger@utep.edu

Small-scale irrigation TAMU Moderate Grey water issues Neville Clarke n-clarke@tamu.edu Sorghum and millet KSU Moderate Mycotoxins Timothy Dalton tdalton@ksu.edu Sustainable intensification KSU Low Health externalities from intensification Vara Prasad vara@ksu.edu

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 112 of 129

Climate-resilient beans PSU Low Favism, chemicals John Lynch jpl4@psu.edu Climate-resilient chickpea UCD Low Chemicals Douglas Cook drcook@ucdavis.edu Climate-resilient cowpea UCR Low Chemicals Timothy Close timothy.close@ucr.ed

u Genomics to improve poultry UCD Low Disease resistance Huaijun Zhou hzhou@ucdavis.edu Soybean value chain research UI Low Health concerns Peter

Goldsmith pgoldsmi@illinois.edu

Applied wheat genomics KSU Low Jesse Poland jpoland@ksu.edu Climate-resilient wheat WSU Low Kulvinder Gill ksgill@wsu.edu

OSU: Oregon State University; UCD: University of California, Davis; UF: University of Florida; UG: University of Georgia; MSU: Michigan State University; VT: Virginia Tech; KSU: Kansas State University; UT: University of Texas at El Paso; TAMU: Texas A&M University; PSU: Penn State University; UCR: University of California, Riverside; UI: University of Illinois; WSU: Washington State University * Based on literature, the report author categorized the likely importance of food safety to this area Red means a response was receive

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feedback from Innovation Lab directors Issue Food

safety Important issues Current research Planned research What would help

Fish Essential Cold chain development and security: woefully lacking in many countries. Infrastructure and market support: needed to get fresh product to urban conurbations. Preparation, cooking, drying and value-added products (fish paste, fish sausage, algae 'syrup' etc.) reliable information: for general knowhow in the household, shops, restaurants etc. HACCP training: for export market. Other quality assurance–quality control technologies for export market also could be useful but not necessarily for small-scale fish farms; depends largely on cooperatives and market structure.

None at present. Some current socio-economics work wraps around concepts of food safety and nutrition. Older research available from our website: AquaFish.oregonstate.edu

No, we are winding down on overall programming. If an associate award were to become available, we could entertain some ideas in this area

See previous

Rift Valley fever

Important Rift Valley fever can be transmitted via butchering Lack of effective surveillance Loss of food supply

Developing a vaccine No Education of the various agriculture ministries and farmers in using the vaccine ahead of an outbreak instead of a response.

Food safety policy

Very Important

Are food processing small and medium enterprises – compared to large local companies and imported food – a danger for food safety? Many think they are but we don’t have data. If they are, this creates a problem from many perspectives: much processed food currently comes from such firms, and they have higher labour-to-output ratios than do large firms, meaning that if they were to be regulated out of the market, employment would suffer. What are consumers willing to pay for food safety? What, if any, changes are chain supermarkets making in their procurement systems in response to perceived demand for food safety? Understanding consumer demand for food

Food safety is one aspect of research we are starting on the penetration of processed foods into rural areas and smaller towns of Tanzania. Evaluating consumer demand for food safety and food quality http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919210001442 https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article/94/2/489/57117/Chinese-Consumers-Demand-for-Food-Safety

See previous Funding opportunities specifically related to consumer-oriented food safety research in developing and emerging countries.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 114 of 129

quality as it pertains to various food safety certifications and quality attributes.

Post-harvest Essential Mycotoxins, especially aflatoxin Hazards in food processing Specific safety protocols dependent on the process and the final product

Food safety through drying technologies: (1) development and testing of two types of grain drying technologies (solar and drying stove) designed for smallholder farmers, (2) development of low-cost moisture determination technologies and methods. Food safety in storage: Research will be conducted to develop innovations for mycotoxin control in hermetic storage. This involves determination of optimum conditions under which grain can be safely stored in hermetic conditions in the humid tropics, and to identify optimum grain moisture content for storing grains without compromising quality. Food safety is an integral part of delivering processed foods to consumers and includes putting in place GMP and HACCP. Sometimes goes further in the value chain to GAP.

We have made some breakthroughs in the areas listed above in terms of technologies and methodologies and are in the process of testing them.

Proper post-harvest handling, including harvesting, drying and storage. Availability of low-cost technologies to ensure proper post-harvest handling. Training farmers on best practices in post-harvest handling. Availability of tools and procedures to ensure safety in food processing; for example, sourcing of clean aflatoxin-free grains for processing, standard assessment of heavy metals. Effective mechanisms to link farmers to processors.

Grey water Somewhat important

Water safety n/a n/a Safe post-harvest storage of food Safe household drinking water derived from irrigation sources in smallholder families

Poultry genomics

Very important

Pathogens on poultry could contaminate poultry meat and eggs and/or infect humans

Understand molecular and cellular mechanisms of host response to Salmonella, Campylobacter and avian influenza infection in poultry and elucidate the interaction among host gut-associated immune system, poultry gut microbiome and pathogens and develop better strategy to enhance colonization resistance to pathogen infection in poultry.

Further research on the aforementioned

The research work mentioned above is currently focusing on the United States of America, not Feed the Future targeted countries. We don’t have funds to work on target countries.

Climate- A little n/a

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 115 of 129

resilient cowpea Integrated pest management (IPM)

Essential About 40% of crop is lost due to pests and diseases. In recent years, increase in spread of invasive species is causing havoc to crop production. Examples: South American tomato leaf miner, Tuta absoluta, papaya mealybug and Panama wilt of bananas. Viral diseases of various crops require management solutions as there are no chemicals available to control them.

Development of IPM packages for crops. Use of Trichoderma for control of soil-borne fungal diseases. Grafting on resistant rootstock to manage soil-borne bacterial wilt disease of tomato and eggplant. Use of Pseudomonas fluorescens and Bacillus subtilis to induce resistance in plants. Adoption of pheromone traps for area-wide management of pests as well as monitoring them. Recommendation of biological and botanical pesticides to replace synthetic chemical pesticides. Promotion of classical, augmentative and conservation biological control.

Identification and development of components of IPM packages for high-value vegetable crops in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania; for chickpea in Ethiopia; for maize in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania; for rice in Cambodia and Tanzania; and for dragon fruit, mango, lychee and longan in Vietnam. In addition, we are modelling the spread of South American tomato leaf miner around the world and groundnut leaf miner in Africa. We are working on climate change and biodiversity in Nepal by setting up weather stations and transects for biodiversity assessment at every 500 m altitude starting from Terai to higher altitudes. We are also working on unique technology transfer methods and regional collaboration.

Release of approved funds on time. Enhancing collaboration between donor-funded projects in each country.

Nutrition Very important

Mycotoxin contamination of food supply: link to health/nutrition. Potential contributor to poor birth outcomes and compromised linear growth of infants. Consumer perception of food safety and quality related to aquaculture and horticulture and resulting purchasing behavior.

Birth cohort studies (Nepal, Uganda) to determine extent of human exposure to aflatoxins and socio-economic correlates includes (Nepal) farmer awareness of mycotoxin problems and related household behavior. Panel survey in Bangladesh that considers consumer behavior when considering local

Greater focus on consumer awareness of mycotoxins and perceptions of food safety. Possible consideration of perceptions among consumers in Cambodia. Possible survey of mycotoxins in Mozambique

Significantly cheaper lab analysis of levels of multiple mycotoxins in blood and urine. Better understanding of mycotoxin metabolism in gut and correlates with microbiome.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 116 of 129

market purchases of fish and/or fruits and vegetables. Collaboration with other Innovation Labs on toxin contamination of soil in Nepal. National assessment of aflatoxin blood exposure in Timor Leste.

and Madagascar. Field tools to assess food safety in various foods.

Livestock Very important

Livestock Disease Management and Food Safety is one of the four Areas of Inquiry for the Livestock Systems Innovation Lab (LSIL). In particular, we aim to improve the safety of animal-source foods [ASF] (e.g. reducing pathogens, aflatoxins and undesirable residues in meat and milk). As part of the research priority setting in the six LSIL target countries, the following issues were mentioned: Improve milk and meat safety from production to processing and handling: Understanding hazards in the food systems and assessing the possible associated risks. Improve food safety at the household level (including ASF-producing households). Promote prudent antibiotic use and reduce antimicrobial resistance. Improve poorly developed food safety regulation systems which lack or have limited infrastructure and testing capacity and limited overall food safety regulatory framework and implementation. Reduce environmental contamination with enteric pathogens from livestock to prevent environmental enteric dysfunction in young children.

Five out of 13 funded research projects in three target countries deal directly or indirectly with food safety: Ethiopia: One large (4-year) research project addresses food safety at the abattoir level, looking into establishing baselines for the presence of foodborne pathogens within abattoirs and developing and implementing strategies to mitigate the burden of foodborne pathogens within abattoirs. One small (1-year) research project looks into improving handling practices and microbiological safety of milk and milk products in Borana pastoral communities. Rwanda: One small (1-year) research project looks into milk production practices and udder health and their impact on milk quality, safety and processability. Lastly, two small research projects (1-year) in Rwanda and Ethiopia conduct research on animal feed safety; in particular, these studies are surveying feeds around the country for their mycotoxin concentrations. Discussions are ongoing to add testing the milk in those areas for aflatoxin to their experiments.

The Request for Applications for Cambodia is currently ongoing – some food safety related research projects may be funded. In addition, we will publish the Request for Applications for Burkina Faso and Niger in the near future. Also for these two countries, some project proposals dealing with food safety may be funded.

More emphasis on developing a suitable regulatory framework for food safety in developing countries. Creating more awareness of the priority food safety pathogens in different regions of the world, as identified by the World Health Organization’s Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group.

Soy food Important Soy food Innovation Lab works with soy food entrepreneurs in developing areas of South America and Africa. We see food safety as an essential part of a food enterprise, whether or not it sells soy

Packaging: Perishable foods such as soy milk and soy yoghurt should be packaged in order to maximize their shelf life. Soybean storage: Soybeans must be stored so that they are kept dry and clean and free

We are always starting new research projects and welcome suggestions

A greater network of food scientists in Africa who could share their soy-specific food safety findings.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 117 of 129

foods. Practising food safety enables a business to avoid food spoilage and foodborne illness, which can reduce customers’ trust in your business’s product. Maintaining a food safety system in a soy food operation also enables you to apply for and receive certification from your country’s Food and Drug Administration. This certification allows you to brand your product and distribute it to a wider customer base.

of foreign matter. Sterilization: Soy food products must be cooked to ensure harmful bacteria are killed. Sterile production room: The facility, equipment and workers all must be kept clean while making the product. Limited resources: Small-scale soy food processors in under-developed areas often work with fewer resources, which can make practising food safety more difficult.

Food scientists in Africa who are willing to use their labs to conduct experiments about new food safety questions. A database of regional equipment manufacturers in Africa (e.g. glass bottle manufacturers, pasteurizing machine manufacturers).

Sustainable intensification

Essential Foodborne pathogen mitigation (specifically considering livestock and ASF production, as well as mixed/integrated crop-livestock systems, which is a major goal of sustainable intensification) Toxin mitigation (biological and chemical) The interaction between human health and human nutrition

We have a sub-award in Senegal that has a food safety component, particularly focusing on ASF. Dr Jessie Vipham is an assistant professor in global food systems and nutrition within our lab and her background is in food microbiology and food safety. Food safety has also be incorporated into the Sustainable Intensification Innovation Lab nutrition framework as an important aspect of achieving positive human health and nutrition outcomes, as well as the Sustainable Intensification Indicator framework as a part of the human condition domain. http://www.k-state.edu/siil/whatwedo/indicators/index.htm

We do not, at this time, have plans to fund new food safety research. However, through Dr Vipham’s research portfolio, our lab is engaged in other projects and proposals that have a food safety component. This research mainly focuses on foodborne pathogen mitigation in livestock and ASF, as well as in development of education and training programs for food safety in developing world contexts.

Food safety is a diverse topic with many layers (biological, chemical, and physical hazards), that also incorporates human behaviors, cultural norms and regulatory action. Due to this, key considerations for help on this issue include: 1. How best to adapt food safety policies and regulatory approaches to the developing world. 2. Development of regulatory recommendations for domestic and export markets. 3. Development of education and training programs for regulatory bodies. 4. Comprehensive risk assessments for multiple contaminants (biological and chemical) and countries. 5. Technical training and

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 118 of 129

food safety higher education programs in target countries. 6. Applicable and adaptable food safety interventions (pre- and post-harvest). 7. Institutional capacity development for universities, government and private sector stakeholders, focusing on lab availability and equipment, access to reagents and test kits, and technician training. 8. Improved handling practices (on-farm, transport, municipal abattoirs, small-scale butcheries, wet markets, grain storage etc.).

Reduction of post-harvest loss

Essential Mycotoxins: We have conducted baseline surveys, established in-country lab/human capacity for testing and tested post-harvest interventions for reduction of mycotoxin contamination in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala and Afghanistan. We are or have focused on rice, maize, sesame, chickpea, wheat, tree nuts and raisins. Post-harvest mycotoxin contamination: See above. Risk communications: We have devised a phased risk communications plan tailored for different mycotoxin stakeholder groups, and are integrating this across our programming.

Baseline surveys, as well as drying and storage technologies for the reduction of mycotoxin accumulation is ongoing as described above.

We are adding mycotoxin surveys and lab/human capacity establishment in Honduras and Nepal this year. In the Nepal work, we are integrating risk mapping to better contextualize the potential risk of aflatoxin accumulation in maize and groundnut, and we will also be testing chilies and spices.

Broadly accessible proficiency testing so that the range of studies being conducted around the world could benefit from external validation of their sampling and testing procedures. Increased understanding of the health impacts of mycotoxins on human and animal health. A marketplace of innovations related to food safety that could be populated and accessed by the food safety research, development and

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 119 of 129

implementation/value chain actor community.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 120 of 129

REFERENCES Abass, K., Ganle, J.K. and Adaborna, E.J. 2016. Coliform contamination of peri-urban grown vegetables and

potential public health risks: Evidence from Kumasi, Ghana. Community Health 41: 392. doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0109-y

Boye, J.I. 2012. Food allergies in developing and emerging economies: Need for comprehensive data on prevalence rates. Clinical and Translational Allergy 2: 25. doi: 10.1186/2045-7022-2-25

Bruno, E., Bartoloni, A., Zammarchi, L., Strohmeyer, M., Bartalesi, F., Bustos, J.A., Santivañez, S., García, H.H., Nicoletti, A. and the COHEMI Project Study Group. 2013. Epilepsy and neurocysticercosis in Latin America: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 7(10): e2480. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0002480

Bureau of Epidemiology. 2004. Situation of diarrheal diseases. Bangkok, Thailand. Burnett, S.L. and Beuchat, L.R. 2001. Human pathogens associated with raw produce and unpasteurized juices,

and difficulties in decontamination. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 27(2): 104–110. Carrique-Mas, J.J. and Bryant, J.E. 2013. A review of foodborne bacterial and parasitic zoonoses in Vietnam.

Ecohealth 10(4): 465–489. doi:10.1007/s10393-013-0884-9 Checkley, W., Buckley, G., Gilman, R.H., Assis A.M.O., Guerrant, R.L., Morris, S.S., Mølbak, K., Valentiner-

Branth, P., Lanata, C.F., Black, R.E. and the Childhood Malnutrition and Infection Network. 2008. Multi-country analysis of the effects of diarrhoea on childhood stunting. International Journal of Epidemiology 37(4): 816–830. doi:10.1093/ije/dyn099

Chen, Y., Yan, W.-X., Zhou, Y.-J., Zhen, S.-Q., Zhang, R.-H., Chen, J., Liu, Z.-H., Cheng, H.-Y., Liu, H., Duan, S.-G., Lan, Z., Sun, J.-C., You, X.-Y., Li, J.-G. and Wu, Y.-N. 2013. Burden of self-reported acute gastrointestinal illness in China: A population-based survey. BMC Public Health 13: 456. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-456

Cutler, D., Deaton, A. and Lleras-Muney, A. 2006. The determinants of mortality. Journal of Economic Perspectives 20(3): 97–120.

Dang-Xuan, S., Nguyen-Viet, H., Unger, F., Pham-Duc, P., Grace, D., Tran-Thi, N., Barot, M., Pham-Thi, N. and Makita, K. 2016. Quantitative risk assessment of human salmonellosis in the smallholder pig value chains in urban of Vietnam. International Journal of Public Health doi:10.1007/s00038-016-0921-x

Daniel, J.H., Lewis, L.W., Redwood, Y.A., Kieszak, S., Breiman, R.F., Flanders, W.D., Bell, C., Mwihia, J., Ogana, G, Likimani, S., Straetemans, M. and McGeehin, M.A. 2011. Comprehensive assessment of maize aflatoxin levels in eastern Kenya, 2005–2007. Environmental Health Perspectives 119: 1794–1799.

Eijlander, P. 2005. Possibilities and constraints in the use of self-regulation and co-regulation in legislative policy: Experience in the Netherlands – Lessons to be learned for the EU? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 9(1).

Elgueta, S., Moyano, S., Sepúlveda, P., Quiroz, C. and Correa, A. 2017. Pesticide residues in leafy vegetables and human health risk assessment in North Central agricultural areas of Chile. Food Additives & Contaminants: Part B. doi:10.1080/19393210.2017.1280540

Eliku, T. and Leta S. 2016. Assessment of heavy metal contamination in vegetables grown using paper mill wastewater in Wonji Gefersa, Ethiopia. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 97(5): 714–720. doi:10.1007/s00128-016-1915-3

Ellis, L.J. and Turner, J.L. 2008. Sowing the seeds: Opportunities for U.S.—China cooperation on food safety. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, China Environment Forum. Washington, DC: USA.

Ercsey-Ravasz, M., Toroczkai, Z., Lakner, Z. and Baranyi, J. 2012. Complexity of the international agro-food trade network and its impact on food safety. PLoS ONE 7(5): e37810.

Fahrion, A.S., Jamir, L., Richa, K., Begum, S., Rutsa, V., Ao, S., Padmakumar, V.P., Deka, R.P. and Grace, D. 2014. Food-safety hazards in the pork chain in Nagaland, North East India: Implications for human health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11(1): 403–417.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2006. The state of food and agriculture in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 121 of 129

FAO/WHO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization). 2003. Assuring food safety and quality: Guidelines for strengthening national food control systems. Rome, Italy: FAO and Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

FSNAU (Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit). 2010. Offal consumption among the Somali population in Boroma, Burao and Bossaso towns. Somalia: FSNAU.

Garcia-Martinez, M., Fearne, A., Caswell, J. and Henson, S. 2007. Co-regulation as a possible model for food safety governance: Opportunities for public–private partnerships. Food Policy 32(3): 299–314.

George, C.M., Oldja, L., Biswas, S.K., Perin, J., Lee, G.O., Ahmed, S., Haque, R., Sack, R.B., Parvin, T., Azmi, I.J., Bhuyian, S.I., Talukder, K.A. and Faruque, A.G. 2015. Fecal markers of environmental enteropathy are associated with animal exposure and caregiver hygiene in Bangladesh. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 93(2): 269–275. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.14-0694

Gizachew, D., Szonyi, B., Tegegne, A., Hanson, J. and Grace, D. 2016. Aflatoxin contamination of milk and dairy feeds in the Greater Addis Ababa milk shed, Ethiopia. Food Control 59: 773–779.

Gkogka, E., Reij, M.W., Havelaar, A.H., Zwietering, M.H. and Gorris, L.G.M. 2011. Risk-based estimate of effect of foodborne diseases on public health, Greece. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17(9). doi:10.3201/eid1709.101766

Grace, D. 2011. Assessment of risks to human health associated with meat from different value chains in Nigeria: Using the example of the beef value chain. Nigeria Integrated Animal and Human Health Management Project Draft Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Grace, D. 2014. Measuring the size and scope of the cooperative economy. New York: UN DESA. Grace, D. 2015. Food safety in low and middle income countries. International Journal of Environmental

Research and Public Health 12(9): 10490–10507. Grace, D., Olowoye, J., Dipeolu, M., Odebode, S. and Randolph T.F. 2012. The influence of gender and group

membership on food safety: The case of meat sellers in Bodija market, Ibadan, Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44 (Suppl 1): S53–S59.

Grace, D., Unnevehr, L. 2013. The role of risk assessment in guiding aflatoxin policy. In: Laurian Unnevehr and Delia Grace (Ed.), 2020 Focus “Aflatoxins: finding solutions for improved food safety” (Focus 20, Brief 19). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute

Grace, D., Roesel, K., Kang'ethe, E., Bonfoh, B. and Theis, S. 2015. Gender roles and food safety in 20 informal livestock and fish value chains. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1489. Washington, DC: IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute).

Graffham, A., MacGregor, J. and Karehu, E. 2007. Impact of EurepGAP on small-scale vegetable growers in Kenya. London, UK: International Institute for Environment and Development.

Grey, C.L. and Levin, M.E. 2014. Epidemiology of food allergy. Current Allergy and Clinical Immunology 27(3): 270–276.

Gurpreet, K., Tee, G.H., Amal, N.M., Paramesarvathy, R. and Karuthan, C. 2011. Incidence and determinants of acute diarrhoea in Malaysia: A population-based study. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition 29(2): 103–112.

Han, S., Zhang, X., Chen, R., Wen, J., Li, Y., Shu, J., Ling, H. and Zhang, F. 2013. Trends in prevalence of clonorchiasis among patients in Heilongjiang Province, Northeast China (2009–2012): Implications for monitoring and control. PLoS ONE 8(11): e80173. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080173

Hanson, L.A., Zahn, E.A., Wild, S.R., Döpfer, D., Scott, J. and Stein, C. 2012. Estimating global mortality from potentially foodborne diseases: An analysis using vital registration data. Population Health Metrics 10: 5. doi:10.1186/1478-7954-10-5

Havelaar, A.H., Kirk, M.D., Torgerson, P.R., Gibb, H.J., Hald, T., Lake, R.J., Praet, N., Bellinger, D.C., Silva, N.R. de, Gargouri, N., Speybroeck, N., Cawthorne, A., Mathers, C., Stein, C., Angulo, F.J. and Devleesschauwer, B. on behalf of World Health Organization Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group. 2015. World Health Organization global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS Medicine 12(12): e1001923.

Hawkes, C., Grace, D. and Thow, A.M. 2015. Trade liberalization, food, nutrition and health. In: Smith, R.,

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 122 of 129

Blouin, C., Mirza, Z., Beyer, P. and Drager, N. (eds), Trade and health: Towards building a national strategy. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. pp. 92–116.

Ho, S.C., Chau, P.H., Fung, P.K., Sham, A., Nelson, E.A., and Sung, J. 2010. Acute gastroenteritis in Hong Kong: A population-based telephone survey. Epidemiology & Infection 138(7): 982–991. doi:10.1017/S0950268809991087

Hoffmann, S., Maculloch, B. and Batz, M. 2015. Economic burden of major foodborne illnesses acquired in the United States. Economic Information Bulletin No. 140. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Hoffmann, V. and Moser, C. 2017. You get what you pay for: The link between price and food safety in Kenya. Agricultural Economics. doi:10.1111/agec.12346

Hoi, P.V., Mol, A.P.J. and Oosterveer, P.J.M. 2009. Market governance for safe food in developing countries: The case of low-pesticide vegetables in Vietnam. Journal of Environmental Management 91(2): 380–388.

IHME (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation). 2012. The global burden of disease: Generating evidence, guiding policy. Washington, DC: IHME.

ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2007. Learning the lessons of Rift Valley fever: Improved detection and mitigation of outbreaks. Participatory assessment of Rift Valley fever surveillance and rapid response activities. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. (Available at https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/32816)

ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). 2010. Demand for pork by Vietnamese consumers: Implications for pro-poor livestock policy and development agenda in Vietnam. Project brief 1. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. (Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10568/2465)

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. Improving food safety through a One Health approach: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. (Available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114508)

Jabbar, M.A., Baker, D. and Fadiga, M.L. (eds). (2010). Demand for livestock products in developing countries with a focus on quality and safety attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa. ILRI Research Report 24. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

Käferstein, F.K. 1997. Food safety: A commonly underestimated public health issue. (Available at http://apps.who.int//iris/handle/10665/54778)

Kavle, J.A., El-Zanaty, F., Landry, M. and Galloway, R. 2015. The rise in stunting in relation to avian influenza and food consumption patterns in Lower Egypt in comparison to Upper Egypt: Results from 2005 and 2008 Demographic and Health Surveys. BMC Public Health 15: 285.

Kirk, M., Ford, L., Glass, K. and Hall, G. Foodborne illness, Australia, circa 2000 and circa 2010. 2014. Emerging Infectious Diseases 20(11): 1857–1864.

Kouamé-Sina, S.M., Bassa, A., Makita, K., Costard, S., Grace, D. and Bonfoh, B. 2012. Hazard identification and exposure assessment for bacterial risk assessment of informally-marketed milk in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 33(4): 223–234.

Krishna, A. 2007. For reducing poverty faster: Target reasons before people. World Development 35(11): 1947–1960.

Kumar, A. and Parappurathu, S. and Jee, S. 2013. Do dairy co-operatives enhance milk production, productivity and quality? Evidences from the Indo-Gangetic Plain of India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(3): 457–468.

Kumi, J., Mitchell, N.J., Asare, G.A., Dotse, E., Kwaa, F., Phillips, T.D. and Ankrah, N.-A. 2014. Aflatoxins and fumonisins contamination of home-made food (Weanimix) from cereal-legume blends for children. Ghana Medical Journal 48(3): 121–126.

Kung, S.-J., Steenhoff, A.P. and Gray, C. 2014. Food allergy in Africa: Myth or reality? Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology 46(3): 241–249. doi:10.1007/s12016-012-8341-z

Lee, A.J., Thalayasingam, M. and Lee, B.W. 2013. Food allergy in Asia: How does it compare? Asia Pacific Allergy 3(1): 3–14. doi:10.5415/apallergy.2013.3.1.3

Leroy, J.L. 2013. Child stunting and aflatoxins. In: Unnevehr, L. and Grace, D. (eds), Aflatoxins: Finding solutions for improved food safety. 2020 Vision Focus 20(4). Washington, DC: International Food Policy

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 123 of 129

Research Institute (IFPRI). Lynch, M.F., Tauxe, R.V. and Hedberg, C.W. 2009. The growing burden of foodborne outbreaks due to

contaminated fresh produce: risks and opportunities. Epidemiology & Infection 137(3): 307–315. doi:10.1017/S0950268808001969.

Mangen, M.-J.J., Bouwknegt, M., Friesema, I.H.M., Haagsma, J.A., Kortbeek, L.M., Tariq, L., Wilson, M., Pelt, W. van and Havelaar, A. H. 2014. Cost-of-illness and disease burden of food-related pathogens in the Netherlands, 2011. International Journal of Food Microbiology 196: 84–93.

McLinden, T., Sargeant, J.M., Thomas, M.K., Papadopoulos, A. and Fazil, A. 2014. Component costs of foodborne illness: A scoping review. BMC Public Health 14: 509 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-509

Minten, B., Randrianarison, L. and Swinnen, J.F.M. 2009. Global retail chains and poor farmers: Evidence from Madagascar. World Development 37(11): 1728–1741.

Narrod, C., Roy, D., Okello, J., Avendano, B., Rich, K. and Thorat, A. 2009. Public- private partnerships and collective action in high value fruit and vegetable supply chains. Food Policy 34(1): 8–15.

Nasinyama, G.W., Cole, D.C. and Lee-Smith, D. 2010. Health impact assessment of urban agriculture in Kampala. In: Prain, G., Karanja, N. and Lee-Smith, D. (eds), African urban harvest: Agriculture in the cities of Cameroon, Kenya and Uganda. New York, USA: Springer, IDRC, CIP. pp. 167–190.

Nguyen-Viet, H., Tuyet-Hanh, T.T., Unger, F., Dang-Xuan S. and Grace, D. 2017. Food safety in Vietnam: where we are at and what we can learn from international experiences. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 6: 39.

Ortmann, G.F. and King, R.P. 2007. Agricultural cooperatives I: History, theory and problems. Agrekon 46(1): 40–68.

Prüss-Ustün, A., Vickers, C., Haefliger, P. and Bertollini, R. 2011. Knowns and unknowns on burden of disease due to chemicals: A systematic review. Environmental Health 10: 9. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-10-9

Roesel, K. and Grace, D. 2014. Food safety and informal markets: Animal products in sub-Saharan Africa. London, UK: Routledge.

Sang, X.-L., Liang, X.-C., Chen, Y., Li, J.-D., Li, J.-G., Bai, L. and Sun, J.-Y. 2014. Estimating the burden of acute gastrointestinal illness in the community in Gansu Province, northwest China, 2012–2013. BMC Public Health 14: 787. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-787

Scallan, E., Hoekstra, R.M., Angulo, F.J., Tauxe, R.V., Widdowson, M.-A., Roy, S.L., Jones, J.L. and Griffin, P.M. 2011. Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Major pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases 17(1): 7–15.

Scharff, R.L. 2012. Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. Journal of Food Protection 75(1): 123–131. doi:10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-058

Schreinemachers, P., Schad, I., Tipraqsa, P., Williams, P.M., Neef, A., Riwthong, S., Sangchan, W. and Grovermann, C. 2012. Can public GAP standards reduce agricultural pesticide use? The case of fruit and vegetable farming in northern Thailand. Agriculture and Human Values 29(4): 519–529.

Seleshe, S., Jo, C. and Lee, M. 2014. Meat consumption culture in Ethiopia. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources 34(1):7–13. doi:10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.1.7

Shapiro, M.A., Porticella, N., Jiang, L.C. and Gravani, R.B. 2011. Predicting intentions to adopt safe home food handling practices. Applying the theory of planned behavior. Appetite 56(1): 96–103. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.148

Smalley, R. 2013. Plantations, contract farming and commercial farming areas in Africa: A comparative review. Land and Agricultural Commercialisation in Africa (LACA) Working Paper 055. Brighton, UK: Future Agricultures Consortium.

Soon, J.M., Baines, R. and Seaman, P. 2012. Meta-analysis of food safety training on hand hygiene knowledge and attitudes among food handlers. Journal of Food Protection 75(4): 793–804.

Stafford, R.J., Schluter, P.J., Wilson, A.J., Kirk, M.D., Hall, G., Unicomb, L. and the OzFoodNet Working Group. 2008. Population-attributable risk estimates for risk factors associated with Campylobacter infection, Australia. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14(6): 895–901.

Tam, C.C., Larose, T. and O'Brien, S.J. 2014. Costed extension to the Second study of infectious intestinal disease in the community: Identifying the proportion of foodborne disease in the UK and attributing foodborne

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 124 of 129

disease by food commodity. (Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/IID2%20extension%20report%20-%20FINAL%2025%20March%202014_0.pdf)

Taylor, E. 2001. HACCP in small companies: Benefit or burden? Food Control 12(4): 217–222. Taylor, E. 2008. HACCP for the hospitality industry: History in the making. International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management 20(5): 480–493. doi: 10.1108/09596110810881427 Thomas, M.K., Murray, R., Flockhart, L., Pintar, K., Pollari, F., Fazil, A., Nesbitt, A. and Marshall, B. 2013.

Estimates of the burden of foodborne illness in Canada for 30 specified pathogens and unspecified agents, circa 2006. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 10(7): 639–648.

Torgerson, P.R., Oguljahan, B, Muminov, A.E., Karaeva, R.R., Kuttubaev, O.T., Aminjanov, M. and Shaikenov, B. 2006. Present situation of cystic echinococcosis in Central Asia. Parasitology International 55(Supplement): S207–S212.

Unnevehr, L. and Hoffmann, V. 2015. Food safety management and regulation: International experiences and lessons for China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14(11): 2218–2230. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61112-1

Unnevehr, L. and Ronchi, L. 2014. Food safety and developing markets: Research findings and research gaps. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1376. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Vandenplas, Y. 2015. Lactose intolerance. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 24(Suppl 1): S9–S13. Waddington, H. and White, H. 2014. Farmer field schools: From agricultural extension to adult education. 3ie

Systematic Review Summary 1. London, UK: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Wertheim-Heck, S.C.O., Vellema, S. and Spaargaren G. 2015. Food safety and urban food markets in Vietnam:

The need for flexible and customized retail modernization policies. Food Policy 54: 95–106.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 125 of 129

Annex III: Synthesis of the E-consultation comments Summary The consultation stimulated great interest and a wealth of comments and suggestions. Overall there was clear consensus that foodborne disease was an important and neglected problem that deserved more attention. The first global study of foodborne disease, showing a burden comparable to HIV/AIDS, malaria or tuberculosis, was obviously telling. There was clear interest in research that would lead to action both in terms of focusing on priority problems but also for interventions that could be practically applied to demonstrably improve food safety in the short term. Across all areas, the importance of social, economic and gender research was salient. There was an acknowledgement that food safety is a complex issue, with strong technological, policy and behavioural aspects and that multi-disciplinary research was needed. Question 1: Evidence-based prioritization How do we determine which foodborne diseases are the highest priority for research investments? What criteria should be used to select the highest-priority food safety issues? What do the country-level data look like for determining which foodborne diseases are causing the most harm? Answer

● There was a general consensus that, while not ignoring other impacts of food safety, health burden was one of the most meaningful ways of prioritization.

● Following general economic principles, a combination of the health burden, the cost of health outcomes and a cost/benefit analysis of control and prevention methods provides a good method for prioritizing. Other factors to be taken into account were importance to stakeholders and building on existing research and initiatives.

● There was consensus that the World Health Organization estimates of the global burden of foodborne disease were a strong basis for assessing health burden at national levels.

Research topics

● Country-level estimates of health burden of foodborne disease based on the study by the World Health Organization.

● Risk ranking studies that allow multiple hazards to be compared. ● Quantitative risk assessment studies that allow data on the presence of hazards to be translated into

estimates of the health burden of foodborne disease. Validation of these studies. ● Studies that assess multiple food safety issues in one commodity or food system. ● A toolkit that could be simply applied within the context of developing countries to allow identification of

priorities. ● Understanding of how the health burden of foodborne disease is affected by the presence of other risk

factors (for example, malnutrition and pregnancy) common in developing countries. ● Studies that identify diseases that disproportionately affect women, infants and more vulnerable groups. ● Estimates of health burden in the context of multiple infections as is common in developing countries. ● Evaluations of interventions to control and prevent foodborne disease to help identify effectiveness, costs

and feasibility and so inform prioritization efforts. ● Research into incentives needed for behaviour change that leads to improved food safety. ● Studies that fill gaps and address limitations of the World Health Organization study on global burden of

foodborne disease. Important considerations

● There is considerable capacity for food safety in national universities and agricultural research services which can be leveraged.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 126 of 129

● In developing countries, institutions mandated to ensure food safety may be of limited capacity. It is important that initiatives do not exceed the capacity of national partners to sustain or they may be not only ineffective but foster rent-seeking behaviour.

● Applied or action research which helps tackle problems while generating evidence is especially attractive given the urgency of the problem.

● Extensive consultation can help build commitment and coordination. ● Health burden can be meaningfully assessed by hazard and/or food commodity and/or food system. In the

context of developing countries, there are advantages to a food systems approach. ● National, regional and continental prioritization efforts are already ongoing and initiatives are being

conducted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the Global Food Safety Partnership, CGIAR, the World Bank and others. Prioritization efforts should be coordinated.

Question 2: Investment case How to quantify and describe the costs of foodborne disease? How to influence national policymakers, donors and other investors to appropriately invest in management of foodborne diseases? Answer

● The health burden of foodborne disease is well captured through studies on incidence, mortality and burden in terms of Disability Adjusted Life Years.

● Translating health burdens into monetary costs may make them more salient to finance ministries and investors.

● Other burdens of foodborne disease are potentially important but have been little researched. ● Several participants suggested the best way of convincing policymakers and investors of the importance

of foodborne disease was by showing its negative effects on trade. Research topics

● Better assessments and synthesis of the costs of compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and costs from export rejections.

● Estimates of the cost of foodborne disease in domestic markets both through monetizing Disability Adjusted Life Years and through assessing other costs associated with illness (lost labour, out-of-pocket expenses, hospital costs etc.).

● Estimates of the cost of food scares and food waste associated with foodborne diseases. ● Assessments of the impact of foodborne disease on other health outcomes, for example, the proven and

potential contributions of diarrhoeal disease and aflatoxin exposure to childhood stunting. ● Understanding how concerns about food safety can affect nutrition and how these can be overcome. For

example, one project found concerns over fish safety were a barrier to feeding fish to children; the project researched social and behavioural change communication to overcome this.

● Unintended consequences and negative externalities of food safety improvement initiatives, for example, unduly burdening small firms.

● Surveillance systems for outbreaks and endemic foodborne diseases. Important considerations

● The lack of standardized tools, metrics and methods hinders assessing the multiple burdens and costs of foodborne disease in developing countries.

● Quantitative risk assessment is an important tool for assessing the health burden of foodborne disease. ● Food safety programs also have significant costs; for example, food firms can spend about 20% of their

annual revenues to implement food safety programs. It is important to ensure that food safety management is effective and affordable.

Question 3: Food safety and trade

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 127 of 129

What research questions would generate data on trade barriers and trade-related costs due to food safety issues in a given country? Answer

● There was a consensus that the premiums associated with export markets can be important and effective incentives to improving food safety and that potential gains from food exports were an important incentive for improving food safety in many countries.

Research topics

● Negative externalities of export trade on domestic markets, for example, the risk that rejected products are dumped on domestic markets.

● Appropriate balance between investment in trade and domestic food safety. ● Reducing the high level of rejections in situations where this continues to be problematic. ● Ways of assessing institutional capacity and ways of overcoming institutional and governance challenges

to improve food safety policy, regulation and implementation. Creating a culture that is prepared to accept change to facilitate trade.

● Technological solutions to improving product traceability. Important considerations

● Food safety for trade needs to start on the farm and extend along the value chain. ● There are several trade-related initiatives relevant to food safety that has had success, for example, Global

GAP. ● Harmonization of the food safety standards works best when governments advocate for it. ● Overcoming issues of credibility and reliability of laboratories and third-party quality assurers.

Question 4: Foodborne disease outbreaks Are current data sufficient for us to understand extent and impact? And is this information compelling to stakeholders? Is better information needed and how can we best communicate around mitigation? Answer

● Previous discussions have established that: ○ We have good, albeit imperfect, information on the high health burden of foodborne disease, its

multiple other negative impacts and its widespread under-reporting. ○ Stakeholders in general are insufficiently aware of the present compelling evidence on the

importance of foodborne disease, but additional evidence is required to increase stakeholder awareness and commitment to tackling foodborne disease.

● Given consensus on the data availability, this session focused on risk communication. There was agreement that risk communication was both important and challenging; we do not have many good models and tools for effective risk communication, either for trade or domestic food safety issues.

Research topics

● Case studies on how risk communication has been managed or mismanaged and operational lessons from this. These would include the economic and other impacts of poor and good risk communication, including market shocks (for example, the case of raspberries in Guatemala).

● Methods and tools for effective risk communication when problems have been found but solutions are not obvious or straightforward (for example, a majority of a country’s maize production is over national standards for aflatoxin).

● Research into alternative uses for contaminated products, including technological options such as decontamination and diversion to other uses.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 128 of 129

● Methods, tools and best practice approaches to risk communication for domestic food safety and trade and research into effective ways of raising awareness among policymakers and the public.

Important considerations

● Risk communication should feature prominently in any projects on foodborne disease, rather than as an end-of-project consideration.

Question 5: Food safety and gender Research topics

● Impact of foodborne diseases on women and men and difference in exposure, vulnerability and capacity to manage.

● Role of women and men in value chains and implications of this for exposure to foodborne diseases. ● Impact of foodborne toxins, chemicals and biological hazards on children under the care of women and

implications for child care. ● Role of women as primary preparers of food in households and implications of this for transmission of

foodborne diseases at household level. ● How food safety considerations can lead to attempts to upgrade and formalize food value chains and the

impact on women, particularly the risk of exclusion from street food, food retail and other informal market activities.

Important considerations

● Although women predominate in the informal food sectors responsible for most of the burden of foodborne disease in developing countries, gender studies are typically a minor part of food handling and safety studies. For example, a study by Affognon et al. (2015) published in World Development found that only 1.5% of articles on postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa included gender, and these only included it in terms of their roles. There is a need for broader and more sophisticated incorporation of gender in food safety research.

Question 6: Food safety and aflatoxins Research topics

● Assessment, management and communication of risks presented by other mycotoxins ● Presence and implication of aflatoxins in camel milk ● The link between aflatoxins and other hazards and cancer

Question 7: What should a food safety research program focus on? There was general endorsement of the position of the United States Agency on International Development that socio-behavioural research was severely lacking. Important questions include: What delivery mechanisms are most effective in conveying awareness of foodborne disease risk? What are the most effective messages to trigger ‘willingness to pay’ for food safety upgrading along the value chain? In terms of adoption, why do some simple food safety interventions take off while others lag? Research topics

● Toxicological and exposure data from developing countries; exposure may be very different depending on diets and other factors.

● Social and cultural determinants of foodborne disease exposure and vulnerability as well as health seeking behaviour.

● Understanding social barriers to behaviour change and incentives, nudges or other mechanisms for overcoming these.

Feed the Future Innovation Lab on Food Safety

Page 129 of 129

● Intervention trials on food safety solutions (technical, managerial, institutional, communication and others) rigorously evaluated through experimental design.

● Research into improved foodborne disease surveillance infrastructure. ● Some research efforts devoted to novel and emerging foodborne diseases.

Comparing priorities from the White Paper and the Consultation It was encouraging that the main topics and research gaps from the White Paper were endorsed by the AgExchange discussants. In particular, the need for country level evidence on hazards and health burden and the need for economic data to motivate stakeholders outside the health sector were stressed. Overall, the discussants placed more emphasis on action research and research into solutions rather than gathering more evidence. There was also more concern over the possible negative impacts on businesses linked to the costs of compliance and verification. Interestingly, aflatoxins and gender which receive much attention more broadly had relatively less attention in this discussion but that may have been related to timing. Additional material A top-level summary of key limitations of the World Health Organization study, many of which could be addressed by further research and surveillance, was also provided (by Prof Arie Havelaar, the Chair of the report). Data availability and quality

● Particularly in low-income countries where burden is highest ● Reliance on imputation and expert judgment and need to ground-truth with epidemiological studies ● Presentation at regional level rather than country level and need to generate country-specific data ● Lack of food attribution data which would allow breakdown of foodborne diseases by food category ● Large uncertainty intervals

Underestimation of full burden

● Limited number of hazards considered ● Not all endpoints considered, for example, malnutrition and stunting; irritable bowel syndrome; chronic

(psychiatric) consequences of toxoplasmosis ● Burden in HIV-positive individuals preventable by food safety interventions not covered ● Model uncertainty, for example, multiplicative or additive models for chemicals ● Public health metrics do not quantify the full societal impact of foodborne diseases; economic burden ● Indirect transmission of disease agents from food production systems

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY