In Part 1 of this series, we explored a growing concern facing millions of African consumers: the presence of chemical residues in everyday foods. Scientific studies, reports from international organisations, and evidence from across the continent revealed a troubling reality. From vegetables and fruits to grains and other agricultural products, traces of pesticides and other chemicals continue to find their way into food systems, raising important questions about public health, food safety, and consumer protection.
Yet understanding the problem is only the beginning.
A more difficult question remains unanswered.
If governments, researchers, farmers, international organisations, and consumers increasingly recognise the risks associated with unsafe chemical use, why does the problem continue to persist? Why do food safety challenges remain widespread despite decades of scientific research, regulatory reforms, and growing public awareness? And why do some chemicals that have been restricted or banned elsewhere continue to circulate within African agricultural systems?
The answers are far more complex than many people realise.
The food safety challenge facing Africa is not simply the result of individual farmer behaviour. It is shaped by a combination of economic pressures, regulatory weaknesses, global trade dynamics, market incentives, institutional limitations, and policy choices. Behind every pesticide application lies a larger story involving livelihoods, agricultural productivity, food security, governance, and competing development priorities.
To understand why chemical residues continue appearing in African food systems, we must look beyond the farm and examine the systems that influence what happens before food reaches our plates.
The Regulatory Paradox: Protection Abroad, Exposure at Home
One of the most controversial aspects of the food safety debate concerns chemicals that have been restricted or banned in some parts of the world but remain available in others.
Across Europe, governments have spent decades reviewing scientific evidence regarding pesticide safety. As concerns emerged about environmental contamination, biodiversity loss, occupational exposure, and potential public health risks, regulators moved to restrict or prohibit several active ingredients.
Yet some of these same substances have continued to find markets in developing regions, including parts of Africa.
Agricultural Inputs on Retail Shelves: Access, Regulation and Responsibility
Agrochemical products remain widely available across many African markets, highlighting the importance of effective regulation and consumer protection. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
This creates what many experts describe as a regulatory paradox.
A chemical considered too risky for use by farmers in one country may still be legally imported, registered, distributed, and applied elsewhere.
The Expanding Agrochemical Marketplace
The widespread availability of agricultural chemicals highlights the importance of strong regulatory oversight and consumer protection. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
From a legal perspective, this may be permissible. From an ethical perspective, however, it raises uncomfortable questions.
If a product fails to meet safety expectations in one jurisdiction, should populations elsewhere be expected to accept the same risks?
The Chemical Residues on Our Plates: Africa’s Silent Food Safety Crisis
The concern is particularly significant because many African countries face greater challenges in monitoring pesticide use, residue levels, and environmental exposure than wealthier nations that originally imposed restrictions.
The issue is therefore not simply about trade.
It is about whether standards of protection are being applied equally.
The Economics of Survival: Why Farmers Depend on Chemicals
Public discussions often portray pesticide use as a matter of choice. For many smallholder farmers, however, it is often a matter of survival.
Balancing Livelihoods and Food Safety: A Farmer Preparing Crop Protection Chemicals
For many farmers, chemical application is driven by economic necessity and the fear of losing an entire harvest. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
Imagine a tomato farmer in Woe, Adieyie, Wuji, Taha, Busa, Agogo, Nsoatre or Akomadan. A pest outbreak threatens months of investment.
Seeds have been purchased. Fertilizers have been applied. Labour costs have accumulated. School fees, loan repayments, and household expenses depend on a successful harvest. The farmer faces a difficult calculation.
Fertilizer Applied One Month Three Weeks Maize Farm
Farmers often invest heavily in crop production and rely on agricultural inputs to protect yields and livelihoods. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
The threat of immediate crop loss feels far more real than the possibility of long-term health risks.
In such circumstances, pesticides often appear to be the safest economic option.
The challenge becomes even greater when climate change enters the equation. Rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and emerging pest infestations are making farming increasingly unpredictable across Africa. As production risks increase, reliance on chemical solutions often increases as well.
Chemical Pest Control in Groundnut Cultivation
Pesticides remain a common method of managing pests and diseases across many farming systems. Promoting safer application methods and alternative pest management strategies is critical for long-term agricultural sustainability. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
Understanding this reality is essential.
Food safety reforms that ignore farmers’ economic realities are unlikely to succeed.
When Markets Reward Appearance More Than Safety
Consumers also play a role in shaping agricultural practices, often without realizing it.
Across markets in Ghana and elsewhere, buyers tend to prefer fruits and vegetables that appear flawless. Tomatoes with no blemishes attract more attention. Lettuce free from insect damage sells faster. Cabbages with perfect leaves command higher prices.
This creates powerful incentives.
Farmers quickly learn that appearance influences income.
As a result, pressure to deliver visually attractive produce often encourages increased
pesticide use.
Freshness, Quality and Consumer Expectations
The appearance of fruits and vegetables strongly influences purchasing decisions. Building awareness about food safety requires looking beyond appearance to understand how food is produced and handled before reaching consumers. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
The irony is striking.
Consumers seeking fresh-looking food may inadvertently contribute to production practices that increase food safety concerns.
A safer food system, therefore, requires not only better regulation but also a broader understanding of how market expectations influence farming decisions.
Weak Institutions, Limited Monitoring
Effective food safety systems depend on strong institutions.
They require laboratories capable of testing food products, inspectors capable of monitoring compliance, extension officers capable of supporting farmers, and regulators capable of enforcing standards.
Across many African countries, these systems continue to face resource constraints.
Food safety agencies frequently operate with limited budgets. Laboratory infrastructure remains insufficient in many areas. Residue testing programmes are often irregular. Border inspections face logistical challenges.
This does not necessarily reflect a lack of commitment.
Rather, it reflects competing national priorities and limited public resources.
However, the consequence is clear.
Without consistent monitoring, policymakers cannot accurately measure the scale of exposure. Without data, effective intervention becomes difficult.
And without intervention, risks persist.
Who Benefits and Who Bears the Risk?
The benefits of agrochemical use are often distributed across the entire food supply chain.
Manufacturers generate profits from the sale of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilisers. Importers and distributors earn revenue by supplying agricultural inputs to local markets. Retailers benefit from increased sales. Farmers use chemicals to protect crops, reduce losses, and improve yields. Traders rely on stable production to maintain supply, while consumers benefit from the year-round availability of fruits, vegetables, and other food products.
In many ways, modern agriculture has become deeply dependent on chemical inputs.
Yet when problems emerge, the risks are rarely shared equally.
Farmers and farm workers often face the highest levels of direct exposure through mixing, spraying, and handling chemicals, sometimes with limited protective equipment or training. Consumers may unknowingly absorb residues through the food they purchase and consume. Rural communities can experience environmental contamination affecting soil, water sources, pollinators, and biodiversity. Governments eventually bear the burden of treating illnesses associated with environmental and food-related health risks. Future generations inherit ecosystems that may be less resilient and more difficult to restore.
This imbalance raises important questions about accountability.
Should responsibility for food safety rest primarily on smallholder farmers who are often operating under significant economic pressure? Or should greater responsibility also be shared by manufacturers, importers, regulators, retailers, and policymakers who shape the systems within which farmers make decisions?
The question becomes even more significant when viewed through a global lens. Some of the world’s largest agrochemical companies operate within international markets where safety standards vary considerably between regions. In some cases, products that face restrictions or bans in certain jurisdictions continue to be marketed elsewhere where regulatory oversight may be weaker or enforcement capacity more limited.
While such practices may comply with existing laws, they raise difficult ethical questions. If scientific evidence has prompted concerns in one part of the world, should populations elsewhere be expected to accept greater levels of risk simply because regulatory systems are less robust?
A truly sustainable food system cannot be built on unequal standards of protection. Those who benefit from agricultural production must also contribute meaningfully to managing its risks. Food safety should not be viewed as the responsibility of farmers alone. It is a shared obligation that extends across governments, businesses, research institutions, supply chains, and consumers alike.
Food Sovereignty Beyond Production
For decades, discussions about African agriculture have focused on increasing production.
This objective remains important.
However, food security is no longer simply about producing enough food.
It is also about determining how food is produced, which technologies are promoted, what standards are applied, and who makes those decisions.
Food sovereignty expands the conversation.
It asks whether African countries possess the scientific capacity, regulatory independence, and institutional strength to determine what enters their food systems based on their own public health priorities.
This is particularly important when considering agricultural inputs that have generated controversy elsewhere.
A sovereign food system should have the ability to ask difficult questions, conduct independent assessments, and make evidence-based decisions without external pressure.
The Environmental Justice Question
The issue of chemical residues ultimately extends beyond agriculture.
It becomes a question of fairness.
A child in Accra is no less deserving of protection than a child in Amsterdam.
A farmer in Ho faces many of the same biological vulnerabilities as a farmer in Germany.
The science of human health does not change across borders.
Yet protections often do.
Environmental justice demands that public health protections should not depend on geography, economic status, or institutional capacity.
Every individual deserves equal protection from avoidable environmental risks.
Building the Future: What Must Change?
Addressing Africa’s food safety challenge requires more than criticism.
It requires solutions.
A Different Path Forward: Sustainable Agriculture in Practice
Organic farming and other sustainable agricultural approaches demonstrate that food production, environmental stewardship, and consumer safety can work together. Such innovations offer promising pathways for building more resilient food systems across Africa. (Author’s field documentation, 2026).
Governments must strengthen food safety agencies, improve laboratory capacity, expand residue monitoring programmes, and invest in agricultural extension services.
Research institutions must generate stronger evidence.
Regional bodies must harmonize standards and improve cooperation.
The private sector must embrace greater transparency and accountability.
Most importantly, farmers must be supported with practical alternatives, including Integrated Pest Management, climate-smart agriculture, biological controls, and sustainable farming practices.
Food safety cannot be achieved by regulation alone.
It must be built through partnership.
The Future of Food Safety Is a Governance Question
At its core, Africa’s food safety challenge is not simply about pesticides.
It is about governance.
It is about whether public institutions possess the capacity, resources, and political support necessary to protect consumers.
It is about whether economic growth can be pursued without compromising public health.
And it is about whether African countries are prepared to build food systems that prioritize safety alongside productivity.
The question facing Africa today is no longer whether chemical residues deserve attention.
That debate has largely been settled.
The more important question is whether governments, businesses, researchers, development partners, and citizens are prepared to confront the deeper political, economic, and institutional factors that allow the problem to persist. Addressing food safety requires more than technical solutions. It requires political commitment, regulatory courage, scientific investment, and a collective willingness to place public health at the centre of agricultural development.
Because safe food is not merely an agricultural goal.
It is a public health obligation.
It is a matter of consumer rights.
It is a question of environmental justice.
And it is a test of governance.
Africa’s food future should not be measured solely by the quantity of food produced, traded, or consumed. It should also be measured by the confidence citizens have in the safety of the food on their plates.
Food security without food safety is an incomplete promise.
The challenge before us is clear: to build food systems that feed people without compromising their health, support farmers without exposing them to unnecessary risks, and drive economic growth without sacrificing environmental sustainability.
The future of millions of African consumers depends on whether that promise becomes reality.
By: Kofi Agbeko Leh
Development Practitioner | Public Policy Analyst | Researcher in Food Systems, Governance and Sustainable Development
