SHARED ACCOUNTABILITY: The real food safety crisis is not science but failure to coordinate across institutions

Six days before our recent Food Safety Governance Policy Dialogue [3 June 2026], activist Mark Heywood was helping organise a memorandum directed at the government, in particular, aimed at the minister of Agriculture.

A few days later, he found himself sharing a platform with Director-General Mooketsa Ramasodi, senior regulators, industry leaders, consumer protection officials and public health practitioners discussing how South Africa could build a safer food system.

South African public discourse being what it is, one could have expected sparks. Instead, what followed was a lesson in democratic maturity.

Heywood questioned political will. Ramasodi responded thoughtfully, distinguishing between food security and food safety while acknowledging the fragmentation that many stakeholders had come to discuss. The exchange was robust, candid and respectful.

Remarkably, nobody threw a chair [well, almost, but a metaphorical chair, of course]. In fact, by the end of the discussion, there were handshakes, exchanged business cards, shared cellphone numbers and promises of future conversations. Stakeholders who had spent the previous hour challenging one another were suddenly discussing future collaborations.

In SA’s current climate, that may be more significant than it sounds. As moderator of the dialogue, hosted by the Wits Business School’s Food Safety Leadership Initiative (FSLI) at the 2026 Food Safety Summit South Africa, I had a privileged view of something we do not see often enough: People who fundamentally disagree on many things staying in the room long enough to discover where they agree.

And perhaps that is where the real food safety story begins.

Part One: Getting everyone into the room

Following the tragic food poisoning incidents that shocked South Africa in 2024, much has been written about food safety. I was among those who argued at the time that the issue was bigger than contaminated products and isolated failures. The events exposed deeper questions about governance, accountability, coordination and public trust.

Nearly two years later, many of those questions remain. Yet what struck me during the recent dialogue was how little disagreement exists about the diagnosis.

Around the table sat Director-General Mooketsa Ramasodi from Agriculture; Belinda Makafola from the Department of Health; Prudence Moilwa from the National Consumer Commission; Meisie Katz from the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (Department of Trade, Industry and Competition); Zinhle Tyikwe of GS1 South Africa; and Mark Heywood from the Union Against Hunger.

Different perspectives. Different mandates. Different constituencies. Yet remarkably similar diagnoses.

Agriculture Director-General Mooketsa Ramasodi. (Photo: Supplied) Health officials acknowledged capacity constraints and the challenges facing environmental health practitioners. Consumer protection authorities reminded everyone that accountability cannot begin and end with the government. Industry representatives highlighted ongoing investments in standards, traceability and food safety systems.

Heywood challenged both the government and business to confront the realities of hunger, inequality and political will. Ramasodi spoke candidly about fragmentation across the food safety system and the need to rethink institutional arrangements.

Everyone agreed that SA possesses substantial expertise. Everyone agreed that the country has extensive legislation. Everyone agreed that food safety matters. The disagreement lies elsewhere.

SA’s food safety problem is not a science problem

Listening to the discussion unfold, I found myself reaching an uncomfortable conclusion. SA does not have a food safety knowledge problem. Nor does it lack technical expertise. We have committed officials. We have scientists. We have regulators. We have laboratories. We have standards. We have industry capability. We have consumer watchdogs. We have legislation. What we struggle with is coordination.

Responsibilities are spread across institutions. Information sits in different systems. Inspections occur under different mandates. Data exists but is not always shared. Accountability is everybody’s responsibility and therefore sometimes nobody’s responsibility.

The public, after all, does not experience food safety through organisational charts. Consumers do not care which department, regulator, municipality or agency is responsible. They simply expect food to be safe. And they are entitled to that expectation.

The surprising role of a business school

This raises an obvious question. What business does a business school have in food safety? At first glance, very little. Food safety is usually associated with scientists, laboratories, inspectors, regulators, manufacturers and public health professionals.

Yet perhaps that is precisely why business schools have an important role to play. Because beneath the science, the standards, the inspections and the regulations lies something else – l…