Next Article in Journal
Opening Our Innovation Ecosystems to All: The INTEGER Project Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Mechanisms and Pathways Through Which the Digital Transformation of Manufacturing Enterprises Enhances Green and Low-Carbon Performance Under the “Dual Carbon” Goals
Previous Article in Special Issue
EU Citizens’ Perception of Risks Posed to the Sustainability of EU Food Security
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/su17031163
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Quality and Safety of Donated Food in Charitable Food Assistance Programs in eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

by
Sizwe Makhunga
1,*,
Mbuzeleni Hlongwa
1,2 and
Khumbulani Hlongwana
1,3
1
Discipline of Public Health Medicine, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
2
Public Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
3
Cancer and Infectious Diseases Epidemiology Research Unit (CIDERU), College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4000, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(3), 1163; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031163
Submission received: 31 October 2024 / Revised: 27 January 2025 / Accepted: 30 January 2025 / Published: 31 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Security, Food Recovery, Food Quality, and Food Safety)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Food insecurity is a major global problem, with over 2.8 billion people reported as unable to afford a healthy diet in 2022. While charitable food assistance programs (CFAPs) play an important role in improving food access, ensuring the quality and safety of donated foods is crucial for safeguarding needy communities from food-related illnesses. This study evaluated the safety and quality of food donations at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District using a novel methodology. Methods: In March 2024, a five-day audit was conducted at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A mobile device was utilized to document comprehensive information on all incoming deliveries, including the type of food, product details (such as brand, name, and variety), donor information, weight, and date markings. The audit assessed 1037 items, totaling 64,818 kg of donated food, against established food safety standards. Each item was visually inspected upon arrival and classified as ‘unsuitable’, ‘potentially unsafe’, or ‘unsafe’ for human consumption. Results: Out of the 64,818 kg of donated food, 95.5% (61,886 kg) was deemed satisfactory. However, 4.5% of the total, which amounts to 2932 kg, was categorized as either unsafe (355 kg), potentially unsafe (1182 kg), or unsuitable (1395 kg) for consumption. Retail supermarkets donated the largest weight of food, and also of the food classified as unsafe or unsuitable. Conclusions: The study highlights an urgent need for improved quality control and safety measures in food donations to CFAPs. Stricter handling and inspection guidelines are essential to ensure the quality of charitable food, reduce health risks, and build public trust in donation programs.

1. Introduction

Food insecurity is a major global problem, with over 2.8 billion people reported as unable to afford a healthy diet in 2022. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines food security as a condition in which “all people, at all times, have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. This underscores the multifaceted nature of food insecurity, encompassing availability, access, utilization, and stability. While charitable food assistance programs (CFAPs) play an essential role in improving food access, ensuring the quality and safety of donated foods is crucial for safeguarding needy communities from food-related illnesses. In South Africa, food insecurity remains a pressing concern, with the 2023 Global Hunger Index (GHI) categorizing the country at a “moderate” hunger level. Socioeconomic disparities, unemployment, and systemic inequities contribute to the persistent challenges of undernourishment and limited access to safe and nutritious food.
The United Nations’ second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) aims to eliminate hunger, secure food access, improve nutrition, and foster sustainable agriculture by 2030. Despite considerable progress, challenges persist, especially in ensuring access to safe, quality food for vulnerable populations. This study aligns closely with Goal 2 by underscoring the importance of nutritious food within charitable food assistance programs (CFAPs). By advocating for stronger quality control and inspection standards, CFAPs contribute to a safer, more reliable food system that supports food security and public health, essential to the global mission to eradicate hunger and malnutrition.
CFAPs are essential in addressing global food insecurity challenges, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These programs, including food banks, pantries, soup kitchens, and shelters, rely on donations of surplus, near-expiry, or imperfect foods by retail standards, but which may still be safe for human consumption [1]. However, the variation in the quality and safety of these donated foods may expose the beneficiaries to potential health risks. Globally, maintaining the safety and nutritional quality of donated foods is challenging due to inadequate standardized safety protocols [2]. In high-income countries, well-established food safety regulations integrate CFAPs into comprehensive frameworks, allowing for effective monitoring and risk management [3]. In contrast, LMICs often lack the infrastructure, regulatory oversight, and resources needed to enforce such standards, thereby leading to inconsistent food quality and safety practices [4].
Accurately quantifying the number of people in LMICs relying on food banks is challenging due to inconsistent data [4,5]. However, some tens of millions across regions such as Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and parts of Asia depend on food banks and food assistance programs [6,7]. Resource limitations and logistical challenges often compromise food security and quality in these regions [8]. By 2030, 582 million people worldwide, half of whom live in Africa, are predicted to suffer from chronic undernourishment if present trends continue unabated [9,10]. In 2022, over 2.8 billion people globally were unable to afford a healthy diet, a problem that is particularly severe in low-income countries, where 71.5% of the population is affected compared to just 6.3% in high-income nations [6,10]. By 2023, approximately 733 million people worldwide were facing hunger, including one in eleven globally and one in five in Africa [11,12]. Moreover, 2.33 billion people are experiencing moderate to severe food insecurity, with more than 864 million enduring extreme conditions, at times going without food for an entire day [11]. Economic barriers to accessing nutritious diets remain a major issue, affecting more than one-third of the global population [10,13].
Managing the safety and quality of food donations in sub-Saharan Africa is particularly challenging due to widespread food insecurity and heavy reliance on CFAPs as a primary food source [14]. The region’s hot climate, inadequate cold chain infrastructure, and long transportation times often lead to spoilage and contamination of donated food, contributing to the high prevalence of foodborne diseases [15]. These risks are compounded by the largely informal nature of many CFAPs, which operate with minimal regulatory oversight and inconsistent food safety practices [4]. The absence of standardized protocols for managing food safety further complicates efforts aimed at ensuring that donated food is safe for consumption [16]. Additionally, CFAPs in Africa face common logistical and infrastructural challenges, as seen in other LMICs, along with culturally inappropriate or nutritionally inadequate donations that may be unfamiliar or unsuitable for proper preparation and consumption [17].
Without robust regulatory frameworks, CFAPs must rely on limited resources for food safety management, resulting in fragmented practices [4,5]. The lack of awareness about food safety among both donors and recipients perpetuates unsafe practices, making it even harder to maintain the quality and safety of donated foods [18]. In South Africa, 61% (36.6 million people) of the population depends on food banks for nutritious meals [11]. However, studies show that improper handling, shipping, and storage of donated food frequently expose it to contamination, especially in areas without adequate refrigeration for perishables, thus increasing the risk of foodborne illnesses [19,20]. Regulatory frameworks in LMICs are often underdeveloped or poorly enforced, complicating efforts to ensure food safety [4,21]. Many CFAPs operate informally, relying on irregular donations and volunteers who may lack the training and resources to implement effective safety measures [18].
Despite South Africa having a more developed food regulatory system compared with other sub-Saharan counterparts, challenges such as improper storage, inconsistent handling, and inadequate regulatory oversight prevail [17]. The lack of standardized food safety assessment processes further heightens the risk of illness among vulnerable populations. Although some South African organizations have begun adopting Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) principles, these improvements are still in their early stages and not widely implemented [22]. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is a systematic approach to food safety that identifies and manages risks throughout the production and handling process. By pinpointing critical control points, HACCP effectively reduces the likelihood of contamination and foodborne illness, making it a widely adopted strategy in the food industry to uphold safety standards and protect consumer health.
Overall, ensuring the quality and safety of donated foods in CFAPs is a significant challenge worldwide, with particularly severe issues in LMICs, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Africa. There is a clear need for standardized safety protocols and improved regulatory frameworks. As CFAPs continue to play a vital role in addressing food insecurity, innovative solutions and capacity-building efforts are essential to enhance food safety and ensure that donated foods are safe and nutritious. Research specifically focused on the KwaZulu-Natal perspective reveals that the region’s CFAPs face unique challenges [23]. For instance, a study by Naicker et al. [17] noted the impact of local infrastructural deficits and socioeconomic factors on food safety practices in the eThekwini District. This study pointed out that while efforts are underway to improve food safety, the region is still grappling with issues related to the improper handling and storage of donated foods, compounded by a lack of comprehensive training for volunteers and staff [23]. The current study evaluated the safety and quality of food donations at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District using a novel methodology developed by Mossenson et al. [24].
This paper is part of a larger research project that has evaluated the CFAPs adherence to eight principles of food safety and general hygiene in KwaZulu-Natal. These eight principles are as follows: (i) design of premises and facilities, (ii) food storage and packaging, (iii) health and hygiene education, (iv) personal hygiene, (v) waste management and pest control systems, (vi) use and maintenance of transport, (vii) product information/labeling, and (viii) food safety and hygiene. This paper is particularly focusing on the eighth principle, namely, the safety and hygiene of charitable food. Using a novel methodology, this study evaluated the safety and quality of food donations at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District. The primary objectives of this study are as follows:
  • To assess the safety and quality of food donations received by CFAPs.
  • To identify potential hazards associated with the handling and storage of donated foods.
  • To explore strategies for improving the quality assurance processes in CFAPs.
The research is guided by the following hypotheses:
H1. 
Food donations at the CFAPs meet the minimum safety and quality standards required for distribution to communities.
H2. 
There are significant gaps in the handling and storage processes that could compromise the safety and quality of donated foods.
H3. 
Implementing enhanced quality assurance measures will significantly improve the safety and reliability of food donations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The eThekwini Metropolitan Area is situated on the east coast of South Africa in the province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and ranks as the third-largest metropolitan municipality in the country, following Johannesburg and Cape Town [25]. Covering approximately 2555 km2, eThekwini shares its borders with three districts: Ugu to the south, iLembe to the north, and uMgungundlovu to the west [26]. The area is well connected, accessible via major routes including the N2 and N3 highways, as well as King Shaka International Airport. eThekwini Metro is home to 3.9 million people, representing 34.7% of KwaZulu-Natal’s total population [25]. From 2008 to 2018, the metro’s population grew by 1.45%, slightly below the national average of 1.57%. The average household size in the metro is 3.3, which is smaller than the provincial average of 3.8. Nearly 30% of the population is under 15 years old, and 63% are under 35. Additionally, 8802 households are headed by children or young people aged 15 to 19, and 42.14% of households are led by women. Approximately 2.1 million residents live below the upper bound poverty line of ZAR 1227 per person per month, and 17.1% reported having no income, according to the 2016 Stats SA Community Survey [10]. About 16.8% of the population lack formal education, with only 5.8% holding higher education qualifications [27].

2.2. Research Design and Sampling

Over the course of five days, the study thoroughly assessed the food quality and safety at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District using a cross-sectional methodology. Data from a thorough audit of charitable foods, which evaluated several facets of food quality and safety, served as the basis for this assessment. Every food item received throughout the audit period (5 days) was evaluated using a census sample technique. A census sample technique involves collecting data from every individual within a specific population rather than from a subset, allowing researchers to gain a complete and comprehensive understanding of that population’s characteristics. This method ensured that every item was carefully evaluated and gave a comprehensive picture of the facility’s food safety handling procedures.

2.3. Data Collection

A thorough five-day food safety evaluation was carried out at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District, using information from a food donation audit. Following the protocol established by Mossenson et al. [28], every delivery that arrived at the warehouse was carefully recorded, covering the following essential elements:
  • ▪ Weight Measurement and Photography: Each delivery was weighed and photographed for accurate records.
  • ▪ Detailed Manual Labeling: Comprehensive documentation included donor information, delivery date, food type, product specifics (brand, name, variety), weight, and date-marking details.
  • ▪ Visual Inspection: Packaging and products were thoroughly examined for any signs of damage, with additional documentation and photography as needed.
  • ▪ Temperature Control Checks: Assessments were conducted to monitor temperature compliance and to identify any signs of thawing in frozen products.
The collected data were then evaluated against predetermined food safety criteria, developed in accordance with established food safety principles [29,30]. Due to the potential food safety risks associated with sorting, recording, and repacking frozen mixed loads, only donor details and total weight were recorded for these items [28].

2.4. Classification of Batches of Received Food

Based on their composition upon arrival, food batches received at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District were divided into two categories: single lot (SL) and mixed lot (ML). An SL refers to a donation that comprises exclusively pallets containing one specific type of product. This product type may encompass different variations or flavors of the same item, such as a selection of various flavors of potato chips. In other words, while the product is singular in category, it can come in multiple forms within that category, like different seasoning options or packaging sizes.
On the other hand, MLs are collections of unsorted products that can be kept at room temperature, in the refrigerator, or frozen. MLs take longer to process than SLs because of their complexity, which necessitates separate sorting and assessment for food type and safety compatibility. If a donation includes both SL and ML components, it is classified as a mixed lot to ensure a thorough evaluation and processing of all items [28].

2.5. Food Safety Evaluation Criterion

Data were assessed using a decision tree (Figure 1) adapted from the framework established by Mossenson et al. [24], ensuring alignment with established food safety principles [31].
This systematic approach facilitated a clear and organized evaluation of food safety practices, allowing for the identification of potential risks associated with food donations. For frozen mixed loads, only the donor’s information and the total weight were recorded. This decision was made because the process of sorting, documenting, and repacking these loads could introduce significant food safety risks. By limiting the documentation in these instances, the study aimed to minimize the potential for contamination or spoilage during handling. This targeted approach not only enhanced the efficiency of data collection but also prioritized food safety in the evaluation process.
The quality and safety of donated food was evaluated in accordance with Regulation R638, which outlines general hygiene requirements for food premises, transportation, and related matters in South Africa [31]. Regulation R3287, framed under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics, and Disinfectants Act of 1972 (Act 54 of 1972), was used to review labeling evidence [33]. In the absence of donor-provided food safety records and laboratory test results, a visual inspection of products and packaging was conducted to assess food safety risks. This included a review of date markings [33] and categorization of products into one of three categories: ‘unsuitable’, ‘potentially unsafe’, or ‘unsafe’ for human consumption. ‘Unsuitable’ foods, although edible, may be damaged or deteriorated to the extent that they are no longer suitable for their intended use, such as products with ripped or crushed packaging.
Food safety and quality classifications are essential for protecting public health. These terms help identify risks and guide appropriate actions. ‘Unsafe’ food refers to products that are contaminated or hazardous, posing an immediate threat to health and often requiring prompt disposal or recall. Visual indicators of unsafe food include the presence of foreign objects such as glass shards, metal pieces, or plastic fragments; signs of microbial spoilage like mold growth, slimy textures, or visible colonies of bacteria; unnatural or extreme discoloration; visible pests or pest residues such as insects, droppings, or webs; packaging defects like swollen cans or broken seals; strong, unpleasant, or chemical-like odors; and unusual texture changes such as stickiness or sogginess.
‘Potentially unsafe’ food includes items that are not yet hazardous but could become unsafe if not properly handled or stored. These foods require careful monitoring and exhibit features such as slight discoloration that may indicate the early stages of spoilage, faint off-odors suggesting spoilage onset, packaging anomalies like minor dents or damage that do not yet compromise the seal, minor textural changes such as soft or mushy produce, and condensation or moisture buildup inside packaging that may encourage microbial growth.
‘Unsuitable’ food, while not necessarily dangerous, fails to meet quality standards and may still cause discomfort or raise concerns. Visual indicators include cosmetic imperfections like bruised, blemished, or misshapen produce; signs of aging such as wilting leafy greens or dried-out fruits; textural issues like hard or stale baked goods past their prime; off-label packaging or mislabeling that does not compromise safety; and surface defects like minor freezer burn, small cracks, or uneven surfaces that affect appearance but not safety.
According to White et al. [34], packing defects can act as a “contamination trigger” that raises possible worries even though they do not always signify a safety risk. Based on these standards, products were first classified as ‘satisfactory’ or ‘unsatisfactory’. With an emphasis on packaging and product integrity, the authors modified a decision tree (Figure 1) to direct the visual evaluation of food donations in a warehouse scenario [28]. Although elements like temperature control and traceability were not included in this study, the decision tree aids in identifying important flaws and problems pertaining to food safety [35].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Stata statistical software (Release 17, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA, 2021). Donations were categorized according to donor type to allow comparison across different groups. This involved grouping the total number of products and the total weight of donations for each type. For each donor type, the total weight of donations was summed to determine the overall contribution in kilograms. Similarly, the total number of individual products donated by each group was calculated. Descriptive statistics, including totals and categorization, were applied to summarize donation patterns. The data offered a clear breakdown of contributions from each donor type, both by total weight and number of products. These contributions were then compared across donor groups to highlight trends and differences, such as identifying which donor type contributed the highest total weight and which provided the most individual products.

2.7. Ethical Considerations

The Biomedical Research Ethics Committee at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and eThekwini District granted ethical clearance (BREC/00000821/2019) (BREC) and gatekeeper permission, respectively. All participants consented to take part in the study.

3. Results

Over a five-day period, a total of 54 distinct donations were received, comprising a wide range of pallets and products. A single collection location handled the donations, which were either provided directly by the public or gathered by the food bank in the eThekwini District. Notably, each donation, regardless of its size or composition, was treated as an individual contribution, whether it consisted of a single pallet or a mix of various products. While donors were permitted to make multiple donations in a single day, each delivery or collection was recorded as a separate donation, contributing to the overall total. In total, the donations weighed 64,818 kg and comprised 1037 individual products. Table 1 details the donations by donor type, divided into farmers, food manufacturers, the hospitality industry, retail supermarkets, wholesalers, transport, logistics, and distribution companies, other retail businesses, and the general public. Each delivery, irrespective of size or frequency, was treated as a separate donation.

3.1. Mixed Lots

MLs constituted 50% (n = 27) of the total donations included in this study. These MLs accounted for a significant proportion of the total donation, representing 83% of the donated products (860 items) and 53% of the total weight of the donations, which amounted to 34,547 kg (Table 2). This indicates that mixed lots made up a large portion of the overall donation volume, both in terms of the number of items and the total weight.

3.2. Unsafe and Unsuitable for Human Consumption

Table 3 shows that 39% of all donations (n = 21) were categorized as unsafe or unsuitable, making up 5% (2932 kg) of the total weight received. Of these, 86% (n = 18) were part of ML donations. Supermarkets contributed 57% (n = 12) of food donations, accounting for 88% (2579 kg) of the total weight of unsafe, potentially unsafe, or unsuitable products. Supermarkets were responsible for 95% of unsuitable, 84% of potentially unsafe, and 90% of unsafe products by weight.
Twelve percent (355 kg) of the donations were categorized as unsuitable (Figure 2), and they were all from MLs. Most unsuitable items had damaged packaging (84%, 298 kg), including crushed cereal boxes and packet cake mixes, with some showing water or oil damage (8%, 28 kg). Incomplete packaging (4%, 14 kg) and a small amount of crushed or melted food (2%, 8 kg) also contributed to the unsuitable category.
Forty percent (1182 kg) of the donations were deemed potentially unsafe and required prompt distribution, with 84% (996 kg) of these being donated one day before the use by date (UBD). The UBD marks the date by which the food should be consumed for safety reasons. Foods with a UBD, such as perishable items like dairy, meat, and seafood, may pose health risks if eaten after this date, even if they appear fine (Figure 3).
Examples include ready meals (chicken biryani) and samosas that needed quick distribution. Overripe produce (186 kg) showed signs of deterioration (tomatoes). The best before date (BBD) indicates the date until which the food is expected to retain its optimal quality, such as taste, texture, and appearance, if properly stored. It is not a safety indicator, meaning the food may still be safe to consume after this date, though its quality might decline. Donations made on the UBD (68 kg) and BBD (9 kg) included potentially hazardous items unlikely to be distributed in time, namely, raw or cooked meats (e.g., beef, poultry, pork, and seafood), prepared or ready-to-eat meals (e.g., casseroles, sandwiches, and salads), and perishable baked goods (e.g., cream-filled pastries and cakes with dairy-based frosting).
Forty-eight percent (1395 kg) of the unsafe donations needed immediate disposal (Figure 4). The products that exceeded their UBD totaled 902 kg and included specific items such as beef patties (298 kg), Russian sausages (245 kg), smoked vacuum-packed chicken (330 kg), and sliced cold meats (311 kg).
Additionally, 589 kg of meat-based products was past its BBD. Some of these items were frozen, but lacked proper relabeling, raising concerns about compliance with food safety standards. Products exceeding their acceptable BBD included 196 kg of nearly two-year-old canned tomato soup, 112 kg of canned fruit salad, 20 liters of amasi (sour milk), and 12 kg of condensed milk. In addition, 63 kg of rejected produce and 56 kg of recalled products such as fresh fruit and fish fingers were also discarded. Damaged items, totaling 17 kg, included squashed containers and leaking packets, rendering them unfit for use. Another 11 kg of products flagged under ‘other concerns’ was discarded due to visible mold, missing labels, or contamination from animal feed, raising food safety issues.

4. Discussion and Policy Considerations

This study introduces a ground-breaking method, first proposed by Mossenson et al. [24,28], for visually assessing product deliveries, marking a pivotal step toward evaluating the safety and quality of food donations at a South African food bank. Developing a tailored assessment process and establishing food safety criteria showcases dedicated efforts toward elevating the standards of food banking in the South African context. These insights provide a clearer understanding of the characteristics of donated foods, offering information that was previously unavailable [4]. The results demonstrate a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District’s continuous dedication to improving food safety and quality, guaranteeing that appropriate and safe food is regularly provided to those in need. Notably, 95% of donated food was satisfactory, while 5% posed unacceptable health risks. Although the percentage of unsafe food is small, the risks are considerable, as illustrated by instances like the 311 kg of cold meat donated two months past its use by date. This is particularly concerning in light of the 2017–2018 listeria outbreak in South Africa [35], which resulted in over 200 deaths, disproportionately affecting newborns, pregnant women, and the elderly [16]. The outbreak was traced to contaminated polony, underscoring the urgent need for heightened food safety standards and monitoring in retail supermarkets, where such products are widely distributed [36].
In our study, retail supermarkets accounted for the majority of donations and were responsible for 80% of unsafe or unsuitable products, highlighting systemic lapses in food safety compliance. This finding is unexpected, given that global supermarket corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies often emphasize not only food donation and waste reduction but also quality assurance in donated goods to protect recipients’ health and well-being [37]. The study revealed a need for greater transparency in CSR reporting, especially concerning public health and food safety [38]. Supermarkets must extend their food safety protocols to donated products in order to ensure proper handling and storage, while providing detailed reports on the volume and reasons behind donations. Stronger food safety guidelines are urgently required to shield food banks from receiving potentially hazardous products [39]. This is not an entirely new problem; hence, for more than 20 years, concerns about inappropriate gifts have been voiced in nations like the US, Canada, and Australia [40,41]. This study found that nearly 1500 kg of donated foods was potentially unsafe, placing significant demands on volunteer labor and reducing operational efficiency. The findings suggest that current donation practices may jeopardize the health of vulnerable clients, particularly those more susceptible to foodborne illnesses.
The diversion of supermarket excess food to food banks shifts the economic and moral burden of waste management onto charities, which already operate with limited resources [24]. Supermarkets, as key players in the food supply chain, should not offload the cost of disposing unsafe food onto food banks [37]. Their existing quality assurance processes could be extended to cover donated products, minimizing risks to food banks and their clients. While supermarkets maintain high standards for their commercial products, similar scrutiny is often lacking for donations, which leaves food banks vulnerable to receiving inappropriate food items [3,42]. Ensuring that food donations meet these same standards would improve the safety of the food supply and reduce the time spent sorting unsuitable items. The volunteer workforce, essential to food bank operations, faces challenges in handling mixed loads, damaged goods, and food safety assessments with limited training [4]. Without proper guidance, volunteers may inadvertently distribute unsafe products [43,44]. Implementing food safety training for volunteers, as carried out in the United Kingdom, could help mitigate these risks [45,46]. Additional challenges such as compromised temperature control during transport further jeopardize food safety. Food banks do not currently require documentation verifying cold chain management, though this is critical for maintaining the safety of perishable items [47,48].
South Africa currently lacks a formal policy governing food donation, resulting in a fragmented approach to food recovery and redistribution [39,49]. Without a comprehensive framework, organizations and individuals involved in food donations may face legal uncertainties, inconsistencies in food safety standards, and challenges in coordinating efforts. This absence of policy limits the potential for maximizing food recovery, which could help address food insecurity and reduce waste in a country where many individuals still struggle to access sufficient nutrition [39]. Implementing a formal policy could create clearer guidelines, promote best practices, and encourage more robust participation in food donation initiatives [50].
This study underscores the urgent need for food safety regulations that explicitly address food donations, protecting the health and well-being of food bank clients [51]. It advocates for the development of a comprehensive policy framework that includes liability protection for food donors, tax incentives, government grants for food redistribution organizations, and amendments to the Food, Cosmetics, and Disinfectant Act [52] to include policies on food donation safety and date labeling regulations. Finally, clear food safety guidelines must be established for donors and food banks to streamline food donation. These should include requirements for date marking, damaged packaging assessment, and cold chain management. As food banks increasingly depend on donations, implementing these measures is crucial to safeguarding both the safety and dignity of those receiving food assistance.

5. Strengths and Limitations

The article addresses a critical issue, highlighting the importance of food safety in the context of donated items. Ensuring food safety within donation-based organizations presents unique challenges, particularly due to the short shelf life of many donated products. Additionally, many of these items are donated when they are nearing their expiration date, often after being deemed unsellable by retailers, further complicating the evaluation process before distribution to vulnerable populations. Under these constraints, visual batch assessments emerge as a practical and feasible method for assessing food safety. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of visual evaluation, as it cannot reliably detect microbiological or chemical contamination. Instead, this approach relies on identifying specific visual features to categorize food into groups such as ‘unsafe’, ‘potentially unsafe’, and ‘unsuitable’. This systematic classification helps to manage potential risks effectively, ensuring a balance between minimizing food waste and protecting public health.

6. Conclusions

This study evaluated the safety and quality of food donations at a food bank warehouse in the eThekwini District using a novel methodology developed by Mossenson et al. [24]. The findings provide critical insights into the current state of food safety and quality within charitable food assistance programs, highlighting areas for improvement. By systematically assessing donated food items, the study not only identifies potential hazards but also informs best practices for handling and inspection processes. These insights can lead to enhanced quality control measures, ultimately ensuring that vulnerable populations receive safe, nutritious food. Additionally, the study contributes to the broader discourse on food security and nutrition, aligning with global efforts to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 2. The methodology used can serve as a model for similar evaluations of CFAPs in other regions, fostering a more reliable and trustworthy food donation system.

Author Contributions

S.M. is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor. He conceptualised the study and wrote the manuscript. K.H. and M.H. contributed to the writing by critically reviewing the manuscript and making revisions. S.M. wrote the final draft manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical clearance BREC/00000821/2019 was applied for and obtained from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC). The eThekwini District approved the study to be conducted, and all participants consented to participate in the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, (S.M.), upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mitsuaki Tomita and Catherine Connolly for their statistical support of this work. The authors would like to acknowledge the College of Health Sciences at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and eThekwini Municipality for all their valuable support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Serrem, K.; Illes, C.B.; Serrem, C.; Atubukha, B.; Dunay, A. Food safety and sanitation challenges of public university students in a developing country. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 4287–4297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Boliko, M.C. FAO and the situation of food security and nutrition in the world. J. Nutr. Sci. Vitaminol. 2019, 65, S4–S8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Leib, E.B. Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic: Recommendations to the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health; CHLPI: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  4. Makhunga, S.; Mashamba-Thompson, T.; Hlongwa, M.; Hlongwana, K. Evidence on food control in charitable food assistance programs: A systematic scoping review. Syst. Rev. 2019, 8, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Warshawsky, D.N. Urban Food Insecurity and the Advent of Food Banking in Southern Africa; African Food Security Urban Network (AFSUN): Dschang, Cameroon, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  6. World Health Organization. WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety 2022–2030: Towards Stronger Food Safety Systems and Global Cooperation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cohen, D.A.; Colaiaco, B.; Martinez-Wenzl, M.; Montes, M.; Han, B.; Berry, S.H. Can Latino food trucks (loncheras) serve healthy meals? A feasibility study. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 1279–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Savelli, C.J.; Bradshaw, A.; Ben Embarek, P.; Mateus, C. The FAO/WHO international food safety authorities network in review, 2004–2018: Learning from the past and looking to the future. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saint Ville, A.; Po, J.Y.T.; Sen, A.; Bui, A.; Melgar-Quiñonez, H. Food Security and the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES): Ensuring Progress by 2030; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 11, pp. 483–491. [Google Scholar]
  10. Statistics South Africa. Focus on Food Inadequacy and Hunger in South Africa in 2021; Stats SA: Pretoria, South Africa, 2022; Volume 2024. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rudin, J. Our Food Systems Are Designed to Perpetuate Food Insecurity for the Many (Part Two); Daily Maverick: Cape Town, South Africa, 2024; Volume 2024. [Google Scholar]
  12. World Health Organization. Proceedings of the Meeting report: The Second Global Meeting of the FAO/WHO International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN)), 9–11 December 2019; World Health Organization: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  13. Koester, U.; Galaktionova, E. FAO Food Loss Index methodology and policy implications. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2021, 123, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  14. Morse, T.; Masuku, H.; Rippon, S.; Kubwalo, H. Achieving an Integrated Approach to Food Safety and Hygiene—Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Havelaar, A.H.; Kirk, M.D.; Torgerson, P.R.; Gibb, H.J.; Hald, T.; Lake, R.J.; Praet, N.; Bellinger, D.C.; de Silva, N.R.; Gargouri, N.; et al. World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010. PLoS Med. 2015, 12, e1001923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thomas, J.; Govender, N.; McCarthy, K.M.; Erasmus, L.K.; Doyle, T.J.; Allam, M.; Ismail, A.; Ramalwa, N.; Sekwadi, P.; Ntshoe, G.; et al. Outbreak of Listeriosis in South Africa Associated with Processed Meat. New Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Naicker, M.; Naidoo, D.; Ngidi, M. Assessing the Impact of Community Gardens in Mitigating Household Food Insecurity and Addressing Climate Change Challenges: A Case Study of Ward 18, Umdoni Municipality, South Africa. Afr. J. Inter Multidiscip. Stud. 2023, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Makhunga, S.E.; Macherera, M.; Hlongwana, K. Food handlers’ knowledge, attitudes and self-reported practices regarding safe food handling in charitable food assistance programmes in the eThekwini District, South Africa: Cross-sectional study. BMJ open 2023, 13, e065357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Brecht, J.K.; Sargent, S.A.; Brecht, P.E.; Saenz, J.; Rodowick, L. Protecting perishable foods during transport by truck and rail. In USDA AMS Handbook; Univ. of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2019; Volume 669. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chekol, F.A.; Melak, M.F.; Belew, A.K.; Zeleke, E.G. Food handling practice and associated factors among food handlers in public food establishments, Northwest Ethiopia. BMC Res. Notes 2019, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Newsome, R.; Balestrini, C.G.; Baum, M.D.; Corby, J.; Fisher, W.; Goodburn, K.; Labuza, T.P.; Prince, G.; Thesmar, H.S.; Yiannas, F. Applications and Perceptions of Date Labeling of Food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 745–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Manyi-Loh, C.E.; Lues, R. A South African Perspective on the Microbiological and Chemical Quality of Meat: Plausible Public Health Implications. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pal, I.; Naicker, A.; Grobbelaar, H. Investigating the Behaviour and Practices of Household Food Waste Disposal of Consumers in the KwaDukuza Municipality, South Africa. Curr. Res. Nutr. Food Sci. J. 2023, 11, 1229–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mossenson, S.; Giglia, R.; Pulker, C.E.; Chester, M.; McStay, C.; Pollard, C.M. Evidence for initiating food safety policy: An assessment of the quality and safety of donated food at an Australian food bank. Food Policy 2024, 123, 102589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. KZN, E.M. Profile and Analysis—District Development Model; South Africa Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  26. South Africa Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs. Profile—EThekwini Metro; South Africa Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs: Pretoria, South Africa, 2020; Volume 2024. [Google Scholar]
  27. Statistics South Africa. Statistics South Africa (2016) Mid-Year Population Estimates; Statistics South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2016; Volume 2024. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mossenson, S.; Giglia, R.; Pulker, C.E.; Chester, M.; Pollard, C.M. Dietary risk of donated food at an Australian food bank: An audit protocol. BMC Nutr. 2023, 9, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. World Health Organization. Five Keys to Safer Food Manual; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; World Health Organization. Codex Alimentarius: Food Hygiene, Basic Texts; Food & Agriculture Org.: Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  31. Health, D.O. R638 Regulations Governing General Hygiene Requirements for Food Premises, The Transport of Food and Related Matters; South African Government: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  32. South African Government. Regulation Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs; South African Government: Cape Town, South Africa, 2010; Volume 2024. [Google Scholar]
  33. Regulations No., R. 3287 of 2023 Relating to the Labelling and Advertising of Foodstuffs; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  34. White, P.L.; Green, A.L.; Holt, K.G.; Hale, K.R. Multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica subspecies I serovar 4,{5}, 12: I:-isolates recovered from food safety and inspection service-regulated products and food animal ceca, 2007–2016. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kaptchouang Tchatchouang, C.D.; Fri, J.; De Santi, M.; Brandi, G.; Schiavano, G.F.; Amagliani, G.; Ateba, C.N. Listeriosis Outbreak in South Africa: A Comparative Analysis with Previously Reported Cases Worldwide. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ramalwa, N.; Page, N.; Smith, A.; Sekwadi, P.; Shonhiwa, A.; Ntshoe, G.; Essel, V.; Ramudzulu, M.; Ngomane, M.; Thomas, J. Has Foodborne Disease Outbreak Notification and Investigation Changed Since the Listeriosis Outbreak in South Africa? A Review of Foodborne Disease Outbreaks Reported to the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, March 2018–August 2020; NICD: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pulker, C.E.; Trapp, G.S.; Scott, J.A.; Pollard, C.M. Global supermarkets’ corporate social responsibility commitments to public health: A content analysis. Glob. Health 2018, 14, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hudak, K.M.; Friedman, E.; Johnson, J.; Benjamin-Neelon, S.E. US state variations in food bank donation policy and implications for nutrition. Prev. Med. Rep. 2022, 27, 101737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. FoodFowardSA. Food-Donation Policy ‘Could Aid Food Security’. Available online: https://www.foodformzansi.co.za/food-donation-policy-could-aid-food-security/ (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  40. Bierma, T.J.; Jin, G.; Bazan, C.N. Food Donation and Food Safety: Challenges, Current Practices, and the Road Ahead. J. Environ. Health 2019, 81, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  41. Leib, E.; Chan, A.; Hua, A.; Nielsen, A.; Sandson, K. Food Safety Regulations & Guidance for Food Donations: A Fifty-State Survey of State Practices; The Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  42. De Pieri, B.; Tallarico, T.; Baglioni, S.; Soler, U.; Ricciuti, E. European Policy for Food Security: The Surplus Food Redistribution Option. In Foodsaving in Europe; Palgrave Macmillan Cham: London, UK, 2017; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Uyttendaele, M.; De Boeck, E.; Jacxsens, L. Challenges in Food Safety as Part of Food Security: Lessons Learnt on Food Safety in a Globalized World. Procedia Food Sci. 2016, 6, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. De Boeck, E.; Jacxsens, L.; Goubert, H.; Uyttendaele, M. Ensuring food safety in food donations: Case study of the Belgian donation/acceptation chain. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tarasuk, V.; Eakin, J.M. Charitable food assistance as symbolic gesture: An ethnographic study of food banks in Ontario. Soc. Sci. Med. 2003, 56, 1505–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tarasuk, V.; Dachner, N.; Hamelin, A.-M.; Ostry, A.; Williams, P.; Bosckei, E.; Poland, B.; Raine, K. A survey of food bank operations in five Canadian cities. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Friedman, E.; Johnson, J. Healthier Food Donation Guidelines for Retailers and Distributors; Center for Science in the Public Interest: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bonaccorsi, G.; Lorini, C.; Pieralli, F.; Pieri, L.; Sala, A.; Tanini, T.; Nasali, M.; Dall’Olio, B.; Santomauro, F. The right to food, food donation and microbiological problems of food safety: An experience in the territory of Florence. Ann. Dell’istituto Super. Sanita 2016, 52, 119–122. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ncama, B.P.; Kuupiel, D.; Duma, S.E.; McHunu, G.; Guga, P.; Slotow, R. Mapping evidence of food safety at transport stations in Africa: A scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e035879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. FoodFoward SA. Surplus Food Donations Surveys of Business Perceptions. Available online: https://foodforwardsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/FFSA-1-Pager-Food-Donations-policy-survey.pdf (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  51. FoodFward SA. Giant Leap for Hunger in SA Through Food Donations Regulations; FoodFward SA: Cape Town, South Africa, 2021; Volume 2024. [Google Scholar]
  52. South African Government. Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act 54 of 1972; South African Government: Cape Town, South Africa, 1972. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 01163 g001
Figure 1. Food safety decision-making tree based on visual product assessment. a Packaging refers to the product’s label, and inner and outer packaging. b Refers to South African law (Regulation R146), a regulation relating to the labeling and advertising of foodstuffs [32]. c Refers to physical contamination [8].
Figure 1. Food safety decision-making tree based on visual product assessment. a Packaging refers to the product’s label, and inner and outer packaging. b Refers to South African law (Regulation R146), a regulation relating to the labeling and advertising of foodstuffs [32]. c Refers to physical contamination [8].
Sustainability 17 01163 g001
Sustainability 17 01163 g002
Figure 2. Classification of unsuitable donations by weight.
Figure 2. Classification of unsuitable donations by weight.
Sustainability 17 01163 g002
Sustainability 17 01163 g003
Figure 3. Classification of potentially unsafe donations by weight.
Figure 3. Classification of potentially unsafe donations by weight.
Sustainability 17 01163 g003
Sustainability 17 01163 g004
Figure 4. Classification of unsafe donations by weight.
Figure 4. Classification of unsafe donations by weight.
Sustainability 17 01163 g004
Table 1. Total number of products according to donor type and number of donations by weight.
Table 1. Total number of products according to donor type and number of donations by weight.
Type of DonorMLs ReceivedProducts Received in MLsWeight (kg) of MLs
Farmers000
Food manufacturers3194831
Hospitality industry000
Retail supermarkets1765625,470
Wholesalers1322695
Transport, Logistics, and Distribution000
Other retail businesses2141030
General public4139521
Total2786034,547
Table 2. Characteristics of mixed lots (MLs) by donor type.
Table 2. Characteristics of mixed lots (MLs) by donor type.
Type of DonorDonations ReceivedProducts ReceivedWeight of Donations
nnkg
Farmers4112296
Food manufacturers7379298
Hospitality industry274730
Retail supermarkets1978031,139
Wholesalers9242695
Transport, Logistics, and Distribution51513,040
Other retail businesses3141103
General public5149517
Total54103764,818
Table 3. Products categorized as unsafe, potentially unsafe, or unsuitable (UUP) by donor and lot type.
Table 3. Products categorized as unsafe, potentially unsafe, or unsuitable (UUP) by donor and lot type.
Donor TypeNo. of Donations Received Containing UUPWeight of UUP (kg)Percentage by Weight of UUP (%)Type of UUP by Weight (kg)
UnsuitablePotentially UnsafeUnsafe
Food manufacturers2642.20568
Supermarkets12257988.03369891254
Farmers1652.221845
Transport, Logistics, and Distribution3 *1956.7010986
Other retail businesses1150.55100
General public2140.51202
Total21293210035511821395
* Denotes SL donations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makhunga, S.; Hlongwa, M.; Hlongwana, K. The Quality and Safety of Donated Food in Charitable Food Assistance Programs in eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031163

AMA Style

Makhunga S, Hlongwa M, Hlongwana K. The Quality and Safety of Donated Food in Charitable Food Assistance Programs in eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Sustainability. 2025; 17(3):1163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031163

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makhunga, Sizwe, Mbuzeleni Hlongwa, and Khumbulani Hlongwana. 2025. "The Quality and Safety of Donated Food in Charitable Food Assistance Programs in eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa" Sustainability 17, no. 3: 1163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031163

APA Style

Makhunga, S., Hlongwa, M., & Hlongwana, K. (2025). The Quality and Safety of Donated Food in Charitable Food Assistance Programs in eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Sustainability, 17(3), 1163. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17031163

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop