A country does not achieve food sovereignty merely by producing more grain, vegetables, livestock or fish. It must also know what reaches the public, whether it is safe, who is responsible when standards fail, and which institution has the authority and capacity to act.

That is why a workshop held in Asmara on 10 July deserves more attention than its administrative language might suggest. Eritrea’s Ministry of Agriculture, working with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, has begun a process to develop a National Food Control Policy. According to the Ministry of Information, the intended policy will guide the drafting of a national food law.

This is not yet a finished policy, and a workshop is not an institution. But the direction matters. Food control sits at the intersection of public health, agricultural development, fisheries, commerce, consumer confidence and national productive capacity. Done properly, it can turn scattered inspections and regulations into one coherent national system.

Food safety is national infrastructure

Food safety is often treated as a narrow technical concern: an inspector checks a shop, a laboratory tests a sample, or a ministry issues a warning. In reality, a functioning food-control system is infrastructure. It connects the farm, fishing boat, slaughterhouse, processor, transporter, warehouse, market, restaurant and household.

When that chain is weak, the costs do not remain inside the health sector. Unsafe food means preventable illness, lost work and school days, pressure on clinics, wasted harvests, damaged businesses and distrust in local products. When standards are unclear or enforcement is fragmented, responsible producers are forced to compete with those who cut corners.

A serious national framework therefore protects both the public and the producer. It tells farmers, fishers, processors and traders what is expected of them. It gives regulators a common legal basis. It allows laboratories to work against defined standards. And it gives citizens a clearer answer to a basic question: who is accountable for the safety of the food being sold?

Coordination is the first hard problem

The July workshop was presented as part of a longer effort to coordinate the stakeholders involved in food safety and control. That is the correct starting point because food systems cross bureaucratic boundaries by nature.

A single product can pass through agriculture, fisheries, veterinary services, transport, customs, public health, municipal administration and private commerce before it reaches a plate. If these bodies use different rules, keep separate records or assume another office is responsible, gaps become inevitable.

The purpose of a national policy should not be to create another layer of paperwork above these institutions. It should define their roles, establish how information moves between them, and remove the grey zones in which no one is clearly responsible.

The strongest outcome would be a system built around a few practical functions:

  • clear national standards for production, handling, storage, processing and sale;
  • defined institutional authority, so inspections and enforcement do not overlap or disappear between agencies;
  • credible laboratory capacity for microbiological, chemical and residue testing;
  • traceability, allowing unsafe products to be identified and removed without punishing an entire sector;
  • risk-based inspection, concentrating limited resources where harm is most likely;
  • public reporting and recall procedures that communicate danger without rumor or confusion; and
  • training and compliance support for small producers and traders, not punishment alone.

A law must be enforceable, not ornamental

The workshop included presentations on Eritrea’s current food-control operations, existing laws and systems, international practice and the main elements of policy design. That diagnostic work is necessary. The next step is harder: translating it into legislation that matches Eritrea’s actual institutional and economic conditions.

Copying a foreign law would be easy. Building an enforceable Eritrean system is more demanding.

Rules that assume every producer has expensive equipment, formal premises or sophisticated record-keeping could drive small operators outside the legal system without making food safer. Rules that are too vague, however, leave enforcement arbitrary and consumers unprotected. The policy must distinguish between essential safety requirements and bureaucratic burdens that add little value.

That balance requires consultation beyond conference rooms. Farmers, fishers, market vendors, transporters, food processors, health workers, laboratory staff, local administrators and consumers all see different points of failure. Their practical knowledge should shape the law.

Enforcement also requires material capacity. A legal standard without trained inspectors, laboratories, sampling protocols, data systems and predictable procedures is only a declaration. Eritrea should resist the temptation to measure progress by the publication of a document. The real measure is whether the state can detect a problem, trace it, respond proportionately and prevent its repetition.

Standards can strengthen domestic production

Food regulation is sometimes presented as an obstacle to production. Poor regulation can be. Good regulation does the opposite: it helps serious producers prove quality, enter formal supply chains and compete on more than price.

For Eritrea, this matters especially in sectors where geography creates real potential. Fisheries, livestock, horticulture, salt and processed foods can serve domestic needs while supporting regional trade. But export ambition requires confidence. Buyers need to know that products are tested, traceable and produced under consistent rules.

A national food-control system can therefore become part of industrial policy. It can support local processing, reduce losses, improve packaging and storage practices, and give Eritrean goods a clearer reputation for reliability. Standards are not a substitute for factories, cold chains, electricity, finance or skilled labor. They are one of the systems that allow those investments to become trusted products.

This is also where food sovereignty becomes more than a slogan. Sovereignty does not mean isolation from international knowledge. Eritrea’s collaboration with the FAO can be useful if global expertise is adapted to national priorities rather than imported mechanically. The goal should be domestic competence: Eritrean institutions able to set rules, test products, train workers, protect consumers and negotiate trade from a position of knowledge.

Public trust must be designed into the system

Food control ultimately depends on trust. Citizens need confidence that inspections are based on evidence, that rules apply consistently, and that warnings are issued for public protection rather than administrative theater. Producers need confidence that compliance will be recognized and that enforcement will not be unpredictable.

That trust is built through transparency. The eventual policy should make standards accessible, explain institutional responsibilities, publish basic information on risks and enforcement, and create channels through which consumers and businesses can report problems. Secrecy makes a food system more fragile because it allows small failures to grow before institutions react.

Eritrea does not need a vast bureaucracy to begin. It needs a clear chain of responsibility, technically competent people, realistic standards and a culture of correction. A modest system that reliably performs essential functions is stronger than an elaborate framework that exists mainly on paper.

The workshop is the opening, not the achievement

FAO Representative Ariella Glinni described the policy process as a commitment to safer food, healthier families, stronger institutions and greater confidence in the systems connecting farms, fisheries, markets, households and communities. That is an accurate description of the stakes.

But the language of commitment must now become a sequence of public results: a draft policy, meaningful consultation, a coherent law, assigned institutional responsibilities, implementation timelines, professional training, laboratory investment and periodic review.

If that happens, this process will be more than another workshop. It will help Eritrea build the quiet machinery that serious countries require: rules that protect citizens, strengthen honest production and turn national self-reliance into measurable institutional capacity.

Food sovereignty begins in the field and at sea. It survives through storage, testing, law and accountability. Eritrea now has an opportunity to connect those pieces into one system—and it should be judged by whether that system works.

Source: Eritrea Ministry of Information, “Workshop on Developing National Food Control Policy,” published 12 July 2026.