That question should trouble every parent buying milk, every family purchasing groundnut paste and every consumer who assumes that food sold in an open market is fit for consumption. The Observer’s investigation into food adulteration exposes a disturbing weakness in Uganda’s consumer protection system. Food can be mixed with cheaper ingredients, repackaged or sold under misleading descriptions, while unsuspecting buyers have little means of discovering the deception. A 2025 Makerere University study found adulteration in 45 of 100 groundnut powder and paste samples collected from Kampala markets. Another 30 samples could not be conclusively classified. The findings do not establish the scale of adulteration nationally, but they provide sufficient grounds for concern. The key issue is not simply that consumers may receive less groundnut paste than they paid for. It is that a market cannot function fairly when sellers know what they are supplying, but buyers cannot establish what they are purchasing. Honest traders also suffer. Those who maintain quality standards must compete against businesses that can undercut prices by secretly substituting cheaper ingredients. Left unchecked, such practices reward deception and punish integrity. Uganda’s regulatory weaknesses compound the problem. The Uganda National Bureau of Standards acknowledges that limited staffing makes comprehensive market surveillance difficult. Meanwhile, responsibility for inspecting roadside food vendors and informal food businesses rests with local government health authorities. This division of responsibility is not inherently wrong. Different institutions require different expertise. The danger arises when enforcement becomes fragmented, inspections are inadequate, and accountability is unclear. Food Rights Alliance executive director Agnes Kirabo captures another weakness: Uganda lacks a comprehensive national survey establishing the extent of food adulteration. “What exists is a patchwork of university studies, regulator seizures, audit reports, press coverage and briefs from civil society,” she says. Without reliable national evidence, authorities cannot confidently identify the worst-affected products, prioritize inspections or measure whether enforcement is improving. Yet tougher punishment alone will not solve every food safety problem. Deliberately mixing cheaper ingredients into products is fundamentally different from a farmer whose maize develops mold because of inadequate drying facilities. Kirabo makes that distinction convincingly: “A farmer who dries grain badly needs training, drying sheets and a market that pays for safe grain.” Uganda therefore needs a response that combines education with credible enforcement. Government should commission regular food safety surveys, strengthen laboratory testing and publish inspection findings. UNBS and local authorities should establish clearer reporting and referral procedures so that complaints lead to timely investigations. Parliament should also review whether existing food laws provide adequate protection against modern adulteration and misleading packaging. Where deliberate fraud is established, penalties must be sufficiently effective to discourage repeat offences. Consumer education matters, but it cannot substitute for regulation. A mother buying milk cannot reasonably be expected to conduct laboratory tests before feeding her child. Nor should government treat food safety as a secondary concern. Unsafe food can increase medical expenses, undermine productivity and weaken confidence in local markets. The test of reform will not be another announcement or occasional seizure of adulterated products. It will be whether consumers can buy ordinary food without having to question its contents.The post Uganda must stop gambling with the food on our plates appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.