Food Safety in the Comoros: Towards a New Compliance Framework for Businesses Across the Food Chain?

I. Building a National Food Safety System Covering the Entire Food Chain

A. A Scope Covering Food Products Throughout Their Economic Life Cycle

One of the first contributions of Law No. 26-005/AU lies in the breadth of the system it establishes.

Article 1 does not reason solely from the standpoint of the food product ultimately presented to the consumer. It addresses food products through the full range of operations liable to affect their food safety and quality, from production through to placing on the market, as well as during import or export.

This approach is reinforced by the particularly broad definition of the "food chain," understood as encompassing all stages of production of a food product, from primary production through to its placing on the market.

Primary production itself includes, in particular, livestock farming, cultivation, the gathering of wild products, harvesting, slaughter, milking, and fishing.

The legislature has thus adopted an approach based on the continuity of sanitary risk.

Contamination or non-conformity may arise at the raw material stage, during processing, packaging, storage, or transport. The safety of the final product therefore depends on the proper control of each of these stages.

This conception explains why the notion of "food sector business" is likewise broadly defined. It encompasses private or public entities engaged, whether for profit or not, in activities involving the production, manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, handling, wrapping, transport, storage, service, distribution, or sale of food.

The range of businesses concerned therefore extends well beyond food industry manufacturers.

Restaurants, hotels engaged in catering activities, food retailers, supermarkets, warehouses, carriers, importers, distributors, and various other operators active in the chain may, depending on the nature of their activities, be subject to all or part of the new regulatory framework.

This cross-cutting character is also apparent in the rules relating to transport.

Businesses transporting food products must prevent contamination and any damage that may occur during transport. For perishable products, they must in particular use refrigeration equipment suited to the nature of the food and to the duration of its transport or storage. Certain technical arrangements, however, remain to be defined by regulation.

Food safety thus becomes an obligation that follows the product.

This feature is essential to understanding the overall architecture of the reform: responsibility for compliance is not concentrated at a single point in the chain, but is instead distributed among several categories of operators according to their respective roles.

This approach finds its natural extension in one of the most structuring principles of the new legislation: the prevention and management of risk must henceforth be based on an organized, and as far as possible, scientifically grounded methodology.

B. Risk Analysis and the "One Health" Approach at the Core of the New Framework

Law No. 26-005/AU does not merely set out a list of sanitary rules. It also defines the methodology according to which risks must be identified and managed.

Article 3 establishes risk analysis as a principle applicable at every stage of food production.

This analysis comprises three dimensions: risk assessment, risk management, and risk communication.

Risk assessment must be based on available scientific evidence and must be conducted independently, objectively, and transparently. Risk management then consists of determining appropriate measures, taking into account that assessment together with other factors relevant to protecting consumer health and ensuring fair trading practices. Finally, risk communication must enable the exchange of information between competent authorities and stakeholders throughout the process.

The framework also enshrines a form of precautionary principle.

Where available information indicates the possibility of harmful effects on health while scientific uncertainty remains, Article 4 authorizes the adoption of such provisional measures as are necessary to protect health, pending further scientific information.

This provision is significant for businesses.

Administrative intervention therefore does not necessarily require that the hazardous nature of a product be conclusively established, provided that the statutory conditions for provisional intervention are met.

The reform furthermore expressly adopts the so-called "One Health" approach, taking into account the interactions between human health, animal health, and environmental protection.

This orientation explains the institutional architecture adopted by the legislature and the role assigned to the veterinary, fisheries, agricultural, and environmental authorities.

It also explains the creation of an Intersectoral Coordination Committee responsible for ensuring cooperation among the various competent authorities. Its composition, organization, and operation, however, remain to be specified by regulation.

Food safety is thus conceived as an inherently cross-cutting field.

For businesses, this feature may have an important practical consequence: depending on the product and activity concerned, compliance will not necessarily have to be assessed against a single administration or a single set of regulations.

It is precisely in order to organize this plurality that the law establishes a new institutional architecture.

C. An Institutional Framework Structured Around INRAPE and Sector-Specific Authorities

The law entrusts INRAPE with responsibility for implementing the national food control system, in collaboration with the other competent authorities.

Its powers are particularly extensive.

The Institute is competent, among other things, for the issuance and withdrawal of sanitary approvals falling within its remit, the approval of self-monitoring systems, the oversight of hazard analysis systems and hygiene conditions, official controls of food products, the registration of importers and exporters, import authorizations, the control of imported products, the certification of certain products intended for export, the control of transport conditions, and the supervision of market recalls and withdrawals.

INRAPE, however, does not exercise all of these functions alone.

With respect to fishery products, the law recognizes specific powers vested in the National Office for Quality Control and Certification of Fishery Products. In the animal sector, the Directorate General for Livestock and Veterinary Services exercises, among other things, powers relating to slaughterhouses, hatcheries, dairies, veterinary inspections, animal imports, animal feed, and the surveillance of animal diseases.

The system is therefore based less on a single sanitary authority than on the coordination of sectoral competences.

Such an organization may allow for technical specialization in controls. It nonetheless requires that the boundaries of competence and the mechanisms of coordination be sufficiently clear to economic operators.

This issue will be particularly important where an activity or product falls simultaneously within the scope of several regulatory regimes.

The legislature has sought to address precisely this concern through the Intersectoral Coordination Committee and by assigning INRAPE a central role within the national system.

The effectiveness of this architecture will, however, necessarily depend on its practical implementation, on the adoption of the implementing regulations provided for by the law, and on the human, technical, and scientific resources made available to the various authorities.

For businesses, however, the immediate concern lies elsewhere.

The reform does not merely reorganize the administration responsible for food safety. It directly imposes on operators a series of preventive obligations that profoundly change the manner in which food compliance must be organized.

It is this transformation that is likely the law's principal contribution for economic actors.

II. Transforming the Compliance Obligations of Food Sector Businesses

A. Sanitary Approval and Self-Monitoring: Towards an Obligation to Organise Compliance Upstream

One of the most significant developments brought about by Law No. 26-005/AU lies in the fact that food safety is no longer addressed solely through the prohibition on marketing hazardous food products.

The law now requires the businesses concerned to organize, upstream, the conditions for their own compliance.

This logic first appears with the requirement of sanitary approval.

Article 22 provides that any food sector business that produces, manufactures, processes, prepares, treats, packages, transports or stores food products is subject to sanitary approval issued by the competent authority.

The text contains, above all, a clarification of considerable practical significance: "the approval constitutes authorization for the business to operate."

Sanitary approval is therefore not conceived as a mere ancillary certification attesting to the quality of an operator already authorized to carry on its activity. For the activities covered by Article 22, it is a precondition for the very operation of the business. The criteria governing its issuance must nonetheless be specified by regulation.

This requirement should be considered alongside the powers vested in the various sectoral authorities.

INRAPE, in particular, is responsible for issuing or withdrawing sanitary approvals for establishments falling within its competence, while comparable powers are vested in the competent authority for fishery products and in the veterinary services for certain categories of establishments.

For businesses, the first compliance question therefore becomes institutional: determining the competent authority, verifying whether the activity carried on is subject to approval, and satisfying the conditions required for obtaining and maintaining it.

But approval is merely the entry point of the system.

1. Premises, Equipment and Operating Conditions Become Components of Food Safety Compliance

Articles 23 to 29 impose a particularly detailed set of requirements concerning the places in which food products are handled.

Premises and installations must, among other things, be designed so as to reduce the risk of contamination, be kept in good condition, allow for appropriate cleaning, prevent, as far as possible, the entry of rodents, birds and insects, and have adequate sanitary facilities.

The law also requires a sufficient supply of water whose potability complies with the applicable standards established by the World Health Organization.

Specific obligations further concern waste management, the separation of operations involving raw or soiled products from those involving ready-to-eat products, as well as the cleanliness of equipment and utensils.

Compliance also extends to personnel.

Persons in direct or indirect contact with food products must comply with requirements of cleanliness and personal hygiene and must use appropriate equipment. The law also provides that a person suffering from a disease liable to be transmitted through food, who is a carrier of pathogens or who presents certain lesions, may not work in a position where they would risk contaminating food.

Food safety thus becomes a matter of the overall organization of the establishment: premises, equipment, personnel, water, waste, storage and handling procedures are now legally linked to the compliance of the activity.

2. Self-Monitoring Becomes a Legal Obligation

The transformation is even more pronounced with Article 36.

Production businesses now bear a duty of self-monitoring.

They must put in place procedures suited to their activities and consistent with good practice guides, the HACCP method, or any equivalent method.

The self-monitoring system must, moreover, be validated by the competent authority.

Above all, the results of these procedures must be capable of being communicated to officials of the competent authority during inspections and controls.

The significance of this provision deserves to be emphasized.

The HACCP system is based on a preventive logic: identifying hazards likely to affect food safety, determining the critical control points of the process and organizing their control.

The law thus shifts compliance from a primarily reactive logic to a preventive logic.

A business must no longer merely be able to answer the question: "Is the product safe?"

It must also be able to answer another question: "What procedures have you put in place to identify and control the risks liable to render this product unsafe?"

The difference is fundamental.

It implies that sanitary compliance must be capable of being organized, monitored and documented.

The law does not, admittedly, mandate the creation of an internal "food compliance" department or a dedicated food safety compliance officer function. However, the combination of sanitary approval, self-monitoring, good practice standards, the HACCP method and documentary obligations leads, for the most exposed businesses, to the practical necessity of clearly identifying internal responsibilities in respect of food safety.

3. Self-Monitoring Does Not Replace Government Oversight

The system is nonetheless based on an articulation between the business's responsibility and public oversight.

Article 36 expressly states that self-monitoring procedures do not preclude official controls.

This articulation is confirmed by Article 73, which charges the competent authority with ensuring, on a risk-based approach, the control of establishments, hygiene good practices, self-monitoring systems and HACCP systems, as well as transport vehicles and the food products themselves.

Controls must be conducted on a scientific basis and may, in particular, rely on analyses carried out by approved laboratories.

The logic of the text may thus be summarized as follows: the business bears the primary responsibility for risk control, but the administration oversees how that responsibility is exercised.

This articulation becomes particularly important when a risk is actually detected.

B. Traceability, Notification, Withdrawal and Recall: Businesses Become Actors in Food Safety Risk Management

One of the most structurally significant features of the reform is that it does not entrust the management of sanitary incidents exclusively to public authorities.

The law directly requires businesses to act when a hazard arises.

1. A Duty to Report Upon Becoming Aware of a Food Safety Risk

Article 20 provides that any operator of a food sector business who becomes aware of a sanitary risk must notify the competent authority without delay.

This obligation also applies to laboratories and veterinarians, who must, moreover, inform the business concerned when they themselves identify the risk.

This rule is significant.

Awareness of a risk cannot therefore be treated solely as information internal to the business, the disclosure of which would depend on a commercial assessment.

Where a sanitary risk within the meaning of the law is involved, an obligation to inform the authority may arise.

This obligation naturally presupposes that businesses have internal reporting channels sufficiently effective to escalate incidents liable to present a sanitary risk.

2. Withdrawal and Recall Become Direct Obligations of the Operator

Article 37 goes further.

Any person who produces, imports, manufactures, processes, treats, distributes or places food products on the market must, as soon as it suspects or becomes aware, directly or indirectly, of the hazardous nature of a food product, proceed with the withdrawal or recall of the affected batches.

The obligation is therefore not limited to situations in which the hazardous nature has already been conclusively established.

Mere suspicion may be sufficient to trigger the mechanism provided for under the law.

The operator must also inform the competent authorities, the other businesses involved in the production process, and, where the products have already reached the market, consumers, without delay.

The operational significance of this provision is considerable.

An effective withdrawal or recall presupposes the ability to identify the affected batches, determine their location, identify the business partners to whom they were supplied and, where necessary, reach consumers.

It is at this juncture that traceability ceases to be a mere documentary requirement and becomes an instrument of risk management.

3. Traceability Becomes a Legal Infrastructure for Food Safety

The law defines traceability as the ability to trace, through all stages of production, processing and distribution, the path followed by a food product, a food-producing animal, or a substance intended to be incorporated into a food product.

Article 38 requires, in particular, that food products bear, throughout the chain, information enabling the identification of the batch to be guaranteed.

This identification is carried through to the stage of consumer information.

For prepackaged food products, Article 68 provides, in particular, that the label must include the batch number to which the product belongs, in order to ensure its traceability.

The combination of these provisions leads to a clear practical consequence.

A business must be capable of linking a food product to a specific batch and must have information enabling it, when an incident occurs, to identify the products concerned.

Without this capability, the recall obligation provided for under Article 37 could become particularly difficult to implement.

Traceability thus emerges as one of the pillars of the new system.

4. The Costs of Withdrawal and Recall Are Borne by the Business Concerned

The financial risk associated with these mechanisms is also significant.

Where the administration intervenes itself, Article 76 enables it, in particular, to detain, confiscate or seize food products, or to order their withdrawal or recall. Hazardous products may be denatured and destroyed under the supervision of the competent authority.

Article 78 specifies, importantly, that detention, seizure, withdrawal, recall or destruction are borne by the establishment concerned and give rise to no compensation.

For a business, the cost of a sanitary incident is therefore not limited to any potential penalty.

It may include the recovery of products, their storage, their destruction, the interruption of their marketing, and the commercial consequences arising from the product's unavailability.

Sanitary risk thus becomes simultaneously a legal and an operational matter.

C. Importers, Distributors and Those Responsible for Product Information: Extending Compliance Beyond the Producer

A superficial reading of the law might lead one to conclude that the bulk of the new obligations primarily concerns producers.

This would, however, considerably underestimate the scope of the text.

The reform also assigns significant responsibilities to importers, distributors, sellers and other professionals involved in placing products on the market.

1. Food Imports Become a Highly Regulated Activity

Articles 58 to 63 establish a specific regime.

It is, first of all, prohibited to import food products presenting a sanitary risk or failing to meet the requirements of the law and its implementing regulations.

The reform, however, also introduces two essential administrative requirements.

Any person wishing to import food products must be registered with the competent authority, and every importation is itself subject to authorization issued by that authority.

It is therefore no longer merely a matter, for the importer, of satisfying ordinary customs formalities.

Food safety becomes an autonomous condition of the importation operation.

Where a sanitary risk is suspected or established, Article 61 further requires the importer to take all appropriate measures to eliminate the risk or prevent its materialization.

Failing this, the competent authority may detain, seize, destroy or re-export the food products at the importer's expense.

For certain products of animal origin, in particular meat, the law imposes additional conditions relating to the establishment of origin, inspections carried out in the country of origin, and the production of a sanitary certificate.

The Comorian authority may also carry out random controls and take samples in order to verify the accuracy of the sanitary certificates provided.

For businesses heavily dependent on international supply chains, these provisions may have a direct impact on purchasing procedures and supplier selection processes.

The compliance of the foreign supplier thus becomes capable of affecting the very possibility of introducing and marketing the product in Comoros.

2. Importers Are Treated as Producers for the Purposes of Liability for Defective Food Products

This exposure is reinforced by Articles 42 to 46.

The producer is liable for damage caused by a defect in the food product it produces, irrespective of the existence of a contract with the victim.

Article 43, however, expressly assimilates to the producer any person who, acting in a professional capacity, imports a food product with a view to sale or any other form of distribution.

Where the producer cannot be identified, the seller or any other professional supplier may also be held liable under the same conditions, unless it identifies its own supplier or the producer within the three-month period provided for under the law.

This rule is particularly significant in the Comorian context, where numerous food products marketed are imported.

The importer therefore does not constitute merely a logistical intermediary between a foreign manufacturer and the Comorian market. The law directly confers upon it a legal position comparable to that of the producer under the liability regime it establishes.

The text further specifies that the producer may be held liable even where the food product was manufactured in accordance with the rules of the trade or existing standards, or was the subject of administrative authorization.

The obtaining of an authorization or compliance with a standard therefore does not, in itself, constitute a guarantee of exemption from liability.

3. Labelling and Advertising Create Specific Responsibilities for Businesses Marketing the Product

The reform also imposes precise obligations in respect of information.

Article 67 prohibits labeling, packaging or promoting a food product in a manner that is false, misleading, deceptive, or likely to create a false impression as to its nature, value, quantity, composition, benefits or safety.

For prepackaged products, Article 68 sets out a body of information that must appear on the label, including certain characteristics of the product, directions for use and storage, the identity of the manufacturer, certain information relating to composition and health risks, as well as the batch number. For imported products, information relating to the place of production, the origin of the raw material and, where applicable, the place of processing is also required.

Article 69 requires that the information be accurate, legible, easily understandable, and presented in at least one of the three official languages of the Union of the Comoros.

Article 70, however, probably contains the most important rule for economic operators.

The business that distributes, markets, places on the market or sells the products is liable for the information appearing on the labeling and advertising.

Where an imported product is involved, the importer is liable.

Moreover, a business that does not have the ability to modify the information appearing on the product may not, on that account, market it where it fails to comply with labeling requirements. Should it do so, it becomes liable for the corresponding failures.

This provision warrants particular attention.

It means that a distributor or importer will not necessarily be able to invoke the fact that the label was designed and affixed by a foreign manufacturer.

Prior to placing the product on the Comorian market, it is incumbent upon it to verify that the information satisfies the requirements of the applicable legislation.

For importers, distributors and large retailers, food safety compliance may therefore potentially begin before the product's physical arrival on the market, at the stage of supplier selection, sanitary documentation and label verification.

4. Food-Contact Materials Also Fall Within the Scope of Compliance

The law does not stop at food products themselves.

Articles 55 and 56 extend safety requirements to materials in contact with food.

Such materials must present no toxic risk for their intended use and must not endanger consumers' health. Reused containers and packaging must be capable of being properly maintained, cleaned and, where necessary, disinfected.

Food compliance must therefore be understood in its entire material environment: product, packaging, container, equipment, storage and transport.

Taken together, these mechanisms profoundly alter the legal position of the food sector business.

The operator is no longer merely required to refrain from placing a hazardous food product on the market. It must obtain the necessary authorizations, organize its self-monitoring, control risks, ensure traceability, verify the information accompanying its products, report incidents, and be capable of organizing a withdrawal or recall.

The law thus gives rise to a genuine compliance continuum, extending from the product's entry into the food chain through to its consumption.

This transformation cannot, however, be fully appreciated without examining the other side of the reform.

For these obligations are now accompanied by particularly extensive administrative powers and by an enforcement regime capable of engaging not only the liability of the business, but also directly jeopardizing the continuation of its activity.

III. Controls, Liability and Sanctions: The Emergence of a New Regulatory Risk for Businesses

A. Enforcement Powers Capable of Directly Affecting Business Operations

The new regulatory framework does not rely solely on holding operators accountable. It confers upon the competent authorities particularly extensive means of control and intervention.

Article 80 allows sworn enforcement officers, in order to establish infringements, to access establishments and premises used for production, manufacturing, processing, packaging, storage, or sale during their hours of operation.

They may also access vehicles used for transport, examine the food products or other items present, take samples, open packaging, examine documents relating to the food products, and require the production of any relevant information.

These prerogatives give a very concrete dimension to the obligation of documentary compliance.

The business must not only comply with the requirements of the law; it must be able to demonstrate such compliance during an inspection.

HACCP and self-monitoring procedures, documents relating to suppliers, import authorizations, sanitary certificates, traceability information, and batch-related documents may thus take on decisive importance.

Refusal to cooperate is, moreover, not without consequence.

Article 81 prohibits, in particular, obstructing the action of a competent authority officer or intentionally providing false or misleading information to such an officer. Article 85 further subjects certain conduct that obstructs control activities—including refusal to provide, or concealment of, information or documents—to the penalties provided for under Article 84.

Managing a sanitary inspection thus becomes, in itself, a compliance issue.

And above all, the authority's power does not stop at establishing a breach.

Article 77 allows it to order any corrective measure or other sanction proportionate to the seriousness of the breach.

The authority may, in particular, halt a manufacturing process, prohibit the use of equipment, installations, premises, or vehicles, order cleaning works or operations, and require staff training.

Finally, it may suspend or withdraw the business's approval where the business fails to comply with the requirements imposed on it, or where the breach of hygiene or food safety rules presents a serious and direct risk to human health or life.

This latter prerogative gives full significance to Article 22.

Since the sanitary approval constitutes an operating authorization, its suspension or withdrawal may directly affect the ability of the business concerned to continue its activities.

Regulatory risk is therefore not solely financial.

It may become a risk to business continuity.

B. From Corrective Measures to Civil Liability: Legal Exposure Extending Beyond Administrative Sanctions

The consequences of a breach of Law No. 26-005/AU are not limited to intervention by the administrative authority.

The reform in fact superimposes several levels of exposure: corrective measures, economic consequences linked to the withdrawal of products, liability for defective food products, and, for the most serious conduct, criminal sanctions.

1. Administrative Measures Whose Costs Are Borne Directly by the Operator

Where a breach relating to a food product is established, Article 76 authorizes the sworn enforcement officer to take the measures necessary to restore compliance.

In particular, the officer may place the products under detention pending confirmation of their wholesomeness, confiscate them, seize them, or order their withdrawal or recall.

Where the food products are dangerous, they may be denatured and destroyed under the supervision of the competent authority.

This mechanism is particularly significant from an economic standpoint.

Article 78 provides that the costs of detention, seizure, withdrawal, recall, or destruction are borne by the establishment concerned and give rise to no compensation whatsoever.

The financial consequence of non-compliance may therefore precede any judicial sanction.

An operator may be required to bear the loss of the goods, the logistical costs of a recall, the costs associated with destruction, and the interruption of marketing, to which may be added the contractual or reputational consequences of the incident.

The same logic applies to imports.

Where a sanitary risk is suspected or confirmed, the importer must take the measures necessary to eliminate the risk or prevent its occurrence. Failing this, the food products may be detained, seized, destroyed, or re-exported at the importer's expense. Where entry into national territory is refused, seizure, destruction, or re-export may likewise be ordered at the importer's expense.

Compliance risk may therefore directly affect the economics of an import transaction even before the goods are actually placed on the market.

2. The Law Nevertheless Provides Certain Safeguards for Businesses Subject to Controls

The extensive powers conferred upon the administration are accompanied by certain procedural guarantees.

Article 73 provides, in particular, that the results of control activities must be communicated without delay to the business concerned.

Article 79 more generally grants to any person whose products are subject to control certain guarantees enabling that person to assert its rights before the competent authority.

Where non-compliance or a material element of an infringement results from the analysis of a sample by an accredited laboratory, the person concerned may, in particular, request a counter-analysis at its own expense.

This possibility may become decisive where the results of a scientific analysis form the basis of a withdrawal measure, a seizure, or enforcement proceedings.

It also confirms a general feature of the reform: scientific evidence occupies a central place both in risk assessment and in compliance control.

3. A Specific Liability Regime for Defective Food Products

The law also establishes, in Articles 42 to 46, a specific liability regime.

Article 42 provides that the producer is liable for damage caused by a defect in the food products it produces, whether or not it is contractually bound to the victim.

A food product is considered defective where it does not provide the safety that one is legitimately entitled to expect, having regard, in particular, to its presentation, its reasonably expected use, and the time at which it was put into circulation.

The framework therefore extends beyond the traditional contractual relationship between seller and buyer.

A victim need not necessarily be contractually bound to the producer for liability under the law to be invoked.

Article 44 nevertheless places on the claimant the burden of proving the damage, the defect, and the causal link between the two.

The regime is all the more significant in that Article 45 specifies that the producer may be held liable even where the food product was manufactured in accordance with accepted practice or existing standards, or where it was subject to administrative authorization.

In other words, regulatory compliance and the absence of civil liability do not necessarily coincide.

An administrative authorization does not, by itself, constitute immunity against an action based on a product's lack of safety.

Article 46 nevertheless provides for several grounds enabling the producer to exclude its liability, in particular where it demonstrates that it did not put the food product into circulation, that the defect did not exist at the time the product was put into circulation, that the product was not intended for sale or distribution, that the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time was not such as to enable the defect to be discovered, or that the defect resulted from compliance with mandatory legislative or regulatory requirements.

The law thus establishes a genuinely autonomous liability regime relating to food safety.

For businesses, this civil law dimension must be considered together with the traceability and documentation obligations examined above.

The ability to identify the origin of a product, its batch, its supplier, the conditions under which it was stored or transported, and the controls to which it was subjected may prove essential not only in the context of an administrative inspection, but also where liability is sought following the occurrence of damage.

C. A Particularly Stringent Criminal Enforcement Regime Whose Effectiveness Will Also Depend on the Regulatory and Institutional Implementation of the Reform

The final element of the framework is also the most coercive.

Law No. 26-005/AU does not merely authorize the administration to impose corrective measures. It establishes several breaches as criminal offenses and provides, for some of them, significant penalties.

1. Penalties of Up to Ten Years' Imprisonment and KMF 20 Million in Fines

Article 83 provides that any producer of food products, regardless of its level of involvement in the production process, who contravenes the provisions of the law is liable to a term of imprisonment of one to ten years and/or a fine of between KMF 300,000 and KMF 20,000,000.

The particularly broad wording of this provision will necessarily need to be assessed in light of its practical implementation, in particular having regard to the offenses more specifically defined in the following articles.

Article 84 penalizes, in particular, certain acts of deception concerning the nature, type, origin, essential qualities, quantity, or composition of a food product, as well as its method or date of manufacture, its expiration date, or the risks associated with its use.

The penalties provided range from ten months to four years' imprisonment and a fine of between KMF 1,600,000 and KMF 8,000,000, or either of these two penalties. They are doubled where the deception or attempted deception is dangerous to human health, and in cases of repeat offenses.

False or misleading advertising concerning a food product is also covered.

The law further penalizes the adulteration of food products, obstruction of controls, and certain conduct relating to products placed under detention or seized.

More severely still, where a dangerous food product causes a scientifically established case of food poisoning resulting in incapacity to work, permanent mutilation, or the death of one or more consumers, Article 87 provides for a penalty of two to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of KMF 5,000,000 to KMF 20,000,000.

The legislature also reserves specific treatment for imports.

Article 88 penalizes the importation or attempted importation, whether knowing or unknowing, of food products of animal or fishery origin contaminated by one of the diseases referred to in Article 18. The penalty provided is two to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of KMF 2,000,000 to KMF 20,000,000.

The phrase "whether knowing or unknowing" merits particular attention from importers: the text does not expressly limit this offense to cases in which the operator had knowledge of the contamination.

2. Sanctions May Affect the Continued Existence of the Business Activity

The consequences of a conviction may extend far beyond the fine or imprisonment imposed.

Article 89 allows the court to order the publication or posting of its decision.

It may also order the confiscation or destruction of the instruments or subject matter of the offense, order the temporary or permanent closure of an establishment, and prohibit, temporarily or permanently, the pursuit of an activity relating to the production or marketing of identical or similar products.

These sanctions add a further dimension to compliance risk.

For certain businesses, the legal risk is therefore not merely one of a monetary conviction. It may concern the very possibility of continuing to operate the establishment or activity in question.

This consequence must be viewed alongside the administrative power to suspend or withdraw sanitary approval.

The law thus establishes two distinct levels capable of affecting business continuity: intervention by the competent authority within the administrative framework, and additional penalties that may be imposed by the court.

3. The Law Also Provides for a Settlement Procedure for Certain Offences

The framework is not, however, exclusively punitive.

Offenses other than those referred to in Articles 83 to 88, including certain breaches of implementing regulations, constitute minor regulatory offenses punishable by a fine of between KMF 300,000 and KMF 3,000,000.

Article 90, however, provides that such offenses may be resolved through non-contentious means.

The competent authority may, in particular, close the matter where an offense is not established, issue a warning, or propose a settlement procedure.

Article 91 specifies that settlement enables the competent authority to forgo referral to the judicial authority, subject to certain conditions, which may take the form, in particular, of payment to the Treasury or the forfeiture to the State of seized goods.

This option, however, is unavailable in cases of repeat offenses.

The law thus establishes a graduated system combining corrective measures, administrative sanctions, settlement procedures, and criminal prosecution.

4. A Reform Whose Implementation Still Requires Further Regulations

The scope of the new framework should not, however, lead one to conclude that its entire operational architecture has already been determined by the law itself.

Numerous provisions expressly refer matters to implementing regulations.

This is the case, in particular, with respect to the criteria for granting sanitary approval, the composition and functioning of the Intersectoral Coordination Committee, the accreditation of laboratories, the list of certain sanitary risks, certain requirements applicable to particular categories of food products, authorized additives and their limit values, certain rules relating to canned goods, the modalities for intervention in matters of importation, controls on imported food products, and control and inspection procedures.

This distinction is important for businesses.

It means that the reform must be understood on two levels.

The first concerns the obligations whose principle is directly established by the law: food safety, sanitary approval for the activities concerned, self-monitoring, risk notification, withdrawal and recall, registration and authorization of imports, information requirements, and control powers.

The second concerns the technical and procedural modalities that the regulatory authority has yet to specify in the areas for which the law has expressly delegated this competence to it.

It would therefore be excessive to consider that the possible absence of an implementing text neutralizes the entire framework.

Conversely, it would be equally imprudent to present as already settled matters that the legislature has specifically referred to regulation.

It is probably on this interplay that a significant part of the legal certainty of the reform will turn.

For economic operators, ongoing regulatory monitoring will therefore be necessary as implementing regulations are progressively adopted.

CONCLUSION

Law No. 26-005/AU of 30 June 2026 marks a significant evolution in Comorian food safety law.

Its principal contribution lies not merely in the strengthening of hygiene standards or in the heightening of sanctions applicable to dangerous products.

Above all, the reform introduces a new logic of prevention, risk control, and demonstration of sanitary compliance.

The food sector business becomes the primary actor responsible for such compliance.

Depending on the nature of its activity, it must obtain the required sanitary approval, comply with the applicable requirements concerning its premises and personnel, implement self-monitoring mechanisms, control risks in accordance with good practices and HACCP principles, ensure the traceability of products, and be able to promptly trigger a withdrawal or recall when a danger arises.

For importers, the consequences are particularly significant.

Registration with the competent authority and import authorization become integral components of the sanitary framework. The importer bears certain financial consequences of measures taken against non-compliant goods, assumes responsibility for the labeling of imported products, and may, in certain circumstances, be legally treated as equivalent to the producer.

The reform thus alters the traditional allocation of risk within the food chain.

Manufacturers, importers, distributors, carriers, and sellers can no longer regard food safety as a matter falling exclusively within the production stage. Obligations follow the food product throughout its circulation and are allocated among operators according to their respective roles.

This evolution is reinforced by the significant scope of the control powers vested in the competent authorities.

Inspection of establishments, access to documents, sampling, testing, detention, seizure, withdrawal, recall, destruction, interruption of processes, suspension or withdrawal of sanitary approval: the framework enables intervention capable of directly affecting a business's operations.

In addition to these measures, there is a liability regime for defective food products and criminal sanctions which, for certain offenses, may reach ten years' imprisonment and a fine of twenty million KMF, not to mention the possibility of closure of the establishment or prohibition of certain activities.

Sanitary compliance thus becomes a genuine business risk.

For the operators concerned, the challenge will not only be to verify the quality of products at the time of their placing on the market. It will also be to demonstrate the existence of an internal organization capable of identifying risks, preventing them, documenting the controls carried out, and responding when an incident occurs.

Several elements of the new framework will still need to be clarified by regulation. Their adoption will determine, in particular, the concrete modalities of certain approval, control, and import procedures.

This progressive implementation should not, however, lead businesses to wait for the completion of the entire regulatory framework before reviewing their practices.

The structuring principles of the reform are already clearly established by the law.

For businesses within the food chain, an initial compliance review should therefore focus on identifying activities subject to approval, reviewing hygiene and self-monitoring procedures, documenting HACCP systems where required, ensuring batch traceability, establishing withdrawal and recall procedures, verifying labeling compliance, and maintaining sanitary documentation for imported products.

Law No. 26-005/AU thus shifts food safety from a logic primarily centered on the product to a broader logic centered on the organization of the business and its capacity to control risk throughout the entire food chain.

This is likely where the most significant transformation introduced by the reform lies.

---

Source: Law No. 26-005/AU of 30 June 2026 on Food Safety in the Union of the Comoros.