The presence of donkeys in Kenya’s farming systems is invaluable, offering direct income through draught power services of transportation and farm work, as well as through the sale of donkey manure [22]. In rural and peri-urban informal sectors, donkeys support women in performing their duties as caregivers or household and farm workers by shortening time and sparing energy in transporting water and other commodities [22][23]. Despite donkey meat consumption being documented in Kenya, it remains a cultural peculiarity of the Turkana community, referred to by its local name “Epong Edewa”. The meat and its soup are utilized for their therapeutic capacity against various ailments such as stomach ache and skin rashes, and as an immune booster [4][5]. Despite this belief, other regions of Kenya and even cosmopolitan areas of Turkana have not adapted to the consumption of donkey meat [5]. Even with the population’s unwillingness to accept donkey meat, the Kenyan government officially designated donkeys as food animals, alongside horses, rabbits, quails, and ostriches, in Legal Notice No. 146 of 1999, which aimed to counter bush slaughter and boost food security by increasing sources of animal-derived proteins [24]. To date, this provision remains valid under the current legislation of the Meat Control (Local Slaughterhouses) Regulations [3]. Following the revision of this regulation, and the prevailing demand for donkey skin from China, an opportunity presented itself where between April 2016 and December 2018, the Government licensed 4 slaughter facilities in donkey-dense population areas (Turkana, Baringo, Nakuru and Machakos) to slaughter and process donkey meat for export. During this period, a study revealed that 15.4% of Kenya’s donkey population had been slaughtered in these slaughterhouses. The authors suggested that the actual figures might be higher due to widespread unreported bush slaughter, which fueled the illegal trade in donkey skins [4]. In the same year, reports surfaced that approximately 3000 donkeys were smuggled into Kenya from Ethiopia via the Moyale border to meet the demand from the Baringo and Nakuru donkey slaughterhouses [25]. It appears that the misrepresentation of donkey meat as beef in Kenya’s domestic market is a result of the more profitable global donkey skin trade, rather than an overwhelming demand for beef. Following the report on the declining donkey population [4], by March 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture banned donkey export licenses through Legal Notice Number 63 of 2020 [24]. However, due to the government’s failure to respond, the High Court overturned the ban in May 2021, leading to the continued slaughter of donkeys for meat and hide export across four export-oriented slaughterhouses [24]. In light of this, the Kenya Veterinary Association in 2025 petitioned for a total ban on donkey slaughter and the export of its skin, arguing that the trade poses threats to public health, animal welfare, and Kenyan culture [26].

Several studies on the Kenyan beef value chain reveal its fragmented and intricate structure across various beef production regions, attributed to its multiple pathways, the influence of seasonality, and the mobility inherent in pastoralism [1][27]-[29]. Opportunities for beef fraud have been identified by examining the activities of the actors within the beef value chain, and these have been categorized into pre-slaughter and post-slaughter elements.

3.2.1. Input Suppliers: Purchase of Cattle

At the initial stage of the beef value chain, cattle breeds are purchased for slaughter through both formal and informal channels. Informal cattle trade prevails in livestock markets nationwide, where buyers and traders agree to transact using cash or mobile money transfers, leaving no paper trail [28][29]. This absence of ownership and transactional documentation, along with a lack of record-keeping in informal markets, creates opportunities for livestock and meat fraud later in the supply chain.

3.2.2. Livestock Keepers: Production System

The primary beef production system in Kenya is pastoralism, where pastoralists engage in transhumance and nomadism [30], a mobility strategy employed to manage drought, other climate risks, and to diversify livelihoods [27]. While pastoralism and agro-pastoralism are subsistence-focused, other beef production systems, such as ranching and feedlots, are commercially driven and operate as registered businesses [30]. This study reveals that pastoralism poses distinct challenges for animal and food traceability due to the unpredictable movements of livestock keepers and herds, as well as the absence of a fixed “farm”, a situation that could be exploited by fraudsters to perpetrate beef fraud.

3.2.3. Livestock Traders: Transportation of Cattle

Livestock traders are crucial in both the formal and informal sectors of the beef value chain, serving as intermediaries between livestock producers and markets. They facilitate the transport and trade of livestock and livestock products, share market information, and negotiate prices [27][28]. In Kenya, the two primary methods of transporting cattle—trekking and using trucks or lorries—are influenced by factors such as herd size, cost, road conditions, and the animal’s health status [28][31]. However, like many livestock owners, numerous livestock traders remain unregistered, a situation that compromises the safety and integrity of the beef supply chain by providing opportunities for beef fraud. Before livestock can be moved, a no-objection permit and a movement permit [31][32]—official handwritten documents from a sub-county veterinary officer—are required, granting permission for specific livestock to be transported from one location (e.g., point of sale) to another (e.g., farm or slaughterhouse). The absence of livestock trader registration and digitalized trade documents increases the risk of beef fraud, allowing unscrupulous traders to falsify information about livestock origin, species, and herd size along the supply chain.

3.3.1. Slaughter Facilities: Categorization and Inspection

Slaughterhouses play a crucial role in transforming livestock into meat through the process of slaughter. The Meat Control (Local Slaughterhouses) Act classifies these facilities primarily based on the daily volume of animals slaughtered, categorizing them as large (category A), medium (category B), and slaughter slabs (category C) [7]. However, recent data from the Directorate of Veterinary Services reveals that approximately 26% (478 out of 1831) of these facilities operate without categorization [33]. Before slaughter, antemortem inspections are conducted to identify the livestock species, breed, and sex, and to check for any signs of animal diseases. Postmortem inspections ensure that the meat, offal, and organs are fit for market distribution [32]. Despite these measures, studies have highlighted the absence or inconsistency of both antemortem and postmortem inspections, leading to uninspected meat being sold in butcheries [34][35]. This issue is exacerbated by the limited capacity of the meat inspectorate [8], allowing uninspected meat from various livestock sources to be sold, potentially being misrepresented as other types of meat [13].

3.3.2. Transportation of Beef

After purchasing meat from a slaughter facility, a meat transportation certificate [32] issued by the meat inspector is required for its transport. This handwritten document indicates the meat’s origin and destination [29] but is susceptible to fraudulent reproduction by dishonest transporters. Since 2009, this study has documented 16 instances where donkey and game meat (including zebra, wildebeest, and buffalo) en route to major towns were intercepted by either the Kenya Police or Kenya Wildlife Service officers, as detailed in Table 2. The geographical distribution of these incidents is illustrated in Figure 2Figure 2.

Figure 2.Geographical distribution of beef fraud incidents in Kenya.

Table 2.Reported beef fraud incidences in Kenya (2009-2025).

3.3.3. Retail Outlets: Monitoring and Inspection

Meat retail outlets are licensed by the respective County and inspected by public health officers. However, inadequate monitoring and inspection of such outlets have been reported, due to strained human capacity and insufficient infrastructural and economical capacity, posing concern for beef fraud and other emerging and re-emerging food safety issues [16]. This situation is explained by the presence of an extensive base of butcheries and red meat retail outlets against a very narrow inspectorate in the department of public health. According to a laboratory mapping report, the country has 7 National Public Health Laboratories with 86 staff. Furthermore, inspection resources at these facilities have prioritized the testing of communicable diseases, notifiable trade diseases, aflatoxins, zoonoses and bacterial diseases of food safety concern [36].

Food safety regulation in Kenya encompasses a variety of laws, policies, legislation, and acts, under multiple ministries and agencies, all of which function to assure public health, food security, and trade [16]. Over the years, food safety components have been introduced in food legislation and their chronology is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.Chronology of food safety development in Kenya.

A review of crucial legislative documents revealed their impact and effectiveness in addressing beef fraud in the country.

3.4.1. National Food Safety Policy (2021) Draft

The National Food Safety policy (2021) draft’s [16] overarching objective is to ensure that customers are protected by safe food through coordinating local food control with regional and international standards, in order to facilitate trade and raise food safety awareness. Different from its 2013 predecessor policy document that lacked clarity in its institutional set up, roles and functions, resulting in overlapping mandates of the institutions, the draft policy will be implemented through the national food control strategy that will leverage on strengthening food safety institutional frameworks, and infrastructure and enhancing compliance to food safety requirements. While the policy has not defined food fraud, it outlines it among other emerging and re-emerging food safety issues (food adulteration, mislabeling, poor ethos) under Policy Issue No. 7. Consequently, the policy pledges to establish a research framework for risk mitigation, to strengthen enforcement to curb the malpractices and improve surveillance capabilities regarding food fraud [16]. All these will be subject to a successful implementation framework, financing model and oversight.

3.4.2. Meat Control Act, Chapter 356

The Meat Control Act Chapter 356 (Revised 2012) [3], under the Ministry of Agriculture’s Directorate of Veterinary Service (DVS), exerts control to be exercised over meat and meat products intended for human consumption. The Act regulates licensing of slaughter and meat processing facilities, specifies standards for their operations, controls the inspection and supervision of facilities, operations, products and personnel, controls import and export of meat and prescribes forms and fees for slaughter, inspection, transportation, and trade of meat and meat products. Legislative inefficiencies have been identified in the widespread licensing of uncategorized slaughter facilities [33], inadequate antemortem and postmortem inspection capacity [34][35], and inadequate control over transportation of live animals and meat products [28][29][31]. Similarly, the Legal Notice No. 146 of 1999 introduced in response to bush slaughter has equally been ineffective in curbing the practice, with the main challenge being an overwhelmed inspectorate. These inefficiencies have negatively impacted the beef value chain, creating opportunities and motivation for beef fraud.

3.4.3. Public Health (Meat Inspection) Rules Cap 242

The Public Health Act Chapter 242 (Revised 2012) [20], under the Ministry of Health’s State Department of Public Health and Professional Standards makes provisions for securing and maintaining health. Through its subsidiary documents, the Public Health (Meat Inspection) Rules and the Public Health (Importation of Meat) rules, the Act provides rules for antemortem and postmortem inspection at large slaughter facilities and meat retail outlets, prohibiting the availing, sale and importation of unwholesome meat and meat products. The preceding legal framework appears to be duplication of function between the health inspectors and the veterinary meat inspectors under the DVS, leading to overlapping mandates and responsibilities, resulting in oversight inefficiencies [37]. Similarly, the narrow health inspectorate appears to be overwhelmed by the extensive base of meat retail outlets in the country, creating loopholes and motivation for fraudulent traders to engage in beef fraud.

3.4.4. The Animal Diseases Act (Animal Identification and Traceability System) Regulations

This Act provides procedures and means for the identification and traceability of all animals born in or imported into Kenya and associated products [21]. It aspires to establish the Animal Identification and Traceability System (ANITRAC) which envisions enhancing trade in animals and animal products through a “farm to fork” traceability to support livestock production, animal health, and animal welfare and guarantee the safety of food of animal origin. ANITRAC is framed on the objectives of the earlier Livestock Identification and Traceability System Regulations, 2019 (LITS) [38] that suffered in implementation due to several factors such as; a lack of a cohesive national strategy, poor stakeholder engagement, inadequate funding and infrastructure, all compounded by a general perception of low priority for mandatory traceability. The 2020 launched Animal Identification and Traceability Strategy 2020-2030, presently guides the implementation of these regulations, that has made provisions for registration of all livestock owners and their premises, for the financing, acquisition, application and retrieval of the identification and tracking devices, and the appointment of inspectors, thus guarantying a self-sustaining food safety environment, free of fraudulent activities in the red meat industry [38].

3.4.5. Trade Descriptions Act, Competitions Authority Act, and the Consumer Protection Act

The Kenyan Parliament, under the Trade Description’s Act (Cap 505) [11] prohibits false trade descriptions of commodities, whereas the Competitions Authority Act (2010) [9] and the Consumer Protection Act (2012) [10] serve to protect the consumer from unfair and misleading trade practices. The drafted National Food Safety Policy has identified food fraud among other malpractices (food adulteration, mislabeling, poor ethos) as re-emerging issues requiring both a research and policy framework to strengthen capacity for surveillance, strengthening enforcement to curb the malpractices, and to strengthen collaborative mechanisms among stakeholders to address food safety issues. The efficient implementation of these Acts currently suffers from complexity in identifying beef fraud offences due to the informal structure in the red meat industry and the lack of rapid verification tests at point of sale, a loophole that creates motivation for malpractice.

3.4.6. The Standards Act

The Standards Act [8] serves to promote the standardization of the specification of commodities, and to provide for the codes of practice. While the Standards Act can serve as a tool to improve conditions in the informal sector, it suffers greatly in implementation in the red meat sector that is primarily informal, with estimates indicating that 80% to 90% of red meat output originates from the informal pastoral system, encompassing poorly regulated slaughter and trade [39]. Yet, the official government veterinary stamp marked on carcasses, not only verifies that a carcass has passed post-mortem inspection and is wholesome [32], but also serves to guarantee confidence against beef fraud. However, inefficiencies in inspection across the extensive base of slaughter facilities and butcheries, and lack of consumer awareness of the quality mark creates opportunities for fraudulent malpractice. Therefore, to combat beef fraud, a combination of robust inspection and traceability systems, clear product labelling and the ongoing enforcement of regulations against meat misrepresentation is necessary to build consumer confidence and ensure the integrity of the meat supply chain.

3.4.7. The Livestock Bill 2024

The Livestock Bill 2024 [40], avails a robust regulatory framework that serves to regulate and coordinate the development of the livestock sector. This proposed law has several objectives, including; regulating production and utilization of livestock products, guiding livestock identification and traceability, enhancing consumer protection and safety of animal-derived foods and realizing food and nutrition security. This review finds that for effective regulation of the first three objectives and in addressing beef fraud, the drafted law would require establishing regulations for the registration of all livestock value chain actors (particularly livestock keepers, livestock traders and transporters and retailers) to prevent participation of illegal entrants, since as captured in the review, opportunities for beef fraud occur at production, transportation (of livestock and meat) and retail. The successful implementation of the data management framework dubbed Kenya Integrated Agriculture Management Information System (KIAMIS) [41] is viewed to facilitate the regulation. Similarly, in addressing food and nutrition security and food safety, the disconnect between legislation (the Kenyan government’s designation of the donkey as a food animal) and societal norms (the widespread rejection to donkey meat consumption among the majority of Kenyans) needs prompt resolution. The nutritive and therapeutic value of both donkey meat and milk has been long established, traditionally and scientifically [5][42], and therefore other than promoting a total ban on donkey products, the drafted law could propose food safety and public health regulations specific for donkey products, as has been provisioned for other red meat animals. Consequently, it is imperative to prioritize the donkey’s value in the domestic market (draft power, cultural delicacy and nutraceutical from meat and milk) against its value in the global market (traditional medicine from the skin) to ensure sustained production, utilization, and trade, while minimizing disruption in the beef value chain.

3.4.8. SWOT Analysis Results

The SWOT analysis (Table 4) represents a tabled overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to food legislations in relation to beef fraud in Kenya. This analysis was derived from literature review of the legislative documents.

Table 4.SWOT Analysis of food legislation in Kenya with a beef fraud lens.

The strengths of food legislation in Kenya are evident in its comprehensive legal and regulatory framework, exemplified by the drafted National Food Safety Policy (2021), Meat Control Act, Public Health Act, Livestock Bill, Animal Disease (ANITRAC) Act, and Consumers Protection Act. Although the institutional framework is designed to enhance capacity through effective collaboration, its coordination, particularly in resource mobilization and distribution, as well as in defining roles and functions, is viewed as a weakness. Conversely, the legal and regulatory strengths are also reflected in the Competitions Authority Act, Trade Act, and Standards Act, which operate with autonomous mandates. However, complexities in legal interpretation, identifying and prosecuting offences, and the absence of specific definitions, guidelines, and regulations undermine the legislation. For example, to adequately address beef fraud, food fraud—both generally and within specific value chains—needs to be clearly defined in Kenyan law, with appropriate penalties prescribed.

Opportunities within Kenyan food legislation are political, social, economic, and technological, encompassing effective policies, political will, consumer awareness, transparent market linkages, compliance with provisions aligned to the entire beef value chain, enhanced technological capacity of enforcement officers, technology integration in research, surveillance, inspection, and marketing services.

Economic factors pose threats to food legislation due to the significant investment required in research, human resources, technology, and infrastructure enhancement. For instance, rapid technological advancements in animal identification and traceability, employing a farm-to-fork approach, can disrupt production systems, incentivizing only highly-resourced, export-oriented beef value chain actors to comply. Similarly, policy interventions proposed to address food fraud and other emerging food safety issues will depend on budgetary allocations from the involved ministries. Legislation requiring nationwide implementation faces political threats during execution, in the event of contestation over mandates between the national and county governments. Additionally, due to non-specific regulations in the Competitions Act, the Trade Descriptions Act, and the informal nature of the livestock industry, legal threats are anticipated to challenge the successful implementation of food legislation.

In Kenya, the detection of beef fraud has traditionally relied on visual inspection methods. As previously mentioned, subjective evidence of beef fraud include the presence of zebra and buffalo heads and skeletons, as well as reports of donkey theft and bush slaughter. Additionally, the seizure of carcasses in transit without meat inspection stamps or transport certificates are suggestive of beef fraud. The low likelihood of detecting zebra and donkey meat cuts from those of acceptable food-animal species [13][43] by unsuspecting consumers and law enforcers has also been seen as an opportunity for the malpractice. Few studies have focused on beef fraud detection in Kenya. During the review period, one article reported using a three mitochondrial gene PCR-high-resolution (PCR-HRM) melting analysis to detect livestock species substitution in meat sold in Nairobi [44]. The study found that by targeting three mitochondrial genes—cytochrome oxidase 1 (CO1), cytochrome b (cyt b), and 16S rRNA—through PCR-HRM, followed by sequencing amplicons of the 750 base pair segment of the CO1 barcoding region, 10.3% (n = 107) of the samples were found to be substituted. The most misrepresented meat was goat (n = 30), which was substituted with mutton (13.33%) and beef (10%), while beef (n = 61) was substituted with goat (3.3%) and camel meat (1.64%). Pork (n = 9) was also substituted with beef (11.11%). No substitution was reported for chicken and camel meat. The authors further noted that the detection method was both affordable and rapid, recommending it as a suitable technology for identifying species substitution. An earlier study that had determined the presence of illegal bush-meat within Nairobi butcheries using Cytochrome b Mitochondrial DNA marker [13] reported that although bush-meat was not detected, 11.6 % (n = 138) of the meat samples had been mislabeled by the traders. Previous studies have highlighted insufficient regulatory oversight in detecting food fraud, with a greater emphasis placed on microbial safety concerns in sub-Saharan Africa [45][46]. The low probability of detection has been attributed to a complex supply chain, inadequate enforcement of regulations, lack of value chain transparency, and insufficient traceability of livestock and animal products [17][47].