ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
16th International Symposium of Veterinary
Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE 16)
Connecting Animals, People, and their shared environments
Food Safety Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Trust
of Pork Consumers of Northern Vietnam
Fred Unger
Fred Unger, Nga Nguyen-Thi-Duong, Huyen Le Thi, Phuc Pham Duc, Sinh Dang -Xuan, and Delia Randolph
International Livestock Research Institute
7-12 August 2022

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Background
Food safety and pork value chain in Vietnam
Pig farms Pig slaughterhouses Pork shops
No. of pigs/farm: 17 (4-84)
Exotic bred: 68%
No. of pigs/day: 11 (1-45)
Operate: 2 am-6 am
Food safety
• Most pressing issues,
important as education and
health care
• Modern food safety law but
enforcement challenges
Pork and pig production
chain in Vietnam
• Pork: important component
of the Vietnamese diet
• Mostly (>70%) produced,
processed and sold by
traditional sector
Selling pork: 20-300 kg/shop/day
Open: 5 am-11 am

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Background (cont.,)
Recent research indicates poor food safety outcomes (Salmonella) across all pork
retail types (modern and traditional)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109163
Low risk from chemical hazards: grow promoters, antimicrobials (AM), heavy metals
Value chain actors incorrectly perceive chemical hazards as more important than
microbiological
Traditional retail Street food Canteens „Boutique“
shops
Super markets/
convenient stores
Indigenous pigs

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Objectives
To evaluate consumers knowledge, attitude and practice
(KAP) about food safety in selected pork value chains in
northern Vietnam.
(Part of larger food safety initiative “SafePORK, 2017-2022)

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Materials and Methods
Using a food safety performance 188
consumers were randomly selected and
interviewed from:
✓ Rural and urban
✓ 3 types of pork value chains
• Upgraded traditional (rural)
• Traditional (urban)
• Modern (urban)
✓ 3 provinces (North Vietnam) Hanoi,
Hung Yen, and Nghe An provinces
Topic of key informant interviews: food
safety KAP, trust and governance.
Classical approach: Risk assessment
(qualitative/quantitative)
Safety
Core of the tool
using a risk-
based approach
to assess food
safety outcomes
(e.g. for pork)
Sustainability and
scalability
Business
performance of
value chain (e.g.
market share,
expected trends and
governance (e.g.
trust & interventions).
Societal
concerns
supplementary
to pillar 1 and 2
such as gender
and equity,
cultural norms
etc.
FSPT aim: Allow rapid assessment of
food safety outcomes in value chains

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Results – consumer demographics by region and VC in %
Description
Rural Urban All
(n=170)
GAHP trad.
(n=36)
Modern (n=55)
Traditional
(n=79)
% as females 91.7 85.5 91.1 89.4
Occupation
Farmer 80.6 0 0 17.1
Non- farm job 5.6 69.1 60.7 51.8
Students and housewives 0 23.6 26.6 20
Education (% of respondent)
Higher school and lower 88.9 52.7 70.9 68.8
Vocational 8.3 10.9 5.1 7.6
College and higher 2.8 36.3 24.1 23.6
Consumers in urban areas (modern and traditional value chains) have higher
education levels than those in rural areas (GAHP/upgraded traditional).

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Results - Consumers’ knowledge on food safety by region & VC (%)
Knowledge questions
Rural Urban All
(n=170)
GAHP trad.
(n=36)
Modern (n=55)
Traditional
(n=79)
Unsafe food can be detected by its
physical appearance
Yes 100 92.7 86.1 91.2
No 0 5.5 13.9 8.2
Don’t know 0 1.8 0 0.6
If pork is fully cooked, then it is safe
Yes 50 18.2 27.8 29.4
No 50 81.8 68.4 68.8
Don’t know 0 0 3.8 1.8
“Physical appearance”: e.g. determined by colour, odour of meat, or touch
pork pieces to check for viscosity.

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Results - Consumers attitude about pork safety
• More than 90% of consumers related correctly poor hygienic practices to
cause of foodborne disease, nearly similar across regions.
• Most consumers (83%) believed that foodborne disease is usually a
serious disease. This proportion was higher in urban (89%) compared to
rural consumers (64%).
- Effect of FBD to humans were related to cumulative effect of chemicals
• Approximately 80% of consumers were worried about foodborne diseases
at least once a week, assuming that food sold in markets is rather unsafe.

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Results– Importance of people/stakeholders responsible for food safety in
the pork value chains
53%
55% 53% 54%
6%
26%
24%
21%
17%
9% 9%
11%
11%
2%
4% 5%
14%
2% 3%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
GAHP (n=36) Modern (n=55) Traditional (n=79) All (n=170)
Farmer
Government, ministry
Input supplier
Slaughterhouse
Consumer
Highest importance given to producers, followed by government and input suppliers
Results highlight perception of consumers that chemicals such as feed additives are most important

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Results
Food safety trust and governance
Consumers were asked to rate their trust level in different stakeholders in the
pork value chains related to pork safety using a scale of 1 (no trust)–10 (highest)
✓ Trust levels decrease from rural to urban areas
✓ Trust also decreases along the value chain from producer (highest) to
consumers (lowest)
Food safety communication
Among a range of communication modes, TV- radio is the most frequently
used by consumers and gains highest trust level. While commonly used social
media receive low trusts.

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Conclusions & recommendations
Misperception of consumers regarding threats on human health from
chemical hazards as opposed to biological hazards. Thus, most consumers
believe that producers should be the most responsible for the safety of pork.
Trust level vary by area and value chain node
Need of tailored risk communication messages to the location of value chain
actors (rural or peri-urban/urban) and types of pork value chains (traditional,
modern or local pigs).
Prioritize TV and local radio when disseminating food safety messages.

ISVEE16 – Halifax, Canada
Acknowledgements
Local authorities (e.g. Sub-DAH/DARD)
Value chain actors
Project partners
Funder:
ACIAR, Australia
CGIAR A4NH