Managing risks in emerging pork markets: Safe food in informal markets

1,316 views

Published on

Presentation by Delia Grace, Lucy Lapar, Iheanacho Okike, V Padmakumar and Anna Fahrion at an international South-South symposium on managing risks in emerging pork markets, Hanoi, Vietnam, 23-25 April 2012.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,316
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
130
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Managing risks in emerging pork markets: Safe food in informal markets

  1. 1. Managing risks in emerging pork marketsSafe food in informal markets Delia Grace; Lucy Lapar; Iheanacho Okike; V Padmakumar; Anna Fahrion. International Livestock Research Institute 1
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. Context 1. Demand-driven livestock revolution Annual per capita Total consumption consumption year Meat (kg) Milk (kg) Meat (Mt) Milk (Mt)Developing 2002 28 44 137 222 2050 44 78 326 585Developed 2002 78 202 102 265 2050 94 216 126 295 Rosengrant 3
  4. 4. Context2. Increasing concern over food safety In developing countries studied Many/most concerned over food safety (40 to 97%) WTP 5-10% premium for safety Younger, wealthier, town, supermarket-shoppers willing to pay more for safety Buy less during animal health scares 4
  5. 5. Assessing food safety in informal markets Risk based approach – Risk pathway – Codex alimentarius framework Mixed methods – Biological sampling – Household/individual questionnaires – Check lists – Participatory appraisals 5
  6. 6. 3 country KAP study 6
  7. 7. 7
  8. 8. 8
  9. 9. 9
  10. 10. Results High level of hazards Nagaland Vietnam Nigeria Present Exceed Present Exceed Present Exceed standard standard standardTotal bacterial 100 23 70 52 100 98 countColiforms 92 40 86 60 90 66S. aureus 93 47 41 25 13 n/aCysticercosis 9 9 0 0 n/a n/aAntibiotic 5% 5 9 9 n/a n/a residues 10
  11. 11. RISK REDUCING & MITIGATING KAP 11
  12. 12.  Nigeria  80% cook <3 hours after purchase  93% boil for >20 minutes  75% keep in fridge  10% eat raw meat Vietnam  100% of respondents cooked food < 3 hours of purchase  98% cooked for >10 minutes  58% keep in fridge Nagaland  100% cook <3 hours after purchase  99% boil for >60 minutes  10% keep in fridge  90% keep pork ‘in the chimney’ 12
  13. 13. Risks 4% consumers Vietnam report to GIT illness in last 2 weeks (no relation pork or meat consumption, strong relation vegetable consumption) 9% consumers in Nigeria (strong relation meat consumption) 23% consumers in Nagaland (no relation pork, meat or vegetable consumption, strong relation hygiene) 43% Nigerian butchers (strong relation group, gender, hygienic practice, eating own products) 13
  14. 14. 100 90 Supermarket Wet market 80 Village market 70 60% UNACCEPTABLE 50 v 40 30 20 10 0 Total bacteria Enterobac Staph Listeria Residues 14
  15. 15. Conclusions Findings support other work by ILRI in informal markets  Food in informal markets often contains hazards  But risks to human health less clear  And SUPERMARKET does not mean SAFE  Hazards, risks, practices are highly context specific Time between slaughter and sale has biggest effect on bacterial load Slaughter house point of maximal contamination– Village slaughtered often safer;– Slaughterhouse which slaughter smaller no. of pigs have higher bacteriological quality;– Presence of customers at the slaughter place increase the adoption of hygienic practices; 15
  16. 16. Conclusions Many risk-mitigating practices as well as risk- enhancing along the value chain  Endogenous trumps exogenous Concerns over food safety even among poorest  But over-estimate ability to control  Over-estimate ability to judge Rules & regulations don’t work and may make food less safe Incentives can work and need not involve profit Risk-based approaches can provide contra-intuitive insights implying radical changes in food safety policy and practice 16

×