Pork safety assessment and first results from pilot
interventions targeting slaughter and retail in selected
provinces of Northern Vietnam
Fred Unger
International Livestock Research Institute

Outline
• Introduction
• Material and methods
• Results
• Discussions and conclusions

Introduction - pork and food safety in Vietnam
Pork is an important component of the Vietnamese diet
• The most widely consumed meat: 29.1Kg/person
• >80% comes from very small or small farms
• 76% of pigs are processed in small slaughtering
• Preference for fresh “warm” pork supplied in traditional markets
(>80% of all pork marketed)
Food safety among the most pressing issues for people
in Vietnam, more important than education or health care
Food exports relatively well managed but deficits
in domestic markets

Pork safety assessments and pathways towards safer pork
PigRISK (2012-2017) http://pigrisk.ilriwikis.org SAFEPork (ongoing)
Research questions
Is pork safe in Vietnam?
Methods:
Quantitative and qualitative risk assessment
Assess cost of food borne diseases (FBD)
(hospitalisation)
Cross-contamination Salmonella (household)
• Interdisciplinary team
• Risk based approach
• Farm to fork
• Food safety hazards:
– Biological and chemical
Research questions
What are faesable options for safer Pork?
Methods:
Food safety (FS) performance of value chain
FS interventions
Risk communication

Results from risk assessment under Pig RISK
Microbial Risk assessment:
Salmonella contamination started at farm and increased along the pork chain
(farm – slaughter – market) mainly related to poor hygienic practices
44 to 83% of pork across different retail contaminated with Salmonella
Misperception towards risk – public most concerned on chemical hazards but
major health risk related to microbiological hazards
Risk for pork consumer: 1 – 2 person out of 10 (17%) estimated to suffer
Salmonella caused food borne diseaes annually
Chemical risk assessment: Risk due to chemical hazards is low (heavy metals,
grow promoters and antibiotics)
Hospitalization costs of foodborne diarrhoea per treatment episode: USD 107
Is pork safe? SAFE Pork: Focus on food safety
interventions along pork value chains

SAFE Pork
Food safety performance of key pork supply chains
Method: Standardised food safety performance tool (KAP, trust, hazard sampling)
Focus group discussions (11), key informant interviews (543)
& biological sampling (705)
Traditional/
wet market
(all sites)
Street food, Hanoi Canteens, Hanoi „Boutique“ food
chains, niche but
emerging, Hanoi
Supermarket/
convienient
stores, Hanoi
Native pigs,
niche market,
Hoa Binh, „safe by
nature“, prime price
Selection criteria for value chains: contribution to pork supply, novel approaches,
scalability, local support, complementary to other initiative or joint project sites

SAFE Pork
Food safety performance of key pork supply chains - results
Traditional/
wet market (all
sites)
Street food, Hanoi Canteens, Hanoi Boutique food
chains, niche but
emerging, Hanoi
Supermarket/
convienient
stores, Hanoi
Native pigs,
niche market, Hoa
Binh
Results:
- Poor food safety outcomes (Salmonella) and hygienic deficits across all retail types
- Trust in food safety was higher in rural areas and at the producer end than in urban
areas and at the consumer end of the value chain
- Consumers trusted television and local radio more than social media for food safety
information
- VC actors relate “Safe Pork” to not using antibiotics/growth promoters and less to
poor hygiene

SAFE Pork – interventions
Challenges for improving food safety including pork
• Various approaches to improving safety had been tried, largely based
on systems used in developed countries e.g.:
– GAHP (Good animal husbandry practices), traceability, certification,
modernising retail etc.)
• However, safe meat production has not yet take a significant share of
pork retail in Vietnam (e.g. VietGAHP < 5%)
• Key constraints to uptake include:
– high cost of adoption, lack of benefits from changing behaviour
• To overcome these constraints our focus will be on:
– gradual improvements to the food system in place, rather than
introduction of a new system
– rather simple interventions
– incentive-based

Pilot intervention (previous Pig Risk project)
The pilot trial also demonstrated that
technical solutions must go along with
behaviour change of butchers.
The improvement in hygiene (using grid
versus floor) was indicated by lower
coliform load (p = 0.002) on the carcass
surface compared to the control.

10
FBD- a new priority – most from livestock
Millions DALYs lost per year (global)
Safe PORK
Approach used for interventions
• Selection of suitable value chains and intervention points
– Pig RISK results and Food safety performance assessment (Safe PORK)
– Value chain assessment
• Participatory diagnostic
– With local authorties and trageted VC actors using meetings, FGD, Key informant
interviews and system effect modelling (barriers and enablers for interventions)
• Supporting research
– Behaviour nudges, system effect & lab trials
• Pilot trials
• Full implementation including assessment

Safe PORK – innovations/interventions
Simple, rapid tests that detect contaminated food
Could be used directly by retailers or consumer
to have direct verification of safety
Reduce use of antimicrobial (in collaboration with private
sector), replacement of antimicrobials by pro-biotics
Reduce contamination of pork
Portable ozone machines to plug into water supply
2 slaughterhouses, Hanoi and Hung Yen (start Sep 19)
Avoid floor slaughter (grid & elevated table)
Animal welfare
Very low perception of butchers & consumers
Entry point: new law of livestock includes chapter on animal welfare
tendency to consider welfare at farm and meat quality issues

Safe PORK – interventions
• Retailer package
— Tailored package: antimicrobial cutting boards, cotton cloths, frequent W&D
— Training
• Supporting lab trials
― Test of antimicrobial efficacy of five types
of cutting boards shows promising results for
two of five cutting boards
• Increasing transparency and traceability in food system
24 hour on farm, slaughter (?), branding and certification, done
with private sector
• Training (techinal & risk communication)

SAFE Pork - innovations
• Assessment of the potential to use nudges
for improved food safety behaviour and
practice in the pork value chain
• Risk communication
 Media, risk assessors, value chain actors – training & materials
 Needs assessment results: Basic RC applicable to daily work.
Most suggested tools: training course and field visits
• Consumer:
 Awareness campaigns
 Reduce cross-contamination

14
FBD- a new priority – most from livestock
Millions DALYs lost per year (global)
Safe PORK
Discussion and conclusions
From assessments:
• Pork is not safe – PH risk is considerable
• Modern retail not safer than traditional retail
• Microbiological hazards are most important
Pathways towards safer pork:
• Government efforts to improve food safety need to include all retail types - the
informal sector has been relatively ignored.
• Techincal innovations require also practice change and incentives
• Risk communication messages must be tailored to the audience and use most
trusted channels
Challenges:
• African swine fever

Safer pork can be achieved but technical solutions
need to be:
• Evidence based
• Identified and implemented in a strong participatory process
• Incentivized
• Rather simple & cost - effective
• Innovative
• Scalable
Overall conclusions – Vietnamese context

better lives through livestock
ilri.org
This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
ilri.org
ILRI thanks all donors and organizations who globally supported its work through their contributions
to the CGIAR system