Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Scaling food safety innovations in traditional markets(20)

More from ILRI(20)

Advertisement

Scaling food safety innovations in traditional markets

  1. Scaling food safety innovations in traditional markets Delia Grace Natural Resources Institute, UK and International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya GAIN Seminar: The art of application – Food safety innovations for traditional markets 13 December 2022
  2. 2 Traditional food markets • Traditional, wet, informal markets: selling dry, fresh (and sometimes live) food all over the world. • Wet markets: selling mainly fresh foods such as meat, fish and vegetables, mostly used in Asia. • Often poor infrastructure, inadequate health and safety regulation, sell traditional products, traditional processing, not licensed, not tax paid, often some form of compliance with regulation Most FBD from fresh food in informal markets
  3. Outline Does it scale? Is it sustainable? What doesn’t work What might Take home messages
  4. o Not by Before and After o MVP mid-term evaluation report highlights “Proportion of households that own a mobile phone increased fourfold” as one of the project’s “biggest impacts” in Bar- Sauri. http://blogs.wor ldbank.org/afric acan/the- millennium- villages-project- continues-to- systematically- overstate-its- effects Does it scale? How can we tell?
  5. Observational studies Manzi summarized: 90% of large RCT replicated as compared to only 20% of non-RCT Young and Carr looked at 52 claims made in medical observational studies NONE (zero) of the claims replicated in RCTs, 5 claims were stat-sig in the opposite direction in the RCT Their summary: any claim coming from a non-RCT is most likely to be wrong Even well-controlled, published non-RCT have been reversed by RCT
  6. Does it scale? How can we tell? Gold standard: multiple RCTs Non experimental designs can only suggest causality o Can’t control completely with a regression model or propensity score • Models can only say might o Can’t get causality from a cross sectional (with –without) study o Can’t get causality from a before and after study
  7. Outline What to do? How do we know if it works? Doing it wrong. Doing it right. Some ILRI success and failures
  8. 8 Along the value chain Technologies Training & information New processes Organisational arrangements Regulation Infrastructure Farmer +++ +++ + +++ + ++++ Processor & transporter +++ +++ +++ ++ ++ +++ Retailer + ++ + ++ ++ +++ Consumer + +++ + + + +++ Government +++ ++ ++ +++ Population level: • Incorporating food safety into other health programs such as mother and child care or HIV treatment • Medical interventions such as vaccination for cholera or norovirus or binders for aflatoxins • Dietary diversity to reduce exposure and vulnerability to toxins • Water treatment Reviews of food safety interventions in LMICs
  9. Little evidence of scaling or continuing • Failure to evaluate large scale investments • Interventions without measuring outcomes – yet some interventions make things worse • Near-term, easy, un-important outcomes measured e.g., changes in knowledge • Reliance on self-reporting (e.g., diarrhea) • Short-term follow ups – no attention to sustainability • Limited information on economic aspects – many likely unaffordable • Lack of attention to incentives • Limited cover of un-intended consequences especially gender and nutrition
  10. Can we regulate our way to food safety? A modern and appropriate regulatory framework is essential But o Regulation – implementation gap o Regulation often not appropriate o Major consumer of time o Perverse incentives
  11. Can we train our way to food safety? o FFS good for farmers but doesn’t scale or sustain o Domestic GAP has limited effect • In 4 years VietGAP reached 0.06% • In Thailand GAP farmers have no better pesticide use than non-GAP o Safe veggies in Vietnam over 10 years less than 10% o Biosecurity never scales for smallholders o Increasing knowledge of health benefits of handwashing does not change behaviour
  12. Three -legged stool approach to scaling
  13. The 3-legged stool approach: ECM (enabling, capacitating, motivating) Vietnam 1. training & minor equipment Slaughter Retail Slaughter: Grid, separate clean/dirty area, cleaning/disinfection (300-1000$) Retail: Hygienic cutting board, separate (fresh/cooked), cleaning/disinfection (35$) Cambodia 1. training & minor equipment Retail Hygienic cutting board, separate (fresh/cooked), cleaning/disinfection, easy to clean surface (25$) 2. Incentives & Nudges Scoring system, auction survey indicates 15 % higher WTP of consumers for improved market stalls 2. Incentives & Nudges: Certificate and poster Different coloured cloths and chopping boards 3. Enabling authorities & infrastructure Limited support by local authorities 3. Enabling environment Strong support by national & local authorities Improved food safety outcome (Salmonella) in both countries but more prominent in Cambodia due to stronger support by local authorities Photo credit: Unger, Chi Nguyen, R Chea /ILRI Supporting tools: - Manuals, briefs, nudges - Formative research
  14. Grid Hand disinfection liquid Faucet Installed grid Re-organized water and electrical system Not sustained until large foreign company required use of grids Photo credit: Sinh Dang Xuan/Chi Nguyen ILRI 2020 Training, Technologies and Nudges in slaughterhouses
  15. Technology, training, nudges Sustained because storage reduced waste and loss and made work easier
  16. Policy impact: translational research for interventions in modernizing food system o CGIAR/ILRI niche - risk assessment and policy / regulatory analysis for fresh foods in domestic markets o World Bank convenes overall support to government: ILRI led technical works o Upcoming projects based on WB report we led will improve food safety for 20 million people in major cities of Vietnam
  17. Photo Credit Goes Here EatSafe in Ethiopia
  18. 1. Clean Fingers: Proper hand washing, short nails, handwashing stations, hand sanitiser 2. Clean Water: chloride tablets, clean container, cover 3. Clean Surfaces: Disinfectants, bleach revealed, frequent wiping, sheeting or other surface control 4. Clean Cloths & clothes: Different colours for different purposes, 2 buckets, wash & dry, antimicrobial cloths. Apron, clean light coloured clothes 5. Clean Tools: Cleaning, disinfection, storage 6. Fly free: fly traps and pest control 7. Off floor: All food stored off the floor in appropriate containers 8. Fridge use: fridge thermometer 9. Separate offal from meat, hot from cold 10. Sequence new before old: first in first out principle 11. Avoid raw beef, if not possible do not give raw beef to YOPI, harm reduction for raw beef Few behaviours to change
  19. 1. Economic: marketing, customer service, looking clean & nice, being polite 2. Economic: mystery consumer (team member) who will evaluate them and give them structured feedback 3. Economic: simple record keeping, importance of keeping business & personal, business micro-incentives (reminders & small payments for record keeping & marketing) 4. Social: Tell and show customers the importance of training 5. Social: Proof of training, photo of training, why training is needed (germs, illness, use of glo) 6. Moral: explain how training will improve their family health 7. Moral: pre-commitment, promise to follow behaviours 8. Mixed: “scores on doors” cards which will show hygiene to attract consumers and be in good standing with authorities 9. Mixed: why technologies will prevent spoilage and waste, keep meat safe, attract consumers Many motivations to draw on
  20. 1. Many food safety interventions in LMICs do not scale 2. Scaling must be incorporated from the start 3. We know the critical success factors for scaling 4. We need change only a small number of behaviours 5. Behaviours can be changed by a wide range of incentives and nudges 6. Authorities must be on board (or at least not anti informal market) Take home messages
  21. THANK YOU
Advertisement