Intervention session
Fred Unger and Hung Nguyen
SFFF Cambodia Taskforce and Stakeholder Meeting
Siem Reap, 24-25 October 2019

SFFF Food Safety interventions
Objective 2
To develop, pilot and test a new approach to food safety, which relies on incentives
(rewards) and light-touch interventions in close partnership with the private sector.
Research question: Can a market-based approach involving training, and enabling of
vendors and based on incentives and light touch interventions, be effective, feasible and
have potential for scaling
Pillars: Training (training + technologies), certification, marketing

SFFF Obj 2: Food Safety interventions
Content
Interventions:
Training: Knowledge and practices, targeting retailers
Simple technologies: Use of disinfectants & detergents, separation of ready
to eat and raw food (e.g. by color); protective clothing; antimicrobial
impregnated cutting blocks.
Marketing: Retailers enabled to signal their improved skills to the
public e.g. banners, posters or aligned such as improved tracablity
Certification: Various certificates, e.g. for training or more hygienic practice or
more serious issued by relevant authorities
Aligned with: Objective 3-5 (Gender, TOC & communication)

SFFF Obj 2: Food Safety interventions
Timelines and tools
Timelines: Feb 2020 onwards
Method and tools:
• Selection of interventions based on risk assessment
• RCT (or base/end line)
– Sample size: 23 cluster 15 traders each intervention and control group (345 + 345)
• Possible addtional activities prior to or alighned with interventions:
– partisipatory diagnostic (to explore compliance of actors ex-ante)
– behavioural nudges (to support interventions)

Food Safety interventions
Challenges for improving food safety
• Various approaches to improving safety have been tested, 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 in Vietnam < 5%)
• Key constraints to uptake include:
– high cost of adoption, lack of benefits from changing behaviour

Food Safety interventions
Challenges for improving food safety
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 with focus on behaviours change
– incentive-based
Various incentives possible: Higher price, more trust
& increased sells
– Aligned with capacity building

PigRISK & Safe PORK experience from Vietnam
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.
What caused the change:
More confidence to approach private sector e.g. canteens, in
signaling improved pork handling

8
• Selection of suitable value chains and intervention points
– Pig RISK results and Food safety performance assessment key pork VC
• 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 of interventions, base line/endline (ON-GOING)
Safe Pork approach
(Slaughter and retail)

Retailer package
 Technologies
—Antimicrobial cutting boards, cotton cloths, introduce W&D, apron, hat etc.
—Promote easy to clean surfaces & insect nets
—Separation between ready to eat and raw food
 Training (best length and approach to be discussed)
- 2-3 half days & refresher
Supporting lab trials (Safe Pork)
―Test of antimicrobial efficacy of five types of cutting boards shows promising
results for two of five cutting boards
Examples for interventions

Assessment of the potential to use nudges
for improved food safety behaviour and
practice in the ASF value chain
 value chain actors e.g. retailers consider the effect
of colour on salience differently; e.g. red was
considered dirtiest while blue the cleanest.
Consumer (?):
 Awareness campaigns
 Reduce cross-contamination
Examples for interventions
Dirty hands and equipment
Leads to contaminated
meat

Examples for interventions
Training
 Retailers
 Butchers (Parasite survey)
Certification & branding to signal food safety interventions to public
 Certificate of attendance, higher level – who can do?
 Tractability
 Poster, banner ect.

12
SFFF
What next? Brainstorming and discussion
Steps required:
• Which value chain, node & how many (VC and retailers in each)
• Which type of intervention (training content and technologies) is most
promising (to be supported by risk assessment & expected compliance)
• Include asking for advice/support:
– FS Task Force & authorities
– Retailers + relevant associations …
• Gender & risk communication messages must be tailored to the audience

Group work during annual meeting

Group work

Group work - Intervention
Feasibility
Efficacy
1. Frequent washing & disinfection of surfaces
1
1
2. Antimicrobial cutting board2
2
3. Separation of raw and ready to eat food
33
4. Easy to clean surface, elevated grid, renovate
4
5. Labelling and branding
5
5
4
6. Traceability
6
Other aspects:
• Use of famous stars for promotion of hygiene
• Link slaughter with markets
• Make store more attractive
• Certification

Next steps
• Focus on retail
• Participatory diagnostic with VC actors and stakeholders
• Training & training materials
• Pilot
• Scaling (who can support?)