1) The document examines awareness of food safety along the Ban pork value chain in Hoa Binh province of Vietnam. Interviews were conducted with 42 Ban pig producers, 11 slaughterhouses, 20 retailers, and 18 consumers. 2) Respondents showed poor knowledge of food safety risks. Producers were most concerned with chemical risks while downstream actors focused on microbial risks. All actors identified farmers as most responsible for ensuring food safety. 3) Recommended interventions included forming farmer cooperatives for better market linkages and developing certification programs. Establishing testing of pork safety in markets was also suggested.

1. Awareness of food safety along Ban pork value chain in Hoa Binh, a
northern mountainous province of Vietnam - opportunities for ethnic
community in safe-pork supply
Huyen Le Thi Thanh, Nguyen Dang Thanh, Dang Vu Hoa, Le Tien Dung, Tran Thi
Bich Ngoc, Nguyen Thi Thinh, Fred Unger
Regional symposium on research into smallholder pig production,
health, and pork safety
Hanoi, Vietnam
27-29 March 2019

2. Contents
• Introduction
• Materials and Methods
• Results and Discussions
• General information of Ban pork VC
• Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice on FS
• Options for FS improvement
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• References

3. Introduction
• Local Ban pigs popularly kept by ethnic farmers: good adaptation
abilities; broad feed intake spectrum, and high disease tolerance
• Ban pork preferred by consumers; high price
• Increased tendency of food safety (FS) concern (USAID, 2015), while very
poor awareness of FS among ethnic farmers (Huyen and Ngoc, 2018)
• Incorporating perceptions of value chain (VC) actors about FS practices
can conduct better communication to improve FS (Takanashi et al.,2013)
• Aim: Understanding the awareness on FS of Ban pork VC’s stakeholders
to determine their opportunity in accessing to marketing and branding
options for safe pork supply.

4. Study area
Da Bac district, Hoa Binh province
• Ban pips kept by Ethnic farms in
remote villages
• Strategy: development of high
quality Local pig products
• Poor available information on FS
understanding among VC’s
stakeholders

5. Methodology
Ban pig
producers
Ban pig
slaughter
men
Ban pork
retailers
Ban pork
consumers
FGDs 6 cooperative
groups
KII 42 11 20 18

6. BAN PIG SMALLHOLDERS
(10 – 15 pigs sold/farm/year)
80
%
Farmers,
teachers, officers
in commune
3
-
4
%
Communal
butchers
(1pig/day)
80%: Heavy pig
(50 -70kg; 50k-
60kvnd/kgLW)
20%: Piglets (13
-15kg; 80k-90k
vnd/kgLW)
Heavy
pig (50
-70kg)
1
6
-
1
7
%
Communal collectors(1-
2pigs;Sep-Oct, Jan-Feb
lunar: 8-10 pigs/day)
60
-
70
%
Restaurants
(HN, HB )
Small
pigs: 20 -
30 kg;
70k-80k
vnd/kglw
3
0
-
4
0
%
Local pork
market
Pigs: 60 -
80 kg;
50k-60k
vnd/kglw
Ban pork VC

7. General production
Pigs slaughtered (pig/day) or
retailed (kg/day
Production trend (%)
Min Max Average Increase Decrease Remain
Slaughter houses
(n = 11)
0.1 2.2 1.1 27.3 18.2 45.5
Retailers
(n=20)
15 62.8 32.3 25 75 0
Ban pig producers
(n=42)
Number of sows/ farm
1 4 2.5 100

8. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice on FS
Ban pig
Producers
n = 42
Ban pig
Slaughterhouses
n = 11
Ban pork
Retailers
n = 20
Ban pork
Consumers
n = 18
Overall
Knowledge Percentage of answer “YES”
1. Unsafe food can be
detected by its physical
appearance
92.8 100 100 100 98.2
2. Chemicals in food
are a main cause of
cancer
78.6 90.9 100 88.9 89.6
3. If pork is fully cooked
then it is safe
76.2 54.5 60 100 72.7

9. KAP respondents (cont.)
Ban pig
Producers
n = 42
Ban pig
Slaughterhous
es n = 11
Ban pork
Retailers
n = 20
Ban pork
Consumers
n = 18
Overall
Attitude Percentage of answer “YES”
1. Foodborne disease (FD) is
usually because the cook has poor
hygiene
95.2 100 100 88.9 96
2. FD is usually not a serious illness 28.6 27.3 45 22.2 30.8
3. I worry about FD at least once a
week
76.2 54.5 50 88.9 67.4
4. It is the government’s
responsibility to ensure food is
safe
83.3 81.8 70 88.9 81
Practice
Percentage of answer “YES”
1. In my kitchen, raw and cooked
foods should be kept separated
88.1 100 100 100 97
2. I use the same board for cutting
different foods
31 0 0 22.2 13.3

10. Things cause food less safe and solutions
- Ban pig producers
35.3
20.6
29.4
Percentage of suggested solutions for
contaminated feed
washing feed, use of good quality feed
washing and cooking feed, use of good quality feed
use of traditional feed and feeding
81
69
57.1
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Contaminated
feed
Poor hygiene
stable
Diseases Antibiotic
abuse
Main things that could make pork less safe (%)
(%)

11. Things cause food less safe and solutions – Ban pig
slaughter men
37.5
37.5
25
Suggested solutions for post slaughter,
storage
cutting on clean table
Storing carcass in plastic bag in cool fridge before sale
cover carcass after cutting
54.5
45.5
72.7
63.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Contaminated
water
Unknown pig
source
Post slaughter,
storage
Slaughter
hygiene
Main things that could make pork less safe (%)
%

12. Things cause food less safe and solutions – Bản pork
retailers
75
45
35
30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Poor, wrong
storage
Poor hygiene,
contaminated
tools
Poor hygiene
practices
before and
after selling
Unknown
original source
of pig
Main things that could make pork less safe (%)
%
66.7
20
13.3
Suggested solutions for improving
poor storage
cover meat, away from insect
cover meat, sell within a day
covering, and selling meat within 2-3days

13. Things cause food less safe and solutions - Consumers
88.9
61.1
83.3
22.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Unwell/poor cooked meat
Not or poor cleaning meat before cooking
Spoilt meat as too long time or poor storage
Diseased pig
Main things could make pork less safe (%)
71.2
18.8
Suggested solutions for improving poor cooked meat
well cooking
use separated chopping boards for cooked and uncooked meat

14. Most respondent actors to FS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ban pig Producers
(n=42)
Ban pig
Slaughterhouses
(n=11)
Ban pork retailers
(n=20)
Ban pork
consummers (n=18)
pig producer slaughtermen Input suppliers Traders
Retailer government, authority veterinarian Project staff
Processor Human in general

15. The most important suggested interventions
71.4
7.1 7.1
Formation of a
cooperative group
including better market
linkages
A certification scheme
like VIETGAP, or
explore for other
certification schemes
Government inspection
records to be put on
line
Ban pig producers (n=42)
72.73
9.09 9.09 9.09
Formation of a
cooperative group
including better
market linkages
A hospital or
university to test
one piece of pork in
each market each
week and give the
results
A government
campaign to teach
farmers, butchers,
retailers about the
importance of food
safety
Government
inspection records
to be put on line
Ban pig slaughterhouses (n=11)
40
15
10 10 10
Formation of a
cooperative
group including
better market
linkages
A tamper-proof
label that shows
which shop,
slaughterhouse
and farm a pig
came from
A certification
scheme like
VIETGAP, or
explore for other
certification
schemes
A hospital or
university to test
one piece of
pork in each
market each
week and give
the results
A label showing
that the pork is
high quality
Ban pig retailers (n=20)
33.3
22.2 22.2
A hand-held device that
would say how fresh
pork and other food is
Formation of a
cooperative group
including better market
linkages
A certification scheme
like VIETGAP, or explore
for other certification
schemes
Ban pork consumers (n=18)

16. Conclusions and Recommendations
• Chemical risks were more concerned for FS at production level; microbial
risks were more concerned from slaughtering, retailing to consuming by all
actors
• Pig producers were considered as the most actor responsible for FS; while
government as the most actor to ensure FS
• Farmer cooperative formation linking with potential markets and branding
products is expected to enhance the management and practices on pork
safety along the supply chain.

17. References
• Huyen Le Thi Thanh and Ngoc Tran Thi Bich, 2018. Awareness of ethnic minority
smallholders in the Central Highlands of Vietnam on safe-pork consumption and
production. Journal of Animal Husbandry Sciences and Technics (JAHST Vol. 235, pp: 74-78.
• Takanashi K., D.T. Quyen, N.T.L. Hoa, N.C. Khan, J. Yasuoka and M. Jimba, 2013. Long-term
impact of community-based information, education and communication activities on food
hygiene and food safety behaviors in Vietnam: a longitudinal study. PLoS One 8: e70654.
• USAID, 2015. Report National Opinion Survey, USAID, Hanoi, Pp. 9.

18. Thanks for your attention!