Grace, Delia

Hai Hoang Tuan Ngo

Hung Nguyen-Viet

Hung Pham Van

Huyen Le Thi Thanh

Phuc Pham-Duc

Sinh Dang-Xuan

Trang Huyen Le

Unger, Fred

CGSpace

Better lives through livestockFood safety risk communication: A One Health approach to improve knowledge and practices along pork value chains in Vietnam Sinh Dang-Xuan1, Trang Huyen Le1, Hai Hoang Tuan Ngo1,2, Hung Nguyen-Viet1, Delia Grace1,3, Hung Pham Van4, Huyen Le Thi Thanh5, Phuc Pham-Duc2, Fred Unger1 ¹ International Livestock Research Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam 2 Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden3 Natural Resource Institute, University of Greenwich, Kent, UK4 Faculty of Economics and Rural Development, Vietnam National University of Agriculture, Hanoi, Vietnam5 Livestock System and Environment Research Department, National Institute of Animal Science, Hanoi, VietnamSAFEPORK Conference, New Orleans, 15-17 May 202321. Introduction: Food safety02,000,0004,000,0006,000,0008,000,00010,000,00012,000,00014,000,00016,000,00018,000,00020,000,000Asia Africa Other developing DevelopedOther toxins Aflatoxins Helminths MicrobialBurden of diseases:  Often quantified in terms of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)Havelaar et al., 2015DALYsBurden comparable to Malaria, HIV, Tuberculosis31. Introduction: Traditional pork value chains in VietnamPork is an important component of the Vietnamese diet:• The most widely consumed meat: 30Kg/person (2021)• About 80% of marketed pork• comes from small or medium farms, • Is processed in small slaughterhouses• Is distributed through traditional retails • Consumer preference for fresh “warm” pork supplied in traditional marketsFarm: No. of pigs/farm: 20 (5-100), Exotic breed: 68%Slaughterhouse: No. of pigs/day: 11 (1-45)Operate: 2 am-6 amTraditional market: Selling pork: 20-300 kg/shop/dayOpen: 5 am-11 am4PigRISK (2012-17) SafePORK (2017-23)1. Introduction: Food safety hazards along pork value chainTo assess impacts of pork-borne diseases on human health and the livestock sector and identify control points for risk management.  To develop and evaluate market-based approaches (interventions, e.g., training/risk communication) to improve food safety, with the overall aim of reducing the burden of foodborne disease in traditional pork value chains.5Pork/Food-borne diseaseParasitic• Cysticercus cellulosae• Trichinella spiralis• Toxoplasma gondii• Fasciola spp.Bacterial• Bacillus cereus• Brucella suis• Campylobacter spp.• Salmonella spp.• Staphylococcus aurues• Streptococcus suis• Shiga toxin producing E. coli• Yersinia enterocolitica▪ Heavy metals: lead (Pb). Cadmium (Cd). Arsenic (As)▪ Antibiotic residues: β – lactame (penicillin. cephalosporin); aminozid – AG; macrozid; n lincosamid; chloramphenicol. Carcinogens (Sulphamethazine. Oxytetracycline. Furazolidone) ▪ Growth promoters: β – agonists (salbutamol. clenbuterol)▪ Dioxins and POPs▪ Additives: natri nitrat, natri nitrit, kali nitrat, kali nitrit ▪ Heterocyclic aromatic amines- HCAs. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons – PAHs.Chemical hazards on pork1. Introduction: Food safety hazard along pork value chain- Salmonella contamination in small holder pork value chain from: pig farms (36.1%) to pig slaughterhouse (39.9%) and to pork at retail (44.7%) [2013-2014] and 58% across all retail types (modern & traditional) [2018-2019]- Low risk from parasitic PPBD: Cysticercosis and Trichinellosis in indigenous pigs- Low risk from chemical hazards: growth promoters, antimicrobials (AM), heavy metals- QMRA: 1-2 out of 10 Vietnamese pork consumers estimated to suffer from salmonellosis annually- Value chain actors and consumers: (i) misperception: believe chemical hazards more important than microbiological; (ii) lack of knowledge, awareness and hygiene practices on food safetyhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0912-y https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed7040057 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109163 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.09.030 Virus• Hepatitis E• Norovirushttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0921-x 62. Objective and methodsObjective: To improve food safety knowledge, perception & practices among pork value chain actors, relevant stakeholders, and consumers to prevent foodborne illness using risk communicationCODEX: WHO/FAO/WOAHFood safety risk-based approachRisk communication:- Participatory trainings; Group discussions, Meetings; Posters/Guidelines and leaflets; Loudspeaker campaignsNovember 2019 to June 2022Thai NguyenHung YenHoa BinhNghe AnHanoiTargeted groupsN#. participants (N#. women)Topics on risk communication - messages to improvePig producers 119 (94)FS knowledge and hygiene practices relevant to their daily work, targeted to different actors (pig producers, slaughterhouse workers, consumers, canteen staff)Slaughterhouse workers 43 (11)Pork retailers 30 (21)Consumers 191 (175)Canteen staff 142 (129)Local authorities (TOT) 175 (88) FS knowledge, risks and how to communicate riskTotal 700 (518 women, 74%)Media (journalist)Two workshops with media (2019 and 2022), over 100 participants related to FS risk communication Loudspeaker campaigns (broadcasted 64 times)Reach ~45% district population (120,000 community members, include 70,000 women): received FS information including hygiene practices3. Results83. ResultsTargeted groupsN#. participants (N#. women)Topics in risk communication messages to improvePig producers(indigenous pig)119 (94)Improve FS knowledge and hygiene practices related to raising pigs (e.g., biosecurity/ vaccination, manure treatment…)93. ResultsFS knowledge and practices of SH workers and pork vendors after training compared to before9.17.86.09.28.77.60246810Separate raw andcooked meatCleaning tools before,during and after usingShop looks tidy, keephygiene practicesBefore After10Targeted groupsN#. participants (N#. women)Topics of risk communication messages to improvePig producers 119 (94)True perception of risk of food borne hazardsSlaughterhouse workers 43 (11)Pork retailers 30 (21)Consumers 191 (175)Canteen staff 142 (129)7.4 7.7 7.18.4 9.2 8.90510Chemical Bacterial/virus ParasiteBefore AfterMore accurate perception of risk of food borne hazards before and after training3. Results 11Trained local veterinary and health workers, and local authority staff [TOT, 175 participants (88 females)]• Basic concept of FS RC, RC planning/skills: improved management & dissemination of FS information, integrated in their routine work.  • Different trainings conducted by the trained staff to the consumers were rolled out at district and commune level. 3. Results 12- Loud-speaker campaigns: messages broadcasted 64 times (~10 min length): estimated to reach approximate 45% of the district population (120,000 community members, including 70,000 women).- Two workshops with journalists/media (2019 and 2022) related to food safety risk communication: over 100 participants3. Results 134. Discussion- Traditional pork value chain actors: few opportunities to continuously update/be trained on FS. FS knowledge acquired by experience (“learning by doing”)[Sinh et al, 2016]. - Through participating in the trainings/RC activities: beneficiaries received FS information; improved relations between VC actors & authorities; misunderstandings were clarified [Nguyen-Viet et al, 2019]. - Principles of risk-based approach, e.g., RC: disseminating FS information and prevention measures [Attrey et al, 2017]. - Interaction, training and discussion: between Journalists and  FS researchers, experts, managers : updated journalist skills and understanding in the process of communicating FS messages14• This study showed the feasibility and effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary and whole value chain approach to FS. • Messages were targeted to actors from the farm to the fork and relevant stakeholders: involved human health, animal health, agriculture and social science disciplines (inter-disciplinary approach) as well as scientists, communities and authorities (trans-disciplinary approach).✓ Supports hypothesis that a risk-based, One Health approach, can effectively convey FS knowledge and practices✓ With the potential of reducing risk of foodborne illnesses for consumers.ConclusionsAcknowledgement✓ SafePORK project (Grant number: LPS/2016/143)✓ BZM parasitic pig-borne diseases project (Grant number: 81219445)✓ CGIAR Research Program Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH).

Food safety risk communication: A One Health approach to improve knowledge and practices along pork value chains in Vietnam

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/130926/3/Presentation.pdf

Food safety risk communication: A One Health approach to improve knowledge and practices along pork value chains in Vietnam

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace