Dang Xuan Sinh

Grace, Delia

Hung Nguyen-Viet

Phuc Pham Duc

Tran Thi Tuyet Hanh

Unger, Fred

CGSpace

Food-borne diseases and food poisonings are attracting a lot of attention inVietnam due to repeated episodes of adulterated and unsafe food practices,which have been receiving widespread media attention. Various food scareshave happened including cyanides and phenol residues in seafood in centralcoast of Vietnam since an environmental disaster occurred in April 2016,pesticide residues in vegetables, antibiotic and banned veterinary residues inmeat etc. The Vietnamese media has given a lot of attention to food safetyissues when famous people passed away at young ages from cancers. Since 1stApril 2016, an official program entitled “Say no to contaminated foods” hasbeen broadcasted daily on national television during two primetime slots – 7:30am and 8:30 pm [1]. In this poster, the authors wish to briefly present someaspects of the food safety risk communication, misperception, lessons learnedand way forward to improve risk communication in Vietnam.INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUNDLESSONS LEARNTREFERENCES1. Say No to Unsafe Food. https://www.facebook.com/noikhongthucphamban/ videos Accessed 12 Apr 2016. 2. Hung Nguyen-Viet, Tran Thi Tuyet-Hanh, Fred Unger, Sinh Dang-Xuan and Delia Grace 2017, Food safety in Vietnam: where we are at and what we can learn from international experiences. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 6:39 DOI 10.1186/s40249-017-0249-7.3. Tran Thi Tuyet-Hanh, Dang Xuan Sinh, Pham Duc Phuc, Tran Thi Ngan, Chu Van Tuat, Delia Grace,  Fred Unger, Hung Nguyen-Viet, 2016. Exposure assessment of chemical hazards in pork meat, liver, kidney and health impact implication in Hung Yen and Nghe An provinces, Vietnam. International Journal of Public Health. 62(1), 75-82  DOI: 10.1007/s00038-016-0912-y4. Sinh Dang-Xuan, Hung Nguyen-Viet, Unger, F., Phuc Pham-Duc, Grace, Delia, NganTran-Thi, Barot, M., Ngoc Pham-Th, Makita, K., 2017. Quantitative risk assessment ofhuman salmonellosis in the smallholder pig value chains in urban of Vietnam. Int JPublic Health 62(Suppl 1): 93-102. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0921-xACKNOWLEDGEMENT  The marked difference in how experts and the public view food safetyrisks does exist and has real consequences. People usually too concern about hazards and confuse betweenhazards and actual health risks, which the later largely depends onthe level and duration of exposure. As consequences, opportunitiesare lost and scarce resources are spent managing minor problems,while the major issues go to the back of the queue. Effective regulation of risk poses challenges, and our naturaltendencies to misperceive risk need to be countered by betterevidence on the risks and the psychology of risk perception. Risk communication that builds on empirical evidence of, andinteractive exchanges about, consumer understanding, as well as onfood risks and benefits can help consumers make informed decisions.1 Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam; 2 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Hanoi, Vietnam;                3 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, KenyaTran Thi Tuyet Hanh1, Nguyen Viet Hung2, Pham Duc Phuc1, Dang Xuan Sinh1, Fred Unger2, Delia Grace3FOOD SAFETY RISK MISPERCEPTION  LESSONS LEARNED AND WAY FORWARD FOOD SAFETY RISK COMMUNICATION AND RISK MISPERCEPTION IN VIETNAM Risk communication regarding food safety is often poor, not based on scientificevidence from risk assessment, which makes consumers even more frightenedabout the foods they purchase. To communicate risk effectively, it is important tounderstand the psychology of risk perception. People encounter informationfrom different sources about chemicals detected in food. Consumers normally donot think about risk in the same way that risk assessors understand risk. Riskperception is complex and driven only partly by factual evidence. Foodtechnologies often involve ‘fear factors’ that make them seem more worrisomethan other risks. For example, eating pesticide-contaminated vegetables is(incorrectly) perceived as being riskier than riding a motorbike. Fear factorsinclude distrust of large companies, dislike of ‘unnatural’ processes anduncertainty over unfamiliar dangers. People tend to worry more about riskscaused by factors over which they feel they have no control, while being muchless concerned about factors linked to their own behaviours. Consumers inVietnam also usually pay more attention on chemical hazards over biologicalhazards in foods. However, recent studies in Hung Yen and Nghe An provincesshowed that while sulphonamide, chloramphenicol and B-agonist (Salbutamol)were present in some pork samples available at wet markets, but the risks to theconsumers were minimal; whereas high level of Salmonella in cut pork (44.4%)could induce the potential health risks for the consumers [2,3,4].CONCLUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The risk assessment of chemical, biological and physical hazards in foods is crucial for providing scientific information to inform risk communication activities.  Risk communication on food safety issues should be well integrated into the risk-based food safety management system in Vietnam, as specified in the Food Safety Law 2010.  The involved ministries and related agencies should develop a coordinated plan to communicate in one voice with all affected parties during food safety crises so that the public and related stakeholders can receive timely, clear and accurate information to avoid unnecessary panic. Figure 1. Food safety risk assessment, risk communication and risk management (Codex)

Food safety risk misperception: Lessons learned and way forward

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/93367/1/a4nh_PMC_Riskcoms.pdf

Food safety risk misperception: Lessons learned and way forward

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace