Participatory risk assessment of pork in Nagaland

1. Participatory risk assessment of pork in Nagaland Delia Grace, Anna Fahrion, M. Lucila Lapar, V Padmakumar, Kenivola Richa, Lanu, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Annual Conference Mini Symposium on Agribusiness and Food Safety

2. True or false? • If it looks and smells good it is safe to eat • If you boil food really well it will be safe • If you are sick then the last thing you ate is probably responsible • The major risks in food are chemical e.g. pesticides, adulteration • Food poisoning is nasty but not deadly • If this food doesn’t make me sick, it won’t make anyone else sick

3. Importance of pigs in Nagaland

4. Current Improved 1 Improved 2 Opportunity gap, Production gap 43 44 Cost (Rs) per kg live weight 73

5. Methods • Identify 2-5 representative pork value chains • Conduct participatory assessment with actors • Farmers ∙Transporters • Slaughterers ∙Butchers • Consumers • Questionnaires on KAP and Syndromes • Conduct rapid diagnostic tests for presence of pathogens • Assess the risk to human and pig health • Identify CCP & practices that reduce & increase risk • Develop a program to reduce risks to human and pig health

6. Risk Assessment Risk Management Risk Communication Risk analysisa tool for decision-making under uncertainty

7. What can RA do? • Answer the questions: • Is there a problem? • Is it a big and important problem? • What can be done about it?

8. Is there a hazard? Yes

9. Is there a risk? Probably • High incidence of self-reported gastro-intestinal illness • 83% of households report illness last 6 months • 32% of households report illness last month • Variable level of risk mitigating practice • 100% cook <3 hours after purchase • 99% boil for >60 minutes • 96% eat cold leftovers • 90% no fridge • High levels cross-contamination • Cultural, risk enhancing practice (smoked pork)

10. Consumption of pork does not predict illness • Consumption of other meat does not predict illness • Consumption of vegetables does not predict illness • Household practices hardly predictive of illness (p<0.05) • Eating leftovers cold Odds ratio 6 • Eating village pig strongly protective • Odds ratio 0.25 p=0.000

11. What can RA do? RISK TARGETING: identify supply chains and/or products with high risk in order to target intervention & inspection

12. High levels hazards, high levels illness • Village pigs consistently fewer hazards • Self slaughter consistently fewer hazards • Meat sold earlier significantly lower levels bacteriological hazards • Butcher practice little influence on levels hazards • Consumer practice little influence on levels of illness • Best-bet intervention realm is the abattoir

13. What can RA do? Identify practices which increase and decrease risk

14. Conclusions • Risk assessment conceptually aligned with VCA • Risk pathway===value chain map • CCP for food safety === points where value is added • Healthy chains===better performing chains • ALOP===efficient level of food safety • Challenges • Tracing: Risk pathway follows the same product • Food safety is more than a quality attribute • Risk analysis requires rigour

15. Ways forward • Better integration of RA with VCA • Better adaption of risk-based approaches to complex, non-linear, heterogeneous systems • Moving from diagnostics to therapeutics • Can well-performing VC deliver more food safety than regulation? • The power of positive deviants

16. Thank you for your attention